Very well, I have a Motorola Droid on Verizon and I continue to love it. In general Motorola has always made a good quality phone, I see no reason to leave them.
These are all extreme cases: 1. Heretic - Is often right, but will leave you on his own regardless, unless he's also a moron. 2. The Flake - Is either being given the wrong priorities and thus not reliable about what you think he should be doing, but is doing other things. Or he's got a side job. I've never met a natural genius who is incredibly high value but never works. Through work comes knowledge and understanding. If he's got insight, chances are he's doing something for someone, harness that. 3. The Jerk - This is a self regulating problem, because these people usually fall victim to friendly fire, no matter how smart the person us westerners are not terribly tolerant of "House, M.D." One way or another, this person is going to either leave or you will fire him with cause.
Now there are some really high value employees I've worked with past and present who channel these personalities, but you know they're high value because you never would think about wanting them gone if you have any sense. In fact I've worked with lovable Jerks, who are so over the top that we intentionally invite him to meetings for the comic relief. The pinnacle of my time at this job was when he said "YOUR DESIGNS ARE ALL CRAP!", I mean seriously? Sure, he was absolutely right but he also knows why they're all crap and why that's not a bad thing necessarily, but he can't help but insult everyone present. But the meetings were a riot, we'd go on with "Well my crap is less expensive than his crap, but has a crappy problem with that other crappy circuit. Got any crappy ideas?". At the end of my life, I will remember those meetings fondly and when this guy got fired (he insulted the wrong VP) I was bitterly angry, not only was he a major positive influence on our designs, he made the job enjoyable. Why? Because my manager managed his team effectively, and we knew where we stood.
I can't stand working in an environment where everyone acts like an HR textbook and there's no scenery. I find this environment is full of a lot of people who see things wrong and won't speak up (which is just as bad as DOING wrong, or not doing at all), or people who go with the flow reliably when some things management asks us to do need to be resisted delicately (flakes are very useful for projects exec's have tagged for going overseas).
Eliminating personalities that you don't like simply because you don't like them is a certain sign that you have managers who are there for the money but who don't actually have interest in management.
If you want to make a case you got "accidentally drunk", I think it's a fair argument. But if you are drunk, however you got that way, you shouldn't be driving, period. Having had surgery recently, I definitely understand how you can accidentally end up in an impaired state where you ought not be driving, but not realize it until something scary happens (and hopefully no more than that). I have to say though, if some cop caught me in that condition, he'd have been in the rights to take me out off the streets and while I doubt I would, I should thank him later. Shit happens, people make mistakes, and are more likely to do so when their mental faculties are impaired, the most important thing is to get them off the streets before someone gets hurt.
The part of this effort that is "get drunks off the road", is a solution to a problem we really have and works out to our advantage. The part of this where punishments may be too heavy and too harsh in some circumstances, I agree is over the top. I'm a little hazy on the big brother vs. free citizen debate...driving is a privilege not a right, this is based on the simple assertion that the roads are public use, we share them, we agree to abide by certain restrictions in so doing and playing chicken with those tasked to enforce those restrictions seems to the detriment of the rest of those who wish to use the roads. On the other hand using this power to build a case against you without an attorney and under chaotic circumstances, the consequences of which may result in incarceration, outrageous fines (including losing your car) and some convictions that may impact your marketability for the remainder of your life seems pretty outrageous.
The reasonable compromise is if they forced you to take the test, if you fail they take you out of your car, write your name down on Santa's naughty list and send you home in a cab at your own expense. If your name pops up on Santa's naughty list a second time, maybe that one gets the court order that takes you to a lab where evidence is obtained. The previous results thus serving as probable cause for the future investigation.
I don't follow the conversation where we're arguing over.007 or.009 or whatever. Most of us don't have a very good understanding of "the legal limit" versus the complicated equation of how much we've had to drink, how long ago, with our given weight and metabolism or "how we feel". The "how we feel" thing is what I think many of us use, and in my experience it's usually very deceptive. I can't say with any authority that.006 is "definitely ok" and.007 is "definitely drunk", and I dont' even believe these numbers came about after careful scientific analysis. It seemed for a while like every time someone was killed by drunk drivers they'd drop the %, regardless of the fact that the driver usually was not previously stopped and released because he was "legal" and proceeded to cause an accident.
This is like a math or physics class, what is the legal definition of "people". Our view today may not have been the view held for a long time in the US (and some other places). The constitution lives up (or down) to it's purpose, enabling the will of the people to define their own concept of freedom.
In this case, it was not a very magnanimous concept.
My company planned on reducing us from 48sqft (6x8) to about 12sqft (3x4), by removing walls etc. The employees did speak, loudly. We were ignored. The irony is that buying all the new cube furniture cost so damned much that they scrapped the plan and moved half the people to another building (which we already owned!).
However I think the writing is on the wall, it's going to happen. The main argument for me to work at work is that my home (with stay at home wife and todller) is more distracting than work (also I'm a HW engineer, so I have to be in the lab). However with cubemates within circle jerk distance, and plenty of jerks in a circle, the distractions at work increase to the point that working at work becomes improbable.
I was at my most productive at my old job where I had my own office, had all my test equipment and proto boards with me, and could shut my door and just work. Since coming to a company with cubes, I've struggled to find a way to work where I could reach that productivity. Of course I can't SAY this, because then my boss would ding me every year for not being as productive as I could be. However it is the truth, this is not a good way to work.
The humanities just need to acknowledge that 99% of their students view them as a hurdle they have to leap on their way to whatever degree they are really after. Cheating on these subjects is obvious: why waste study/work time on a subject that has no value when you should be devoting more of your time on a subject that may be the focus of your career?
No, when I do online banking I expect privacy because if I don't get it I will take my money somewhere else. The bank makes money on the money I put in the bank.
Facebook makes money on stuff I put in facebook, but I can't take it out once I put it in.
I'd be happy if the FCC simply made it impossible to charge the receiver for text messages. I didn't ask to be spammed with "HOT STOCK TIPS", or have my boss text my phone with meeting invites. He pays for unlimited text, I refuse to pay for (or use) text at all.
The fact that it was stripped from news sites is the point. That people know anyway, is not. The same issue exists with the great firewall, we all know you can get out, that everyone does it, etc. The fact that it exists at all is the atrocity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Liu was given the nobel peace prize precisely to illustrate how bad the Chinese government is, and they walked right into it! The perfect opportunity to prove the west wrong, to show them that China is not an evil dictatorship hell bent on keeping it's people in the dark and surpressing news, and it does EXACTLY THAT.
However I strongly believe that the economy and prospects of the average Chinese citizen right now are good enough that there will not be much of a reaction beyond discussion.
I'm not sure that enforceability of a vast array of senseless laws is a good reason to cite. It just means if they want you put away for some reason, they just need to sift hte law books to find something obscure to hang you with.
Happens a lot, not always with evil intent but ends up that way. Two of my coworkers have set up a sock puppet facebook account for a third coworker who is a relative technophobe but had recently acquired an iPhone. They found immense humor in his having the iPhone and felt that "facebook was the next logical step". They invited a lot of his friends, and made routine posts about his life that were factual although somewhat snarky. Anyone who knows the guy personally knew instantly that he wasn't operating the account. It was all in good fun, until someone posted something that was considered company confidential (by a petty piece of shit manager whose IQ may or may not exceed that of a 2x4). That got reported to the boss of the victimized coworker, said coworker of course has no idea what's going on, it stopped being funny at that point. The perpetrators did come forth and submit to their flogging, fortunately, but I can easily see facebook being damaging even if you avoid it.
If it were the south I'd say they should just fix it when they repair signs with bullet holes in them. But since it's NY maybe they'll just replace them when they get urinated on.
They are both socialist, the fact that you think national defense is necessary and welfare is unnecessary doesn't change that. Poor inner city children need police, wealthy mafia don's would rather provide their own security and do not wish to be burdened with public police.
The argument about socialism has always been between those who do not benefit from it, and those who do. One side believes such and such is an excess, the other side feels it is necessary. Balance is struck somewhere based on the workings of democracy. It's almost inevitable that all democracies will trend towards a degree of socialism. The only force in our country that has held it back has been that our government has been more of a republic than a democracy, and our representatives had tended to represent interests other than the majority of the population.
Arguing over isms is as stupid as arguing over religion. Arguing over the particular issue at hand (from health care to national defense) is what the conversation should always be about.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well, I have a Motorola Droid on Verizon and I continue to love it. In general Motorola has always made a good quality phone, I see no reason to leave them.
Zippers can be a bitch.
These are all extreme cases:
1. Heretic - Is often right, but will leave you on his own regardless, unless he's also a moron.
2. The Flake - Is either being given the wrong priorities and thus not reliable about what you think he should be doing, but is doing other things. Or he's got a side job. I've never met a natural genius who is incredibly high value but never works. Through work comes knowledge and understanding. If he's got insight, chances are he's doing something for someone, harness that.
3. The Jerk - This is a self regulating problem, because these people usually fall victim to friendly fire, no matter how smart the person us westerners are not terribly tolerant of "House, M.D." One way or another, this person is going to either leave or you will fire him with cause.
Now there are some really high value employees I've worked with past and present who channel these personalities, but you know they're high value because you never would think about wanting them gone if you have any sense. In fact I've worked with lovable Jerks, who are so over the top that we intentionally invite him to meetings for the comic relief. The pinnacle of my time at this job was when he said "YOUR DESIGNS ARE ALL CRAP!", I mean seriously? Sure, he was absolutely right but he also knows why they're all crap and why that's not a bad thing necessarily, but he can't help but insult everyone present. But the meetings were a riot, we'd go on with "Well my crap is less expensive than his crap, but has a crappy problem with that other crappy circuit. Got any crappy ideas?". At the end of my life, I will remember those meetings fondly and when this guy got fired (he insulted the wrong VP) I was bitterly angry, not only was he a major positive influence on our designs, he made the job enjoyable. Why? Because my manager managed his team effectively, and we knew where we stood.
I can't stand working in an environment where everyone acts like an HR textbook and there's no scenery. I find this environment is full of a lot of people who see things wrong and won't speak up (which is just as bad as DOING wrong, or not doing at all), or people who go with the flow reliably when some things management asks us to do need to be resisted delicately (flakes are very useful for projects exec's have tagged for going overseas).
Eliminating personalities that you don't like simply because you don't like them is a certain sign that you have managers who are there for the money but who don't actually have interest in management.
If you want to make a case you got "accidentally drunk", I think it's a fair argument. But if you are drunk, however you got that way, you shouldn't be driving, period. Having had surgery recently, I definitely understand how you can accidentally end up in an impaired state where you ought not be driving, but not realize it until something scary happens (and hopefully no more than that). I have to say though, if some cop caught me in that condition, he'd have been in the rights to take me out off the streets and while I doubt I would, I should thank him later. Shit happens, people make mistakes, and are more likely to do so when their mental faculties are impaired, the most important thing is to get them off the streets before someone gets hurt.
The part of this effort that is "get drunks off the road", is a solution to a problem we really have and works out to our advantage. The part of this where punishments may be too heavy and too harsh in some circumstances, I agree is over the top. I'm a little hazy on the big brother vs. free citizen debate...driving is a privilege not a right, this is based on the simple assertion that the roads are public use, we share them, we agree to abide by certain restrictions in so doing and playing chicken with those tasked to enforce those restrictions seems to the detriment of the rest of those who wish to use the roads. On the other hand using this power to build a case against you without an attorney and under chaotic circumstances, the consequences of which may result in incarceration, outrageous fines (including losing your car) and some convictions that may impact your marketability for the remainder of your life seems pretty outrageous.
The reasonable compromise is if they forced you to take the test, if you fail they take you out of your car, write your name down on Santa's naughty list and send you home in a cab at your own expense. If your name pops up on Santa's naughty list a second time, maybe that one gets the court order that takes you to a lab where evidence is obtained. The previous results thus serving as probable cause for the future investigation.
I don't follow the conversation where we're arguing over .007 or .009 or whatever. Most of us don't have a very good understanding of "the legal limit" versus the complicated equation of how much we've had to drink, how long ago, with our given weight and metabolism or "how we feel". The "how we feel" thing is what I think many of us use, and in my experience it's usually very deceptive. I can't say with any authority that .006 is "definitely ok" and .007 is "definitely drunk", and I dont' even believe these numbers came about after careful scientific analysis. It seemed for a while like every time someone was killed by drunk drivers they'd drop the %, regardless of the fact that the driver usually was not previously stopped and released because he was "legal" and proceeded to cause an accident.
This is like a math or physics class, what is the legal definition of "people". Our view today may not have been the view held for a long time in the US (and some other places). The constitution lives up (or down) to it's purpose, enabling the will of the people to define their own concept of freedom.
In this case, it was not a very magnanimous concept.
Please, please don't.
My company planned on reducing us from 48sqft (6x8) to about 12sqft (3x4), by removing walls etc. The employees did speak, loudly. We were ignored. The irony is that buying all the new cube furniture cost so damned much that they scrapped the plan and moved half the people to another building (which we already owned!).
However I think the writing is on the wall, it's going to happen. The main argument for me to work at work is that my home (with stay at home wife and todller) is more distracting than work (also I'm a HW engineer, so I have to be in the lab). However with cubemates within circle jerk distance, and plenty of jerks in a circle, the distractions at work increase to the point that working at work becomes improbable.
I was at my most productive at my old job where I had my own office, had all my test equipment and proto boards with me, and could shut my door and just work. Since coming to a company with cubes, I've struggled to find a way to work where I could reach that productivity. Of course I can't SAY this, because then my boss would ding me every year for not being as productive as I could be. However it is the truth, this is not a good way to work.
Which for those of us on the fence about Mr. Assange's activities, may have helped us see him as more villain than hero.
When it comes to international politics, everyone is doing something wrong. It's just the biggest guy gets to do it most.
texts - kidnapping
fanfic - kiddie porn
The humanities just need to acknowledge that 99% of their students view them as a hurdle they have to leap on their way to whatever degree they are really after. Cheating on these subjects is obvious: why waste study/work time on a subject that has no value when you should be devoting more of your time on a subject that may be the focus of your career?
I'm not sure why they want to make a game where they'd feel like they SHOULD have recount. I
Actually this sounds like a pretty cool church.
No, when I do online banking I expect privacy because if I don't get it I will take my money somewhere else. The bank makes money on the money I put in the bank.
Facebook makes money on stuff I put in facebook, but I can't take it out once I put it in.
I'd be happy if the FCC simply made it impossible to charge the receiver for text messages. I didn't ask to be spammed with "HOT STOCK TIPS", or have my boss text my phone with meeting invites. He pays for unlimited text, I refuse to pay for (or use) text at all.
By that time, the new >65yo crowd will be in and hating all this trendy left wing stuff.
I can't think of a country more deserving to receive the entirety of our scientific and engineering knowledge.
Freeing Tibet is not a "world" problem anymore than freeing Texas is a "world" problem.
The fact that it was stripped from news sites is the point. That people know anyway, is not. The same issue exists with the great firewall, we all know you can get out, that everyone does it, etc. The fact that it exists at all is the atrocity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Liu was given the nobel peace prize precisely to illustrate how bad the Chinese government is, and they walked right into it! The perfect opportunity to prove the west wrong, to show them that China is not an evil dictatorship hell bent on keeping it's people in the dark and surpressing news, and it does EXACTLY THAT.
However I strongly believe that the economy and prospects of the average Chinese citizen right now are good enough that there will not be much of a reaction beyond discussion.
The bible would be awfully long if it printed every digit in Pi, and the wheel would still be being invented.
Islam is alive and well in China.
I'm not sure that enforceability of a vast array of senseless laws is a good reason to cite. It just means if they want you put away for some reason, they just need to sift hte law books to find something obscure to hang you with.
Happens a lot, not always with evil intent but ends up that way. Two of my coworkers have set up a sock puppet facebook account for a third coworker who is a relative technophobe but had recently acquired an iPhone. They found immense humor in his having the iPhone and felt that "facebook was the next logical step". They invited a lot of his friends, and made routine posts about his life that were factual although somewhat snarky. Anyone who knows the guy personally knew instantly that he wasn't operating the account. It was all in good fun, until someone posted something that was considered company confidential (by a petty piece of shit manager whose IQ may or may not exceed that of a 2x4). That got reported to the boss of the victimized coworker, said coworker of course has no idea what's going on, it stopped being funny at that point. The perpetrators did come forth and submit to their flogging, fortunately, but I can easily see facebook being damaging even if you avoid it.
If it were the south I'd say they should just fix it when they repair signs with bullet holes in them. But since it's NY maybe they'll just replace them when they get urinated on.
They are both socialist, the fact that you think national defense is necessary and welfare is unnecessary doesn't change that. Poor inner city children need police, wealthy mafia don's would rather provide their own security and do not wish to be burdened with public police.
The argument about socialism has always been between those who do not benefit from it, and those who do. One side believes such and such is an excess, the other side feels it is necessary. Balance is struck somewhere based on the workings of democracy. It's almost inevitable that all democracies will trend towards a degree of socialism. The only force in our country that has held it back has been that our government has been more of a republic than a democracy, and our representatives had tended to represent interests other than the majority of the population.
Arguing over isms is as stupid as arguing over religion. Arguing over the particular issue at hand (from health care to national defense) is what the conversation should always be about.