What a truly bizarre (and less intelligible) way to quote me. You didn't edit out any meaning though so do as you like I guess.
As for your actual comment, change just for the sake of change is not scary, it's stupid. Trump would most certainly "change" things when he became president. Would he fix anything? Unlikely as he has clearly demonstrated a lack of any real knowledge of the issues challenging this country today and has a very obvious penchant for peddling over simplistic, easy "solutions".
Building a massively expensively wall that will be massively expensive to maintain looks great on the surface for stopping illegal immigration but in reality will do very little to stop the simple supply and demand formula that is our illegal immigration problem. Meanwhile, maintenance on the wall will sap billions of dollars of national wealth that could be used to repair our crumbling and outdated national infrastructure to ensure future economic growth.
Well to give Hillary a bit of credit, our foreign policy has been failing since before she had a major hand in it. The invasion of Iraq was a massive destabilizing failure where America deployed a very large presence. Libya was a US failure where the US deployed a limited presence and Syria is an example of no presence.
As for the worries about Trump starting a war or mucking things up for no reason, they stem from the fact that he's a loose canon. Hillary is a known quantity. She's the mainstream political establishment for the last 30 years. Democrat and Republican (for better or worse). Trump is all over the place, flinging insults at every turn, showing a very thin skin when it comes to even the mildest of questioning and moving all over the place on issues while displaying very little depth of knowledge on any serious issue
Not a single person projected the UK being "destroyed" be Brexit (although they may lose Scotland as it is very pro EU and will likely hold another vote on independence in this next decade because of this very issue). However, many people projected the short term market and growth hits that the UK has already taken due to the uncertainties introduced by such a large change. Furthermore, there will likely be further hindrances to their growth when Brexit actually happens and they are removed from a free trade zone with their largest trading partner by far, the rest of the EU.
That's not a strawman at all as I believe the above post is refering to our legal system's presumption of innocence when an individual is accused of criminal wrong doing.
Well for starters, the war had been happening in Libya for over a month before the US was involved so your post is nonsense. Let's assume though that the US did start the war.
This means you're saying starting a war to help remove an enemy of the US who oppresses his people and was at the time, slaughtering them in mass (which does result in a power vacume for ISIS) is the same or worse then starting a war over an insult and probably creating a power vacume to be filled by extremeists too?
Now I will repeat again, all of that is hypothetical because Libya was already in the midst of a civil war. It might have become a failed state even if we hadnt gotten involved and you can be sure that if Gaddafi had won civilians would have been butchered in the tens of thousands to try to ensure a revolt like that never happened again. A different form of US involvment might have yielded better results but believing that complete non involvement would have turned out well is naivety.
Complete non involvement is exactly what got us Syria.
So biting flies or some other species would bite people more because the mosquitos that bite people were killed off? How does that make sense from an evolutionary standpoint? The presence or non presence of mosquitos that bite people should not make a difference as to whether some other species evolves to attack humans or not. Just because a mosquito bites a person doesnt mean another species cant.
Since when is alcohol more dangerous than MDMA on an individual basis? I'm not saying MDMA is massively dangerous but I'm not subscribing to what you're saying without some real data rather than your opinion.
Next to cocain and MDMA? You mean next to two substances that are infinitly less used than alcohol? Shoot, you've really just made the point of how beneign a substance alcohol is.
Of course I'm not saying alcohol is 100 percent safe but that's life. Considering our levels of heart disease in this country I think we'd be much better off addressing our diets rather then critiquing people who like to tie one on occasionally.
Doing "DRUGS"!? Oh no! It must be bad if it has the word "DRUGS" applied to it!
Heaven forbid some one want to alter thier consciousness for recreational purposes. Alcohol has been consumed specifically for this purpose for thousands of years, who are you to tell us getting drunk is bad and what on earth is so bad about it? Sure, doing it all the time is a good way to ruin your health and your life but so is eating Mcdonalds.
What are you talking about? If you're being paid for an 8 hour day you should do 8 hours of work. I don't understand how this is going over your head. As I've repeated over and over again, there is always more work so fill the rest of your work day doing it.
Some one who finishes early and goofs off unnoticed for the rest of the time is treated just like the least productive employees because they are literally producing as much as them. On the other hand if I do noticed they go through the disciplinary cycle until they shape up or let are go. I value an honest less productive employee over a dishonest one.
Those who finish early and look for more work are the ones I give raises to / recommend for promotion. With promotions it's always a bummer to see them go but honesty and respect dictate that because they worked hard for me I should work hard for them and that means trying to further their carrier. Why should any manager value anyone who describes work like you do? You apparently have no work ethic.
It is neither. I have said this twice now, there is always MORE work. How on earth are not understanding this?
Good luck getting raises or a promotion being as productive as the least productive person in your office. All of those people who finish their project at above average speed and ask what's next will be well ahead of you in a few years.
What are you talking about? I'm still saying slacking off because you got your work done early is lazy which is absolutely contrary to what you have stated here "I'm not lazy, I'm efficient. That it takes me less time to do the job, so I have more time to goof off doesn't mean I'm lazy. I'm just more efficient.
If one works for a good company one is rewarded for getting more done. If one isnt getting rewarded for that then one should look for work elsewhere. It's not as if there arent a ton of jobs out there in the tech industry right now.
In other words, if I have two applicants from within my company applying for the same position which would be a promotion for either of them, I'm much more likely to choose the guy who gets his work done 20% earlier then everyone else and then finds something else productive to do then I am the guy who gets his days work done 40% earlier and goofs off. Furthermore, when it comes time to give out raises that person who gets their work done 40% earlier and then goofs off is just as valuble to me as some one who takes the full amount of time alloted as they are exactly as productive as the other.
Then there is the whole pride in labor and doing a good job thing but explaining that to some one who doesnt have that is near impossible in my experience.
So they're working for a comany that offers zero opportuntiy for advancement or even pay raises? Sounds like they should be looking for work elsewhere.
Yes it does mean you're lazy.I'm so sick of lazy people trying trying to justify their laziness "cuz the work is all done". There is always more work to be done.
Forgive me if I'm being rude but, "indeed" my experience is that American professionals use something close to proper English unlike yourself. Honestly, I can only surmise you are from a non English peaking country in which case I wonder how you found your way into this debate.
As for the content of your post I'll do my best. What does, "So why does person after person say their companies haven't found any??" actually mean? "Person after person"? Are you just walking around talking to people? "Found any"? Found any what? Pokemon?
I assume you're saying you couldn't get a job after the tech stock market crash that happened between 2000 and 2001 (the term Y2K is usually associated with "Y2K bug" which was software having problems with dates going from the 20th century to the 21st.)? If so, welcome to the club. You not being able to find a job had nothing to do with age and everything to do with a massively depressed market for tech workers. You weren't some special oppressed gem, there were quite a lot of us having a hard time finding work.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a complete tangent but okay, I do agree with you.
What a truly bizarre (and less intelligible) way to quote me. You didn't edit out any meaning though so do as you like I guess.
As for your actual comment, change just for the sake of change is not scary, it's stupid. Trump would most certainly "change" things when he became president. Would he fix anything? Unlikely as he has clearly demonstrated a lack of any real knowledge of the issues challenging this country today and has a very obvious penchant for peddling over simplistic, easy "solutions".
Building a massively expensively wall that will be massively expensive to maintain looks great on the surface for stopping illegal immigration but in reality will do very little to stop the simple supply and demand formula that is our illegal immigration problem. Meanwhile, maintenance on the wall will sap billions of dollars of national wealth that could be used to repair our crumbling and outdated national infrastructure to ensure future economic growth.
And that's the most coherent of his "solutions".
Well to give Hillary a bit of credit, our foreign policy has been failing since before she had a major hand in it. The invasion of Iraq was a massive destabilizing failure where America deployed a very large presence. Libya was a US failure where the US deployed a limited presence and Syria is an example of no presence.
As for the worries about Trump starting a war or mucking things up for no reason, they stem from the fact that he's a loose canon. Hillary is a known quantity. She's the mainstream political establishment for the last 30 years. Democrat and Republican (for better or worse). Trump is all over the place, flinging insults at every turn, showing a very thin skin when it comes to even the mildest of questioning and moving all over the place on issues while displaying very little depth of knowledge on any serious issue
A massive drop in growth maybe?
Not a single person projected the UK being "destroyed" be Brexit (although they may lose Scotland as it is very pro EU and will likely hold another vote on independence in this next decade because of this very issue). However, many people projected the short term market and growth hits that the UK has already taken due to the uncertainties introduced by such a large change. Furthermore, there will likely be further hindrances to their growth when Brexit actually happens and they are removed from a free trade zone with their largest trading partner by far, the rest of the EU.
That's not a strawman at all as I believe the above post is refering to our legal system's presumption of innocence when an individual is accused of criminal wrong doing.
I laughed out loud when i read your post.
Since when are dead people ever prosecuted of anything?
Well for starters, the war had been happening in Libya for over a month before the US was involved so your post is nonsense. Let's assume though that the US did start the war.
This means you're saying starting a war to help remove an enemy of the US who oppresses his people and was at the time, slaughtering them in mass (which does result in a power vacume for ISIS) is the same or worse then starting a war over an insult and probably creating a power vacume to be filled by extremeists too?
Now I will repeat again, all of that is hypothetical because Libya was already in the midst of a civil war. It might have become a failed state even if we hadnt gotten involved and you can be sure that if Gaddafi had won civilians would have been butchered in the tens of thousands to try to ensure a revolt like that never happened again. A different form of US involvment might have yielded better results but believing that complete non involvement would have turned out well is naivety.
Complete non involvement is exactly what got us Syria.
Great, so it still does less than my phone and still looks like an 80's calculator watch. Some one please tell me, why does anyone buy these?
So biting flies or some other species would bite people more because the mosquitos that bite people were killed off? How does that make sense from an evolutionary standpoint? The presence or non presence of mosquitos that bite people should not make a difference as to whether some other species evolves to attack humans or not. Just because a mosquito bites a person doesnt mean another species cant.
Since when is alcohol more dangerous than MDMA on an individual basis? I'm not saying MDMA is massively dangerous but I'm not subscribing to what you're saying without some real data rather than your opinion.
Next to cocain and MDMA? You mean next to two substances that are infinitly less used than alcohol? Shoot, you've really just made the point of how beneign a substance alcohol is.
Of course I'm not saying alcohol is 100 percent safe but that's life. Considering our levels of heart disease in this country I think we'd be much better off addressing our diets rather then critiquing people who like to tie one on occasionally.
Doing "DRUGS"!? Oh no! It must be bad if it has the word "DRUGS" applied to it!
Heaven forbid some one want to alter thier consciousness for recreational purposes. Alcohol has been consumed specifically for this purpose for thousands of years, who are you to tell us getting drunk is bad and what on earth is so bad about it? Sure, doing it all the time is a good way to ruin your health and your life but so is eating Mcdonalds.
Wow, free weed and all these people have to do is put their hands in ice water? Science is awesome!
What are you talking about? If you're being paid for an 8 hour day you should do 8 hours of work. I don't understand how this is going over your head. As I've repeated over and over again, there is always more work so fill the rest of your work day doing it.
Some one who finishes early and goofs off unnoticed for the rest of the time is treated just like the least productive employees because they are literally producing as much as them. On the other hand if I do noticed they go through the disciplinary cycle until they shape up or let are go. I value an honest less productive employee over a dishonest one.
Those who finish early and look for more work are the ones I give raises to / recommend for promotion. With promotions it's always a bummer to see them go but honesty and respect dictate that because they worked hard for me I should work hard for them and that means trying to further their carrier. Why should any manager value anyone who describes work like you do? You apparently have no work ethic.
It is neither. I have said this twice now, there is always MORE work. How on earth are not understanding this?
Good luck getting raises or a promotion being as productive as the least productive person in your office. All of those people who finish their project at above average speed and ask what's next will be well ahead of you in a few years.
What are you talking about? I'm still saying slacking off because you got your work done early is lazy which is absolutely contrary to what you have stated here "I'm not lazy, I'm efficient. That it takes me less time to do the job, so I have more time to goof off doesn't mean I'm lazy. I'm just more efficient.
If one works for a good company one is rewarded for getting more done. If one isnt getting rewarded for that then one should look for work elsewhere. It's not as if there arent a ton of jobs out there in the tech industry right now.
In other words, if I have two applicants from within my company applying for the same position which would be a promotion for either of them, I'm much more likely to choose the guy who gets his work done 20% earlier then everyone else and then finds something else productive to do then I am the guy who gets his days work done 40% earlier and goofs off. Furthermore, when it comes time to give out raises that person who gets their work done 40% earlier and then goofs off is just as valuble to me as some one who takes the full amount of time alloted as they are exactly as productive as the other.
Then there is the whole pride in labor and doing a good job thing but explaining that to some one who doesnt have that is near impossible in my experience.
You missed a crucial part of my post I think
"There is always more work to be done."
Stretching the work to fit the time is lazy as well.
So they're working for a comany that offers zero opportuntiy for advancement or even pay raises? Sounds like they should be looking for work elsewhere.
Well i have no idea what your post is about, hence my questioning. Are you talking about companies having a hard time finding Indian employees?
Yes it does mean you're lazy.I'm so sick of lazy people trying trying to justify their laziness "cuz the work is all done". There is always more work to be done.
Who watches porn on their TV nowadays? What is this, the 80's?
Forgive me if I'm being rude but, "indeed" my experience is that American professionals use something close to proper English unlike yourself. Honestly, I can only surmise you are from a non English peaking country in which case I wonder how you found your way into this debate.
As for the content of your post I'll do my best. What does, "So why does person after person say their companies haven't found any??" actually mean? "Person after person"? Are you just walking around talking to people? "Found any"? Found any what? Pokemon?
I assume you're saying you couldn't get a job after the tech stock market crash that happened between 2000 and 2001 (the term Y2K is usually associated with "Y2K bug" which was software having problems with dates going from the 20th century to the 21st.)? If so, welcome to the club. You not being able to find a job had nothing to do with age and everything to do with a massively depressed market for tech workers. You weren't some special oppressed gem, there were quite a lot of us having a hard time finding work.
How many hours a week did you work at a job?