The human race as a whole may not be civilized. The Russians held at Stalingrad and Moscow, but only just. In reality, it took the whole world to beat the axis. Without the help of the US that claim can be made. Without the Russians it could also be made I guess.
--The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.--
How do you mean? In what way? In lives, maybe. I speak ill of the US all the time but not over WWII. In fact we helped the Russians out a lot. We fought an undeclared war before Pearl Harbor in the Atlantic trying to supply the UK. A lot of our merchant ships were sunk. Who do you think escorted them once they were close to Canada? Did you know when Poland was invaded, the Russians helped the Germans and divided it up by treaty? Hitler then double crossed Stalin later on. The Russians would not have beat Germany on their own. Most of our guys were lost on bombing missions. The Russians didn't have any strategic bombers. BTW we have had a war on our doorstep. It's called the Civil War.
If you live in the UK AC, then think about it. Yeah the Russians lost more men and materials, because of the way they fought. They wanted Berlin for themselves to attack so the US and UK said sure. I wonder how many Russians were lost in that battle? We may never know. The Russians would do mass attacks. Luckily enough people lived in Russia for these tactics to work. Most of our commanders never did that if there was another way and we didn't line up all of our artillery in rows. If they took counter battery fire then they would loose it all. We could concentrate fire to one location from several different spots by using a radio. The Germans have always been the masters of defensive warfare. We lost only one battle to the Germans while fighting Japan at the same time. The Russians didn't even fight the Japanese until the war was really over. They thought that they could gain a little territory there. I believe they did and it is called China. We had to cross oceans to fight. The Russians didn't. Sure we had it easier. So?
I don't know what the argument was, but your statement is somewhat misleading.
--60% tax uncivilised Torture civilised--
No both are uncivilized because 60% tax IS torture. Most Americans do not believe in torture. It usually gets you bad information in a military sense as well. We have some of the dumbest people in the English speaking world here and some of the smartest too. A lot of people criticize us for nuking Japan. What would you had us do playing Monday morning quarterback? What else could we have done? Invaded them and killed them to the last man? We pretty much had to do that everywhere we fought them. While the Germans were masters of defensive warfare, the Japanese hid in holes, everyone of which had to be cleared one by one. Their tactics weren't better but they wouldn't surrender. The last guy would walk out with his hands up to surrender after he swallowed a grenade with a smile on his face. So even we had to violate the rules of war there. A lot of units just wouldn't take prisoners. It was not like they didn't want to at first, but after getting a few of your own guys blown up by doing so, you tend to just shoot them whether they wave the white flag or not. Most of those wars started in Europe, so don't blame us for it.
--The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.--
You are forgetting about when the British Empire was in charge. Africa may have their freedom now, but most of them had a higher standard of living than they do now. There are very few of their colonies that are actually doing better without them. A lot of them are still in the commonwealth.
Of course we wouldn't be as powerful as we are without their help. So I'm not too sure about the US having the title "World's Greatest Superpower". The British Empire I think could claim that. Maybe we would end up #2 of all time even in the playing fair category.
I think this OK within the OST guidelines, but how could another power know that there were nukes there or not? The Russians tolerated spy satellites but they are a little higher up. I think KEW's in space are a bad idea because it would make everyone nervous and could lead to something we really don't want. The KEW's could work in a very high flying plane too. We may already have that.
Maybe all this stuff is true, but all we are talking about is chemical weapons. Anyone that can mix bleach and ammonia can get those. If you can make pesticide, you can make nerve gas. So, maybe he was breaking the rules, but was there another way besides total war. Sorry, but I have to agree with the Russians, and Germans. If they agree on it, then it must be so, because those two countries have a history of not agreeing on anything. Why didn't we just send an air strike or two instead of a whole army? Either there was another reason that is still secret or Bush just cowboy-ed the situation without thinking it through. As far as it costing the French money, we are the ones paying for not listening.
--Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials [freerepublic.com] claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.--
A lot of them claimed Scott Speicher was being held captive too. Some of those Arabs are such bull shitters too. Why should we worry about chemical weapons? Iraq would have to have the ability to deploy them. I thought nukes were mentioned specifically.
We wanted to have a fairly large ground force in the oil fields in case any trouble breaks out. I might have been OK with that, but being lied to about WMD's, made me think it was a bad plan. No one ever came out to the good using this strategy. If the goal was to get rid of WMD's, we'll then we have succeeded. I wonder what the real goals are? Before you make war on someone, there has to be a goal. In WWII the goal was simple, unconditional surrender. That is why we succeeded. There may yet be something like that behind the scenes, I don't know? Did Bush study game theory or read The Art of War? If he didn't then he failed to listen to his generals. I really think that happened, otherwise why would Colin Powell and some of his other best cabinet members have quit?
And we would have to get a green light from China. Speaking of that maybe we ought to go after China instead before they ask for all the money back that we owe them. That has been known to start a war or two. Country with lots of military power with lots of military power and a failing economy might need to take some resources to stay in #1 position. Doesn't Iraq have quite a few oil reserves?
I have a plan loosely quoted from somewhere hitherto:
1. The five fundamental factors that define a successful outcome (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership, and management). By thinking, assessing and comparing these points you can calculate a victory, deviation from them will ensure failure. Remember that war is a very grave matter of state.
2. Understand the economy of war and how success requires making the winning play, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.
3. Define the source of strength as unity, not size, and the five ingredients that you need to succeed in any war.
4. Understand the importance of defending existing positions until you can advance them and how you must recognize opportunities, not try to create them.
5. Understand the use of creativity and timing in building your momentum.
6. Understand how your opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of your enemy in a given area.
7. Understand the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon you.
8. There is a need for flexibility in your responses. Understand how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.
9. Evaluate the intentions of others.
10. Understand the three general areas of resistance (distance, dangers, and barriers) and the six types of ground positions that arise from them. Each of these six field positions offer certain advantages and disadvantages.
11. Understand the nine situations describe nine common situations (or stages) in a campaign, from scattering to deadly, and the specific focus you need to successfully navigate each of them.
12. Then attack by fire. Understand the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack, and the appropriate responses to such attack.
13. Develop good information sources, specifically the five types of sources and how to manage them.
That wasn't the argument I was making. I didn't say that holidays or vacation counted but it has to be sanctioned by the employer. I believe in the UK, it's required by law or any EU member country. So if your employer decides to change things, I bet they can. Maybe YOU feel safe with the current status quot, but I don't think the majority do.
Look, there are 50 million people here without any insurance of any kind. A lot of those just end up using the emergency room anyhow for their primary care. It looks like it would be cheaper just to insure them otherwise the rest of us end up paying for it one way or another.
There is something else. The reason why this happened, is that my work study money ran out for a mysterious reason. I was working helping the janitors at the college. I cleaned a lot of windows because no one else wanted to. All the rest said "I don't want to do that". So they ended up cleaning stalls instead, girl's stalls. They are nasty believe it or not. I leave the rest to the imagination as to why.
Everyone should have to work while they go to school. You learn a lot that way even if it seems to be a menial job. At that job we knew everything that went on at that school.
The mysterious reason the work study money disappeared was because the director misappropriated it. I think he might have even had to pull a little fed time over that. Later on I think they even lost or were going to loose their accreditation for it. Ah, the things that happen at a small college. I had some real good teachers and a few bad ones. The class sizes were small. Many professors used to work for NASA during the Apollo program. Those were the good ones.
--The national average GPA for college graduates is 3.2 (according to a quick google search)--
Wow! it didn't used to be that high. I had a GPA of 3.9 at my particular school way back when I graduated. I then made the mistake of taking some extra courses for another year. At the end of that year I ran out of money after I could drop out or even get an incomplete. So I quit right in the middle of a couple classes a got an F or two which dropped my overall average down to 3.2. I pretty much was in the top 10% before that. I have 25 years of experience now, so no one even looks at that. They just will not hire me because I'm in my 40's and really know too much so they think I will cost them too much. There really is something to be said about about hard work.
--Most engineering course will only be able to teach you how to use a bandsaw and AutoCAD.--
I agree most most of what you said, but this statement is simply not true. For an Engineering degree you have to go to school for probably 5 years and then work somewhere for 5 more before you are even eligible to become a PE. You are even taught a little law and probably as much math as a computer science degree. What they DO teach you is how to solve problems on your own, which has to be done no matter where you work.
--What has changed is a fickle employment culture in which companies hire and fire at will and thus cannot risk training someone only to see them run off at a moments notice for a higher paid position.--
Very true especially in a tight job market. Experienced people can sometimes be harder to train for a particular job than the inexperienced. Sometimes you can have too much experience. I don't know the situation in the case. Maybe the school advertised jobs guaranteed for everybody. That would be the only way she could win the case in my view.
--And finally, forget about this "dream job" thing. Unless you are in business for yourself and successful. You will never find a "dream job" working for someone else.--
Forget that too. Then you really have to deal with the public. I say do what YOU want to do AND NOT what someone else says you are good at. A dream job is one where you fit in. If you are happy doing it, you will be good at it. There are a lot of jobs out there that could pay more. Money can be replaced, but time can't. It's up to each person that can decide to decide how to spend it.
Unfortunately, sometimes you must compromise and do things you don't like for the greater good if you have a business and work for someone else maybe hard to find.
--I already get five weeks paid leave and work 37 hour weeks. From what I understand of the US I'd probably be fired for not being present enough. Here, I just go promoted.--
Yeah, and your medical insurance might cut you off if you go below 36 hours average per month. You would be considered part time for the most part in the US if you worked that little.
The winning argument here is like this:
The rich think they are entitled, but that the middle class would not work if we gave them too much of a safety net. So there is not much of a safety net and no understanding that people will work anyhow, and better if they are happy instead of unhappy. The ones in charge and some older people already on fixed income say this. Americans on average work very hard for very little in return for the most part. There are even less billionaires world wide because of us, I think. Eventually the rich will loose their money when they push policy like this. Allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns seems to be the cause of this.
Whether there is Democrat or Republican in office, they owe some company or corporation their job. I know there are political parities in the UK. I wonder why they haven't made a law like that where you live? Maybe it's the British sense of fairness? In the US, the leaders cut a few corners. Now, so do the people, except if they get caught, they might go to jail and the rich have nothing to worry about unless it is so high profile it makes news.
I agree, we are doing it wrong. You can blame the baby boomers. They had it easy and are spoiled lazy and in charge now.
--She mentions McDonalds sneeringly, but the fact is that they have a general corporate policy of promoting most of their talent internally. If she is as capable as she thinks she is and went to work there with the intention of proving herself (and the attitude to match), she could have a perfectly reasonable career. The same is true of any number of other employers that she probably considers below her social status. Of course, she won't.--
Silly, of her ain't it?
--The other unfortunate side is that some employers with vacancies that could be filled by a bright high-school graduate seem to feel the need to advertise for a graduate just to "keep up with the Jonses", though I've noticed a slight reversal of this trend recently.--
This brings up another issue. If an employer sees 5 years experience here and yonder for 15 years, that person is considered loyal and experienced. If you have 25 years at the same place, then you are seen as a looser by prospective employers. That's some of what is going to be seen as smaller companies go out of business that have been in business for years. If you really are someone that helps hire people, don't forget people in their 40's or 50's that have a lot of experience at a small place. Hint hint. Anyhow, you don't work somewhere doing something somewhere 25 years without doing something right.
Now, that I have ranted, I would say in this case the parents are behind it. Kids today are really spoiled lazy. Her parents are probably paying the lawyer fee, because I can't see any lawyer taking something like this pro bono unless there is more to it.
It's like that for the most part in the US too. It goes back to our ape ancestors and how they ran things. Time changes, people don't much. Follow the leader, follow.
--"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," [italics mine] he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.--
Stupid, very stupid, nobody will ever want to rent off of them again. Even though the mold problem might be real or it might not and not all house mold is dangerous. The inner stuff is usually metal studs in an apartment complex and I know that can't mold much. If she didn't complain directly to the company first, maybe just maybe I could understand, but making something virtually unknown, out there to world is going to get them very bad PR no matter what.
Slander is very hard to prove. Liable, we'll you have the evidence of what she said on the net. Now the next question IS "did she have mold"? I think that would be easy to prove one way or another, but all that being said that company is going to loose even if they win the case. They will look like bullies and no one will use their services again if that's what they do to complainers. It seems like a dumb move without more details.
Now, the auto makers might not have to release every thing, but I believe drug companies do. Still the oversight is there. Software companies do what they want like stealing gpl. How would you know? The gpl people probably don't have as many people checking for piracy as Microsoft alone does.
--Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?--
Good question. There ought to be an escrow of some sort. What if M$ just folded and nobody wanted to let the source out? What would we do? There already has been historical stuff that would be lost to history is someone didn't think to copy that ROM image up to the internet. If we don't really watch out this stuff is going to be all over hardware devices worse than what it already is.
If Britain is the Nanny State then we(US) are the Bubba state, with Bubba always watching and causing trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they were neutral during WWII but the US was using 40mm Bofors licensed from Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm
The human race as a whole may not be civilized. The Russians held at Stalingrad and Moscow, but only just. In reality, it took the whole world to beat the axis. Without the help of the US that claim can be made. Without the Russians it could also be made I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
--The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.--
How do you mean? In what way? In lives, maybe. I speak ill of the US all the time but not over WWII. In fact we helped the Russians out a lot. We fought an undeclared war before Pearl Harbor in the Atlantic trying to supply the UK. A lot of our merchant ships were sunk. Who do you think escorted them once they were close to Canada? Did you know when Poland was invaded, the Russians helped the Germans and divided it up by treaty? Hitler then double crossed Stalin later on. The Russians would not have beat Germany on their own. Most of our guys were lost on bombing missions. The Russians didn't have any strategic bombers. BTW we have had a war on our doorstep. It's called the Civil War.
If you live in the UK AC, then think about it. Yeah the Russians lost more men and materials, because of the way they fought. They wanted Berlin for themselves to attack so the US and UK said sure. I wonder how many Russians were lost in that battle? We may never know. The Russians would do mass attacks. Luckily enough people lived in Russia for these tactics to work. Most of our commanders never did that if there was another way and we didn't line up all of our artillery in rows. If they took counter battery fire then they would loose it all. We could concentrate fire to one location from several different spots by using a radio. The Germans have always been the masters of defensive warfare. We lost only one battle to the Germans while fighting Japan at the same time. The Russians didn't even fight the Japanese until the war was really over. They thought that they could gain a little territory there. I believe they did and it is called China. We had to cross oceans to fight. The Russians didn't. Sure we had it easier. So?
I don't know what the argument was, but your statement is somewhat misleading.
--60% tax uncivilised
Torture civilised--
No both are uncivilized because 60% tax IS torture. Most Americans do not believe in torture. It usually gets you bad information in a military sense as well. We have some of the dumbest people in the English speaking world here and some of the smartest too. A lot of people criticize us for nuking Japan. What would you had us do playing Monday morning quarterback? What else could we have done? Invaded them and killed them to the last man? We pretty much had to do that everywhere we fought them. While the Germans were masters of defensive warfare, the Japanese hid in holes, everyone of which had to be cleared one by one. Their tactics weren't better but they wouldn't surrender. The last guy would walk out with his hands up to surrender after he swallowed a grenade with a smile on his face. So even we had to violate the rules of war there. A lot of units just wouldn't take prisoners. It was not like they didn't want to at first, but after getting a few of your own guys blown up by doing so, you tend to just shoot them whether they wave the white flag or not. Most of those wars started in Europe, so don't blame us for it.
--The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.--
You are forgetting about when the British Empire was in charge. Africa may have their freedom now, but most of them had a higher standard of living than they do now. There are very few of their colonies that are actually doing better without them. A lot of them are still in the commonwealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations
Of course we wouldn't be as powerful as we are without their help. So I'm not too sure about the US having the title "World's Greatest Superpower". The British Empire I think could claim that. Maybe we would end up #2 of all time even in the playing fair category.
I think this OK within the OST guidelines, but how could another power know that there were nukes there or not? The Russians tolerated spy satellites but they are a little higher up. I think KEW's in space are a bad idea because it would make everyone nervous and could lead to something we really don't want. The KEW's could work in a very high flying plane too. We may already have that.
Maybe all this stuff is true, but all we are talking about is chemical weapons. Anyone that can mix bleach and ammonia can get those. If you can make pesticide, you can make nerve gas. So, maybe he was breaking the rules, but was there another way besides total war. Sorry, but I have to agree with the Russians, and Germans. If they agree on it, then it must be so, because those two countries have a history of not agreeing on anything. Why didn't we just send an air strike or two instead of a whole army? Either there was another reason that is still secret or Bush just cowboy-ed the situation without thinking it through. As far as it costing the French money, we are the ones paying for not listening.
--Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials [freerepublic.com] claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.--
A lot of them claimed Scott Speicher was being held captive too. Some of those Arabs are such bull shitters too. Why should we worry about chemical weapons? Iraq would have to have the ability to deploy them. I thought nukes were mentioned specifically.
We wanted to have a fairly large ground force in the oil fields in case any trouble breaks out. I might have been OK with that, but being lied to about WMD's, made me think it was a bad plan. No one ever came out to the good using this strategy. If the goal was to get rid of WMD's, we'll then we have succeeded. I wonder what the real goals are? Before you make war on someone, there has to be a goal. In WWII the goal was simple, unconditional surrender. That is why we succeeded. There may yet be something like that behind the scenes, I don't know? Did Bush study game theory or read The Art of War? If he didn't then he failed to listen to his generals. I really think that happened, otherwise why would Colin Powell and some of his other best cabinet members have quit?
--Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons--
And we would have to get a green light from China. Speaking of that maybe we ought to go after China instead before they ask for all the money back that we owe them. That has been known to start a war or two. Country with lots of military power with lots of military power and a failing economy might need to take some resources to stay in #1 position. Doesn't Iraq have quite a few oil reserves?
I have a plan loosely quoted from somewhere hitherto:
1. The five fundamental factors that define a successful outcome (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership, and management). By thinking, assessing and comparing these points you can calculate a victory, deviation from them will ensure failure. Remember that war is a very grave matter of state.
2. Understand the economy of war and how success requires making the winning play, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.
3. Define the source of strength as unity, not size, and the five ingredients that you need to succeed in any war.
4. Understand the importance of defending existing positions until you can advance them and how you must recognize opportunities, not try to create them.
5. Understand the use of creativity and timing in building your momentum.
6. Understand how your opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of your enemy in a given area.
7. Understand the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon you.
8. There is a need for flexibility in your responses. Understand how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.
9. Evaluate the intentions of others.
10. Understand the three general areas of resistance (distance, dangers, and barriers) and the six types of ground positions that arise from them. Each of these six field positions offer certain advantages and disadvantages.
11. Understand the nine situations describe nine common situations (or stages) in a campaign, from scattering to deadly, and the specific focus you need to successfully navigate each of them.
12. Then attack by fire. Understand the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack, and the appropriate responses to such attack.
13. Develop good information sources, specifically the five types of sources and how to manage them.
Now I really think that plan might just work.
--something that Barney Fife would do--
Barney:
"nip it"
"nip it Andy"
"nip it in the bud"
Andy:
"now just wait a minute Barney"
That wasn't the argument I was making. I didn't say that holidays or vacation counted but it has to be sanctioned by the employer. I believe in the UK, it's required by law or any EU member country. So if your employer decides to change things, I bet they can. Maybe YOU feel safe with the current status quot, but I don't think the majority do.
Look, there are 50 million people here without any insurance of any kind. A lot of those just end up using the emergency room anyhow for their primary care. It looks like it would be cheaper just to insure them otherwise the rest of us end up paying for it one way or another.
--Unless she sues the customers of the world for not buying her product/service.--
It seems to be a good strategy now days. Just ask the RIAA? Sue everyone you can think of and maybe you will get a payout.
There is something else. The reason why this happened, is that my work study money ran out for a mysterious reason. I was working helping the janitors at the college. I cleaned a lot of windows because no one else wanted to. All the rest said "I don't want to do that". So they ended up cleaning stalls instead, girl's stalls. They are nasty believe it or not. I leave the rest to the imagination as to why.
Everyone should have to work while they go to school. You learn a lot that way even if it seems to be a menial job. At that job we knew everything that went on at that school.
The mysterious reason the work study money disappeared was because the director misappropriated it. I think he might have even had to pull a little fed time over that. Later on I think they even lost or were going to loose their accreditation for it. Ah, the things that happen at a small college. I had some real good teachers and a few bad ones. The class sizes were small. Many professors used to work for NASA during the Apollo program. Those were the good ones.
--The national average GPA for college graduates is 3.2 (according to a quick google search)--
Wow! it didn't used to be that high. I had a GPA of 3.9 at my particular school way back when I graduated. I then made the mistake of taking some extra courses for another year. At the end of that year I ran out of money after I could drop out or even get an incomplete. So I quit right in the middle of a couple classes a got an F or two which dropped my overall average down to 3.2. I pretty much was in the top 10% before that. I have 25 years of experience now, so no one even looks at that. They just will not hire me because I'm in my 40's and really know too much so they think I will cost them too much. There really is something to be said about about hard work.
--Most engineering course will only be able to teach you how to use a bandsaw and AutoCAD.--
I agree most most of what you said, but this statement is simply not true. For an Engineering degree you have to go to school for probably 5 years and then work somewhere for 5 more before you are even eligible to become a PE. You are even taught a little law and probably as much math as a computer science degree. What they DO teach you is how to solve problems on your own, which has to be done no matter where you work.
--What has changed is a fickle employment culture in which companies hire and fire at will and thus cannot risk training someone only to see them run off at a moments notice for a higher paid position.--
Very true especially in a tight job market. Experienced people can sometimes be harder to train for a particular job than the inexperienced. Sometimes you can have too much experience. I don't know the situation in the case. Maybe the school advertised jobs guaranteed for everybody. That would be the only way she could win the case in my view.
--And finally, forget about this "dream job" thing. Unless you are in business for yourself and successful. You will never find a "dream job" working for someone else.--
Forget that too. Then you really have to deal with the public. I say do what YOU want to do AND NOT what someone else says you are good at. A dream job is one where you fit in. If you are happy doing it, you will be good at it. There are a lot of jobs out there that could pay more. Money can be replaced, but time can't. It's up to each person that can decide to decide how to spend it.
Unfortunately, sometimes you must compromise and do things you don't like for the greater good if you have a business and work for someone else maybe hard to find.
--I already get five weeks paid leave and work 37 hour weeks. From what I understand of the US I'd probably be fired for not being present enough. Here, I just go promoted.--
Yeah, and your medical insurance might cut you off if you go below 36 hours average per month. You would be considered part time for the most part in the US if you worked that little.
The winning argument here is like this:
The rich think they are entitled, but that the middle class would not work if we gave them too much of a safety net. So there is not much of a safety net and no understanding that people will work anyhow, and better if they are happy instead of unhappy. The ones in charge and some older people already on fixed income say this. Americans on average work very hard for very little in return for the most part. There are even less billionaires world wide because of us, I think. Eventually the rich will loose their money when they push policy like this. Allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns seems to be the cause of this.
Whether there is Democrat or Republican in office, they owe some company or corporation their job. I know there are political parities in the UK. I wonder why they haven't made a law like that where you live? Maybe it's the British sense of fairness? In the US, the leaders cut a few corners. Now, so do the people, except if they get caught, they might go to jail and the rich have nothing to worry about unless it is so high profile it makes news.
I agree, we are doing it wrong. You can blame the baby boomers. They had it easy and are spoiled lazy and in charge now.
--She mentions McDonalds sneeringly, but the fact is that they have a general corporate policy of promoting most of their talent internally. If she is as capable as she thinks she is and went to work there with the intention of proving herself (and the attitude to match), she could have a perfectly reasonable career. The same is true of any number of other employers that she probably considers below her social status. Of course, she won't.--
Silly, of her ain't it?
--The other unfortunate side is that some employers with vacancies that could be filled by a bright high-school graduate seem to feel the need to advertise for a graduate just to "keep up with the Jonses", though I've noticed a slight reversal of this trend recently.--
This brings up another issue. If an employer sees 5 years experience here and yonder for 15 years, that person is considered loyal and experienced. If you have 25 years at the same place, then you are seen as a looser by prospective employers. That's some of what is going to be seen as smaller companies go out of business that have been in business for years. If you really are someone that helps hire people, don't forget people in their 40's or 50's that have a lot of experience at a small place. Hint hint. Anyhow, you don't work somewhere doing something somewhere 25 years without doing something right.
Now, that I have ranted, I would say in this case the parents are behind it. Kids today are really spoiled lazy. Her parents are probably paying the lawyer fee, because I can't see any lawyer taking something like this pro bono unless there is more to it.
I use syn.
http://syn.sourceforge.net/
--Oh well. I'll just write a new one.--
How would you start? How, about "once upon a time"?
It's like that for the most part in the US too. It goes back to our ape ancestors and how they ran things. Time changes, people don't much. Follow the leader, follow.
I sure there are plenty of things that can be arranged, but that wouldn't be up to me, or any other form of renovation.
Lightning and wind seems to be getting worse in them there hills.
--"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," [italics mine] he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.--
Stupid, very stupid, nobody will ever want to rent off of them again. Even though the mold problem might be real or it might not and not all house mold is dangerous. The inner stuff is usually metal studs in an apartment complex and I know that can't mold much. If she didn't complain directly to the company first, maybe just maybe I could understand, but making something virtually unknown, out there to world is going to get them very bad PR no matter what.
Slander is very hard to prove. Liable, we'll you have the evidence of what she said on the net. Now the next question IS "did she have mold"? I think that would be easy to prove one way or another, but all that being said that company is going to loose even if they win the case. They will look like bullies and no one will use their services again if that's what they do to complainers. It seems like a dumb move without more details.
--Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.--
Yes, they do, if they want to sell it to the public, and if they don't, we'll just ask some of the execs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
Now, the auto makers might not have to release every thing, but I believe drug companies do. Still the oversight is there. Software companies do what they want like stealing gpl. How would you know? The gpl people probably don't have as many people checking for piracy as Microsoft alone does.
--Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?--
Good question. There ought to be an escrow of some sort. What if M$ just folded and nobody wanted to let the source out? What would we do? There already has been historical stuff that would be lost to history is someone didn't think to copy that ROM image up to the internet. If we don't really watch out this stuff is going to be all over hardware devices worse than what it already is.
If Britain is the Nanny State then we(US) are the Bubba state, with Bubba always watching and causing trouble.