They could log off at night but since these are Windows machines, updates and patches don't get applied until a machine restarts. The SMS package, as far as I know, doesn't force a restart after updates are applied.
By having people restart every night it also prevents them from staying logged in so long that their password expires and then having them call the helpdesk to complain they can't get into anything. Two weeks before their password expires, they get a notification screen reminding when they do Ctrl-Alt-Del. If they never logged out, they would never know to change their password because they would never get the notification.
But anything that would make more people read over and specifically approve the wording of error messages and other notifications is a good thing.
People can't follow written instructions when dumbed down so far that a six year old can follow. What makes you think people would read what an update to an OS does?
Case in point. We sent an email to everyone in our organization, including consultants, on Thursday afternoon (1:41 PM to be exact) specifically telling people to restart their machines, not turn them off, so Microsoft's critical update could be applied. We also told them in the same email that this procedure should be followed until further notice. Here is the relevant part:
Microsoft has issued a critical security patch that corrects a vulnerability problem with Internet Explorer. Tonight, the Client Support group will start applying the patch to all desktops/laptops within the agency. Therefore, we are requiring that all users follow the recommended procedure of daily restarting workstations. Upon a successful restart of your workstation you will be at the Windows sign-on screen.
Perform these steps before you leave each day.
1) Close all open applications as you normally would.
2) Click Start button\icon on the task bar at the bottom of your screen
3) Select Shutdown from the available list of items
4) Select Restart from the list of values - This is important - you must select "RESTART"
5) Click OK - Your PC will reboot itself to the Welcome to Windows sign-on screen - from there we can apply the corrective solution
On Monday, when I checked a log file, there were roughly 30 machines in my building alone that were turned off on Friday night rather than restarted. There were others in the field who had done the same thing.
We know they restarted their machine on Thursday night as requested so for them to have their machines off would mean they had to physically change the value from Restart to Shutdown, completely ignoring the email that was sent to them 24 hours before.
Only those who truly want to know what is going on will take the time to review updates. The rest will just click a button or not bother reading what is put in front of them.
You were a temp and got no benefits, you paid fair share, and I am guessing you got the same pay as if you were not a temp.
No, my pay was lower, slightly, than a full-time employee but I still paid the fair share fee.
The Chief executive decided to reorg and eliminate an agency, which is his prerogative.
Correct. His prerogative except for the fact that nothing was really changed. I had to shorten my initial comments so here's what happened. Another agency was being split in two as part of a reorg. One of his 20-something lackeys from the campaign who was now working on his staff came up with the brilliant thought that if the agency was being split, it would look like he was creating bigger government and as a Republican, that couldn't happen. So, to kill two birds with one stone, they would eliminate the efficient agency I was working at AND that would also get rid of WAMs (Walking Around Money) which were, and still are, nothing but slush money that Reps and Senators use to fund projects in their communities which in turn convinces people to vote for them. Worthwhile projects such as ball fields which only that community will benefit from.
The problem was, the WAMs didn't go away. They, like most of the people at my agency, were simply relocated. So there was no savings as far as the taxpayers were concerned. So why didn't I stay? The new head of the agency sat down with each of the bureaus and in our case, the first words out of his mouth were, "Get your resumes ready." I wasn't about to stick around a place which didn't want me.
So he was a dumbass, but it is the unions fault.
If the whole reason I was paying the union was to get decent benefits and to protect my job, that's their words, then they should have been raising a stink about it. They whine and bitch every time the idea of reducing head count in state employment is floated (and it is needed), they should have been bitching about this as well. If they're not going to do what they claim they'll do, then what am I paying them for?
Now it is negotiation time again and because the union cant get any traction
No, it's not negotiation time. The current contract is for 2007 - 11. It was negotiated in 2006.
Are you willing to strike?
No, but I'm willing to file a contract dispute against the union for breach of contract. If they're unilaterally changing the terms of the contract, then I should be able to do the same.
Again, my point is not that things are tough and cuts need to be made. That's a given. My point is there is a signed contract stating that in return for taking my money, they'll negotiate my future salary and benefits package. If they're not willing to fight for what they negotiated, then I shouldn't have to pay them. And since I have no choice in whether I pay them*, then my payments, and the thousands of others who are forced to pay, are nothing but blackmail.
*When Ridge was in office, he had a Rep controlled House and Senate and not once did anyone float the idea of doing away with forced unionism. And yes, I did talk to both my Rep and Senator and got squat from both.
The US has on of the highest corporate tax rates in the world
Hogwash. This table shows otherwise. Unless you think every business in the U.S. is taxed at 35%, the U.S. corporate tax rate is somewhere in the middle to lower end of the scale. And that does not include VAT.
What you did was take the combined corporate tax rate in the U.S., not the range of taxes corporations pay.
Further, using The Tax Foundation's figure of combined rates (which is what you're using), they use the example of Sweden who has a lower combined corporate tax rate than the U.S. That's nice, except they fail to mention that in Sweden, if you use the combined personal income tax, the top rate is 60%. Way above anything we in the U.S. pay. Even the uber rich.
Corporations leaving the U.S. has very little to do with corporate tax rates. The biggest reason for relocating overseas is cheaper labor. There are very few Americans who want to work in a factory for $8/hour putting widgets together. If there were, food processors wouldn't be hiring illegal immigrants in droves.
I can tell you it's not but a racket. The only ones who benefit are the union hierarchy, not the members.
I've mentioned before I work for state government. In my state, PA, anyone who works for the state and is not classified as management level MUST pay union dues though they are euphemistically called "fair share fees" because they represent your fair share of all the privileges and benefits the union supposedly bargains for you. Here's how well that system works.
Years ago when I initially worked for the state, I was in the temporary clerical pool. My sole benefit was I got paid. No vacation, no health insurance, no nothing else BUT, I still got the privilege of paying the union for all those benefits I got for working at the state.
I eventually got a permanent job in the state, based on my skills and the people around me wanting to keep me, so then I got those other benefits. Then governor Tom Ridge, who you remember from such classic films as, "We need a color-coded threat level to paralyze the nation into fear!", decided to eliminate the one state agency which was recognized as a leader in efficiency and responsiveness. In fact, the place I worked for instructed agencies from other states on how to become better.
What did the union do? Shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh well. We're not going to fight it."
I left for the private industry rather than being shoved out the door.
Now, back with the state after several years, it appears for the second time in six years the contract the union negotiated with the state as far as COLAs and raises are concerned is being thrown out the window. But, I still get to pay the union for all those benefits.
If the union wants to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of the contract for which I'm supposedly paying them, then I should do the same. Why should I have to pay the union for all these benefits if they're not going to honor the contract?
Unions are bad news. They cause more troubles than they solve and yes, I have and do work with people who should have been fired long ago for not doing their job but because of the hoops that one has to jump through to fire someone, it's easier to just keep them and let them retire.
Yes, I watched the entire hour long episode where that occurred. While I can appreciate the necessity to get the vehicle moving, he was way over the top. The driver didn't need to have him screaming every three seconds while trying to reverse out of the situation. The driver was having a hard enough time trying to keep the vehicle more or less in a straight line while high winds were blowing about them. He didn't need a crying baby in the seat next to him.
I distinctly remember video from a tornado years ago when a crew were being "chased" by a tornado. The guy filming kept telling the driver in a relatively calm voice, "You gotta move. It's catching us. You gotta move. Go faster. Faster!"
f it's a bit blowy would the camera not still shake?
At the distances they are filming the tornadoes, there is very little wind. The tornadoes are usually 1/2 to 1 mile away.
Also, if a camera is on a tripod, there would be a brief moment of shaking if a gust of wind came by but otherwise the image would be very stable. If the wind did pick up, all they would have to do is put one hand around the neck and lean on it gently while using the other hand to continue filming.
I have a decent Manfrotto tripod which I use with my still camera and even in the highest winds with a long lens, the amount of shaking is minimal. I just wait for the wind to die down before I take my shot.
I don't watch it regularly but have taped a few segments. Other than the one guy in the other chase crew who apparently has lost the ability to control the volume of his voice (BACK UP! BAACK UPP!! BAAACK UPP!!! BAAAAAAAAACK UPP!!!!!!!!!!!!), the one thing that really grinds on me is that no one uses a tripod when filming a tornado. They all hop out of their vehicle, grab their camera and start taping. Then, when you look at the video, you do see the tornado in the distance but it's like the camera guy from Battle Star Galactica had two too many cups of coffee (and I like the effect in BSG).
It's not that difficult to have a quick release tripod mount on the bottom of your camera. It can stay on while you're in the vehicle and holding the camera and be attached to the tripod in seconds once you're outside and taping.
It would make things much more easy on the eyes not to mention you can pick out more details with a stable shot than one moving about.
Yes, it is a bit more cumbersome to haul out the tripod, pop the legs open, mount the camera and start filming, but it would make things more enjoyable to watch.
Absolutely agree. The mouse will not be dead in 3, 5 or even 10 years. It is too useful for most situations to go away.
However, in situations like I described, the mouse loses, badly, to touch screens.
As an aside, ever notice in ST:TNG they used touch screen pads whereas in ST:TOS they used a stylus and what looked like an electronic notepad? It just goes to show that over a hundred years from now, touch screens will just be coming into their own.
I you had seen the board CNN used during the election, you would have seen how easy it worked and why, in this particular case, using a mouse would have slowed things down. Here's a picture of the board in question.
Reaching to touch something is much more accurate than trying to guide a mouse pointer to a particular spot, especially, as in this case, the board was right in front of you. The presenter can concentrate on the subject matter rather than having to look down, find the mouse, either look up at the screen or down at a smaller screen, drag the mouse to the location and click. By using the board, the user simply reaches out and touches the spot, no wasted movement, no delays, his train of thought continues uninterrupted.
I'm not saying this would work in every situation but it is highly suitable for presentations. Granted, the software behind this board needs to work every time but based on the granularity of the voting blocks that CNN was able to show, it seems to be able to be configured for just about anything.
This is one time where new and shiny beats out old and dull.
Just try, once, to imagine what life would be like if all those millions of people who can't afford to get educated never learn basic literacy and arithmetic?
You mean we'd have hordes of overweight people driving 10 mpg vehicles who have cell phones for the entire family and every conceivable premium cable package but who can't figure out why they don't have money to pay for their mortgage?
the people who wrote, produced and own the rights to something are putting THEIR work up for other people to view and are providing a link for other people to purchase the work they wrote, produced and own the rights to.
This is compared to telling people who didn't write, produce or own the rights to a work to stop posting said work which they didn't write, produce or own the rights to for others to view.
The MythBusters (yeah, yeah) demonstrated this on their Moon Hoax show. It was the last thing they did.
They went to an observatory and had the person show that pointing the laser away from the moon produced no return signal whereas when they pointed the laser at a specific spot on the moon, they did get a signal.
Re:Three tips to optimize your site...
on
Website Optimization
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Posting really late to this discussion but as if to add to the discussion, CNN has this article which covers both sides of the argument.
I guess it's one perspective. In the case of the first woman, her clients were prescreened so the chance of her having a problem was significantly minimized. Not so with the latter woman.
More or less agree since the logic is that if you're single, you're somehow worth less than someone who's with someone (i.e. you're a loser). Sort of like if a woman isn't married by 30, she's over the hill.
As far as the money/time/etc is concerned, agreed, it is yours and it is great not having to worry about anyone bouncing a check, spending more than you had planned or a whole host of other things.
The flip side, as you allude to, is that there are those times you want to spend it with someone, whether a football game, a movie or a simply walk in the woods. Then there's the whole human touch thing for those of us who are of the affectionate type. It's especially difficult when you work with a few cuties and your mind has lascivious thoughts of them throughout the day. Not good for work performance.
A government's priorities lie with immediate issues, not with entities that won't have an immediate effect.
Which is of course, typically short-sighted of every government. Sure, Blethley won't have any immediate or long-term effect on the country's operation, but it is because of Bletchley Park that GB even exists.
If we're going to say that historical buildings/sites such as Bletchley should be left to rot, then why bother having any historical organizations at all? Places such as the Arizona memorial in Hawaii, Gettysburg in PA, Edison's workshop in NJ, etc all should be left to sink or swim on their own.
While we're at it, why don't we just pave over Auschwitz and Dachau to make way for new industries that will have an immediate effect on both taxes and employment. (No, I didn't Godwin the conversation but yes, I did use an extreme example)
When things are better, that'd be the time to look at anything else.
Right, because as we all know, when economic times are better, governments pay off the debt they took on when times were bad, every wish-list item is fully funded and dogs and cats play together like old friends.
Besides, why is it the governments responsibility to bail out private businesses? I thought the whole point of capitalism and free markets was to let businesses sink or swim based on competition. Since when should taxpayers be bailing people out who took on too much risk AND who told the government not to enact new regulations because that would kill their industry? Unless of course you're advocating fascism in which case, ok, I understand your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, why can't they just logoff?
They could log off at night but since these are Windows machines, updates and patches don't get applied until a machine restarts. The SMS package, as far as I know, doesn't force a restart after updates are applied.
By having people restart every night it also prevents them from staying logged in so long that their password expires and then having them call the helpdesk to complain they can't get into anything. Two weeks before their password expires, they get a notification screen reminding when they do Ctrl-Alt-Del. If they never logged out, they would never know to change their password because they would never get the notification.
But anything that would make more people read over and specifically approve the wording of error messages and other notifications is a good thing.
People can't follow written instructions when dumbed down so far that a six year old can follow. What makes you think people would read what an update to an OS does?
Case in point. We sent an email to everyone in our organization, including consultants, on Thursday afternoon (1:41 PM to be exact) specifically telling people to restart their machines, not turn them off, so Microsoft's critical update could be applied. We also told them in the same email that this procedure should be followed until further notice. Here is the relevant part:
Microsoft has issued a critical security patch that corrects a vulnerability problem with Internet Explorer. Tonight, the Client Support group will start applying the patch to all desktops/laptops within the agency. Therefore, we are requiring that all users follow the recommended procedure of daily restarting workstations. Upon a successful restart of your workstation you will be at the Windows sign-on screen.
Perform these steps before you leave each day.
1) Close all open applications as you normally would.
2) Click Start button\icon on the task bar at the bottom of your screen
3) Select Shutdown from the available list of items
4) Select Restart from the list of values - This is important - you must select "RESTART"
5) Click OK - Your PC will reboot itself to the Welcome to Windows sign-on screen - from there we can apply the corrective solution
On Monday, when I checked a log file, there were roughly 30 machines in my building alone that were turned off on Friday night rather than restarted. There were others in the field who had done the same thing.
We know they restarted their machine on Thursday night as requested so for them to have their machines off would mean they had to physically change the value from Restart to Shutdown, completely ignoring the email that was sent to them 24 hours before.
Only those who truly want to know what is going on will take the time to review updates. The rest will just click a button or not bother reading what is put in front of them.
You were a temp and got no benefits, you paid fair share, and I am guessing you got the same pay as if you were not a temp.
No, my pay was lower, slightly, than a full-time employee but I still paid the fair share fee.
The Chief executive decided to reorg and eliminate an agency, which is his prerogative.
Correct. His prerogative except for the fact that nothing was really changed. I had to shorten my initial comments so here's what happened. Another agency was being split in two as part of a reorg. One of his 20-something lackeys from the campaign who was now working on his staff came up with the brilliant thought that if the agency was being split, it would look like he was creating bigger government and as a Republican, that couldn't happen. So, to kill two birds with one stone, they would eliminate the efficient agency I was working at AND that would also get rid of WAMs (Walking Around Money) which were, and still are, nothing but slush money that Reps and Senators use to fund projects in their communities which in turn convinces people to vote for them. Worthwhile projects such as ball fields which only that community will benefit from.
The problem was, the WAMs didn't go away. They, like most of the people at my agency, were simply relocated. So there was no savings as far as the taxpayers were concerned. So why didn't I stay? The new head of the agency sat down with each of the bureaus and in our case, the first words out of his mouth were, "Get your resumes ready." I wasn't about to stick around a place which didn't want me.
So he was a dumbass, but it is the unions fault.
If the whole reason I was paying the union was to get decent benefits and to protect my job, that's their words, then they should have been raising a stink about it. They whine and bitch every time the idea of reducing head count in state employment is floated (and it is needed), they should have been bitching about this as well. If they're not going to do what they claim they'll do, then what am I paying them for?
Now it is negotiation time again and because the union cant get any traction
No, it's not negotiation time. The current contract is for 2007 - 11. It was negotiated in 2006.
Are you willing to strike?
No, but I'm willing to file a contract dispute against the union for breach of contract. If they're unilaterally changing the terms of the contract, then I should be able to do the same.
Again, my point is not that things are tough and cuts need to be made. That's a given. My point is there is a signed contract stating that in return for taking my money, they'll negotiate my future salary and benefits package. If they're not willing to fight for what they negotiated, then I shouldn't have to pay them. And since I have no choice in whether I pay them*, then my payments, and the thousands of others who are forced to pay, are nothing but blackmail.
*When Ridge was in office, he had a Rep controlled House and Senate and not once did anyone float the idea of doing away with forced unionism. And yes, I did talk to both my Rep and Senator and got squat from both.
The US has on of the highest corporate tax rates in the world
Hogwash. This table shows otherwise. Unless you think every business in the U.S. is taxed at 35%, the U.S. corporate tax rate is somewhere in the middle to lower end of the scale. And that does not include VAT.
What you did was take the combined corporate tax rate in the U.S., not the range of taxes corporations pay.
Further, using The Tax Foundation's figure of combined rates (which is what you're using), they use the example of Sweden who has a lower combined corporate tax rate than the U.S. That's nice, except they fail to mention that in Sweden, if you use the combined personal income tax, the top rate is 60%. Way above anything we in the U.S. pay. Even the uber rich.
Corporations leaving the U.S. has very little to do with corporate tax rates. The biggest reason for relocating overseas is cheaper labor. There are very few Americans who want to work in a factory for $8/hour putting widgets together. If there were, food processors wouldn't be hiring illegal immigrants in droves.
I can tell you it's not but a racket. The only ones who benefit are the union hierarchy, not the members.
I've mentioned before I work for state government. In my state, PA, anyone who works for the state and is not classified as management level MUST pay union dues though they are euphemistically called "fair share fees" because they represent your fair share of all the privileges and benefits the union supposedly bargains for you. Here's how well that system works.
Years ago when I initially worked for the state, I was in the temporary clerical pool. My sole benefit was I got paid. No vacation, no health insurance, no nothing else BUT, I still got the privilege of paying the union for all those benefits I got for working at the state.
I eventually got a permanent job in the state, based on my skills and the people around me wanting to keep me, so then I got those other benefits. Then governor Tom Ridge, who you remember from such classic films as, "We need a color-coded threat level to paralyze the nation into fear!", decided to eliminate the one state agency which was recognized as a leader in efficiency and responsiveness. In fact, the place I worked for instructed agencies from other states on how to become better.
What did the union do? Shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh well. We're not going to fight it."
I left for the private industry rather than being shoved out the door.
Now, back with the state after several years, it appears for the second time in six years the contract the union negotiated with the state as far as COLAs and raises are concerned is being thrown out the window. But, I still get to pay the union for all those benefits.
If the union wants to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of the contract for which I'm supposedly paying them, then I should do the same. Why should I have to pay the union for all these benefits if they're not going to honor the contract?
Unions are bad news. They cause more troubles than they solve and yes, I have and do work with people who should have been fired long ago for not doing their job but because of the hoops that one has to jump through to fire someone, it's easier to just keep them and let them retire.
Did you watch the whole segment?
Yes, I watched the entire hour long episode where that occurred. While I can appreciate the necessity to get the vehicle moving, he was way over the top. The driver didn't need to have him screaming every three seconds while trying to reverse out of the situation. The driver was having a hard enough time trying to keep the vehicle more or less in a straight line while high winds were blowing about them. He didn't need a crying baby in the seat next to him.
I distinctly remember video from a tornado years ago when a crew were being "chased" by a tornado. The guy filming kept telling the driver in a relatively calm voice, "You gotta move. It's catching us. You gotta move. Go faster. Faster!"
That's how the reaction should have been.
f it's a bit blowy would the camera not still shake?
At the distances they are filming the tornadoes, there is very little wind. The tornadoes are usually 1/2 to 1 mile away.
Also, if a camera is on a tripod, there would be a brief moment of shaking if a gust of wind came by but otherwise the image would be very stable. If the wind did pick up, all they would have to do is put one hand around the neck and lean on it gently while using the other hand to continue filming.
I have a decent Manfrotto tripod which I use with my still camera and even in the highest winds with a long lens, the amount of shaking is minimal. I just wait for the wind to die down before I take my shot.
I don't watch it regularly but have taped a few segments. Other than the one guy in the other chase crew who apparently has lost the ability to control the volume of his voice (BACK UP! BAACK UPP!! BAAACK UPP!!! BAAAAAAAAACK UPP!!!!!!!!!!!!), the one thing that really grinds on me is that no one uses a tripod when filming a tornado. They all hop out of their vehicle, grab their camera and start taping. Then, when you look at the video, you do see the tornado in the distance but it's like the camera guy from Battle Star Galactica had two too many cups of coffee (and I like the effect in BSG).
It's not that difficult to have a quick release tripod mount on the bottom of your camera. It can stay on while you're in the vehicle and holding the camera and be attached to the tripod in seconds once you're outside and taping.
It would make things much more easy on the eyes not to mention you can pick out more details with a stable shot than one moving about.
Yes, it is a bit more cumbersome to haul out the tripod, pop the legs open, mount the camera and start filming, but it would make things more enjoyable to watch.
But saying the mouse will be dead... hm.
Absolutely agree. The mouse will not be dead in 3, 5 or even 10 years. It is too useful for most situations to go away.
However, in situations like I described, the mouse loses, badly, to touch screens.
As an aside, ever notice in ST:TNG they used touch screen pads whereas in ST:TOS they used a stylus and what looked like an electronic notepad? It just goes to show that over a hundred years from now, touch screens will just be coming into their own.
I you had seen the board CNN used during the election, you would have seen how easy it worked and why, in this particular case, using a mouse would have slowed things down. Here's a picture of the board in question.
Reaching to touch something is much more accurate than trying to guide a mouse pointer to a particular spot, especially, as in this case, the board was right in front of you. The presenter can concentrate on the subject matter rather than having to look down, find the mouse, either look up at the screen or down at a smaller screen, drag the mouse to the location and click. By using the board, the user simply reaches out and touches the spot, no wasted movement, no delays, his train of thought continues uninterrupted.
I'm not saying this would work in every situation but it is highly suitable for presentations. Granted, the software behind this board needs to work every time but based on the granularity of the voting blocks that CNN was able to show, it seems to be able to be configured for just about anything.
This is one time where new and shiny beats out old and dull.
Yep, that's my recommendation. Avoid the "death zone".
It's just a name, like the Death Zone, or the Zone of No Return. All the zones have names like that in the Galaxy of Terror.
Take a look at the front left paw of the possum. The foot is lying OVER the yellow line while the head is yellow. That can't happen.
Second, if you look where the tail is, the line isn't correct either. It's small over the back rather than a constant size.
And, as others have pointed out, it's an old picture. Look at the cars in the picture.
I wonder what they'll do when they get to furry cartoon porn.
Forget furry cartoons, just show them pics from PAFCON.
Just try, once, to imagine what life would be like if all those millions of people who can't afford to get educated never learn basic literacy and arithmetic?
You mean we'd have hordes of overweight people driving 10 mpg vehicles who have cell phones for the entire family and every conceivable premium cable package but who can't figure out why they don't have money to pay for their mortgage?
I think we could put ads on School Buses and more of this type of stuff
Right. Because if there's one thing we don't have enough of, it's advertisements.~*
*Testing out the new sarcasm tag
You will never have to wash your glasswear again.
Right. Because we wouldn't have to worry about lipstick, lip balm or other substances sticking to the outside of the glass.
A place which has lipstick on the glass at your table just screams hygiene.~*
*Testing out the new sarcasm tag
the people who wrote, produced and own the rights to something are putting THEIR work up for other people to view and are providing a link for other people to purchase the work they wrote, produced and own the rights to.
This is compared to telling people who didn't write, produce or own the rights to a work to stop posting said work which they didn't write, produce or own the rights to for others to view.
Yes, I can see the similarities.~*
* Testing out the new sarcasm tage
just let the Borg come to 0, 0, 1 and she'll have her replacement eye in no time.
Here's your sign: L
The MythBusters (yeah, yeah) demonstrated this on their Moon Hoax show. It was the last thing they did.
They went to an observatory and had the person show that pointing the laser away from the moon produced no return signal whereas when they pointed the laser at a specific spot on the moon, they did get a signal.
Exactly. Because as everyone knows, Flash is evil
Posting really late to this discussion but as if to add to the discussion, CNN has this article which covers both sides of the argument.
I guess it's one perspective. In the case of the first woman, her clients were prescreened so the chance of her having a problem was significantly minimized. Not so with the latter woman.
More or less agree since the logic is that if you're single, you're somehow worth less than someone who's with someone (i.e. you're a loser). Sort of like if a woman isn't married by 30, she's over the hill.
As far as the money/time/etc is concerned, agreed, it is yours and it is great not having to worry about anyone bouncing a check, spending more than you had planned or a whole host of other things.
The flip side, as you allude to, is that there are those times you want to spend it with someone, whether a football game, a movie or a simply walk in the woods. Then there's the whole human touch thing for those of us who are of the affectionate type. It's especially difficult when you work with a few cuties and your mind has lascivious thoughts of them throughout the day. Not good for work performance.
Then again, dating is like combat so it's not necessarily an easy thing to do.
But then, what do I know? I have an entire region of women who want nothing to do with me unless they want a problem solved.
the low percentage of signs advertising for asians.
Mmmm, asian women. You can eat a lot because you never fill up!
Which is of course, typically short-sighted of every government. Sure, Blethley won't have any immediate or long-term effect on the country's operation, but it is because of Bletchley Park that GB even exists.
If we're going to say that historical buildings/sites such as Bletchley should be left to rot, then why bother having any historical organizations at all? Places such as the Arizona memorial in Hawaii, Gettysburg in PA, Edison's workshop in NJ, etc all should be left to sink or swim on their own.
While we're at it, why don't we just pave over Auschwitz and Dachau to make way for new industries that will have an immediate effect on both taxes and employment. (No, I didn't Godwin the conversation but yes, I did use an extreme example)
Right, because as we all know, when economic times are better, governments pay off the debt they took on when times were bad, every wish-list item is fully funded and dogs and cats play together like old friends.
Besides, why is it the governments responsibility to bail out private businesses? I thought the whole point of capitalism and free markets was to let businesses sink or swim based on competition. Since when should taxpayers be bailing people out who took on too much risk AND who told the government not to enact new regulations because that would kill their industry? Unless of course you're advocating fascism in which case, ok, I understand your point.