People don't buy harleys because they want a good bike they get one because they think it makes them cool and rebellious.
Fuck that belt-driven piece of shit. So much power loss, and it makes the single part that connects the engine to the drive wheel a regular maintenance replacement. Give me anything else, a chain, (preferably) a shaft, but not that belt. Harley owners are frequently proud of that belt. Can't figure out why, it's the single most annoying point of failure on those bikes.
I can make any bike sound like a Harley, but I don't want *noise*. I want comfort and weight on my bike. I want to be able to cruise at 70 without having to bend over and put my forehead on the handle bars, and I don't want to be driven deaf by the exhaust noise to do it. Yeah, yeah, loud pipes save lives and all. Riding smart will do more for you than any pipe noise.
This term always annoys me. What's so goddamn friendly about shooting your allies anyway?
Friendly fire refers to some very distinct situations. For example, your flanks come in faster than expected, and since they're opposite each other, their bullets are likely to fire into each other. If they stop shooting, the enemy that's sandwiched between them will get the upper hand, but if they keep shooting some of their shots will hit the other flank, resulting in casualties by friendly fire. Also, you might find yourself standing next to a group of the enemy, firing away, and then your buddy with the grenade launcher sticks a grenade in the middle of them. Boom, some of the shrapnel hits you. Friendly fire.
Thanks to mass media not understanding jack and shit, Friendly Fire now also refers to a pilot losing control of his helicopter at the base and crashing into another helicopter.:( (I don't think the military use the term that way ever, but I don't really know)
And I know that I'll probably get modded to hell for saying it, but the Americans do cause most of the "friendly fire" incidents.
I wonder if you have statistics to back this up. It certainly appears that way, with the Brits coming in next for stupid accidents, but I'd be interested in seeing some real statistics, along with length of deployment, strength of deployment, and so forth.
All that technology to serve the end of having fewer people be needed to risk their lives.
This doesn't necessarily result in less men in the military. Rather, it could easily result in the same number of men, but more firepower distributed to each man. After rate of fire, individual firepower is something that will decide wars. Just having a machine gun is one thing, but having a machine gun in the hands of every troop is quite another (historical precedence for that). Yeah, this doesn't defeat your statement, and it wasn't intended to. Just add to it.:)
First we stopped the draft, now we reduce the size of the military while maintaining its power. I think it's improvement.
Um, didn't Clinton reinstate the draft? Also, as in my first paragraph, we won't reduce the size of the military, we'll just increase its power dramatically. Reducing the size would be great while maintaining its power, but not under this president, and I don't really know if we should at this time. I think there's another world war brewing, and whether we're the good guys or not, I'm not interested in losing.
Shit. Now the Yanks can accidentally kill their allies from the comfort of their PCs. Great.
I'd just like to point out that death by friendly fire as been around for as long as projectile weapons have been on the field. Yeah, the US military screws up and kills the wrong people, even in peaceful situations, but so does every other military with projectiles and vehicles. That's why they're called "accidents".:)
Do you encourage your employees to leave early to make up for the time that they showed up early?
Not exactly. If it's slow and I need to send someone home, the first person who got on the clock is first in line to leave, to make sure that people who showed up later (but on time) have a fair shot at getting all of their hours. It works out to be more equitable to all employees that way.
This is not insightful. It's a regurgitation of a saying that is said every damn time MS either bashes or, in this case, embraces, open source.
At best it can be modded Underrated. But insightful? Come on. Do we need to see the same damn posts modded up over and over again? Go mod up an original comment as insightful. Whether it's right in your eyes or not.
Not only that, we as developers have an opportunity to stand up and say "We're not bad guys either". Let's shake hands with those guys and get to work. Lots of us working on cross-platform stuff.
If OSS is better as a development and economic model, we shouldn't let philosophy get in the way of this. We'll win anyway, and they'll join us. If it's not, well, we don't win any points by backing out "because it's Microsoft". In any case, when a man calls you a villain and you call him a villain, and then he holds out his hand for a handshake, you win no points by refusing to shake his hand.
This is the first serious handshake I've seen, seeing's how it's actually under an OSI-approved license that came from outside of Microsoft. Let's do it!
(And before you accuse me of loving Microsoft, visit my website for awhile)
Quiet, man, can't you see we're all knocking down the debian zealot?:) Note that a redhat zealot hasn't yet chimed in with how wonderful RedHat handles it...
Heh, neither is putting a satellite in space that can drop rocks on somebody else's bullet.
Ignoring the fact that the US is one country and Europe consists of many. Ignoring the fact that the US is 'protected' by two big oceans. Ignoring the fact that the US did fight in those wars, just not on their own soil.
The Napoleonic Wars? The Hundred Years War? The War of the Rose? Hm, numerous wars, now that I think about it. The Punic Wars... yes, many many wars.
Uhm, the US only exists for a couple of centuries. Is the US better for not doing things when it didn't exist yet?
Actually, with the level of technology that has been available since the inception of the US, you'd think that we could've caught up by now, don't you? Hard to compete with six million murdered for racism. I don't recall any 7 years of US history with that sort of death toll for any reason.
WTF are you talking about? Who waged war on who? Is it 1984? Is it now called screaming for blood when you oppose a war?
Actually, my buddy in France related to me that many in France were calling for some sort of violent opposition to the war in Iraq. Just because it didn't become government policy doesn't mean people weren't calling for it. Mind you, I wasn't there personally to hear it...
I'd like to point out, though, that while I'm arguing with you, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am, to my knowledge, the only person in the whole US who opposed going to Afghanistan after Bin Laden. See, that decision was made when we had a money trail traced to Germany that indicated it went into Afghanistan, but to my knowledge we not only haven't found the end of the trail, we've also literally destroyed a significant link in that trail.:)
That was about the most idiotically idealistic movie ever made. Sorry. I don't much care for the idea of having a bunch of androids enforcing laws that the sentients aren't responsible enough to enforce themselves.
So go klaatu yourself, or whatever it is you people do with yourselves.;)
that weapons don't bring peace, and war is just self-destructive.
Allright, name one war that didn't end in peace.:)
To eliminate war, you must eliminate conflict. To eliminate conflict you must eliminate disagreement. To eliminate disagreement you must eliminate independent thought. And that, my friend, is a world I do not want to live in. If war is the price we must pay, give me a gun and a uniform so I can pay it for you.
The last humiliation is more or less
30 years old, so we might need a new one.
Cheers!!!
Let's go get them fuckin' Aussies. First we'll lure AC/DC into building a summer home here promising them toilets that flush in the other direction, then we'll bomb the piss out of every white boy running around that says "cheers" and leave the whole continent to the kangaroos.
And those other people, you know, the ones that were already there. I'm sure we can justify invading Australia with some sort of human rights argument based on ye aborigines.
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature. Nor are Canadians. Or Australians or Kiwi's.
Yep, and I get to be first.:) I'll start with saying that i don't know wtf Kiwi's are, except that I suspect their them cannibals I heard about that live in the South Pacific islands.
Australia happens to have a history of oppressing the aboriginal people in their lands that closely resembles that of the US's. Just because they didn't come by their independence violently doesn't mean they haven't committed violence for the sake of their independence.
Canadians? Give me a break. Those guys have more guns per capita than the US can even dream about. Why? Same reasons we keep them around in the US. Um, hunting. Right. (not that hunting is the most peaceful activity, mind you, even if it were true that that's why canadians have guns)
And that leaves us with Europe. The single continent with the record for the most terrible wars ever fought, killing the most people ever killed in a single time period, sapping resources to fund their favorite pastime. And they haven't been at it for a mere couple of centuries, like the US. They've been at it for millenia. And every single square mile of europe has probably had a battle fought on it at one point or another. Can't say the same about the US, now can you? Sure, an argument can be made that Europe has matured, at last. It doesn't hold up, though, when France is screaming for blood when the US goes to cut off its oil supply. Nice. Pot, kettle.
What I am really asking is, is there no direct democratic control of the armies in the US?
What we have is simple. First, there wasn't allowed to be a standing army. Then a constitutional amendment took that out, iirc. Next, the President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he is the top of the chain of command. Sending the troops into battle requires his say-so. However, thanks to Viet Nam, the President isn't allowed to keep troops afield more than 90 days or so without a declaration of war from Congress. Congress is the "democratic control" we have on the military, because they have to approve funding and they control the declaration of war. Further, any bill regarding funding must be introduced in the House of Representatives, and *not* in the Senate, although both houses still have to pass the bill and the President has to sign it for it to become law.
Why do you give so much control to the president and his cabinet?
Um, we don't? It's more complicated than that. Originally, the cabinet didn't do anything, they were just advisors. Now they're department heads and each appointee must be approved by the Senate. So the Senate provides a check against the President's cabinet. Second, the President only has a couple of powers. His signature is required for a bill to become law, so he has the power to veto a law. He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And, uh, that's it? Oh yeah, he gets to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court (also requiring Senate approval, iirc). So the actual power in the country is a rung back from the President, and it's with the political party that controls Congress and hopefully the President. Well, not hopefully as in "I hope", but hopefully as in "the Party hopes".
are you in constant mode of war?
Two world wars in Europe (one that included the Pacific), numerous small wars, and the presence of nuclear powers pretty much require that we maintain a military, and the military's mission is to fight and win two large scale wars on two completely different parts of the world. You can thank Germany and Japan for that mission of our military. Ostensibly, our military exists to protect our independence, *not* our freedom. That's for the patriots to protect. Our military also doesn't exist to police the world, but again, two world wars have demonstrated the need for *somebody* to police the world. The League of Nations failed, and it looks like Bush wants to prove the UN a failure as well.
All that said, I think we need to approach the issue of weapons in space with caution, but we don't need to go running around fearing for somebody putting weapons in space. See, I'm all about protecting the rights of countries to make a claim in space, but I really think that in order to properly colonize in space we need to combine in 3-4 governments total, worldwide. In preparation for the day when we encounter extra-terrestrial intelligence, at which point we'll finally have motivation and need to combine into one government worldwide, and hopefully be able to seriously start thinking of a federation of life forms that don't necessarily originate from Earth. In any case, we can't go to space without bringing war with us, if for no other reason than there's probably war waiting for us in the long run, so weapons research is still required.
As far as using LEO as a defense system against other powers on the planet, I'm pretty torn. If a cold war based on how many weapons we can get into space will help to move space exploration, research, and development forward quickly, then I'm willing to take the chance. Call me crazy, but let's do it.:)
Who's responsibility is education if not the government's?
Well, the parents. I consider our relationship to the government in this area as a business relationship between a customer and a service provider. The government provides the service, and I pay them for it. By distributing the load in this fashion, we (theoretically) get the best possible service for the lowest possible dollar. Add to it the benefit that our government is a not-for-profit entity (also, theoretically) to further drive down the price.
Can't argue with that. I've lost track of the times I've gotten good deals, better prices, better service, or what-have-you just by showing some respect and courtesy to the service provider. Nor can I count the times I've given good deals, better prices, better service, or what-have-you just because the customer treated me with some respect and courtesy.
Yeah, the customer/business relationship also goes both ways, and if handled with respect is a very rewarding relationship for both the customer and the business.:)
You're using evaporation to cool your home? How effective is that?
Where the fuck do you live? Around some of the places I grew up, evaporation was not only the cheapest way to cool your home, it was also the most pleasant because of the wetness you put in your air.
For me, the most important function of an AC is that it dries the air. I'd even use AC if it would't cool the air as well... I can stand warm weather, but it's the humidity that usually comes with it, that does me in. "Yeah man, but it's a dry heat", and all that.
The only major advancement in refrigeration recently has been the Peltier junction.
Man, learn something new every day. Thanks for this rather offhand reference, I'd never heard of a peltier junction and thought the only way to cool something was with either swamp cooling (what the article is about, blah) or heat pumps. It may be "common knowledge" to the rest of you lot, but it's new to me.;)
However one of these choices needs to be made, or you end up with one of two situations: either customers leave due to slow, poor service, or employees resent the employer for forced, unpaid overtime. Neither situation is good for anyone involved.
It is frequently a self-correcting problem, although when a business gets big enough then statistics demand that the problem not correct itself and another power is needed to balance them. However, if your goal is to treat your employees well, not overwork them but not underpay them, the problem is self-correcting for this reason:
I don't know how many times I have been into a business and received slow, unfriendly service. Needless to say, I shop elsewhere next time.
Emphasis mine, of course.:) Also, I should mention, the employer should *never* force anyone to work overtime. If the business needs someone to stay late, they should *ask*, and if nobody says yes, then do without. I've quit jobs when forced to stay late, and one I even called in and quit over the phone the day after I was forced to stay late. So the business also needs to have incentives to make the employee say "yes" when they ask. It's the whole "scratch my back I scratch your back" deal. An employee that comes in on his days off when called is more likely to get preferential scheduling, requested days off, and so forth. An employee who never stays late when asked, never comes in on their day off when called, is not likely to get preferential treatment (although may get other types of good treatment if the reason they never stay late or come in on their day off revolves around baby-sitters and other problems. I've seen ladies working that were single mothers who had no flexibility in their schedules for that reason get raises and bonuses over and above other employees who arguably worked just as hard. Suffice it to say, those ladies didn't feel a need to look for another job). I should also mention that I've seen some pretty nasty work accidents caused by exhaustion.
It's all like I said before.:) The relationship between employers and employees is a delicate one, and when treated with respect can be very rewarding for both the employer and the employee. It's like marriage in that regard, and in the regard that both the employer and the employee have placed a certain stake in each other's performance and abilities.
Now I"ll open up for flames again.
See, there is also something called "job requirements". If the job occasionally requires an employee to work extra, and the employee knows this before taking the job, and the employee later refuses to ever work extra, then that employee is not fulfilling the job requirements. It's one thing to say "You never told me I'd need to stay late" and quite another thing to say "I knew this when you hired me, but I refuse". That employee shouldn't be forced to stay late. But then, neither should that employee continue his employment there. It's something that can usually be worked out, but I've seen cases where it couldn't and the employee quit. Mind you, firing is always last resort. Nobody should ever have to deal with "Do this or your fired". There's no reason for that sort of behavior. On the other hand, the manager has to ask himself "What good is this guy if he can never work late when I need him to?" It will affect scheduling, and it will affect requested time off, and so forth. I know I've gotten a lot of extra good treatment by being flexible with my schedule, coming in on my days off when called, and I certainly enjoyed seeing the extra cash on my paycheck. I've always had the option to say no (except for one time when the guy called and I said no, and he said "If you don't come in now, don't come in again" and I said "Ok. I guess I'll see you when I pick up my last paycheck, then.") without fear of backlash, but I've always known that saying "yes" meant I got something in return.
What exactly was a former member of the Air Force military police doing working for Toys 'R' Us in anything less than a managerial capacity?
As a man who would never hire my father to work for me in any capacity, in spite of the fact that he achieved a rank of Master Sergeant in the air force before he became disabled and retired from active duty, I have to ask why being a member of the SP automatically qualifies someone for management?
See, in my dad's case, he thinks he knows how business should be conducted, but he has the narrow view of a military mind who later worked as a contractor for the military. So he's inflexible, and has a hard time solving problems without pulling rank.
On the other hand, I've hired a guy who did some Navy service and also had some other strong qualifications for the job, and I think he'll work out nicely. (I hope so, at least)
Point is, military service doesn't automatically qualify a person for a role of leadership in the private sector. Many many many military leaders would only drive a business into the ground, although they make great military leaders. Running a business != military command
(NOt to mention, SP in the Air Force is bottom-of-the-line enlisted. I don't think you can even claim NCO status as an SP. They're just like the red shirts on Star Trek. Need I say more?)
If s/he was feeling particularly mean or wanted to make a point, they would declare a huge amount for you - $1000's even.
Um, this is actually screwing over the employee, potentially, in a big way. Consider that waiters only get the lower minimum wage because it is assumed that they will make enough tips to make minimum wage or greater. This is usually calculated weekly, but if they do not, then the employer is required to pay them the difference, up to minimum wage. So if a person makes shit in tips because of a slow week or whatever, and forgets to clock out once, and doesn't even make minimum wage that week, then your buddy just screwed them over and got away with paying less than minimum wage.
I realize it's a pain in the ass to deal with employees forgetting to clock out, but don't cut any throats in the process of educating them.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't buy harleys because they want a good bike they get one because they think it makes them cool and rebellious.
Fuck that belt-driven piece of shit. So much power loss, and it makes the single part that connects the engine to the drive wheel a regular maintenance replacement. Give me anything else, a chain, (preferably) a shaft, but not that belt. Harley owners are frequently proud of that belt. Can't figure out why, it's the single most annoying point of failure on those bikes.
I can make any bike sound like a Harley, but I don't want *noise*. I want comfort and weight on my bike. I want to be able to cruise at 70 without having to bend over and put my forehead on the handle bars, and I don't want to be driven deaf by the exhaust noise to do it. Yeah, yeah, loud pipes save lives and all. Riding smart will do more for you than any pipe noise.
This term always annoys me. What's so goddamn friendly about shooting your allies anyway?
Friendly fire refers to some very distinct situations. For example, your flanks come in faster than expected, and since they're opposite each other, their bullets are likely to fire into each other. If they stop shooting, the enemy that's sandwiched between them will get the upper hand, but if they keep shooting some of their shots will hit the other flank, resulting in casualties by friendly fire. Also, you might find yourself standing next to a group of the enemy, firing away, and then your buddy with the grenade launcher sticks a grenade in the middle of them. Boom, some of the shrapnel hits you. Friendly fire.
Thanks to mass media not understanding jack and shit, Friendly Fire now also refers to a pilot losing control of his helicopter at the base and crashing into another helicopter. :( (I don't think the military use the term that way ever, but I don't really know)
And I know that I'll probably get modded to hell for saying it, but the Americans do cause most of the "friendly fire" incidents.
I wonder if you have statistics to back this up. It certainly appears that way, with the Brits coming in next for stupid accidents, but I'd be interested in seeing some real statistics, along with length of deployment, strength of deployment, and so forth.
Um, a couple of minor caveats.
All that technology to serve the end of having fewer people be needed to risk their lives.
This doesn't necessarily result in less men in the military. Rather, it could easily result in the same number of men, but more firepower distributed to each man. After rate of fire, individual firepower is something that will decide wars. Just having a machine gun is one thing, but having a machine gun in the hands of every troop is quite another (historical precedence for that). Yeah, this doesn't defeat your statement, and it wasn't intended to. Just add to it. :)
First we stopped the draft, now we reduce the size of the military while maintaining its power. I think it's improvement.
Um, didn't Clinton reinstate the draft? Also, as in my first paragraph, we won't reduce the size of the military, we'll just increase its power dramatically. Reducing the size would be great while maintaining its power, but not under this president, and I don't really know if we should at this time. I think there's another world war brewing, and whether we're the good guys or not, I'm not interested in losing.
Shit. Now the Yanks can accidentally kill their allies from the comfort of their PCs. Great.
I'd just like to point out that death by friendly fire as been around for as long as projectile weapons have been on the field. Yeah, the US military screws up and kills the wrong people, even in peaceful situations, but so does every other military with projectiles and vehicles. That's why they're called "accidents". :)
Power Metal: definition. Bands that dress like women, with hair spray and lace, but prefer not to be known as "hair band" or "butt rock".
Do you encourage your employees to leave early to make up for the time that they showed up early?
Not exactly. If it's slow and I need to send someone home, the first person who got on the clock is first in line to leave, to make sure that people who showed up later (but on time) have a fair shot at getting all of their hours. It works out to be more equitable to all employees that way.
This is not insightful. It's a regurgitation of a saying that is said every damn time MS either bashes or, in this case, embraces, open source.
At best it can be modded Underrated. But insightful? Come on. Do we need to see the same damn posts modded up over and over again? Go mod up an original comment as insightful. Whether it's right in your eyes or not.
My money is on there being ulterior motives. I won't claim I know what they are
Um, survival? Possibly a LInux or BSD-based Longhorn?
Overall, I feel it is a smart move for Microsoft.
Not only that, we as developers have an opportunity to stand up and say "We're not bad guys either". Let's shake hands with those guys and get to work. Lots of us working on cross-platform stuff.
If OSS is better as a development and economic model, we shouldn't let philosophy get in the way of this. We'll win anyway, and they'll join us. If it's not, well, we don't win any points by backing out "because it's Microsoft". In any case, when a man calls you a villain and you call him a villain, and then he holds out his hand for a handshake, you win no points by refusing to shake his hand.
This is the first serious handshake I've seen, seeing's how it's actually under an OSI-approved license that came from outside of Microsoft. Let's do it!
(And before you accuse me of loving Microsoft, visit my website for awhile)
Quiet, man, can't you see we're all knocking down the debian zealot? :) Note that a redhat zealot hasn't yet chimed in with how wonderful RedHat handles it...
Gun ownership != violence.
Heh, neither is putting a satellite in space that can drop rocks on somebody else's bullet.
Ignoring the fact that the US is one country and Europe consists of many. Ignoring the fact that the US is 'protected' by two big oceans. Ignoring the fact that the US did fight in those wars, just not on their own soil.
The Napoleonic Wars? The Hundred Years War? The War of the Rose? Hm, numerous wars, now that I think about it. The Punic Wars... yes, many many wars.
Uhm, the US only exists for a couple of centuries. Is the US better for not doing things when it didn't exist yet?
Actually, with the level of technology that has been available since the inception of the US, you'd think that we could've caught up by now, don't you? Hard to compete with six million murdered for racism. I don't recall any 7 years of US history with that sort of death toll for any reason.
WTF are you talking about? Who waged war on who? Is it 1984? Is it now called screaming for blood when you oppose a war?
Actually, my buddy in France related to me that many in France were calling for some sort of violent opposition to the war in Iraq. Just because it didn't become government policy doesn't mean people weren't calling for it. Mind you, I wasn't there personally to hear it...
I'd like to point out, though, that while I'm arguing with you, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am, to my knowledge, the only person in the whole US who opposed going to Afghanistan after Bin Laden. See, that decision was made when we had a money trail traced to Germany that indicated it went into Afghanistan, but to my knowledge we not only haven't found the end of the trail, we've also literally destroyed a significant link in that trail. :)
apt-get
Don't you mean "emerge"?
Actually, I think he was talking about "urpmi".
That was about the most idiotically idealistic movie ever made. Sorry. I don't much care for the idea of having a bunch of androids enforcing laws that the sentients aren't responsible enough to enforce themselves.
So go klaatu yourself, or whatever it is you people do with yourselves. ;)
that weapons don't bring peace, and war is just self-destructive.
Allright, name one war that didn't end in peace. :)
To eliminate war, you must eliminate conflict. To eliminate conflict you must eliminate disagreement. To eliminate disagreement you must eliminate independent thought. And that, my friend, is a world I do not want to live in. If war is the price we must pay, give me a gun and a uniform so I can pay it for you.
The last humiliation is more or less 30 years old, so we might need a new one.
Cheers!!!
Let's go get them fuckin' Aussies. First we'll lure AC/DC into building a summer home here promising them toilets that flush in the other direction, then we'll bomb the piss out of every white boy running around that says "cheers" and leave the whole continent to the kangaroos.
And those other people, you know, the ones that were already there. I'm sure we can justify invading Australia with some sort of human rights argument based on ye aborigines.
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature. Nor are Canadians. Or Australians or Kiwi's.
Yep, and I get to be first. :) I'll start with saying that i don't know wtf Kiwi's are, except that I suspect their them cannibals I heard about that live in the South Pacific islands.
Australia happens to have a history of oppressing the aboriginal people in their lands that closely resembles that of the US's. Just because they didn't come by their independence violently doesn't mean they haven't committed violence for the sake of their independence.
Canadians? Give me a break. Those guys have more guns per capita than the US can even dream about. Why? Same reasons we keep them around in the US. Um, hunting. Right. (not that hunting is the most peaceful activity, mind you, even if it were true that that's why canadians have guns)
And that leaves us with Europe. The single continent with the record for the most terrible wars ever fought, killing the most people ever killed in a single time period, sapping resources to fund their favorite pastime. And they haven't been at it for a mere couple of centuries, like the US. They've been at it for millenia. And every single square mile of europe has probably had a battle fought on it at one point or another. Can't say the same about the US, now can you? Sure, an argument can be made that Europe has matured, at last. It doesn't hold up, though, when France is screaming for blood when the US goes to cut off its oil supply. Nice. Pot, kettle.
What I am really asking is, is there no direct democratic control of the armies in the US?
What we have is simple. First, there wasn't allowed to be a standing army. Then a constitutional amendment took that out, iirc. Next, the President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he is the top of the chain of command. Sending the troops into battle requires his say-so. However, thanks to Viet Nam, the President isn't allowed to keep troops afield more than 90 days or so without a declaration of war from Congress. Congress is the "democratic control" we have on the military, because they have to approve funding and they control the declaration of war. Further, any bill regarding funding must be introduced in the House of Representatives, and *not* in the Senate, although both houses still have to pass the bill and the President has to sign it for it to become law.
Why do you give so much control to the president and his cabinet?
Um, we don't? It's more complicated than that. Originally, the cabinet didn't do anything, they were just advisors. Now they're department heads and each appointee must be approved by the Senate. So the Senate provides a check against the President's cabinet. Second, the President only has a couple of powers. His signature is required for a bill to become law, so he has the power to veto a law. He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And, uh, that's it? Oh yeah, he gets to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court (also requiring Senate approval, iirc). So the actual power in the country is a rung back from the President, and it's with the political party that controls Congress and hopefully the President. Well, not hopefully as in "I hope", but hopefully as in "the Party hopes".
are you in constant mode of war?
Two world wars in Europe (one that included the Pacific), numerous small wars, and the presence of nuclear powers pretty much require that we maintain a military, and the military's mission is to fight and win two large scale wars on two completely different parts of the world. You can thank Germany and Japan for that mission of our military. Ostensibly, our military exists to protect our independence, *not* our freedom. That's for the patriots to protect. Our military also doesn't exist to police the world, but again, two world wars have demonstrated the need for *somebody* to police the world. The League of Nations failed, and it looks like Bush wants to prove the UN a failure as well.
All that said, I think we need to approach the issue of weapons in space with caution, but we don't need to go running around fearing for somebody putting weapons in space. See, I'm all about protecting the rights of countries to make a claim in space, but I really think that in order to properly colonize in space we need to combine in 3-4 governments total, worldwide. In preparation for the day when we encounter extra-terrestrial intelligence, at which point we'll finally have motivation and need to combine into one government worldwide, and hopefully be able to seriously start thinking of a federation of life forms that don't necessarily originate from Earth. In any case, we can't go to space without bringing war with us, if for no other reason than there's probably war waiting for us in the long run, so weapons research is still required.
As far as using LEO as a defense system against other powers on the planet, I'm pretty torn. If a cold war based on how many weapons we can get into space will help to move space exploration, research, and development forward quickly, then I'm willing to take the chance. Call me crazy, but let's do it. :)
Who's responsibility is education if not the government's?
Well, the parents. I consider our relationship to the government in this area as a business relationship between a customer and a service provider. The government provides the service, and I pay them for it. By distributing the load in this fashion, we (theoretically) get the best possible service for the lowest possible dollar. Add to it the benefit that our government is a not-for-profit entity (also, theoretically) to further drive down the price.
Eh? How do you figure?
Can't argue with that. I've lost track of the times I've gotten good deals, better prices, better service, or what-have-you just by showing some respect and courtesy to the service provider. Nor can I count the times I've given good deals, better prices, better service, or what-have-you just because the customer treated me with some respect and courtesy.
Yeah, the customer/business relationship also goes both ways, and if handled with respect is a very rewarding relationship for both the customer and the business. :)
You're using evaporation to cool your home? How effective is that?
Where the fuck do you live? Around some of the places I grew up, evaporation was not only the cheapest way to cool your home, it was also the most pleasant because of the wetness you put in your air.
For me, the most important function of an AC is that it dries the air. I'd even use AC if it would't cool the air as well... I can stand warm weather, but it's the humidity that usually comes with it, that does me in. "Yeah man, but it's a dry heat", and all that.
Oh. Texas. I understand now.
The only major advancement in refrigeration recently has been the Peltier junction.
Man, learn something new every day. Thanks for this rather offhand reference, I'd never heard of a peltier junction and thought the only way to cool something was with either swamp cooling (what the article is about, blah) or heat pumps. It may be "common knowledge" to the rest of you lot, but it's new to me. ;)
However one of these choices needs to be made, or you end up with one of two situations: either customers leave due to slow, poor service, or employees resent the employer for forced, unpaid overtime. Neither situation is good for anyone involved.
It is frequently a self-correcting problem, although when a business gets big enough then statistics demand that the problem not correct itself and another power is needed to balance them. However, if your goal is to treat your employees well, not overwork them but not underpay them, the problem is self-correcting for this reason:
I don't know how many times I have been into a business and received slow, unfriendly service. Needless to say, I shop elsewhere next time.
Emphasis mine, of course. :) Also, I should mention, the employer should *never* force anyone to work overtime. If the business needs someone to stay late, they should *ask*, and if nobody says yes, then do without. I've quit jobs when forced to stay late, and one I even called in and quit over the phone the day after I was forced to stay late. So the business also needs to have incentives to make the employee say "yes" when they ask. It's the whole "scratch my back I scratch your back" deal. An employee that comes in on his days off when called is more likely to get preferential scheduling, requested days off, and so forth. An employee who never stays late when asked, never comes in on their day off when called, is not likely to get preferential treatment (although may get other types of good treatment if the reason they never stay late or come in on their day off revolves around baby-sitters and other problems. I've seen ladies working that were single mothers who had no flexibility in their schedules for that reason get raises and bonuses over and above other employees who arguably worked just as hard. Suffice it to say, those ladies didn't feel a need to look for another job). I should also mention that I've seen some pretty nasty work accidents caused by exhaustion.
It's all like I said before. :) The relationship between employers and employees is a delicate one, and when treated with respect can be very rewarding for both the employer and the employee. It's like marriage in that regard, and in the regard that both the employer and the employee have placed a certain stake in each other's performance and abilities.
Now I"ll open up for flames again.
See, there is also something called "job requirements". If the job occasionally requires an employee to work extra, and the employee knows this before taking the job, and the employee later refuses to ever work extra, then that employee is not fulfilling the job requirements. It's one thing to say "You never told me I'd need to stay late" and quite another thing to say "I knew this when you hired me, but I refuse". That employee shouldn't be forced to stay late. But then, neither should that employee continue his employment there. It's something that can usually be worked out, but I've seen cases where it couldn't and the employee quit. Mind you, firing is always last resort. Nobody should ever have to deal with "Do this or your fired". There's no reason for that sort of behavior. On the other hand, the manager has to ask himself "What good is this guy if he can never work late when I need him to?" It will affect scheduling, and it will affect requested time off, and so forth. I know I've gotten a lot of extra good treatment by being flexible with my schedule, coming in on my days off when called, and I certainly enjoyed seeing the extra cash on my paycheck. I've always had the option to say no (except for one time when the guy called and I said no, and he said "If you don't come in now, don't come in again" and I said "Ok. I guess I'll see you when I pick up my last paycheck, then.") without fear of backlash, but I've always known that saying "yes" meant I got something in return.
I've also seen people carrying pa
What exactly was a former member of the Air Force military police doing working for Toys 'R' Us in anything less than a managerial capacity?
As a man who would never hire my father to work for me in any capacity, in spite of the fact that he achieved a rank of Master Sergeant in the air force before he became disabled and retired from active duty, I have to ask why being a member of the SP automatically qualifies someone for management?
See, in my dad's case, he thinks he knows how business should be conducted, but he has the narrow view of a military mind who later worked as a contractor for the military. So he's inflexible, and has a hard time solving problems without pulling rank.
On the other hand, I've hired a guy who did some Navy service and also had some other strong qualifications for the job, and I think he'll work out nicely. (I hope so, at least)
Point is, military service doesn't automatically qualify a person for a role of leadership in the private sector. Many many many military leaders would only drive a business into the ground, although they make great military leaders. Running a business != military command
(NOt to mention, SP in the Air Force is bottom-of-the-line enlisted. I don't think you can even claim NCO status as an SP. They're just like the red shirts on Star Trek. Need I say more?)
If s/he was feeling particularly mean or wanted to make a point, they would declare a huge amount for you - $1000's even.
Um, this is actually screwing over the employee, potentially, in a big way. Consider that waiters only get the lower minimum wage because it is assumed that they will make enough tips to make minimum wage or greater. This is usually calculated weekly, but if they do not, then the employer is required to pay them the difference, up to minimum wage. So if a person makes shit in tips because of a slow week or whatever, and forgets to clock out once, and doesn't even make minimum wage that week, then your buddy just screwed them over and got away with paying less than minimum wage.
I realize it's a pain in the ass to deal with employees forgetting to clock out, but don't cut any throats in the process of educating them.