ppl i know who've been recruited to work at google in nyc make around 97k a year out of college, 2-3 yrs later they're making around 150k. This does not include GSU's I don't think they're getting paid too little do you?
"I really don't want to spend my hard earned money so someone can tell me that terrorists are simply misunderstood, McCarthy is bad, and gays and minorities are still being persecuted. I can get that from NPR for free. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion."
Millions in ticket sales say you're in the minority. There's always a regular number of good vs evil movies each year and from what I have seen there seems to be a much larger number of big budget (explosions and fancy graphics) thriller shows on TV each week. CSI and bones are off covering all of the medical thriller angle, BSG and stargate and shooting lasers and everywhere each week, Jack Bauer is jumping away in slow motion every week for your viewing pleasure and covering the action movie angle and it seems there are a lot more supernatural thrillers clamoring for the 1 hr episode space this year so I can assume that we'll all be getting a daily shot of rotating heads, latin speech and people clambering up walls every week too.
In this context, Hollywood is trying to explore a richer story in 2 hrs, since the regular 1 hr tv show seems to do a satisfactory job of running the same simple minded plot every week. The new batch of movies exist because there's pressure to offer something more engaging when you lock a group into a theater for 2 hrs.
None of this includes influence from foreign powers in the form of campaign donations to both parties via ethnic societies. China and many countries in the middle east have been caught doing this several times. But atleast voting keeps the public happy since they seem to think they're still in control.
After reading your comment about voter fraud by the NAACP, I googled it because I hadn't heard about it before. It seems like the republicans went ahead and fiddled with the voting machines while both republicans and democrats seemed to have fiddled with provisional balloting and logistics at the polling station to try and win. Ballot boxes seemed to have been lost, electronic polling machines were tampered with before election night and junkies were paid with crack to create false ballots.Neither side appears to be free of wrong doing on this issue.
The election process in america is a disgrace and I don't participate.
If you want more ammo for the pro-republican arguments:
The republicans control the state legislatures and governorships, who in turn appoint individuals to key agencies
Delayed voting, caused by republicans contesting ballots, broken machines, introduction of strange new ballots and audit-free, paperless balloting systems, and denial of an individual's right to vote by manipulation of voter rolls occured in historically democratic districts. The voter rolls, allocation of funds and logistical control over polling stations lay in the hands of legislatures and executive agencies of those states who were republicans. Only volunteer poll workers were democrats, and they were thoroughly overwhelmed by the situation.
a)Which part of this are you contesting? b)Why does a canadian care so deeply?
This bill is going to fail. Sure the opponents of this bill have interesting sources of 'funding' but what is anyone going to do about it. The last I heard the investigation into the abramoff scandal is being quietly killed by shuffling the prosecutors.
do you have any idea how much o2 it takes to refine ores? no? ok then let's leave the back of the envelope calculations turned space policy to the professionals.
"Republicans may control the various State governments"
"Republicans may indeed control the State legislatures"
I'm sorry "You MAY be functionally retarded"
I hope that brings my statements to the level of certainty you provide in your statement of facts. How can one argue with the strength of 'may' which most mortals use in hypothetical arguments. Heck I MAY be the supreme ruler of the universe.
Why debate metaphysics when there are recorded sentences to verify?
"The Republicans were simply more partisan, beating on the system without regard for the spirit and principle of the rules to get the result they wanted."
Now, my response was to point out that while indeed Republicans are indeed partisan, Democrats are no shrinking violets in the area of political partisanship.
analogue:
Example:
Person 1: Yo mama so fat when she lies on the beach, people run around yelling Free Willy
You: Yo mama so fat when she tripped over on 4th Ave, she landed on 12th
Again you seem to be unable to assert whether or not his statement is true or false and then back it up with references. So in just the first sentence, you are unable to assert whether or not his claim that the republicans are more virulently partisan to be true, i.e. willing to break the rules and thereby the integrity of the government and country to win in partisan politics. He further implies that republicans were responsible for election irregularities in Ohio, to which you make a broad claim that "state legislatures are controlled by democrats." which states? all states? how do you explain texas? now are we still talking about ohio? I could go on, but there is no point in bludgeoning you with reason any further, you either choose not to understand or are functionally retarded.
Now notice how you haven't responded to a single one of HIS points. This does not equate to you bringing up OTHER points, and then proceeding to critique MY reading comprehension skills, when you can barely form a coherent stream of ideas in your head. The only reason you respond to vague items like tone, is that it's vague and everyone will color the tone of the message according to his or her own mindset. This allows you to present a vague response pointing out unrelated facts as a factual counter-argument. Most individuals refer to this style as a 'straw man argument'. Let me give you an example that you are capable of understanding, to demonstrate this point.
Example:
Person 1: Yo mama so fat when she lies on the beach, people run around yelling Free Willy
Let's assume this isn't true and no one has ever run around yelling free willy while she lay at a beach. Let's further assume that your mother is 5'7" and weighs 95 lbs. This fact however is immaterial to countering the validity of the above statement, so it's not important to bring up in a response.
You: Yo mama so fat when she tripped over on 4th Ave, she landed on 12th
This response 1) does not address the fallacy of the first statement 2) irrelevant 3) it may work if there's an independent jury of high schoolers who are evaluating the humor value of the statements themselves.
When discussing the state of a nation which has the power to kill or disenfranchise anyone they term 'evil', adults deem your approach to be out of place,childish and down right foolish.
Before you respond with the usual illogical glut of verbal diarrhea conduct a google search for yo momma jokes and post those instead. Atleast, they have the value of keeping me and the rest of slashdot community entertained.
it's a actually a good thing, ageism will no longer affect you when you approach the last 10 years of your career because there is no one smart enough to replace you. This obviously only applies to jobs that can't be outsourced.
I think you missed the part where he bribes congress critters into ruling the purchase of foreign players punishable by 3 years of hard time. *AA wins you lose.
Now notice how you have not responded to a single point the GP made.
My advice to democrats is to slowly emigrate to any country that isn't directly under the US thumb. This could be france, germany, China or India and let the blowhards and their house of cards implode. The only thing they are good at is manipulating human beings. Left to their own devices they WILL fail to deal with reality.
I haven't read harry potter but I think I understand what you mean. Again as I said earlier, I was just illuminating the source of the conflict, when the dialogue seemed to be heavy handedly bashing a victim and her poor response, with little regard as to what might have sparked it.
Anyway I think we see eye to eye on this issue, so there isn't more to be said.
Mr. Shimmer not everyone views human beings as marks. You appear to work at a consulting firm, so I understand your confusion.
The vast majority of the nerd population is not educated to treat other human beings this way, most probably because they don't spend a lot of time interacting with other people while growing up. Obviously this is a stupid world view, since weasels do view everyone else as marks, people who should be swindled if possible and leaving decency for fools and propaganda.
I'm not saying either view is right or wrong, it's just that I do know a lot of people, nerds and religious nuts, who do run around with mistaken notions of decency and justice, people for whom weaseling is a foreign concept. I thought illuminating this as a reason for the misunderstanding would be appropriate.
You don't seem to think that becoming a lawyer at 24 is a major accomplishment? That's 4 yrs undergrad and 4 years grad which from the traditional schooling curriculum would put her at 18+8=26 She's either skipped classes or accelerated her way into a career at an earlier age. The fact that occupationaly smart people are always out maneuvered by weasels is just a sign of the times and if I remember correctly the subtext of every slashpost. 'why are smarts are not awarded only weasling is/why are nerds not awarded when being a jock is?'
The reason the country is a mess is that the vast majority of the voting population both republican and democrat can't spot weasels if they were 4000 tonne blaring its horn and coming right at them.
Civil society is based on certain implied threats based on the existence of social networks whose effects are usually hidden. Let's see if we can draw up a possible accounting of what really happened.
Abdala seems not to understand the power of social networks and weasels and probably went ahead and followed the letter of the law when the employer weaseled out of his initial salary promise. She therefore felt she had a right to renege on her alleged verbal agreement, one with no witnesses and one she doesn't admit to, to work for him. If he can weasel once by reneging on an initial salary promise, I believe he can weasel again to cast his cause in a fairer light. So I believe his claim to the existence of a profitable verbal agreement is probably fabricated. At this point, he tries to lay a 'guilt trip'/implied threat that her decision to renege on the alleged verbal contract was unconscionable and might result either in financial penalties or slander among the boston legal community because it cost him so much money to set up her office. This effectively protects him from a slander suit since he has a grievance. You have to remember however, that he unilaterally changed the agreement on her salary and there is no recorded evidence that she agreed to this change(remember why eula's are bad?). In any case, she proceeds to overestimate the commitment of the community to the letter of the law, or atleast their ability to weed out weasels and underestimate the power of social networks to impede her career. The rest is history. Yes these are lawyers, so it's a silly assumption on her part that even though this one is a weasel, the others in the community might not be. One may assume a green lawyer isn't yet inured to legal weaseling, which was why she was blindsided by this.
Of course in the end everyone sides with the veteran lawyer who weaseled on a contract instead of the injured party. This is the power of the weasel of course. As one of the above posters said, she's probably difficult to work and probably works on her own, which is most probably because she isn't a weasel.
I figured slashdot being chock full of nerds would have an easier time spotting them
Well since that IS a problem we'll just have to keep the employees in a restricted safe area, a work camp if you will. and then they can do all of their shopping and recreational activities there from the company store at whatever prices the company sets, providing whatever amenities the company feels like. All this under the bastion of security.
I'm loving this century mom and dad! thanks for nothing!
the question is 'why do you think i'm wrong?' and 'because' isn't a sufficient answer
Does that clear things up?
The arguments are my forgetful friend
1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque.
You: that's crazy? where's your supporting brief? i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't read a history book. give me a history lesson. this is not govt sponsored
2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany.
you: let's wait for them to get violent
Me: that's not a good idea because it is useless to complain at that point. appeasing ppl like you and them who spew meaningless rhetoric while supporting such dangerous behavior is bad for society. it is the duty of decent ppl to nip it in the bud or atleast remind the majority where this path always leads
You: you're in a box, you're wrong, I don't know what you're talking about
Me: Why am i wrong please clarify
You: you have no arguments. You're still wrong
Me: (this post) why am i wrong? and here's a summary oh forgetful one.
fixed the formatting
the question is 'why do you think i'm wrong?' and 'because' isn't a sufficient answer
Does that clear things up?
The arguments are my forgetful friend
1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque.
You: that's crazy? where's your supporting brief? i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't read a history book. give me a history lesson. this is not govt sponsored
2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany.
you: let's wait for them to get violent
Me: that's not a good idea because it is useless to complain at that point. appeasing ppl like you and them who spew meaningless rhetoric while supporting such dangerous behavior is bad for society. it is the duty of decent ppl to nip it in the bud or atleast remind the majority where this path always leads
You: you're in a box, you're wrong, I don't know what you're talking about
Me: Why am i wrong please clarify
You: you have no arguments. You're still wrong
Me: (this post) why am i wrong? and here's a summary oh forgetful one.
Slashdot Mirror
ppl i know who've been recruited to work at google in nyc make around 97k a year out of college, 2-3 yrs later they're making around 150k. This does not include GSU's I don't think they're getting paid too little do you?
step 2: bank lends money at higher interest to govt at a higher interest rate in the form of bonds
step 2.5: gov't prints money to pay their debt
There fixed that for you
so there's no probability that information was witheld until after the sale? convenient
Why worry about aliens when we have man eating politicians and salesmen to worry about? =D
"I really don't want to spend my hard earned money so someone can tell me that terrorists are simply misunderstood, McCarthy is bad, and gays and minorities are still being persecuted. I can get that from NPR for free. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion."
Millions in ticket sales say you're in the minority. There's always a regular number of good vs evil movies each year and from what I have seen there seems to be a much larger number of big budget (explosions and fancy graphics) thriller shows on TV each week. CSI and bones are off covering all of the medical thriller angle, BSG and stargate and shooting lasers and everywhere each week, Jack Bauer is jumping away in slow motion every week for your viewing pleasure and covering the action movie angle and it seems there are a lot more supernatural thrillers clamoring for the 1 hr episode space this year so I can assume that we'll all be getting a daily shot of rotating heads, latin speech and people clambering up walls every week too.
In this context, Hollywood is trying to explore a richer story in 2 hrs, since the regular 1 hr tv show seems to do a satisfactory job of running the same simple minded plot every week. The new batch of movies exist because there's pressure to offer something more engaging when you lock a group into a theater for 2 hrs.
None of this includes influence from foreign powers in the form of campaign donations to both parties via ethnic societies. China and many countries in the middle east have been caught doing this several times. But atleast voting keeps the public happy since they seem to think they're still in control.
After reading your comment about voter fraud by the NAACP, I googled it because I hadn't heard about it before. It seems like the republicans went ahead and fiddled with the voting machines while both republicans and democrats seemed to have fiddled with provisional balloting and logistics at the polling station to try and win. Ballot boxes seemed to have been lost, electronic polling machines were tampered with before election night and junkies were paid with crack to create false ballots.Neither side appears to be free of wrong doing on this issue.
h tml
The election process in america is a disgrace and I don't participate.
If you want more ammo for the pro-republican arguments:
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/cat_voter_fraud.
Democratic Side
http://blackboxvoting.org/
Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner
The republicans control the state legislatures and governorships, who in turn appoint individuals to key agencies
Delayed voting, caused by republicans contesting ballots, broken machines, introduction of strange new ballots and audit-free, paperless balloting systems, and denial of an individual's right to vote by manipulation of voter rolls occured in historically democratic districts. The voter rolls, allocation of funds and logistical control over polling stations lay in the hands of legislatures and executive agencies of those states who were republicans. Only volunteer poll workers were democrats, and they were thoroughly overwhelmed by the situation.
a)Which part of this are you contesting?
b)Why does a canadian care so deeply?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to discuss the extraction of minerals from siderites to boost the validity of your argument?
I guess the sun's energy could be harnessed with giant, focused mirrors or something?
This bill is going to fail. Sure the opponents of this bill have interesting sources of 'funding' but what is anyone going to do about it. The last I heard the investigation into the abramoff scandal is being quietly killed by shuffling the prosecutors.
do you have any idea how much o2 it takes to refine ores? no? ok then let's leave the back of the envelope calculations turned space policy to the professionals.
"Republicans may control the various State governments"
"Republicans may indeed control the State legislatures"
I'm sorry "You MAY be functionally retarded"
I hope that brings my statements to the level of certainty you provide in your statement of facts. How can one argue with the strength of 'may' which most mortals use in hypothetical arguments. Heck I MAY be the supreme ruler of the universe.
Why debate metaphysics when there are recorded sentences to verify?
"The Republicans were simply more partisan, beating on the system without regard for the spirit and principle of the rules to get the result they wanted."
Now, my response was to point out that while indeed Republicans are indeed partisan, Democrats are no shrinking violets in the area of political partisanship.
analogue:
Example:
Person 1: Yo mama so fat when she lies on the beach, people run around yelling Free Willy
You: Yo mama so fat when she tripped over on 4th Ave, she landed on 12th
Again you seem to be unable to assert whether or not his statement is true or false and then back it up with references. So in just the first sentence, you are unable to assert whether or not his claim that the republicans are more virulently partisan to be true, i.e. willing to break the rules and thereby the integrity of the government and country to win in partisan politics. He further implies that republicans were responsible for election irregularities in Ohio, to which you make a broad claim that "state legislatures are controlled by democrats." which states? all states? how do you explain texas? now are we still talking about ohio? I could go on, but there is no point in bludgeoning you with reason any further, you either choose not to understand or are functionally retarded.
let's try this again.
Now notice how you haven't responded to a single one of HIS points. This does not equate to you bringing up OTHER points, and then proceeding to critique MY reading comprehension skills, when you can barely form a coherent stream of ideas in your head. The only reason you respond to vague items like tone, is that it's vague and everyone will color the tone of the message according to his or her own mindset. This allows you to present a vague response pointing out unrelated facts as a factual counter-argument. Most individuals refer to this style as a 'straw man argument'.
Let me give you an example that you are capable of understanding, to demonstrate this point.
Example:
Person 1: Yo mama so fat when she lies on the beach, people run around yelling Free Willy
Let's assume this isn't true and no one has ever run around yelling free willy while she lay at a beach. Let's further assume that your mother is 5'7" and weighs 95 lbs. This fact however is immaterial to countering the validity of the above statement, so it's not important to bring up in a response.
You: Yo mama so fat when she tripped over on 4th Ave, she landed on 12th
This response 1) does not address the fallacy of the first statement 2) irrelevant 3) it may work if there's an independent jury of high schoolers who are evaluating the humor value of the statements themselves.
When discussing the state of a nation which has the power to kill or disenfranchise anyone they term 'evil', adults deem your approach to be out of place,childish and down right foolish.
Before you respond with the usual illogical glut of verbal diarrhea conduct a google search for yo momma jokes and post those instead. Atleast, they have the value of keeping me and the rest of slashdot community entertained.
it's a actually a good thing, ageism will no longer affect you when you approach the last 10 years of your career because there is no one smart enough to replace you. This obviously only applies to jobs that can't be outsourced.
I think you missed the part where he bribes congress critters into ruling the purchase of foreign players punishable by 3 years of hard time. *AA wins you lose.
Now notice how you have not responded to a single point the GP made.
My advice to democrats is to slowly emigrate to any country that isn't directly under the US thumb. This could be france, germany, China or India and let the blowhards and their house of cards implode. The only thing they are good at is manipulating human beings. Left to their own devices they WILL fail to deal with reality.
lol
I haven't read harry potter but I think I understand what you mean. Again as I said earlier, I was just illuminating the source of the conflict, when the dialogue seemed to be heavy handedly bashing a victim and her poor response, with little regard as to what might have sparked it.
Anyway I think we see eye to eye on this issue, so there isn't more to be said.
Mr. Shimmer not everyone views human beings as marks. You appear to work at a consulting firm, so I understand your confusion.
The vast majority of the nerd population is not educated to treat other human beings this way, most probably because they don't spend a lot of time interacting with other people while growing up. Obviously this is a stupid world view, since weasels do view everyone else as marks, people who should be swindled if possible and leaving decency for fools and propaganda.
I'm not saying either view is right or wrong, it's just that I do know a lot of people, nerds and religious nuts, who do run around with mistaken notions of decency and justice, people for whom weaseling is a foreign concept. I thought illuminating this as a reason for the misunderstanding would be appropriate.
erm... 4000 tonne locomotive...
X( Screwed up the barb and took the sting right out of that didn't it?
You don't seem to think that becoming a lawyer at 24 is a major accomplishment? That's 4 yrs undergrad and 4 years grad which from the traditional schooling curriculum would put her at 18+8=26 She's either skipped classes or accelerated her way into a career at an earlier age. The fact that occupationaly smart people are always out maneuvered by weasels is just a sign of the times and if I remember correctly the subtext of every slashpost. 'why are smarts are not awarded only weasling is/why are nerds not awarded when being a jock is?'
The reason the country is a mess is that the vast majority of the voting population both republican and democrat can't spot weasels if they were 4000 tonne blaring its horn and coming right at them.
Civil society is based on certain implied threats based on the existence of social networks whose effects are usually hidden. Let's see if we can draw up a possible accounting of what really happened.
Abdala seems not to understand the power of social networks and weasels and probably went ahead and followed the letter of the law when the employer weaseled out of his initial salary promise. She therefore felt she had a right to renege on her alleged verbal agreement, one with no witnesses and one she doesn't admit to, to work for him. If he can weasel once by reneging on an initial salary promise, I believe he can weasel again to cast his cause in a fairer light. So I believe his claim to the existence of a profitable verbal agreement is probably fabricated. At this point, he tries to lay a 'guilt trip'/implied threat that her decision to renege on the alleged verbal contract was unconscionable and might result either in financial penalties or slander among the boston legal community because it cost him so much money to set up her office. This effectively protects him from a slander suit since he has a grievance. You have to remember however, that he unilaterally changed the agreement on her salary and there is no recorded evidence that she agreed to this change(remember why eula's are bad?). In any case, she proceeds to overestimate the commitment of the community to the letter of the law, or atleast their ability to weed out weasels and underestimate the power of social networks to impede her career. The rest is history. Yes these are lawyers, so it's a silly assumption on her part that even though this one is a weasel, the others in the community might not be. One may assume a green lawyer isn't yet inured to legal weaseling, which was why she was blindsided by this.
Of course in the end everyone sides with the veteran lawyer who weaseled on a contract instead of the injured party. This is the power of the weasel of course. As one of the above posters said, she's probably difficult to work and probably works on her own, which is most probably because she isn't a weasel.
I figured slashdot being chock full of nerds would have an easier time spotting them
Well since that IS a problem we'll just have to keep the employees in a restricted safe area, a work camp if you will. and then they can do all of their shopping and recreational activities there from the company store at whatever prices the company sets, providing whatever amenities the company feels like. All this under the bastion of security.
I'm loving this century mom and dad! thanks for nothing!
the question is 'why do you think i'm wrong?' and 'because' isn't a sufficient answer Does that clear things up? The arguments are my forgetful friend 1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque. You: that's crazy? where's your supporting brief? i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't read a history book. give me a history lesson. this is not govt sponsored 2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany.
you: let's wait for them to get violent
Me: that's not a good idea because it is useless to complain at that point. appeasing ppl like you and them who spew meaningless rhetoric while supporting such dangerous behavior is bad for society. it is the duty of decent ppl to nip it in the bud or atleast remind the majority where this path always leads
You: you're in a box, you're wrong, I don't know what you're talking about
Me: Why am i wrong please clarify
You: you have no arguments. You're still wrong
Me: (this post) why am i wrong? and here's a summary oh forgetful one.
fixed the formatting
the question is 'why do you think i'm wrong?' and 'because' isn't a sufficient answer
Does that clear things up?
The arguments are my forgetful friend
1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque.
You: that's crazy? where's your supporting brief? i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't read a history book. give me a history lesson. this is not govt sponsored
2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany. you: let's wait for them to get violent Me: that's not a good idea because it is useless to complain at that point. appeasing ppl like you and them who spew meaningless rhetoric while supporting such dangerous behavior is bad for society. it is the duty of decent ppl to nip it in the bud or atleast remind the majority where this path always leads You: you're in a box, you're wrong, I don't know what you're talking about Me: Why am i wrong please clarify You: you have no arguments. You're still wrong Me: (this post) why am i wrong? and here's a summary oh forgetful one.