There are lots of options for that which don't leave your server free for abuse. Besides, any sane email server is set to start blocking mail from such sources after they're blacklisted anyway..
You can get some reusable bags that compact nicely when not in use. I had one that folded and fastened with a button somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where it is since I last moved:p
It's not really an inconvenience to carry one of those around if you're already taking a backpack with you everywhere (camelbacks are awesome). I was in the habit of carrying a backpack everywhere when I got rid of my car, but then I had to ruin it by getting a car again..
The only place that I can think that we have paper bags here in the UK is when buying small baked items. Fish and chip shops also used to wrap stuff in paper, though I think they might use boxes more often now (not been to one for many years). Both will then put things in plastic bags if there is a lot to carry though.
The article you linked mentioned one place selling anti-bacterial bags. I can't find any on Amazon right now.. wonder if there's anywhere else I could get one. Everything I buy is already in some kind of container when I put it in my bag though, so I shouldn't have too much of a problem with bacteria..
Sure, but we're a pretty small R&D business working on 2 or 3 main projects, and the guys in charge aren't actually idiots. It'll be pretty easy for them to keep tabs on how much he's getting done, and decide whether he's worth keeping around. Our Director of Engineering said that he'd talked to a few of the guy's past employers, and was told that the he's excellent at bringing design concepts to reality. So he'd probably actually be happy with only 3 "real" days of work a week - but I think the guy takes his job a bit more seriously than that.
Someone posted Tim Minchin's Canvas Bags song below. I've added it into my current work music playlist - hopefully its catchy message will become etched into my brain, and somehow force me to change my habits:p
It is a bit weird if you think about it, to just keep using plastic bags when you could take your own. I wonder who started the whole deal.
I have 2 reusable bags, but I almost always forget to take them with me anywhere. I used one last week, but that was the first time in months. Keeping one in the car would probably be a good start.
If his internet connection is via satellite in an area with possible snow storms, then it's an incredibly bad idea to employ him. If he's out in the middle of nowhere, it's by his own choice. If you want to work with very specific job requirements, chances are pretty good that you'll have to move to accommodate your job, rather than the other way around.
I was thinking something similar. One of our new senior engineers wanted to work from home on Mondays and Fridays, but my employer agreed only on the condition that he work onsite full time for the first month to prove himself.
But when I send out a perfectly good resume and use the more obvious resources there are still precious few bites for someone requiring to work remotely
How come nobody has commented on this part? No matter what age you are, requiring that you work remotely is going to make things difficult, no matter your age.
What about blaming those who think of a nation as their enemy even when they're not at war?
I don't think China has anything in their constitution that makes domestic spying illegal either, so technically the US government is sinking to a much deeper level of "wrongdoing". I don't think surveillance itself is wrong. I think it's actually quite prudent, especially internationally. Some potential uses of the surveillance can of course be very wrong though.
the species would become more selfish, even if this decreases the viability of the species
Yep and if it decreases the viability, then your line has more chance of dying off. That's the whole point.
I was reading an article a few months ago where they reckoned that Neanderthals were actually smarter than humans, but they were less social. They were less likely to share new ideas between villages for example, and so we became more advanced than them as a result of our greater sociability.
Evolution does "work like that". If the altruistic behaviour of the species helps a member survive and reproduce, then it has affected the "fitness" equation. It doesn't preclude any kind of selfish behaviour, but it does help to explain feelings of wanting to help random strangers, or risk your life for a drowning child for example.
Maybe you didn't notice the quotation marks (it was a joke). Besides, technically being able to foresee and avoid mistakes that others would make, would make you better in one metric. But the joke is that people with little or no experience often assume that something will be easier than it really is.
I don't know if a favour is expected in return, but there's something in us that makes us want to help others who've helped us anyway.
It seems obvious that altruistic behaviour would be a result of the fact that a species that helps each other is more likely to survive. It might also have side effects, like wanting to help any living creature to survive.. but as long as that doesn't damage the original species' reproductive abilities, there's no reason for that behaviour to be selected out.
It's not "informal", it's just your nation supposedly being unaware of the multiple meanings of "right" and "wrong" (of which "wrongly" is the adverb form). Though someone else said it parsed fine for him. So I think it's actually just one of those cases where some idiots have started jumping on people for "incorrect" word usage, and it's somehow snowballed. Like when people say "that's not ironic", even when (ironically) the word has more than just the narrow meaning that some parts of the internet like to imply and has done for over a century..
Well, that's nice, but I just checked the Oxford American Dictionary, and it agrees with me that it's a correct usage, even in "American English" (which is actually just English with a couple of misspelled words here and there..). So how about instead of being butthurt, you check your facts more thoroughly next time?
Why the American ones, as opposed to English? I'm Scottish, and my native language is English. In the English language dictionaries I've looked up, it says that "wrongly" can be a synonym of "incorrectly". How about the Cambridge University Press? Or the Oxford English Dictionary. Or Merriam-Webster
I checked some dictionary websites there just to confirm that my usage was correct. I noticed this footnote on the wiktionary page, which helps to explain your view:
In American English, this word usually has a moral connotation, however it is not wrong to use "wrongly" as the opposite of "correctly."
I'm British, and wasn't aware that it is mostly used with a moral connotation in the US. Going by the dictionary definitions, it doesn't seem that I was using "wrongly" wrongly;)
Slashdot Mirror
That applies to driving too, if you're in a big city. Sometimes you'd be better off walking to your destination.
There are lots of options for that which don't leave your server free for abuse. Besides, any sane email server is set to start blocking mail from such sources after they're blacklisted anyway..
I would have thought having an SMTP server which does unintended open relaying as everyone's definition of vulnerable..
You can get some reusable bags that compact nicely when not in use. I had one that folded and fastened with a button somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where it is since I last moved :p
It's not really an inconvenience to carry one of those around if you're already taking a backpack with you everywhere (camelbacks are awesome). I was in the habit of carrying a backpack everywhere when I got rid of my car, but then I had to ruin it by getting a car again..
The only place that I can think that we have paper bags here in the UK is when buying small baked items. Fish and chip shops also used to wrap stuff in paper, though I think they might use boxes more often now (not been to one for many years). Both will then put things in plastic bags if there is a lot to carry though.
The article you linked mentioned one place selling anti-bacterial bags. I can't find any on Amazon right now.. wonder if there's anywhere else I could get one. Everything I buy is already in some kind of container when I put it in my bag though, so I shouldn't have too much of a problem with bacteria..
Sure, but we're a pretty small R&D business working on 2 or 3 main projects, and the guys in charge aren't actually idiots. It'll be pretty easy for them to keep tabs on how much he's getting done, and decide whether he's worth keeping around. Our Director of Engineering said that he'd talked to a few of the guy's past employers, and was told that the he's excellent at bringing design concepts to reality. So he'd probably actually be happy with only 3 "real" days of work a week - but I think the guy takes his job a bit more seriously than that.
Someone posted Tim Minchin's Canvas Bags song below. I've added it into my current work music playlist - hopefully its catchy message will become etched into my brain, and somehow force me to change my habits :p
Marks and Spencers do.
It is a bit weird if you think about it, to just keep using plastic bags when you could take your own. I wonder who started the whole deal.
I have 2 reusable bags, but I almost always forget to take them with me anywhere. I used one last week, but that was the first time in months. Keeping one in the car would probably be a good start.
If his internet connection is via satellite in an area with possible snow storms, then it's an incredibly bad idea to employ him. If he's out in the middle of nowhere, it's by his own choice. If you want to work with very specific job requirements, chances are pretty good that you'll have to move to accommodate your job, rather than the other way around.
I was thinking something similar. One of our new senior engineers wanted to work from home on Mondays and Fridays, but my employer agreed only on the condition that he work onsite full time for the first month to prove himself.
Looks like I'm getting old.. repeating myself, and saying the same thing twice..
But when I send out a perfectly good resume and use the more obvious resources there are still precious few bites for someone requiring to work remotely
How come nobody has commented on this part? No matter what age you are, requiring that you work remotely is going to make things difficult, no matter your age.
We have cellphones and wifi in the UK, and I'm pretty sure they have them in the Netherlands too ;)
What about blaming those who think of a nation as their enemy even when they're not at war?
I don't think China has anything in their constitution that makes domestic spying illegal either, so technically the US government is sinking to a much deeper level of "wrongdoing". I don't think surveillance itself is wrong. I think it's actually quite prudent, especially internationally. Some potential uses of the surveillance can of course be very wrong though.
the species would become more selfish, even if this decreases the viability of the species
Yep and if it decreases the viability, then your line has more chance of dying off. That's the whole point.
I was reading an article a few months ago where they reckoned that Neanderthals were actually smarter than humans, but they were less social. They were less likely to share new ideas between villages for example, and so we became more advanced than them as a result of our greater sociability.
Evolution does "work like that". If the altruistic behaviour of the species helps a member survive and reproduce, then it has affected the "fitness" equation. It doesn't preclude any kind of selfish behaviour, but it does help to explain feelings of wanting to help random strangers, or risk your life for a drowning child for example.
Maybe you didn't notice the quotation marks (it was a joke). Besides, technically being able to foresee and avoid mistakes that others would make, would make you better in one metric. But the joke is that people with little or no experience often assume that something will be easier than it really is.
I don't know if a favour is expected in return, but there's something in us that makes us want to help others who've helped us anyway.
It seems obvious that altruistic behaviour would be a result of the fact that a species that helps each other is more likely to survive. It might also have side effects, like wanting to help any living creature to survive.. but as long as that doesn't damage the original species' reproductive abilities, there's no reason for that behaviour to be selected out.
They definitely "think the same way", but they probably won't have have the same opinions.
"Well, I'm better than them, so I wouldn't even make that mistake"
Yum, hypocrisy..
It's not "informal", it's just your nation supposedly being unaware of the multiple meanings of "right" and "wrong" (of which "wrongly" is the adverb form). Though someone else said it parsed fine for him. So I think it's actually just one of those cases where some idiots have started jumping on people for "incorrect" word usage, and it's somehow snowballed. Like when people say "that's not ironic", even when (ironically) the word has more than just the narrow meaning that some parts of the internet like to imply and has done for over a century..
Except the boss probably couldn't get to work either, unless maybe he has a bike.
Well, that's nice, but I just checked the Oxford American Dictionary, and it agrees with me that it's a correct usage, even in "American English" (which is actually just English with a couple of misspelled words here and there..). So how about instead of being butthurt, you check your facts more thoroughly next time?
Why the American ones, as opposed to English? I'm Scottish, and my native language is English. In the English language dictionaries I've looked up, it says that "wrongly" can be a synonym of "incorrectly". How about the Cambridge University Press? Or the Oxford English Dictionary. Or Merriam-Webster
I checked some dictionary websites there just to confirm that my usage was correct. I noticed this footnote on the wiktionary page, which helps to explain your view:
In American English, this word usually has a moral connotation, however it is not wrong to use "wrongly" as the opposite of "correctly."
I'm British, and wasn't aware that it is mostly used with a moral connotation in the US. Going by the dictionary definitions, it doesn't seem that I was using "wrongly" wrongly ;)