Maybe, but every Linux PDA device I've seen has had the shitest user interface. Dreadful to use, and this is from a Unix systems administrator typing this post on a Linux based laptop running KDE.
I own a Zaurus and have seen other Linux PDAs and must agree with you. However, let's take a look at one company that took a clunky interface and has made good so far; Apple. Their Mac OS X looks just like a next-generation version of their old OS 9 interface. The result is that by maintaining familiarity (through coding their own interface), they were able to keep their old customers and provide a stable and sufficiently open OS to attract new customers and coders.
Perhaps Palm (a.k.a. PalmOne, a.k.a. Palm) will do the same. I hope so. I like the the current interface and would hate to see it change. You know the old aphorism, "If it ain't broke..."
IMO, the smart decision would be to maintain the same appearance while giving the under-structure the versatility and power of Linux. In other words, don't let the users who wouldn't know Linux from a hole in the ground even realize that there's been a change. They don't care, shouldn't care, and therefore don't need to know. If it still looks the same, and even has an emulator to run older PalmOS apps, then the only thing that could hinder Palm from regaining the market would be their Marketing Dept. and their allegedly monopolistic competitor.
Advantages I personally see for the move to Linux include threading, versatility, access to open-source community programmers, potential emulator for backward compatibility, and superior driver capabilities. I'm still angry at Palm for not helping other wi-fi manufacturers to develop drivers, which I've read is due to the limitations of the current PalmOS.
----
If you want what you've always had, do what you've always done.
I mean seriously, what was the logic behind giving 55% stake in the holder of your old name to a spinoff.
Perhaps the reason for changing names and exchanging money from one self-owned company to another self-owned company was to essentially launder money for tax purposes.
By shifting money from one company to another, one can "lose" money, while the other company is just being started and organized can write off "losses" and such. Maybe the benefit has passed and it's time to re-shift the money in order to save money again.
----
This semi-paranoid view is brought to you by the Tin-Foil Hat Squad(TM).
Some Random Thoughts in no particular order after reading some comments...
Regarding someone's earlier suggestion for Knoppix-like live-CD boots, I think it's a great idea. I've not been to an Internet Cafe... Do they allow you to boot from CD-ROM? I would make it impossible if I was an Oppressive Regime (OR).
As for bypassing hardware key loggers, what if you used a USB keyboard that you brought yourself. I'm sure there's some roll-up plastic keyboards that operate on USB. Simply unplug the existing keyboard and plug yours in and reboot... As long as the USB port isn't being logged, you could be OK. (I say "could" because I'm not certain)
I agree with an earlier post that pre-encrypting with GPG or PGP would be a good idea. The downside is that interactive communication is still risky.
Regarding encryption, I suggest multiple encryptions in multiple variety. I saw a stand-up comedian or TV show where a paranoid New York apartment dweller had a dozen locks and locked only half of them. that way when the locks were picked, the thief was locking the unlocked ones... If I remember the old PGP, you could use the public key of your recipient to decrypt and use your private key to encrypt. Do this with a half-dozen encryption schemes, in the right order, over multiple encryption methods and you'll give the OR-goons something to think about. This includes embedding your encrypted message in audio, video, image, text, configuration, executable, and any other kind of file you can think of. (I'm waiting for someone to come up with an olfactory format, although I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most M$ file formats stink.)
Encrypt everything! From grocery lists to birthday wishes to seditious remarks to praise for the current OR-leaders. Make the OR fight to get fruitless results and they might think you some knucklehead who just encrypts stuff for the fun of it.
Tunneling and Anonymizer like proxies are great, except I don't trust the man-in-the-middle attack or the MAC address problem. The only way I see to avoid reducing traceability of your communications is to own someone else's servers and control them remotely. Most people, including me, aren't good enough to do that. To circumvent Big Brother's all-seeing eyes, and foster free speech, it must be easy enough for the non-technical users.
Remember that the OR has the budget (through oppressive taxation) to capture everything in perpetuity so they can review and hammer away at their leisure. So, be careful out there.
Me? I'm hiding under my bed until this blows over...
- - -
The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If I am a corporation, I need to produce goods and/or services that will yield a profit otherwise the corporation will not exist.
That's real nice rhetoric. I'm not sure whether it falls under the "Appeal to Pity" or "Complex Cause" fallacy. Let's call greed and laziness exactly what it is.
I've hired my company out for work and received decent money. I share that money with my talented and skilled workers who remain loyal to me and provide good work. We all profit, and my corporation still exists.
As a consultant, I've observed many cases where my client companies have decided to cut the wages of the peon while executives and board members received dividend and bonus increases, and released reports that complained about the cost of doing business as validation for the "team" to make sacrifices.
I'm not saying that all corporations do this, but ask yourself these questions about human nature:
Will humans generally take more than they need?
How often will humans in power share their power or benefits openly?
Will humans who cut the pie for others always take the smaller cut, or ensure that the pie is cut absolutely equally?
This reminds me of a brain-teaser where Mom had to ensure that all the kids at the birthday party got equal cuts of the cake. So, she told the child cutting the cake that he would receive the last piece after all the others.
Guess how precisely the cake was cut...
Given the chance to increase personal benefit at the expense of an unseen other, will most humans take advantage of that opportunity?
You can consider me a cynic or a stoic. (please do) But such behavior seems at least mildlyantisocial to me. (compare the interpersonal, affective and behavioral dimensions with our government officials and top executives today)
Doesn't it seem counterproductive for executives to preach "teamwork" when they shaft the members of their "team" that are responsible for the actual work that provides them with their dividends and bonuses?
The purpose of my rant is to say that it's easy for a six-figure to seven-figure income executive to spout the "need to produce goods and/or services that will yield a profit otherwise the corporation" so that it can continue to exist, while realizing personal profit for being so surreptitiously clever. You spout nice rhetoric, but given the history of my personal observations and the news stories over recorded history, I don't buy it as actual truth.
Thank you for your time and attention...
- - -
please forgive my double-sig, but I find them both relevant.
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
-- Ayn Rand
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I've used the CUPS interface on RH9 and FreeBSD 5.3 without problem for an admittedly small variety of printers. While it's not the most intuitive, it wasn't difficult.
My Win2000 and WinXP boxes don't seem to have trouble connecting via SAMBA.
Though I used the CUPS interface to set up my *nix boxes, I have been using Webmin for certain other purposes. (Yeah, so I'm a weenie for not doing everything with conf files...) So, I checked the Webmin interface in/Hardware/Printer Administration and found it semi-clean. Except for needing to pre-install some print drivers manually, it looks like it should be relatively easy.
In the business world, meeting with Microsoft to divuldge your technology secrets is the same as a sorority girl yelling "I'm soooo drunk!" at a frat party. Suing them is the the foreplay to some hot Microsoft buy-out action!
OK, I've never really understood why a huge company would want to own the patent and leverage it against the competition, while a small company would want to be bought out of business. To me, I'd rather see my small company grow as a result of the tools and advantages we develop. And if we could grow with residual income from large companies, including Microsoft (whether through contracts or fines), then that would be all the better.
So, I guess my question to everyone is, "Why is it better to be bought out by Microsoft than to license your patents to them (and other corporate customers)?"
My guess is that it's the Lottery Mentality... get the quick pay-off and go party with your "winnings."
Just another thought, why should Microsoft be the buyer (and therefore patent winner) in this situation. Aren't there other buyers who might want to leverage that technology? Two companies come immediately to mind: IBM and Canopy Group (SCO).
- - -
Heretic? Lunatic?
...other than spelling and pronunciation, what's the difference?
OK, at the risk of clobbering my newly grown karma, allow me to point out that this is a shining example of how Microsoft has grown to become the great behemoth it is.
Below, find three sequential elements from the timeline in TFA.
09/98 - Alacritech meets with Microsoft and describes patent-pending Dynamic TCP Offload architecture in detail under a non-disclosure agreement
04/99 - At Microsoft's request, Alacritech delivers detailed architecture document for integrating Alacritech SLIC Technology into Windows
06/99 - Microsoft ceases further communications with Alacritech and subsequently proceeds to use Alacritech SLIC Technology without a license
How many articles have we seen here on/. that duplicates this pattern? Who else has been stepped on by the giant in such manner? I'm sure somebody could find a fist-full of articles here in history that shows exactly that behavior pattern.
Am I correct in recalling that Novell got stung? IBM? I know those are giants themselves. I'm just glad to see that a little David has been able to sling his stone bullet into the face of the Goliath. Now, let's see if they can make it really count.
I'm not asking to shut down Microsoft. Just have them play fair.
Is that too much to ask, Bill?
(Bill: "Why, yes. It is.")
- - -
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. -- Otto Von Bismarck
(this sig stolen from/.)
...All I want is to be able to play with a server in my spare time, without having to fight with my ISP (or pay for a business line).
The answer resides in your last five words...
They want to be able to charge you the higher rate for a business line. Since there is no physical or legal reason you shouldn't, they use the "server" classification as an excuse to define and enforce the arbitrary restriction (based upon (ahem) policy). Policy is an arbitrary degree of their product which is their business. This is also one reason they don't allow static IP addresses on consumer lines. (Another reason is that it requires brains to manage and support, and they're not putting the bigger brains in the lowest tier of tech-support.)
Think about it, is there really any reason to charge so much more for "business" over "consumer" rates other than, "what the traffic will bear?"
I pay a business rate in order to have five static IP addresses and do what I want/need. If I didn't have the business to justify the expense, I'd have to use dyndns.org or some other service and run everything behind a NAT router/firewall, just as I did when I first put my network online.
There is a stigma attached to the absence of an Intel-Inside logo. The company where I work (US$350Million) has the official Band-wagon Approach, touting "Market Share" as their slogan for buying only what the majority buys regardless of capability, quality, or value.
This means, Microsoft, Intel, um... well, I guess, Microsoft, Intel...
As long as "nobdody ever gets fired" for being a lemming, AMD will end up on the short end of the stick.
When I ran my own small consulting firm, I had only two Intel and fifteen AMD boxes. But then, I only answered to myself and wasn't afraid to make decisions based upon performance over perception. It appears that the bigger a company gets, the more important it becomes to be perceived as competent than actually being competent.
One other thing. I intend to buy two more notebooks for myself. They will be AMD processor based.
---
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Could somebody please explain something I overheard and if it's even relevant here?
This fellow was ranting at the office about Common Law vs. Admiralty Law, and how the American Bar Association has shifted our country's legal system from the former to the latter and moved the burden from the perpetrator to the victim. He said that suits like this would have been ignored if not punished, and that it was this kind of litigation-mania along with taxes and persecution that caused some people to flee 18th century England.
I'm not a historian either, so I don't know if this guys just blowing smoke and steam, or what.
Even if this guy is right about the Common vs. Admiralty laws, does that even relate to this topic at all?
If so, how?
--- People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice - if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices. -Robert A. Heinlein
This legislation is WAY TOO VAGUE to get through... Stand up and make your voices heard Illinois voters!
This governer has been more corrupt than any of the others (as if that was even possible). He has shown that the Daily Machine of Chicago was a bunch of pikers. The people have been speaking, loudly, yet he has succeeded in ignoring their wishes every step of the way. If you can, check his record on privacy, gun ownership, public schools, and of course, taxes.
Jobs are leaving Illinois due to company shut-downs and tax increases.
Citizens are leaving the state because they're not being heard.
-J.
The mark of an honest politician is one who stays bought...
This guy is a 24 year old website developer writing PHP scripts, and he's worried about "stress and responsibility"? Get real. It's not like he's responsible for a big network 24/7, or doing real-time programming for powerful, dangerous machinery, or writing code that will be replicated millions of times and will cause a product recall if it breaks. Or doing a really stressful job, like cop or firefighter or soldier. Or trying to manage a bunch of people who really have to work together well or the whole project fails.
Everything is relative. I agree completely that his stress is not close to what it could be, especially when compared to the other jobs you've described. Perhaps the stress he feels is the most stress he's ever experienced. Compared to that, the rest of his entire existence could have been stress free.
We all have different scales of sensitivity. Perhaps he just has a lower threshold for pain. It doesn't make his stress any less significant if he has no experience or lacks the tools to cope. I think he should consider these thoughts
"I once complained because I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet."
I happen to agree with your relative scale and suggest that it be the first thing he consider when feeling his work life sucks. How much better or worse could it be if he had someone else's responsibilities and obstacles. He should consider how less green somebody else's grass really is compared to his own. That can give him an appreciation for his own situation.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind, it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly." - Heinlein
I don't know what kind of politics or deadlines or penalties there are at his place of employment, but I can say different employers offer different kinds of stress.
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference."
That's an old prayer, but the oldies make the goodies. If you can't use the chain-of-command to politely help solve the problem, then realize that you can't do anything about it, and be willing to accept that you might just have to move on to somewhere else.
(note: the rest of these all follow the theme of "change the things I can.")
"Be polite.
Take it outside.
Always expect the unexpected."
While this line comes from a movie, it still makes sense when dealing with conflict; especially office politics. If you remain polite and smile during distress, it helps your brain chemistry, keeps the "enemy" (who is never a villain in his own mind, remember?) off balance, and lets you appear as more of the solution type than problem type.
"Take it outside," means to discuss things out of sight where you won't appear to posture the politician, and where the politician won't appear to posture you. Remember to stay polite.
The last little gem basically means (to me) that you should never really trust the politician to be true to their word.
...which brings me to some advice my father always said...
"Always know where the back door is and have a backup plan."
If you're relying on a politician, and your butt is on the line, remember to CYA with documentation and a backup plan. Expect that politician's "help" to fail at the worst possible moment. After all, that's the kind of magic that politicians are notable for.
"Use your faith, philosophy, religion, or hobby."
Meditation, prayer, exercise, model building, martial arts, spending time with your family or pets can all help you cope with stress and recover from the crap that life (and work) throws your way.
There is no way to fight a war without the risk of killing innocent people. We should of course try to avoid war as a result. However, if one does go to way, fewer people will die from the laser (not targetting people) than from a ballistic missle (possibly targetting a population center).
One advantage to the system is that the business end of the weapon and the targeting system are both lasers. I guess that since they'll paint the target before switching over to the destruct-o-beam, chances of missing the target would be slim-to-none.
Of course, I'd think that a miss would result in some scorched divots on the ground. I wonder what effect such heat would cause to dirt, asphalt, sand, a car, a head, a sunbather, a pond.
Come to think of it, I wonder if some bright boy at the test lab hasn't already considered barbequing...
-J.
Q: Your best bet against WMD?
A: Duct and Cover...
Which leads to the question: what other stuff could they zap with this? Ground-based launchers? Enemy fighter aircraft? SAMs? Or is this thing only good against ballistic weapons?
Let's assume for the moment that they intend to only shoot at airborn targets. What happens to any object on the ground that might be hit by the beam if it misses its moving airborn target?
And who's going to pay for that damage? (the American tax payer?)
Slashdot Mirror
Given sufficient time and profit, Amazon and Google will fall under the PayPal/eBay phishing spam-scams. Just wait for it...
...lawyers, politicians, MPAA & RIAA Executives, monopolists, telephone sanitizers...
I own a Zaurus and have seen other Linux PDAs and must agree with you. However, let's take a look at one company that took a clunky interface and has made good so far; Apple. Their Mac OS X looks just like a next-generation version of their old OS 9 interface. The result is that by maintaining familiarity (through coding their own interface), they were able to keep their old customers and provide a stable and sufficiently open OS to attract new customers and coders.
Perhaps Palm (a.k.a. PalmOne, a.k.a. Palm) will do the same. I hope so. I like the the current interface and would hate to see it change. You know the old aphorism, "If it ain't broke..."
IMO, the smart decision would be to maintain the same appearance while giving the under-structure the versatility and power of Linux. In other words, don't let the users who wouldn't know Linux from a hole in the ground even realize that there's been a change. They don't care, shouldn't care, and therefore don't need to know. If it still looks the same, and even has an emulator to run older PalmOS apps, then the only thing that could hinder Palm from regaining the market would be their Marketing Dept. and their allegedly monopolistic competitor.
Advantages I personally see for the move to Linux include threading, versatility, access to open-source community programmers, potential emulator for backward compatibility, and superior driver capabilities. I'm still angry at Palm for not helping other wi-fi manufacturers to develop drivers, which I've read is due to the limitations of the current PalmOS.
----
If you want what you've always had, do what you've always done.
Perhaps the reason for changing names and exchanging money from one self-owned company to another self-owned company was to essentially launder money for tax purposes.
By shifting money from one company to another, one can "lose" money, while the other company is just being started and organized can write off "losses" and such. Maybe the benefit has passed and it's time to re-shift the money in order to save money again.
----
This semi-paranoid view is brought to you by the Tin-Foil Hat Squad(TM).
Me? I'm hiding under my bed until this blows over...
- - -
The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.
-- Thomas Jefferson
That's real nice rhetoric. I'm not sure whether it falls under the "Appeal to Pity" or "Complex Cause" fallacy. Let's call greed and laziness exactly what it is.
I've hired my company out for work and received decent money. I share that money with my talented and skilled workers who remain loyal to me and provide good work. We all profit, and my corporation still exists.
As a consultant, I've observed many cases where my client companies have decided to cut the wages of the peon while executives and board members received dividend and bonus increases, and released reports that complained about the cost of doing business as validation for the "team" to make sacrifices.
I'm not saying that all corporations do this, but ask yourself these questions about human nature:
You can consider me a cynic or a stoic. (please do) But such behavior seems at least mildly antisocial to me. (compare the interpersonal, affective and behavioral dimensions with our government officials and top executives today)
Doesn't it seem counterproductive for executives to preach "teamwork" when they shaft the members of their "team" that are responsible for the actual work that provides them with their dividends and bonuses?
The purpose of my rant is to say that it's easy for a six-figure to seven-figure income executive to spout the "need to produce goods and/or services that will yield a profit otherwise the corporation" so that it can continue to exist, while realizing personal profit for being so surreptitiously clever. You spout nice rhetoric, but given the history of my personal observations and the news stories over recorded history, I don't buy it as actual truth.
Thank you for your time and attention...
- - -
please forgive my double-sig, but I find them both relevant.
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
-- Ayn Rand
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil. If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Considering how Microsoft "innovates," perhaps it's from the Russian crackers that they got their specs... ;-D
[turning off microphone and dodging tomatoes]
---
It's an Information Economy: If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing at all.
I've used the CUPS interface on RH9 and FreeBSD 5.3 without problem for an admittedly small variety of printers. While it's not the most intuitive, it wasn't difficult.
My Win2000 and WinXP boxes don't seem to have trouble connecting via SAMBA.
Though I used the CUPS interface to set up my *nix boxes, I have been using Webmin for certain other purposes. (Yeah, so I'm a weenie for not doing everything with conf files...) So, I checked the Webmin interface in /Hardware/Printer Administration and found it semi-clean. Except for needing to pre-install some print drivers manually, it looks like it should be relatively easy.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
OK, I've never really understood why a huge company would want to own the patent and leverage it against the competition, while a small company would want to be bought out of business. To me, I'd rather see my small company grow as a result of the tools and advantages we develop. And if we could grow with residual income from large companies, including Microsoft (whether through contracts or fines), then that would be all the better.
So, I guess my question to everyone is, " Why is it better to be bought out by Microsoft than to license your patents to them (and other corporate customers)?"
My guess is that it's the Lottery Mentality... get the quick pay-off and go party with your "winnings."
Just another thought, why should Microsoft be the buyer (and therefore patent winner) in this situation. Aren't there other buyers who might want to leverage that technology? Two companies come immediately to mind: IBM and Canopy Group (SCO).
- - -
...other than spelling and pronunciation, what's the difference?
Heretic? Lunatic?
Below, find three sequential elements from the timeline in TFA.
How many articles have we seen here on /. that duplicates this pattern? Who else has been stepped on by the giant in such manner? I'm sure somebody could find a fist-full of articles here in history that shows exactly that behavior pattern.
Am I correct in recalling that Novell got stung? IBM? I know those are giants themselves. I'm just glad to see that a little David has been able to sling his stone bullet into the face of the Goliath. Now, let's see if they can make it really count.
I'm not asking to shut down Microsoft. Just have them play fair.
Is that too much to ask, Bill?
(Bill: "Why, yes. It is.")
- - - /.)
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. -- Otto Von Bismarck
(this sig stolen from
The answer resides in your last five words...
They want to be able to charge you the higher rate for a business line . Since there is no physical or legal reason you shouldn't, they use the "server" classification as an excuse to define and enforce the arbitrary restriction (based upon (ahem) policy). Policy is an arbitrary degree of their product which is their business. This is also one reason they don't allow static IP addresses on consumer lines. (Another reason is that it requires brains to manage and support, and they're not putting the bigger brains in the lowest tier of tech-support.)
Think about it, is there really any reason to charge so much more for "business" over "consumer" rates other than, "what the traffic will bear?"
I pay a business rate in order to have five static IP addresses and do what I want/need. If I didn't have the business to justify the expense, I'd have to use dyndns.org or some other service and run everything behind a NAT router/firewall, just as I did when I first put my network online.
This means, Microsoft, Intel, um... well, I guess, Microsoft, Intel...
As long as "nobdody ever gets fired" for being a lemming, AMD will end up on the short end of the stick.
When I ran my own small consulting firm, I had only two Intel and fifteen AMD boxes. But then, I only answered to myself and wasn't afraid to make decisions based upon performance over perception. It appears that the bigger a company gets, the more important it becomes to be perceived as competent than actually being competent.
One other thing. I intend to buy two more notebooks for myself. They will be AMD processor based.
---
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
-- Thomas Jefferson
IANAL...
IA(so-very-much)NAL...
Could somebody please explain something I overheard and if it's even relevant here?
This fellow was ranting at the office about Common Law vs. Admiralty Law, and how the American Bar Association has shifted our country's legal system from the former to the latter and moved the burden from the perpetrator to the victim. He said that suits like this would have been ignored if not punished, and that it was this kind of litigation-mania along with taxes and persecution that caused some people to flee 18th century England.
I'm not a historian either, so I don't know if this guys just blowing smoke and steam, or what.
Even if this guy is right about the Common vs. Admiralty laws, does that even relate to this topic at all?
If so, how?
---
People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice - if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices.
-Robert A. Heinlein
I'm ignorant of Japanese employment-do. Why is blood-type B such a bad thing?
This governer has been more corrupt than any of the others (as if that was even possible). He has shown that the Daily Machine of Chicago was a bunch of pikers. The people have been speaking, loudly, yet he has succeeded in ignoring their wishes every step of the way. If you can, check his record on privacy, gun ownership, public schools, and of course, taxes.
Jobs are leaving Illinois due to company shut-downs and tax increases.
Citizens are leaving the state because they're not being heard.
-J.
The mark of an honest politician is one who stays bought...
Everything is relative. I agree completely that his stress is not close to what it could be, especially when compared to the other jobs you've described. Perhaps the stress he feels is the most stress he's ever experienced. Compared to that, the rest of his entire existence could have been stress free.
We all have different scales of sensitivity. Perhaps he just has a lower threshold for pain. It doesn't make his stress any less significant if he has no experience or lacks the tools to cope. I think he should consider these thoughts
I happen to agree with your relative scale and suggest that it be the first thing he consider when feeling his work life sucks. How much better or worse could it be if he had someone else's responsibilities and obstacles. He should consider how less green somebody else's grass really is compared to his own. That can give him an appreciation for his own situation.
I don't know what kind of politics or deadlines or penalties there are at his place of employment, but I can say different employers offer different kinds of stress.
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference."
That's an old prayer, but the oldies make the goodies. If you can't use the chain-of-command to politely help solve the problem, then realize that you can't do anything about it, and be willing to accept that you might just have to move on to somewhere else.
(note: the rest of these all follow the theme of "change the things I can.")
Take it outside.
Always expect the unexpected."
While this line comes from a movie, it still makes sense when dealing with conflict; especially office politics. If you remain polite and smile during distress, it helps your brain chemistry, keeps the "enemy" (who is never a villain in his own mind, remember?) off balance, and lets you appear as more of the solution type than problem type.
"Take it outside," means to discuss things out of sight where you won't appear to posture the politician, and where the politician won't appear to posture you. Remember to stay polite.
The last little gem basically means (to me) that you should never really trust the politician to be true to their word.
...which brings me to some advice my father always said...
If you're relying on a politician, and your butt is on the line, remember to CYA with documentation and a backup plan. Expect that politician's "help" to fail at the worst possible moment. After all, that's the kind of magic that politicians are notable for.
Meditation, prayer, exercise, model building, martial arts, spending time with your family or pets can all help you cope with stress and recover from the crap that life (and work) throws your way.
-J.
One advantage to the system is that the business end of the weapon and the targeting system are both lasers. I guess that since they'll paint the target before switching over to the destruct-o-beam, chances of missing the target would be slim-to-none.
Of course, I'd think that a miss would result in some scorched divots on the ground. I wonder what effect such heat would cause to dirt, asphalt, sand, a car, a head, a sunbather, a pond.
Come to think of it, I wonder if some bright boy at the test lab hasn't already considered barbequing...
-J.
Q: Your best bet against WMD?
A: Duct and Cover...
Let's assume for the moment that they intend to only shoot at airborn targets. What happens to any object on the ground that might be hit by the beam if it misses its moving airborn target?
And who's going to pay for that damage? (the American tax payer?)