I have to agree with lynch on that one. The fact of the matter is that, where I am at, the local government uses a lot of really bad contract/sub-contract work. While it is good to get small things done (such as reconfigs) that would distract from a large project, it is best to stick with recruting well skilled employes. This way, you won't encounter the problems associated with poor contract labor (lack of support, fixes) and will instead have a base that is not only familiar with the end-user side of the project, but the entire birthing process: research, development, and implementation. When problems arise (and they will) you will not have to call the same people, or even worse, another contractor to tidy up the job. In the long run, an investment in your people is better than a paycheck for someone elses.
The government is not interested in making cannibus legal, they would give the impression that they are trying to protect you from the dangers of drug use, in particualr, the stepping stone effect and, I'm convinced, the junk food effect. This is so wonderful. I am glad that the government watches out for me... I think that it is obvious that the G-men don't really care much about protecting the common man from himself. If that were the case, almost everything that brings big money would be illegal. Nicotine, alchohol. Two legal drugs that are more dangerous in terms of long term use and abuse. Nicotine is used in bug spray, for cryin' out loud. Liver and pancrease problems, anyone? More American's die from stroke and cancer than end up in the hospital with complications from smoking weed. That is the way it is. Give American's the right to choose any poison that they want, for all I care. It is your personal freedom to do any bodily harm that you want to yourself as long as it is only to yourself or a willing partner and you don't expect me to help pay for your treatment. I am going to smoke some rock now...
Standardize the protocol? What a crazy idea!!! If that were to happen, there might be a chance that no one would need to sell or give someone something with their name on it. Where is the fun in that?
I think that the ending of the movie was not really all of that open-ended. In the first part there is some slight allusion to a killer that made a child face the wall because he didn't want to see his eyes. Then the end... I think that the suggestion of the violence, while frustrating, was part of the film's impact on the audience. It needed no denounment and it did not deliver one.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree with lynch on that one. The fact of the matter is that, where I am at, the local government uses a lot of really bad contract/sub-contract work. While it is good to get small things done (such as reconfigs) that would distract from a large project, it is best to stick with recruting well skilled employes. This way, you won't encounter the problems associated with poor contract labor (lack of support, fixes) and will instead have a base that is not only familiar with the end-user side of the project, but the entire birthing process: research, development, and implementation. When problems arise (and they will) you will not have to call the same people, or even worse, another contractor to tidy up the job. In the long run, an investment in your people is better than a paycheck for someone elses.
The government is not interested in making cannibus legal, they would give the impression that they are trying to protect you from the dangers of drug use, in particualr, the stepping stone effect and, I'm convinced, the junk food effect. This is so wonderful. I am glad that the government watches out for me...
I think that it is obvious that the G-men don't really care much about protecting the common man from himself. If that were the case, almost everything that brings big money would be illegal. Nicotine, alchohol. Two legal drugs that are more dangerous in terms of long term use and abuse. Nicotine is used in bug spray, for cryin' out loud. Liver and pancrease problems, anyone? More American's die from stroke and cancer than end up in the hospital with complications from smoking weed. That is the way it is.
Give American's the right to choose any poison that they want, for all I care. It is your personal freedom to do any bodily harm that you want to yourself as long as it is only to yourself or a willing partner and you don't expect me to help pay for your treatment.
I am going to smoke some rock now...
The comment was good natured... I mean, installing NT on my workstation was worth it, but it took longer than four minutes.
Standardize the protocol? What a crazy idea!!! If that were to happen, there might be a chance that no one would need to sell or give someone something with their name on it. Where is the fun in that?
I think that the ending of the movie was not really all of that open-ended. In the first part there is some slight allusion to a killer that made a child face the wall because he didn't want to see his eyes. Then the end...
I think that the suggestion of the violence, while frustrating, was part of the film's impact on the audience. It needed no denounment and it did not deliver one.