they do not allow income splitting . I find that to be extremely dishonest way to gouge extra taxes out of us
Why? Tax is due on your 85k and why the fuck should you get to reduce it? People living alone without that extra 13k gross household income don't get a tax bill reduction, still pay the same rent, still pay the same property taxes, utility bills, TV and broadband fees.
You're already better off purely because so many of your fixed costs are shared, and you want an additional tax break too? Selfish cock.
Maybe I'm odd but I have skills that are genuinely worth the salary I'm paid.
My employer needs people with those skills, so why wouldn't I assure that they benefit from mine?
If they didn't need those skills then yeah, I'd tell them to replace me with someone cheaper that can do the things they need. I'll get a job somewhere else that actually needs me.
That's more rewarding for me personally as well as being basic business sense.
The potential conflict would come if they could replace my skillset for less, e.g. by using resources in lower cost regions. I find that people like that tend to move out of those regions because they can draw a comparable salary to my own by coming to where the work actually is.
It helps that being available in-person is a substantial benefit for the role.
You want a secure system? I can do that. I'll hit the big red fucking button on the data centre wall and all our data will be beautifully secure.
Strange, people I work with don't want that to happen. They would prefer to compromise security in order to achieve other outcomes.
That's got fuck all to do with programming. That's people, processes, stupidity, resource constraints and other factors that are so far beyond the control of programmers that blaming them is total idiocy.
Shit, you already know you shouldn't trust the software to be secure so what fucking difference does it make whether the programmer is any good anyway? Put the right mitigations in place and you'll survive a four year old jumping on the keyboard his parent left attached to your GIT repository.
Fucking security "professionals" need to learn how to do their fucking job, and that it doesn't include blaming every other cunt for their own failings.
You appear to have no fucking clue whatsoever about the software creation process, its constraints and complications, and how fucking astonishing it is that things as complex as modern operating systems even fucking run, let alone work.
You want to mathematically prove 300GB of Windows source code? You go right ahead, then borrow a time machine so you can come back and tell us how it went, because by the time you've finished our grandchildren will all have died of old age.
I want to know my employer is getting value for the money they pay me.
If I'm spending my time doing things we can employ someone on a third of my salary to do, I'm going to suggest we do exactly that. I have no shortage of high value activities to put my time into.
Looks to me like you're a hyperbolic idiot. Me, I'm glad we're not spending too much on the police and don't for a moment mistake their role with that of the army.
You saying they shouldn't? The watch list is there for a reason. It's about time they start using it.
Absolutely they shouldn't.
Or would you like me to report you as suspicious, harbouring extremist views and causing me fear, so that you get arrested/deported/imprisoned?
Just that, I have evidence that you don't like the rule of law and want to damage democracy.
I for one, cannot figure why anyone would allow foreigners with even the smallest criminal records, especially if they look like criminals, to stay in their countries at all.
Given that the individual named as being the bomber in Manchester on Monday was born in Britain and was thus a native Brit (in legal terms) I think border controls and immigration policies are only tangentially linked.
Anyway, did he even have a criminal record? I've read nothing that would suggest that he did.
Although on this occasion, yes, the government want to make the Stasi feel like amateurs.
Labour wanted this when they were in power, the coalition only didn't do this because the Lib Dems are happy flower people and the Conservatives would have done this irrespective of the incident in Manchester.
Look, I could keep going but I think that presents extensive proof that you're full of shit.
But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point.
I didn't stop reading. I merely went back and highlighted that you lied in your opening sentence, and since the rest of your illogical rant ridden with falsehoods was based on that lie I couldn't be arsed to go through and point out where you're full of shit.
Milo is offensive and a lot of people have tried to ban him. Many of those identify as 'left' on the political spectrum.
It's clearly too complex an issue for you as you can't properly articulate it. You're too busy throwing around labels like 'left' and 'right', and misrepresenting even those arbitrary positions, and you're operating from a bigoted ignorant base that will prevent you finding any answers, simple or otherwise.
Of course we can. I recall hearing Ben Elton say the word cunt in 1990 too.
Films such as Pulp Fiction get broadcast uncut.
There are some limits though, primarily around nudity. The stuff I watched on German TV as I went through my puberty wouldn't be broadcast even now in the UK.
But you have your cherry picked biased source and you wil not move from it because it says someone you don't like was doing something you don't like and therefore it must be real.
His 'cherry picked biased source' is the fucking high court ruling. That's the decision in law on whether
1) Only the prosecutor claims it was rape.
and says that no, not only the prosecutor claims it was rape, and
4) The actions were not rape in the UK, where the EAW was enacted
to which it demonstrates through law, legal precedent and the known descriptions of the acts which took place, that the acts would justify an accusation of rape under UK law.
5) The UK law courts only decided whether the EAW being written by the prosecutor not the judge (you know, as in an actual arrest being required) was legal, NOT whether it was likely rape, that was specifically off the cards for the law lords to determine.
That's because they had to rule on the legality of the EAW, and not pass judgement on whether the acts described were actually rape. To answer the legality they did ascertain whether an act as described would be rape in the UK and confirmed that it would.
That does not mean that the act took place as described, or that it would result in a criminal conviction.
I have read scores of other links, including the translated court documents
But not the one in its original English that you're claiming is cherry picked and biased. This doesn't reflect well on you.
You think we should let a piece of shit company exploit its workers and break multiple international laws so that the customer can get the product that they want?
Slashdot Mirror
they do not allow income splitting . I find that to be extremely dishonest way to gouge extra taxes out of us
Why? Tax is due on your 85k and why the fuck should you get to reduce it? People living alone without that extra 13k gross household income don't get a tax bill reduction, still pay the same rent, still pay the same property taxes, utility bills, TV and broadband fees.
You're already better off purely because so many of your fixed costs are shared, and you want an additional tax break too? Selfish cock.
Maybe I'm odd but I have skills that are genuinely worth the salary I'm paid.
My employer needs people with those skills, so why wouldn't I assure that they benefit from mine?
If they didn't need those skills then yeah, I'd tell them to replace me with someone cheaper that can do the things they need. I'll get a job somewhere else that actually needs me.
That's more rewarding for me personally as well as being basic business sense.
The potential conflict would come if they could replace my skillset for less, e.g. by using resources in lower cost regions. I find that people like that tend to move out of those regions because they can draw a comparable salary to my own by coming to where the work actually is.
It helps that being available in-person is a substantial benefit for the role.
Sure, blame the programmers.
You want a secure system? I can do that. I'll hit the big red fucking button on the data centre wall and all our data will be beautifully secure.
Strange, people I work with don't want that to happen. They would prefer to compromise security in order to achieve other outcomes.
That's got fuck all to do with programming. That's people, processes, stupidity, resource constraints and other factors that are so far beyond the control of programmers that blaming them is total idiocy.
Shit, you already know you shouldn't trust the software to be secure so what fucking difference does it make whether the programmer is any good anyway? Put the right mitigations in place and you'll survive a four year old jumping on the keyboard his parent left attached to your GIT repository.
Fucking security "professionals" need to learn how to do their fucking job, and that it doesn't include blaming every other cunt for their own failings.
You appear to have no fucking clue whatsoever about the software creation process, its constraints and complications, and how fucking astonishing it is that things as complex as modern operating systems even fucking run, let alone work.
You want to mathematically prove 300GB of Windows source code? You go right ahead, then borrow a time machine so you can come back and tell us how it went, because by the time you've finished our grandchildren will all have died of old age.
I want to know my employer is getting value for the money they pay me.
If I'm spending my time doing things we can employ someone on a third of my salary to do, I'm going to suggest we do exactly that. I have no shortage of high value activities to put my time into.
Riiight, 'cause I so remember them blowing themselves up at public events in the midst of massive unsuspecting crowds back in the day.
Only by accident. Usually they only blew up the unsuspecting crowds, not themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I voted against the current government. I voted against the next government too.
Even if I'd voted for them, I still wouldn't trust them. That's one reason the court system needs to be distinct from government.
The government that slashed police numbers, meaning they were and are effectively crippled?
This doesn't look like "slashed" to me:
https://assets.publishing.serv...
Or do you want police officer numbers?
https://assets.publishing.serv...
Meanwhile in that same period (2006 to 2015) recorded crimes fell from 5.5m to 3.8m (see https://www.gov.uk/government/... )
Looks to me like you're a hyperbolic idiot. Me, I'm glad we're not spending too much on the police and don't for a moment mistake their role with that of the army.
Building bombs requires supplies, and purchases of such supplies can and should be tracked.
That already happens.
I suggest you don't try buying 40 gallons of hydrogen peroxide then stopping off at the garden centre for a ton of compost.
30 years of violence in (and from) Northern Ireland proves what a fuckwit you are.
(doh. Should've left it at "You're stupid enough").
What the fuck does that have to do with whether or not he was British?
You're probably are stupid enough to wear a donkey on your head.
You saying they shouldn't? The watch list is there for a reason. It's about time they start using it.
Absolutely they shouldn't.
Or would you like me to report you as suspicious, harbouring extremist views and causing me fear, so that you get arrested/deported/imprisoned?
Just that, I have evidence that you don't like the rule of law and want to damage democracy.
I for one, cannot figure why anyone would allow foreigners with even the smallest criminal records, especially if they look like criminals, to stay in their countries at all.
Given that the individual named as being the bomber in Manchester on Monday was born in Britain and was thus a native Brit (in legal terms) I think border controls and immigration policies are only tangentially linked.
Anyway, did he even have a criminal record? I've read nothing that would suggest that he did.
Although on this occasion, yes, the government want to make the Stasi feel like amateurs.
Labour wanted this when they were in power, the coalition only didn't do this because the Lib Dems are happy flower people and the Conservatives would have done this irrespective of the incident in Manchester.
See also the unpublicised consultation that ended last week: https://www.openrightsgroup.or...
Nobody tried to ban Milo
https://www.change.org/p/ban-m...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/...
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/...
http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion...
Look, I could keep going but I think that presents extensive proof that you're full of shit.
But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point.
I didn't stop reading. I merely went back and highlighted that you lied in your opening sentence, and since the rest of your illogical rant ridden with falsehoods was based on that lie I couldn't be arsed to go through and point out where you're full of shit.
Milo is offensive and a lot of people have tried to ban him. Many of those identify as 'left' on the political spectrum.
It's clearly too complex an issue for you as you can't properly articulate it. You're too busy throwing around labels like 'left' and 'right', and misrepresenting even those arbitrary positions, and you're operating from a bigoted ignorant base that will prevent you finding any answers, simple or otherwise.
Now fuck off and watch how adults do it.
What is this, "AC plays Internet hard man" day or something?
Some other AC a few comments above being equally idiotic, wondering if I've missed an announcement.
A sim card transfer to a new phone somehow broke my voice mail eight years ago.
Haven't been able to use it since. Haven't missed it. Either I answer, or the phone rings until the caller hangs up. They ring back or they don't.
For urgent messages there are far more viable approaches that are more immediate, more reliable and infinitely more likely to actually work.
Wouldn't this qualify as a DOS attack and contravene the US equivalent to the UK's Computer Misuse Act?
Nobody on the left has ever called for anything offensive to be banned or restricted.
What utter fucking nonsense. Exhibit A: Milo Yiannoupolos.
When can I get my soul buried?
That was meant to be funny? Fucking hell, I could list 7 jokes about Manchester on a Monday evening that made me laugh more than that.
Of course we can. I recall hearing Ben Elton say the word cunt in 1990 too.
Films such as Pulp Fiction get broadcast uncut.
There are some limits though, primarily around nudity. The stuff I watched on German TV as I went through my puberty wouldn't be broadcast even now in the UK.
The only thing that surprises me here is that they don't just send special forces in and grab him or kill him
Even the US don't want to do that in the UK. We could seriously hurt them, and they know it.
He would still claim it was concentration
Autocorrect, mistranslation or am I completely missing an interpretation here?
But you have your cherry picked biased source and you wil not move from it because it says someone you don't like was doing something you don't like and therefore it must be real.
His 'cherry picked biased source' is the fucking high court ruling. That's the decision in law on whether
1) Only the prosecutor claims it was rape.
and says that no, not only the prosecutor claims it was rape, and
4) The actions were not rape in the UK, where the EAW was enacted
to which it demonstrates through law, legal precedent and the known descriptions of the acts which took place, that the acts would justify an accusation of rape under UK law.
5) The UK law courts only decided whether the EAW being written by the prosecutor not the judge (you know, as in an actual arrest being required) was legal, NOT whether it was likely rape, that was specifically off the cards for the law lords to determine.
That's because they had to rule on the legality of the EAW, and not pass judgement on whether the acts described were actually rape. To answer the legality they did ascertain whether an act as described would be rape in the UK and confirmed that it would.
That does not mean that the act took place as described, or that it would result in a criminal conviction.
I have read scores of other links, including the translated court documents
But not the one in its original English that you're claiming is cherry picked and biased. This doesn't reflect well on you.
You think we should let a piece of shit company exploit its workers and break multiple international laws so that the customer can get the product that they want?
Fuck that, and fuck you for even suggesting it.