Well, if you're really going to make this interesting...
Then please submit the sum total of all grocery purchases as well as date and time that they were made and the amount of money paid for them along with your police record, personal credit history, address and photo ID.
Ya know, the 'point' is to unwrap your birthday gift, but people wrap them all the same. It's not exactly utilitarian, but sex can be a ritual and not just a destination. Depends on your relationship, I suppose.
The old saying that 'it's the thought that counts' works here. My girlfriend knit me scarf one time. Give her a single red rose. Give something you make. Give of yourself. If a person really loves you, they'll like that better than anything you can buy them. Girls like attention as much as they like gifts. A lot of small gifts are better than huge expensive things, because many small gifts (of inconsequential cost. A piece of foil wrapped chocolate on her pillow, for instance. Breakfast in bed, etc.) demonstrate that you're thinking about her.
If she wants more, ask yourself if she's worth it.
>It is natural but wrong to think of that >singular moment as being in a vacuum.
It is both unnatural and wrong to think of that moment at all. Go play baseball or kiss someone. Or watch TV for a few hours. That'll even you out a bit.
Do geologists account for water being added? Or, for that matter, water being lost through evaporation? I've always wondered if water in the upper atmosphere could dissasociate. The H+ ions are too weak to be held by the earth's gravity, and could 'boil' off.
It doesn't play until it's loaded. It doesn't load if another page is loading (supposedly). Once it starts loading, it keeps on loading. It's essentially invisible till it downloads and plays.
Atari - 80's Kool-Aid - suicide Goya - Spanish artist Levis - Everyone Adidas Too poor or sensible to buy Nikes Apple - Artists. Computer labs. Phat Farm - A rap group? Fender - the thing in front of a car
Given the tone of this post, any reply should probably be considered flamebait. Still...
I think a lot of companies will respond to hatred of advertising by resorting to product placement. No more beer commercials during Friends. Now you'll just have one friend offer another 'a bud.'
What kind of advice is 'wait 6 months and things might improve?'
If someone is buying on results, speak to them in terms of results.
If they're buying because of process, let them know why things are the way you say they are on a mechanical level. (these are the smartest folks)
If they're asking you because they trust you, take them to the store or just tell them what to buy with a simple explanation.
If they're social people (sounds like it) then they'll just do what everyone else does and your opinion is like a drop of water in a bucket. You are not an expert to them, you are just 'one of the crowd.' And no matter what they say, it's the crowd that's important.
True. When posting on Slashdot, I'm going to have to start putting notes on my rhetorical questions saying they're rhetorical questions or they're going to keep getting rhetorical answers.... thanks, though.
Can I expect sympathy from my own elected officials, then? The US government gives out guides to outsourcing labor to other countries. Why?! How is that in my best interest as an American voter and taxpayer, that my elected officials should do this. Sure, foreign countries have an incentive to try and get jobs from multinational corporations to be filled by their workers. But is it the US government's responsibility to roll over and cooperate with this?
The situation was a little different in Germany. The Jews in Germany never waged a war to "push the Germans into the sea." If German Jews had gotten millitary aid from the French, the British and the Russians and had united with them to wage an agressive war against Germany, bombing German shopping malls and churches on Christmas and Easter and vowing to take over all of Germany's land and slaughter its citizens there would be more people ready to defend Hitler's actions. I can't imagine many Germans would be eager to allow Jews back to their homes if even a slim majority of Jews had attempted this. Maybe if the minority had stayed and helped defend the country (like the Druzes stayed and helped defend Israel), but not if they had sided with the agressors.
Israel has been put in some difficult moral situations. When you're attacked by armies from literally all directions with soldiers ten times yours in number, what do you do?
Or, when you're attacked by soldiers who don't wear uniforms and hide in the civilian population demanding the destruction of your nation and murdering your citizens, decade after decade, how do you fight them?
Every 'peace offer' put forward by the Palestinians has included the 'Palestinian right of return.' No nation in history has voluntarily allowed such a large number of hostile immigrants into its country in proportion to its population and survived as a nation. We can find Israel's response distasteful or excessive. We can condemn them and feel better. But I'm curious what nation has ever been in such a threatening situation and maintained as many civil liberties. Maybe the Native Americans, or some other people who saw their nation destroyed. Returning captured land is the only tactic which has ever secured any kind of peace for Israel. Measured responses might eliminate attackers, but they are not deterants. Appeasement is never sufficient if some of those murdering your people believe that only the destruction of your nation is a moral outcome.
The present day conflict is not a snapshot in time. A person witnessing the end of World War II might see an allied invasion of Nazi Germany and consider it unjust.
The people opposed to Israel's policies are most often those who don't think it's important that Jews have lived in the territory of Israel for the better part of three millenia, often under foreign occupation and as second class citizens. For once, they are fighting for their own nation. The PLO attacked Israel first, demanding Israel's destruction and not the other way around. The PLO demands 'the Palestinian right of return' which is, for all practical purposes, the same as allowing an invading army into your territory. Many Palestinian millitant factions still demand the total destruction of Israel. There are not enough police in the world to solve the crisis that the "Palestinian right of return" would create.
>Fair enough. It's theirs, give it back.
German Jews didn't get their property back. They got compensation. A small but significant difference, since we're dealing with holy land here. What's that worth?
>Everytime someone brings up something about how >Israel is violating international law by >confiscating more land for its settlements >(which no one, including the United States > recognizes as legitimate) the old song about >how the jews suffered under Nazi rule is >brought out to justify the actions.
You're right. Whenever someone brings somthing up about Israelis violating international law, the Israelis should instead point out how a number of other nations in the middle east (or elsewhere) are violating international law or how that law is applied hypocritically.
In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, proclaiming "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." Never mind that pre-1948, a large number of Jews were violently forced out of their homes in various Arab nations with no compensation given. Even today, it's still illegal to
Many scholars likewise believe that descendants of the present day Native Americans also discovered the continent of America, however they are not generally given credit for this discovery since they failed to report it to the academic community at large. If we'd known that travelers crossed the Bering Strait on December 21st, maybe we'd get a day off school for "Bering Strait day."
You're trying to change the subject from employee monitoring to different union issues like compensation and overtime because you know unions don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to fighting against on-the-job monitoring by employers. Just as employees have the right to get fair compensation for their work, employeers have the right to know that they're getting the quality and quantity of work that they paid for.
I have read US history, you arrogant little shit. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid. You're not even addressing my argument. A lot of the union issues today are totally different from what happened 70 frigging years ago. It's those differences I oppose, and argued against in my comment, not the struggle for safer working conditions. GPS would actually make these workers jobs safer, but they're still opposing it.
If people want to unionize, fine. Does the company have the right to put workers in the bullpen or under lockdown like in the 1930s? Hell no! Does it have the right to fire the workers if they can't perform? Hell yes.
Representative government has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. This is the government we're talking about, not a robber baron corporation. If I want a government employee to be paid more, I'll vote for it. If you really believe in democracy, I'm sure you'll love that notion.
If this was about working conditions, it'd be a different story. But you know what? It's not. Too many unions nowadays protect people who are incompetent and they often support promotions on the basis of years worked for the company rather than actual ability. Too many unions are against monitoring for the purpose of quality control. Why should I support this? I'd honestly like to know. Why should I support a union's struggle to not be monitored for the purpose of quality control while they're on the job?
I've worked for a company that did employee monitoring. Believe me, it was needed. A lot of people weren't doing their jobs. And any union who argues in favor of a person's right to not do their job is going to lose popular support real quick, regardless of what happened 70 years ago.
>And history shows that the powerful will always >try and impose their will on those without >power in order to perpetuate that power
And a lot of unions, the moment they get a bit of power themselves, have done just that. If someone can't do their job, they SHOULD be fired. If a union helps to insure quality of labor in addition to fighting for its members, I'll usually support it. What I can't stand is when a union stands behind someone who can't do the work, just because these people have worked at a particular company for a while.
>Wow, and then we can do this for every other >group or union that decides to strike, and then >we'll really have a democratic society. >Seems like everyone is against Unions and their >actions these days.
Sounds good. If you can't do the government's work on the government's terms, you don't get the government's pay. And yes, this is a democratic notion. If I have to pay taxes for the roads to be cleaned, I want to know it's being done as effiently as possible. If the unions really want to keep people's respect and sympathy they should imitate some of the building unions and enforce a higher standard of quality control for labor. If they purpose of unions is to lobby for a small group of workers at the expense of the people who pay them (taxpayers in this case) then HELL YES, people will be against them.
>but anything to do with movies from an ex movie->star certainly seems to be something of a >prejudiced agenda.... and laws should not be written by lawyers. (no sarcasm intended)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you're really going to make this interesting...
Then please submit the sum total of all grocery purchases as well as date and time that they
were made and the amount of money paid for them along with your police record, personal
credit history, address and photo ID.
Thanks!
Ya know, the 'point' is to unwrap your birthday gift, but people wrap them all the same. It's not exactly utilitarian, but sex can be a ritual and not just a destination. Depends on your relationship, I suppose.
I agree
The old saying that 'it's the thought that counts' works here. My girlfriend knit me scarf one time. Give her a single red rose. Give something you make. Give of yourself. If a person really loves you, they'll like that better than anything you can buy them. Girls like attention as much as they like gifts. A lot of small gifts are better than huge expensive things, because many small gifts (of inconsequential cost. A piece of foil wrapped chocolate on her pillow, for instance. Breakfast in bed, etc.) demonstrate that you're thinking about her.
If she wants more, ask yourself if she's worth it.
Yeah, and she'll get you a diamond necklace.
Personally, I would like to see a Democrat attack Bush from the right, and point out that we haven't yet captured bin Laden
The point is to attack Bush on a problem that he can't easily solve.
>It is natural but wrong to think of that
>singular moment as being in a vacuum.
It is both unnatural and wrong to think of that moment at all. Go play baseball or kiss someone.
Or watch TV for a few hours. That'll even you out a bit.
I'm not sure I buy that most of the water on a planet comes from inside the planet.
0 10 6080737.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/99
Do geologists account for water being added? Or, for that matter, water being lost through evaporation? I've always wondered if water in the upper atmosphere could dissasociate. The H+ ions are too weak to be held by the earth's gravity, and could 'boil' off.
The ads are 300K each, supposedly.
From what I gather;
It doesn't play until it's loaded.
It doesn't load if another page is loading (supposedly).
Once it starts loading, it keeps on loading.
It's essentially invisible till it downloads and plays.
Atari - 80's
Kool-Aid - suicide
Goya - Spanish artist
Levis - Everyone
Adidas Too poor or sensible to buy Nikes
Apple - Artists. Computer labs.
Phat Farm - A rap group?
Fender - the thing in front of a car
Given the tone of this post, any reply should probably be considered flamebait. Still...
I think a lot of companies will respond to hatred of advertising by resorting to product placement. No more beer commercials during Friends. Now you'll just have one friend offer another 'a bud.'
What kind of advice is 'wait 6 months and things might improve?'
If someone is buying on results, speak to them in terms of results.
If they're buying because of process, let them know why things are the way you say they are on a mechanical level. (these are the smartest folks)
If they're asking you because they trust you, take them to the store or just tell them what to buy with a simple explanation.
If they're social people (sounds like it) then they'll just do what everyone else does and your opinion is like a drop of water in a bucket. You are not an expert to them, you are just 'one of the crowd.' And no matter what they say, it's the crowd that's important.
The following labels are affiliated with the RIAA
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
(I'd post, but I get the error that my message has too few characters per line)
True. When posting on Slashdot, I'm going to have to start putting notes on my rhetorical questions saying they're rhetorical questions or they're going to keep getting rhetorical answers. ... thanks, though.
Can I expect sympathy from my own elected officials, then? The US government gives out guides to outsourcing labor to other countries. Why?! How is that in my best interest as an American voter and taxpayer, that my elected officials should do this. Sure, foreign countries have an incentive to try and get jobs from multinational corporations to be filled by their workers. But is it the US government's responsibility to roll over and cooperate with this?
The situation was a little different in Germany. The Jews in Germany never waged a war to "push the Germans into the sea." If German Jews had gotten millitary aid from the French, the British and the Russians and had united with them to wage an agressive war against Germany, bombing German shopping malls and churches on Christmas and Easter and vowing to take over all of Germany's land and slaughter its citizens there would be more people ready to defend Hitler's actions. I can't imagine many Germans would be eager to allow Jews back to their homes if even a slim majority of Jews had attempted this. Maybe if the minority had stayed and helped defend the country (like the Druzes stayed and helped defend Israel), but not if they had sided with the agressors.
Israel has been put in some difficult moral situations. When you're attacked by armies from literally all directions with soldiers ten times yours in number, what do you do?
Or, when you're attacked by soldiers who don't wear uniforms and hide in the civilian population demanding the destruction of your nation and murdering your citizens, decade after decade, how do you fight them?
Every 'peace offer' put forward by the Palestinians has included the 'Palestinian right of return.' No nation in history has voluntarily allowed such a large number of hostile immigrants into its country in proportion to its population and survived as a nation. We can find Israel's response distasteful or excessive. We can condemn them and feel better. But I'm curious what nation has ever been in such a threatening situation and maintained as many civil liberties. Maybe the Native Americans, or some other people who saw their nation destroyed. Returning captured land is the only tactic which has ever secured any kind of peace for Israel. Measured responses might eliminate attackers, but they are not deterants. Appeasement is never sufficient if some of those murdering your people believe that only the destruction of your nation is a moral outcome.
The present day conflict is not a snapshot in time. A person witnessing the end of World War II might see an allied invasion of Nazi Germany and consider it unjust.
The people opposed to Israel's policies are most often those who don't think it's important that Jews have lived in the territory of Israel for the better part of three millenia, often under foreign occupation and as second class citizens. For once, they are fighting for their own nation. The PLO attacked Israel first, demanding Israel's destruction and not the other way around. The PLO demands 'the Palestinian right of return' which is, for all practical purposes, the same as allowing an invading army into your territory. Many Palestinian millitant factions still demand the total destruction of Israel. There are not enough police in the world to solve the crisis that the "Palestinian right of return" would create.
>Fair enough. It's theirs, give it back.
German Jews didn't get their property back. They got compensation. A small but significant difference, since we're dealing with holy land here. What's that worth?
>Everytime someone brings up something about how >Israel is violating international law by >confiscating more land for its settlements
>(which no one, including the United States
> recognizes as legitimate) the old song about >how the jews suffered under Nazi rule is >brought out to justify the actions.
You're right. Whenever someone brings somthing up about Israelis violating international law, the Israelis should instead point out how a number of other nations in the middle east (or elsewhere) are violating international law or how that law is applied hypocritically.
In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, proclaiming "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." Never mind that pre-1948, a large number of Jews were violently forced out of their homes in various Arab nations with no compensation given. Even today, it's still illegal to
Many scholars likewise believe that descendants of the present day Native Americans also discovered the continent of America, however they are not generally given credit for this discovery since they failed to report it to the academic community at large. If we'd known that travelers crossed the Bering Strait on December 21st, maybe we'd get a day off school for "Bering Strait day."
>"President Bush will be in
>attendance at the event."
So will Bin Ladin
You're trying to change the subject from employee monitoring to different union issues like compensation and overtime because you know unions don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to fighting against on-the-job monitoring by employers. Just as employees have the right to get fair compensation for their work, employeers have the right to know that they're getting the quality and quantity of work that they paid for.
I have read US history, you arrogant little shit. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid. You're not even addressing my argument. A lot of the union issues today are totally different from what happened 70 frigging years ago. It's those differences I oppose, and argued against in my comment, not the struggle for safer working conditions. GPS would actually make these workers jobs safer, but they're still opposing it.
If people want to unionize, fine. Does the company have the right to put workers in the bullpen or under lockdown like in the 1930s? Hell no! Does it have the right to fire the workers if they can't perform? Hell yes.
Representative government has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
This is the government we're talking about, not a robber baron corporation. If I want a government employee to be paid more, I'll vote for it. If you really believe in democracy, I'm sure you'll love that notion.
If this was about working conditions, it'd be a different story. But you know what? It's not. Too many unions nowadays protect people who are incompetent and they often support promotions on the basis of years worked for the company rather than actual ability. Too many unions are against monitoring for the purpose of quality control. Why should I support this? I'd honestly like to know. Why should I support a union's struggle to not be monitored for the purpose of quality control while they're on the job?
I've worked for a company that did employee monitoring. Believe me, it was needed. A lot of people weren't doing their jobs. And any union who argues in favor of a person's right to not do their job is going to lose popular support real quick, regardless of what happened 70 years ago.
>And history shows that the powerful will always >try and impose their will on those without >power in order to perpetuate that power
And a lot of unions, the moment they get a bit of power themselves, have done just that. If someone can't do their job, they SHOULD be fired. If a union helps to insure quality of labor in addition to fighting for its members, I'll usually support it. What I can't stand is when a union stands behind someone who can't do the work, just because these people have worked at a particular company for a while.
A man once told me that women love a cunning linguist. Or something like that.
How many Microsoft employees does it take to screw in a light bulb?
They don't. They just declare darkness the industry standard.
>Wow, and then we can do this for every other >group or union that decides to strike, and then >we'll really have a democratic society.
>Seems like everyone is against Unions and their >actions these days.
Sounds good. If you can't do the government's work on the government's terms, you don't get the government's pay. And yes, this is a democratic notion. If I have to pay taxes for the roads to be cleaned, I want to know it's being done as effiently as possible. If the unions really want to keep people's respect and sympathy they should imitate some of the building unions and enforce a higher standard of quality control for labor. If they purpose of unions is to lobby for a small group of workers at the expense of the people who pay them (taxpayers in this case) then HELL YES, people will be against them.
>but anything to do with movies from an ex movie->star certainly seems to be something of a >prejudiced agenda. ... and laws should not be written by lawyers.
(no sarcasm intended)