Amen. Boards overlook much bigger CEO infractions than this all the time. Someone (or, more likely, more than one) on the board wanted him gone for other reasons. This was just the formal legal CYA reason. The *real* truth may or may not ever come out.
Seriously, when is the last time you ever heard anyone do that publicly? A lot of feminists claim this to be the case, and it's true that it might have once been more acceptable (and it was NEVER fully acceptable, BTW). But no one would dare say this sort of thing anymore today (certainly not openly, and even only reluctantly in private). It *is* quite acceptable to assume that an accused rapist is guilty and make public statements raking him (or her, for that matter) over the coals, long before they've been found guilty or even before most of the facts are known. But anyone openly blaming the accuser in a case like this today (no matter how questionable his/her credibility) would be burned at the stake.
I remember reading a while back about a NBA or NFL training seminar they required for new ballplayers. One of the topics they covered was just that, the dangers of letting a "groupie" get you alone (and what it could cost you if they were interested in more than just sleeping with a celebrity). Probably should be a required class for new rock stars too.
More common than most people realize. And thanks to feminists running around claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed, there is pretty much a presumption of guilt now for any such accusation, even if it's in the midst of a nasty divorce/custody case or if the victim has a clear financial gain in making an accusation. Just look at how those poor bastards in the Duke Lacrosse case were publicly crucified by the likes of Gloria Alred and Nancy Grace (who never even had the decency to apologize after the case fell apart). Without decent attorneys, those guys would probably be in prison now (instead of the piece-of-shit prosecutor who railroaded them for his own political gain).
It's not about the cars, it's about the dealerships. More complicated electronics means more expensive repairs, more work that only the dealership can do (many third-party garages can't keep up anymore), and more maintenance. That all translates to more $ for the dealership.
In the U.S., the President would give a speech about the importance of energy efficiency, Congress would pass some token tax rebates, Democrats and Republicans would end up deadlocked in am ugly partisan fight over anything more meaningful than that, and nothing more would ever get done. In fact, that's pretty much what HAS happened in the U.S.--many times, over the course of pretty much every Presidency going back at least as far as Nixon. Guess there are some real advantages to a oligarchy over a democracy.
I wonder what it would cost if you factored in maintenance too. I bet the maintenance on a hybrid or electric would be a lot more than on a conventional vehicle, especially if you had to replace the battery. It would also be harder to find a garage outside of the dealership to service it (and those are generally cheaper than dealerships).
Eve itself is harsh. Basically, it's an MMO that celebrates ruthless sociopaths. It's what the world would look like if the douchebags from Enron were the supreme oligarchs and there was no SEC (or law of any kind).
Are you kidding, I played Eve for a while and grinding was pretty much ALL there was to do. You either mine, trade, or fight pirates. All of those are just grinds, and that's pretty much all there is to the game (unless something has changed since I played). It's not like there was a storyline or interesting sidequests to pursue. It was mine, trade, kill pirates--over and over. Every now and then some corps would fight it out over some assets they had acquired by mining, trading, and killing pirates. But even that was very rare, and pretty tedious. And, as soon as it was over, it was back to mine, trade, and killing pirates to replace the lost ships.
Well, at least it's not TLC. Between the "Jon and Kate" mess and their recent announcement of "Sarah Palin's Alaska", TLC makes Discovery look like PBS.
The whole last season was a tour de force of human tragedy, which Discovery happily played to/exploited (even adding in a melodramatic classical
score this time around). Aside from the hundred or so tribute episodes to Phil
Harris, it seemed like everyone in the fleet was intentionally playing to the cameras this time out even more than usual (with Edgar threatening to
leave and fighting with Sig, Jake Harris's sudden "addiction" problems, etc.). Granted, the show will never be as good as the first season (before
Alaska changed the rules and made the crab fishing a lot less exciting/dangerous), but this one seemed like a swan song more than any other season in
the past.
Everyone involved in the show has always been about the money. The Hanson brothers in
particular will do about anything for a buck, and have been known for trading on their fame by lending their names to some pretty sleazy ventures. But this season the cynicism (in particular the playing to the cameras) really
showed in some nasty ways. This time the captains even whored themselves for Geico commercials that ran during the show. And the producers' constant cutaways to a tired-looking Phil Harris was particularly shameless (they all but put up "He's about to die" subtitles).
This is America. We have a long tradition of corporations writing public policy. Dick Cheney even gave them their own task force, so they could write the U.S. energy policy directly, with no need to even bother bribing a Congressman.
If there was no oxygen, significant quantities of water, air pressure, or lifeforms outside the cave; then Og would have indeed been stupid to leave it. Going into space isn't like exploring a new continent, you know. For all the Trek talk of a "final frontier" it would be more appropriate to describe space as a "final empty wasteland." No one ever calls the deepest oceans on earth a "new frontier," yet those are WAY more hospitable and accessible than any other planet or moon within reach.
The problem is that we don't have anything close to the capability of building other "spaceships." Barring some MAJOR advancements in technology, any colony that we put on another planet or moon would be indefinitely dependent on "spaceship earth" or almost all of its resources--defeating the whole purpose of "colonizing for our protection." It's simply foolish to invest more energy into such a plan when our scientific understanding of earth itself is still in its infancy. We don't have the first clue about how to "terraform" another planet (we don't know if it's even possible), it's just pure science fiction/fantasy now. Until we can understand earth and its environmental processes better, there isn't much point in trying to build something off-world. It would just be a waste of resources that would be much better spent on making the biosphere of *this* planet more durable.
Nothing short of a earth destroying asteroid/comet hit would render this planet less inhabitable than even the most hospitable other planetary bodies within our reach. Even a Yucatan-sized hit would still leave the earth much more survivable than anywhere else. It would be WAY more practical to design underground bunkers and habitats here on earth than to try to move colonies to the moon or Mars. And nothing short of a hit that tears the planet into pieces is going to make earth less appealing than Mars or the moon.
With the exception of a few moderates and turncoats (like Stevens and Suitor), pretty much every judge was/is an activist on the Supreme Court. It's just a question of whether they were appointed by a conservative (i.e. to be a conservative activist) or a liberal (i.e., to be a liberal activist). If you think that conservative court members are NOT activists somehow, just ask yourself this: Is there any doubt in your mind how Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas will rule on the gay marriage issue (even now before the case has been presented)?
There certainly isn't any doubt in my mind. Their minds are already made up, the fix is in, and the conservatives who appointed them expect no less. The actual trial is just for show.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. Boards overlook much bigger CEO infractions than this all the time. Someone (or, more likely, more than one) on the board wanted him gone for other reasons. This was just the formal legal CYA reason. The *real* truth may or may not ever come out.
Seriously, when is the last time you ever heard anyone do that publicly? A lot of feminists claim this to be the case, and it's true that it might have once been more acceptable (and it was NEVER fully acceptable, BTW). But no one would dare say this sort of thing anymore today (certainly not openly, and even only reluctantly in private). It *is* quite acceptable to assume that an accused rapist is guilty and make public statements raking him (or her, for that matter) over the coals, long before they've been found guilty or even before most of the facts are known. But anyone openly blaming the accuser in a case like this today (no matter how questionable his/her credibility) would be burned at the stake.
I remember reading a while back about a NBA or NFL training seminar they required for new ballplayers. One of the topics they covered was just that, the dangers of letting a "groupie" get you alone (and what it could cost you if they were interested in more than just sleeping with a celebrity). Probably should be a required class for new rock stars too.
See, you can't even point it out without getting a flamebait mod.
More common than most people realize. And thanks to feminists running around claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped or sexually harassed, there is pretty much a presumption of guilt now for any such accusation, even if it's in the midst of a nasty divorce/custody case or if the victim has a clear financial gain in making an accusation. Just look at how those poor bastards in the Duke Lacrosse case were publicly crucified by the likes of Gloria Alred and Nancy Grace (who never even had the decency to apologize after the case fell apart). Without decent attorneys, those guys would probably be in prison now (instead of the piece-of-shit prosecutor who railroaded them for his own political gain).
Actually, that could be very useful for cops...and stalkers.
It's not about the cars, it's about the dealerships. More complicated electronics means more expensive repairs, more work that only the dealership can do (many third-party garages can't keep up anymore), and more maintenance. That all translates to more $ for the dealership.
Too many "researchers" are way more interested in getting more grant money through PR and exaggeration than they are in real science.
But without our great media watchdog, who's going to tell us when Lindsey Lohan is released from jail?!?!?
In the U.S., the President would give a speech about the importance of energy efficiency, Congress would pass some token tax rebates, Democrats and Republicans would end up deadlocked in am ugly partisan fight over anything more meaningful than that, and nothing more would ever get done. In fact, that's pretty much what HAS happened in the U.S.--many times, over the course of pretty much every Presidency going back at least as far as Nixon. Guess there are some real advantages to a oligarchy over a democracy.
I wonder what it would cost if you factored in maintenance too. I bet the maintenance on a hybrid or electric would be a lot more than on a conventional vehicle, especially if you had to replace the battery. It would also be harder to find a garage outside of the dealership to service it (and those are generally cheaper than dealerships).
Yeah, but on the upside, no one there has to go bankrupt if they lose their job and get sick.
Eve itself is harsh. Basically, it's an MMO that celebrates ruthless sociopaths. It's what the world would look like if the douchebags from Enron were the supreme oligarchs and there was no SEC (or law of any kind).
Are you kidding, I played Eve for a while and grinding was pretty much ALL there was to do. You either mine, trade, or fight pirates. All of those are just grinds, and that's pretty much all there is to the game (unless something has changed since I played). It's not like there was a storyline or interesting sidequests to pursue. It was mine, trade, kill pirates--over and over. Every now and then some corps would fight it out over some assets they had acquired by mining, trading, and killing pirates. But even that was very rare, and pretty tedious. And, as soon as it was over, it was back to mine, trade, and killing pirates to replace the lost ships.
Well, at least it's not TLC. Between the "Jon and Kate" mess and their recent announcement of "Sarah Palin's Alaska", TLC makes Discovery look like PBS.
The whole last season was a tour de force of human tragedy, which Discovery happily played to/exploited (even adding in a melodramatic classical score this time around). Aside from the hundred or so tribute episodes to Phil Harris, it seemed like everyone in the fleet was intentionally playing to the cameras this time out even more than usual (with Edgar threatening to leave and fighting with Sig, Jake Harris's sudden "addiction" problems, etc.). Granted, the show will never be as good as the first season (before Alaska changed the rules and made the crab fishing a lot less exciting/dangerous), but this one seemed like a swan song more than any other season in the past.
Everyone involved in the show has always been about the money. The Hanson brothers in particular will do about anything for a buck, and have been known for trading on their fame by lending their names to some pretty sleazy ventures. But this season the cynicism (in particular the playing to the cameras) really showed in some nasty ways. This time the captains even whored themselves for Geico commercials that ran during the show. And the producers' constant cutaways to a tired-looking Phil Harris was particularly shameless (they all but put up "He's about to die" subtitles).
This is America. We have a long tradition of corporations writing public policy. Dick Cheney even gave them their own task force, so they could write the U.S. energy policy directly, with no need to even bother bribing a Congressman.
If there was no oxygen, significant quantities of water, air pressure, or lifeforms outside the cave; then Og would have indeed been stupid to leave it. Going into space isn't like exploring a new continent, you know. For all the Trek talk of a "final frontier" it would be more appropriate to describe space as a "final empty wasteland." No one ever calls the deepest oceans on earth a "new frontier," yet those are WAY more hospitable and accessible than any other planet or moon within reach.
The *universe* has an expiration date too. One way or another, we're all going eventually.
The problem is that we don't have anything close to the capability of building other "spaceships." Barring some MAJOR advancements in technology, any colony that we put on another planet or moon would be indefinitely dependent on "spaceship earth" or almost all of its resources--defeating the whole purpose of "colonizing for our protection." It's simply foolish to invest more energy into such a plan when our scientific understanding of earth itself is still in its infancy. We don't have the first clue about how to "terraform" another planet (we don't know if it's even possible), it's just pure science fiction/fantasy now. Until we can understand earth and its environmental processes better, there isn't much point in trying to build something off-world. It would just be a waste of resources that would be much better spent on making the biosphere of *this* planet more durable.
Yeah, well good luck paying for it out of what you can make at MT.
Nothing short of a earth destroying asteroid/comet hit would render this planet less inhabitable than even the most hospitable other planetary bodies within our reach. Even a Yucatan-sized hit would still leave the earth much more survivable than anywhere else. It would be WAY more practical to design underground bunkers and habitats here on earth than to try to move colonies to the moon or Mars. And nothing short of a hit that tears the planet into pieces is going to make earth less appealing than Mars or the moon.
With the exception of a few moderates and turncoats (like Stevens and Suitor), pretty much every judge was/is an activist on the Supreme Court. It's just a question of whether they were appointed by a conservative (i.e. to be a conservative activist) or a liberal (i.e., to be a liberal activist). If you think that conservative court members are NOT activists somehow, just ask yourself this: Is there any doubt in your mind how Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas will rule on the gay marriage issue (even now before the case has been presented)?
There certainly isn't any doubt in my mind. Their minds are already made up, the fix is in, and the conservatives who appointed them expect no less. The actual trial is just for show.
It runs like shit, though.
I would hope that he died before they actually froze him.