Considering how often these gun bills have come up, and then gone flaccid, it's going to take some industrial-strength Viagra to get gun control advocates to mount a campaign to put to bed any criticism and pass the climax of votes necessary for it to become a law.
Meanwhile, all of these slick politicians are going to piss and moan about their inability to penetrate the electorate to get the support necessary to squirt this bill through congress.
Their orgasmic response to recent mass shootings has quickly turned to a nag-fest. As they rag on the electorate to just understand and validate their point of view, they insist that if we are all defenseless then we have nothing to fear, and will all be safer in the end. Of course, this is just more misguided emotional logic from the side that just wants to be cared for by government.
While she knows little about the science behind solar energy production, and proved it, she was there to talk about solar energy subsidies and economics; which she does know something about. Unfortunately she scuttled her very valid point about the US wasting money subsidizing solar energy production, to the detriment of natural gas, et al.
The statists, true to form, ridicule her stupid ad hoc comment, which in no way mitigates her arguments, and ignore their own vastly more stupid support for foolish and failed government policies.
The post to which you reply was not talking about celebratory gunfire, as you seem to be. (i.e. randomly shooting into the air.) Arizona, for example, has a law against that known as Shannon's Law. However, I was unable to find a specific law against celebratory gunfire here in Virginia. The fact is, few states have laws against it. Generally, shooting randomly into the air, will get you charged with negligent discharge of a firearm, as it should. But, no, " Shooting bullets into the air," is not illegal in most states.
Aimed fire into the air, however, is another matter. exhibition shooters have been know to do this quite often. To my knowledge, there is not a single law against this anywhere in the US where shooting is otherwise permitted, and the exhibition is conducted with appropriate due diligence.
I once had to put a 30-35 degree angle on a shot when I was trying to shoot steel plates at 200 yards with a handgun. It was interesting to watch the math of parabolic motion play out in real life. It was also completely safe given the conditions.
I think, perhaps, you need to check your "facts" a little more closely.
I did not assert a motive. I wouldn't presume to know. I did, however, assign a political affiliation. That may be in error since I have no absolute proof of one. It's been notoriously difficult to find anything at all about BatNut's personal life. As if someone wants to hide it.
I do notice, however, that when suspected right wingers go nuts and kill people their philosophies, ideologies, and even sexual proclivities are writ large in the sky for us all to see. Of course, crazy doesn't have a political party so it probably doesn't matter in the end. But it seems odd that the big mass shootings seem to be carried out by leftists, and always in a victim disarmament (gun free) zone.
Realistically, armed morons with poor judgement hurting bystanders is a lot less of a problem than those same morons getting behind the wheel of a 2000 pound four-wheeled weapon and killing a whole family. At least I can shoot back at stupid or evil gun owners. There's not a lot I can do about stupid, evil, or impaired drivers.
IIRC it was in the same week as that leftist nut-job shot up the Bat Man premier, that a pickup truck carrying more than 20 passengers overturned, killing 14 people. The same number as were killed in the mass shooting. One armed citizen could have stopped BatNut. What do you do about 20 morons in the back of a pickup? Guns truly are not the problem. Stupid and Evil are the problems. And keeping guns out of the hands of responsible citizens because it is thought that it will save lives is both stupid and evil.
So we probably are turning a corner. And, when it's perfected, I hope every law abiding citizen in the world can get their hand on this technology and make at least one gun. No individual, armed or not, can physically force another armed individual to do anything he doesn't want to do. Disarming people simply leaves them at the mercy or those stronger than them. Whereas arming everyone just makes them all equally strong.
Is your rifle an AR style firearm? The AR is a modular design in which the reciever is split. The upper-half can be completly detached, and put on a different gun. You could be in trouble is you have an AR without a serial number on the lower receiver in the US. Or do you have a manufacturers license?
It is not the job of the police to prevent crime. Nor is it their job to protect you as an individual. (don't believe me? check with SCOTUS.) Regardless, the only reason anyone is even working on predictive analysis is because the public is demanding it.
The job of the police is to take reports, conduct investigations, and apprehend suspects. If an individual officer feels it is his/her duty to help someone out, or protect them, then that's wonderful and I'm glad there are officers willing to do that. However, it's not their job, and you shouldn't expect it. The problem is people do expect it, and the more we expect the police to look out for individuals, the less freedom we're going to have. That's the only way for them to do the job we're asking them to do.
The coming police state (some say it's already here) will be the result of ordinary citizens refusing to take responsibility for their own safety. By foisting the job off on the police, you attempt to make them responsibile for your welbeing. In doing so, you compromise your rights. So if you don't like fascism, then stop asking for it.
You don't have to compromise your principles to be flexible. Nor must you lie to manage perceptions. Above all, don't give in and start doing what you think they want you to. Because then, instead of feeling some measure of respect for you, they can simply condecend to and pitty you.
I don't hate liers because it's too much effort direct too many ways. Instead I save my energy for the few people I can respect, and leave the rest to fail on their own.
I never lie at any interview, nor on my resume. However, I VERY carefully weigh what I say before saying it in order to manage perceptions. Of course one must be completely forthcoming during an interview, yet say very little. Otherwise they'll move on the next guy until they find one who fits their template. This next guy is going to have roughly the same skills as you unless one of you lied on your resume. If you've been honest on your resume, then it may as well be you that gets the job. It makes no difference to the company.
During employment you must continue to manage your image. And above all, never actually try to make things better. You were hired to do a job and it wasn't to fix the company. This is true even if you were told otherwise by the owner himself. There is a reason things are the way they are. "Good enough" makes money, and the customer is buying the perception of quality. If the markets were truly free, and the customer well educated then the lowest price for the best quality would win. Instead, a million small emperrors buy new high-priced clothes every day while government, investors, and the tech press cheer them on. If you're the guy trying to tell your boss that what he sees is what he gets, then you're going to get fired. Because while you're telling your boss that he's being stupid, the "smart" people are telling him he's brilliant.
A GUI is a metaphor. Metaphors are fine when you don't need to be specific, or need to perform physical input like gestures (i.e. pointing with a mouse.) However, when I want to give specific instructions to, and expect perfect execution by, an electronic idiot savant then I give instructions in chronological order using a limited vocabulary. In other words, I find it easer to use a CLI to instruct both stupid people and computers.
I use metaphors to convey complex ideas which are subject to interpretation, or to convey relative spacial coordinates. (e.g. data visualization, or pointing on a map)
Actually, they are trying to catch stupid criminals, not ALL criminals.
Actually, they are trying to make it nearly impossible to not accidentally break the law in an effort to comply. The law abiding are much easier to catch because they don't know that they've done anything wrong until a sheriff's deputy kicks in their door, and shoots their dog.
The typical stupid criminal will be using a stolen gun when he shoots you. It will be the legal owner, who may not even know that his gun was stolen, who will have his door kicked in.
Not sure about the current stuff, but I remember way back in the early days of Linux, if you set up your X config incorrectly you could actually fry video cards by feeding them values they couldn't happen.
As another poster pointed out, it was the CRT not the video adapter. As far as modern stuff, it doesn't hurt LCD's since the back-light is unaffected by video timing signals.
I actually tried to burn out a CRT once by putting in bad mode lines. It was mildly interesting, but I shut it off before I did any real damage for fear of personal injury. Based on my experience, I doubt that anyone actually fried their monitor without trying.
That statistic is one of the most widely quoted among the RKBA crowd. And no, most gun owners that I know don't exaggerate about these sorts of statistics. This is simply because most of us don't see the point of winning an argument by lying. Now group size on the other hand. Well, I threw away the target, but...
Anyway, back to the point. The statistic is not Wayne LaPierre's nor does it belong to the NRA-ILA. It comes from a paper published in The Journal of the American Medical Association by Gary Kleck, PhD titled "What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?" In it he cites a study by himself and Marc Gertz which estimated as many as 2.55 million defensive uses of firearms each year in the US. This includes situations in which merely displaying a firearm stopped the confrontation.
Incidentally, in 1994, a year after the Kleck/Gertz study The Department of Justice conducted their own survey and estimated only 1.5 million defensive uses annually.
I would also add anecdotally, a few years ago I was part of the 2.5 million (or more?) for that year, when the display of the full-size 1911 that I had holstered under my jacket that day dissuaded an urban youth from using his knife to collect my wallet. He approached. I told him to stop. He pulled his knife. I pulled back my jacket. He smilled and went the other way. I walked on.
LaPierre is deserving of criticism on occasion, but this is not one of them.
I'm an admin not a programmer, but I was writting sort routines in assembler at 12 years old on an Apple ][+ with a bootleg copy of the Merlin Assembler. I didn't find out about linked lists until 1988 in CS101, but even I have always understood the importance of fundamental data structures as a diagnostic method for debugging.
You may never use them in a high level language, but you still need to know what they are. Without that you're like the auto mechanic who doesn't understand the internal combustion process or automotive electronics, and just replaces parts until he finds the right one. Then when he encounters a vehicle with two or more problems he's really lost. Plus he's slow to begin with.
The funny thing about being an old fogy (If you do the math you'll see I'm one too) is that many of the best practices worked out by folks who were doing systems work before I was born serve me very well. And I usually get better results in less time than my more juvenile counterparts.
Sometimes cutting corners is just cutting corners, and new is not always improved.
Actually, I'm more than qualified for your position on the technical side, but if you want an active clearance with that diverse a skill set, then you're severly limiting your pool of applicants. It's a hassle to jump from cleared job to cleared job, and staying in the commercial sector too long makes it difficult to reactivate easily.
But based on the tone of your statement, and that you apparently want to cut corners by hiring one person with multiple specialties who is also already cleared tells me that you would be a PITA to work for. This may be why you aren't getting many good applicants. I'm continually amazed by the number of IT managers, some with many years of experience, and some who are close friends of mine, who really don't understand how little they know about managing IT. You may be one of them, but I don't know you.
The biggest mistakes most managers make are assuming that it's all about the money, and that the negotion is all on the employer's side. Hint: if you have nothing to offer me besides money, then it better be a LOT of money, and I better be in the mood to put up with your bullshit.
I work in IT because I want to. I like what I do so much that I have often worked for below market salary just because I liked the people and managers who I was working with. The problem is that most managers are too clueless to realize that their most important job is functions are to be a crap deflector and resource provider. Get too much crap in the gears and the machine stops. Don't provide adequite resources, same thing. Your team leads, if they are any good, will help organize the team. Its a lot like driving a boat. You have to correct issues before they become problems, and back off before you oversteer. All of the good teams I was on ran that way.
I think it goes beyond that. I'm seeing H1B's getting the same or even beter rates on contracts than US citizens or even NAFTA visa holders. In spite of that, I've seen uniformly inferior work out of those H1Bs from India. It seems to be a cultural thing since I see good and even superior work from Americans, Canadians, and Wetern Europeans of Indian decent. Yet, the H1B's are getting the jobs. The customers (employees of the contract issuers) are complaining bitterly about the poor service, and nothing changes.
I'm missing something here. If it's money, where are they cutting costs?
I have noticed that well over half of the recruiting companies I've had dealings with are Indian owned. It also seems that ALL of the IBM contract positions go through these Indian owned companies.
Since we now know that it was the invention of beer that spurred the invention of agriculture, It must have been the need for reliable beer wagons which spurred the invention of the wheel.
I agree that the unbundled services are not worth the money, and I will vote with my wallet. Specifically, I'll be keeping the streaming service and save $2.00 per month. That's a couple of lattes made at home on my prosumer espresso machine. (I saved about $600.00/year when I started making them at home.)
Meanwhile, I'll be looking at their competitors to see what my options are. I'm not real comfortable with a service provider that takes such huge gambles with a service I'm using as my primary form of video entertainment.
Call me once it's possible to remotely zap Jehova's Witnesses and other annoyances.
I notice that when the Mormons see the square and compases on my ring, they wish me a good day and leave. Or perhaps it's simply my demenor when strangers atempt to tell my that my religious beliefs are wrong. I don't care for door spamming, which is what this is.
Regardless, that's why I've had a door phone attached to an asterisk box for some years now. And, yes, it can call my cell when I wish it to.
Nothing new here, but congrats to the kid on a nice hack.
Ah he does not believe in the bible as you do, so that makes him !christian.
Actually, in the context of the GP, that's correct.
The Christian Bible (bible is a generic term, we are referring to the specific Christian Bible) is the basis on which the Christian Church (The Church) is organized. The Church specifically does believe that The Bible is "the be all end all of what God wants." Failure to believe that makes one something other than Christian. This has nothing to do with acceptance, it is a specification of the definition of Christian.
Ironically, a large segment of modern Christians fit the same category.
You could claim that a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is divine. However, the Christian Church (all Catholic and protestant faiths) is the originator of the definition, and says otherwise. It's sort of like saying that an atheist is anyone who doesn't follow an organized religion.
That's very accepting?
You're no better. You confuse the fact that the GP is making a factual statement with the impression that it is being done in a disparaging way. Call the poster an ass hole if you think that to be the case, but he most specifically cannot be accepting or tolerant of this and many other beliefs among others of his faith. Otherwise, he would not be a Christian either.
Perhaps, as a Deist, I should start calling myself an atheist. That way I could go around telling other atheists that they are intolerant for not accepting atheists who believe in God.
I would have written: You haven't fully experienced Top Gun unless you've watched it in the original Chinese.
With the above you allude to the original joke without hitting us over the head with it. Thus giving all of us who "get it" a chance to look down our collective noses at those of less depth in Sci-Fi pop culture.
In a strong tail-wind my car really can get 4-5 more MPG for an extended period of time. However, using that as a metric for a car's performance, while factually correct under certain conditions, denies the implication of routine repeatability, and makes the metric unreliable.
It may be technically true that I can get the maximum bandwidth at 02:00 for 2 hours, but that's of no use to me. So I toss out the idea of ever getting the theoretical maximum and instead use maximum bandwidth as a metric to set my general expectations, and to decide the relative value of the exchange (bandwidth for money.)
The ISP knows that maximum bandwidth is my metric, and attempts to deceive me by inflating that metric in an unreasonable and unexpected way. This is exactly the same as inflating MPG ratings on cars based on theoretical maximum conditions.
The lie is, knowing that routine repeatability does not exist for the numbers they quote, ISPs prominently advertise this useless metric in order to deceive the customer as to the true relative value of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how often these gun bills have come up, and then gone flaccid, it's going to take some industrial-strength Viagra to get gun control advocates to mount a campaign to put to bed any criticism and pass the climax of votes necessary for it to become a law.
Meanwhile, all of these slick politicians are going to piss and moan about their inability to penetrate the electorate to get the support necessary to squirt this bill through congress.
Their orgasmic response to recent mass shootings has quickly turned to a nag-fest. As they rag on the electorate to just understand and validate their point of view, they insist that if we are all defenseless then we have nothing to fear, and will all be safer in the end. Of course, this is just more misguided emotional logic from the side that just wants to be cared for by government.
While she knows little about the science behind solar energy production, and proved it, she was there to talk about solar energy subsidies and economics; which she does know something about. Unfortunately she scuttled her very valid point about the US wasting money subsidizing solar energy production, to the detriment of natural gas, et al.
The statists, true to form, ridicule her stupid ad hoc comment, which in no way mitigates her arguments, and ignore their own vastly more stupid support for foolish and failed government policies.
The post to which you reply was not talking about celebratory gunfire, as you seem to be. (i.e. randomly shooting into the air.) Arizona, for example, has a law against that known as Shannon's Law. However, I was unable to find a specific law against celebratory gunfire here in Virginia. The fact is, few states have laws against it. Generally, shooting randomly into the air, will get you charged with negligent discharge of a firearm, as it should. But, no, " Shooting bullets into the air," is not illegal in most states.
Aimed fire into the air, however, is another matter. exhibition shooters have been know to do this quite often. To my knowledge, there is not a single law against this anywhere in the US where shooting is otherwise permitted, and the exhibition is conducted with appropriate due diligence.
I once had to put a 30-35 degree angle on a shot when I was trying to shoot steel plates at 200 yards with a handgun. It was interesting to watch the math of parabolic motion play out in real life. It was also completely safe given the conditions.
I think, perhaps, you need to check your "facts" a little more closely.
I did not assert a motive. I wouldn't presume to know. I did, however, assign a political affiliation. That may be in error since I have no absolute proof of one. It's been notoriously difficult to find anything at all about BatNut's personal life. As if someone wants to hide it.
I do notice, however, that when suspected right wingers go nuts and kill people their philosophies, ideologies, and even sexual proclivities are writ large in the sky for us all to see. Of course, crazy doesn't have a political party so it probably doesn't matter in the end. But it seems odd that the big mass shootings seem to be carried out by leftists, and always in a victim disarmament (gun free) zone.
Realistically, armed morons with poor judgement hurting bystanders is a lot less of a problem than those same morons getting behind the wheel of a 2000 pound four-wheeled weapon and killing a whole family. At least I can shoot back at stupid or evil gun owners. There's not a lot I can do about stupid, evil, or impaired drivers.
IIRC it was in the same week as that leftist nut-job shot up the Bat Man premier, that a pickup truck carrying more than 20 passengers overturned, killing 14 people. The same number as were killed in the mass shooting. One armed citizen could have stopped BatNut. What do you do about 20 morons in the back of a pickup? Guns truly are not the problem. Stupid and Evil are the problems. And keeping guns out of the hands of responsible citizens because it is thought that it will save lives is both stupid and evil.
So we probably are turning a corner. And, when it's perfected, I hope every law abiding citizen in the world can get their hand on this technology and make at least one gun. No individual, armed or not, can physically force another armed individual to do anything he doesn't want to do. Disarming people simply leaves them at the mercy or those stronger than them. Whereas arming everyone just makes them all equally strong.
Is your rifle an AR style firearm? The AR is a modular design in which the reciever is split. The upper-half can be completly detached, and put on a different gun. You could be in trouble is you have an AR without a serial number on the lower receiver in the US. Or do you have a manufacturers license?
It is not the job of the police to prevent crime. Nor is it their job to protect you as an individual. (don't believe me? check with SCOTUS.) Regardless, the only reason anyone is even working on predictive analysis is because the public is demanding it.
The job of the police is to take reports, conduct investigations, and apprehend suspects. If an individual officer feels it is his/her duty to help someone out, or protect them, then that's wonderful and I'm glad there are officers willing to do that. However, it's not their job, and you shouldn't expect it. The problem is people do expect it, and the more we expect the police to look out for individuals, the less freedom we're going to have. That's the only way for them to do the job we're asking them to do.
The coming police state (some say it's already here) will be the result of ordinary citizens refusing to take responsibility for their own safety. By foisting the job off on the police, you attempt to make them responsibile for your welbeing. In doing so, you compromise your rights. So if you don't like fascism, then stop asking for it.
You don't have to compromise your principles to be flexible. Nor must you lie to manage perceptions. Above all, don't give in and start doing what you think they want you to. Because then, instead of feeling some measure of respect for you, they can simply condecend to and pitty you.
I don't hate liers because it's too much effort direct too many ways. Instead I save my energy for the few people I can respect, and leave the rest to fail on their own.
I never lie at any interview, nor on my resume. However, I VERY carefully weigh what I say before saying it in order to manage perceptions. Of course one must be completely forthcoming during an interview, yet say very little. Otherwise they'll move on the next guy until they find one who fits their template. This next guy is going to have roughly the same skills as you unless one of you lied on your resume. If you've been honest on your resume, then it may as well be you that gets the job. It makes no difference to the company.
During employment you must continue to manage your image. And above all, never actually try to make things better. You were hired to do a job and it wasn't to fix the company. This is true even if you were told otherwise by the owner himself. There is a reason things are the way they are. "Good enough" makes money, and the customer is buying the perception of quality. If the markets were truly free, and the customer well educated then the lowest price for the best quality would win. Instead, a million small emperrors buy new high-priced clothes every day while government, investors, and the tech press cheer them on. If you're the guy trying to tell your boss that what he sees is what he gets, then you're going to get fired. Because while you're telling your boss that he's being stupid, the "smart" people are telling him he's brilliant.
Tree hugger luddites sing same old tune; Losing my religion.
(Don't mod it if you don't understand it.)
A GUI is a metaphor. Metaphors are fine when you don't need to be specific, or need to perform physical input like gestures (i.e. pointing with a mouse.) However, when I want to give specific instructions to, and expect perfect execution by, an electronic idiot savant then I give instructions in chronological order using a limited vocabulary. In other words, I find it easer to use a CLI to instruct both stupid people and computers.
I use metaphors to convey complex ideas which are subject to interpretation, or to convey relative spacial coordinates. (e.g. data visualization, or pointing on a map)
Actually, they are trying to catch stupid criminals, not ALL criminals.
Actually, they are trying to make it nearly impossible to not accidentally break the law in an effort to comply. The law abiding are much easier to catch because they don't know that they've done anything wrong until a sheriff's deputy kicks in their door, and shoots their dog.
The typical stupid criminal will be using a stolen gun when he shoots you. It will be the legal owner, who may not even know that his gun was stolen, who will have his door kicked in.
Not sure about the current stuff, but I remember way back in the early days of Linux, if you set up your X config incorrectly you could actually fry video cards by feeding them values they couldn't happen.
As another poster pointed out, it was the CRT not the video adapter. As far as modern stuff, it doesn't hurt LCD's since the back-light is unaffected by video timing signals.
I actually tried to burn out a CRT once by putting in bad mode lines. It was mildly interesting, but I shut it off before I did any real damage for fear of personal injury. Based on my experience, I doubt that anyone actually fried their monitor without trying.
That statistic is one of the most widely quoted among the RKBA crowd. And no, most gun owners that I know don't exaggerate about these sorts of statistics. This is simply because most of us don't see the point of winning an argument by lying. Now group size on the other hand. Well, I threw away the target, but...
Anyway, back to the point. The statistic is not Wayne LaPierre's nor does it belong to the NRA-ILA. It comes from a paper published in The Journal of the American Medical Association by Gary Kleck, PhD titled "What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?" In it he cites a study by himself and Marc Gertz which estimated as many as 2.55 million defensive uses of firearms each year in the US. This includes situations in which merely displaying a firearm stopped the confrontation.
The paper may be obtained from the JAMA website:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?ResourceID=3329130&PDFSource=13
A copy of the original study is here:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Incidentally, in 1994, a year after the Kleck/Gertz study The Department of Justice conducted their own survey and estimated only 1.5 million defensive uses annually.
I would also add anecdotally, a few years ago I was part of the 2.5 million (or more?) for that year, when the display of the full-size 1911 that I had holstered under my jacket that day dissuaded an urban youth from using his knife to collect my wallet. He approached. I told him to stop. He pulled his knife. I pulled back my jacket. He smilled and went the other way. I walked on.
LaPierre is deserving of criticism on occasion, but this is not one of them.
I'm an admin not a programmer, but I was writting sort routines in assembler at 12 years old on an Apple ][+ with a bootleg copy of the Merlin Assembler. I didn't find out about linked lists until 1988 in CS101, but even I have always understood the importance of fundamental data structures as a diagnostic method for debugging.
You may never use them in a high level language, but you still need to know what they are. Without that you're like the auto mechanic who doesn't understand the internal combustion process or automotive electronics, and just replaces parts until he finds the right one. Then when he encounters a vehicle with two or more problems he's really lost. Plus he's slow to begin with.
The funny thing about being an old fogy (If you do the math you'll see I'm one too) is that many of the best practices worked out by folks who were doing systems work before I was born serve me very well. And I usually get better results in less time than my more juvenile counterparts.
Sometimes cutting corners is just cutting corners, and new is not always improved.
Actually, I'm more than qualified for your position on the technical side, but if you want an active clearance with that diverse a skill set, then you're severly limiting your pool of applicants. It's a hassle to jump from cleared job to cleared job, and staying in the commercial sector too long makes it difficult to reactivate easily.
But based on the tone of your statement, and that you apparently want to cut corners by hiring one person with multiple specialties who is also already cleared tells me that you would be a PITA to work for. This may be why you aren't getting many good applicants. I'm continually amazed by the number of IT managers, some with many years of experience, and some who are close friends of mine, who really don't understand how little they know about managing IT. You may be one of them, but I don't know you.
The biggest mistakes most managers make are assuming that it's all about the money, and that the negotion is all on the employer's side. Hint: if you have nothing to offer me besides money, then it better be a LOT of money, and I better be in the mood to put up with your bullshit.
I work in IT because I want to. I like what I do so much that I have often worked for below market salary just because I liked the people and managers who I was working with. The problem is that most managers are too clueless to realize that their most important job is functions are to be a crap deflector and resource provider. Get too much crap in the gears and the machine stops. Don't provide adequite resources, same thing. Your team leads, if they are any good, will help organize the team. Its a lot like driving a boat. You have to correct issues before they become problems, and back off before you oversteer. All of the good teams I was on ran that way.
I think it goes beyond that. I'm seeing H1B's getting the same or even beter rates on contracts than US citizens or even NAFTA visa holders. In spite of that, I've seen uniformly inferior work out of those H1Bs from India. It seems to be a cultural thing since I see good and even superior work from Americans, Canadians, and Wetern Europeans of Indian decent. Yet, the H1B's are getting the jobs. The customers (employees of the contract issuers) are complaining bitterly about the poor service, and nothing changes.
I'm missing something here. If it's money, where are they cutting costs?
I have noticed that well over half of the recruiting companies I've had dealings with are Indian owned. It also seems that ALL of the IBM contract positions go through these Indian owned companies.
That's very interesting. And here I always viewed my limitations as obstacles to be overcome rather than rather than badges of superiority.
Since we now know that it was the invention of beer that spurred the invention of agriculture,
It must have been the need for reliable beer wagons which spurred the invention of the wheel.
I agree that the unbundled services are not worth the money, and I will vote with my wallet. Specifically, I'll be keeping the streaming service and save $2.00 per month. That's a couple of lattes made at home on my prosumer espresso machine. (I saved about $600.00/year when I started making them at home.)
Meanwhile, I'll be looking at their competitors to see what my options are. I'm not real comfortable with a service provider that takes such huge gambles with a service I'm using as my primary form of video entertainment.
Call me once it's possible to remotely zap Jehova's Witnesses and other annoyances.
I notice that when the Mormons see the square and compases on my ring, they wish me a good day and leave. Or perhaps it's simply my demenor when strangers atempt to tell my that my religious beliefs are wrong. I don't care for door spamming, which is what this is.
Regardless, that's why I've had a door phone attached to an asterisk box for some years now. And, yes, it can call my cell when I wish it to.
Nothing new here, but congrats to the kid on a nice hack.
Actually, in the context of the GP, that's correct.
The Christian Bible (bible is a generic term, we are referring to the specific Christian Bible) is the basis on which the Christian Church (The Church) is organized. The Church specifically does believe that The Bible is "the be all end all of what God wants." Failure to believe that makes one something other than Christian. This has nothing to do with acceptance, it is a specification of the definition of Christian.
Ironically, a large segment of modern Christians fit the same category.
You could claim that a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is divine. However, the Christian Church (all Catholic and protestant faiths) is the originator of the definition, and says otherwise. It's sort of like saying that an atheist is anyone who doesn't follow an organized religion.
That's very accepting?
You're no better. You confuse the fact that the GP is making a factual statement with the impression that it is being done in a disparaging way. Call the poster an ass hole if you think that to be the case, but he most specifically cannot be accepting or tolerant of this and many other beliefs among others of his faith. Otherwise, he would not be a Christian either.
Perhaps, as a Deist, I should start calling myself an atheist. That way I could go around telling other atheists that they are intolerant for not accepting atheists who believe in God.
I would have written:
You haven't fully experienced Top Gun unless you've watched it in the original Chinese.
With the above you allude to the original joke without hitting us over the head with it. Thus giving all of us who "get it" a chance to look down our collective noses at those of less depth in Sci-Fi pop culture.
this isn't lying. Where's the story
Are you astroturfing? Of course it's a lie.
In a strong tail-wind my car really can get 4-5 more MPG for an extended period of time. However, using that as a metric for a car's performance, while factually correct under certain conditions, denies the implication of routine repeatability, and makes the metric unreliable.
It may be technically true that I can get the maximum bandwidth at 02:00 for 2 hours, but that's of no use to me. So I toss out the idea of ever getting the theoretical maximum and instead use maximum bandwidth as a metric to set my general expectations, and to decide the relative value of the exchange (bandwidth for money.)
The ISP knows that maximum bandwidth is my metric, and attempts to deceive me by inflating that metric in an unreasonable and unexpected way. This is exactly the same as inflating MPG ratings on cars based on theoretical maximum conditions.
The lie is, knowing that routine repeatability does not exist for the numbers they quote, ISPs prominently advertise this useless metric in order to deceive the customer as to the true relative value of the product.
The news is that this report proves it.
Pluto may be a dwarf planet, but it has a LONG orbit.