In fact, in nearly any discussion about drugs that are illegal today in America, you can swap in alcohol instead. All the same arguments against legalization would apply just as well, except we already deal with all the downsides of alcohol yet nobody's talking about getting rid of THAT again.
I didn't say alcohol is great and drugs are bad. Alcohol clearly has horrible detrimental affects on our society, and clearly legal alcohol does result in a monetary and mental and physical impact on well-being. Almost 100% of the population knows someone personally who has been killed as a result of drunk driving. So, yes, I would say that having legal alcohol is a responsibility which too many people cannot bear, and I believe that drugs are even more likely to be abused than alcohol.
The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work. And people who don't like having druggees steal their stuff so they can sell it for drugs. Just because drugs are legal doesn't mean they will be cheap, and users won't be any more interested in working for a living than they are now.
As part of the closed beta, just want to report I've had no issues at all, logging in to play the game.
Have you had any luck NOT logging in and playing the game? Because that is what I am most interested in.
I have always in the past bought and paid for the Simcity series. It was a fun game to me and worth rewarding them with the encouragement to make new and better versions. However, even though I bought the game, I still downloaded the No CD crack. I hate having to switch discs in and out of the tray every time I want to play something different.
With this latest version, I will be waiting for the No CD crack AND the offline play crack. With the way the game is setup, it may not even be possible for there to be an offline play crack. in which case, I just won't participate at all.
I just said I don't want to hear about anybody's sexual exploits, hetero or homo. I'm not one to get into a DSW with people over how many women I have been with. Some guy at work blathered about having a threesome with his wife and another girl. I found it disgusting an inappropriate.
It's great that Samsung is making multiple windows possible, now how about making it work as a phone? The only time my phone has ever crashed was when I was making a call. It's a PHONE. Making a call is it's PRIMARY PURPOSE. If it screws up when sending a text or an e-mail, or while playing a game, that is understandable, but if it is making a call, there is no excuse for that ever failing. My 20 year old bag phone never rebooted when trying to make a call. Neither did my Motorola brick, flip phone, or any of my several Nokia's. But suddenly I get an S2 and it reboots during calls. This morning, I tried 5 times to call into a conference number. Whenever it connected, the screen completely freezes. I am unable to push any button or get back to the number pad screen to put in my code for the conference. Then after about 5 seconds, it reboots. After 5 attempts, I called from my house phone. Surprise! The house phone didn't reboot. It just made the call, just like a cell phone is primarily supposed to do.
I don't care about all the whizbang apps, web surfing, texting, e-mailing, alarm clocks, calendars, phonebooks, etc. If it can't fulfill it's primary purpose of making phone calls, then it is a crap product and should not have been released.
I agree Mr. Anonymous Coward. I don't want to hear about whether somebody is gay or not and I don't want to hear about his sexual exploits any more than I want to hear about a straight guys sexual exploits. If you're gay or your straight, I don't care. Keep it to yourself. How are the people on these MMOs finding out that people are gay? Do you have to click a box when you sign up? I don't think so. Do they have a lisp? I doubt it. Do they sound effeminate? No more than the 11 year olds who frequent most of these MMOs.
Try not telling people you are gay. It works great. There is a guy that worked for me for several year at work that was gay, but nobody knew it until long after he had gone to another company. Nobody needs to know you are gay. Just be yourself.
Unscientific study
And the results are inconsistent as well. 100% of the men and 100% of the women who performed this study did not follow the scientific method and did not collect a significant sample set and yet still published the results. For shame!
Be that as it may, we wish Wayne Rasanen all the luck in the world as he brings his invention to market.
Well, your slashvertisement is sure to help. How much did he pay you?
Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Well, those would normally be covered by your agreement not to divulge company secrets, which they could still feel free to sue you over if they felt you had done so, but they can't restrict you from going there in the first place. And if company B hired you based on the fact that you were willing to divulge company A's secrets, then why are they not concerned about company C hiring you up?
Not to mention it limits your options because a potential employer may choose not to hire you because of your non-compete. They don't want the liability. I think if a company wants you to sign a non-compete, they need to pay you for the duration of the non-compete period. Even then, you still come out behind because you will have been not learning the latest whizbangs during that time, or if you have been learning them on your own, you weren't learning it for the benefit of a company, which potential employers put in the same category as not learning it at all.
It is not a catch 22 at all. If they want people to stay they must pay market rates. It really is that simple.
They don't even have to pay market rates. Sure you could get 10% more at another company, but who wants to go through the hassle of switching jobs, getting new insurance, having to learn a new system, dealing with a different bureaucracy for a mere 5-10% more. So if they would just pay 10% under market, they could probably keep you. The problem is, other companies are willing to pay 15%-20% or more than current salary. I would probably leave my current job for that.
But companies have go getters that will leave for 15%-20% and then they have the vast multitudes who are complacent and will sit their regardless of what they may be worth elsewhere. A company can't afford to pay EVERYBODY what they could get elsewhere. Nor will the HR department let you get paid 20% more than the guy in the next cubicle. So instead they just pay you under market and scream and holler when you leave, or try to illegally collude to keep you from leaving.
We already have something that balances corporations. In fact they are more powerful: they're called unions.
Yes, but two negatives don't make a positive. Corporations and Unions both combine to make things crappy for the worker. When the elephants fight, the grass loses.
It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. So Jobs' stance was somewhat reasonable.
His being upset about it is quite reasonable. However, doing anything about it would be illegal, and the way that he did something about it is extremely illegal.
Anybody from anywhere can call up an employee of any firm and offer them more money. If the current employer doesn't like it, they can always mitigate that possibility by paying more money and improving the work environment such that employees would not want to leave.
You already can't get Windows 7 period on some of their laptop line. Now, I guess we can say good-bye to Windows 7 and have to purchase the upgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7 aftermarket, and they will probably tell us that voids the warranty.
Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.
There are thousands of other such examples.
That's not true. ONLY the law abiding have to have visible car identification. A car thief doesn't concern themselves with the law, so they may or may not display tags. or they may steal someone else's tag. The additional law didn't suddenly make a bunch of criminals decide to be law abiding. Like most laws that are supposed to help stop criminals, all they really do is make the law-abiding people's lives more difficult.
Does the government keep a register of those things? If no, then it's not a FOIA request.
Of course not. It's in the constitution and is a protected right and therefore the government doesn't keep a register of them. We should be very concerned if they did. Just like we should be very concerned that they keep a record of gun owners. After all, if they did that, it would be all the easier to take away those rights, just like they are trying to do with guns.
Most of these mass murders are carried out with legally owned guns, so that suggests that they are in fact quite dangerous.
No, most mass murders are carried out with guns that were legally owned but were then stolen from the legal owner. Which is why none of the background checking and red tape being proposed will do any good. More laws has no affect against people who already break the law.
Ah, I see how coin collections would fail. How about owners of expensive machinery like chainsaws or shop equipment? Surely we should register those and make maps of who owns them?
Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.
In my state, defending yourself from an armed robber can cause you to be convicted of a felony and you can lose your right to defend yourself. We're already well on our way down the slippery slope, and the criminals are catching on fast that they are safe from those pesky law abiding citizens.
I for one don't really care for those lists either, and especially don't care for the kind of crap that they seem to think qualifies as a "sex offense".
No, it is only easy for a law abiding citizen to buy guns. Criminals are only able to obtain them illegally, and also by happenstance, don't mind doing illegal things.
And the public certainly does have an interest in regulating firearms. It's even written into the second amendment... in the first half that you people seem to like to conveniently ignore.
You mean the part about "well regulated militia"? Funny that they didn't specify that the government needs to regulate the militia. Of course, if the government regulates the militia then you might as well, not have one, huh?
The big problem here is that gun owners worried that if the government required licensing and control of guns, then that would make it a part of public record and then people would have access to information of who owned guns and how many and what variety. And that worry appears to be quite well founded.
The question is are guns dangerous
It depends on who owns the gun. If it is a registered gun owner, then it is probably not dangerous. If the gun was obtained illegally, then yes, it is probably dangerous. and do people have a right to know if their neighbours are storing them? If they obtained the gain legally, then no, you don't have a right to know that. If they obtained it illegally, then I believe you should have the right to know that, but that is harder to know, and if it was known, the government would probably protect the illegal gun owners from having that information shared.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, in nearly any discussion about drugs that are illegal today in America, you can swap in alcohol instead. All the same arguments against legalization would apply just as well, except we already deal with all the downsides of alcohol yet nobody's talking about getting rid of THAT again.
I didn't say alcohol is great and drugs are bad. Alcohol clearly has horrible detrimental affects on our society, and clearly legal alcohol does result in a monetary and mental and physical impact on well-being. Almost 100% of the population knows someone personally who has been killed as a result of drunk driving. So, yes, I would say that having legal alcohol is a responsibility which too many people cannot bear, and I believe that drugs are even more likely to be abused than alcohol.
The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work. And people who don't like having druggees steal their stuff so they can sell it for drugs. Just because drugs are legal doesn't mean they will be cheap, and users won't be any more interested in working for a living than they are now.
As part of the closed beta, just want to report I've had no issues at all, logging in to play the game. Have you had any luck NOT logging in and playing the game? Because that is what I am most interested in.
I have always in the past bought and paid for the Simcity series. It was a fun game to me and worth rewarding them with the encouragement to make new and better versions. However, even though I bought the game, I still downloaded the No CD crack. I hate having to switch discs in and out of the tray every time I want to play something different.
With this latest version, I will be waiting for the No CD crack AND the offline play crack. With the way the game is setup, it may not even be possible for there to be an offline play crack. in which case, I just won't participate at all.
I just said I don't want to hear about anybody's sexual exploits, hetero or homo. I'm not one to get into a DSW with people over how many women I have been with. Some guy at work blathered about having a threesome with his wife and another girl. I found it disgusting an inappropriate.
It's great that Samsung is making multiple windows possible, now how about making it work as a phone? The only time my phone has ever crashed was when I was making a call. It's a PHONE. Making a call is it's PRIMARY PURPOSE. If it screws up when sending a text or an e-mail, or while playing a game, that is understandable, but if it is making a call, there is no excuse for that ever failing. My 20 year old bag phone never rebooted when trying to make a call. Neither did my Motorola brick, flip phone, or any of my several Nokia's. But suddenly I get an S2 and it reboots during calls. This morning, I tried 5 times to call into a conference number. Whenever it connected, the screen completely freezes. I am unable to push any button or get back to the number pad screen to put in my code for the conference. Then after about 5 seconds, it reboots. After 5 attempts, I called from my house phone. Surprise! The house phone didn't reboot. It just made the call, just like a cell phone is primarily supposed to do.
I don't care about all the whizbang apps, web surfing, texting, e-mailing, alarm clocks, calendars, phonebooks, etc. If it can't fulfill it's primary purpose of making phone calls, then it is a crap product and should not have been released.
I agree Mr. Anonymous Coward. I don't want to hear about whether somebody is gay or not and I don't want to hear about his sexual exploits any more than I want to hear about a straight guys sexual exploits. If you're gay or your straight, I don't care. Keep it to yourself. How are the people on these MMOs finding out that people are gay? Do you have to click a box when you sign up? I don't think so. Do they have a lisp? I doubt it. Do they sound effeminate? No more than the 11 year olds who frequent most of these MMOs.
Try not telling people you are gay. It works great. There is a guy that worked for me for several year at work that was gay, but nobody knew it until long after he had gone to another company. Nobody needs to know you are gay. Just be yourself.
I've never heard this term before either, and I'm not gay.
Unscientific study
And the results are inconsistent as well. 100% of the men and 100% of the women who performed this study did not follow the scientific method and did not collect a significant sample set and yet still published the results. For shame!
Be that as it may, we wish Wayne Rasanen all the luck in the world as he brings his invention to market.
Well, your slashvertisement is sure to help. How much did he pay you?
Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Well, those would normally be covered by your agreement not to divulge company secrets, which they could still feel free to sue you over if they felt you had done so, but they can't restrict you from going there in the first place. And if company B hired you based on the fact that you were willing to divulge company A's secrets, then why are they not concerned about company C hiring you up?
Not to mention it limits your options because a potential employer may choose not to hire you because of your non-compete. They don't want the liability. I think if a company wants you to sign a non-compete, they need to pay you for the duration of the non-compete period. Even then, you still come out behind because you will have been not learning the latest whizbangs during that time, or if you have been learning them on your own, you weren't learning it for the benefit of a company, which potential employers put in the same category as not learning it at all.
It is not a catch 22 at all. If they want people to stay they must pay market rates. It really is that simple.
They don't even have to pay market rates. Sure you could get 10% more at another company, but who wants to go through the hassle of switching jobs, getting new insurance, having to learn a new system, dealing with a different bureaucracy for a mere 5-10% more. So if they would just pay 10% under market, they could probably keep you. The problem is, other companies are willing to pay 15%-20% or more than current salary. I would probably leave my current job for that.
But companies have go getters that will leave for 15%-20% and then they have the vast multitudes who are complacent and will sit their regardless of what they may be worth elsewhere. A company can't afford to pay EVERYBODY what they could get elsewhere. Nor will the HR department let you get paid 20% more than the guy in the next cubicle. So instead they just pay you under market and scream and holler when you leave, or try to illegally collude to keep you from leaving.
We already have something that balances corporations. In fact they are more powerful: they're called unions.
Yes, but two negatives don't make a positive. Corporations and Unions both combine to make things crappy for the worker. When the elephants fight, the grass loses.
It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. So Jobs' stance was somewhat reasonable.
His being upset about it is quite reasonable. However, doing anything about it would be illegal, and the way that he did something about it is extremely illegal.
Anybody from anywhere can call up an employee of any firm and offer them more money. If the current employer doesn't like it, they can always mitigate that possibility by paying more money and improving the work environment such that employees would not want to leave.
You already can't get Windows 7 period on some of their laptop line. Now, I guess we can say good-bye to Windows 7 and have to purchase the upgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7 aftermarket, and they will probably tell us that voids the warranty.
Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.
There are thousands of other such examples.
That's not true. ONLY the law abiding have to have visible car identification. A car thief doesn't concern themselves with the law, so they may or may not display tags. or they may steal someone else's tag. The additional law didn't suddenly make a bunch of criminals decide to be law abiding. Like most laws that are supposed to help stop criminals, all they really do is make the law-abiding people's lives more difficult.
Does the government keep a register of those things? If no, then it's not a FOIA request.
Of course not. It's in the constitution and is a protected right and therefore the government doesn't keep a register of them. We should be very concerned if they did. Just like we should be very concerned that they keep a record of gun owners. After all, if they did that, it would be all the easier to take away those rights, just like they are trying to do with guns.
Most of these mass murders are carried out with legally owned guns, so that suggests that they are in fact quite dangerous.
No, most mass murders are carried out with guns that were legally owned but were then stolen from the legal owner. Which is why none of the background checking and red tape being proposed will do any good. More laws has no affect against people who already break the law.
Ah, I see how coin collections would fail. How about owners of expensive machinery like chainsaws or shop equipment? Surely we should register those and make maps of who owns them?
Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.
In my state, defending yourself from an armed robber can cause you to be convicted of a felony and you can lose your right to defend yourself. We're already well on our way down the slippery slope, and the criminals are catching on fast that they are safe from those pesky law abiding citizens.
I for one don't really care for those lists either, and especially don't care for the kind of crap that they seem to think qualifies as a "sex offense".
No, it is only easy for a law abiding citizen to buy guns. Criminals are only able to obtain them illegally, and also by happenstance, don't mind doing illegal things.
And the public certainly does have an interest in regulating firearms. It's even written into the second amendment... in the first half that you people seem to like to conveniently ignore.
You mean the part about "well regulated militia"? Funny that they didn't specify that the government needs to regulate the militia. Of course, if the government regulates the militia then you might as well, not have one, huh?
The big problem here is that gun owners worried that if the government required licensing and control of guns, then that would make it a part of public record and then people would have access to information of who owned guns and how many and what variety. And that worry appears to be quite well founded.
The question is are guns dangerous
It depends on who owns the gun. If it is a registered gun owner, then it is probably not dangerous. If the gun was obtained illegally, then yes, it is probably dangerous.
and do people have a right to know if their neighbours are storing them?
If they obtained the gain legally, then no, you don't have a right to know that. If they obtained it illegally, then I believe you should have the right to know that, but that is harder to know, and if it was known, the government would probably protect the illegal gun owners from having that information shared.