Seeing as it seems to me that since you have an ingrained bias, I think that excluding your "personal experience" when navigating these issues is warranted.
I don't think that people who distrust capitalism when it applies to certain companies and not others should be involved in the decision of what is "unreasonable profit". There is no such thing as "unreasonable profit" in a long-term sense. Unrestrained capitalism trends toward eventual balance - arbitrary rules being placed on businesses that are based on populism/class-warfare are what causes the problems that "need to be solved". Usually with even more stupid regulations that cause the same problems.
If you ever read the Foundation novels, you would know that the best way to fix most every "crisis" that comes up is to do nothing - trust the system to be self-balancing until proven wrong over the long run.
What they fuck are you talking about you idiot? Do you just take any slam dunk issue and just attach it in a negative way to conservatives?
Since when are conservatives not in favor of reasonable research into diseases?
And if you are going to knee-jerk out something about fetal stem cells, perhaps you should point out how unpromising such research has turned out to be.
If it did not involve the justification of abortion to "save lives" by ensuring a steady stream of Christopher Reeve-saving magic beans then maybe there would be less opposition to it.
And if there is a preference by conservatives favoring "private sector" research over governmental (and often politically driven) research,then maybe it is because the private sector is where the results are.
It is hard to believe that your post was modded as "insightful". It is funny how you seem to equate two beliefs commonly attributed to the Christian right with what the society at large considers "common sense". Obviously you do this to bolster your point.
I think you can do better.
If your point is that science regularly proves the beliefs of religious people to be incorrect - I agree. However, saying that without context or qualification is no different in terms of results than an outright lie.
Science also regularly proves that many of the beliefs of liberals, non-liberals, conservatives, faux conservatives, and flightless birds are incorrect.
>>If correct, that's a little different than the situation you're describing.
A difference in the details perhaps, but this still does not change my point that this "problem" is not a problem for consumers of the blogs in question.
As I see it, the average reader should only care if the person writing the blog is writing things they don't believe in exchange for pay.
If someone self-identifies as a "Conservative Blogger" then I would expect that most of their readers are also conservative.
No one can force a person to read their blog. If what they have to say does not resonate with enough readers, the problem takes care of itself.
The whole idea of "exposing" these sorts of things smacks of avoiding the arena of ideas and reveals a lack of confidence in one's positions. Trying to paint conservative bloggers as paid henchmen is more about smear-tactics than trying to inform people.
This is just providing pre-justification for ignoring criticism and your own responsibility to back up your positions in the face of dissent.
6 iPads is about $3000.
A nice HDTV-centered home theater can easily cost as much.
I think you missed my point entirely. The average family does *not* spend $3000 on *either* a "nice HDTV-centered home theater" OR 6 iPads. The average family buys a 42" HDTV from Walmart for $500 and has either a dish or cable hooked up to it.
You replied to a post that implied that mostly the rich are buying iPads.
In your post you seemed to be offering a counter point to that - but in doing so you seemed to reinforce his point (and the summary)*and* you seemed to say that *your* household usage was in fact normal and not unusual. This is where you swerved into "self parody" and "lack of insight".
Both are for "consumption"; one is portable.
The average person would never use the term "consumption" when describing the use of an entertainment device. Again you showed here that you are far from average personally, apart from iPad ownership issues.
Some of us, having such disposable income,
There is a recession going on - what percentage of American families do you think are blowing money on multiple iPads? I'm guessing it is in the.005% range.
You spend your money your way, I'll spend mine my way. Neither is evil based only on size/quantity of screens.
Again you misunderstand my point. I am *not* a liberal. I have no interest whatsoever in how you choose to spend *your* money. You earned it - you spend it.
I don't think the average family can afford 6 iPads for "Portable Consumption" (whatever the hell that is).
In other news, those labeled as "selfish elites" in polling data lack personal insight and consider themselves average everyday people.
One "selfish elite" when asked for comment stated "Those of us who are amoungst the hoi polloi disdain the mincing posturing of the 'selfish elites'. Some of us have to make do with only one new polo outfit a year"
I don't know why no one else is asking that question. Everyone just falls in lock step with the idea that rights are "allowed" by the government. The constitution is clear on that matter.
>> OK let me rephrase, based on that. If you're concerned, contact his employer.
Non-applicable because he is out of work due partly to drug use.
>> If his drug use kills someone, you're just as responsible.
Non-applicable (see last answer)
>> If your quote "whilst he is working on medical equipment" was hypothtical, >>you did not make that clear
I was being imprecise, he does not in general work in the medical field - however I *would* be concerned if he did. I don't know if I would turn him in - would be based on the risk I thought he presented.
>> defensive need to be right. Not sure, only one of us is in a position to know that.
I don't think I was in a argument with you when I was being unclear about this - so it is doubtful it was about winning a argument.
>> You are paying? If so then you broke traffic rules that are in place to >>
prevent overconfident drivers from causing accidents.
I have had a few speeding tickets, that is the "paying" I was referring to.
>> Yes, king of assumption I am, as long as you're including irrelevant information to bend your argument to make sense.
Each time you have made an assumption you have chosen to assume the most extreme circumstances that might paint me in a bad light. You sending me links describing different kinds of cognitive biases is the worst kind of hypocrisy. >> Since you posted nothing but rhetoric regardling your supposed skills
And the point to that would be what? You have already shown that you seek information and context only to use as fodder for additional attacks - I purposely provided you with no additional ammo for your rhetorical peashooter. By denying you further information I was allowing you to continue to make yourself look like a FOOL by letting you try to bolster your original and unsupportable arguments - arguments which you refuse to back down from due to your apparently over-developed ego and sense of self-importance.
You simply do not have enough information to form an INFORMED opinion and it is just killing you - and just keep going at it. I'm very amused by your completely predictable responses.
>> blah blah wikipedia article blah blah
I am completely aware of the content of each article you pasted in there. I am something of an expert on cognitive bias and I make a study of it. Maybe you could browse through the list again and honestly judge whether your arguments are the result of a mastery of the facts or pure knee-jerk emotion which you are desperately trying to prop up with weak arguments about statistics and probabilities. Do you claim to be free of cognitive biases? If not, then why is it not possible that your are WRONG in this argument?
>> It was the name of a dermatologist I knew in the Army
>>> Ah yes, the meat shield branch.
I know some people who would not appreciate that remark - all of whom (male and female) would totally deliver unto you a life-altering beating.
>> Unless I'm just making the assumption that you were in the Army, as opposed to the dermatologist
Again when faced with incomplete information, you fill in the gaps with whatever fits your distorted world-view. As it happens, the dermatologist was in the Army, I was not.
>>you tend to be unclear and then call people out when they make a reasonable assumption
I was purposely unclear while being completely accurate as a test to see how reliably you could be led into making yet another biased and elitist assumption. People like you are actually really easy to draw out; you as so unaware of yourselves that you can be induced to blunder over and over again.
>> but we folk are civilized here and we have rules.
HA HA HA HA! Just who is this "we" you are projecting your worldview onto? Slashdot? Maybe you should check with them before making su
I looked into the merits of the case and it seems to me that Ceglia has a valid case and the defendants are using SCO-like defense tactics already at this early point.
Even with that said, it always seems that the guy with the biggest legal fund wins.
>> The whole reason why GW is perceived as so
>> dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop
And the whole reason why the GW political machine is perceived as so dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop.
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Fort Hood does not count - it was a American Muslim who had some contact with supporters of terrorism.
Although that certainly *sounds* like terrorism of the kind we have been fighting against - it was considered a distraction to the agenda of the current administration.
Therefore it could not be called terrorism and the matter has been not been followed by the mainstream media. I have not heard a mention of it in some time.
It makes your argument quite damming - you know, the whole ignoring my request that you specify what specific behavior that I stated that I exhibit that the statistics should be applied to.
So how about it? What is it that I am doing SPECIFICALLY that you feel makes me dangerous? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - you have made the claim that you can tell that I am dangerous and arrogant despite not being able to cite a single dangerous act that I have performed and having no direct evidence of any character defect I suffer from other than that I have made a *statement* in a posting that I have exceptional driving skills (which you are in no position to prove or disprove).
>>unless you possess the credentials to prove you're an expert witness
What "credentials" are acceptable for use over the internet that would satisfy you?
I never said what I was doing *was* dangerous. Only that others may think so. Statistically, there MUST exist a subset of the population that has a greater amount of the skills needed to cope with the maneuvers and judgement required to drive safely - just as there also must be a subset of those with lesser skills. In the absence of actual direct evidence, you are taking a hardened and indefensible position that I am a danger on the roadways.
I understand that it feels good to be on the "right" side of an argument - but what evidence do you point to the leads you to believe that that is where you are?
Can you please write out the argument or position you are replying to? Because I cannot see anything in my statements to which your comments would be appropriate.
Could it be said that making offensive assertions with no evidence would be considered arrogance?
I never said I was taking anything nor did I claim to be better at "handling my substances" than anyone else as you seem to imply by your driving analogy
Quite true, I have no direct knowledge of your personal situation. I should not have made arguments that assumed your reasons for having your position.
That said, *every* person that I have known personally that has espoused similar arguments about employer drug testing has happened to be an active user of illegal drugs. That is about 15 or so in the last 25 years. So my error was to assume you fit in that group.
Fact is, people are dumb all by themselves, blaming the drugs is just an excuse...and if that person's use of drugs is making then even more dumb, then it's just an extension of that person's inherit stupidity.
If you add to that statement that some people are affected by drug use to a greater or lesser degree and that is not necessarily proportional to their abilities or "will" - then we would be in perfect agreement.
Citation? How many years of driving without directly or indirectly causing an accident would it take to invalidate your unsubstantiated and context-less opinion? 1 year? 10 years? 40 years?
Traffic rules also let other drivers know what to expect.
I don't think that most drivers *expect* anything at all. The word "expect" implies forethought and planning ahead at least a little. I see very little evidence that this is a active process in the majority of drivers.
Your aggressive driving could cause someone else to brake reflexively, getting rear-ended in the process.
What kind of aggressive driving did *I* cite that could possibly cause someone to brake reflexively hard enough to cause the person behind them to hit them? *I* did not specify what aspects of my driving that I thought others would consider to be too aggressive. But that didn't stop you from making up a situation that you feel bolsters your point. Seems that your argument is too important to you to bother using it the appropriate situation.
Your lack of patience is dangerous.
Again, in what way? Cite a particular example as it pertains to what I said in my post.
I'm not going to waste time finding references because you will probably conclude that you aren't one of those people,
Probably? And references to what? Something I never said that I did?
but when people think they are good drivers it's usually because they are good at other things and haven't caused an accident yet.
What do YOU mean by "good driver"? And someone answering that question in a polling situation - what does it mean to them? Saying someone is a "good driver" means nothing if "good" is not defined. And what is the percentage on "usually"?
You are probably no better than most, and your arrogance, statistically speaking, puts you at higher risk of having a fatal accident when you do something other people don't expect.
I disagree with you - and between the two of us is only one person who has any direct knowledge on the matter. The other is a windbag who is just trying to win argument points by joining the controversial "Safe Driving Lobby".
As to your friend, the employer should fire someone who is not reliable.
Agreed - and this has happened a few times.
That should be the disincentive, not drug testing.
Ideally, yes. I like the idea of pre-employment testing to weed out the individuals who cannot even get it together for a short time to pass these tests. I don't really like the idea of random screening after employment - but I absolutely feel that testing should be done if there is an incident.
Further, if you are watching him work on equipment that keeps people alive, while he's high, you are an accomplice to any problems he causes. You accept responsibility for letting that person die.
You are like the king of assumptions - at least those that bolster your points. Where did I say I work with him? Where did I say he works on medical equipment? It seems very important to you to establish that I am doing *something* wrong. Why is that?
Elsewhere you suggest that people with hangovers should not be working on this equipment, to sidestep the argument that drug testing won't solve the problem of unreliable or "messed up" workers. The employer is responsible for monitoring its employees, and drug testing catches only a small percentage of the unreliable workers, which makes it fairly pointless.
It would only be pointless if it caught no one or falsely implicated the innocent.
Why go the indirect route? Open-door on the guy, or drop a note in a manager's or executive's box or under their door and get him fired. If you have a problem with it, do something about it. Don't advocate infringing other peoples' right to privacy for something temporary they do off the clock which solves only a small part of the problem ju
Slashdot Mirror
If this was a "free market" example, it would not involve the government dictating the way they make light bulbs.
Seeing as it seems to me that since you have an ingrained bias, I think that excluding your "personal experience" when navigating these issues is warranted.
I don't think that people who distrust capitalism when it applies to certain companies and not others should be involved in the decision of what is "unreasonable profit". There is no such thing as "unreasonable profit" in a long-term sense. Unrestrained capitalism trends toward eventual balance - arbitrary rules being placed on businesses that are based on populism/class-warfare are what causes the problems that "need to be solved". Usually with even more stupid regulations that cause the same problems.
If you ever read the Foundation novels, you would know that the best way to fix most every "crisis" that comes up is to do nothing - trust the system to be self-balancing until proven wrong over the long run.
>> free to profiteer off it
Weasel word much?
What they fuck are you talking about you idiot? Do you just take any slam dunk issue and just attach it in a negative way to conservatives?
Since when are conservatives not in favor of reasonable research into diseases?
And if you are going to knee-jerk out something about fetal stem cells, perhaps you should point out how unpromising such research has turned out to be.
If it did not involve the justification of abortion to "save lives" by ensuring a steady stream of Christopher Reeve-saving magic beans then maybe there would be less opposition to it.
And if there is a preference by conservatives favoring "private sector" research over governmental (and often politically driven) research,then maybe it is because the private sector is where the results are.
It is hard to believe that your post was modded as "insightful". It is funny how you seem to equate two beliefs commonly attributed to the Christian right with what the society at large considers "common sense". Obviously you do this to bolster your point.
I think you can do better.
If your point is that science regularly proves the beliefs of religious people to be incorrect - I agree. However, saying that without context or qualification is no different in terms of results than an outright lie.
Science also regularly proves that many of the beliefs of liberals, non-liberals, conservatives, faux conservatives, and flightless birds are incorrect.
Intellectual honesty much?
How about we let them use yours instead? Get a donor card - Monty Python style.
>>If correct, that's a little different than the situation you're describing.
A difference in the details perhaps, but this still does not change my point that this "problem" is not a problem for consumers of the blogs in question.
As I see it, the average reader should only care if the person writing the blog is writing things they don't believe in exchange for pay.
If someone self-identifies as a "Conservative Blogger" then I would expect that most of their readers are also conservative.
No one can force a person to read their blog. If what they have to say does not resonate with enough readers, the problem takes care of itself.
The whole idea of "exposing" these sorts of things smacks of avoiding the arena of ideas and reveals a lack of confidence in one's positions. Trying to paint conservative bloggers as paid henchmen is more about smear-tactics than trying to inform people.
This is just providing pre-justification for ignoring criticism and your own responsibility to back up your positions in the face of dissent.
6 iPads is about $3000. A nice HDTV-centered home theater can easily cost as much.
I think you missed my point entirely. The average family does *not* spend $3000 on *either* a "nice HDTV-centered home theater" OR 6 iPads. The average family buys a 42" HDTV from Walmart for $500 and has either a dish or cable hooked up to it.
You replied to a post that implied that mostly the rich are buying iPads.
In your post you seemed to be offering a counter point to that - but in doing so you seemed to reinforce his point (and the summary)*and* you seemed to say that *your* household usage was in fact normal and not unusual. This is where you swerved into "self parody" and "lack of insight".
Both are for "consumption"; one is portable.
The average person would never use the term "consumption" when describing the use of an entertainment device. Again you showed here that you are far from average personally, apart from iPad ownership issues.
Some of us, having such disposable income,
There is a recession going on - what percentage of American families do you think are blowing money on multiple iPads? I'm guessing it is in the .005% range.
You spend your money your way, I'll spend mine my way. Neither is evil based only on size/quantity of screens.
Again you misunderstand my point. I am *not* a liberal. I have no interest whatsoever in how you choose to spend *your* money. You earned it - you spend it.
Why stop at 6? That is usually the case with the poor - they never take full advantage of their opportunities.
Anyone know when Steve Jobs will tell us how to hold it? I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
And complain about you complaining the whole time.
I don't think the average family can afford 6 iPads for "Portable Consumption" (whatever the hell that is).
In other news, those labeled as "selfish elites" in polling data lack personal insight and consider themselves average everyday people.
One "selfish elite" when asked for comment stated "Those of us who are amoungst the hoi polloi disdain the mincing posturing of the 'selfish elites'. Some of us have to make do with only one new polo outfit a year"
I don't know why no one else is asking that question. Everyone just falls in lock step with the idea that rights are "allowed" by the government. The constitution is clear on that matter.
>> OK let me rephrase, based on that. If you're concerned, contact his employer.
Non-applicable because he is out of work due partly to drug use.
>> If his drug use kills someone, you're just as responsible.
Non-applicable (see last answer)
>> If your quote "whilst he is working on medical equipment" was hypothtical,
>>you did not make that clear
I was being imprecise, he does not in general work in the medical field - however I *would* be concerned if he did. I don't know if I would turn him in - would be based on the risk I thought he presented.
>> defensive need to be right. Not sure, only one of us is in a position to know that.
I don't think I was in a argument with you when I was being unclear about this - so it is doubtful it was about winning a argument.
>> You are paying? If so then you broke traffic rules that are in place to
>> prevent overconfident drivers from causing accidents.
I have had a few speeding tickets, that is the "paying" I was referring to.
>> Yes, king of assumption I am, as long as you're including irrelevant information to bend your argument to make sense.
Each time you have made an assumption you have chosen to assume the most extreme circumstances that might paint me in a bad light. You sending me links describing different kinds of cognitive biases is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
>> Since you posted nothing but rhetoric regardling your supposed skills
And the point to that would be what? You have already shown that you seek information and context only to use as fodder for additional attacks - I purposely provided you with no additional ammo for your rhetorical peashooter. By denying you further information I was allowing you to continue to make yourself look like a FOOL by letting you try to bolster your original and unsupportable arguments - arguments which you refuse to back down from due to your apparently over-developed ego and sense of self-importance.
You simply do not have enough information to form an INFORMED opinion and it is just killing you - and just keep going at it. I'm very amused by your completely predictable responses.
>> blah blah wikipedia article blah blah
I am completely aware of the content of each article you pasted in there. I am something of an expert on cognitive bias and I make a study of it. Maybe you could browse through the list again and honestly judge whether your arguments are the result of a mastery of the facts or pure knee-jerk emotion which you are desperately trying to prop up with weak arguments about statistics and probabilities. Do you claim to be free of cognitive biases? If not, then why is it not possible that your are WRONG in this argument?
>> It was the name of a dermatologist I knew in the Army
>>> Ah yes, the meat shield branch.
I know some people who would not appreciate that remark - all of whom (male and female) would totally deliver unto you a life-altering beating.
>> Unless I'm just making the assumption that you were in the Army, as opposed to the dermatologist
Again when faced with incomplete information, you fill in the gaps with whatever fits your distorted world-view. As it happens, the dermatologist was in the Army, I was not.
>>you tend to be unclear and then call people out when they make a reasonable assumption
I was purposely unclear while being completely accurate as a test to see how reliably you could be led into making yet another biased and elitist assumption. People like you are actually really easy to draw out; you as so unaware of yourselves that you can be induced to blunder over and over again.
>> but we folk are civilized here and we have rules.
HA HA HA HA! Just who is this "we" you are projecting your worldview onto? Slashdot? Maybe you should check with them before making su
I looked into the merits of the case and it seems to me that Ceglia has a valid case and the defendants are using SCO-like defense tactics already at this early point.
Even with that said, it always seems that the guy with the biggest legal fund wins.
So, predict away!
>> The whole reason why GW is perceived as so >> dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop
And the whole reason why the GW political machine is perceived as so dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop.
Fort Hood does not count - it was a American Muslim who had some contact with supporters of terrorism.
Although that certainly *sounds* like terrorism of the kind we have been fighting against - it was considered a distraction to the agenda of the current administration.
Therefore it could not be called terrorism and the matter has been not been followed by the mainstream media. I have not heard a mention of it in some time.
It makes your argument quite damming - you know, the whole ignoring my request that you specify what specific behavior that I stated that I exhibit that the statistics should be applied to.
So how about it? What is it that I am doing SPECIFICALLY that you feel makes me dangerous? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - you have made the claim that you can tell that I am dangerous and arrogant despite not being able to cite a single dangerous act that I have performed and having no direct evidence of any character defect I suffer from other than that I have made a *statement* in a posting that I have exceptional driving skills (which you are in no position to prove or disprove).
>>unless you possess the credentials to prove you're an expert witness
What "credentials" are acceptable for use over the internet that would satisfy you?
I never said what I was doing *was* dangerous. Only that others may think so. Statistically, there MUST exist a subset of the population that has a greater amount of the skills needed to cope with the maneuvers and judgement required to drive safely - just as there also must be a subset of those with lesser skills. In the absence of actual direct evidence, you are taking a hardened and indefensible position that I am a danger on the roadways.
I understand that it feels good to be on the "right" side of an argument - but what evidence do you point to the leads you to believe that that is where you are?
Can you please write out the argument or position you are replying to? Because I cannot see anything in my statements to which your comments would be appropriate.
Could it be said that making offensive assertions with no evidence would be considered arrogance?
I never said I was taking anything nor did I claim to be better at "handling my substances" than anyone else as you seem to imply by your driving analogy
Quite true, I have no direct knowledge of your personal situation. I should not have made arguments that assumed your reasons for having your position.
That said, *every* person that I have known personally that has espoused similar arguments about employer drug testing has happened to be an active user of illegal drugs. That is about 15 or so in the last 25 years. So my error was to assume you fit in that group.
Fact is, people are dumb all by themselves, blaming the drugs is just an excuse...and if that person's use of drugs is making then even more dumb, then it's just an extension of that person's inherit stupidity.
If you add to that statement that some people are affected by drug use to a greater or lesser degree and that is not necessarily proportional to their abilities or "will" - then we would be in perfect agreement.
Citation? How many years of driving without directly or indirectly causing an accident would it take to invalidate your unsubstantiated and context-less opinion? 1 year? 10 years? 40 years?
Traffic rules also let other drivers know what to expect.
I don't think that most drivers *expect* anything at all. The word "expect" implies forethought and planning ahead at least a little. I see very little evidence that this is a active process in the majority of drivers.
Your aggressive driving could cause someone else to brake reflexively, getting rear-ended in the process.
What kind of aggressive driving did *I* cite that could possibly cause someone to brake reflexively hard enough to cause the person behind them to hit them? *I* did not specify what aspects of my driving that I thought others would consider to be too aggressive. But that didn't stop you from making up a situation that you feel bolsters your point. Seems that your argument is too important to you to bother using it the appropriate situation.
Your lack of patience is dangerous.
Again, in what way? Cite a particular example as it pertains to what I said in my post.
I'm not going to waste time finding references because you will probably conclude that you aren't one of those people,
Probably? And references to what? Something I never said that I did?
but when people think they are good drivers it's usually because they are good at other things and haven't caused an accident yet.
What do YOU mean by "good driver"? And someone answering that question in a polling situation - what does it mean to them? Saying someone is a "good driver" means nothing if "good" is not defined. And what is the percentage on "usually"?
You are probably no better than most, and your arrogance, statistically speaking, puts you at higher risk of having a fatal accident when you do something other people don't expect.
I disagree with you - and between the two of us is only one person who has any direct knowledge on the matter. The other is a windbag who is just trying to win argument points by joining the controversial "Safe Driving Lobby".
As to your friend, the employer should fire someone who is not reliable.
Agreed - and this has happened a few times.
That should be the disincentive, not drug testing.
Ideally, yes. I like the idea of pre-employment testing to weed out the individuals who cannot even get it together for a short time to pass these tests. I don't really like the idea of random screening after employment - but I absolutely feel that testing should be done if there is an incident.
Further, if you are watching him work on equipment that keeps people alive, while he's high, you are an accomplice to any problems he causes. You accept responsibility for letting that person die.
You are like the king of assumptions - at least those that bolster your points. Where did I say I work with him? Where did I say he works on medical equipment? It seems very important to you to establish that I am doing *something* wrong. Why is that?
Elsewhere you suggest that people with hangovers should not be working on this equipment, to sidestep the argument that drug testing won't solve the problem of unreliable or "messed up" workers. The employer is responsible for monitoring its employees, and drug testing catches only a small percentage of the unreliable workers, which makes it fairly pointless.
It would only be pointless if it caught no one or falsely implicated the innocent.
Why go the indirect route? Open-door on the guy, or drop a note in a manager's or executive's box or under their door and get him fired. If you have a problem with it, do something about it. Don't advocate infringing other peoples' right to privacy for something temporary they do off the clock which solves only a small part of the problem ju
Hey, thats a great name. Didn't it make you smile a little? It was the name of a dermatologist I knew in the Army.