If you post your opinion publicly, you are doing so specifically so it is read. It seems that all the old employer is doing is spreading what you said -- and that you said it.
If I were the new employer, I'd probably be quite unhappy with Mr. Employee. Why? Because loose lips sink ships. You, as the employee, have every right to badmouth former companies, but if you do, new companies are going to be less likely to hire you. All the old company is doing is informing other places of business of your propensity to badmouth, even if said gripes are legitimate.
The old company has incentive to do so -- they'd rather not have their dirty laundry aired. But they are not stopping you for saying anything; rather, they are going to make it know that you tend to blab. Just as you have the right to speak, so do they. But you do not have the right to a job, and one's tendency to speak ill of (former) employers is certainly something worth knowing, from a hiring point of view.
What WAS the program trying to do?
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 2
I was eight when the Challenger exploded, and I honestly barely remember it. What I do remember is not really caring about space shuttle launches before it; sure, the first time I saw one on TV it was neat, but that was it. I was born in 1977, well after Neil Armstrong et al walked on the moon. By the time I was in Kindergarten, the coolest thing about astronaughts was the freeze dried ice cream they allegedly ate.
Public awe of space exploration had been quite low going into the Challenger launch; the US v USSR Space Race was becoming a footnote in the Cold War; NASA's importance as part of American culture was waining. Putting Christa McAuliffe in a space shuttle (w/a real crew, of course) seemed to be a publicity stunt.
I do not intend to imply that having a Jane Doe (pardon the unintentional reference to unidentified bodies) in a space flight leads to disaster, but the lesson here is not one of lowest contracts. Rather, we should remember that this tragedy should have never happened -- the shuttle launch should have never even been scheduled.
I had a bet with my brother. Loser (him) had to send winner (me) a bagel. Via USPS.
The catch: No packaging. Just a label for the address and for the metered stamp.
The USPS said "NO!" He had to package it in "USPS Approved Packing Tape", which is transparent, and therefore acceptable as far as the purpose of the bet was concerned.
He mailed it 1/3/01. The postal worker said that it may not get there -- someone may eat it en route (ewwwwwww). However, said worker's fears were not realized -- I received it 1/10/01.
Personally, I would rather keep ALL propoganda, whether it comes from the athiestic or religious sectors, OUT of public schools.
I couldn't agree more. But I don't think it's up to an individual teacher to decide what is propaganda and what is truth (or at least as near as science can determine). This sort of thing should be decided at public meetings where reputable experts on science education can present why certain subjects should or should not be taught, and the public can evaluate their claims.
Public meetings have no business deciding what to teach. The KS state school board decided that evolution should be taught in lieu of creationism in some cases; is that the public meeting you'd like? And what about those who believe in creationism?
The fact that it is done on a town level (10k to 100k people, if not more) is irrevelent. My school system -- public -- still teaches that slavery was the cause of the Civil War; that Christopher Columbus was the first European in the New World; that "judicial activism" is the role of the Supreme Court.
I am not a parent, but I hope that the public school system hasn't forced all the good private schools out of system when I go to choose a place for my child(ren) to be educated.
The best way to decide what should be taught is to give parents a choice.
Elections have little to do with accountability, because candidates espouse more than one view.
People who vote for candidate A likely do not believe everything candidate A does. In fact, you could find two people who rationally voted for the same candidate who do not agree 50% of the time. It is very, very rare that elections are decided "on the issues" for this very reason.
You imply something that bothers me, so I'll ask to be sure I am understanding correctly. Let's assume that there are two candidates running for the swing-vote on the local school boar. One of them wants to put more public money into schools; the other wants to close all the public schools. (As these issues rule out all other issues, it dodges the problem I mention above.) If the latter candidate is elected, the school board folds. In effect, a vote for candidate B is a vote for privatization of schooling, and an end to your elections-as-accountability system. Should we allow for that? You imply that we should not, as then there would be no accountability.
I'm not a big fan of correspondence schools; the lack of socialization is killer. But there lies here a great opportunity for embarrassed adults to "go back" to high school.
Even those of you who hear the words "for-profit" and begin to write a check to Ralph Nader likely would not have much of a problem if the adult populace was educated in such a fashion. The good part about for-profit institutions, especially in this case, is that no one cares where the money comes from. I could make a $5k donation to the school (assuming I didn't have $4.21 in my wallet), a corporate sponsor could fund a virtual "wing", or students could pay the tuition. Who knows.
There are a good amount of people -- adults -- who would gain from this. That's why Sally Struthers has a job.
Valid: If they hire replacements to work beneath you, with you taking the promotion, they can hire cheap labor. If they need to hire someone qualified to work above you, they need to pay your wage or better up front.
There are LOTS of other valid reasons:
* When NewGuy enters, you are his de facto superior. You are qualified to do the job; heck, you were doing it on a temporary basis. You have more experience within the company, making you likely better at the job than NewGuy. In short, you'd be a hard person to manage.
* And then there's the part about changing horses mid-stream. You can do the job as your boss did it. NewGuy cannot, but he'd be managing a guy who could. In fact, you'd work well without a manager, but how many of your co-workers would? You may have to re-learn how to do your job. It'd be cheaper and easier to just hire someone else.
* Imagine the execs explaining to potential NewGuys that you hold the job but don't want it. Either (a) the job looks crappy or (b) you are painted as inept. Either way, the solution is simple; sionara to you.
* The position you currently fill is easily replacable, provided that your replacement is hired long-term. If you take a temporary promotion, they still need someone to do the job you were doing. It'd be easier to hire someone to do that on a permanent basis. It isn't that they want you gone, but that they have no choice but to hire your replacement.
Did you quote his post and not read on? The original poster shows where government gets money for things like streets, municipal services, etc. He referenced the gas tax, property tax, and could have included tolls.
Also, things like "Microsoft Highway" do exist. They are called "Adopt a Highway" programs; corporations and organizations can fund highway cleanup, repairs, or whatnot and get a little sign on the side of the road saying how nice they are. Many states run this program.
Many municipalities -- especially in suburbia -- allow private citizens to buy the roads on which they live. This basically allows for gated communities, but it also means the town doesn't pay for repairs or snow removal.
As much as I disagree w/Katz's articles (usually) and, point by point, arguments (ditto), the "Up-Up-Down-Down" title is great. After Part I, I asked a plethora of friends and acquaintences to finish the sequence: "Up Up Down Down..." and, as expected, the (currently) 16-25 year olds could, while no one else had any idea.
Of course, my youngest brother can explain the phenominon that is Pokemon, while I can't even spell it.
TROJ_CMDRTACO.A, or "TacoVirus," colloqually, spreads to all *nix users via coffee. Grinds, mugs, swizzle sticks -- anything coffee related may contain the TacoVirus. And it'll also be found in -- you guessed it, tacos.
The effect of the TacoVirus is minimal but noticable. A users spelling will be instantly transformed from "English" to "Eglihsn," which is to say a somewhat random mix of the correct letters in an incorrect order. User will also be unable to locate items such as "dictionary," "spell-checker," or "friend" to proofread writing.
There is no known cure for TacoVirus at this time.
Note: "I am totally unfamiliar with this case save for a cursory read of the ruling", "IANAL but I am quite familiar with the Constutition", and other disclaimers may apply.
The ruling states that the Commerce Clause may also be grounds for the statute in question to be declared unConstitutional. Interstate commerce can only be the target of federal legislation as per the Constitution. If this is true, perhaps the Circuit Court is claiming that the Internet, as interstate "commerce", is entirely out of the juristdiction of states.
This would be quite interesting because it would allow orgs like the ACLU, EFF, etc. to fight all the Internet filter laws at once -- at the federal level. I, being a federalist, would rather empower localities, but if the Courts disagree, exercising the Commerce Clause could go a long way to keeping the Net uncensored.
Remember that states don't actually vote in blocks. Let's say that Wyoming went to Ford (purely hypothetical; I know not what states went where). Three Republican electors would be appointed, each one charged with voting for Ford. That's right: three electoral votes means three electors.
In 1976, one of them (again, not from Wyoming. I'm sure someone could look this up though, but I'm at work and I don't care) voted for then CA Gov. Reagan.
In 1996, after the Republican nomination was all-but sewn up for Bob Dole, Buchanan supporters in this area registered almost 9,000 votes for Pat. It was the primary, not the November election.
Remember also that any place that is split 64-36 in favor of Gore in Florida is likely heavy in the elderly population, making them highly unlikely to vote for Nader. Nader supports, by and large, are young. Buchanan supporters are people who still curse the day horseless carriages came to pass. It wouldn't be surprising to see a large group of GoPatGo'ers in certain pockets in Florida.
Also, can you post the URL for the third-party vote (pre-recount) in PBC? I'd like to see if Harry Browne's data is extraordinarily low compared to the rest of the state -- perhaps Browne supporters were confused and accidentally voted Gore. I doubt it, but I also doubt 3,000 Gore supporters voted Buchanan.
Reagan never ran versus Dukakis. Reagan received electoral votes in three elections: 1976 (1 vote, major candidates were Ford and Carter), 1980 (>270, ran vs. Carter), 1984 (>270, ran vs. Walter "Fritz" Mondale).
George HW Bush ran v. Dukakis in 1988. One elector, perhaps accidentally (I am unsure of the folklore) gave Dukakis an electoral vote for VP and gave that presidential vote for Dukakis's running-mate, Lloyd Bentsen.
I am, by no means, a Clinton supporter. Further, I believe the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") to be unconstituional: it is overreaching (see the recent Violence Against Women Act decision) and likely a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause. And even if it were constitutional, I don't believe it to be good.
That said, Clinton had no real choice. The bill garnered such high support in Congress that it was veto-proof; even if he had vetoed it, it would still become law. Why fall on your sword? Sticking to his principles (even if this is Clinton we are talking about, let's assume he has some) would be political harikari, except no one would care.
Presidents cannot change the culture by signing bills or vetoing them. To think they can is foolish. Ralph Nader, President? QED.
The cut-off should be 16. I'm not sure what the driving age is in Indianapolis, but the ability to drive is a significant venue toward independence and freedom. And it's often granted at age 16.
18 is chosen as it is the usual age of high school graduation. But it's often silly and overplayed. I, for one, graduated high school at 17, not turning 18 until after my first semester at college. I couldn't go to clubs, and, had I just started at school in Indianapolis, I couldn't buy a lot of games.
The (much maligned on these pages) movie industry gets this right, using 17 as the cut-off. Could you imagine the life of a college freshman who cannot get into an R-rated movie?
Slashdot Mirror
If you post your opinion publicly, you are doing so specifically so it is read. It seems that all the old employer is doing is spreading what you said -- and that you said it.
If I were the new employer, I'd probably be quite unhappy with Mr. Employee. Why? Because loose lips sink ships. You, as the employee, have every right to badmouth former companies, but if you do, new companies are going to be less likely to hire you. All the old company is doing is informing other places of business of your propensity to badmouth, even if said gripes are legitimate.
The old company has incentive to do so -- they'd rather not have their dirty laundry aired. But they are not stopping you for saying anything; rather, they are going to make it know that you tend to blab. Just as you have the right to speak, so do they. But you do not have the right to a job, and one's tendency to speak ill of (former) employers is certainly something worth knowing, from a hiring point of view.
I was eight when the Challenger exploded, and I honestly barely remember it. What I do remember is not really caring about space shuttle launches before it; sure, the first time I saw one on TV it was neat, but that was it. I was born in 1977, well after Neil Armstrong et al walked on the moon. By the time I was in Kindergarten, the coolest thing about astronaughts was the freeze dried ice cream they allegedly ate.
Public awe of space exploration had been quite low going into the Challenger launch; the US v USSR Space Race was becoming a footnote in the Cold War; NASA's importance as part of American culture was waining. Putting Christa McAuliffe in a space shuttle (w/a real crew, of course) seemed to be a publicity stunt.
I do not intend to imply that having a Jane Doe (pardon the unintentional reference to unidentified bodies) in a space flight leads to disaster, but the lesson here is not one of lowest contracts. Rather, we should remember that this tragedy should have never happened -- the shuttle launch should have never even been scheduled.
I had a bet with my brother. Loser (him) had to send winner (me) a bagel. Via USPS.
The catch: No packaging. Just a label for the address and for the metered stamp.
The USPS said "NO!" He had to package it in "USPS Approved Packing Tape", which is transparent, and therefore acceptable as far as the purpose of the bet was concerned.
He mailed it 1/3/01. The postal worker said that it may not get there -- someone may eat it en route (ewwwwwww). However, said worker's fears were not realized -- I received it 1/10/01.
$1.21 in postage.
$0.59 for the bagel.
For everything else, there's Mastercard.
Sadly, neither does Clinton.
Unless it means "how to get people to stop testifying against me."
I couldn't agree more. But I don't think it's up to an individual teacher to decide what is propaganda and what is truth (or at least as near as science can determine). This sort of thing should be decided at public meetings where reputable experts on science education can present why certain subjects should or should not be taught, and the public can evaluate their claims.
Public meetings have no business deciding what to teach. The KS state school board decided that evolution should be taught in lieu of creationism in some cases; is that the public meeting you'd like? And what about those who believe in creationism?
The fact that it is done on a town level (10k to 100k people, if not more) is irrevelent. My school system -- public -- still teaches that slavery was the cause of the Civil War; that Christopher Columbus was the first European in the New World; that "judicial activism" is the role of the Supreme Court.
I am not a parent, but I hope that the public school system hasn't forced all the good private schools out of system when I go to choose a place for my child(ren) to be educated.
The best way to decide what should be taught is to give parents a choice.
Elections have little to do with accountability, because candidates espouse more than one view.
People who vote for candidate A likely do not believe everything candidate A does. In fact, you could find two people who rationally voted for the same candidate who do not agree 50% of the time. It is very, very rare that elections are decided "on the issues" for this very reason.
You imply something that bothers me, so I'll ask to be sure I am understanding correctly. Let's assume that there are two candidates running for the swing-vote on the local school boar. One of them wants to put more public money into schools; the other wants to close all the public schools. (As these issues rule out all other issues, it dodges the problem I mention above.) If the latter candidate is elected, the school board folds. In effect, a vote for candidate B is a vote for privatization of schooling, and an end to your elections-as-accountability system. Should we allow for that? You imply that we should not, as then there would be no accountability.
This is a wonderful idea. Kinda.
I'm not a big fan of correspondence schools; the lack of socialization is killer. But there lies here a great opportunity for embarrassed adults to "go back" to high school.
Even those of you who hear the words "for-profit" and begin to write a check to Ralph Nader likely would not have much of a problem if the adult populace was educated in such a fashion. The good part about for-profit institutions, especially in this case, is that no one cares where the money comes from. I could make a $5k donation to the school (assuming I didn't have $4.21 in my wallet), a corporate sponsor could fund a virtual "wing", or students could pay the tuition. Who knows.
There are a good amount of people -- adults -- who would gain from this. That's why Sally Struthers has a job.
Valid: If they hire replacements to work beneath you, with you taking the promotion, they can hire cheap labor. If they need to hire someone qualified to work above you, they need to pay your wage or better up front.
There are LOTS of other valid reasons:
* When NewGuy enters, you are his de facto superior. You are qualified to do the job; heck, you were doing it on a temporary basis. You have more experience within the company, making you likely better at the job than NewGuy. In short, you'd be a hard person to manage.
* And then there's the part about changing horses mid-stream. You can do the job as your boss did it. NewGuy cannot, but he'd be managing a guy who could. In fact, you'd work well without a manager, but how many of your co-workers would? You may have to re-learn how to do your job. It'd be cheaper and easier to just hire someone else.
* Imagine the execs explaining to potential NewGuys that you hold the job but don't want it. Either (a) the job looks crappy or (b) you are painted as inept. Either way, the solution is simple; sionara to you.
* The position you currently fill is easily replacable, provided that your replacement is hired long-term. If you take a temporary promotion, they still need someone to do the job you were doing. It'd be easier to hire someone to do that on a permanent basis. It isn't that they want you gone, but that they have no choice but to hire your replacement.
I am certain there are plenty of valid reasons.
Did you quote his post and not read on? The original poster shows where government gets money for things like streets, municipal services, etc. He referenced the gas tax, property tax, and could have included tolls.
Also, things like "Microsoft Highway" do exist. They are called "Adopt a Highway" programs; corporations and organizations can fund highway cleanup, repairs, or whatnot and get a little sign on the side of the road saying how nice they are. Many states run this program.
Many municipalities -- especially in suburbia -- allow private citizens to buy the roads on which they live. This basically allows for gated communities, but it also means the town doesn't pay for repairs or snow removal.
It looks like -- due to the extremely used mod of "Overrated" -- I will never know why Triangle Man truly hates Person man.
And don't go telling me to read that FAQ; it's from a fan site.
</bitch>
...now I wont get my PlayStation 2 until the 28th day of the 13th month of the 2nd year.
Can Al Gore speak German?
What about Dubya?
Can we make exceptions?
Why does Triangle Man hate Person Man?
As much as I disagree w/Katz's articles (usually) and, point by point, arguments (ditto), the "Up-Up-Down-Down" title is great. After Part I, I asked a plethora of friends and acquaintences to finish the sequence: "Up Up Down Down ..." and, as expected, the (currently) 16-25 year olds could, while no one else had any idea.
Of course, my youngest brother can explain the phenominon that is Pokemon, while I can't even spell it.
TROJ_CMDRTACO.A
TROJ_CMDRTACO.A, or "TacoVirus," colloqually, spreads to all *nix users via coffee. Grinds, mugs, swizzle sticks -- anything coffee related may contain the TacoVirus. And it'll also be found in -- you guessed it, tacos.
The effect of the TacoVirus is minimal but noticable. A users spelling will be instantly transformed from "English" to "Eglihsn," which is to say a somewhat random mix of the correct letters in an incorrect order. User will also be unable to locate items such as "dictionary," "spell-checker," or "friend" to proofread writing.
There is no known cure for TacoVirus at this time.
First, they were 1-800-Flowers.
Then, they were (and are) 1800Flowers.com.
Would they be 1-800-Flowers again?
And would my numpad get phone-like letters applied to the keys? And would it be switched? But I digress.
Note: "I am totally unfamiliar with this case save for a cursory read of the ruling", "IANAL but I am quite familiar with the Constutition", and other disclaimers may apply.
The ruling states that the Commerce Clause may also be grounds for the statute in question to be declared unConstitutional. Interstate commerce can only be the target of federal legislation as per the Constitution. If this is true, perhaps the Circuit Court is claiming that the Internet, as interstate "commerce", is entirely out of the juristdiction of states.
This would be quite interesting because it would allow orgs like the ACLU, EFF, etc. to fight all the Internet filter laws at once -- at the federal level. I, being a federalist, would rather empower localities, but if the Courts disagree, exercising the Commerce Clause could go a long way to keeping the Net uncensored.
GeoCities Account: $5
Yahoo! Clubs Account: $25
Being able to search for pr0n by category: $100
Knowing that you can get all that stuff for free at other websites: Priceless.
There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else, there's a Yahoo! CEO who wants to bilk my grandma.
The URL is missing the "o", but it still works. Then again, Spindle Toilet Paper would be good.
Remember that states don't actually vote in blocks. Let's say that Wyoming went to Ford (purely hypothetical; I know not what states went where). Three Republican electors would be appointed, each one charged with voting for Ford. That's right: three electoral votes means three electors.
In 1976, one of them (again, not from Wyoming. I'm sure someone could look this up though, but I'm at work and I don't care) voted for then CA Gov. Reagan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_commen t110900c.shtml
In 1996, after the Republican nomination was all-but sewn up for Bob Dole, Buchanan supporters in this area registered almost 9,000 votes for Pat. It was the primary, not the November election.
Remember also that any place that is split 64-36 in favor of Gore in Florida is likely heavy in the elderly population, making them highly unlikely to vote for Nader. Nader supports, by and large, are young. Buchanan supporters are people who still curse the day horseless carriages came to pass. It wouldn't be surprising to see a large group of GoPatGo'ers in certain pockets in Florida.
Also, can you post the URL for the third-party vote (pre-recount) in PBC? I'd like to see if Harry Browne's data is extraordinarily low compared to the rest of the state -- perhaps Browne supporters were confused and accidentally voted Gore. I doubt it, but I also doubt 3,000 Gore supporters voted Buchanan.
Reagan never ran versus Dukakis. Reagan received electoral votes in three elections: 1976 (1 vote, major candidates were Ford and Carter), 1980 (>270, ran vs. Carter), 1984 (>270, ran vs. Walter "Fritz" Mondale).
George HW Bush ran v. Dukakis in 1988. One elector, perhaps accidentally (I am unsure of the folklore) gave Dukakis an electoral vote for VP and gave that presidential vote for Dukakis's running-mate, Lloyd Bentsen.
I am, by no means, a Clinton supporter. Further, I believe the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") to be unconstituional: it is overreaching (see the recent Violence Against Women Act decision) and likely a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause. And even if it were constitutional, I don't believe it to be good.
That said, Clinton had no real choice. The bill garnered such high support in Congress that it was veto-proof; even if he had vetoed it, it would still become law. Why fall on your sword? Sticking to his principles (even if this is Clinton we are talking about, let's assume he has some) would be political harikari, except no one would care.
Presidents cannot change the culture by signing bills or vetoing them. To think they can is foolish. Ralph Nader, President? QED.
Asking Slashdot if the government or anything else should be open source is a lot like asking a cow if we should be vegetarians.
The cut-off should be 16. I'm not sure what the driving age is in Indianapolis, but the ability to drive is a significant venue toward independence and freedom. And it's often granted at age 16.
18 is chosen as it is the usual age of high school graduation. But it's often silly and overplayed. I, for one, graduated high school at 17, not turning 18 until after my first semester at college. I couldn't go to clubs, and, had I just started at school in Indianapolis, I couldn't buy a lot of games.
The (much maligned on these pages) movie industry gets this right, using 17 as the cut-off. Could you imagine the life of a college freshman who cannot get into an R-rated movie?