Shooting someone expends a very small amount of energy and indeed requires absolutely no aggression. It is, in effect, the simplest, most direct way to deal with someone who is trying to kill you by more "primative" means.
Running away doesn't solve the problem of someone who wants to kill you. It only delays them from trying to kill you, because if they really want you dead, they *will* follow you and try again until they are stopped - one way or another.
They don't have to have the code posted anywhere or bundle it with their release. They just have to make it so that, if anyone actually requests it, it is provided to that person. For what it's worth, they could say that they will provide it to the people who request on cd media and charge a nominal fee for the media, shipping, and handling (though that would be sort of silly for something as small as an altered copy of dosbox).
It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of people still needing things that are just theirs.
The mad money account is like an extension of my wallet. I don't know about you, but I don't want people digging through it. I may trust them, but knowing that there is something that is just mine is really comforting. It's got enough in the account to play with. Most of what I don't use gets shunted off into the savings account unless I'm working on getting enough for a larger purchase.
A lot of couples that I know who have been married for a long time have the same basic opinion and keep little things that are just for themselves.
Even in a marriage, people still need things that are just theirs. It helps to preserve their identity as individuals. Being a couple can be a wonderful thing, but taking it to the point that it can lead to co-dependance isn't. Never lose who you are for the sake of a relationship. That relationship won't last forever (if nothing else, death seperates you in the end).
He never said it would prevent all money issues and neither did I. What it *does* prevent are the episodes of "you spent all of our money on $whatever??!!"
You have money to play with, your partner has his/her own money to play with, the bills are accounted for, and the savings gets taken care of too. It gives a very good seperation of funds (including the savings account for things like the house, etc that you seemed to think was an issue when he already covered it).
As far as your argument before about the account being frozen in the event of your partner's death, the only thing that would be frozen is their personal account. So you can't get into their mad money. Big deal.
I think you missed the key word in my post - RESPONSIBILITIES. The responsibility to make sure the seat is in the position you want/need it in when you use it.
You keep insisting that it's a "common courtesy" but there's nothing common about it. It's a completely one-way thing with the way you want it with the man doing everything and everyone taking it for granted that it is, should be, and will always be that way.
Sorry. I don't buy into the "I'm a girl. I'm special and don't have to see where the toilet seat is" argument.
Like I said in another post, equal rights also means equal responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is the same one that guys have - to make sure the bloody toilet seat is in the position you want it. You're no better than anyone else.
It's not a failsafe. Instead, it's a single point of failure that can go wrong in two different ways - the guy can forget to put the seat up or he can forget to put it back down.
What you're proposing is actually a little piece of "I'm a girl and shouldn't have to do anything for myself". I actually agree with equal rights for women, but that also entails equal responsibilities - opening doors, not always getting everything paid for for them, checking to make sure the seat is in the position that they want (just like the rest of us do)
He said they had 3 checking accts (one for each of them to use for personal things and one for the bills) and one SAVINGS account. One would assume that the savings account would be for, you know, savings (for things like the house you mentioned).
What he has set up is actually a really good system. I have something similar - an account for bills, an account for me, and an account for savings.
If the person wants to stand and the seat is down, lift the seat.... If the person wants to sit and the seat is up, possible ass contact with disgusting toilet water.
We have to check the position of the seat before we use it standing up, and it takes no more effort for them to put the seat down than it does for us to put it up.
Strictland is indeed doing a good job of starting to turn things around after our last failure of a governor.
I've actually had the pleasure of meeting the man a few times in personal and professional settings. Decent enough sort who actually seems to care about the people that he represents.
As far as that goes, if $40 per course is too much extra,
It isn't $40 per course. It's $40 per *credit hour*. My university was on quarters. Most courses were 4 or 5 credit hours. That's another $160-200 extra per course
My univerisity had a lab fee tacked onto my tuition for the quarters that I took chem, and I had a technology fee because I was a CS major. The tech fee was well spent - we always had a lab of really up to date Sun systems (with the older systems getting rotated into the other labs until they reached phase out) and several nice research labs (one of which housed our robo-cup competition work).
It's something that I've learned over the years. One of the other things is that companies tend to value your opinion more when they bring you in as a consultant as opposed to you just being a regular employee because they are paying you for a specific thing.
I find it kind of funny that I have been paid for my services just to help design an expansion plan for a network and IT department and pitch it to the suits. The reason I was called in was because they wouldn't just listen to their IT staff, so we worked together, it got pitched, and they got to go on with the plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Shooting someone expends a very small amount of energy and indeed requires absolutely no aggression. It is, in effect, the simplest, most direct way to deal with someone who is trying to kill you by more "primative" means.
Running away doesn't solve the problem of someone who wants to kill you. It only delays them from trying to kill you, because if they really want you dead, they *will* follow you and try again until they are stopped - one way or another.
I believe that the basic wording is that they can provide it in any format that would reasonably be used to distribute the software.
I remember when Linux was distributed on floppies. Imagine if it still was. The bloody things would fill a whole room.
They don't have to have the code posted anywhere or bundle it with their release. They just have to make it so that, if anyone actually requests it, it is provided to that person. For what it's worth, they could say that they will provide it to the people who request on cd media and charge a nominal fee for the media, shipping, and handling (though that would be sort of silly for something as small as an altered copy of dosbox).
One would hope that the people working for the IRS are taxpayers as well...
Hey, this is slashdot, not Mardi Gras. :P
*shakes a string of beads at you*
What? You can't grock that I'm not the only one telling you that you're on crack and that the other person happens to be a girl?
It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of people still needing things that are just theirs.
The mad money account is like an extension of my wallet. I don't know about you, but I don't want people digging through it. I may trust them, but knowing that there is something that is just mine is really comforting. It's got enough in the account to play with. Most of what I don't use gets shunted off into the savings account unless I'm working on getting enough for a larger purchase.
A lot of couples that I know who have been married for a long time have the same basic opinion and keep little things that are just for themselves.
Even in a marriage, people still need things that are just theirs. It helps to preserve their identity as individuals. Being a couple can be a wonderful thing, but taking it to the point that it can lead to co-dependance isn't. Never lose who you are for the sake of a relationship. That relationship won't last forever (if nothing else, death seperates you in the end).
He never said it would prevent all money issues and neither did I. What it *does* prevent are the episodes of "you spent all of our money on $whatever??!!"
You have money to play with, your partner has his/her own money to play with, the bills are accounted for, and the savings gets taken care of too. It gives a very good seperation of funds (including the savings account for things like the house, etc that you seemed to think was an issue when he already covered it).
As far as your argument before about the account being frozen in the event of your partner's death, the only thing that would be frozen is their personal account. So you can't get into their mad money. Big deal.
I think you missed the key word in my post - RESPONSIBILITIES. The responsibility to make sure the seat is in the position you want/need it in when you use it.
You keep insisting that it's a "common courtesy" but there's nothing common about it. It's a completely one-way thing with the way you want it with the man doing everything and everyone taking it for granted that it is, should be, and will always be that way.
That doesn't fly.
Sorry. I don't buy into the "I'm a girl. I'm special and don't have to see where the toilet seat is" argument.
Like I said in another post, equal rights also means equal responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is the same one that guys have - to make sure the bloody toilet seat is in the position you want it. You're no better than anyone else.
It's not a failsafe. Instead, it's a single point of failure that can go wrong in two different ways - the guy can forget to put the seat up or he can forget to put it back down.
What you're proposing is actually a little piece of "I'm a girl and shouldn't have to do anything for myself". I actually agree with equal rights for women, but that also entails equal responsibilities - opening doors, not always getting everything paid for for them, checking to make sure the seat is in the position that they want (just like the rest of us do)
I said it takes no more effort. Logically, if it takes less effort, it doesn't take more effort.
:P
My statement still stands
He said they had 3 checking accts (one for each of them to use for personal things and one for the bills) and one SAVINGS account. One would assume that the savings account would be for, you know, savings (for things like the house you mentioned).
What he has set up is actually a really good system. I have something similar - an account for bills, an account for me, and an account for savings.
If the person wants to stand and the seat is down, lift the seat. ...
If the person wants to sit and the seat is up, possible ass contact with disgusting toilet water.
We have to check the position of the seat before we use it standing up, and it takes no more effort for them to put the seat down than it does for us to put it up.
You're the one not displaying logic.
I miss Athens.
Tell me, are you there for college or are you officially a townie? =]
I live in Bloom Township, Fairfield County, Ohio.
:P
You have my sympathy
(I'm in Ross, which is just as bad)
Strictland is indeed doing a good job of starting to turn things around after our last failure of a governor.
I've actually had the pleasure of meeting the man a few times in personal and professional settings. Decent enough sort who actually seems to care about the people that he represents.
I can see them trying, and, knowing Ted, I can imagine what his reaction would be.
Thankfully the man has a pretty level head. He's been working at undoing the damage that the last governors have caused.
by applause, which OS or kernel/desktop environment you've used is the most accomodating for keyboard-centric navigation.
:P
DOS
(Sorry. I had to)
As far as that goes, if $40 per course is too much extra,
It isn't $40 per course. It's $40 per *credit hour*. My university was on quarters. Most courses were 4 or 5 credit hours. That's another $160-200 extra per course
I, for one, am not going to trust the same invisible hand that gave us pets.com to provide them.
Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is way too fond of giving people the finger...
My univerisity had a lab fee tacked onto my tuition for the quarters that I took chem, and I had a technology fee because I was a CS major. The tech fee was well spent - we always had a lab of really up to date Sun systems (with the older systems getting rotated into the other labs until they reached phase out) and several nice research labs (one of which housed our robo-cup competition work).
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
It was probably some sysadmin who didn't get appreciated :P
It's something that I've learned over the years. One of the other things is that companies tend to value your opinion more when they bring you in as a consultant as opposed to you just being a regular employee because they are paying you for a specific thing.
I find it kind of funny that I have been paid for my services just to help design an expansion plan for a network and IT department and pitch it to the suits. The reason I was called in was because they wouldn't just listen to their IT staff, so we worked together, it got pitched, and they got to go on with the plans.