The system just doesn't really allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them", probably because the system was made by both of them.
Yesterday, I voted exclusively for non-Democrat and non-Republican candidates. For offices which had no such candidate available, I voted for a write-in.
Stop making excuses. The system does allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them", but most people aren't comfortable actually sending that message, regardless of what stance they pretend to take outside of the voting booth.
Did you vote for any Democrats or Republicans? If so, then you have nobody but yourself to blame.
And smartphone-GPS users carry their smartphones in Otterbox cases. If you think either one of those solutions is flawless and guaranteed to work 100% of the time, you must not hike much.
The stars are not visible during the day, but the sun is. Of course, if it's cloudy, you're not going to have the sun or the stars. Which brings us to my original point. No method of navigation is perfect and each has its advantages and drawbacks. Everyone has their own threshholds for what is reasonable and what is necessary.
As for people stupid enough to try and use their smartphone as a GPS navigation tool in the wild outdoors, well I feel sadness for anyone stupid enough to do that because the consequences are potentially so serious.
Couldn't the same be said of people who are stupid enough to try and use their compass and paper map instead of navigating by the stars? I mean, what if your map is blown away by a gust of wind, then you're screwed!
Everyone has a different threshhold for what's reasonable. Your threshhold is no less arbitrary than the one embraced by smartphone-GPS users.
Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine
Perhaps? Did you not notice my explicit mention of the year 2007, which itself was a hyperlink pointing to news coverage of the very incident you describe?
To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.
That's why I'm not comparing the two failures to each other. I'm citing the 2007 incident as a counterexample to the claim that until this recent (2014) incident, "it HADN'T exploded". It had indeed exploded, and it had indeed killed people before. It was a static firing, and it was a different fuel, and it was a different engine. But it was still Scaled Composites' SpaceShipN for Virgin Galactic.
"The guy is not stupid by a long shot", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"He's a great philosopher", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"With the wisdom of an immature teenager", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is not smart.
I suppose that last one was supposed to be a statement about maturity, not smarts? However, it's a statement about the guy's level of wisdom, not his level of maturity. He has the wisdom of an immature teenager, not the maturity of an immature teenager.
So here you think it's OK for businesses to not keep the exact same hours, but elsewhere you think the government should force businesses to keep the same hours. Which is it?
The optimal situation, regarding maximizing the time available to interact with other businesses while minimizing hours of operation, occurs when everyone shares the same business hours. When businesses do not share the same business hours, the outcome is suboptimal. I'm not sure what you mean by "OK" in this context. Is suboptimal "OK" or not? Also, I never suggested that the government "should force businesses to keep the same hours". I did suggest that government edicts can support the coordination of schedules better than the ad-hoc process you suggest, thereby improving outcomes.
Because you're arguing that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours, when we already have a situation where they don't because the continental USA spans 4 times zones. So which is it? Is it OK for businesses to not keep the same hours, or not?
I'm not arguing about any "needs" at all. Nor am I arguing about forcing everyone to keep the same business hours. Furthermore, it's unclear what your criteria are for something to be "OK".
The basis of your whole argument is that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours for increased efficiency, but apparently US companies have no trouble trading with China which has very different business hours.
Once again, I'll clarify for your benefit: my argument had nothing to do with "needing" to "force" anyone to do anything. In my previous post, I've specifically addressed the trouble that US companies have regarding trade with China in the context of keeping very different business hours. Additionally, I'd like to point out that you've quoted the question that I posed to you, but you haven't answered it.
I agree with professionalfurryele. I recently hit the 5 year mark at my first "real job" (I did freelance work earlier in my career) and started looking around for other opportunities (since that seems to be the only way to get a raise these days -- so wasteful!). Took a few months, but I finally accepted an offer for a position as a Senior Research Analyst (sounds fancy!). More relevant to you, perhaps, are the countless opportunities that I didn't really look into. The job postings that don't list salary ranges! It takes a lot of time and effort to apply to a job. I need to tweak my resume for each application. I need to write a cover letter. I need to jump through hoops filling out [electronic] paperwork. And I need to do this every single time I apply. You, as the hiring manager, only need to write that job posting once. You don't need to tailor it to each individual applicant. It's inefficient to the point of offensiveness that you expect such a generous expenditure of time and effort on the part of applicants merely to see what they're even applying for! During this recent job search of mine, I can count on one hand the number of job postings I replied to without first knowing whether the salary range was acceptable to me. These jobs all had one thing in common: they were awesome. I'd work for peanuts doing something I truly feel passionate about. I'd work on robotics or aerospace projects for half the salary of the position I ended up accepting. Unless you're hiring for some dream job like that, you're not going to be luring passionate people pursuing their dreams. You're going after people that want a job that pays the bills. To those people, salary matters. They're going to invest their time in applying to jobs that they know meet their salary criteria instead of gambling it on positions that might not.
I don't know that we want to cover the details of each case in the Constitution, making it several thousand pages long.
Indeed, I have no idea how to resolve this issue. On the one hand, the whole "rule of law" approach sounds much nicer than the "rule of man". On the other hand, it isn't very flexible, and even something as simple as [partial] freedom of speech [partially] protected by the first amendment would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to codify fully. In practice, which is better, leaving corner cases it up to a judge, or being saddled with an unimaginably large and complex legal code? I can't answer that. But either one is preferable to what we see today, where we pretend to abide by the rule of law while in reality abiding by the rule of man. Whatever choice we end up making as a society, let's at least be honest with ourselves about it.
I'm a socialist and I voted for Jill Stein in the last presidential election. And I'm telling you that your casual dismissal of a claim merely because it is communicated to you via a Fox News link is sad. In a sense, you're no better than a Fox News viewer who would dismiss outright anything coming from MSNBC. Don't pretend you're being rational right now.
That being said, the claim you so casually dismiss is actually true. Afghan society is interesting in many ways.
o, it doesn't imply that at all, it implies the opposite. B2B sales are a large part of the economy. They're just not always in the same timezone.
Domestic. I said domestic. That implies that they are in the same timezone (or have a sufficiently small delta-t to still have a majority of their "work day" overlap).
Somehow that doesn't seem to be a problem, but for some reason you claim it is. Are you saying you don't think businesses on the east coast do business with companies on the west coast? That claim is utterly stupid.
A three hour offset still leaves five hours of overlap. Of course, this only leaves 2/3 as much time to do business compared against businesses in the same time zone with the same work hours. Why is that claim utterly stupid?
Companies within the US seem, unlike you, to be smart enough to realize that there's overlapping working hours between the timezones, and that they can do all the communication they need during those overlapping hours.
See above.
In addition, companies (unlike you again) understand there's this thing called "email" which allows communications at all hours, without both(/all) parties needing to be participating at the same time.
I addressed this in my previous post by mentioning the delays inherent in such transactions.
So, you're saying that there's very little trade between the US and China?
I'm not sure where you got that. Does increased communication latency necessarily prevent large amounts of trade?
Maybe you need to seek psychological help since you seem to have a poor grasp of reality.
Thank you for your referral.
Are you seriously suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to keep Chinese hours?
No, I'm suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to buy Buicks. Man, pay attention.
Regarding your point a), it could be argued that restrictions on possession of Pu-239 are unconstitutional as they infringe on the right to bear arms. Regarding your point b), this isn't codified in law but instead stems from judicial rulings by men, which is at odds with the notion of "rule of law". Regarding your point c), it could be argued that a nuclear-armed drug lord could (in theory) use his arsenal to help defend his or her community from a foreign enemy or an oppressive government, thereby increasing security and freedom (a scenario only somewhat less likely than one in which he or she poses a threat to the community).
I'm not saying that these are the only important considerations here. I'm merely saying that over the years, we've chosen the expedient route to fixing our legislative problems (generous judicial interpretation of written law) instead of one that is consistent with our stated ideals (amending the constitution). The end result seems mostly acceptable either way, but the process by which we arrive at it is not the process that was established specifically for this purpose. If we do indeed want to restrict possession of Pu-239 or otherwise infringe upon the right to bear arms, or if we do indeed want to prevent people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise abridge the freedom of speech, we should demand that our legislature amend the consitution to reflect these desires. When we instead allow the judiciary to interpret laws in a manner contrary to their actual text (and this is, very literally, what is happening), we corrupt the structure of the government and whittle away at the rule of law.
tl;dr - If we don't like what our constitution says, we'd be better off amending it than ignoring it.
You said "my girlfriend and I". You did not say "my wife and I".
So let's say we start calling each other husband and wife today. At the end of 2015, we would have (for the whole year) "considered ourselves to be married", at least in the sense of using the appropriate words.
However, this seems to be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. You say that in order to enter into a common law marriages, two criteria must be met, one of which is potentially the filing of taxes as a "married" couple. Then you go on to say that you can't file as a "married" couple unless you're either legally married or have entered into a common law marriage. Head asplodes.
Moral of the story: Looks like I'll be paying my full tax bill.
Eventually (we can only hope) the politicians will realize this and we will get the future back.
This sums up the difference in our arguments. I advocate for the use of viable, existing technology that is not held back by political or legal restrictions, though it may not be the optimal solution from an engineering point of view. You advocate for the opposite.
Personally, I think even an asteroid capture mission using solar sails for propulsion would accomplish its goals long before we overcome the political hurdles of nukes in space. I guess you're an optimist.
Disclaimer: I think it's a real shame that we abandoned research into nuclear pulse propulsion. We could be doing stuff straight out of sci-fi novels today using half-century-old technology instead of struggling to repeat the Apollo program. A real shame.
Your claim that "a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international" seems to imply that domestic business to business sales are insignificant; is this "huge amount" indeed a majority, or is it really more like "a small amount"?
Your claim that "Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones" seems misleading. Maintaining 24-hour staff incurs greater costs than simply maintaining a single shift operating within standard business hours. Transactions between businesses without overlapping shifts take longer than those between those with overlapping shifts. Why do you insist that the costs of synchronized business hours outweigh the benefits?
In unrelated news, the International Union of Police Associations has announced an exclusive partnership with General Motors for all future fleet purchase orders.
If you are ascribing moral and ethical rationale to any UN actions then you have not been observing the UN very closely. They are if anything, the antithesis of moral, ethical and rational. ALL of the UN's actions are based on petty politics. If you believe otherwise, you're being foolish.
While what you say is true, it's irrelevant. In this context, their actions are consistent with being moral and ethical. That holds true even if the true basis for their actions is petty politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, the composition of the lower house of congress is primarily the result of how districts are drawn, not how the electorate votes.
That being said, check this out.
You know what's wrong with that chart? That there's only two colors, and they might as well be the same color.
The system just doesn't really allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them", probably because the system was made by both of them.
Yesterday, I voted exclusively for non-Democrat and non-Republican candidates. For offices which had no such candidate available, I voted for a write-in.
Stop making excuses. The system does allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them", but most people aren't comfortable actually sending that message, regardless of what stance they pretend to take outside of the voting booth.
Did you vote for any Democrats or Republicans? If so, then you have nobody but yourself to blame.
Bier.
Ah, wow, forgot about the whole unicode thing. Madrosc and pojetnosc.
Polish. I suppose the closest analogues are mdro and pojtno.
And smartphone-GPS users carry their smartphones in Otterbox cases. If you think either one of those solutions is flawless and guaranteed to work 100% of the time, you must not hike much.
The stars are not visible during the day, but the sun is. Of course, if it's cloudy, you're not going to have the sun or the stars. Which brings us to my original point. No method of navigation is perfect and each has its advantages and drawbacks. Everyone has their own threshholds for what is reasonable and what is necessary.
As for people stupid enough to try and use their smartphone as a GPS navigation tool in the wild outdoors, well I feel sadness for anyone stupid enough to do that because the consequences are potentially so serious.
Couldn't the same be said of people who are stupid enough to try and use their compass and paper map instead of navigating by the stars? I mean, what if your map is blown away by a gust of wind, then you're screwed!
Everyone has a different threshhold for what's reasonable. Your threshhold is no less arbitrary than the one embraced by smartphone-GPS users.
Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine
Perhaps? Did you not notice my explicit mention of the year 2007, which itself was a hyperlink pointing to news coverage of the very incident you describe?
To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.
That's why I'm not comparing the two failures to each other. I'm citing the 2007 incident as a counterexample to the claim that until this recent (2014) incident, "it HADN'T exploded". It had indeed exploded, and it had indeed killed people before. It was a static firing, and it was a different fuel, and it was a different engine. But it was still Scaled Composites' SpaceShipN for Virgin Galactic.
"The guy is not stupid by a long shot", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"He's a great philosopher", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"With the wisdom of an immature teenager", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is not smart.
I suppose that last one was supposed to be a statement about maturity, not smarts? However, it's a statement about the guy's level of wisdom, not his level of maturity. He has the wisdom of an immature teenager, not the maturity of an immature teenager.
Disclaimer: English is not my first language.
Who's talking about cleverness?
Now I'm really confused.
So here you think it's OK for businesses to not keep the exact same hours, but elsewhere you think the government should force businesses to keep the same hours. Which is it?
The optimal situation, regarding maximizing the time available to interact with other businesses while minimizing hours of operation, occurs when everyone shares the same business hours. When businesses do not share the same business hours, the outcome is suboptimal. I'm not sure what you mean by "OK" in this context. Is suboptimal "OK" or not? Also, I never suggested that the government "should force businesses to keep the same hours". I did suggest that government edicts can support the coordination of schedules better than the ad-hoc process you suggest, thereby improving outcomes.
Because you're arguing that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours, when we already have a situation where they don't because the continental USA spans 4 times zones. So which is it? Is it OK for businesses to not keep the same hours, or not?
I'm not arguing about any "needs" at all. Nor am I arguing about forcing everyone to keep the same business hours. Furthermore, it's unclear what your criteria are for something to be "OK".
The basis of your whole argument is that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours for increased efficiency, but apparently US companies have no trouble trading with China which has very different business hours.
Once again, I'll clarify for your benefit: my argument had nothing to do with "needing" to "force" anyone to do anything. In my previous post, I've specifically addressed the trouble that US companies have regarding trade with China in the context of keeping very different business hours. Additionally, I'd like to point out that you've quoted the question that I posed to you, but you haven't answered it.
Right, except that time it did explode, killing 3 engineers. I guess we can't remember all the way back to 2007.
The guy is not stupid by a long shot. Also listen to him speak, he's a great philosopher with the wisdom of an immature teenager.
... but I thought you said the guy is not stupid?
I agree with professionalfurryele. I recently hit the 5 year mark at my first "real job" (I did freelance work earlier in my career) and started looking around for other opportunities (since that seems to be the only way to get a raise these days -- so wasteful!). Took a few months, but I finally accepted an offer for a position as a Senior Research Analyst (sounds fancy!). More relevant to you, perhaps, are the countless opportunities that I didn't really look into. The job postings that don't list salary ranges! It takes a lot of time and effort to apply to a job. I need to tweak my resume for each application. I need to write a cover letter. I need to jump through hoops filling out [electronic] paperwork. And I need to do this every single time I apply. You, as the hiring manager, only need to write that job posting once. You don't need to tailor it to each individual applicant. It's inefficient to the point of offensiveness that you expect such a generous expenditure of time and effort on the part of applicants merely to see what they're even applying for! During this recent job search of mine, I can count on one hand the number of job postings I replied to without first knowing whether the salary range was acceptable to me. These jobs all had one thing in common: they were awesome. I'd work for peanuts doing something I truly feel passionate about. I'd work on robotics or aerospace projects for half the salary of the position I ended up accepting. Unless you're hiring for some dream job like that, you're not going to be luring passionate people pursuing their dreams. You're going after people that want a job that pays the bills. To those people, salary matters. They're going to invest their time in applying to jobs that they know meet their salary criteria instead of gambling it on positions that might not.
I don't know that we want to cover the details of each case in the Constitution, making it several thousand pages long.
Indeed, I have no idea how to resolve this issue. On the one hand, the whole "rule of law" approach sounds much nicer than the "rule of man". On the other hand, it isn't very flexible, and even something as simple as [partial] freedom of speech [partially] protected by the first amendment would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to codify fully. In practice, which is better, leaving corner cases it up to a judge, or being saddled with an unimaginably large and complex legal code? I can't answer that. But either one is preferable to what we see today, where we pretend to abide by the rule of law while in reality abiding by the rule of man. Whatever choice we end up making as a society, let's at least be honest with ourselves about it.
Czesc!
I'm a socialist and I voted for Jill Stein in the last presidential election. And I'm telling you that your casual dismissal of a claim merely because it is communicated to you via a Fox News link is sad. In a sense, you're no better than a Fox News viewer who would dismiss outright anything coming from MSNBC. Don't pretend you're being rational right now.
That being said, the claim you so casually dismiss is actually true. Afghan society is interesting in many ways.
o, it doesn't imply that at all, it implies the opposite. B2B sales are a large part of the economy. They're just not always in the same timezone.
Domestic. I said domestic. That implies that they are in the same timezone (or have a sufficiently small delta-t to still have a majority of their "work day" overlap).
Somehow that doesn't seem to be a problem, but for some reason you claim it is. Are you saying you don't think businesses on the east coast do business with companies on the west coast? That claim is utterly stupid.
A three hour offset still leaves five hours of overlap. Of course, this only leaves 2/3 as much time to do business compared against businesses in the same time zone with the same work hours. Why is that claim utterly stupid?
Companies within the US seem, unlike you, to be smart enough to realize that there's overlapping working hours between the timezones, and that they can do all the communication they need during those overlapping hours.
See above.
In addition, companies (unlike you again) understand there's this thing called "email" which allows communications at all hours, without both(/all) parties needing to be participating at the same time.
I addressed this in my previous post by mentioning the delays inherent in such transactions.
So, you're saying that there's very little trade between the US and China?
I'm not sure where you got that. Does increased communication latency necessarily prevent large amounts of trade?
Maybe you need to seek psychological help since you seem to have a poor grasp of reality.
Thank you for your referral.
Are you seriously suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to keep Chinese hours?
No, I'm suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to buy Buicks. Man, pay attention.
Regarding your point a), it could be argued that restrictions on possession of Pu-239 are unconstitutional as they infringe on the right to bear arms. Regarding your point b), this isn't codified in law but instead stems from judicial rulings by men, which is at odds with the notion of "rule of law". Regarding your point c), it could be argued that a nuclear-armed drug lord could (in theory) use his arsenal to help defend his or her community from a foreign enemy or an oppressive government, thereby increasing security and freedom (a scenario only somewhat less likely than one in which he or she poses a threat to the community).
I'm not saying that these are the only important considerations here. I'm merely saying that over the years, we've chosen the expedient route to fixing our legislative problems (generous judicial interpretation of written law) instead of one that is consistent with our stated ideals (amending the constitution). The end result seems mostly acceptable either way, but the process by which we arrive at it is not the process that was established specifically for this purpose. If we do indeed want to restrict possession of Pu-239 or otherwise infringe upon the right to bear arms, or if we do indeed want to prevent people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise abridge the freedom of speech, we should demand that our legislature amend the consitution to reflect these desires. When we instead allow the judiciary to interpret laws in a manner contrary to their actual text (and this is, very literally, what is happening), we corrupt the structure of the government and whittle away at the rule of law.
tl;dr - If we don't like what our constitution says, we'd be better off amending it than ignoring it.
You said "my girlfriend and I". You did not say "my wife and I".
So let's say we start calling each other husband and wife today. At the end of 2015, we would have (for the whole year) "considered ourselves to be married", at least in the sense of using the appropriate words.
However, this seems to be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. You say that in order to enter into a common law marriages, two criteria must be met, one of which is potentially the filing of taxes as a "married" couple. Then you go on to say that you can't file as a "married" couple unless you're either legally married or have entered into a common law marriage. Head asplodes.
Moral of the story: Looks like I'll be paying my full tax bill.
Eventually (we can only hope) the politicians will realize this and we will get the future back.
This sums up the difference in our arguments. I advocate for the use of viable, existing technology that is not held back by political or legal restrictions, though it may not be the optimal solution from an engineering point of view. You advocate for the opposite.
Personally, I think even an asteroid capture mission using solar sails for propulsion would accomplish its goals long before we overcome the political hurdles of nukes in space. I guess you're an optimist.
Disclaimer: I think it's a real shame that we abandoned research into nuclear pulse propulsion. We could be doing stuff straight out of sci-fi novels today using half-century-old technology instead of struggling to repeat the Apollo program. A real shame.
Your claim that "a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international" seems to imply that domestic business to business sales are insignificant; is this "huge amount" indeed a majority, or is it really more like "a small amount"?
Your claim that "Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones" seems misleading. Maintaining 24-hour staff incurs greater costs than simply maintaining a single shift operating within standard business hours. Transactions between businesses without overlapping shifts take longer than those between those with overlapping shifts. Why do you insist that the costs of synchronized business hours outweigh the benefits?
In unrelated news, the International Union of Police Associations has announced an exclusive partnership with General Motors for all future fleet purchase orders.
If you are ascribing moral and ethical rationale to any UN actions then you have not been observing the UN very closely. They are if anything, the antithesis of moral, ethical and rational. ALL of the UN's actions are based on petty politics. If you believe otherwise, you're being foolish.
While what you say is true, it's irrelevant. In this context, their actions are consistent with being moral and ethical. That holds true even if the true basis for their actions is petty politics.
Do you have a response to bunratty's retort?