Aw crap. I've waited years for the right story to reference my sig, and then I waste the golden opportunity provided by this article on the measly parent to this post.
Well, make the same joke a little better...
Apparently Tolkien's heirs are Olog-hai (see sig below).
You also save yourself from being a complete troll by offering me this trivial gem of "hope." How this was moderated insightful is beyond me.
It shouldn't be. Your MO is very obvious... you're what's known as a "google expert". You RTFS/A a little early since you're a subscriber, then google for some related scraps, then put together a post.
Lots of people have done this. We call them karma whores.
Sure, we all talk out of our ass sometimes ($DEITY knows I'm occasionally as guilty of it as anyone else). But you seem to make a habit of it... and so he called you out on it, and obviously one or more moderators agreed with him.
However, if an employee is told to do something, legal or illegal, and they don't do it they can be fired for insubordination. Or for no reason at all, because there are no laws preventing people from being fired.
Actually, that's not true, even in at-will states.
Federal law protects employees who refuse to take illegal action, if they bring it to the attention of the authorities. Nearly every state has a whistleblower statute that applies to this, and there is also the federal statute (which may only apply to federal criminal activity, I'm not sure).
Contrast this with the US, where I can hire a sales person and if there is a downturn I can fire them anytime I want. There are no regulations, no laws preventing this. The result is more people get hired. Period. Would it be nice if everyone was assured by the government that they couldn't be fired? Maybe. But the result would be a lot fewer people getting hired. And that isn't good for anyone.
That's a pretty heavy assumption. Care to support that assertion? It makes sense on cursory examination, but when you look a little more in-depth, things change. One thing restrictions on firing of employees does is smooth out the employment curve -- this is probably the biggest impact. And job stability is very good for an economy (when you could be fired any minute, you'll be less likely to purchase consumer goods, which feeds into a recession -- this is part of the current problem). So at-will employment may actually reduce hiring in the long run, by exacerbating fluctuations in the economy.
Too obvious. Every slashdotter worth his salt thought the same thing.
The trick is to use the Marvell/Marvel joke in a creative or more complicated way that surprises the reader.
Ex. Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier... they should redesign the spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips.
See, now I've included the obvious comic book reference, and taken it a step further with an up-to-date (current -- get it?) joke, thus giving it a bit of originality that may not have occurred to every single slashdotter. Note the subtle influence of the word "supplier" to hint at the AC/DC relationship. It's these word choices that really make a joke work.
Alternatively (get it?), you could get extra humor out of the situation by working in a reference to the Tesla/Einstein argument over power supply -- this plays to your audience, since those who get the reference will feel smug superiority over being part of the nerd elite.
So, you could end up with the following joke (which I find (a biased source, of course), much funnier than your obvious one-liner that appears to have been aimed at firstpostitude):
Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier like Marvell... they should redesign their spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips. Hell, even 100 years ago Einstein knew better than to trust that other kind of current.
e that this last version also plays heavily on the AC-DC sexuality metaphor, and takes advantage of its subconscious action on the part of some of the readers.
To cut a long post short, please make a better effort next time... I'm sure you have it in you, and I, for one, welcome more truly funny posts on slashdot.
Because both pictures happened to be drawn when she was angry at the artist, her husband, because she had to wait for him to finish "painting" the beautiful nudes who slyly grinned at her when she crossed paths with them as they left the studio?
So then the lesson the kids take away is that people with flaws cannot be heroes? That if you're flawed, it is worthless to aspire to great achievement?
Celebrate the heroes, flaws and all. Discuss the flaws with your kids. Help them understand that it's possible to admire the admirable parts of people without also admiring their flaws.
We need to teach our kids to get away from the idea of having "heroes" per se.
There are scales of hero worship. I think you've got a good point, but I think you need to qualify it. We need to be careful about allowing our kids to have unbridled hero worship of flawed heroes. But I think there's still a place for heroes... and I think it's important to note that emulation of heroes is pretty much a staple of development. You can only temper it, you can't eliminate it.
In the end, it boils down to one simple bit of advice... teach your kids to think independently and logically. Teach them to look at multiple sides of every issue. They'll learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
It was unmaintainable because it was written in Bash, Expect, and C, so they rewrote it in Bash, Python, and C?
Well, they started to rewrite it in a mix of Haskell, Visual Basic, and Perl. But the project managers kept spontaneously combusting, so they had to go for a language combo that was a little more commonplace.
You're saying you'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none, and I'm calling you a liar.
Before you call him a liar... you might want to check out the facts.
Local papers are closing their doors all the time. Local reporters are being laid off constantly. Circulation of local papers is in freefall.
Larger, regional papers are cutting their local reporting staff.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Go ahead, look at your regional paper. How many stories are credited to the AP? How does this compare to three years ago?
Go ahead, call you local paper. Ask how many reporters they have on staff. Ask how many stringers they use. Compare this to three years ago.
The FACT is that local reporting is disappearing. Hell, even major state papers are reducing local coverage. The Star-Ledger in NJ used to have three full-time reporters in Trenton, which meant we'd get a decent amount of in-depth, researched, coverage into state politics. Now, they have one part-time reporter... the rest of the Trenton stories come through the AP. The quality is a tenth what it used to be. And that's for the state capital! Local news is even worse.
My local paper used to employ 11 people at the local office, and retain the services of about 10 or 15 stringers. Now they have 4 employees at the local office, and 8 stringers (plus a couple more during HS football season). Both the quantity and quality of local news has dropped enormously.
This is not a local trend. This is a national trend. The ASNE (American Society of Newspaper Editors) can barely talk about anything else -- they are fighting for survival. The ASME (Amer. Soc. of Magazine Editors) recognizes the problem for regional and local magazines as well.
But go ahead, lambast someone for lying when you yourself don't know the state of affairs. I suggest you read up on it a bit, you might be surprised how quickly local news is dying. Do you even read your local paper? Have you noticed how it has changed over the past few years? You might be lucky to have a local paper that bucks the trend... but it's only a matter of time before your paper suffers the same fate.
Personally, I think we need to figure out a way local news can be monetized on the web, because I see a value in professional local news -- and print media is going buh-bye in the long run. But I'm not sure it can be done without a huge (and largely unwelcome) change in how we feel about web content. Most people feel it should be free, and they are used to it being free. But that doesn't jibe with the fact that it costs money to produce quality reporting... so we have some painful adjustments (either no good local reporting, or having to pay for online content).
That's the great thing about exporting American culture... eventually, the rest of the world will be as fat and lazy as we are.
It's obvious where this is going. Just read all the articles about the billions we're spending on the development of remote control flying killing machines. Our enemies will be too fat too run away, but our technology will allow us to fight even as we need to clean ourselves with a rag-on-a-stick.
Why am I not surprised that the girls like to talk and the boys like to play combat (remember cowboys and indians? cops and robbers?).
I know, right? I mean, when I'm online on chat sites, it's amazing that all the people who are on all day are girls. Take last Sunday, for example. 4 AM... a bunch of girls are online, and some guys. 10 AM... the same girls but a bunch of different guys. 4 PM... still the same girls, and new guys. 8 PM... same deal.
I mean seriously, the only people who are addicted to chat and are on all day are girls.
Where once that post sailed above the masses in the +3 thermocline, now it languishes at the bottom of score:0 canyon. It is no longer its privilege to soar and swoop among the updrafts and downdrafts over the score:2 threshold, now it must crawl, penitently, through the scrubgrass.
Oh worthy moderators, how had he offended thee? Was it his wanton brashness in posts of yore? Was it his disagreement with your politics?
Oh, my keyboard for the knowledge of why, why, why his off-topic post gleans deserved moderation, while its off-topic parents receive continued adulation.
Even when I had an entire island/continent to myself, an NPC would invariably land a settler and found a city within the radius of one of my cities and start stealing my developed land.
That is preventable, at the cost of a bit of food and production time. Simply ring your continent with your own small cities; your ZoC around your cities will prevent them from founding their own cities there. Same thing for spots you aren't currently using in your large cities. Found a small city to use up the excess production, and as your large city grows, you can move the small cities' workers off to allow your large city the use of that square. As your large city gets huge, you'll end up killing off your small city. No big deal -- you've prevented interlopers from invading your continent by settlement. As a bonus, when your city is down to size one and you raze it (rush settler production), you get a settler/engineer with zero upkeep cost.
Note that the interior cities are necessary to keep allies (who ignore your ZoC) from placing cities on your continent. For large continents, the interior cities method is more efficient than the ring-of-cities method.
I used this strategy on all difficulties except Emperor, which I was only able to beat by sticking to some of the published strategies out there (no science development until late in the game, rely on espionage and the Tech-sharing wonder to stay close to your rivals).
Not that they'd ever have a good reason to do it, just that they could -- to have KSC Friend Chicken.
That's the game where they align two launchers to point at a spot equidistant from both launch sites, then enter the codes for simultaneous launch and see which of two friends hits the 'abort' button first?
Or is that the game where they piggy-back identical rockets on top of each of two other rockets, and see which top rocket can knock the other rocket into the Gulf of Mexico?
Here is where we part company. It has exactly zero with campaign finance. You are upset about a symptom of the problem. The problem is the size and scope of government.
I agree we part ways there.
While there is a lot of cruft in government, I believe there is a need for the government to operate in areas where the public sector will not.
You see the root problem as the scope of the government. I see the root problem as the quality of the government's output.
I do not believe we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your ideal of the putting the government "back into it's proper place" would do just that. You, as a someone well read in history and economics, should know that 'small government' of the past led to enormous abuses of capital that resulted in far less than optimal outcomes for the country as a whole, for the common people, and for all but a select few of the elite. What is needed is a less wasteful government, not necessarily a smaller government.
We'll never agree on this point, I understand. But the government serves a lot of necessary roles, and we must be careful to ensure that we do not ignore these in a quest for small government.
And regarding the monetary value of holding office -- you're missing an entire aspect (though you alluded to it) that also results in suboptimal politics. Money is one motivator for those seeking higher office, but other motivations pose similar problems. People who seek office for prestige, for example. As long as we have elected offices of any kind, they will be a route to power (and thus profit) in the private sector due to the prestige that comes with being elected. So reducing the scope of government does not solve the problem, although it would help with that problem.
Adam - (PS. I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward)
No offense, Adam, but if you're unable to figure out how to create a slashdot user ID, then maybe we're better off without you:)
My suggestion is to set up a dummy email account at a free service, create your slashdot user with that email ID, then change your email address to your main in your profile. Likely for some reason you never got the email the first time you tried to set it up, and now slashdot prevents a new account from being created with the same email address.
1) Corporate personhood: the notion that a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as a natural person, or some subset of those rights (e.g. due process, free speech, etc.)
That's largely a myth. Corporations do have legal rights, but by no means is there "personhood" attached to coporations legal status. Especially in regards to campaign finance -- Corporations are very limited with regards to donations to political campaigns. Instead, individuals at corporations make the contributions. While it's similar to the corporation making the donation, this is why listings of contributions include the employer of the person who makes the contribution. Case in point, the company awarded this contract made -zero- contributions to anyone's campaign. The president, and other employees of the company, did. I worded my previous post poorly when I said that the corporation made contributions.
2) Money as free speech: the notion that campaign donations are a form of constitutionally protected speech
While this point definitely has merit, it has to be balanced against the cost of allowing cash to determine our elections, and the effect the cash has on awarding of contracts, drafting of legislation, etc. This is a big reason why we have restrictions on campaign finance.
$18 mil for a website and in a total coincidence the contract goes to a company run by people who have given tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D)
And the same company gave tens of thousands of dollars to the House majority leader when the House was controlled by Republicans.
This is not a partisan issue, I hope you weren't trying to make it into one. Because that would dodge the core issue.
This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.
Meh. The whole point of the pronoun distinction was to raise the Schroedinger issue.
Besides which, if you're going to point to the usage note in your link for "Her", you should also read the usage note for "Him", where the issue at hand is explicitly addressed.
FWIW, you're also mistaken about what kind of pronoun is being used. It IS a personal pronoun being used, not an indefinite pronoun. We are referring to a specific individual (though of indeterminate gender, which has nothing to do with whether it's a definite or indefinite pronoun).
But, whatever, dude/dudette. You can get your panties/briefs/thong/boxers[1] all in a bunch over the fact that some people feel the use of he/him to be sexist, and insist on thrusting[2] a standard of language which offends some people upon the rest of us. Or you can instead just go with the flow[3], not get offended by the fact that some other people get offended, and go on your merry way while still having grasped[4] the idea/s the writer was attempting to communicate.
[1] I know, I'm an insensitive clod, you probably don't wear underwear [2] My apologies in advance to feminists for using such a gender-typical verb that has connotations of rape. [3] In no way is this referring to menstrual flow. Again, my apologies in advance to any man, woman, trans-gendered, non-gendered, or multi-gendered individual or group of individuals who read this. [4] Again, apologies for using a verb that evokes imagery of the oppressive male taking advantage of the less powerful female, for we all know that females are the more powerful, or rather, equally powerful, or rather power is a poor term because it is a male construct.
Furthermore, how did you continue to read the title/summary if you did a double-take? Wouldn't that have thrown off your gaze-tracking security software and scrambled the page for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Aw crap. I've waited years for the right story to reference my sig, and then I waste the golden opportunity provided by this article on the measly parent to this post.
Well, make the same joke a little better...
Apparently Tolkien's heirs are Olog-hai (see sig below).
See sig below.
Apparently J.R.R. Tolkien warned us in advance of the actions his heirs would take WRT copyright.
It shouldn't be. Your MO is very obvious... you're what's known as a "google expert". You RTFS/A a little early since you're a subscriber, then google for some related scraps, then put together a post.
Lots of people have done this. We call them karma whores.
Sure, we all talk out of our ass sometimes ($DEITY knows I'm occasionally as guilty of it as anyone else). But you seem to make a habit of it... and so he called you out on it, and obviously one or more moderators agreed with him.
Actually, that's not true, even in at-will states.
Federal law protects employees who refuse to take illegal action, if they bring it to the attention of the authorities. Nearly every state has a whistleblower statute that applies to this, and there is also the federal statute (which may only apply to federal criminal activity, I'm not sure).
That's a pretty heavy assumption. Care to support that assertion? It makes sense on cursory examination, but when you look a little more in-depth, things change. One thing restrictions on firing of employees does is smooth out the employment curve -- this is probably the biggest impact. And job stability is very good for an economy (when you could be fired any minute, you'll be less likely to purchase consumer goods, which feeds into a recession -- this is part of the current problem). So at-will employment may actually reduce hiring in the long run, by exacerbating fluctuations in the economy.
Just goes to show...
Even on a decidedly intellectual discussion site, a decent fart joke still blows them away.
Too obvious. Every slashdotter worth his salt thought the same thing.
The trick is to use the Marvell/Marvel joke in a creative or more complicated way that surprises the reader.
Ex. Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier... they should redesign the spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips.
See, now I've included the obvious comic book reference, and taken it a step further with an up-to-date (current -- get it?) joke, thus giving it a bit of originality that may not have occurred to every single slashdotter. Note the subtle influence of the word "supplier" to hint at the AC/DC relationship. It's these word choices that really make a joke work.
Alternatively (get it?), you could get extra humor out of the situation by working in a reference to the Tesla/Einstein argument over power supply -- this plays to your audience, since those who get the reference will feel smug superiority over being part of the nerd elite.
So, you could end up with the following joke (which I find (a biased source, of course), much funnier than your obvious one-liner that appears to have been aimed at firstpostitude):
Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier like Marvell... they should redesign their spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips. Hell, even 100 years ago Einstein knew better than to trust that other kind of current.
e that this last version also plays heavily on the AC-DC sexuality metaphor, and takes advantage of its subconscious action on the part of some of the readers.
To cut a long post short, please make a better effort next time... I'm sure you have it in you, and I, for one, welcome more truly funny posts on slashdot.
Because both pictures happened to be drawn when she was angry at the artist, her husband, because she had to wait for him to finish "painting" the beautiful nudes who slyly grinned at her when she crossed paths with them as they left the studio?
(It's subtle, but hopefully you'll get it)
That's ridiculous, why would you use ~4 BW or ~3 DLs when you could use 1 POOT (Power Output Of Togo). BOINC uses about 1 POOT.
Surely we can reduce the inefficiency, and POOT less.
Why are we using a distributed system of energy-inefficient comPOOTers?
The big question is, how many cow farts would we need to harvest to produce one POOT of energy?
Celebrate the heroes, flaws and all. Discuss the flaws with your kids. Help them understand that it's possible to admire the admirable parts of people without also admiring their flaws.
There are scales of hero worship. I think you've got a good point, but I think you need to qualify it. We need to be careful about allowing our kids to have unbridled hero worship of flawed heroes. But I think there's still a place for heroes... and I think it's important to note that emulation of heroes is pretty much a staple of development. You can only temper it, you can't eliminate it.
In the end, it boils down to one simple bit of advice... teach your kids to think independently and logically. Teach them to look at multiple sides of every issue. They'll learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Well, they started to rewrite it in a mix of Haskell, Visual Basic, and Perl. But the project managers kept spontaneously combusting, so they had to go for a language combo that was a little more commonplace.
Before you call him a liar... you might want to check out the facts.
Local papers are closing their doors all the time. Local reporters are being laid off constantly. Circulation of local papers is in freefall.
Larger, regional papers are cutting their local reporting staff.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Go ahead, look at your regional paper. How many stories are credited to the AP? How does this compare to three years ago?
Go ahead, call you local paper. Ask how many reporters they have on staff. Ask how many stringers they use. Compare this to three years ago.
The FACT is that local reporting is disappearing. Hell, even major state papers are reducing local coverage. The Star-Ledger in NJ used to have three full-time reporters in Trenton, which meant we'd get a decent amount of in-depth, researched, coverage into state politics. Now, they have one part-time reporter... the rest of the Trenton stories come through the AP. The quality is a tenth what it used to be. And that's for the state capital! Local news is even worse.
My local paper used to employ 11 people at the local office, and retain the services of about 10 or 15 stringers. Now they have 4 employees at the local office, and 8 stringers (plus a couple more during HS football season). Both the quantity and quality of local news has dropped enormously.
This is not a local trend. This is a national trend. The ASNE (American Society of Newspaper Editors) can barely talk about anything else -- they are fighting for survival. The ASME (Amer. Soc. of Magazine Editors) recognizes the problem for regional and local magazines as well.
But go ahead, lambast someone for lying when you yourself don't know the state of affairs. I suggest you read up on it a bit, you might be surprised how quickly local news is dying. Do you even read your local paper? Have you noticed how it has changed over the past few years? You might be lucky to have a local paper that bucks the trend... but it's only a matter of time before your paper suffers the same fate.
Personally, I think we need to figure out a way local news can be monetized on the web, because I see a value in professional local news -- and print media is going buh-bye in the long run. But I'm not sure it can be done without a huge (and largely unwelcome) change in how we feel about web content. Most people feel it should be free, and they are used to it being free. But that doesn't jibe with the fact that it costs money to produce quality reporting... so we have some painful adjustments (either no good local reporting, or having to pay for online content).
Oh, don't worry, they're catching up.
That's the great thing about exporting American culture... eventually, the rest of the world will be as fat and lazy as we are.
It's obvious where this is going. Just read all the articles about the billions we're spending on the development of remote control flying killing machines. Our enemies will be too fat too run away, but our technology will allow us to fight even as we need to clean ourselves with a rag-on-a-stick.
World domination is at hand!
MWUA-HA-HA-HORK-acktph-[gasp]-[grunt]-HORK-[splat]-HA-HA-HA
I know, right? I mean, when I'm online on chat sites, it's amazing that all the people who are on all day are girls. Take last Sunday, for example. 4 AM... a bunch of girls are online, and some guys. 10 AM... the same girls but a bunch of different guys. 4 PM... still the same girls, and new guys. 8 PM... same deal.
I mean seriously, the only people who are addicted to chat and are on all day are girls.
[pause for gender identification]
Well, and one guy. At least.
Ah, how far the mighty have fallen.
Where once that post sailed above the masses in the +3 thermocline, now it languishes at the bottom of score:0 canyon.
It is no longer its privilege to soar and swoop among the updrafts and downdrafts over the score:2 threshold, now it must crawl, penitently, through the scrubgrass.
Oh worthy moderators, how had he offended thee?
Was it his wanton brashness in posts of yore?
Was it his disagreement with your politics?
Oh, my keyboard for the knowledge of why, why, why
his off-topic post gleans deserved moderation, while its off-topic parents receive continued adulation.
Consistency, please.
o_0 What slashdot are YOU reading, and can I have the URL, please?
That is preventable, at the cost of a bit of food and production time. Simply ring your continent with your own small cities; your ZoC around your cities will prevent them from founding their own cities there. Same thing for spots you aren't currently using in your large cities. Found a small city to use up the excess production, and as your large city grows, you can move the small cities' workers off to allow your large city the use of that square. As your large city gets huge, you'll end up killing off your small city. No big deal -- you've prevented interlopers from invading your continent by settlement. As a bonus, when your city is down to size one and you raze it (rush settler production), you get a settler/engineer with zero upkeep cost.
Note that the interior cities are necessary to keep allies (who ignore your ZoC) from placing cities on your continent. For large continents, the interior cities method is more efficient than the ring-of-cities method.
I used this strategy on all difficulties except Emperor, which I was only able to beat by sticking to some of the published strategies out there (no science development until late in the game, rely on espionage and the Tech-sharing wonder to stay close to your rivals).
That's the game where they align two launchers to point at a spot equidistant from both launch sites, then enter the codes for simultaneous launch and see which of two friends hits the 'abort' button first?
Or is that the game where they piggy-back identical rockets on top of each of two other rockets, and see which top rocket can knock the other rocket into the Gulf of Mexico?
I agree we part ways there.
While there is a lot of cruft in government, I believe there is a need for the government to operate in areas where the public sector will not.
You see the root problem as the scope of the government. I see the root problem as the quality of the government's output.
I do not believe we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your ideal of the putting the government "back into it's proper place" would do just that. You, as a someone well read in history and economics, should know that 'small government' of the past led to enormous abuses of capital that resulted in far less than optimal outcomes for the country as a whole, for the common people, and for all but a select few of the elite. What is needed is a less wasteful government, not necessarily a smaller government.
We'll never agree on this point, I understand. But the government serves a lot of necessary roles, and we must be careful to ensure that we do not ignore these in a quest for small government.
And regarding the monetary value of holding office -- you're missing an entire aspect (though you alluded to it) that also results in suboptimal politics. Money is one motivator for those seeking higher office, but other motivations pose similar problems. People who seek office for prestige, for example. As long as we have elected offices of any kind, they will be a route to power (and thus profit) in the private sector due to the prestige that comes with being elected. So reducing the scope of government does not solve the problem, although it would help with that problem.
No offense, Adam, but if you're unable to figure out how to create a slashdot user ID, then maybe we're better off without you :)
My suggestion is to set up a dummy email account at a free service, create your slashdot user with that email ID, then change your email address to your main in your profile. Likely for some reason you never got the email the first time you tried to set it up, and now slashdot prevents a new account from being created with the same email address.
That's largely a myth. Corporations do have legal rights, but by no means is there "personhood" attached to coporations legal status. Especially in regards to campaign finance -- Corporations are very limited with regards to donations to political campaigns. Instead, individuals at corporations make the contributions. While it's similar to the corporation making the donation, this is why listings of contributions include the employer of the person who makes the contribution. Case in point, the company awarded this contract made -zero- contributions to anyone's campaign. The president, and other employees of the company, did. I worded my previous post poorly when I said that the corporation made contributions.
While this point definitely has merit, it has to be balanced against the cost of allowing cash to determine our elections, and the effect the cash has on awarding of contracts, drafting of legislation, etc. This is a big reason why we have restrictions on campaign finance.
And the same company gave tens of thousands of dollars to the House majority leader when the House was controlled by Republicans.
This is not a partisan issue, I hope you weren't trying to make it into one. Because that would dodge the core issue.
This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.
Did you assume it was unintentional?
There's no difference. None of them come while you are awake.
Zing!
Meh. The whole point of the pronoun distinction was to raise the Schroedinger issue.
Besides which, if you're going to point to the usage note in your link for "Her", you should also read the usage note for "Him", where the issue at hand is explicitly addressed.
FWIW, you're also mistaken about what kind of pronoun is being used. It IS a personal pronoun being used, not an indefinite pronoun. We are referring to a specific individual (though of indeterminate gender, which has nothing to do with whether it's a definite or indefinite pronoun).
But, whatever, dude/dudette. You can get your panties/briefs/thong/boxers[1] all in a bunch over the fact that some people feel the use of he/him to be sexist, and insist on thrusting[2] a standard of language which offends some people upon the rest of us. Or you can instead just go with the flow[3], not get offended by the fact that some other people get offended, and go on your merry way while still having grasped[4] the idea/s the writer was attempting to communicate.
[1] I know, I'm an insensitive clod, you probably don't wear underwear
[2] My apologies in advance to feminists for using such a gender-typical verb that has connotations of rape.
[3] In no way is this referring to menstrual flow. Again, my apologies in advance to any man, woman, trans-gendered, non-gendered, or multi-gendered individual or group of individuals who read this.
[4] Again, apologies for using a verb that evokes imagery of the oppressive male taking advantage of the less powerful female, for we all know that females are the more powerful, or rather, equally powerful, or rather power is a poor term because it is a male construct.
You want to see PC taken too far? There you go.
Why would you do a double-take? We ARE geezer-tracking.
Furthermore, how did you continue to read the title/summary if you did a double-take? Wouldn't that have thrown off your gaze-tracking security software and scrambled the page for you?