In regards to F1 racing, Police communications and other seemingly inherent dangerous driving while communicating with someone else: Don't you think there is a qualitative difference between talking to a coach or dispatcher or the like, and talking to your girlfriend?
For one thing, if your F1 pit crew told you they didn't love you anymore, you probably wouldn't accidentally kill someone else in a fiery crash.
At the end of the day, inventory gets taken and if items sold don't match up to cash in registers, there's a problem.
If you really had worked at Target, you would know they do an inventory once a year at the retail stores. There is no daily inventory of any sort, just sales reports and estimates. Only if someone noticed and later reported it would the tapes be of any use. (and the single security guy looking at a dozen video screens can't see everything)
A system that you describe (daily inventory) won't even be humanly possible until the items contain RFID chips. It can take up to 10 or so hours to do a store inventory now, and that doesn't even include the weeks of behind the scenes prep time. Dozens of people are involved, and the whole thing happens overnight.
What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution
What really needs to be understood is the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. ID is a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. And never the twain shall meet.
Whoever is responsible for this needs to have their head partitioned from their fucking neck. A few messy examples might be called for right about now.
I find it quite ironic that this organization, which had as it's most recognizable leader a fat, cross-dressing megalomaniac, is now seeking out and putting an end to deviance. Ironic and scary.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 1
Furthermore, if as you say "Intel offers a better deal" -- and that deal was based upon exclusivity. (In other words: "You get a 15% discount if you sell only Intel chips"), It seems to me that that would be illegal and anti-competitive.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. You seem to be viewing "competition" as something that would somehow benefit you, while sticking it to the man. Kind of like a chicken debating the ethics of being fried or baked; you're still cooked at the end of the day, fella.
Exclusivity clauses suck. They're bad for pretty much everyone involved except anyone getting paid off to make it happen. The customers get screwed, along with the vendor (who now has a forced audience of people who hate their sucky service [no incentive to provide good service = suckage] along with the vendor's host who has to put up with the same complaints and sucky service or risk getting sued for violating their contract.
They suck. But they're not illegal. Just ask the cunts at Aramark who own exclusive rights to sell food on many a college campus. Or banks, who fight over exclusive right to provide banking services. Or the classic coke / pepsi vending wars going on just about everywhere. Try buying a coke at Taco Bell or a Pepsi at McDonald's sometime and let us know how that goes.
To be sure, a history of criminal or law breaking activity IS required for ASPD
Let me clarify this by saying that rule breaking (including laws) behaviors are a critical part of ASPD, despite being one of a handful of listed criterion. The others are all closely related to breaking society's mores and values (and in many cases laws) by pathalogicaly lying, being decitful (conning people, etc) and generally being a VERY BAD PERSON. These are not people who are simply sly or cunning, these are some of the worst human beings on earth.
More to the point of the article, professional businessmen as a whole may display some of these symptoms, as do we all to some degree. This does not mean that they are suffering from ASPD (or whatever analog you choose). Regardless of the nomenclature you choose to use, it's not a terribly common disorder, occouring in about 3% of males, many of which are in prison.
Not to mention that your counter argument fails to address that not all impairments in personality disorders require the failure to observe rules and laws.
We seem to be talking about only ONE recognized personality disorder here, Anti-Social PD, and so a distinction isn't really necessary. To be sure, a history of criminal or law breaking activity IS required for ASPD, hence one of the reasons children do not qualify for it, and are instead diagnosed as having Conduct Disorder or ODD.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your assertions about the differences between psychopathy and ASPD. I'm not clued up about the exact criteria surrounding a diagnosis of "psychopathy," since it is no longer present in the DSM, and as such no longer recognized by the APA as a clinical disorder.
I think you may be confused as to the nature of the "controversy" surrounding a diagnosis of ASPD. Off the top of my head, it's controversial for two reasons, one of which being that rules and laws vary from society to society, and a single set of behaviors that may be tantamount to ASPD in one will go unnoticed in another. The second (and IMHO more controversial aspect of ASPD) is that when someone is diagnosed with this disorder, it is extremely damaging to the client. Most psychologists won't even bother seeing someone diagnosed with ASPD, because there is no real treatment for it. It's equivilent to being branded "unredeemable."
The bottom line is that Jeffry Dahmer was not only a sociopath, but also a psychopath. Not all sociopaths, however, become psychotic.
The latest revision of the DSM doesn't just equate "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" with ASPD, it replaces them with it. Those are outdated terms, and the only controversy surrounding their disuse comes from old fogeys who most likely found the removal of homosexuality to be controversial as well.
Quite fankly, the argument that you can have a "psychopathic" disorder and fail to qualify for the bad things in the ASPD checklist is silly. In order for it to even BE a disorder it has got to cause IMPAIRMENT, and if your coldness and lack of empathy isn't causing impairment in society (ie. by failing to conform to rules and laws) it's not a disorder and deserves no placing in the DSM.
1 gallon of electrogas: $4.32 One new front door: $150.00
Explaining to your cellmate, Smasher, that you were trying to squeeze an extra 10 mpg out of your hybrid and NOT growing weed in your basement: Priceless.
What is difficult to understand about this concept?
What is so difficult to understand about it being impossible to sign some rights away, even in a fancy-pants contract? Others have said, and I happen to agree, that non-compete clauses violate the spirit of the constitution, and should be made a thing of the past.
If you sign a contract allowing me to bash your head in with a hammer, it doesn't mean I can go ahead and do it, simply because you signed a piece of paper. It's still wrong. And so is this prohibition on an ex-employees' behavior.
Is spam that much of an annoyance to you that you are filled with satisfaction when a man is bludgeoned to death, only because that man was a spammer?...
Yes
I agree. This guy has robbed the world-wide work-force of who-knows-how-much workplace productivity, despite laws passed to prevent it and the best efforts of people like slashdotters. If I blow up the transit system of a major metropolitan area, without killing anyone but damaging the economy to the same extent, I'd be justifiably dead too.
I rob a bank and give you a third of the take, [...] and you are now a party to the crime.
Why don't you use an analogy that actually fits this situation? Something along the lines of videotaping a bank robbery and then distributing that to your friends.
Let's see you back up the claim that possession of a video tape of a bank robbery deserves serious jail time.
So... Assuming someone develops a means of travelling back in time, the first event they'll consider travelling back in time to witness will be an MIT party? Whee. I know the semester is wrapping up, but jesus, that's delusional.
In anything less than the top resturants, the waitstaff expects the usual 15%. If they are upset because 20% just wasn't enough, then it's time to get a better job.
This depends on where you live, as well as what type of restaurant it is. Here in Memphis TN, 20% will usually pass muster at all but the finest restaurants, but this is Tennessee. In New York or LA I have seen the "normal" and "nice" tips being quite a bit higher.
The original poster never did describe the type of restaurant it was, though. 20% may actually not have been enough, or it may have been very generous.
How in the world do you correct for all other factors and then go on to claim that computers make kids less intelligent than having 500 books in the household?
A better question is "Why are you taking the results of a study seriously if, instead of it being pushed in a professional journal for peer review, they call upon The Guardian?" This is a good rule of thumb for all those research results mentioned in places like Newsweek, too. If it wasn't going to pass muster for a peer-reviewed journal, consider this a last ditch effort for attention.
Slashdot Mirror
In regards to F1 racing, Police communications and other seemingly inherent dangerous driving while communicating with someone else: Don't you think there is a qualitative difference between talking to a coach or dispatcher or the like, and talking to your girlfriend?
For one thing, if your F1 pit crew told you they didn't love you anymore, you probably wouldn't accidentally kill someone else in a fiery crash.
If you really had worked at Target, you would know they do an inventory once a year at the retail stores. There is no daily inventory of any sort, just sales reports and estimates. Only if someone noticed and later reported it would the tapes be of any use. (and the single security guy looking at a dozen video screens can't see everything)
A system that you describe (daily inventory) won't even be humanly possible until the items contain RFID chips. It can take up to 10 or so hours to do a store inventory now, and that doesn't even include the weeks of behind the scenes prep time. Dozens of people are involved, and the whole thing happens overnight.
Whoever is responsible for this needs to have their head partitioned from their fucking neck. A few messy examples might be called for right about now.
I find it quite ironic that this organization, which had as it's most recognizable leader a fat, cross-dressing megalomaniac, is now seeking out and putting an end to deviance. Ironic and scary.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. You seem to be viewing "competition" as something that would somehow benefit you, while sticking it to the man. Kind of like a chicken debating the ethics of being fried or baked; you're still cooked at the end of the day, fella.
Exclusivity clauses suck. They're bad for pretty much everyone involved except anyone getting paid off to make it happen. The customers get screwed, along with the vendor (who now has a forced audience of people who hate their sucky service [no incentive to provide good service = suckage] along with the vendor's host who has to put up with the same complaints and sucky service or risk getting sued for violating their contract.
They suck. But they're not illegal. Just ask the cunts at Aramark who own exclusive rights to sell food on many a college campus. Or banks, who fight over exclusive right to provide banking services. Or the classic coke / pepsi vending wars going on just about everywhere. Try buying a coke at Taco Bell or a Pepsi at McDonald's sometime and let us know how that goes.
Let me clarify this by saying that rule breaking (including laws) behaviors are a critical part of ASPD, despite being one of a handful of listed criterion. The others are all closely related to breaking society's mores and values (and in many cases laws) by pathalogicaly lying, being decitful (conning people, etc) and generally being a VERY BAD PERSON. These are not people who are simply sly or cunning, these are some of the worst human beings on earth.
More to the point of the article, professional businessmen as a whole may display some of these symptoms, as do we all to some degree. This does not mean that they are suffering from ASPD (or whatever analog you choose). Regardless of the nomenclature you choose to use, it's not a terribly common disorder, occouring in about 3% of males, many of which are in prison.
We seem to be talking about only ONE recognized personality disorder here, Anti-Social PD, and so a distinction isn't really necessary. To be sure, a history of criminal or law breaking activity IS required for ASPD, hence one of the reasons children do not qualify for it, and are instead diagnosed as having Conduct Disorder or ODD.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your assertions about the differences between psychopathy and ASPD. I'm not clued up about the exact criteria surrounding a diagnosis of "psychopathy," since it is no longer present in the DSM, and as such no longer recognized by the APA as a clinical disorder.
I think you may be confused as to the nature of the "controversy" surrounding a diagnosis of ASPD. Off the top of my head, it's controversial for two reasons, one of which being that rules and laws vary from society to society, and a single set of behaviors that may be tantamount to ASPD in one will go unnoticed in another. The second (and IMHO more controversial aspect of ASPD) is that when someone is diagnosed with this disorder, it is extremely damaging to the client. Most psychologists won't even bother seeing someone diagnosed with ASPD, because there is no real treatment for it. It's equivilent to being branded "unredeemable."
The latest revision of the DSM doesn't just equate "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" with ASPD, it replaces them with it. Those are outdated terms, and the only controversy surrounding their disuse comes from old fogeys who most likely found the removal of homosexuality to be controversial as well.
Quite fankly, the argument that you can have a "psychopathic" disorder and fail to qualify for the bad things in the ASPD checklist is silly. In order for it to even BE a disorder it has got to cause IMPAIRMENT, and if your coldness and lack of empathy isn't causing impairment in society (ie. by failing to conform to rules and laws) it's not a disorder and deserves no placing in the DSM.
No, now you humans must kill yourselves off and crocodiles will inherit the earth!
1 gallon of electrogas: $4.32
One new front door: $150.00
Explaining to your cellmate, Smasher, that you were trying to squeeze an extra 10 mpg out of your hybrid and NOT growing weed in your basement: Priceless.
What is difficult to understand about this concept? What is so difficult to understand about it being impossible to sign some rights away, even in a fancy-pants contract? Others have said, and I happen to agree, that non-compete clauses violate the spirit of the constitution, and should be made a thing of the past. If you sign a contract allowing me to bash your head in with a hammer, it doesn't mean I can go ahead and do it, simply because you signed a piece of paper. It's still wrong. And so is this prohibition on an ex-employees' behavior.
Is spam that much of an annoyance to you that you are filled with satisfaction when a man is bludgeoned to death, only because that man was a spammer?...
Yes
I agree. This guy has robbed the world-wide work-force of who-knows-how-much workplace productivity, despite laws passed to prevent it and the best efforts of people like slashdotters. If I blow up the transit system of a major metropolitan area, without killing anyone but damaging the economy to the same extent, I'd be justifiably dead too.
I rob a bank and give you a third of the take, [...] and you are now a party to the crime.
Why don't you use an analogy that actually fits this situation? Something along the lines of videotaping a bank robbery and then distributing that to your friends. Let's see you back up the claim that possession of a video tape of a bank robbery deserves serious jail time.
So... Assuming someone develops a means of travelling back in time, the first event they'll consider travelling back in time to witness will be an MIT party? Whee. I know the semester is wrapping up, but jesus, that's delusional.
In anything less than the top resturants, the waitstaff expects the usual 15%. If they are upset because 20% just wasn't enough, then it's time to get a better job.
This depends on where you live, as well as what type of restaurant it is. Here in Memphis TN, 20% will usually pass muster at all but the finest restaurants, but this is Tennessee. In New York or LA I have seen the "normal" and "nice" tips being quite a bit higher.
The original poster never did describe the type of restaurant it was, though. 20% may actually not have been enough, or it may have been very generous.
How in the world do you correct for all other factors and then go on to claim that computers make kids less intelligent than having 500 books in the household?
A better question is "Why are you taking the results of a study seriously if, instead of it being pushed in a professional journal for peer review, they call upon The Guardian?" This is a good rule of thumb for all those research results mentioned in places like Newsweek, too. If it wasn't going to pass muster for a peer-reviewed journal, consider this a last ditch effort for attention.
How does the classic quote go? If it was hard to write it should be hard to understand.