He basically threatened them with reporting them to the IRS and SEC for violating accounting standards, and he didn't just threaten a nobody, he threatened another accountant.
Then he's an idiot. When I had trouble with AT&T DSL back in the '90s, I couldn't ever get anyone to talk to me. I used my "work position" to try to escalate. "I work for a tech company doing tech, I understand these things."
Nothing worked.
I didn't push the issue after the 6th month or so of problems. I sent a letter to the FCC about the deceptive practices, copying the 12 divisions of SBC that were involved in delivering AT&T DSL at the time, and to AT&T's corporate council.
Within 48 hours of putting the letter in the mailbox, I had an AT&T tech at my house and the problem I was told for 6 months was "impossible" to fix, was fixed.
Don't ever threaten to go to a regulatory body. Just do it. Of course let them know, so that when the FCC got back to my complaint another 6 weeks later, I could tell them it was resolved.
But there are still protections. If the contract lays out reasons for firing (most do, even in at-will states) the employer is bound by them. If they fired him for
"unprofessional behavior" or something similar, and that's listed in the employment contract, then they would need to be able to prove it, or it is a wrongful termination.
Nope. Texas is a Right-to-work state, and non-competes are legal and common. Though I don't know of them being enforced, they are in employment contracts. Maybe they are illegal but in the contract anyway.
That's true, but someone that lies to make you lose your job is an illegal reason. The only thing for the courts to decide is the burden on Comcast vs the employer (who was negligent for not getting the employees side and verifying the unsubstantiated allegations).
Reactions like that are why nothing works when your computer's time is 5 minutes off from server time. When your computer reports an incorrect time, you'll be shut down anyway.
Obviously not you. You are saying "nope" and not addressing anything the other person said. In fact, to object so strongly, you take a small sentence fragment and quote it in a way inconsistent with its meaning in the sentence.
Similarly there are some people who are completely unsuited to benefit from higher education.
You are saying "nope" to that idea. You are saying that every person on the planet will benefit from a higher education.
I have a cousin. He's mentally ill. If you sent him to college, he'd likely get bored and end up skipping class to rob a convenience store (to alleviate the boredom, not to hurt or steal). But your absolute that "everyone can benefit" says that he'd be better off. You are the one that's wrong. Not everyone is suited for it. Maybe you meant the middle 85% (what the politicians mean when they say "everyone" with regards to school). But you aren't a politician, nor did you offer any caveats. So that makes you 100% wrong.
However, I suspect that most who are pro-life DO consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder, and so you shouldn't be shocked when they take objection to this simply being a matter of preference.
Since you have abandoned the idea of either side painting the middle as extremists (you didn't stick to the point that "additionally anyone who wishes for abortion to remain legal for incest-rape is pro-murder - you should be bound, by law, to carry your child/nephew to term", or other statements that show either side can force any moderate opinion to an extreme one), but instead you are arguing points about abortion, I'd note that the anti-abortion group is decidedly pro-murder. What's more pre-meditated killing of a human than the death penalty? And it seems that the anti-abortion crowd isn't anti-murder, but pro-size limits. Like fishing, you have to throw them back small and kill them later.
But then, that's another way that the moderate get painted as radicals. If you aren't absolute on every statement, then they paint you as being non-committal to anything/everything. So they'll assume some "moderate" stance on some unrelated topic and attack that. "Oh yeah, I bet you want to kill all the Jews in Israel and hand it back to the Sand Niggers." And if you dignify that challenge with anything other than "fuck off" they'll have something from you on the unrelated topic to vilify you.
The Internet is mostly mental masturbation and rhetorical games for trollers to stroke their egos over forcing people to agree (when the people don't agree, but say they do to be able to discuss other things), or verifying their world view.
When you increase density, the laneless becomes vastly more dangerous. And a cheap and accessible flying car would increase air traffic density greatly.
Moller's Air Car is "production ready" and flew something like 10 years ago, but hasn't got either FAA or NHTSA/EPA certifications. So it's illegal to fly, illegal to drive, but has flown and is production ready.
So someone that puts down a dog should be tried for murder?
Someone who attempts suicide should be executed for attempted murder?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If I want to enter your private property with my gun strapped on my side, then you should be banned by law from barring me entry, as it's my right to bear arms, and nobody, not even private citizens on their own property, can infringe upon that.
If you don't agree with my absurd stretches of your statements, then you are a liberal commie.
If one would say they are for Gun Rights and Anti-Abortion you could think that they are a right wing nut-job.
That and polarized topics are such that someone can paint even a moderate view as extremist. I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are orthogonal. Some people think that abortion is a valid contraception method, to be used casually (see the abortion rates and stats from the Soviet Union). Others would wish that nobody needed one, but so long as they are needed, they should be legal. They are pro-choice and anti-abortion. The "pro-life" group is anti-choice. Anti-abortion could fit a description of people from both sides.
Same as gun rights. You can paint any opinion, even a middle one, as extremist, if you are a lying douchbag, and so many arguing those points are.
Reagan made deals with the Iranians to hold Americans hostage until after the elections. If that's not traitorous, I don't know what is. Well, maybe following through on the deals and selling weapons to our enemies, directly giving aid to enemies of the USA.
I'm saying that sending someone a bill for $1 and then giving them a credit for $1 for a total due of $0 isn't different in practice from sending someone a bill for $1 and a $1 bill (pun intended) along with it.
"Taxes" and morality of taxation is a red herring invented by small minded liars who refuse to discuss the facts because they know they are wrong.
A "credit" and a "rebate" are sufficiently similar as to not warrant a distinction.
Okay, was there no monkey meat business before 1920s? Why did it make the jump only at that time?
Globalization. The ease that the infected could move around is what spread the disease. The jumps likely happened before as well, but died out in the infected humans.
How exactly does a virus change from a chimp version to a human version?
What change? It's a simian virus. We are simians. You are requiring change when none is necessary. And it changed the same as the pig and bird flus.
So government payments that are pre-tax are OK, but post-tax are evil?
Sounds more like a justification, not a reason. In practice, they are equal.
And if you are going to be that pedantic, BP claims all the oil they pump from the ground in Alaska is a subsidy (a payment from the State of Alaska for the "service" of extracting the oil). So if you want to go full-pedant, that one subsidy in one state (paid in oil, not cash) is greater than all the global solar subsidies combined.
From an energy companies perspective the big problem with solar is that you need to think about what happens on a cloudy day or at night. Basically that means you need to have altenative capacity to produce energy that is in most cases 100% of the installed PV capacity, as the power storage technologies that are available now just aren't up to storing the PV from sunny days for later use.
And energy use goes down on cloudy days (less A/C used). You are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. There are plenty of battery technologies out there. They aren't used because they aren't economical, not because they don't exist. There isn't enough solar production to make storage save anything.
For example PV represents upto 40% of the power for the French operator SEI (sei.edf.fr) who supply power to Corsica, Martinique, Guadoloupe, etc. However, they have enormous diesel generators they replace the PV at night and cloudy days.
And it's what, about 80% of usage during the day? So until that 40% approaches 80%, they obviously don't have over-production of solar that would allow storage. If they had "perfect" storage now, it wouldn't be used. So that's obviously not the problem."Production" needs to be 100% of usage before storage without parallel generation would be feasible. 40% is well below the ability to serve those areas, no matter what the storage was.
Storage for what? If we had "perfect" storage, it wouldn't do anything to reduce our demand for fossil fuel. We need more generation first. Storage is a solved problem with no demand.
Storage is a solved problem. I've visited hydro storage facilities. They are here now, they work, and they are in use. There are plenty of others. But they aren't in mass production because they aren't needed. Waiting until the valve caps are designed to decide whether to build a car that has working prototypes is stupid.
The only reason there isn't widespread energy storage solutions is that it's not needed, and may never be needed.
So why wait for roads to be built to every address in the world before making cars? The first cars were made without dedicated roads. Those came quickly after. Roads and storage are solved problems. But you don't build them until you have demand.
Slashdot Mirror
He basically threatened them with reporting them to the IRS and SEC for violating accounting standards, and he didn't just threaten a nobody, he threatened another accountant.
Then he's an idiot. When I had trouble with AT&T DSL back in the '90s, I couldn't ever get anyone to talk to me. I used my "work position" to try to escalate. "I work for a tech company doing tech, I understand these things."
Nothing worked.
I didn't push the issue after the 6th month or so of problems. I sent a letter to the FCC about the deceptive practices, copying the 12 divisions of SBC that were involved in delivering AT&T DSL at the time, and to AT&T's corporate council.
Within 48 hours of putting the letter in the mailbox, I had an AT&T tech at my house and the problem I was told for 6 months was "impossible" to fix, was fixed.
Don't ever threaten to go to a regulatory body. Just do it. Of course let them know, so that when the FCC got back to my complaint another 6 weeks later, I could tell them it was resolved.
But there are still protections. If the contract lays out reasons for firing (most do, even in at-will states) the employer is bound by them. If they fired him for "unprofessional behavior" or something similar, and that's listed in the employment contract, then they would need to be able to prove it, or it is a wrongful termination.
Nope. Texas is a Right-to-work state, and non-competes are legal and common. Though I don't know of them being enforced, they are in employment contracts. Maybe they are illegal but in the contract anyway.
That's true, but someone that lies to make you lose your job is an illegal reason. The only thing for the courts to decide is the burden on Comcast vs the employer (who was negligent for not getting the employees side and verifying the unsubstantiated allegations).
Reactions like that are why nothing works when your computer's time is 5 minutes off from server time. When your computer reports an incorrect time, you'll be shut down anyway.
nope. Everyone can benefit.
Obviously not you. You are saying "nope" and not addressing anything the other person said. In fact, to object so strongly, you take a small sentence fragment and quote it in a way inconsistent with its meaning in the sentence.
Similarly there are some people who are completely unsuited to benefit from higher education.
You are saying "nope" to that idea. You are saying that every person on the planet will benefit from a higher education.
I have a cousin. He's mentally ill. If you sent him to college, he'd likely get bored and end up skipping class to rob a convenience store (to alleviate the boredom, not to hurt or steal). But your absolute that "everyone can benefit" says that he'd be better off. You are the one that's wrong. Not everyone is suited for it. Maybe you meant the middle 85% (what the politicians mean when they say "everyone" with regards to school). But you aren't a politician, nor did you offer any caveats. So that makes you 100% wrong.
Anti-gravity generators aren't common yet. Maybe in another 500 years.
However, I suspect that most who are pro-life DO consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder, and so you shouldn't be shocked when they take objection to this simply being a matter of preference.
Since you have abandoned the idea of either side painting the middle as extremists (you didn't stick to the point that "additionally anyone who wishes for abortion to remain legal for incest-rape is pro-murder - you should be bound, by law, to carry your child/nephew to term", or other statements that show either side can force any moderate opinion to an extreme one), but instead you are arguing points about abortion, I'd note that the anti-abortion group is decidedly pro-murder. What's more pre-meditated killing of a human than the death penalty? And it seems that the anti-abortion crowd isn't anti-murder, but pro-size limits. Like fishing, you have to throw them back small and kill them later.
But then, that's another way that the moderate get painted as radicals. If you aren't absolute on every statement, then they paint you as being non-committal to anything/everything. So they'll assume some "moderate" stance on some unrelated topic and attack that. "Oh yeah, I bet you want to kill all the Jews in Israel and hand it back to the Sand Niggers." And if you dignify that challenge with anything other than "fuck off" they'll have something from you on the unrelated topic to vilify you.
The Internet is mostly mental masturbation and rhetorical games for trollers to stroke their egos over forcing people to agree (when the people don't agree, but say they do to be able to discuss other things), or verifying their world view.
I am not. So you are a bigoted idiot, so confident in your ignorance that you make false proclamations on public forums?
Must be a Linux admin...
He has flown it in front of independent people.
I don't think so.
Quit whining. If everything worked perfectly, you'd be unemployed. You should be thanking him, not hating him.
There are piles of small airports in cities. Well, not Manhattan, but in Dallas and others, it's not that hard.
When you increase density, the laneless becomes vastly more dangerous. And a cheap and accessible flying car would increase air traffic density greatly.
Moller's Air Car is "production ready" and flew something like 10 years ago, but hasn't got either FAA or NHTSA/EPA certifications. So it's illegal to fly, illegal to drive, but has flown and is production ready.
The right to life is unalienable.
So someone that puts down a dog should be tried for murder?
Someone who attempts suicide should be executed for attempted murder?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If I want to enter your private property with my gun strapped on my side, then you should be banned by law from barring me entry, as it's my right to bear arms, and nobody, not even private citizens on their own property, can infringe upon that.
If you don't agree with my absurd stretches of your statements, then you are a liberal commie.
If one would say they are for Gun Rights and Anti-Abortion you could think that they are a right wing nut-job.
That and polarized topics are such that someone can paint even a moderate view as extremist. I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are orthogonal. Some people think that abortion is a valid contraception method, to be used casually (see the abortion rates and stats from the Soviet Union). Others would wish that nobody needed one, but so long as they are needed, they should be legal. They are pro-choice and anti-abortion. The "pro-life" group is anti-choice. Anti-abortion could fit a description of people from both sides.
Same as gun rights. You can paint any opinion, even a middle one, as extremist, if you are a lying douchbag, and so many arguing those points are.
Reagan made deals with the Iranians to hold Americans hostage until after the elections. If that's not traitorous, I don't know what is. Well, maybe following through on the deals and selling weapons to our enemies, directly giving aid to enemies of the USA.
I'm saying that sending someone a bill for $1 and then giving them a credit for $1 for a total due of $0 isn't different in practice from sending someone a bill for $1 and a $1 bill (pun intended) along with it.
"Taxes" and morality of taxation is a red herring invented by small minded liars who refuse to discuss the facts because they know they are wrong.
A "credit" and a "rebate" are sufficiently similar as to not warrant a distinction.
And they have ships that travel thousands of miles?
Okay, was there no monkey meat business before 1920s? Why did it make the jump only at that time?
Globalization. The ease that the infected could move around is what spread the disease. The jumps likely happened before as well, but died out in the infected humans.
How exactly does a virus change from a chimp version to a human version?
What change? It's a simian virus. We are simians. You are requiring change when none is necessary. And it changed the same as the pig and bird flus.
So government payments that are pre-tax are OK, but post-tax are evil?
Sounds more like a justification, not a reason. In practice, they are equal.
And if you are going to be that pedantic, BP claims all the oil they pump from the ground in Alaska is a subsidy (a payment from the State of Alaska for the "service" of extracting the oil). So if you want to go full-pedant, that one subsidy in one state (paid in oil, not cash) is greater than all the global solar subsidies combined.
From an energy companies perspective the big problem with solar is that you need to think about what happens on a cloudy day or at night. Basically that means you need to have altenative capacity to produce energy that is in most cases 100% of the installed PV capacity, as the power storage technologies that are available now just aren't up to storing the PV from sunny days for later use.
And energy use goes down on cloudy days (less A/C used). You are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. There are plenty of battery technologies out there. They aren't used because they aren't economical, not because they don't exist. There isn't enough solar production to make storage save anything.
For example PV represents upto 40% of the power for the French operator SEI (sei.edf.fr) who supply power to Corsica, Martinique, Guadoloupe, etc. However, they have enormous diesel generators they replace the PV at night and cloudy days.
And it's what, about 80% of usage during the day? So until that 40% approaches 80%, they obviously don't have over-production of solar that would allow storage. If they had "perfect" storage now, it wouldn't be used. So that's obviously not the problem."Production" needs to be 100% of usage before storage without parallel generation would be feasible. 40% is well below the ability to serve those areas, no matter what the storage was.
Storage for what? If we had "perfect" storage, it wouldn't do anything to reduce our demand for fossil fuel. We need more generation first. Storage is a solved problem with no demand.
Storage is a solved problem. I've visited hydro storage facilities. They are here now, they work, and they are in use. There are plenty of others. But they aren't in mass production because they aren't needed. Waiting until the valve caps are designed to decide whether to build a car that has working prototypes is stupid.
The only reason there isn't widespread energy storage solutions is that it's not needed, and may never be needed.
So why wait for roads to be built to every address in the world before making cars? The first cars were made without dedicated roads. Those came quickly after. Roads and storage are solved problems. But you don't build them until you have demand.