I think the people doing the branding are rightly point out that "regardless of cost" means "regardless of cost to ME, who is an uninterested 3rd party."
If you care about others, regardless of cost, that's fine. Spend your own money. But don't use government to steal my income for such purposes.. I have my own shit to take care of.
Oh, and don't try and associate me with McCain either. I want nothing to do with "liberals" or "conservatives."
I think the only arguement that could work is that Facebook makes money by allowing users to post photographs, and thus they would need a release form to use YOUR likeness commercially. So, Sally may have granted a license for them to share her picture, but they are doing it for commerical reasons, so still need a release from you. Or a release from you provided by Sally.
No, there aren't any costs, provided we simply let drug uses that OD, die from ODing.
Even if we don't do that, it's significatly cheaper and will reduce violence to simply legialize drugs. Alcohol already went through this. Prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol, it made it more dangerous for people to use and gave rise to organized crime and shooting sprees all across cities and neighborhoods.
We don't bond anyone to drink, nor should we bond them to use drugs. Goverment doesn't belong in the private lives of citizens. If someone is drugged out and harms someone else, physically or financially you deal with it then, on a case by case basis. Not with some stupid brain-dead licensing scheme.
See, there's this thing called efficiency, and you lose some converting solar / wind to electricity and lose more when electricity is used to split water to O2 and H2.
Seems like we'd be better off storing the wind / solar power right in a battery. Also gives us the chance to use nuclear power to charge those batteries, because nuclear can generate ALOT of reliable power... unlike solar or wind.
Who am I to tell someone they can't destroy their own body? Seriously though, if you look at this history of drug laws, they are based in racism. You know.. blacks had a hard enough time not raping poor defenseless white women, and when they were on cocain, well watch out!
Well if you put yourself into a situtation that you are mugged, and you're saying "it's your own damn fault," you clearly are saying that the victim was at fault. If the victim really is at least partially at fault, then surely that relieves some of the guilt from the attacker. Maybe the mugee should spend say 90 days in jail as well? After all, his actions did help get him mugged..
In other words, you can't have your statement both ways.
Sorry, I really think you don't know what you're talking about. NT was designed as a multi-user OS with security in mind. It was originally built by the same engineers that built VMS.
As far as "sophistication" of attacks goes.. it's mainly users choosing to install viruses that cause problems. I fail to see any real sophistication in that. As for the numbers part... yes, there are more computers running Windows now than there were 10 years ago. Amazing.
No, they don't: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm. They only mandate that "short" breaks be paid. But you don't HAVE to have a lunch period at all, so states are usually the more restrictive of the labor laws.
If you're being pressured, calling your state DOL is probably the best bet. Also, audio recording devices are cheap, and IIRC, most states allow recording as long as one party is aware.
Well, maybe your state is more extreme than others. In VT, for example, there is no hard and fast time limit. You simply must be given "a reasonable amount of time to eat a meal, while being 100% free of all job related activites." I belive that's pretty much the wording of the law.
Well, there used to be nothing, then everyone got two minutes. For some reason, I guess certain people, including me, got bumped up to five. Which I don't understand.. the karma system is supposed to keep trolls out, and my karma is Excellent... so I don't know why I'd have an additional delay.
Face the facts. You're at work. Unless you're on break, you're expected to leave your personal life at the door.
Actually, the courts, at least in the US, disagree with you. They've stated that yes, you can use very small amounts of times to take care of personal errends, even if not on break. They've spelled out reasonable phone use, so I imagine email / web use would also be reasonably included.
People forced into small, strict break times are routinely found to be less productive that those allowed some other distractions at work. It's really in your best interest to lighten up a bit.
Well, you seem to have a medical condition, which changes things for you. Even still though, I would talk to your doctor about your avoidence of carbs. You do actually require them for proper brain function, and low carb diets are exteremely dangerous for your heart.
I have no known conditions, and like I was saying, I don't think HFCS is soley to blame for the nations obesity problem. Our food tends to have much more fat the HFCS.. and said I pointed out earlier, fat is just a bit more than double in caloric intake.
If it appeared strange you weren't losing weight dispite an active lifestyle, I have to wonder... did you try writing everything you wrote in a food journal? I'm willing to bet you had quite a bit of fat intake, in addition to sugar. All of my stats improved as well when I went on a "diet" and exercies program (which included at least 30 mins of cardio a day). I lost 50 lbs, just by dropping my calorie intake and increasing my expendature.
Now I do keep a bit of an eye on my sugar levels, limiting non-fruit sugar sources sometimes, but because high sugar levels interfere with testosterone, and I'm on a mass building program. But at certain times I seek out sugar and other simple carbs, because I need immediate energy after a workout. I've gained weight, and my bodyfat has hovered around 10%.
There's no such thing as a magic bullet in life. But please, try this. Eat 450 grams of fat a day, and limit your sugar to 50 grams or so (not counting fruit). You WILL again weight, if you don't change your activity level that is. So that'd be 10 double 1/4ers from McDs. Throw away the bun, because that's were the 9 grams of sugar are coming from.
The government does play a part in salaries too; they set a minimum wage. Really, what's your argument? That we should go back to virtual slavery and child labor, under whatever conditions business owners decide?
If you want to go that way fine... do nothing, because many of the worker's rights laws are being repealed. The middle class continues its slide into the lower class, while the upper class elevates. Just realize that if you go this route, we will end up a communist state, because that's exactly what happened in Russia.
But I'd love to hear your actual solution to the problem, instead of nonsense I wasn't advocating. Government shouldn't interfer in the lives of people.. but corporations are legal fiction... we allow them exist to better the community. Unfortunately, we already have lots of evidence that if let to do as they please, they won't do that.. so it's perfectly fine with me to force them. Or we just go back and destory the corporate shield, and ever business becomes a sole propriatership. I have no problem with that.. if you're willing to take the risk of running that kind of business, fine with me.
If that's what you think then you have never put yourself in the employer's shoes. I am an employer with a small business and I know that to get good people and to get them to do a good job I have to treat them well. There is a balance of power between the employers and employees that depends on supply and demand, like anything else in a free market.
Yes, because there are basic rules that all employers must follow. There is no equal balance of power, and for proof just look at the early 1900s in this country.
In a free society, I should not be forced by law to provide another person with a living, certainly not to any arbitrarily set standard that someone else sets. If the government wants to set the minimum standards then it should do it with taxpayers money so that this burden is spread evenly, instead of placing the burden on one particular group, the business owners/shareholders.
We already went down this road. Again, look at history to see how people will be treated unless we force companies to follow basic rules.
You have a company, and presumably in a form that provides some immunity to things like lawsuits, debt, etc. In exchange, you agree to be regulated, so that you can't use your company to destory people's lives and the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you understand what pragmatism is.
I think the people doing the branding are rightly point out that "regardless of cost" means "regardless of cost to ME, who is an uninterested 3rd party."
If you care about others, regardless of cost, that's fine. Spend your own money. But don't use government to steal my income for such purposes.. I have my own shit to take care of.
Oh, and don't try and associate me with McCain either. I want nothing to do with "liberals" or "conservatives."
I think the only arguement that could work is that Facebook makes money by allowing users to post photographs, and thus they would need a release form to use YOUR likeness commercially. So, Sally may have granted a license for them to share her picture, but they are doing it for commerical reasons, so still need a release from you. Or a release from you provided by Sally.
Ya, I haven't heard excitment much about Perl since early 2001. Personally I think it being difficult to read is part of the problem.
Right, but the drug ban we have in place now is based on fear of blacks using drugs. Not that there was any valid concern anyway..
No, there aren't any costs, provided we simply let drug uses that OD, die from ODing.
Even if we don't do that, it's significatly cheaper and will reduce violence to simply legialize drugs. Alcohol already went through this. Prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol, it made it more dangerous for people to use and gave rise to organized crime and shooting sprees all across cities and neighborhoods.
We don't bond anyone to drink, nor should we bond them to use drugs. Goverment doesn't belong in the private lives of citizens. If someone is drugged out and harms someone else, physically or financially you deal with it then, on a case by case basis. Not with some stupid brain-dead licensing scheme.
See, there's this thing called efficiency, and you lose some converting solar / wind to electricity and lose more when electricity is used to split water to O2 and H2.
Seems like we'd be better off storing the wind / solar power right in a battery. Also gives us the chance to use nuclear power to charge those batteries, because nuclear can generate ALOT of reliable power... unlike solar or wind.
It makes the balance sheets for the design company better... since it's costs are lower and profit likely higher.
Who am I to tell someone they can't destroy their own body? Seriously though, if you look at this history of drug laws, they are based in racism. You know.. blacks had a hard enough time not raping poor defenseless white women, and when they were on cocain, well watch out!
You realize that asp.net controls can USE a library without the library itself being extended, right?
Well if you put yourself into a situtation that you are mugged, and you're saying "it's your own damn fault," you clearly are saying that the victim was at fault. If the victim really is at least partially at fault, then surely that relieves some of the guilt from the attacker. Maybe the mugee should spend say 90 days in jail as well? After all, his actions did help get him mugged..
In other words, you can't have your statement both ways.
Sorry, I really think you don't know what you're talking about. NT was designed as a multi-user OS with security in mind. It was originally built by the same engineers that built VMS.
As far as "sophistication" of attacks goes.. it's mainly users choosing to install viruses that cause problems. I fail to see any real sophistication in that. As for the numbers part... yes, there are more computers running Windows now than there were 10 years ago. Amazing.
No, they don't: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm. They only mandate that "short" breaks be paid. But you don't HAVE to have a lunch period at all, so states are usually the more restrictive of the labor laws.
If you're being pressured, calling your state DOL is probably the best bet. Also, audio recording devices are cheap, and IIRC, most states allow recording as long as one party is aware.
So... you're saying that the mugger should be penalized less, because the victim asked for it? Please, stop with this blame the victim nonsense.
1998 called, they want their insecure windows jokes back.
Well, maybe your state is more extreme than others. In VT, for example, there is no hard and fast time limit. You simply must be given "a reasonable amount of time to eat a meal, while being 100% free of all job related activites." I belive that's pretty much the wording of the law.
Well, there used to be nothing, then everyone got two minutes. For some reason, I guess certain people, including me, got bumped up to five. Which I don't understand.. the karma system is supposed to keep trolls out, and my karma is Excellent... so I don't know why I'd have an additional delay.
Ya, five minutes is too long. Don't know if it affects everyone or not.
Face the facts. You're at work. Unless you're on break, you're expected to leave your personal life at the door.
Actually, the courts, at least in the US, disagree with you. They've stated that yes, you can use very small amounts of times to take care of personal errends, even if not on break. They've spelled out reasonable phone use, so I imagine email / web use would also be reasonably included.
People forced into small, strict break times are routinely found to be less productive that those allowed some other distractions at work. It's really in your best interest to lighten up a bit.
Well, you seem to have a medical condition, which changes things for you. Even still though, I would talk to your doctor about your avoidence of carbs. You do actually require them for proper brain function, and low carb diets are exteremely dangerous for your heart.
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Heart-damage-a-consequence-of-Atkins-u2019-Die-5699-1/
I have no known conditions, and like I was saying, I don't think HFCS is soley to blame for the nations obesity problem. Our food tends to have much more fat the HFCS.. and said I pointed out earlier, fat is just a bit more than double in caloric intake.
If it appeared strange you weren't losing weight dispite an active lifestyle, I have to wonder... did you try writing everything you wrote in a food journal? I'm willing to bet you had quite a bit of fat intake, in addition to sugar. All of my stats improved as well when I went on a "diet" and exercies program (which included at least 30 mins of cardio a day). I lost 50 lbs, just by dropping my calorie intake and increasing my expendature.
Now I do keep a bit of an eye on my sugar levels, limiting non-fruit sugar sources sometimes, but because high sugar levels interfere with testosterone, and I'm on a mass building program. But at certain times I seek out sugar and other simple carbs, because I need immediate energy after a workout. I've gained weight, and my bodyfat has hovered around 10%.
There's no such thing as a magic bullet in life. But please, try this. Eat 450 grams of fat a day, and limit your sugar to 50 grams or so (not counting fruit). You WILL again weight, if you don't change your activity level that is. So that'd be 10 double 1/4ers from McDs. Throw away the bun, because that's were the 9 grams of sugar are coming from.
The government does play a part in salaries too; they set a minimum wage. Really, what's your argument? That we should go back to virtual slavery and child labor, under whatever conditions business owners decide?
If you want to go that way fine... do nothing, because many of the worker's rights laws are being repealed. The middle class continues its slide into the lower class, while the upper class elevates. Just realize that if you go this route, we will end up a communist state, because that's exactly what happened in Russia.
But I'd love to hear your actual solution to the problem, instead of nonsense I wasn't advocating. Government shouldn't interfer in the lives of people.. but corporations are legal fiction... we allow them exist to better the community. Unfortunately, we already have lots of evidence that if let to do as they please, they won't do that.. so it's perfectly fine with me to force them. Or we just go back and destory the corporate shield, and ever business becomes a sole propriatership. I have no problem with that.. if you're willing to take the risk of running that kind of business, fine with me.
You have moral authority because you didn't steal it to play it anyway.
It's pretty clear you've never seen asp.net, or you'd realize how silly your comment was.
If that's what you think then you have never put yourself in the employer's shoes. I am an employer with a small business and I know that to get good people and to get them to do a good job I have to treat them well. There is a balance of power between the employers and employees that depends on supply and demand, like anything else in a free market.
Yes, because there are basic rules that all employers must follow. There is no equal balance of power, and for proof just look at the early 1900s in this country.
In a free society, I should not be forced by law to provide another person with a living, certainly not to any arbitrarily set standard that someone else sets. If the government wants to set the minimum standards then it should do it with taxpayers money so that this burden is spread evenly, instead of placing the burden on one particular group, the business owners/shareholders.
We already went down this road. Again, look at history to see how people will be treated unless we force companies to follow basic rules.
You have a company, and presumably in a form that provides some immunity to things like lawsuits, debt, etc. In exchange, you agree to be regulated, so that you can't use your company to destory people's lives and the environment.