go to your doctor, tell him that you're depressed in europe and you will get
.. told to change my job.
I'm on medication that acts as a "mood stabiliser" but I think that's to stop me wanting to get knocked down by a tram/bus/lorry rather than generic depression.
The irony is that I have no idea whether it's working. As it's a 6 month ramp-up to full dosage, taking a break to find out could be damaging. Maybe I should just stop and find out if I hurt/kill myself.
Nonetheless, even clinical depression is likely to come with alternatives to drugging yourself senseless.
..and yet: - women under the age of 25 earn more than men the same age - women in their 30s that don't have children earn as much as men the same age that don't have children - women working part time in the uk earn more per hour than men working part time
Strangely the government report stating all of that was publicised with the headlines "Men still earn more than women". Because if you look at all men and all women, average pay for men is higher.
This is definitely influenced by hours worked, by worklife balance, by negotiation skills (and intent), by career gaps (e.g. having children) and by choice of different careers.
I don't know any women that earn less than men doing the same job, within sensible tolerances. Drop to the raw numbers and I know women earning a little less than men, and women earning a little more than men. Shit, I know women that earn more than I do and do the same job as me, and have children, and work less hours in the week, and (more subjectively) aren't as good at the job.
So please, don't pretend that men are somehow unfairly compensated at work.
Discriminating on the basis of something that inherently favours one sex or the other is illegal in the UK.
So you can't give people a bonus based on sperm production, or three days off a month during their period, and make those perks available for all staff irrespective of gender without breaking the law.
For some confusing reason child birth is treated differently - although at least there's some movement towards greater equality now.
So you're saying I should have a child so that they'll look after me when I'm old?
How fucking selfish are you?
How about you just kill yourself, that way the world doesn't get overpopulated, you don't need to worry about old-age care and you don't perpetuate your selfish outlook through another generation.
I don't want children. I have cats. If I can't feed my cats, I'll kill them. If I get old, I'll die. I don't need children, the world doesn't need me to have children and any children I might have had definitely don't need me to pass on my faulty genes.
Ah, ok - yeah, I'm familiar with that aspect, letting fermentation complete in the bottle.
I'm still not sure why that might be impossible in a can - with the added bonus that it's easy to fit a filter to the can that catches the sediment as you pour.
nourish it with his non-lactating, hairy man-boobs.
Once you master those tricks, then you can get 16 weeks, too. Until then, quit your fucking whining.
As that's the only trick that matters post-birth, perhaps you can quit your fucking discrimination: Men have all of the necessary physical attributes required to lactate and nourish a baby.
No. But I have many friends that have and none of them have been incapable of working for more than around four days after giving birth.
On the flipside, I know several women that have had a baby, taken 6-12 months off on full pay (depending on employer) then resigned without returning to work.
So do explain why men shouldn't have the opportunity to do exactly the same? Or aren't men allowed to spend time with their newborn children?
I'm curious and ignorant. What does 'bottle conditioned' mean, how does it change the beer and why wouldn't 'can conditioned' do exactly the same?
I mean, oak casks and twenty years definitely does have an effect on whiskey, but another four years conditioning in a bottle doesn't. Is beer different?
Yeah, but he's part of the society that elected the sociopaths that passed the stupid laws. He also hasn't used his second amendment rights to remove the 'network of thugs' (to use your term).
In other words, he's culpable. An apology is the least he can offer.
The problem is that the two you named actually realise that they have customers and attempt to cater to them. Sure, customer service from one is pitiful and the politics of the other reprehensible, but BT act as though you should feel privileged to use their network and do their utmost to fuck over companies that actually try and help their customers.
Because in the majority of places (including, afaik, the UK)
Nope, not the UK
Your image can't be used to sell or promote something without your permission.
Uncertain territory in the UK. Generally speaking, it would be dodgy for someone to attempt to use your image in such a way, particularly if the implication was that you endorsed the product/service.
I kind of investigated this shit, I take a lot of photographs of people without their permission and publish them online. That's very legal in the UK.
Not in the UK. It's legal for me to walk up to you in the street, take a photograph of you, walk down the street and start selling it as a framed print.
You get no say in this. The new law has no bearing either way.
Exactly. Now imagine that you hadn't built him a bathroom yet, a wild elephant was trying to attack him when he went to find a bush and it's his wife and children that he set on fire.
Slashdot Mirror
go to your doctor, tell him that you're depressed in europe and you will get
.. told to change my job.
I'm on medication that acts as a "mood stabiliser" but I think that's to stop me wanting to get knocked down by a tram/bus/lorry rather than generic depression.
The irony is that I have no idea whether it's working. As it's a 6 month ramp-up to full dosage, taking a break to find out could be damaging. Maybe I should just stop and find out if I hurt/kill myself.
Nonetheless, even clinical depression is likely to come with alternatives to drugging yourself senseless.
ironically usage among those who are more likely to be poor and have real problems use fewer anti-depressants
Who the fuck ever linked real-world problems to depression?
Shit, if you're too busy surviving you don't have _time_ to be depressed.
Yes. They bought a five year old a rifle.
- women under the age of 25 earn more than men the same age
- women in their 30s that don't have children earn as much as men the same age that don't have children
- women working part time in the uk earn more per hour than men working part time
Strangely the government report stating all of that was publicised with the headlines "Men still earn more than women". Because if you look at all men and all women, average pay for men is higher.
This is definitely influenced by hours worked, by worklife balance, by negotiation skills (and intent), by career gaps (e.g. having children) and by choice of different careers.
I don't know any women that earn less than men doing the same job, within sensible tolerances. Drop to the raw numbers and I know women earning a little less than men, and women earning a little more than men. Shit, I know women that earn more than I do and do the same job as me, and have children, and work less hours in the week, and (more subjectively) aren't as good at the job.
So please, don't pretend that men are somehow unfairly compensated at work.
Discriminating on the basis of something that inherently favours one sex or the other is illegal in the UK.
So you can't give people a bonus based on sperm production, or three days off a month during their period, and make those perks available for all staff irrespective of gender without breaking the law.
For some confusing reason child birth is treated differently - although at least there's some movement towards greater equality now.
Or maybe I live on an overpopulated island that has a constantly growing population.
Maybe I'd rather every other cunt out there stopped procreating.
Perhaps I have no great attachment to the human species and have no problem whatsoever with its extinction. I merely lack the means.
So you're saying I should have a child so that they'll look after me when I'm old?
How fucking selfish are you?
How about you just kill yourself, that way the world doesn't get overpopulated, you don't need to worry about old-age care and you don't perpetuate your selfish outlook through another generation.
I don't want children. I have cats. If I can't feed my cats, I'll kill them. If I get old, I'll die. I don't need children, the world doesn't need me to have children and any children I might have had definitely don't need me to pass on my faulty genes.
In 30 years time I'll be dead.
You're the third person in this discussion to be wrong about that.
Men can lactate.
Men have working breasts.
Male breasts function.
Guess what? You're using faulty evidence to try and justify discrimination. You're wrong. It's discrimination. Stop it.
Ah, ok - yeah, I'm familiar with that aspect, letting fermentation complete in the bottle.
I'm still not sure why that might be impossible in a can - with the added bonus that it's easy to fit a filter to the can that catches the sediment as you pour.
Yes, father's are incapable of giving milk
No, they're capable.
nourish it with his non-lactating, hairy man-boobs.
Once you master those tricks, then you can get 16 weeks, too. Until then, quit your fucking whining.
As that's the only trick that matters post-birth, perhaps you can quit your fucking discrimination: Men have all of the necessary physical attributes required to lactate and nourish a baby.
E.g. the second hit on Google (after the unsurprising wikipedia page): http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/misc-articles/milkmen-fathers-who-breastfeed/
Now, about those 16 weeks..
In the UK the employer can claim part of the salary back from the government, so it's not impossible for the government to track claimants.
If both partners claim then that's fraud and a criminal offence.
No. But I have many friends that have and none of them have been incapable of working for more than around four days after giving birth.
On the flipside, I know several women that have had a baby, taken 6-12 months off on full pay (depending on employer) then resigned without returning to work.
So do explain why men shouldn't have the opportunity to do exactly the same? Or aren't men allowed to spend time with their newborn children?
No, fathers aren't the same as mothers. Men aren't the same as women. So why the fuck do women demand equal pay?
Sorry, but it's all or nothing. Equal rights or no equal rights. Don't go demanding unequal rights that benefit one population over another.
Shit, next you'll be complaining that men don't take on their fair share of caring for and raising the children.
But there is an easy solution to this problem
Yes. Drink proper fucking beer.
I'm curious and ignorant. What does 'bottle conditioned' mean, how does it change the beer and why wouldn't 'can conditioned' do exactly the same?
I mean, oak casks and twenty years definitely does have an effect on whiskey, but another four years conditioning in a bottle doesn't. Is beer different?
is Texas just full of crazy people
...
Yeah, but he's part of the society that elected the sociopaths that passed the stupid laws. He also hasn't used his second amendment rights to remove the 'network of thugs' (to use your term).
In other words, he's culpable. An apology is the least he can offer.
The regulation means that BT isn't allowed an advantage compared to their competitors.
The regulations had to be changed because BT was exploiting their monopoly position to fuck over their competitors.
Disclaimer: I may have once worked for a Telco
the less awful alternative
The problem is that the two you named actually realise that they have customers and attempt to cater to them. Sure, customer service from one is pitiful and the politics of the other reprehensible, but BT act as though you should feel privileged to use their network and do their utmost to fuck over companies that actually try and help their customers.
I hate BT.
because of potential negative consequences for the people attending those events
Shrug, the police video and photograph us, I'm going to photograph them back :)
Because in the majority of places (including, afaik, the UK)
Nope, not the UK
Your image can't be used to sell or promote something without your permission.
Uncertain territory in the UK. Generally speaking, it would be dodgy for someone to attempt to use your image in such a way, particularly if the implication was that you endorsed the product/service.
I kind of investigated this shit, I take a lot of photographs of people without their permission and publish them online. That's very legal in the UK.
Not in the UK. It's legal for me to walk up to you in the street, take a photograph of you, walk down the street and start selling it as a framed print.
You get no say in this. The new law has no bearing either way.
Income tax? Or Capital Gains tax?
I guess it depends whether you bought them or 'mined' them.
Exactly. Now imagine that you hadn't built him a bathroom yet, a wild elephant was trying to attack him when he went to find a bush and it's his wife and children that he set on fire.
That's Dwarf Fortress :)