Knowing that you're disatisfied with your job is the first step. Some may be blind to the signs. Here's a tip. Dilbert and Job satisfaction are inversely proportional.
The cost of liability insurance can be prohibitively high or not available at all...
Good point, though you probably don't offer a guarantee that RF won't "fry your brain" either:-).
Tin hat sold separately, void where prohibited by law.
In related news, Google will team up with SETI by updating its search engines to find extraterrestrial intelligence. When asked about the upcoming collaboration, the head of SETI remarked, "I can't believe we didn't think of this sooner! This will be much easier than mucking about with signal analysis and Fourier Transforms".
Testing is slated to begin in Q4 2005 by searching for intelligent life here on Earth.
If Congress didn't support the line-item veto, why did they pass the Line Item Veto Act of 1996?
Well, it was supported by the GOP as part of their "Contract with America" and Clinton supported them, but then a bunch of strict constitutionalist (both Repub and Dems) objected and supported the lawsuit to have it repealed (again: http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html)
In fact, last December, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), long the prince of pork on Capitol Hill, declared that if the court strikes down the line item veto, it would be "my Christmas wish come true."...
"We feel that the liberties of the American people have been assured," said Byrd. "Without adequate control by the citizens represented in Congress, liberty is threatened."
Of course, most state governors have line-item veto power...
Also, FDR died in office.
See, term-limits do work. No, you're correct. The amendment was passed in 1951, six years after FDR's 1933-1945 term "ended". Truman was in office from 45-53 (also a Democrat like FDR). Next came Eisenhower in 53 (a Republican). Hmmm... Presidential term limits enacted after five consecutive Democratic terms...go figure.
I actually agree with you on both points. The current Congress and President are unrestrained (e.g., the $286.4 billion transportation bill) and term limits (and 22nd amend) are generally bad.
I brought up the topic of term-limits as an example of the hypocrisy often demonstrated by our elected officials. At no time during the offensive against Congressional term limits did I hear an elected official bring up repealing the 22nd amend.
It's amazing the things that Congress says are good for the country, but they won't support. Presidential line-item veto, congressional term limits.
The line-item veto is arguably good for the country, but Congress quietly cheered the downfall of the line-item veto as it saved their pork-barrel projects from cancellation (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html).
Unfortunately, Congress's gain is the taxpayers' loss. One year's experience with the line item veto taught us all an important lesson: the line item veto works. In 1997 President Clinton used this new veto 82 times to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The savings to taxpayers total nearly $2 billion over five years. True, in a $1.75 trillion annual budget, this is not a huge sum. But even by Washington standards, $2 billion is still real money -- and a whole lot of pork.
As for term limits, People who argue about the peoples' right to choose their representatives (as often given by the Senators and Congressmen opposed to term limits), don't seem to have a problem with the 22nd amendment limiting the President to two terms (had to get Franklin Roosevelt out of office you know...)
Perhaps we can all organize a collective day of Stop the Music/Movies where people don't buy any music and/or movies for a day (or weekend). A world-wide hiatus on music and movie purchases. Perhaps extended to radio listening and movie attendance as well.
Of course, the RIAA will probably try and sue someone over that as well...
In a related story, a scientist involved in the test had to be committed because, according to eye-witnesses, he went "nuts", after listening to the song "The Girl From Ipanema" over 100 times during the hours-long elevator test.
You ignorant fool. This behavior is by Intelligent Design. One day soon, when the sun has warmed the costal rocks and the moist air carries the scent of lilac, our new regenerating, non scar-tissue forming reptile overlords will scramble across the sands and we will welcome them.
The film only shows what the makers want you to see to promote their view point.
For example, they don't show the vast over crowding on the penguin preserve on Pluto caused by the tanker spill of liquid dark matter. (Futurama: The Bird-bot of Ice-catraz)
No, the environmentalists don't show you this, do they. Freakin' hidden agendas - sheesh.
In that situation, there's no reason to value the unborn child's future life over the mother's present one. The decision would be left to the mother...
Actually, I agree with you. I was merely playing "devil's advocate" to the presumption that "We are each granted 'the right to life'... by our society" and that the value of life can be metered by ones status in society. In the abstract, it cannot.
In short, either all life is sacred or it's not. Either position is controversal from the other viewpoint.
We are each granted "the right to life," such as it is, by our society. There are things you can do, such as committing a capital crime, that represent a voluntary renunciation of that right.
An unborn child, conversely, has done nothing to give up whatever right to live that society can confer.
Flawed argument. What if the child's birth will kill the mother? This would be a (preventable) capital crime. Who would be to blame for her death -- the child that caused it, or the society that allowed it?
These issues won't be resolved using simplistic philosophical or religious arguments, but rather with complex societal compromises the satisfy the majority. All people will never be happy.
Not to take a side, but it's not hard to see the GOP argument here.
Fetus, embryo, pre-born child = innocent.
Capital criminal = guilty.
The general line of thinking is that if you violate or nearly violate someelse's right to life your own life is forfeit as a penalty.
It's not exactly rocket science.
Anti-abortionist routinely espouse that "all life is sacred". Holding this belief should preclude supporting capital punishment, but often does not. This is the rub.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright 2005 - Mike Evangelist - all rights reserved
And the graphic shows a passage that begins, "It was the best of times," with no attribution to Dickens!
DRM and plagiarism! -- I... said "Good Day" sir!
To which, Tesla replied, If Edison thought more clearly, he wouldn't have to work so hard.
- James Burke (Connections / The Day the Universe Changed)
Then it would resemble the Napster logo - sigh. Bring back the Beastie!
enjoy(dilbert) = you / enjoy(job)
Ahh, Nethack.
Get out of my way stupid dog!
Good point, though you probably don't offer a guarantee that RF won't "fry your brain" either :-).
Tin hat sold separately, void where prohibited by law.
The probability is higher that the developer/vendor carries a certain level of liability insurance to cover software errors.
Testing is slated to begin in Q4 2005 by searching for intelligent life here on Earth.
Well, it was supported by the GOP as part of their "Contract with America" and Clinton supported them, but then a bunch of strict constitutionalist (both Repub and Dems) objected and supported the lawsuit to have it repealed (again: http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html)
Of course, most state governors have line-item veto power...Also, FDR died in office.
See, term-limits do work. No, you're correct. The amendment was passed in 1951, six years after FDR's 1933-1945 term "ended". Truman was in office from 45-53 (also a Democrat like FDR). Next came Eisenhower in 53 (a Republican). Hmmm... Presidential term limits enacted after five consecutive Democratic terms...go figure.
I brought up the topic of term-limits as an example of the hypocrisy often demonstrated by our elected officials. At no time during the offensive against Congressional term limits did I hear an elected official bring up repealing the 22nd amend.
The line-item veto is arguably good for the country, but Congress quietly cheered the downfall of the line-item veto as it saved their pork-barrel projects from cancellation (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html).
As for term limits, People who argue about the peoples' right to choose their representatives (as often given by the Senators and Congressmen opposed to term limits), don't seem to have a problem with the 22nd amendment limiting the President to two terms (had to get Franklin Roosevelt out of office you know...)Of course, the RIAA will probably try and sue someone over that as well...
In a related story, a scientist involved in the test had to be committed because, according to eye-witnesses, he went "nuts", after listening to the song "The Girl From Ipanema" over 100 times during the hours-long elevator test.
You ignorant fool. This behavior is by Intelligent Design. One day soon, when the sun has warmed the costal rocks and the moist air carries the scent of lilac, our new regenerating, non scar-tissue forming reptile overlords will scramble across the sands and we will welcome them.
I curse the ordering of the "Submit" and "Preview" buttons and my frelling mouse-button skills. :-)
P.S. ...and thank you for spelling "a lot" as two words...
Thank you!
This mistake is all too common, and it annoys me to no end. Don't they anything in school?
For example, they don't show the vast over crowding on the penguin preserve on Pluto caused by the tanker spill of liquid dark matter. (Futurama: The Bird-bot of Ice-catraz)
No, the environmentalists don't show you this, do they.
Freakin' hidden agendas - sheesh.
Ahhh...that felt good.
Doctor: Don't mind him, it's the steriods talking.
Enough said.
In short, either all life is sacred or it's not. Either position is controversal from the other viewpoint.
These issues won't be resolved using simplistic philosophical or religious arguments, but rather with complex societal compromises the satisfy the majority. All people will never be happy.