Not only that, if you live in a dorm made of blocks, you can write stuff on the wall in lysol and then light it on fire. Flaming messages from hell! Well, that's what one of my friends told me, anyhow.
verisimilitude (vErIsI"mIlItju:d). Also 89 veri-similitude. [a. obs. F. verisimilitude (1549), or ad. L. ver_ similitudo, verisimilitudo, f. ver_ similis, verisimilis, f. ver_, gen. of verum truth, and similis like. Cf. Sp. verisimilitud, Pg. verisimilitude, It. verisimilitudine.] 1. The fact or quality of being verisimilar; the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance to truth, reality, or fact; probability. In very frequent use from c 1850.
"Truthiness" however, is much more glib and poorly defined. Also, it's shiny and trendy. Therefore, a much better word in the context in which it's used.
Many companies present "flex time" to prospective employees as something that's driven by employee convenience and benefit. Nobody *really* believes that, so there's no surprise when you show up at work and they tell you "Flex time is mutually agreed for the benefit of all involved." For an ethical company that really attributes some value to employees' well being, it stops here.
For a company that can handle high turnover (BB, WM, CC, HD, etc.), the real policy is that most employees will be be expected to adjust their schedules according to the whim of the manager in charge of staffing.
Taken to the extreme, employees will find they're being called in to help out for an hour or two, then sent home.
For the company, it's the best possible situation. They can control a staff large enough to handle the maximum workload, but only pay for the staff required for the mean load. When there's nothing to do, the employees disappear.
Of course, this doesn't apply to BB, since they have a proven policy of treating their employees so well.
What do you think the founding fathers were? They violently overthrew the government that was in charge at the time. They saw their actions as morally justified by principles that superseded the law.
The founders then proposed a system of government based on these higher principles. Then the idea occurred to them that the inheritors of this government could become just as bad as the folks they just overthrew. They expected that someday folks would have to do exactly the same thing they just got finished doing. The bill of rights was added to tilt the odds in favor of the next set of revolutionaries.
Of course it protects the terrorists. That's exactly what it was meant to do.
Gingrich's point is correct as far as it goes--if we plan to win against the terrorists, we will need to discard our freedoms. The terrorist threat he's concerned with, however, is not a foreign attacker with a different religion.
Rather than fix the government, Newt's solution is to have them keep doing what they're doing and pacify the citizens. The terrorist threat Newt's concerned with is a populace that's fed up with a government that's betrayed its citizenry.
The fact that the folks in power see this as a threat is an indicator that they no longer believe in their own legitimacy. Or, more importantly, they believe that enough of the populace has lost faith in their leadership as to threaten it.
Here, we have a thing called "At Will Employment". As long as the employee can't prove the termination was wrongful (it's on the employee to prove this), it's right. Discrimination based on race, age, religion, national origin, or disability with exceptions for BFOQs is prohibited. Otherwise, it's "Fire at will".
I understand your disclaimer at the beginning of the essay--Do you HAVE what it TAKES, but it seems that "what it takes" is a serious axe to grind and nothing better to do.
You're not doing it for the money, are you? Please explain if I've missed that benefit here. Net dollars in your pocket divided by total hours spent? Is this lucrative?
Do your efforts actually discourage the calls? Again, if you have some facts, please share them. Let's say that everyone who gets a noncompliant message gets a $500.00 judgement and shuts the business down. All you've done is guarantee that their successor complies with 64.1200(d) and (e)(1).
Maybe you should consider joining the volunteer police force in a nearby small town? You'll make a real contribution to the community and the stress (if that's your thing--which it seems to be) will be present, albeit in a different form.
If you've got a method that's intrinsically better, but different from what the user is familiar with, it still has to be a *lot* better in order to be useful in the real world. Take the Dvorak keyboard or GNU/Linux/X as case studies.
I'm an engineer working for a contract house. I am a technical prostitute. And damned proud of it.
I've only been in this industry for sixteen years--as a corporate employee, contractor, and small company employee. If you have been asleep for the past hundred years, please listen: Management f***s workers. The converse is also true. This is almost universally true. Almost.
Anyone reading this can check out this field if you like. Send your resume to Aerotek, Volt (Manpower), or some similar whorehouse and see what they offer. These guys are in business to make money in the short term (until the next promotion or management rotation)--loyalty is neither offered nor expected. When dealing with such an organization, return the loyalty you're shown. You owe nothing more, and you're entitled to nothing more. The rare business sees the long term rather than the short.
As it turns out, the company I work for today is in it for the long term. I and my co-workers get better pay, vacation, healthcare and retirement plan than the UAW members we meet in the plants. My employer treats me with profound respect, and has earned the same from me. In turn, we bust ass for the company, that we're damned proud to work for. Our Clients ask for us by name. Our contracts are regularly extended. Our Clients have one special contract for the company I work for and one for "everyone else" (they have to go through one of the larger whorehouses). It's not altruism; it's enlightened self interest.
RAC, et. al.--take a lesson. F*** your employees and they'll F*** you right back and brag about it. Take care of your employees and they'll take care of you.
I can hear the phone call now... "How much of my time and money you WASTE trying to make this automated weld station look like it belongs on...what did you call it, Eugene?...(the starship "Enterprise")...the startrek enterprise!? This is a manufacturing plant, not a dork convention. Get in here and fix it.
Today's environmentalism presents with a single argument:
The presumption presented is that anything affected in a recognizable way by humans is bad.
The more those humans are like us and the more of them there are, the uglier is the scene presented.
What's the hierarchy of natural health and beauty presented by the environmental view?
At one extreme, you've got pristine rainforest, untouched by humans; at the other extreme you've got NYC, Bombay (Mumbai?), Mexico City, London, etc. Using these definitions of beauty and ugliness, we are presented with the idea that removal of humans is the removal of ugliness.
As the recognizable effects of human habitation disappear, we are told that the planet is healing itself. The conclusion expressed is that it would be good for humans to minimize the effect we have on the environment.
The conclusion implied is that humans should not exist--it's an unwinnable war.
We're not offered the option that "humans can go this far and it'll be OK" or "these people are doing it right; that's the goal"
Any human activity must be constantly impeded or reversed.
What the environmentalists leave us with is dogmatic self-hatred.
At best it's equal-opportunity self-hatred as the whole species should cease to exist.
But they've managed to co-opt the venue for rational discourse on human effects to the environment and turn it into another sales pitch for a power grab.
There are still people working to preserve "the environment", but they don't present themselves as "environmentalists", and are painted as the enemy by those that are. Cite Greenpeace and Ducks Unlimited as extreme examples.
"Reporting a turnover and then claiming exemption is one thing. But some of the OFC operators don't even report their turnovers," Mr. Chitaguppi alleged.
A few anchovies mashed up...A pod of garlic mashed up...Enough Colavita to make a nice slurry... Throw it in the pot and heat it just enough to take (some of) the bite off of the garlic.
2 big bowls of linguini (well, I prefer Capelinni, but Tanya likes linguini) and a lot of parmesan.
Good on Friday, when you have the weekend to sweat it out. Or Sunday if you want to be left alone at work on Monday!
So, I'm over at my friend's house and I want to watch...Lost in Space. Yes, they were both in re-runs by that time, but still opposite each other on Channels 9 and 33 in Baton Rouge, LA. Friend's got a much better show (what was I at the time? seven or eight?): Star Trek. And the first episode I ever saw was "The Man Trap" I didn't sleep that night.
Years later, in college, I'm still playing "name that trek" (First person to name the episode wins. If nobody names the episode 10s after it starts, game's over, no winner). I won more than not. At a hardcore geek school (RPI).
Yes, I realize Star Trek was crappy television played by mediocre actors with lame special effects. Preachy and unrealistic, the writing was among the worst literature ever produced.
The stories were so derivative of themselves they became exponentially worse each time another ST series or movie was produced.
And I still love it. Star Trek, B5, Logan's Run, Anderson, Vonnegut, Bear, Benford, Brin, Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Niven (with and without Pournelle), Cherryh, Chalker, Leslie Fish, Le Guin, Van Vogt, Verne, Wells, Baen (let's not forget the BFL), Saberhagen, and a hundred others.
Either you're a SF fan or you're not.
And if you are, then you already know who's going to be in the spaceships when they land.
You'd better either explicitly state periodicity and specify period or observe for more than just 1 cycle (peak-to-peak == post-to-post) before calling it periodic.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to name a few.
Not only that, if you live in a dorm made of blocks, you can write stuff on the wall in lysol and then light it on fire. Flaming messages from hell!
Well, that's what one of my friends told me, anyhow.
verisimilitude (vErIsI"mIlItju:d). Also 89 veri-similitude.
[a. obs. F. verisimilitude (1549), or ad. L. ver_ similitudo, verisimilitudo, f. ver_ similis, verisimilis, f. ver_, gen. of verum truth, and similis like. Cf. Sp. verisimilitud, Pg. verisimilitude, It. verisimilitudine.]
1. The fact or quality of being verisimilar; the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance to truth, reality, or fact; probability.
In very frequent use from c 1850.
"Truthiness" however, is much more glib and poorly defined. Also, it's shiny and trendy. Therefore, a much better word in the context in which it's used.
Many companies present "flex time" to prospective employees as something that's driven by employee convenience and benefit.
Nobody *really* believes that, so there's no surprise when you show up at work and they tell you "Flex time is mutually agreed for the benefit of all involved."
For an ethical company that really attributes some value to employees' well being, it stops here.
For a company that can handle high turnover (BB, WM, CC, HD, etc.), the real policy is that most employees will be be expected to adjust their schedules according to the whim of the manager in charge of staffing.
Taken to the extreme, employees will find they're being called in to help out for an hour or two, then sent home.
For the company, it's the best possible situation.
They can control a staff large enough to handle the maximum workload, but only pay for the staff required for the mean load.
When there's nothing to do, the employees disappear.
Of course, this doesn't apply to BB, since they have a proven policy of treating their employees so well.
What do you think the founding fathers were?
They violently overthrew the government that was in charge at the time.
They saw their actions as morally justified by principles that superseded the law.
The founders then proposed a system of government based on these higher principles.
Then the idea occurred to them that the inheritors of this government could become just as bad as the folks they just overthrew.
They expected that someday folks would have to do exactly the same thing they just got finished doing.
The bill of rights was added to tilt the odds in favor of the next set of revolutionaries.
Of course it protects the terrorists. That's exactly what it was meant to do.
Gingrich's point is correct as far as it goes--if we plan to win against the terrorists, we will need to discard our freedoms.
The terrorist threat he's concerned with, however, is not a foreign attacker with a different religion.
Rather than fix the government, Newt's solution is to have them keep doing what they're doing and pacify the citizens.
The terrorist threat Newt's concerned with is a populace that's fed up with a government that's betrayed its citizenry.
The fact that the folks in power see this as a threat is an indicator that they no longer believe in their own legitimacy.
Or, more importantly, they believe that enough of the populace has lost faith in their leadership as to threaten it.
Newt's proposal is an admission of guilt.
So, increase the limits.
"Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity. But improve man, you gain a thousandfold."
-Khan Noonian Singh
We've already got a good start on it.
yes, it's glx, now, go away.
So, you live in France?
Here, we have a thing called "At Will Employment".
As long as the employee can't prove the termination was wrongful (it's on the employee to prove this), it's right.
Discrimination based on race, age, religion, national origin, or disability with exceptions for BFOQs is prohibited.
Otherwise, it's "Fire at will".
I understand your disclaimer at the beginning of the essay--Do you HAVE what it TAKES, but it seems that "what it takes" is a serious axe to grind and nothing better to do.
You're not doing it for the money, are you? Please explain if I've missed that benefit here.
Net dollars in your pocket divided by total hours spent?
Is this lucrative?
Do your efforts actually discourage the calls? Again, if you have some facts, please share them.
Let's say that everyone who gets a noncompliant message gets a $500.00 judgement and shuts the business down.
All you've done is guarantee that their successor complies with 64.1200(d) and (e)(1).
Maybe you should consider joining the volunteer police force in a nearby small town?
You'll make a real contribution to the community and the stress (if that's your thing--which it seems to be) will be present, albeit in a different form.
Is just annoying.
If you've got a method that's intrinsically better, but different from what the user is familiar with, it still has to be a *lot* better in order to be useful in the real world.
Take the Dvorak keyboard or GNU/Linux/X as case studies.
The clickless mouse doesn't seem to cut it.
As long as we get "probable cause" out of it, it's good enough.
argument != assertion
simile != analogy
No.
No.
Stop.
Don't.
I'm an engineer working for a contract house. I am a technical prostitute. And damned proud of it.
I've only been in this industry for sixteen years--as a corporate employee, contractor, and small company employee.
If you have been asleep for the past hundred years, please listen: Management f***s workers. The converse is also true.
This is almost universally true. Almost.
Anyone reading this can check out this field if you like. Send your resume to Aerotek, Volt (Manpower), or some similar whorehouse and see what they offer.
These guys are in business to make money in the short term (until the next promotion or management rotation)--loyalty is neither offered nor expected.
When dealing with such an organization, return the loyalty you're shown. You owe nothing more, and you're entitled to nothing more.
The rare business sees the long term rather than the short.
As it turns out, the company I work for today is in it for the long term.
I and my co-workers get better pay, vacation, healthcare and retirement plan than the UAW members we meet in the plants.
My employer treats me with profound respect, and has earned the same from me.
In turn, we bust ass for the company, that we're damned proud to work for.
Our Clients ask for us by name. Our contracts are regularly extended.
Our Clients have one special contract for the company I work for and one for "everyone else" (they have to go through one of the larger whorehouses).
It's not altruism; it's enlightened self interest.
RAC, et. al.--take a lesson.
F*** your employees and they'll F*** you right back and brag about it.
Take care of your employees and they'll take care of you.
I can hear the phone call now...
"How much of my time and money you WASTE trying to make this automated weld station look like it belongs on...what did you call it, Eugene?...(the starship "Enterprise")...the startrek enterprise!? This is a manufacturing plant, not a dork convention. Get in here and fix it.
Today's environmentalism presents with a single argument:
The presumption presented is that anything affected in a recognizable way by humans is bad.
The more those humans are like us and the more of them there are, the uglier is the scene presented.
What's the hierarchy of natural health and beauty presented by the environmental view?
At one extreme, you've got pristine rainforest, untouched by humans; at the other extreme you've got NYC, Bombay (Mumbai?), Mexico City, London, etc.
Using these definitions of beauty and ugliness, we are presented with the idea that removal of humans is the removal of ugliness.
As the recognizable effects of human habitation disappear, we are told that the planet is healing itself.
The conclusion expressed is that it would be good for humans to minimize the effect we have on the environment.
The conclusion implied is that humans should not exist--it's an unwinnable war.
We're not offered the option that "humans can go this far and it'll be OK" or "these people are doing it right; that's the goal"
Any human activity must be constantly impeded or reversed.
What the environmentalists leave us with is dogmatic self-hatred.
At best it's equal-opportunity self-hatred as the whole species should cease to exist.
But they've managed to co-opt the venue for rational discourse on human effects to the environment and turn it into another sales pitch for a power grab.
There are still people working to preserve "the environment", but they don't present themselves as "environmentalists", and are painted as the enemy by those that are.
Cite Greenpeace and Ducks Unlimited as extreme examples.
I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
I give up.
/.; it's fark.
It's not
Oh, look there's a new BOFH. Nope, just an ad that starts with BOFH. Bastards.
Scientific American used to be a pretty good magazine, too.
"Reporting a turnover and then claiming exemption is one thing. But some of the OFC operators don't even report their turnovers," Mr. Chitaguppi alleged.
/.?
I'm sorry, is this
Today, it seems more like fark.
Or as Tanya and I call it "Stinky Pasta".
A few anchovies mashed up...A pod of garlic mashed up...Enough Colavita to make a nice slurry...
Throw it in the pot and heat it just enough to take (some of) the bite off of the garlic.
2 big bowls of linguini (well, I prefer Capelinni, but Tanya likes linguini) and a lot of parmesan.
Good on Friday, when you have the weekend to sweat it out. Or Sunday if you want to be left alone at work on Monday!
Soon, anyone with minimal technical skill will have their own quartershrinker.
I think that I just went crosseyed trying to think of cubic minutes..
Do you realize what that can do to your brain?
Too many links in the chain. Aaaallllbatross...strapping things onto birds...swallows....african/european.
Anyhow, it's 8:00 and time for the penguin on your television set to explode.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
So, I'm over at my friend's house and I want to watch...Lost in Space.
Yes, they were both in re-runs by that time, but still opposite each other on Channels 9 and 33 in Baton Rouge, LA.
Friend's got a much better show (what was I at the time? seven or eight?): Star Trek. And the first episode I ever saw was "The Man Trap"
I didn't sleep that night.
Years later, in college, I'm still playing "name that trek" (First person to name the episode wins. If nobody names the episode 10s after it starts, game's over, no winner).
I won more than not. At a hardcore geek school (RPI).
Yes, I realize Star Trek was crappy television played by mediocre actors with lame special effects.
Preachy and unrealistic, the writing was among the worst literature ever produced.
The stories were so derivative of themselves they became exponentially worse each time another ST series or movie was produced.
And I still love it.
Star Trek, B5, Logan's Run, Anderson, Vonnegut, Bear, Benford, Brin, Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Niven (with and without Pournelle), Cherryh, Chalker, Leslie Fish, Le Guin, Van Vogt, Verne, Wells, Baen (let's not forget the BFL), Saberhagen, and a hundred others.
Either you're a SF fan or you're not.
And if you are, then you already know who's going to be in the spaceships when they land.
You'd better either explicitly state periodicity and specify period or observe for more than just 1 cycle (peak-to-peak == post-to-post) before calling it periodic.