His point was... not many... way more upper-middle-class folks are car people than are gadget obsessed geeks or environmentalists... but that's who current electric and hybrid vehicles are designed for
If the Evil Corporations can do anything they want, why don't they refuse to pay you more than the legal minimum... after all... you have no choice but to work for them... since the market's rigged and you're not unique and someone else could do it just as well.
I know, snide little one-liners aren't actually helpful, but I couldn't resist.
What I was trying to get at was that it's not the employer's responsibility to make certain that the employee is sufficiently compensated for their work. It's the employee's responsibility to negotiate for themselves compensation which they feel is sufficient.
Not everyone will succeed. Some people have unreasonable views on what is sufficient compensation. However, if you feel that you can make more money, or simply have a better life, by finding employment elsewhere, it is your responsibility to either find that better employment, or stay where you are.
It is certainly your right to complain, and to seek improvements from within. However, I have little (some, but very little) sympathy for people who say "my boss treats me like crap" but then refuse to leave because "it's too hard" to find a better place.
The free market is a beautiful thing: unlimited potential. It is also a scary and dangerous thing: your life is what you make of it, nobody else will make of it for you.
at the moment, it's all very, very small fringe groups.
Most people don't currently feel that the situation is bad enough to kill or die for. If that changes, then the prevalence of an armed populace will make a difference.
Until then, it matters very little (it does matter a little... just not much...)
If you read the TOS section, it actually says that the LJ member can't try to mangle the templates so that the ads don't appear... it says nothing about running ad-blocking software on the client.
I'm not familiar with VBScript, but in any Windows API or.NET App you can. It's much *much* easier to use one of the standard ones, of course... which is why people do it...
Why go to the effort of creating a new window when you could just call messageBox().
(Because it yields a vastly superior app, that's why)
In my experience, people will spend hours agonizing over little message boxes that have only an "OK" button. Seriously. People that won't read a Yes/No/Cancel will spend 15 minutes reading and re-reading the 7 words in the box that has only one option...
When I ask why, they always respond that they're not sure what to do.
When presented with a Yes/No/Cancel with 3 sentences in it, they just press enter without reading, because it's either too complicated or because it doesn't seem important. (It's just a popup box that asks a question I don't understand... but if I hit enter it goes away and I don't have to decide).
Incidentally, I partially blame all those InstallShield things that have the front screen with 3 paragraphs of text and a next button when there's really no meaningful information on the page, and nothing to do except click next to start installing the program (or cancel if you ran the installer by mistake)
From the UI side, however, I think that while OK boxes and Yes/No boxes are great, I think that OK/Cancel and Yes/No/Cancel boxes are heavily overused... If you want to ask a question where Yes/No isn't the answer, you should probably roll your own so that the buttons can be *descriptive*
It is dangerous to allow the government to write laws that explicitly grant rights that you already have.
Because, you see, laws can be changed. Over time, the debate will be reframed, and it will be said that this new law is the *reason* that you have your rights... but the government can change the laws, and if the only reason you have this right is beacuse the government gave it to you... well, then they can simply take it away.
You can issue a void or refund transaction without the credit card number -- you just need the Transaction ID / Authorization Code that the credit card processor returned.
I think this is only true during the first 30 days, though... but I'm not sure...
probably because the server that holds/held that result is located in the US, or, failing that, because of a bug. Or, failing that, because google didn't try that hard...
Unfortunately, most people frequently forget that there is a difference between legal obligations and moral obligations...
There are many immoral acts that are entirely legal.
There are many illegal acts that are entirely moral.
I think that the discussion being had was more about what was moral than what was legal, and a judge is perhaps a poor choice of guide for morality... he'll get too hung up on the relevant law.
If someone strikes you, you have many options... It is entirely morally acceptible for you to strike them back. It would probably even be proper to strike them back *harder* to make them stop. Knifing them would definitely be wrong, as that is responding to what is essentially a painful annoyance with lethal force.
If someone pulls a knife on you (in an actually threatening way), you are well within your (moral) rights to shoot him (and kill him). If you shoot, and he drops the knife and starts to run... well... reasonable people disagree on the moral implications of shooting him again, in the back, as he flees. It depends on your ability to assess the intentions of your would-be assailant. If he's running away only to grab some thugs to attack you with better odds... well... probably better that you stop him. If he's just running for his life... well... probably not. But how are you to know? Not all questions have easy answers.
If someone shouts at you, you can definitely shout back. Depending on the situation, a good smack across the face might be acceptable. But in no case would actual physical violence be proper.
If someone bought a bible (or other sacred religious text), urinated on it, and tried to flush it down a toilet... and say put a video of the entire thing on his website... well, you might be upset. But really all he did was destroy his own property. He has caused you no harm -- or, at worst, emotional harm. You could respond in kind... Responding with physical harm, though... that's not right.
You can not know what would have been invented had we used the money for other purposes.
Whether you think NASA's budget warranted or otherwise, once you allocate resources one way, you can't continue figuring down any other path.
Anyone who speaks in any detail about what we (c|w)ould or (c|w)ould not have accomplished had the government not spent this money on NASA is simply making stuff up or guessing.
Slashdot Mirror
*whoosh*
His point was... not many... way more upper-middle-class folks are car people than are gadget obsessed geeks or environmentalists... but that's who current electric and hybrid vehicles are designed for
Are you paid more than minimum wage?
Do you receive any benefits beyond a simple wage?
If the Evil Corporations can do anything they want, why don't they refuse to pay you more than the legal minimum... after all... you have no choice but to work for them... since the market's rigged and you're not unique and someone else could do it just as well.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
On default choices of search engines in web browsers, when 0 effort is made to prevent change...
I think that's *extreme* overkill.
I know, snide little one-liners aren't actually helpful, but I couldn't resist.
What I was trying to get at was that it's not the employer's responsibility to make certain that the employee is sufficiently compensated for their work. It's the employee's responsibility to negotiate for themselves compensation which they feel is sufficient.
Not everyone will succeed. Some people have unreasonable views on what is sufficient compensation. However, if you feel that you can make more money, or simply have a better life, by finding employment elsewhere, it is your responsibility to either find that better employment, or stay where you are.
It is certainly your right to complain, and to seek improvements from within. However, I have little (some, but very little) sympathy for people who say "my boss treats me like crap" but then refuse to leave because "it's too hard" to find a better place.
The free market is a beautiful thing: unlimited potential. It is also a scary and dangerous thing: your life is what you make of it, nobody else will make of it for you.
I did say "most people"
at the moment, it's all very, very small fringe groups.
Most people don't currently feel that the situation is bad enough to kill or die for. If that changes, then the prevalence of an armed populace will make a difference.
Until then, it matters very little (it does matter a little... just not much...)
and that's your employer's problem how, exactly?
No.
It's just that most people, even those who think this is important, don't think it's important enough to start a revolution over.
while we're giving out CMD.EXE tips, try this:
enter a few commands
then press F7 for surprising results
Question: How do you buy a phone?
If you read the TOS section, it actually says that the LJ member can't try to mangle the templates so that the ads don't appear... it says nothing about running ad-blocking software on the client.
Since it's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, I'd say that 6 years ago we had a pretty good idea!
(yes, I know that wasn't helpful)
Or even better, I'm just gonna stay away from the USA!
A perfectly reasonable choice... though I'm curious where you are going to go/be/stay instead.
You can't create your own?
.NET App you can. It's much *much* easier to use one of the standard ones, of course... which is why people do it...
I'm not familiar with VBScript, but in any Windows API or
Why go to the effort of creating a new window when you could just call messageBox().
(Because it yields a vastly superior app, that's why)
In my experience, people will spend hours agonizing over little message boxes that have only an "OK" button. Seriously. People that won't read a Yes/No/Cancel will spend 15 minutes reading and re-reading the 7 words in the box that has only one option...
When I ask why, they always respond that they're not sure what to do.
When presented with a Yes/No/Cancel with 3 sentences in it, they just press enter without reading, because it's either too complicated or because it doesn't seem important. (It's just a popup box that asks a question I don't understand... but if I hit enter it goes away and I don't have to decide).
Incidentally, I partially blame all those InstallShield things that have the front screen with 3 paragraphs of text and a next button when there's really no meaningful information on the page, and nothing to do except click next to start installing the program (or cancel if you ran the installer by mistake)
From the UI side, however, I think that while OK boxes and Yes/No boxes are great, I think that OK/Cancel and Yes/No/Cancel boxes are heavily overused... If you want to ask a question where Yes/No isn't the answer, you should probably roll your own so that the buttons can be *descriptive*
It is dangerous to allow the government to write laws that explicitly grant rights that you already have.
Because, you see, laws can be changed. Over time, the debate will be reframed, and it will be said that this new law is the *reason* that you have your rights... but the government can change the laws, and if the only reason you have this right is beacuse the government gave it to you... well, then they can simply take it away.
You can issue a void or refund transaction without the credit card number -- you just need the Transaction ID / Authorization Code that the credit card processor returned.
I think this is only true during the first 30 days, though... but I'm not sure...
probably because the server that holds/held that result is located in the US, or, failing that, because of a bug. Or, failing that, because google didn't try that hard...
OK, what's your point...?
Right, it's *not* that far fetched that the Iriqi government was up to some of their pretty old, tried, and true techniques...
Whether true or not, it (was) not by any means far-fetched.
The retail stores probably don't have an automated system for applying this, however.
Thus, they don't have a system which infringes on the patent, whereas eBay might.
Until a big Internet company (say Google) says that they will block users from the asshat ISPs.
Or until a big Internet company (say Google) starts running huge giant ads for my nice ISP.
Life ain't that simple, unfortuantely.
But *I* have the money to run fiber and the smarts to realize that millions of you would pay to use my fiber if I decided not to be an ass...
So I run the fiber, and then decide not to be an ass...
And then I'm RICH!
Not quite nobody
In many (but not all, and possibly not even most) states, the electors are bound by law to vote the way their state voted.
Unfortunately, most people frequently forget that there is a difference between legal obligations and moral obligations...
There are many immoral acts that are entirely legal.
There are many illegal acts that are entirely moral.
I think that the discussion being had was more about what was moral than what was legal, and a judge is perhaps a poor choice of guide for morality... he'll get too hung up on the relevant law.
If someone strikes you, you have many options... It is entirely morally acceptible for you to strike them back. It would probably even be proper to strike them back *harder* to make them stop. Knifing them would definitely be wrong, as that is responding to what is essentially a painful annoyance with lethal force.
If someone pulls a knife on you (in an actually threatening way), you are well within your (moral) rights to shoot him (and kill him). If you shoot, and he drops the knife and starts to run... well... reasonable people disagree on the moral implications of shooting him again, in the back, as he flees. It depends on your ability to assess the intentions of your would-be assailant. If he's running away only to grab some thugs to attack you with better odds... well... probably better that you stop him. If he's just running for his life... well... probably not. But how are you to know? Not all questions have easy answers.
If someone shouts at you, you can definitely shout back. Depending on the situation, a good smack across the face might be acceptable. But in no case would actual physical violence be proper.
If someone bought a bible (or other sacred religious text), urinated on it, and tried to flush it down a toilet... and say put a video of the entire thing on his website... well, you might be upset. But really all he did was destroy his own property. He has caused you no harm -- or, at worst, emotional harm. You could respond in kind... Responding with physical harm, though... that's not right.
You can not know what would have been invented had we used the money for other purposes.
Whether you think NASA's budget warranted or otherwise, once you allocate resources one way, you can't continue figuring down any other path.
Anyone who speaks in any detail about what we (c|w)ould or (c|w)ould not have accomplished had the government not spent this money on NASA is simply making stuff up or guessing.