He's building a bomb, I tell you! A bomb! Send in the troops right now to stop him.
Poppycock. One cannot defeat Googol the Destroyer with mere bombs. This is an attempt by Gatus to deny Googol the Detroyer the power needed to run the antipodal LHC in order to create the bipolar quantum energy conundrum in which Googol will temper the world's data before using it to complete the Rite of a Million Targeted Ads.
When last we saw our heroes, Gatus and Joba continued in the diverse efforts to thwart Googol the Destroyer. But we saw a new hero rising, in the persona of T-Bone Pickings, who aims to control the world's power supply via creation of wind farms under his control, thereby making fossil-fuel energy obsolete and useless to Googol the Destroyer. It appears that Gatus and Pickings have been coordinating their efforts -- while Pickings is being thwarted by legislators who secretly serve the Dark Master, Gatus has come up with a plan to use small nuclear reactors to make fossil fuels obsolete, thereby denying Googol both the power to run the antipodal LHC and the power upon which his Webcrawling Spiders of Doom feed.
It appears that Googol the Destroyer has been partially thwarted in China -- there may be additional heroes there who we could celebrate, should we ever be able to get information out of the Great Firewall. Can Gatus have the same kind of Legislative and Bureacratic success against Googol the Destroyer here in the United States? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, rumors circulate that Joba, contrary to popular belief, has not been ill. Rather, he underwent a series of surgeries to enhance his natural charisma, marketing abilities, and since he was under the knife anyway, a titanium-clad skeleton, actuator-enhanced musculature, and a bone-white monochromatic epidermis. Cyber-Joba is now a real force to be reckoned with -- but will his new powers be enough to thwart Googol the Destroyer?
And lest we forget, the roving Druid Stallmanx has ceased roaming for the time being, and spends his days and nights directing the efforts of his Beard Gnomes in his secret laboratory. Just what is he cooking up? Can he reconcile the anarchist developers with the money-grubbing and low-self-esteem developers that Gatus and Joba have converted to the cause of stopping Googol?
All these questions possibly answered, and more, in next week's episode of Googol the Destroyer!
No one outside hardcore rightwing Americans thinks that a Republic is an entity distinct from a democracy. Heads-up: a republic merely means that it isn't a monarchy or autocracy.
Rubbish. A Democracy is markedly different from a Republic, notably in that there is zero corruption in Democracy, but a higher penalty for having troops out in the field than in a Republic.
Just one more turn... honest this time... is that the sun coming up?
ME: "Then you don't need to date. Dating's purpose is to meet a marriage partner, and since you're not getting married at age 15 or 16, then you don't need to perform that search. Once you decide you're ready to get married THEN you can date."
Ah yes, nothing quite like heading out into the world of dating to find a suitable marriage partner without any experience useful in actually making a good choice of marriage partner.
Do you WANT your kids to be married unhappily because they made a bad choice for lack of experience?
Teenagers' dating is valuable practical experience.
*I surely hope your were joking. My apologies if you were. And if you weren't, I hope your kids get lucky in their choices for their sake.
Where do you live that markups for wine are like that? Are you west-coast US?
Here on the east coast, those markups are very typical, unless you're shopping at one of the high-volume discount places (and even then, they're not that far off).
For anyone who's ever been a parent, this is obvious. I can lie my teeth off to my kids without so much as flinching (all in their best interest of course), but they can't so much as bend the truth without contorting themselves into a pretzel.
Heh. That only works until they get old enough to learn to send false signals. Or someone points out their tells. My niece lies with impunity... but she deliberately sends false tells to my brother on the little lies so that she can get away with the bigger ones. Yeah, we can see through it most of the time, but she's getting better year by year.
If you read the constitution, you will find that the 10th amendment makes a good portion of this bill illegal anyway.
But if you make a living interpreting the Constitution, as many people in Washington do, the 10th Amendment is moot when it faces the might of the Commerce Clause.
And even if the bill needs to be reworked should SCOTUS rule against it, there's always cooperative federalism to push the issue... your state doesn't obey the new law? Fine. The federal government can withhold related moneys for your state. Hey, it worked for the dirnking age, right?
Technically, that's true. *I* do not have *complete* freedom unless I can do anything I wish, including holding slaves.
But I accept certain restrictions on my freedom in order to maintain freedom for others; this is part of the social contract. What this argument boils down to is what level of restrictions we'll accept in order to maintain a common baseline threshold of freedom for each individual.
It seems parent to your post believes restriction of individual freedom, even if it serves to preserve individual freedom at large, is wrong in principle. I'm not surprised to see this kind of argument on slashdot:)
If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.
Are you kidding? The insurance companies are ecstatic over the bill that is being passed. They get 30,000,000 additional clients, and practically none of the restraints that have been bandied about. The only big thing they'll be upset about is pre-existing conditions, and you can bet your bottom dollar that their friends in high places will ensure they continue to be profitable nonetheless.
Sure, there will be some headaches with implementation and compliance... but they stand to make even more money off the new legislation. Make no mistake... there's a reason insurance companies' stocks have been on the upswing over the past week.
Or maybe you could RTFA where in the study they control for that... because the participants in the study were randomly assigned "leader" and "subordinate" roles.
Fricking knee-jerk "Correlation != Causation".
It's quite possible that both claims are true (TFA's and yours) -- but in this case, it appears from the study simply that:
You are always running out of blood when you still have nearly full gut and bone reservoirs. But they make you replace the whole cart.
You don't need to pay into their razor-and-blades business model. It's trivial to refill the carts yourself, provided you have a handy source of blood, guts, and bone.
The only catch is if you plan on using the printouts for your own use... you can't use just any random hobo as a source of material, you need a match in blood type, antigens, etc. I suggest harvesting your identical twin (the good one).
If you're not the evil member of an identical twin pairing, then you may be SOL. You should try close relatives (other siblings, parents) before adopting a wide-net strategy of abducting hobos in order to refill your printer cartridges.
Well, that's a special case for a specific industry. For most companies, record retention is required for, at most, 10 years (most can get away with 8 years).
Out of curiosity, are you aware of any other industries that require a long retention period?
No, not an ad hominem. This was not intended to discredit your argument by discrediting you. It's instead a statement of how I feel about your ability to have a constructive discussion. I'm past caring about whether you can wrap your mind around what has actually transpired in this conversation, or if you choose to continue to delude yourself. I'm convinced that debating with you is less rewarding than arguing with a two-year-old.
Then you probably didn't work for a large daily newspaper, or you are overstating the level of control. Certainly publishers get involved on occasion, especially when there's political endorsements and so on, but usually the publisher's control is mostly limited to who they hire.
So you don't believe that publishers have no responsibility for what their editors allow to hit the press? You don't believe that editors are responsible to the publisher for what they approve? I've worked for the Newark Star-Ledger (a large daily), for a mid-size national magazine publisher (total circulation around 400k), and did lots of reporting for local papers when I was in high school and college.
No. That is not it. A straw man is making up an argument you didn't make. Often people try to pretend that if they make an argument, but it's not their MAIN POINT, then me attacking that argument is a straw man. But that's false. If you make an argument, my attacking that argument is not a straw man.
Not even in your first response did you argue anything but straw men. You did not address the arguments I made; you addressed the arguments you misrepresented me as making. If I then get bogged down in the arguing of those straw men, that does not change the nature of what they are. Only when, because I requested it, you actually addressed my original point, did you divert from your straw men.
I said it is attacking an argument that is not yours, while pretending it IS yours.
No, that is not what you said. What you said was, "A straw man is attacking a position or argument that you don't have, while pretending it is your own." Maybe I got confused due to your poor use of pronouns and case. Are you saying that the originator of the straw-man argument in that statement is only implied? The only subject in that statement is "you", which you further confirm by using the phrase "your own". Really, your fuzzy English makes it only MORE difficult to discuss anything with you, especially since you like to nitpick over exact wordings. Parsing the definition you gave absolutely leads to it appearing that you have no understanding of what a straw man is. It appears I was wrong, you DO understand what one is, although you fail to understand how to apply the definition to your own writings.
I'm done here. You win the big prize when you post another response to this. You can celebrate if you like, give yourself a high-five and slap yourself on the back for making me despair of wasting another minute in a discussion with an unreasonable ass. I hope someday you find whatever it is your missing in life that makes you so unbearable online.
Speaking from experience, or making shit up again? Both media companies I've worked for exercised editorial control over content, both in terms of what is published, and in terms of the writing style and slant. Perhaps you have some experience in media publishing that contradicts this? I'd love to hear about it, since otherwise I think you're blowing smoke out your ass as usual.
I've worked in journalism for the better part of the last 20 years.
Have you? For what organizations? In what capacity? Do you consider your work for slashdot as being "working in journalism"?
Wow. You have no idea what "straw man" means, do you?
Sure I do. You establish that my argument is different from what it is, and then you attack that straw man, without addressing my real argument. You continue to do so in every post.
A straw man is attacking a position or argument that you don't have, while pretending it is your own. I never did that.
Hahahahahahahahaa... No, that is not a straw man. A straw man argument is one that attempts to discredit a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Go ahead, look it up. Perhaps you should really consider educating yourself before trying to have a conversation with people who actually know what they are talking about.
But, I expect another line-item response from you since you have this obsessive compulsion with having the last word, as if that somehow means you "won" -- when really it typically just means that the person you're talking to has gotten fed up with your shenanigans, and considers further responses to be a waste of their time.
When I was in Chicago, in a pretty decent restaurant, we were served a 70-80usd wine. To me it tasted like the 5usd wines we get in supermarkets, it was a horrid dissapointment.
So a little napkin calculation at the restaurant should tell you that an US$80 wine at a restaurant wholesales for $20, and you can buy it at a liquor store for $40.
It sounds like you had a particularly bad experience, though. One thing to keep in mind is that the US palate (in general) for wines is different from the palate in other countries. In general, we like our wines sweet and fruity... and as far as I've noticed, that tends to be the profile of cheap wines the world round.
That said, if I'm eating nice rare red meat with some spicy sides, I do enjoy a California fruit bomb wine like a Zin or some of the Cabs out there.
Are you serious???! An ACH transaction can be reversed up to 60 days after the next bank statement, if the customer reports it as an unauthorized electronic transfer.
Maybe for personal banking... not for business banking, as far as I'm aware. The initial deadline for disputing the charges is 2 business days to get the dispute back to the ODFI via ACH.
There are exceptions to this (such as when a check is used as authorization for the ACH), but this situation doesn't meet the exception criteria.
But practically speaking this might as well be true, because those systems are so expensive and troublesome to implement.
It depends on your needs. For small companies, paperless is probably too expensive. For larger companies, especially those with multiple locations, it's a huge time & money saver. Of the four deployments of document management systems I've overseen, none were difficult to implement -- the worst cost about $60,000 including my time as lead, developer time for integration with the ERP, user training time, and documentation writeup time. And that employer is saving more than twice that in physical document storage, transportation (several offices worldwide), and staff costs.
As a user of good document management systems... well... all I can say is that they are the ultimate in making people accountable, and in CYA.
I like those systems so much that when I do job searches, lack of a document management system makes me think twice about a potential employer... YMMV, especially since I work in the fields of accounting and finance.
I think it holds true, though, that those systems are good for some situations, bad for others... and without actually doing a needs analysis, there's no way to say that those systems are not worthwhile. And as far as implementation, if you roll your own, you're in for a world of pain, in all likelihood... but there are some great systems out there that are easy to deploy and not too expensive.
Also, anything that has to be audited/signed/checked off for process control/accountability, which relates back to regulations.
Not so. Approvals & audits can be documented via software, as long as the software is certified (which isn't that hard to do).
There are tons of software solutions out there for document management that can push documents through approval workflows, etc., that meet all standards for process control and accountability. I won't mention specific vendor names, but there are literally dozens of vendors that offer these systems at a reasonable price... and they have the SOx certifications to go with them.
But it's still up to the lawyer firm (or whoever the transaction targets) to hold on the repayment until they get information about that the check has cleared.
So if they don't repay the excess until then - it shouldn't be a big problem.
Yes and no. I've seen checks that cleared, but then were recalled 2-3 weeks after deposit (and these were domestic, not even foreign checks). It's quite possible for checks that have "cleared" to still be recalled -- it depends on the banks involved.
The solution is to receive payment via ACH debit. This means you initiate (with their written permission, make sure you have the signed docs for this) the withdrawal of funds from their account. Once you get the funds, you're in the clear... they cannot be recalled by the other party, and you did not need to give them your account details.
If they won't provide their account details and authorization for the ACH debit, then do not enter into an engagement with them.
Yes, I do know how much more money you can make by being bilingual in radically different languages. You make 50 cents an hour more than the people who only know English.
50 cents an hour more... what is the base wage these people are making?
Besides, learning that second language isn't about getting more pay for the same job. It's about opening doors into better paying, different jobs. In my field, knowledge of German, Russian, Mandarin, or Japanese opens up opportunities for positions that, depending on current position, may pay $20-30k more.
Smarter people use these technological advances in order to live as well as 'the smart people' and enjoy getting high and fucking while the 'smart people' toil in the lab. Welcome to real world.
I think if you're measuring wages in hourly increments, you're probably not getting on as well as you think.
You're a liar. That was not your claim, ever, let alone originally. You said THAT ARTICLE was INTENDED (meaning, the writing itself) for political purposes, not that articles in general are POSTED on the site for political purposes.
No, I did not mean the writing itself. Perhaps you'd like to stop jumping to conclusions again. Contrary to your uninformed belief, publishing of an article on a news site is controlled by the publisher, and via extension, the editor who greenlit it. Any intention attributed to the the article lies at the feet of the publisher, not the author.
I've worked in publishing, on the editorial side as well as the finance side. I know how it works.
Considering all your lies, inconsistencies, and general incompetence -- still waiting for you to show where I argued a straw man! -- that's a meaningless belief.
Anything you've argued in this thread that doesn't address my two original points is a straw man. Like the jumping to conclusions issue you raised.
Sorry, I jumped to conclusions there: I assumed you knew what you wrote. My bad.
And yet you continue to argue without actually comprehending what I wrote. Perhaps you deliberately chose to ignore my stated reasoning behind that assumption? I did not jump to any conclusion... I reasoned the conlcusion based upon what you had wrote. Please show me the fault in my reasoning that makes my conclusion invalid. Otherwise, stop being so retarded and admit that you're wrong, for once.
Um. So I should contest every claim everyone makes that is false? And if I don't, I am in error? That's utterly irrational, especially given that I never replied to him at all, and that other people had already informed him that it was an AP piece.
When the point you make hinges upon the claim made by that person, yes.
you cannot allow any kind of differing opinion into your consciousness You're a liar.
No [1]. It is not lying to state what I believe to be the truth. I have yet to ever see you acknowledge an error, or the validity of a differing opinion, on slashdot. Instead I see you reduce yourself to playing semantics games to try and discredit the other person.
you will spend your time making specious arguments to try to discredit the arguments of those you disagree with
You're a liar.
No. I have seen you make specious arguments time and again to try and defend your posts against conflicting evidence.
I already did: I corrected you on several points. But you couldn't even thank me for that, so why should I do more favors for you?
You have yet to "correct" me on either of my original claims -- namely, that incomplete evidence should not be used to jump to conclusions, and that Andrew Breitbart intentionally posts material on Breitbart.com to lead people along his political agenda. (And regardless of who wrote it, Breitbart published it, Breitbart assigned the headline).
You prove my point here, that you waste time on specious arguments rather than actually address the core issues. Perhaps you'd like to actually address those issues instead of wasting time on specious arguments?
[1] Actually, I am a liar. I stated that I was done posting on this ancillary thread, but here I am. But in no other fashion have I lied today.
And in case you missed it, since I posted AC in another thread... yes, I do believe you're functionally retarded when it comes to debate, in that special way that intelligent people who have untenable philosophical and logical positions can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Poppycock. One cannot defeat Googol the Destroyer with mere bombs. This is an attempt by Gatus to deny Googol the Detroyer the power needed to run the antipodal LHC in order to create the bipolar quantum energy conundrum in which Googol will temper the world's data before using it to complete the Rite of a Million Targeted Ads.
When last we saw our heroes, Gatus and Joba continued in the diverse efforts to thwart Googol the Destroyer. But we saw a new hero rising, in the persona of T-Bone Pickings, who aims to control the world's power supply via creation of wind farms under his control, thereby making fossil-fuel energy obsolete and useless to Googol the Destroyer. It appears that Gatus and Pickings have been coordinating their efforts -- while Pickings is being thwarted by legislators who secretly serve the Dark Master, Gatus has come up with a plan to use small nuclear reactors to make fossil fuels obsolete, thereby denying Googol both the power to run the antipodal LHC and the power upon which his Webcrawling Spiders of Doom feed.
It appears that Googol the Destroyer has been partially thwarted in China -- there may be additional heroes there who we could celebrate, should we ever be able to get information out of the Great Firewall. Can Gatus have the same kind of Legislative and Bureacratic success against Googol the Destroyer here in the United States? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, rumors circulate that Joba, contrary to popular belief, has not been ill. Rather, he underwent a series of surgeries to enhance his natural charisma, marketing abilities, and since he was under the knife anyway, a titanium-clad skeleton, actuator-enhanced musculature, and a bone-white monochromatic epidermis. Cyber-Joba is now a real force to be reckoned with -- but will his new powers be enough to thwart Googol the Destroyer?
And lest we forget, the roving Druid Stallmanx has ceased roaming for the time being, and spends his days and nights directing the efforts of his Beard Gnomes in his secret laboratory. Just what is he cooking up? Can he reconcile the anarchist developers with the money-grubbing and low-self-esteem developers that Gatus and Joba have converted to the cause of stopping Googol?
All these questions possibly answered, and more, in next week's episode of Googol the Destroyer!
Rubbish. A Democracy is markedly different from a Republic, notably in that there is zero corruption in Democracy, but a higher penalty for having troops out in the field than in a Republic.
Just one more turn... honest this time... is that the sun coming up?
Ah yes, nothing quite like heading out into the world of dating to find a suitable marriage partner without any experience useful in actually making a good choice of marriage partner.
Do you WANT your kids to be married unhappily because they made a bad choice for lack of experience?
Teenagers' dating is valuable practical experience.
*I surely hope your were joking. My apologies if you were. And if you weren't, I hope your kids get lucky in their choices for their sake.
Where do you live that markups for wine are like that? Are you west-coast US?
Here on the east coast, those markups are very typical, unless you're shopping at one of the high-volume discount places (and even then, they're not that far off).
Heh. That only works until they get old enough to learn to send false signals. Or someone points out their tells. My niece lies with impunity... but she deliberately sends false tells to my brother on the little lies so that she can get away with the bigger ones. Yeah, we can see through it most of the time, but she's getting better year by year.
But if you make a living interpreting the Constitution, as many people in Washington do, the 10th Amendment is moot when it faces the might of the Commerce Clause.
And even if the bill needs to be reworked should SCOTUS rule against it, there's always cooperative federalism to push the issue... your state doesn't obey the new law? Fine. The federal government can withhold related moneys for your state. Hey, it worked for the dirnking age, right?
Technically, that's true. *I* do not have *complete* freedom unless I can do anything I wish, including holding slaves.
:)
But I accept certain restrictions on my freedom in order to maintain freedom for others; this is part of the social contract. What this argument boils down to is what level of restrictions we'll accept in order to maintain a common baseline threshold of freedom for each individual.
It seems parent to your post believes restriction of individual freedom, even if it serves to preserve individual freedom at large, is wrong in principle. I'm not surprised to see this kind of argument on slashdot
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Are you kidding? The insurance companies are ecstatic over the bill that is being passed. They get 30,000,000 additional clients, and practically none of the restraints that have been bandied about. The only big thing they'll be upset about is pre-existing conditions, and you can bet your bottom dollar that their friends in high places will ensure they continue to be profitable nonetheless.
Sure, there will be some headaches with implementation and compliance... but they stand to make even more money off the new legislation. Make no mistake... there's a reason insurance companies' stocks have been on the upswing over the past week.
Or maybe you could RTFA where in the study they control for that... because the participants in the study were randomly assigned "leader" and "subordinate" roles.
Fricking knee-jerk "Correlation != Causation".
It's quite possible that both claims are true (TFA's and yours) -- but in this case, it appears from the study simply that:
Causation = Causation.
You don't need to pay into their razor-and-blades business model. It's trivial to refill the carts yourself, provided you have a handy source of blood, guts, and bone.
The only catch is if you plan on using the printouts for your own use... you can't use just any random hobo as a source of material, you need a match in blood type, antigens, etc. I suggest harvesting your identical twin (the good one).
If you're not the evil member of an identical twin pairing, then you may be SOL. You should try close relatives (other siblings, parents) before adopting a wide-net strategy of abducting hobos in order to refill your printer cartridges.
The more you know...
Well, that's a special case for a specific industry. For most companies, record retention is required for, at most, 10 years (most can get away with 8 years).
Out of curiosity, are you aware of any other industries that require a long retention period?
No, not an ad hominem. This was not intended to discredit your argument by discrediting you. It's instead a statement of how I feel about your ability to have a constructive discussion. I'm past caring about whether you can wrap your mind around what has actually transpired in this conversation, or if you choose to continue to delude yourself. I'm convinced that debating with you is less rewarding than arguing with a two-year-old.
So you don't believe that publishers have no responsibility for what their editors allow to hit the press? You don't believe that editors are responsible to the publisher for what they approve? I've worked for the Newark Star-Ledger (a large daily), for a mid-size national magazine publisher (total circulation around 400k), and did lots of reporting for local papers when I was in high school and college.
Not even in your first response did you argue anything but straw men. You did not address the arguments I made; you addressed the arguments you misrepresented me as making. If I then get bogged down in the arguing of those straw men, that does not change the nature of what they are. Only when, because I requested it, you actually addressed my original point, did you divert from your straw men.
No, that is not what you said. What you said was, "A straw man is attacking a position or argument that you don't have, while pretending it is your own." Maybe I got confused due to your poor use of pronouns and case. Are you saying that the originator of the straw-man argument in that statement is only implied? The only subject in that statement is "you", which you further confirm by using the phrase "your own". Really, your fuzzy English makes it only MORE difficult to discuss anything with you, especially since you like to nitpick over exact wordings. Parsing the definition you gave absolutely leads to it appearing that you have no understanding of what a straw man is. It appears I was wrong, you DO understand what one is, although you fail to understand how to apply the definition to your own writings.
I'm done here. You win the big prize when you post another response to this. You can celebrate if you like, give yourself a high-five and slap yourself on the back for making me despair of wasting another minute in a discussion with an unreasonable ass. I hope someday you find whatever it is your missing in life that makes you so unbearable online.
Speaking from experience, or making shit up again? Both media companies I've worked for exercised editorial control over content, both in terms of what is published, and in terms of the writing style and slant. Perhaps you have some experience in media publishing that contradicts this? I'd love to hear about it, since otherwise I think you're blowing smoke out your ass as usual.
Buying wines in a restaurant is always a ripoff.
Typically, here are the markups for wines:
Wholesale: $X
Retail (liquor store): $2X
Retail (restaurant): $4X
So a little napkin calculation at the restaurant should tell you that an US$80 wine at a restaurant wholesales for $20, and you can buy it at a liquor store for $40.
It sounds like you had a particularly bad experience, though. One thing to keep in mind is that the US palate (in general) for wines is different from the palate in other countries. In general, we like our wines sweet and fruity... and as far as I've noticed, that tends to be the profile of cheap wines the world round.
That said, if I'm eating nice rare red meat with some spicy sides, I do enjoy a California fruit bomb wine like a Zin or some of the Cabs out there.
Maybe for personal banking... not for business banking, as far as I'm aware. The initial deadline for disputing the charges is 2 business days to get the dispute back to the ODFI via ACH.
There are exceptions to this (such as when a check is used as authorization for the ACH), but this situation doesn't meet the exception criteria.
Here's a little reading on the subject.
Please keep in mind commercial accounts are handled differently from personal accounts.
It depends on your needs. For small companies, paperless is probably too expensive. For larger companies, especially those with multiple locations, it's a huge time & money saver. Of the four deployments of document management systems I've overseen, none were difficult to implement -- the worst cost about $60,000 including my time as lead, developer time for integration with the ERP, user training time, and documentation writeup time. And that employer is saving more than twice that in physical document storage, transportation (several offices worldwide), and staff costs.
As a user of good document management systems... well... all I can say is that they are the ultimate in making people accountable, and in CYA.
I like those systems so much that when I do job searches, lack of a document management system makes me think twice about a potential employer... YMMV, especially since I work in the fields of accounting and finance.
I think it holds true, though, that those systems are good for some situations, bad for others... and without actually doing a needs analysis, there's no way to say that those systems are not worthwhile. And as far as implementation, if you roll your own, you're in for a world of pain, in all likelihood... but there are some great systems out there that are easy to deploy and not too expensive.
Not so. Approvals & audits can be documented via software, as long as the software is certified (which isn't that hard to do).
There are tons of software solutions out there for document management that can push documents through approval workflows, etc., that meet all standards for process control and accountability. I won't mention specific vendor names, but there are literally dozens of vendors that offer these systems at a reasonable price... and they have the SOx certifications to go with them.
Yes and no. I've seen checks that cleared, but then were recalled 2-3 weeks after deposit (and these were domestic, not even foreign checks). It's quite possible for checks that have "cleared" to still be recalled -- it depends on the banks involved.
The solution is to receive payment via ACH debit. This means you initiate (with their written permission, make sure you have the signed docs for this) the withdrawal of funds from their account. Once you get the funds, you're in the clear... they cannot be recalled by the other party, and you did not need to give them your account details.
If they won't provide their account details and authorization for the ACH debit, then do not enter into an engagement with them.
50 cents an hour more... what is the base wage these people are making?
Besides, learning that second language isn't about getting more pay for the same job. It's about opening doors into better paying, different jobs. In my field, knowledge of German, Russian, Mandarin, or Japanese opens up opportunities for positions that, depending on current position, may pay $20-30k more.
I think if you're measuring wages in hourly increments, you're probably not getting on as well as you think.
No, I did not mean the writing itself. Perhaps you'd like to stop jumping to conclusions again. Contrary to your uninformed belief, publishing of an article on a news site is controlled by the publisher, and via extension, the editor who greenlit it. Any intention attributed to the the article lies at the feet of the publisher, not the author.
I've worked in publishing, on the editorial side as well as the finance side. I know how it works.
Anything you've argued in this thread that doesn't address my two original points is a straw man. Like the jumping to conclusions issue you raised.
I bet you wish we could edit posts so you could go back and cut off that part of your comment.
You can choose to not have health... that is, you can commit suicide. Then you won't be required to get health insurance.
Sure, but GSK does most of its research here in the US, in western PA and in the Research Triangle in NC.
Their other research facility is in southeast England, and employs fewer people than either the PA or NC facilities.
And yet you continue to argue without actually comprehending what I wrote. Perhaps you deliberately chose to ignore my stated reasoning behind that assumption? I did not jump to any conclusion... I reasoned the conlcusion based upon what you had wrote. Please show me the fault in my reasoning that makes my conclusion invalid. Otherwise, stop being so retarded and admit that you're wrong, for once.
When the point you make hinges upon the claim made by that person, yes.
No [1]. It is not lying to state what I believe to be the truth. I have yet to ever see you acknowledge an error, or the validity of a differing opinion, on slashdot. Instead I see you reduce yourself to playing semantics games to try and discredit the other person.
No. I have seen you make specious arguments time and again to try and defend your posts against conflicting evidence.
You have yet to "correct" me on either of my original claims -- namely, that incomplete evidence should not be used to jump to conclusions, and that Andrew Breitbart intentionally posts material on Breitbart.com to lead people along his political agenda. (And regardless of who wrote it, Breitbart published it, Breitbart assigned the headline).
You prove my point here, that you waste time on specious arguments rather than actually address the core issues. Perhaps you'd like to actually address those issues instead of wasting time on specious arguments?
[1] Actually, I am a liar. I stated that I was done posting on this ancillary thread, but here I am. But in no other fashion have I lied today.
And in case you missed it, since I posted AC in another thread... yes, I do believe you're functionally retarded when it comes to debate, in that special way that intelligent people who have untenable philosophical and logical positions can be.
As a parent of a small child, all I can say is arguing with the small child is less likely to leave you with poop on your hand.