No you wouldn't. In a related note, hyperbole is universal. Maybe what you meant is that they wouldn't let you connect it? And who is they? The US is pretty big. Your ability to do your own last mile varies based on where you are. Americans often don't seem to know or even appreciate that different parts of America are different.
My internet bill just went *down* 6 bucks a month thanks to a CRTC ruling. I understand calling regulatory bodies toothless makes you feel like a grizzled callitlikeitis realist, but it makes you look naive when it's demonstrably untrue.
A couple of years sounds good to me. Reform, know that it's serious, and don't any of your freedom for granted. I think we're still decades away from the law and society catching up to finding the balance.
Weapons-grade baloney. Companies are willing to absorb financial risk at the cost of human life. That's why we have regulations and laws that make financial liability not the only consideration for companies to make in their decision making process.
I guess you never use Google, since there is no explaination of what it is on the front page. Or maybe, like a normal human being, if you were interested in what something was, you'd just search it and click on the wikipedia entry or any number of other articles or information about it.
It's asinine to expect that the front page of a website explains what it is, unless you're still stuck in 1995 (which to be fair, seems to be the majority of/. users)
Or you could not guess and just read the article. Your guess is wrong. I'm not going to do the work for you. Will the GP will move over desktops costing 14$ more? I won't guess, but his claims don't mean much until he backs up 2 seconds of posting with concrete action.
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
Yes, senior people higher on the org chart are not disciplined the same as lower level employees for the same infractions. It boggles my mind that you'd think that they even *should* be.
"Oh hey, we let go of our CEO today for stealing $10 from the till at one of our stores, because that's what we'd do with a minimum wage front like service worker."
Some employees are more interchangeable than others. Sometimes firing a higher level employee is actually worse for the company than not firing them, even if it's for something a minimum wage employee would have been fired for.
Ya gotta be pretty naive to think everyone *should* be held to the exact same standards across the board in an organization.
You can't discriminate against people who choose not to have children. It's a choice.
And having kids is a natural biological function of life. Good luck trying to convince people that you deserve anything more than the inherent independence and freedom you get from choosing not to have kids.
We're also sorry that your parents raised such a whiner.
Ask them if what they think about this policy. I bet they'd love to hear how their son thinks that everyone should sacrifice just like they were 'happy' to. Man, nothing is more pathetic than a grown adult bragging about the sacrifices his parents made.
The dumbest thing Americans do is assume that consumers act rationally, never-mind should be expected to act rationally. Health care is an insurance product that you want everyone to be forced to pay into so that they take the quickest path to getting back to contributing towards the GDP. None of this should be up to "consumers" in so far as somebody who needs health care gets to shop around if they're sick, blind, alone, or otherwise disadvanted in a miriad of other ways - nor providers, who shouldn't be looking at competition and profit margins for the kind of work they're in.
But I get it - you grew up with a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
I think that Ben Carson is an intelligent and accomplished man. And that's why I'm bewildered at the stuff he has said in public since he started his run for the Republican nomination last year.
Is him not being an intelligent man too complicated for you?
Talking to Taiwan sounds smart, if you're an idiot who doesn't have the most basic grasp of the nuanced dynamics at play. He'll do all the things people like you will think is bold, smart, independent, whatever - and predictable reactions from China will happen, just somewhat small but meaningful consequences. And people will keep wondering why they have to live in a world the way it is, not the way they think it should be. Much like the adage that there's no such thing as a stupid question, it sounds like a cool move emotionally, but in reality, leaders need to know how to tread.
Slashdot Mirror
No you wouldn't. In a related note, hyperbole is universal. Maybe what you meant is that they wouldn't let you connect it? And who is they? The US is pretty big. Your ability to do your own last mile varies based on where you are. Americans often don't seem to know or even appreciate that different parts of America are different.
They regulate wholesale access price, which permits completion that the suppliers need to compete with.
My internet bill just went *down* 6 bucks a month thanks to a CRTC ruling. I understand calling regulatory bodies toothless makes you feel like a grizzled callitlikeitis realist, but it makes you look naive when it's demonstrably untrue.
Ah yes, money is more important than the threat of physical violence.
When you commit a crime, you deserve to be punished.
This means nothing. You've committed crimes.
A couple of years sounds good to me. Reform, know that it's serious, and don't any of your freedom for granted. I think we're still decades away from the law and society catching up to finding the balance.
Weapons-grade baloney. Companies are willing to absorb financial risk at the cost of human life. That's why we have regulations and laws that make financial liability not the only consideration for companies to make in their decision making process.
I guess you never use Google, since there is no explaination of what it is on the front page. Or maybe, like a normal human being, if you were interested in what something was, you'd just search it and click on the wikipedia entry or any number of other articles or information about it.
It's asinine to expect that the front page of a website explains what it is, unless you're still stuck in 1995 (which to be fair, seems to be the majority of /. users)
uh, no, it's super easy. methinks your handle is a bit of a misnomer
Or you could not guess and just read the article. Your guess is wrong. I'm not going to do the work for you. Will the GP will move over desktops costing 14$ more? I won't guess, but his claims don't mean much until he backs up 2 seconds of posting with concrete action.
Point gun at car, make car stop. Kidnap/rob from target vehicle. Profit.
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
You're above it all!
hahaha
Yes, senior people higher on the org chart are not disciplined the same as lower level employees for the same infractions. It boggles my mind that you'd think that they even *should* be.
"Oh hey, we let go of our CEO today for stealing $10 from the till at one of our stores, because that's what we'd do with a minimum wage front like service worker."
Some employees are more interchangeable than others. Sometimes firing a higher level employee is actually worse for the company than not firing them, even if it's for something a minimum wage employee would have been fired for.
Ya gotta be pretty naive to think everyone *should* be held to the exact same standards across the board in an organization.
You can't discriminate against people who choose not to have children. It's a choice.
And having kids is a natural biological function of life. Good luck trying to convince people that you deserve anything more than the inherent independence and freedom you get from choosing not to have kids.
We're also sorry that your parents raised such a whiner.
Yeah, ask your parents how much of a vacation it is to take care of a newborn for 6 months. In fact, I'm fairly sure I couldn't pay you to do it.
Ask them if what they think about this policy. I bet they'd love to hear how their son thinks that everyone should sacrifice just like they were 'happy' to. Man, nothing is more pathetic than a grown adult bragging about the sacrifices his parents made.
Need to obey traffic lights? Fascism! Pay taxes? Fascism! Building permits? Fascism! Your idiocy? Freedom!
We're years before any of this is normal.
The dumbest thing Americans do is assume that consumers act rationally, never-mind should be expected to act rationally. Health care is an insurance product that you want everyone to be forced to pay into so that they take the quickest path to getting back to contributing towards the GDP. None of this should be up to "consumers" in so far as somebody who needs health care gets to shop around if they're sick, blind, alone, or otherwise disadvanted in a miriad of other ways - nor providers, who shouldn't be looking at competition and profit margins for the kind of work they're in.
But I get it - you grew up with a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
This kind of arbitrary date picking cause and effect game also works great with the economy! Try it at home, kids!
Fake "news show" not "fake news" show.
Good lord, man. Take 30 seconds to think before you write something.
I think that Ben Carson is an intelligent and accomplished man. And that's why I'm bewildered at the stuff he has said in public since he started his run for the Republican nomination last year.
Is him not being an intelligent man too complicated for you?
Chinese suppliers? Chinese supplies don't want to lose out to Chinese suppliers. Has nothing to do with where it's being made ya dunce.
Talking to Taiwan sounds smart, if you're an idiot who doesn't have the most basic grasp of the nuanced dynamics at play. He'll do all the things people like you will think is bold, smart, independent, whatever - and predictable reactions from China will happen, just somewhat small but meaningful consequences. And people will keep wondering why they have to live in a world the way it is, not the way they think it should be. Much like the adage that there's no such thing as a stupid question, it sounds like a cool move emotionally, but in reality, leaders need to know how to tread.