The problem with listening to discussion forums is the people there represent what is called the "Vocal Minority." People with problems and complaints are more likely to be vocal about them than are people who are content with things the way they are. That is why you tend to see a lot more "BLIZ U SUC I QUIT!" posts than "This is the best game I have ever played please dont change anything." posts.
You're right. But by not putting that expectation upfront in your discussions with a perspective employer you will never make them aware how many fathers would like that flexibility.
Good point.
Great, then why do you so actively defend the policy?
Not once did I defend it. I didn't say I agreed or that it was right in any way. I merely stated it was that way.
Your measure of success is not the same as mine. I am not the highest paid (compensated, etc) employee in my company or even my group. But the greatest success I have experienced to date has been seeing my kids grow up.
I never said they would be more successful, merely that they would have more oportunities and promotions within the company.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is: "Women don't go as far in the workplace because fathers are too selfish to put their careers on the *daddy-track*".
How many of those women asked the father to take the time off, and how many instead also took on the idea that it was their job and took it upon themselves? I know more women that believe that the women should be the ones taking care of the children than men that feel the same way. The fact is that is what society has dictated is the way it should be, right or wrong. I do not agree with it, in fact I have strong feelings against it. That doesn't mean its not true.
You seem to feel that I like/want things this way. I was merely mentioning that a good number of people, possibly even the large majority, feel that the mother is responsible for raising and taking care of the child and that the father is the one who brings home the bacon. Even today that is true. I never said I agree or condone this view point, I was just pointing it out.
Then don't reinforce the trend. Look for employers who are more enlightened.
If only there were so many jobs out there that I had the luxury to pick one with good family values.
What is more important, your job or your children?
Kind of shitty that someone would ask *you*, a male, that kind of question, right?
Those are the choices that women have made for years.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I agree with the 'women take care of the children' policy, because I don't. I was only saying that it exists in the workplace. And allthough the children vs job question is an easy one to answer for those with children, you then have to understand why the single guy who may be less qualified than you gets the promotion instead of you. Its because he has the dedication the company is looking for. They can send him away for the weekend and ask him to work long hours because they don't have to worry about him leaving to take care of his children. If you do chose family over your job (which I'm not saying you shouldn't) Then you have to accept that you won't go as far and get the same opportunities as your co-workers who don't. And to bring us back on topic that is one reason why women don't go as far in the workplace as men. Because they are the ones who most often put the family above the career (and are expected to by society) and are thus passed up when promotions come around.
Only because the father has reinforced that view at his job.
Actually I think its because society has reinforced this view.
We have different experiences.
Obviously. From my experience, male employers expect male employees to have their wives take care of those types of issues (if they are married). I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it. I'm just saying that is what I have observed. I imagine there are plenty of employers out there who don't mind if the fathers do it instead of the mothers, but I have not seen any myself.
The sad part is that this is one of the reasons the womans role in the workplace suffers. If the employers know that she will have to take time off for the kids, then they know they cant rely on her working extra hours and getting stuff done, so her position in the company is less because of that.
Are you suggesting that employers will force widowers or single-parent fathers to marry so that they will have reliable daycare?
No, I'm saying that if there is no mother then the company will expect the father to be responsible, but he will suffer the same setbacks as a mother in that case.
The only problem with this is it is the mothers who are allowed to take the time off for their children. Even if the gp was married with children I bet he still wouldn't get the time off because his kids are sick, it would be expected that the mother would take care of that. It's not that the dads are unwilling to take care of it (well not necissarily) it's that the dads employers don't understand and allow it as much as the moms, even if they are the same employers. At least in my experience.
This article seems a little too biased for my taste. To say that Microsoft's centralized database isn't as good as just doing a google search is absurd. True the database may not have answers to everything, but good luck finding every answer on google. And "No longer do you have to wait for the software developer to solve the problem, just do it yourself" PLEASE, not everyone (read most people) has the time, money, or ability to do it themselves.
In most states (atleast in mine) its only illegal if you are playing for over a certain amount. Keep games small and friendly and it will still be legal.
I was wondering, if you use chips, and have everyone pay an 'entry fee' when they start, and award cash 'prizes' at the end, if this would get around the gambling laws?
I got mine off ebay, but be careful. I bought two (what I thought were) identical sets from 2 different sellers. When I got the chips the thickness was off slightly. They both weighed the same but one set was just thicker than the other. If you are going to buy chips remember to buy them all from the same place.
Re:There is little math in /playing/ poker
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There may be little math in friendly poker games, but in serious poker there can be a great deal. You have to figure out the odds you will make your hand, and the odds that your hand will win. Compare these with pot odds (the amount of money being bet vs the amount already in the pot) and decide based on all of this if it is smart to play or not.
Of course none of this accounts for the human factor and bluffing.
Yes there is randomness to it, so each hand has chance played into it. But to win over time it takes skill. You have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em, as they say. The ability to read not only the odds, but the other players, is what makes you a good poker player.
Actually the best odds in the house come from Blackjack and craps. With either one if you know what you are doing the house only has around 1-2% advantage over you. Also its not 50% chance, you forgot about the 0 and 00.
Also counting cards isn't illegal, but the casinos will ask you to leave and maybe blacklist you if you do it.
I don't know anyone personally who have claimed bogus degrees, but several people I work with flat out made up stuff on their resume. Claiming they know languages they couldn't program in if their life depended on it. Unfortunately the boss either hasn't noticed or is too scared to do something about it.
I don't see how using this utility to pick out textbooks and find bars has anything to do with responsibility. In fact I think using this to get a cab is a great deal more responsible than driving yourself home.
TV-Turnoff Network is a national nonprofit organization that encourages children and adults to watch much less television in order to promote healthier lives and communities.
No where on there do I see where it says anything about sticking it to the man. Its not about damning corporations, its about improving health and communication.
Allthough for most people turning off the tv just means more time on the computer, so it may not have the exact effect they want on everyone.
society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?
Our commercial art forms arent 'only' being used that way. There are plenty of non-violent, and even educational games out there (they just dont get as much press).
It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.
If the children do not have this supervision and guidance, then yes they will be affected by these games. But if you take away the games the problem still exists. The children will still not have the guidance they need to properly develop values, and will most likely be degraded by other means (movies, drugs etc).
Violent video games are not the problem, parents are. The games are just one median which unsupervised children can be adversely affected by. It's not the games fault, they weren't made for young children. If you take away the games, you'll have to take away the movies, and the news, and every other form of media that could affect children if their careless parents allowed them to experience them. Do that and you leave no entertainment for the rest of us. That's not the world I want to live in.
Maybe the universe is shaped like a klein bottle? The curvature at the end would be similar to the 'horn' model and it would explain the 'turning around' that allegedly occurs at the edge of the horn. Just trying to imagine traveling in a klein bottle is making my head hurt though.
The only problem with that scenario is the cheats your friend was using are in violation of the EULA, making the money he made off the game ill gotten gains, and illegal to boot.
The question is, once you're trading instead of playing the game for fun, isn't it just like having a job anyway?
If you can play for fun and still collect enough items to sell, then you are still playing a game, either that or you have a really good job.
And for the people buying the virtual goods, isn't that like paying to "cheat" in the game?
With these types of game in order for you to be up to par with the rest of the players out there you either have to sink a lot of time into it, or buy items. Buying items is a way for the buyers to be able to enjoy the game, without having to spend mind numbing hours collecting items/gold.
Or is the game written in such a way that this is taken into account, and hence the whole point of playing the game is purely concerned with how much real world money you can spend on improving your character?
If you are insinuating that there are a number of children running around with no adult supervision/guidance, then they have much bigger problems than violent videogames.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with listening to discussion forums is the people there represent what is called the "Vocal Minority." People with problems and complaints are more likely to be vocal about them than are people who are content with things the way they are. That is why you tend to see a lot more "BLIZ U SUC I QUIT!" posts than "This is the best game I have ever played please dont change anything." posts.
You're right. But by not putting that expectation upfront in your discussions with a perspective employer you will never make them aware how many fathers would like that flexibility.
Good point.
Great, then why do you so actively defend the policy?
Not once did I defend it. I didn't say I agreed or that it was right in any way. I merely stated it was that way.
Your measure of success is not the same as mine. I am not the highest paid (compensated, etc) employee in my company or even my group. But the greatest success I have experienced to date has been seeing my kids grow up.
I never said they would be more successful, merely that they would have more oportunities and promotions within the company.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is: "Women don't go as far in the workplace because fathers are too selfish to put their careers on the *daddy-track*".
How many of those women asked the father to take the time off, and how many instead also took on the idea that it was their job and took it upon themselves? I know more women that believe that the women should be the ones taking care of the children than men that feel the same way. The fact is that is what society has dictated is the way it should be, right or wrong. I do not agree with it, in fact I have strong feelings against it. That doesn't mean its not true.
You seem to feel that I like/want things this way. I was merely mentioning that a good number of people, possibly even the large majority, feel that the mother is responsible for raising and taking care of the child and that the father is the one who brings home the bacon. Even today that is true. I never said I agree or condone this view point, I was just pointing it out.
If only there were so many jobs out there that I had the luxury to pick one with good family values.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I agree with the 'women take care of the children' policy, because I don't. I was only saying that it exists in the workplace. And allthough the children vs job question is an easy one to answer for those with children, you then have to understand why the single guy who may be less qualified than you gets the promotion instead of you. Its because he has the dedication the company is looking for. They can send him away for the weekend and ask him to work long hours because they don't have to worry about him leaving to take care of his children. If you do chose family over your job (which I'm not saying you shouldn't) Then you have to accept that you won't go as far and get the same opportunities as your co-workers who don't. And to bring us back on topic that is one reason why women don't go as far in the workplace as men. Because they are the ones who most often put the family above the career (and are expected to by society) and are thus passed up when promotions come around.
Only because the father has reinforced that view at his job.
Actually I think its because society has reinforced this view.
We have different experiences.
Obviously. From my experience, male employers expect male employees to have their wives take care of those types of issues (if they are married). I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it. I'm just saying that is what I have observed. I imagine there are plenty of employers out there who don't mind if the fathers do it instead of the mothers, but I have not seen any myself.
The sad part is that this is one of the reasons the womans role in the workplace suffers. If the employers know that she will have to take time off for the kids, then they know they cant rely on her working extra hours and getting stuff done, so her position in the company is less because of that.
Are you suggesting that employers will force widowers or single-parent fathers to marry so that they will have reliable daycare?
No, I'm saying that if there is no mother then the company will expect the father to be responsible, but he will suffer the same setbacks as a mother in that case.
The only problem with this is it is the mothers who are allowed to take the time off for their children. Even if the gp was married with children I bet he still wouldn't get the time off because his kids are sick, it would be expected that the mother would take care of that. It's not that the dads are unwilling to take care of it (well not necissarily) it's that the dads employers don't understand and allow it as much as the moms, even if they are the same employers. At least in my experience.
This article seems a little too biased for my taste. To say that Microsoft's centralized database isn't as good as just doing a google search is absurd. True the database may not have answers to everything, but good luck finding every answer on google. And "No longer do you have to wait for the software developer to solve the problem, just do it yourself" PLEASE, not everyone (read most people) has the time, money, or ability to do it themselves.
More good advice. When choosing your seat at the table try to sit with loose betters to your right, and tight betters to your left.
In most states (atleast in mine) its only illegal if you are playing for over a certain amount. Keep games small and friendly and it will still be legal.
I was wondering, if you use chips, and have everyone pay an 'entry fee' when they start, and award cash 'prizes' at the end, if this would get around the gambling laws?
I got mine off ebay, but be careful. I bought two (what I thought were) identical sets from 2 different sellers. When I got the chips the thickness was off slightly. They both weighed the same but one set was just thicker than the other. If you are going to buy chips remember to buy them all from the same place.
There may be little math in friendly poker games, but in serious poker there can be a great deal. You have to figure out the odds you will make your hand, and the odds that your hand will win. Compare these with pot odds (the amount of money being bet vs the amount already in the pot) and decide based on all of this if it is smart to play or not.
Of course none of this accounts for the human factor and bluffing.
Yes there is randomness to it, so each hand has chance played into it. But to win over time it takes skill. You have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em, as they say. The ability to read not only the odds, but the other players, is what makes you a good poker player.
Actually the best odds in the house come from Blackjack and craps. With either one if you know what you are doing the house only has around 1-2% advantage over you. Also its not 50% chance, you forgot about the 0 and 00.
Also counting cards isn't illegal, but the casinos will ask you to leave and maybe blacklist you if you do it.
The only way to leave with cash from a casino is to hit the ATM on your way out.
I don't know anyone personally who have claimed bogus degrees, but several people I work with flat out made up stuff on their resume. Claiming they know languages they couldn't program in if their life depended on it. Unfortunately the boss either hasn't noticed or is too scared to do something about it.
That's what's so greate about the internet, information always gets updated
But whats bad about the internet is the information isn't always validated or correct.
I don't see how using this utility to pick out textbooks and find bars has anything to do with responsibility. In fact I think using this to get a cab is a great deal more responsible than driving yourself home.
According to your statistics violence on tv is going up, but homicides are going down. Lets just show nothing but violence on tv and stop the killing!
38.5 minutes of 'meaningful' conversation. I'd like to know how they determined that, and what they define as meaningful.
According to the site:
TV-Turnoff Network is a national nonprofit organization that encourages children and adults to watch much less television in order to promote healthier lives and communities.
No where on there do I see where it says anything about sticking it to the man. Its not about damning corporations, its about improving health and communication.
Allthough for most people turning off the tv just means more time on the computer, so it may not have the exact effect they want on everyone.
society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?
Our commercial art forms arent 'only' being used that way. There are plenty of non-violent, and even educational games out there (they just dont get as much press).
It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.
If the children do not have this supervision and guidance, then yes they will be affected by these games. But if you take away the games the problem still exists. The children will still not have the guidance they need to properly develop values, and will most likely be degraded by other means (movies, drugs etc).
Violent video games are not the problem, parents are. The games are just one median which unsupervised children can be adversely affected by. It's not the games fault, they weren't made for young children. If you take away the games, you'll have to take away the movies, and the news, and every other form of media that could affect children if their careless parents allowed them to experience them. Do that and you leave no entertainment for the rest of us. That's not the world I want to live in.
Maybe the universe is shaped like a klein bottle? The curvature at the end would be similar to the 'horn' model and it would explain the 'turning around' that allegedly occurs at the edge of the horn. Just trying to imagine traveling in a klein bottle is making my head hurt though.
The only problem with that scenario is the cheats your friend was using are in violation of the EULA, making the money he made off the game ill gotten gains, and illegal to boot.
The question is, once you're trading instead of playing the game for fun, isn't it just like having a job anyway?
If you can play for fun and still collect enough items to sell, then you are still playing a game, either that or you have a really good job.
And for the people buying the virtual goods, isn't that like paying to "cheat" in the game?
With these types of game in order for you to be up to par with the rest of the players out there you either have to sink a lot of time into it, or buy items. Buying items is a way for the buyers to be able to enjoy the game, without having to spend mind numbing hours collecting items/gold.
Or is the game written in such a way that this is taken into account, and hence the whole point of playing the game is purely concerned with how much real world money you can spend on improving your character?
No, it just ended up that way.
You die of heart disease brought about by too much TV watching and excessive consumption of Doritos and Mountain Dew.
But what a way to go!
Why is it that every time I see someone admitting to be karma whoring they are at +5?
<karma whore>Well lets give it a try shall we?</karma whore>
If you are insinuating that there are a number of children running around with no adult supervision/guidance, then they have much bigger problems than violent videogames.