Most likely the company has a policy for all resignations and it was nothing personal.
If it were a small company, it would depend on your relationship with them. I left a small company with 2 weeks notice and continued to work. In fact I was paid for those 2 weeks plus the remaining 10 days of the month's salary.
Thanks for clearing that up! Just go ahead and keep adding layers to your scenario to the point that it's so hypothetical, I can't imagine why you brought it up. Now there has to be some kind of hypothetical climate change event, either a much hotter planet, or a mini ice age, or increasing sea levels, or no increase in sea level, or just people freaking out about what might happen, plus there will be an oil shortage, and countries withholding oil from the US whereupon those countries will be invaded, oil seized, and somehow brought back to the US. Whew!!!
On second thought, I should never have you taken your claims seriously in the first place. Your cynical first posting enumerates conflicting theories about the future, and all of these predictions are simultaneously supported by your one premise? WOW THAT'S AMAZING! If bet on every horse, you're bound to win, eh?
It's hilarious you think *my* comments are the ones that are "unsupported, silly theories" and a "naive" "scenario [which] isn't going to work out." You're really at odds with yourself. I try to challenge very specific points, and you totally avoid them, taking an ad hominem approach instead. Then the funniest thing is that you scold me for being pedantic in a debate, when you're completely obtuse. Good luck with that.
Look. I've been waiting for one simple response from you. Name the country that is not putting oil into the supply line, the country that the west can invade to "secure exclusive access" and bring down oil prices. You haven't. I don't know why since that's the crux of your stated argument.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the resulting political instability would inflate oil prices regardless of supply.
I also didn't say I had proven something. I wrote, "I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line." Since you apparently think that's untrue, please provide your counterexamples. The logical burden is on you since you're asserting a positive.
>There >are large amounts of oil that haven't >been tapped yet.
I don't see how that supports your claim about invasions.
That quote is also not at odds with anything I've said. IN FACT, *I* am the one who wrote, "The best argument you can make is that increas[ing] prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down."
Look. I've been waiting for one simple response from you. Name the country that is not putting oil into the supply line, the country that the west can invade to "secure exclusive access" and bring down oil prices. You haven't. I don't know why since that's the crux of your stated argument.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the resulting political instability would inflate oil prices regardless of supply.
I also didn't say I had proven something. I wrote, "I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line." Since you apparently think that's untrue, please provide your counterexamples. The logical burden is on you since you're asserting a positive.
>There
>are large amounts of oil that haven't
>been tapped yet.
I don't see how that supports your claim about invasions.
That quote is also not at odds with anything I've said. IN FACT, *I* am the one who wrote, "The best argument you can make is that increase[ing] prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down."
>My position...is that the people in charge aren't about >to let a little competition for resources wreck their profits.
I'm not disputing that.
>They'll ask for (and get) any military action they >require to secure exclusive access to whatever >resources they feel they need to make a profit.
There are none to aquire.
>YOUR idea, which is naiive and touching, really, is >that all countries are going to compete fairly for >oil reserves, and that demand will drive up price. >That's silly and simplistic.
That's not my position. (And what's with the attitude?)
>MY idea, which is more cynical and likely is...
I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line. Having said that, and knowing that oil production reached or nearly reached capacity in the past 12 months, then your ACTUAL position is that the US, western nations, or whatever will seize oil fields as needed and keep it for themselves.
Sure that's possible. I don't think I disputed that. I just think it's more far-fetched than my position is "naive" as you say.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe there is a supply that the west isn't already accessing which you could change with war. Even Iran's oil is already being consumed by western countries, so it's already in the supply line. Within the last year, oil producing countries were already at or near peak production.
And I'm not describing a "scenario" that may or may not work out, so your comment is weird to me. I am saying that as population and industrialization increase around the world, so will demand. Are you seriously contesting that statement?
The best argument you can make is that increases prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down.
This guy is full of it. Sometimes you get lucky, but way too many times the rebate gets processed incorrectly or never at all. I've had to contest 4 (non-computer) rebates this year alone: (1) Glidden Paint, (2) Behr Paint, (3) RIData, (4) Home Depot/Clopay. One is still unresolved.
Let me clarify, when most people write "oil is running out," they're really mean, "cheap oil is running out." There's a lot of oil that can be extracted by very expensive means.
By the way, cheap natural gas is predicted to "run out" in under 30 years anyway, so number 3 is wrong.
Still I stand by my statement that if demand severely outstrips supply, the price will escalate regardless of whatever war you want to start. I don't see how your arguments dispute that fact.
If oil demand far outweighs supply, the price will be exorbitant despite a war. Unless you're saying oil is not running out, which is atypical of those advocating the other position on global warming.
State of Fear is pretty contrived, a bit of a conspiracy theory, and some of the claims seem to be a stretch. Having said that, it does make a few good points about exaggerated claims from his opposition and may still be worth reading.
Minor point on energy consumption-- I think a lot of Europeans don't realize the high and low temperatures experienced in the US. For the most populated areas, EU climate is mild and therefore heating/cooling requires less energy.
Side comment-- I was reading a totally unrelated article in Outside magazine about sailing near Alaska. They described shipping lanes that existed through the arctic 150 years and made a point to mention that no ice crushing shipping were around then. The climate was warm enough that ships could pass. That's not true today, yet when we hear that arctic ice may be disappearing it's seen as a global calamity. Really? I have to wonder if that's really the case. Was there man-made global warming back then?
>>Consider that the first world has already shifted most of its heavy industry to the third world. The only thing most of US can do to reduce global warming is stop driving cars and use clean energy generation methods. Is this going to happen?
If oil goes to $250 per barrel, do you really think heavy industry will remain in the third world? The US will produce it's own clothing again since trans-pacific shipping costs will be exorbitant.
>This is why the term "global climate change" is
>preferred these days. While there is "global warming"
>in that...
I understand this nuance, but how many times will global warming claims be revised in the next decade? The models from the 90's are already shown to be wrong. Something may be happening, but fat chance current scientists know what it is, anymore than they did 10 years ago.
If the guy charges a $100 fee or 15% restocking or whatever, it doesn't matter.
Sign the back of your credit card statement and check "merchandise not delivered." End of story. The merchant has to prove you ever accepted a package from him. If it was a bait-and-switch, there's slightly more work: check "item not as described," take photos, document times and dates of phone calls.
Unfortunately I've dealt with less-beligerent but much worse crooks than this guy before. Ever heard of cyberrebate?
>Reagan? Goddamn appeaser.
Um, yeah, but Clinton's policy appeased to terrorists with an equally bad effect. If you look at what bin Laden actually cites as examples of American weakness, it's the pull-outs from Mogadishu (Clinton) and from Lebanon (Reagan)... not Iran-Contra.
Do you honestly think most people are celebrating the colonization of North America? Seriously I don't think most do.
I suspect the vast majority celebrate nothing or they celebrate the things they have in life: family, health, and so on, not just material things. Every year people complain about the commercialism of Christmas, but Thanksgiving is a real honest-to-goodness holiday, at least for me. I know that's incredibly sappy, but it's my point-of-view.
It's a little weird how Canadians appear to constantly try to steal thunder. See below:
1782 New Hampshire declares Thanksgiving state holiday
1863 US declares Thanksgiving federal holiday
1872 Canadian Thanksgiving
1879 Canadian Thanksgiving moved to fall
This is a lot like Canadian "Heritage Day" invented in 1973 to match up with Washington's Birthday or Presidents' Day in the US.
>Methane, an even stronger greenhouse gas is 130% higher.
I'm not sure how that statistic proves anything about humans causing global warming. Check the stats on industrial emissions below:
Methane emissions 1E12 g/year:
ruminant: 80-100
termites: 25-150
paddy fields: 70-120
natural wetlands: 120-200
landfills: 5-70
oceans and lakes: 1-20
tundra: 1-5
coal mining: 10-35
natural gas flaring and venting: 10-30
industrial and pipeline losses: 15-45
biomass burning: 10-40
methane hydrates: 2-4
volcanoes: 0.5
automobiles: 0.5
It's pretty ballsy of some guys only 50 years ago to arbitrarily decide that 21 storms would be the max. The truth is that we haven't even been watching tropical storms very long.
Slashdot Mirror
I know how lonely you are this time of year.
Are you in love with me?
OMG my basement would be full if I printed and stored all company correspondence I wrote.
Most likely the company has a policy for all resignations and it was nothing personal.
If it were a small company, it would depend on your relationship with them. I left a small company with 2 weeks notice and continued to work. In fact I was paid for those 2 weeks plus the remaining 10 days of the month's salary.
You don't seem to even know what troll means. I can't believe you suck at that too.
Uh-huh. Nice excuse.
Thanks for clearing that up! Just go ahead and keep adding layers to your scenario to the point that it's so hypothetical, I can't imagine why you brought it up. Now there has to be some kind of hypothetical climate change event, either a much hotter planet, or a mini ice age, or increasing sea levels, or no increase in sea level, or just people freaking out about what might happen, plus there will be an oil shortage, and countries withholding oil from the US whereupon those countries will be invaded, oil seized, and somehow brought back to the US. Whew!!!
On second thought, I should never have you taken your claims seriously in the first place. Your cynical first posting enumerates conflicting theories about the future, and all of these predictions are simultaneously supported by your one premise? WOW THAT'S AMAZING! If bet on every horse, you're bound to win, eh?
It's hilarious you think *my* comments are the ones that are "unsupported, silly theories" and a "naive" "scenario [which] isn't going to work out." You're really at odds with yourself. I try to challenge very specific points, and you totally avoid them, taking an ad hominem approach instead. Then the funniest thing is that you scold me for being pedantic in a debate, when you're completely obtuse. Good luck with that.
Look. I've been waiting for one simple response from you. Name the country that is not putting oil into the supply line, the country that the west can invade to "secure exclusive access" and bring down oil prices. You haven't. I don't know why since that's the crux of your stated argument.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the resulting political instability would inflate oil prices regardless of supply.
I also didn't say I had proven something. I wrote, "I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line." Since you apparently think that's untrue, please provide your counterexamples. The logical burden is on you since you're asserting a positive.
>There
>are large amounts of oil that haven't
>been tapped yet.
I don't see how that supports your claim about invasions.
That quote is also not at odds with anything I've said. IN FACT, *I* am the one who wrote, "The best argument you can make is that increas[ing] prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down."
Look. I've been waiting for one simple response from you. Name the country that is not putting oil into the supply line, the country that the west can invade to "secure exclusive access" and bring down oil prices. You haven't. I don't know why since that's the crux of your stated argument. You also seem to ignore the fact that the resulting political instability would inflate oil prices regardless of supply. I also didn't say I had proven something. I wrote, "I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line." Since you apparently think that's untrue, please provide your counterexamples. The logical burden is on you since you're asserting a positive. >There >are large amounts of oil that haven't >been tapped yet. I don't see how that supports your claim about invasions. That quote is also not at odds with anything I've said. IN FACT, *I* am the one who wrote, "The best argument you can make is that increase[ing] prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down."
>My position...is that the people in charge aren't about
>to let a little competition for resources wreck their profits.
I'm not disputing that.
>They'll ask for (and get) any military action they
>require to secure exclusive access to whatever
>resources they feel they need to make a profit.
There are none to aquire.
>YOUR idea, which is naiive and touching, really, is
>that all countries are going to compete fairly for
>oil reserves, and that demand will drive up price.
>That's silly and simplistic.
That's not my position. (And what's with the attitude?)
>MY idea, which is more cynical and likely is...
I already demonstrated that there is no oil being kept out of the supply line. Having said that, and knowing that oil production reached or nearly reached capacity in the past 12 months, then your ACTUAL position is that the US, western nations, or whatever will seize oil fields as needed and keep it for themselves.
Sure that's possible. I don't think I disputed that. I just think it's more far-fetched than my position is "naive" as you say.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe there is a supply that the west isn't already accessing which you could change with war. Even Iran's oil is already being consumed by western countries, so it's already in the supply line. Within the last year, oil producing countries were already at or near peak production.
And I'm not describing a "scenario" that may or may not work out, so your comment is weird to me. I am saying that as population and industrialization increase around the world, so will demand. Are you seriously contesting that statement?
The best argument you can make is that increases prices will motivate oil companies to find new sources of oil which will increase daily world supply thus keeping prices down.
This guy is full of it. Sometimes you get lucky, but way too many times the rebate gets processed incorrectly or never at all. I've had to contest 4 (non-computer) rebates this year alone: (1) Glidden Paint, (2) Behr Paint, (3) RIData, (4) Home Depot/Clopay. One is still unresolved.
. html
I guess this guy has also never heard of CYBERREBATE.COM -- the ultimate scam. Some people are still in court over this one. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/cyberrebate
Let me clarify, when most people write "oil is running out," they're really mean, "cheap oil is running out." There's a lot of oil that can be extracted by very expensive means.
By the way, cheap natural gas is predicted to "run out" in under 30 years anyway, so number 3 is wrong.
Still I stand by my statement that if demand severely outstrips supply, the price will escalate regardless of whatever war you want to start. I don't see how your arguments dispute that fact.
If oil demand far outweighs supply, the price will be exorbitant despite a war. Unless you're saying oil is not running out, which is atypical of those advocating the other position on global warming.
State of Fear is pretty contrived, a bit of a conspiracy theory, and some of the claims seem to be a stretch. Having said that, it does make a few good points about exaggerated claims from his opposition and may still be worth reading.
Minor point on energy consumption-- I think a lot of Europeans don't realize the high and low temperatures experienced in the US. For the most populated areas, EU climate is mild and therefore heating/cooling requires less energy. Side comment-- I was reading a totally unrelated article in Outside magazine about sailing near Alaska. They described shipping lanes that existed through the arctic 150 years and made a point to mention that no ice crushing shipping were around then. The climate was warm enough that ships could pass. That's not true today, yet when we hear that arctic ice may be disappearing it's seen as a global calamity. Really? I have to wonder if that's really the case. Was there man-made global warming back then?
>>Consider that the first world has already shifted most of its heavy industry to the third world. The only thing most of US can do to reduce global warming is stop driving cars and use clean energy generation methods. Is this going to happen?
If oil goes to $250 per barrel, do you really think heavy industry will remain in the third world? The US will produce it's own clothing again since trans-pacific shipping costs will be exorbitant.
>This is why the term "global climate change" is >preferred these days. While there is "global warming" >in that... I understand this nuance, but how many times will global warming claims be revised in the next decade? The models from the 90's are already shown to be wrong. Something may be happening, but fat chance current scientists know what it is, anymore than they did 10 years ago.
If the guy charges a $100 fee or 15% restocking or whatever, it doesn't matter.
Sign the back of your credit card statement and check "merchandise not delivered." End of story. The merchant has to prove you ever accepted a package from him. If it was a bait-and-switch, there's slightly more work: check "item not as described," take photos, document times and dates of phone calls.
Unfortunately I've dealt with less-beligerent but much worse crooks than this guy before. Ever heard of cyberrebate?
>Reagan? Goddamn appeaser. Um, yeah, but Clinton's policy appeased to terrorists with an equally bad effect. If you look at what bin Laden actually cites as examples of American weakness, it's the pull-outs from Mogadishu (Clinton) and from Lebanon (Reagan)... not Iran-Contra.
The reason for the wifi law is most likely the one you suggested. This is a perfect example of the corruption that makes LA (in)famous.
Do you honestly think most people are celebrating the colonization of North America? Seriously I don't think most do. I suspect the vast majority celebrate nothing or they celebrate the things they have in life: family, health, and so on, not just material things. Every year people complain about the commercialism of Christmas, but Thanksgiving is a real honest-to-goodness holiday, at least for me. I know that's incredibly sappy, but it's my point-of-view.
It's a little weird how Canadians appear to constantly try to steal thunder. See below: 1782 New Hampshire declares Thanksgiving state holiday 1863 US declares Thanksgiving federal holiday 1872 Canadian Thanksgiving 1879 Canadian Thanksgiving moved to fall This is a lot like Canadian "Heritage Day" invented in 1973 to match up with Washington's Birthday or Presidents' Day in the US.
>Methane, an even stronger greenhouse gas is 130% higher. I'm not sure how that statistic proves anything about humans causing global warming. Check the stats on industrial emissions below: Methane emissions 1E12 g/year: ruminant: 80-100 termites: 25-150 paddy fields: 70-120 natural wetlands: 120-200 landfills: 5-70 oceans and lakes: 1-20 tundra: 1-5 coal mining: 10-35 natural gas flaring and venting: 10-30 industrial and pipeline losses: 15-45 biomass burning: 10-40 methane hydrates: 2-4 volcanoes: 0.5 automobiles: 0.5
It's pretty ballsy of some guys only 50 years ago to arbitrarily decide that 21 storms would be the max. The truth is that we haven't even been watching tropical storms very long.