She worked in patent and other IP issues; while that might be controversial here on Slashdot, I think America in general would find it pretty inoffensive.
I worry about provenance with Clinton. Why was she the head of the Healthcare task force? A recognized health expert? A well-known elected official? Wife of a guy who got 43% of the vote? Because she did similar work, successfully, as First Lady in Arkansas.
Then again, why was she on the board of Wal-Mart? We mention that (well, she doesn't mention on her website that she was the first female board member of America's #1 retailer). But, why? Was she a business expert? Run a corner store? Worked her way up from the mailroom? Was she the wife of the governor of Wal-Mart's home state? Because Sam Walton was looking for a woman to put on the board, and Clinton was a known quantity - she had represented the company in legal actions in the past - as well as a significant stockholder. Add in the fact that before that point she was an important member of the Rose Law Firm, was the chair of the Legal Services Corporation (before it was gutted by Republicans), and a host of other organizations, clearly demonstrating her qualifications to sit on the board.
Claiming that Clinton took "shortcuts" to the top indicates you don't really know what you're talking about. Granted, Clinton isn't doing as good of a job of explaining her backstory as Obama has been, but that's not really an excuse for misrepresenting her qualifications as only being the spouse of a former President.
With that argument, you must necessarily believe that anyone who posts on the Internet is bound by the speech restrictions of every country that has citizens with Internet access. Better not post anything unpleasant about China; that's illegal there, and by allowing your data to be sent there, you are breaking their law and should be charged.
Unless he crossed into the United States to mail his items, United States criminal system should have *NO* jurisdiction. To hold otherwise is to open extraterritoriality floodgates; I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with the results.
Many schools are giving students an additional allotment of money for a laptop in their student budget. For instance, I was able to roll $2500 of my $2800 laptop into my student loans; when you're already going to be $150,000 in debt, another couple thousand doesn't really make a difference.
The parent's point was that the difference between armed robbery and capital murder is generally luck, so saying that spammers have committed a more morally heinous crime than armed robbery is a stretch; spam has a much lower likelihood of ending in death (approximately zero) than armed robbery (some high percentage).
Funny you say that, since many of the advances in employment discrimination law have come from whites or men suing. Additionally, courts can and frequently do find women guilty of domestic violence.
At-will employment is problematic for employment discrimination cases, to be sure, but it's just as problematic for the white Christian male as it is for the black Islamic female.
It doesn't work that way. Everyone's protected against discrimination on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy status), national origin, religion. Disability, age, and I believe military status are non-reciprocal.
If you're fired because you're white, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're black. If you're fired because you're a man, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're a woman. If you're fired because you're not pregnant (that'd be an interesting situation), you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you were pregnant. If you're fired because you're Christian, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're Discordian.
On the other hand, discrimination on the basis of age is only actionable for any age over 50 (so if you were fired because the company preferred to have 60 year olds instead, you'd have a claim, but not if you were fired because of your youth below the age of 50). The ADA only covers the disabled, so there's no recourse there if you're fired because you're not disabled, and while I haven't dealt with military discrimination in the past, I believe the law is structured in a similar manner (it would depend on whether it was written as barring "discrimination on the basis of military status" or something similar, or if it was written as barring discrimination against people because of their current status in the armed forces).
More on-topic, at-will employment does indeed suck.
The distinction isn't irrelevant. Even if people are trading food for cigarettes or alcohol, the government is still buying food with food stamp money; the issue then becomes one of food allocation, rather than government money paying for non-food items.
Your argument that the welfare system is "significantly more open to this abuse" is an example of the "man bites dog" fallacy.
How does participating in work activities for at least 30 hours a week constitute "no intention of ever being productive?" How does one use non-transferable food stamps to purchase items which the stamps don't cover, since stores won't accept them and they're much harder, if not impossible, to trade to someone else? How does losing your job in the past 26 weeks - the cutoff for unemployment benefits in most states - mean that you will always be worthless?
Oh, right, you're just another Slashdot libertarian fucktard. Carry on.
Alternatively, we as a society could grow up and stop being gigantic hypocrites about our social lives.
The people taking the "corporate perspective" aren't any different than the people they're passing judgment on, but they'll do it anyway, because that's the current societal expectation. Hopefully, as more and more people start sharing more of their lives, these sorts of ridiculous expectations will go away, and we can all be more honest.
Slashdot Mirror
USSC is still a widely used and acceptable acronym.
Um... you didn't notice when you signed the sales receipt that you were being charged $285?
If you didn't sign a credit card receipt, you should have called your card issuer, because the sale was invalid.
In Scenario 1, heavy users subsidize the cost of delivering the lines (sunk cost) to light users.
She worked in patent and other IP issues; while that might be controversial here on Slashdot, I think America in general would find it pretty inoffensive.
Claiming that Clinton took "shortcuts" to the top indicates you don't really know what you're talking about. Granted, Clinton isn't doing as good of a job of explaining her backstory as Obama has been, but that's not really an excuse for misrepresenting her qualifications as only being the spouse of a former President.
With that argument, you must necessarily believe that anyone who posts on the Internet is bound by the speech restrictions of every country that has citizens with Internet access. Better not post anything unpleasant about China; that's illegal there, and by allowing your data to be sent there, you are breaking their law and should be charged.
Unless he crossed into the United States to mail his items, United States criminal system should have *NO* jurisdiction. To hold otherwise is to open extraterritoriality floodgates; I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with the results.
Many schools are giving students an additional allotment of money for a laptop in their student budget. For instance, I was able to roll $2500 of my $2800 laptop into my student loans; when you're already going to be $150,000 in debt, another couple thousand doesn't really make a difference.
Malnutrition is caused entirely by economics, not a lack of substantive scientific work.
I've tunneled with Remote Desktop before without a problem.
No Original Research.
The parent's point was that the difference between armed robbery and capital murder is generally luck, so saying that spammers have committed a more morally heinous crime than armed robbery is a stretch; spam has a much lower likelihood of ending in death (approximately zero) than armed robbery (some high percentage).
Warner's running for (and is going to win) John Warner's Senate seat, not President.
decadesbehind.com
Funny you say that, since many of the advances in employment discrimination law have come from whites or men suing. Additionally, courts can and frequently do find women guilty of domestic violence.
At-will employment is problematic for employment discrimination cases, to be sure, but it's just as problematic for the white Christian male as it is for the black Islamic female.
It doesn't work that way. Everyone's protected against discrimination on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy status), national origin, religion. Disability, age, and I believe military status are non-reciprocal.
If you're fired because you're white, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're black. If you're fired because you're a man, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're a woman. If you're fired because you're not pregnant (that'd be an interesting situation), you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you were pregnant. If you're fired because you're Christian, you have a claim, just as you would if you were fired because you're Discordian.
On the other hand, discrimination on the basis of age is only actionable for any age over 50 (so if you were fired because the company preferred to have 60 year olds instead, you'd have a claim, but not if you were fired because of your youth below the age of 50). The ADA only covers the disabled, so there's no recourse there if you're fired because you're not disabled, and while I haven't dealt with military discrimination in the past, I believe the law is structured in a similar manner (it would depend on whether it was written as barring "discrimination on the basis of military status" or something similar, or if it was written as barring discrimination against people because of their current status in the armed forces).
More on-topic, at-will employment does indeed suck.
Therefore, your post is purile, pandering bullshit.
The distinction isn't irrelevant. Even if people are trading food for cigarettes or alcohol, the government is still buying food with food stamp money; the issue then becomes one of food allocation, rather than government money paying for non-food items.
Your argument that the welfare system is "significantly more open to this abuse" is an example of the "man bites dog" fallacy.
Then they're not using food stamps for cigarettes or alcohol; they're trading their food for them.
False; TANF requires "work activity" - either working, or attempting to get a job, or job retraining.
How does participating in work activities for at least 30 hours a week constitute "no intention of ever being productive?" How does one use non-transferable food stamps to purchase items which the stamps don't cover, since stores won't accept them and they're much harder, if not impossible, to trade to someone else? How does losing your job in the past 26 weeks - the cutoff for unemployment benefits in most states - mean that you will always be worthless?
Oh, right, you're just another Slashdot libertarian fucktard. Carry on.
Using weight as your metric just demonstrates you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
It's pretty easy for a moderate-sized person to break 200 without having much body-fat. It's called "muscle."
The solution isn't to cower, it's to encourage everyone to live more openly.
Alternatively, we as a society could grow up and stop being gigantic hypocrites about our social lives.
The people taking the "corporate perspective" aren't any different than the people they're passing judgment on, but they'll do it anyway, because that's the current societal expectation. Hopefully, as more and more people start sharing more of their lives, these sorts of ridiculous expectations will go away, and we can all be more honest.
What, you don't think a rambling Slashdot post is sufficient?