No job has a requirement of a certain computer desktop background. The only reason most companies have a policy against having porn as a background is because it creates a hostile work environment.
Working with porn, it would seem that everyone involved that MAKES it doesn't believe it's hostile.
So what about having a desktop background as porn vs. EDITING porn on that same monitor? Why is one "toxic" and other other isn't when its THE SAME ENVIRONMENT.
Your analogy is stupid and useless. If you want one, its more of your urologist looking at your privates while having a diagram of the same on the wall.
I'm not going to argue or discuss analogies anymore; if you aren't intelligent enought to tell me why adding more porn to an environment where there's ALREADY porn without an analogy, then I don't think you're going to be able to make your point.
Huh? Men are created; maybe not in the way the bible explains it, but being born or conceived (depending on when you think life truely begins) certainly is being created. Second, they didn't literally mean all men are equal, as in abilities, they mean all men share the same set of rights. There's nothing inherent in you that should allow you to decide my life.
If you actually read more than a few paragraphs and try to pick them apart, it's immediately apparent what they meant. You realize that most of the founders wrote volumes on various topics, usually between each other. They were having philosophical debates, and the result is our unique (at the time) Constitution. Personally, I think they were on the right track; treat everyone fairly and equally, and let them be.
Ignoring context just makes you look stupid, and it doesn't prove a point.
Selling? You mean we got sick of VZ and told them to get out, right?
VZ sucks; I live IN BURLINGTON and couldn't get DSL from them if I wanted to. What kind of crap was that? Ah well, the city did something right with Burlington Telecom.
This new system should link in to Burlington Telecom's... then a large part of the state would have a fiber network that private companies have failed to provide.
Sorry, that's absolutely wrong on philosophy. Indeed, there's an entire set of philosophies based ONLY on what it does for you in the real world. You should read David Hume, for example. Also, other areas of philosophy include human rights and how you can come to them without need for relying on a mythical being, and debate what whether it is best to let individuals exercise their rights or not.
The US was founded by those that engaged in philosophical debates. To dismiss philosophy is pretty silly.
Except most people's job isn't to tinker, and find different ways to do things. It's to get a specific job done as efficently as possible.
Computers are supposed to be tools to getting a job done quicker, cheaper and with less error. Replace computers and users in your argument with the first calculators and accountants and you see how silly your argument is.
Computers are a tool to get something done, not a plaything for employees so they can grow and learn.
Well your caveat only works to a point. How long would your department let him spin his wheels while work is not getting done? Who then gets blamed for the downtime? The power user or IT?
That's as intelligent as saying: "Well, we shouldn't trust black people, because IIRC, black people commit more crimes and there are more black people in jail." Way to go, Texas Ranger.
I personally believe you shouldn't trust anyone you don't personally know. But please, take your indignation elsewhere, I don't make the policies at the Red Cross, nor do I have anything to do with them really. (Hint: Do a search for 1977 on that link).
I wouldn't say black people commit more crimes, I woudl say that poor people do. And yes, there are statistics that back that up. Also, black people seem to over-represent poor people as well, so that explains why more are in jail. Finally, I hope you realize there's a bit more to what lands blacks in jail than gays having AIDS.
Oh so you know that their family never experienced failure, and that explains why someone would go on shooting rampage? Because mom and dad's lives were perfect?
Seems to me that in every school shooting the parents were 100% out of touch with their kid. Poor parenting is poor parenting, whether you're over-sheltering or not involved at all.
This makes as much sense as when Bush said we should tape our windows because of the fear of a chemical attack on U.S soil.
I wish he would follow his own advice.
So according to your logic, there are more nuts in the U.S than in Canada (my country), because clearly we are less armed than you yet we have less school shootings (even in % of the population).
There's probably the same number, but Canadians also own more guns than Americans. Hmm.. isn't that part of what I said?
Congrats. Mission accomplished. (you know what I'm referencing to)
One is not a reasonable sample size to make any kind of generalization. Sorry, you lose.
Well, if you can't spare $20, you probably aren't fit to be raising any kids. If you're an invalid and disabled, and have no family or friends that cares about you enough to help you keep TV, well I guess you were an ass. I fail to see how TV would help "soothe" depression or bordom for that matter.
no, the real problem is little whinny bitches like you that say certain types of humor aren't appropriate, yet don't think twice about laughing at something else someone may find inappropriate.
As far as AIDS and gay people go, I believe if you state you're gay you're not allowed to donate blood. IIRC, they do statistically have a higher population with the virus.
Maybe if we stopped raising oversensitive kids that while living with mommy and daddy never experiencd failure or anything bad we wouldn't have kids shooting up schools. Or maybe we still will, simply becuase there just are nuts out there, and we should be armed to deal with them more effectively.
And there is the seldom mentioned problem that analog TV viewers tend to be folks living on small incomes, fixed incomes, or both. They don't necessarily have even $20 to spare.
If you don't have $20 to spare, then I would think watching TV should be the least of your worries.
It depends on how you define "passed." I would argue you define it as you've pass the Stop here on Red marking; that is, you're officially in the intersection.
I'd also argue that it's very likely that even if you HAVEN'T passed that line, you may still have to go through the intersection because it would be unsafe to stop. For example, the car behind you is pretty close, or perhaps you notice the driver is on a cell phone. Given that you don't know how the driver behind you may react, the safest thing may be to go through the intersection, even if you could have stopped by the line.
Of course the huge problem is that government has turned from trying to provide safe travel to generating revenue. Given that, you're left in a postion where you really don't know if the safest thing will be the legal thing. Increasingly, the safest thing to do in any given circumstance is also illegal. It started with speed limits and seat belts, and its continuing to all areas of traffic law.
And if the law is there soley to generate revenue, that's not a problem? Of course the problem is that speeding DOESN'T cause accidents.. so there's no safety reason to enforce them. As far as yellow lights go, there is engineering that is done to figure out WHAT is the safest yellow light time. There's a whole field of science dedicated to traffic safety and figuring out what exactly are the safest ways to build / use our roads, and greedy politicians defy these engineers to make money. Oh, and so do the insurance companies. The only place that comes out in favor of more enforcement of red light cameras and speeding is the INSURANCE Insitute for Highway Safety. Guess who funds them?
So yes, cameras may reduce one kind of accident, but they increase another. Of course that other accident doesn't KILL you, but there's still damange done and you may not have a properly aligned spine anymore. But that doesn't matter, because the IIHS has figured out how to keep accidents at a certain level and severity to justify higher premiums, but not enough accidents to cut into their profits.
I thought so too, but I was suprised in VT to see lights that didn't have all sides being red at once. There were about three when I first moved here, now I think there is only one. The other two were replaced with newer lights that do have red on all sides for a second or so.
Well there's also the debate as to why, in a free society, you'd want to stop speeders anyway. Speeding by itself accounts for only 2.2% of all accidents, and there's NO corrilation between speeding and accident rates. In fact, raising limits almost always LOWERS accident rates. So why not let free, resonable people do reasonable things?
Your idea is interesting, but do you actually have studies to back it up? At http://www.motorists.org/, they have links to studies that lenghthing yellow light time is sufficent to lower accident rates.
Well, that's because people have learned that traffic signs are meaningless, because of speed limits being set arbitrarly to generate revenue. So it starts with learning that even though the limit says 55, you can easily do 80 safely. So you start thinking other signs are meaningless.. this cycle has been shown in various studies.
The law also dictates that traffic control devices be set according to safe, proven engineering principals. The argument can be made that if the government had followed the law, you would not have broken any laws.
Ya, but I guess reading is harder. First, if you had actually read the Tesla Motoros site, the few dollars is closer to ~$2, not $6. Second, again if you could read that same page, the car can charge from "totally dead" to "fully charged" in ~3.5 hours.
Watch the moron poster that doesn't know what he's talking about. If the car only costs a few dollors to charge, that means the amount of kWHs is pretty low. Also, I imagine most people would charge their cars overnight... you know, when electric demand is at its lowest?
Slashdot Mirror
Fear? How about just normal business? Yes, they want to keep or grow their market share. That's a shock to you? Really?
No job has a requirement of a certain computer desktop background. The only reason most companies have a policy against having porn as a background is because it creates a hostile work environment.
Working with porn, it would seem that everyone involved that MAKES it doesn't believe it's hostile.
So what about having a desktop background as porn vs. EDITING porn on that same monitor? Why is one "toxic" and other other isn't when its THE SAME ENVIRONMENT.
Your analogy is stupid and useless. If you want one, its more of your urologist looking at your privates while having a diagram of the same on the wall.
I'm not going to argue or discuss analogies anymore; if you aren't intelligent enought to tell me why adding more porn to an environment where there's ALREADY porn without an analogy, then I don't think you're going to be able to make your point.
Huh? Men are created; maybe not in the way the bible explains it, but being born or conceived (depending on when you think life truely begins) certainly is being created. Second, they didn't literally mean all men are equal, as in abilities, they mean all men share the same set of rights. There's nothing inherent in you that should allow you to decide my life.
If you actually read more than a few paragraphs and try to pick them apart, it's immediately apparent what they meant. You realize that most of the founders wrote volumes on various topics, usually between each other. They were having philosophical debates, and the result is our unique (at the time) Constitution. Personally, I think they were on the right track; treat everyone fairly and equally, and let them be.
Ignoring context just makes you look stupid, and it doesn't prove a point.
Well, my city in VT rolled out FTTH, and it seems to be a fairly large success. They are orders of magnitude better than Comcast or Verizon.
Selling? You mean we got sick of VZ and told them to get out, right?
VZ sucks; I live IN BURLINGTON and couldn't get DSL from them if I wanted to. What kind of crap was that? Ah well, the city did something right with Burlington Telecom.
This new system should link in to Burlington Telecom's... then a large part of the state would have a fiber network that private companies have failed to provide.
Don't forget how the edges then begin to blur.
And then kick a jackass out who couldn't comprehend teh difference between looking at porn for the job and having porn for his desktop background.
Um, if you're already surrounded by porn, why does having such a background make someone a jackass?
Sorry, that's absolutely wrong on philosophy. Indeed, there's an entire set of philosophies based ONLY on what it does for you in the real world. You should read David Hume, for example. Also, other areas of philosophy include human rights and how you can come to them without need for relying on a mythical being, and debate what whether it is best to let individuals exercise their rights or not.
The US was founded by those that engaged in philosophical debates. To dismiss philosophy is pretty silly.
Sure it will, and they'll just toss all the investment in other software they bought that only runs on Windows too. Sure. Absolutely.
Except most people's job isn't to tinker, and find different ways to do things. It's to get a specific job done as efficently as possible.
Computers are supposed to be tools to getting a job done quicker, cheaper and with less error. Replace computers and users in your argument with the first calculators and accountants and you see how silly your argument is.
Computers are a tool to get something done, not a plaything for employees so they can grow and learn.
Well your caveat only works to a point. How long would your department let him spin his wheels while work is not getting done? Who then gets blamed for the downtime? The power user or IT?
That's as intelligent as saying:
"Well, we shouldn't trust black people, because IIRC, black people commit more crimes and there are more black people in jail."
Way to go, Texas Ranger.
I personally believe you shouldn't trust anyone you don't personally know. But please, take your indignation elsewhere, I don't make the policies at the Red Cross, nor do I have anything to do with them really. (Hint: Do a search for 1977 on that link).
I wouldn't say black people commit more crimes, I woudl say that poor people do. And yes, there are statistics that back that up. Also, black people seem to over-represent poor people as well, so that explains why more are in jail. Finally, I hope you realize there's a bit more to what lands blacks in jail than gays having AIDS.
Oh so you know that their family never experienced failure, and that explains why someone would go on shooting rampage? Because mom and dad's lives were perfect?
Seems to me that in every school shooting the parents were 100% out of touch with their kid. Poor parenting is poor parenting, whether you're over-sheltering or not involved at all.
This makes as much sense as when Bush said we should tape our windows because of the fear of a chemical attack on U.S soil.
I wish he would follow his own advice.
So according to your logic, there are more nuts in the U.S than in Canada (my country), because clearly we are less armed than you yet we have less school shootings (even in % of the population).
There's probably the same number, but Canadians also own more guns than Americans. Hmm.. isn't that part of what I said?
Congrats. Mission accomplished. (you know what I'm referencing to)
One is not a reasonable sample size to make any kind of generalization. Sorry, you lose.
Well, if you can't spare $20, you probably aren't fit to be raising any kids. If you're an invalid and disabled, and have no family or friends that cares about you enough to help you keep TV, well I guess you were an ass. I fail to see how TV would help "soothe" depression or bordom for that matter.
no, the real problem is little whinny bitches like you that say certain types of humor aren't appropriate, yet don't think twice about laughing at something else someone may find inappropriate.
As far as AIDS and gay people go, I believe if you state you're gay you're not allowed to donate blood. IIRC, they do statistically have a higher population with the virus.
Maybe if we stopped raising oversensitive kids that while living with mommy and daddy never experiencd failure or anything bad we wouldn't have kids shooting up schools. Or maybe we still will, simply becuase there just are nuts out there, and we should be armed to deal with them more effectively.
And there is the seldom mentioned problem that analog TV viewers tend to be folks living on small incomes, fixed incomes, or both. They don't necessarily have even $20 to spare.
If you don't have $20 to spare, then I would think watching TV should be the least of your worries.
It depends on how you define "passed." I would argue you define it as you've pass the Stop here on Red marking; that is, you're officially in the intersection.
I'd also argue that it's very likely that even if you HAVEN'T passed that line, you may still have to go through the intersection because it would be unsafe to stop. For example, the car behind you is pretty close, or perhaps you notice the driver is on a cell phone. Given that you don't know how the driver behind you may react, the safest thing may be to go through the intersection, even if you could have stopped by the line.
Of course the huge problem is that government has turned from trying to provide safe travel to generating revenue. Given that, you're left in a postion where you really don't know if the safest thing will be the legal thing. Increasingly, the safest thing to do in any given circumstance is also illegal. It started with speed limits and seat belts, and its continuing to all areas of traffic law.
And if the law is there soley to generate revenue, that's not a problem? Of course the problem is that speeding DOESN'T cause accidents.. so there's no safety reason to enforce them. As far as yellow lights go, there is engineering that is done to figure out WHAT is the safest yellow light time. There's a whole field of science dedicated to traffic safety and figuring out what exactly are the safest ways to build / use our roads, and greedy politicians defy these engineers to make money. Oh, and so do the insurance companies. The only place that comes out in favor of more enforcement of red light cameras and speeding is the INSURANCE Insitute for Highway Safety. Guess who funds them?
So yes, cameras may reduce one kind of accident, but they increase another. Of course that other accident doesn't KILL you, but there's still damange done and you may not have a properly aligned spine anymore. But that doesn't matter, because the IIHS has figured out how to keep accidents at a certain level and severity to justify higher premiums, but not enough accidents to cut into their profits.
No, most places say "slow to a stop if you can safely do so, otherwise continue through the intersection."
I thought so too, but I was suprised in VT to see lights that didn't have all sides being red at once. There were about three when I first moved here, now I think there is only one. The other two were replaced with newer lights that do have red on all sides for a second or so.
Well there's also the debate as to why, in a free society, you'd want to stop speeders anyway. Speeding by itself accounts for only 2.2% of all accidents, and there's NO corrilation between speeding and accident rates. In fact, raising limits almost always LOWERS accident rates. So why not let free, resonable people do reasonable things?
Your idea is interesting, but do you actually have studies to back it up? At http://www.motorists.org/, they have links to studies that lenghthing yellow light time is sufficent to lower accident rates.
Well, that's because people have learned that traffic signs are meaningless, because of speed limits being set arbitrarly to generate revenue. So it starts with learning that even though the limit says 55, you can easily do 80 safely. So you start thinking other signs are meaningless.. this cycle has been shown in various studies.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
Check out the second to last question on that page.
The law also dictates that traffic control devices be set according to safe, proven engineering principals. The argument can be made that if the government had followed the law, you would not have broken any laws.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/safety-setting-speed-limits/
IN the first paragraph is mention of a federal law which lays down this requirement. I think it applies to ALL roads, not just federally funded ones.
Ya, but I guess reading is harder. First, if you had actually read the Tesla Motoros site, the few dollars is closer to ~$2, not $6. Second, again if you could read that same page, the car can charge from "totally dead" to "fully charged" in ~3.5 hours.
Watch the moron poster that doesn't know what he's talking about. If the car only costs a few dollors to charge, that means the amount of kWHs is pretty low. Also, I imagine most people would charge their cars overnight... you know, when electric demand is at its lowest?