Of course, the trouble is that the people deciding where to put the offices are listening to idiots like the GP instead of you, so us folks who like the city and prefer not to drive end up having a stupid car commute anyway because we have to go out to the suburban wasteland to find a job!
(I live 4 miles from downtown Atlanta, but most jobs in my industry are 30 miles out in the exurbs -- and not in the same direction, either, so you can't even pick an exurb to live in because if you change jobs you're screwed anyway. It's a pain in the ass.)
Although it's certainly true that local/state politicians can be just as corrupt as Federal ones, the fact that normal people are more likely to be able to get their calls returned by them is some comfort.
Does everything made out of concrete really need tensile strength? Why not change our building methods to make use of this discovery to make structures that rely more on compressive strength and that will stand the test of time?
That's exactly why Roman architecture had arches everywhere. (Since they didn't have steel, they had no choice but to rely only on compressive strength.)
As an aside, Mr. Wyden is the politician who, while running for Senate the first time, promised to run a clean, honest, upfront campaign with no negative campaigning. Immediately following this pledge, advertisements began appearing against his opponent, Gordon Smith, claiming Smith "killed a kid" in the name of corporate profits. The truth was, a teenaged employee (legally employed) at Smith's farm died in an accident, and the parents of the teen appeared soon after the negative ads in ads for Smith absolving him of responsibility and blame.
The question is, was it really one of Mr. Wyden's supporters who ran that ad, or was it a false-flag attack designed to backfire?
Guns are a primary argument because the elites fear a bunch of serfs that can defend themselves. This has been the case since the advent of any Government, often giving rise to non-elites with too much power being killed.
You seem to be implying that anti-gun folks are elitist while pro-gun folks are serfs. Given that Republican congressmen are just as obscenely rich as Democrat congressmen (and that plenty of liberals are just as dirt-poor as certain conservatives -- albeit more likely to live in an urban area) I'm not sure that implication holds.
What I don't understand is why it's so hard to find major political group that supports the whole Bill of Rights, instead of picking and choosing from it.
That's the aim of the Second Amendment. Gun ownership in general has additional uses, such as hunting and self-defense [from street crime, as opposed to self-defense from tyranny].
By the way, one thing that's helpful when trying to understand the Constitution: remember that it was written by a bunch of folks who had just completed the violent overthrow of their previous ruler. Had they been around today, every single one of them would have been labeled a terrorist.
Friend of mine got his brakes changed on a volkswagen model and an alarm started blaring off; turned out VW stuck a sensor in the brake pads that causes the alarm if it's not found, and the normal size-compatible pads from 3rd party makers didn't have the sensor.
That's not entirely true; third-party brake pads with sensors are readily available. In fact, they're so readily available that I ended up getting sensor-equipped pads for my non-sensor-equipped older VW and cut off the connectors.
Your friend's mechanic was just too lazy or incompetent to choose the right ones.
(I suppose it's possible that it might be hard to find cheap brake pads with sensors, but using cheap brake pads is a bad idea to begin with so I have limited sympathy.)
Ok, you blithering idiot, the entire point of the whole webpage was to explicitly enumerate the exceptions to that definition: namely, volunteers at non-profit private entities and public-sector entities. Magical, somehow-not-employee workers at for-profit private entities are not one of the exceptions!
You're trying to use the exceptions to disprove the rule, which is a logical fallacy.
(Well, I'd rather have fuel lines that didn't get eaten by ethanol, but that's a pipe dream right now.)
Only if you have no imagination or mechanical skills. E85 compatible tubingdoes exist; just go find some that's the appropriate size to fit your engines.
I can see them checking pickup trucks at a livestock auction; that's obvious... but have you ever heard of them checking a little Volkswagen TDI, particularly one used in an urban area?
What? There exist vehicles without a lock on the gas tank?
Sure, especially old trucks that run on (500ppm sulfur) off-road Diesel. For a concrete example, my 1996 Ford Ranger (which, very unfortunately, is not a Diesel) is like that.
What you cited says, rather clearly, that EMPLOYEES cannot be volunteers where they work. It does not say that nobody can volunteer at a for-profit company.... Now you're just demonstrating that you are an asshole with clear reading comprehension problems.
Holy shit you're an idiot! Read this sentence:
Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.
Now read this sentence:
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines employment very broadly, i.e., "to suffer or permit to work."
So, since (1) all "employees" of for-profit private-sector employers must be paid, and (2) all persons who the employer "suffer[s] or permit[s] to work" are "employees," everybody who does work for a for-profit public employer must be paid and there is no such category as a "volunteer" there! Q-E-fucking-D, damnit!
Since I'm attempting to draw parallels with the popular perception of copyright infringement, I think the popularized misconception is just as relevant as the reality (or perhaps, even more so).
I'm sure it wouldn't be the same if I lived in a giant impersonal city
It's the same, but it only applies when the story is about your specific neighborhood.
By the way, is 350 people even enough to be called a "town?" That's not just small, it's tiny -- like a village or a hamlet or something. If I lived in an area that rural, I'd get excited at a mention of anything in the entire county!
...For me (which need to do very casual, and trivial, editing) [licensing photoshop] makes no sense.
In that case, using Photoshop at all makes no sense. There are cheaper (or free, or even Free) programs that will do the casual and trivial editing you want more easily than Photoshop.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Atlanta, and based on your description it sounds like Atlanta is similar but better in every way:
1) Atlanta has hot, humid summers but they're not that hot. (Today's high was in the high-80s; I spent most of the day riding my bike.)
2) Certain neighborhoods in Atlanta, including the one I live in, actually do have the "keep ___ weird" vibe that Austin is reputed to have.
3) Developers run amok in the suburbs/exurbs here too, but there are nice (and reasonably affordable) places to live where they have less influence.
4) Regarding culture, I don't really have any experience of other cities to compare, but people say Southerners tend to be nice...
5) Atlanta's traffic used to be rated as bad as LA, but has been getting better recently.
6) Georgia apparently better government services than most of the rest of the South.
7) Barbecue: being in the middle of the South, Georgia has Texas and Carolina-style barbecue!
Of course, the trouble is that the people deciding where to put the offices are listening to idiots like the GP instead of you, so us folks who like the city and prefer not to drive end up having a stupid car commute anyway because we have to go out to the suburban wasteland to find a job!
(I live 4 miles from downtown Atlanta, but most jobs in my industry are 30 miles out in the exurbs -- and not in the same direction, either, so you can't even pick an exurb to live in because if you change jobs you're screwed anyway. It's a pain in the ass.)
Although it's certainly true that local/state politicians can be just as corrupt as Federal ones, the fact that normal people are more likely to be able to get their calls returned by them is some comfort.
This kind of confusion is what happens when idiots insist on calling everything "Intellectual Property."
That's exactly why Roman architecture had arches everywhere. (Since they didn't have steel, they had no choice but to rely only on compressive strength.)
The question is, was it really one of Mr. Wyden's supporters who ran that ad, or was it a false-flag attack designed to backfire?
You seem to be implying that anti-gun folks are elitist while pro-gun folks are serfs. Given that Republican congressmen are just as obscenely rich as Democrat congressmen (and that plenty of liberals are just as dirt-poor as certain conservatives -- albeit more likely to live in an urban area) I'm not sure that implication holds.
What I don't understand is why it's so hard to find major political group that supports the whole Bill of Rights, instead of picking and choosing from it.
That's the aim of the Second Amendment. Gun ownership in general has additional uses, such as hunting and self-defense [from street crime, as opposed to self-defense from tyranny].
By the way, one thing that's helpful when trying to understand the Constitution: remember that it was written by a bunch of folks who had just completed the violent overthrow of their previous ruler. Had they been around today, every single one of them would have been labeled a terrorist.
How, pray tell, do you "store" something without having first "collected" (which is synonymous with "acquired") it?
Hey, not all of us generation Y (or whatever) folks are clueless -- I agree with Woz's quote so much, I just made it my sig!
If you're passing the cars in traffic jams on a scooter, you're breaking the traffic laws (license or not).
Here's the issue: YOU DON'T GET TO USE THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT as an excuse to limit Constitutional rights!
Google and the entire Internet can go fuck itself -- it's simply not important compared to the Bill of Rights!
That's not entirely true; third-party brake pads with sensors are readily available. In fact, they're so readily available that I ended up getting sensor-equipped pads for my non-sensor-equipped older VW and cut off the connectors.
Your friend's mechanic was just too lazy or incompetent to choose the right ones.
(I suppose it's possible that it might be hard to find cheap brake pads with sensors, but using cheap brake pads is a bad idea to begin with so I have limited sympathy.)
Ok, you blithering idiot, the entire point of the whole webpage was to explicitly enumerate the exceptions to that definition: namely, volunteers at non-profit private entities and public-sector entities. Magical, somehow-not-employee workers at for-profit private entities are not one of the exceptions!
You're trying to use the exceptions to disprove the rule, which is a logical fallacy.
Why, is there some reason you can't design a radial Diesel?
Only if you have no imagination or mechanical skills. E85 compatible tubing does exist; just go find some that's the appropriate size to fit your engines.
I can see them checking pickup trucks at a livestock auction; that's obvious... but have you ever heard of them checking a little Volkswagen TDI, particularly one used in an urban area?
Sure, especially old trucks that run on (500ppm sulfur) off-road Diesel. For a concrete example, my 1996 Ford Ranger (which, very unfortunately, is not a Diesel) is like that.
Just for humor: what happens when an intern says "I quit?"
Answer: by doing so, that intern eliminates all his future job prospects, runs out of money, becomes homeless, and starves to death.
But if exercising that ability destroys your future job prospects, then the actual difference is minimal.
Holy shit you're an idiot! Read this sentence:
Now read this sentence:
So, since (1) all "employees" of for-profit private-sector employers must be paid, and (2) all persons who the employer "suffer[s] or permit[s] to work" are "employees," everybody who does work for a for-profit public employer must be paid and there is no such category as a "volunteer" there! Q-E-fucking-D, damnit!
Since I'm attempting to draw parallels with the popular perception of copyright infringement, I think the popularized misconception is just as relevant as the reality (or perhaps, even more so).
It's the same, but it only applies when the story is about your specific neighborhood.
By the way, is 350 people even enough to be called a "town?" That's not just small, it's tiny -- like a village or a hamlet or something. If I lived in an area that rural, I'd get excited at a mention of anything in the entire county!
In that case, using Photoshop at all makes no sense. There are cheaper (or free, or even Free) programs that will do the casual and trivial editing you want more easily than Photoshop.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who think so. It is the premise of folk-hero Robin Hood, after all...