Maybe now we can have the two-key security that would make identity theft alot harder. Now that there is such a thing as a national ID card, maybe now we could keep our Socil Security numbers to ourselves, the way they were mean't to be kept.
Nowadays, SSN's are used for just about everything. I can understand for bank accounts, but I am having to disclose my SSN to just about everybody, even to get a counseling appointment at school, or to sign up for classes, or to add/or drop classes. Now, I am being asked by everyone to disclose my social because that is the way that they do business. Don't get me wrong, I know who to and who not to disclose my SSN to, but now, everybody asks for it even for the most menial of tasks. I have encountered countless forms and technicalities where someone "absolutely needs" my social.
Now, with a National ID Card (NIC), this can come to a justifiable end. SSNs are supposed to be kept secret because they are EXACTLY who you are in the eyes of the government. With NIC cards, citizens can have a two-party key, one that is public, and one that is private. It works on the same principle as why most people have two email accounts: One for all the BS spam and general mail, and one private account for known, important contacts that we feel really do matter about hearing from. It's a public key and a private key. The public key is for everything that is not individual-critical: College courses, cell phone accounts, counseling appointments, credit card accounts, and other stuff that is important to know who they are dealing with is, but way too common for releasing such sensitive personal data. The private key is for things where it is absolutely critical, a matter of life and limb, where the exact identity of the individual must be known to authorities: Driver's licences, bank accounts, court proceedings, background checks for firearms or other highly-sensitive materials, or other government-critical matters.
Only government agencies should be legally authorized to even ask for the private key, since the government is the only body who truly needs to know xactly who you are. Anyone else can use the public key, and if an issue with identity theft arises, then they should be able to ask for the private key ONLY for verifying that you are who you say you are, and be forbidden from storing any kind of record of it, aside from maybe a line or two that reads "PRIVATE KEY SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY. KEY RECORD DESTROYED".
Remember: A two-key system is excellent for proving ho you are. If you have both the correct public and private keys, and someone posing as you only has the correct public key, then it is pretty clear who is really the correct person in question. The only reason that people are against this sort of this are people who don't want to be found out - ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (operative word: ILLEGAL), groups whos stated goal is aiding and abetting people who are here illegally, and individuals who know their source of income from identity theft will disappear if it become tougher to get away with their crimes.
As soon as the People's Republic of Kalifornia starts telling stupid people that they are stupid, and that the current situation that the are in is a direct result of their own stupid actions.
My father usd to tell me about the times when someone screwed up, they were left to deal with whatever they had coming their way. It was their fault, so why should everyone else be made to suffer or be held accountable? Nowadays, anyone can be held liable for anything and sued for everything. Nobody accepts responsibility when they catch hell for making a stupid decision. It's like suing someone for assault and battery after they beat you up because they caught you in the act of burglerizing their house.
If you make a stupid decision, it should be the law that you suffer the consequences.
Yeah a bunch of money was spent responding to the stupidity of the few, but they were so kind to take themselves out of the gene pool for the rest of us. Now, we won't have to spend any more money fixing up after all the stupid things they were probably going to do anyways (if the were stupid enough to weave between the lowered gates and cross onto the tracks while a train was bearing down on them, then they were almost guarenteed to do something stupid.....if not continue weaving aroung rail crossings.).
Be vewwy vewwy quiet..... Congwess is hunting tewwowwists.
I'm assuming that SlashDot will be at the top of the Congressional Watch List, since most of the slashdotting here is usually blasting the politicos and their stupid laws.
Long live the clan of the Wardriving WiFi Moochers! Huzzah! (clicks heels, salutes)
She looked alot better before the surgery than after. She looks much more attractive before the surgery.
Remember, the Doc can always say:
"She asked for it."
People who seek cosmetic surgery and *honestly* don't need it should be aware that they might not be happy with the outcome. Look, if you think need cosmetic surgery in the first place, then you should be spending your money on a therapist or counselor, NOT surgery. The only people who should be having cosmetic surgery are people who were either born with birth defects or are disfigured as the result of an accident.
Therefore, if you weren't disfigure in an accident or born with a birth defect or some kind of disfigurement, then I really don't feel sorry for you if you don't like the way you turned out.
I have only one question to ask these idiotic people who get cosmetic surgery simply for vanity and then complain: "Did you learn a lesson?"
Today, I saw a prie example of exactly what the article was talking about. As I was driving out of the paring lot at college, A teenager listening to their headphones simply just walked out in front of my car, without even looking at me and walked away. Now, if I had hit that individual, I would be homeless and broke, because here in California, they would have had more than an easy time suing my pants off. This wasn't exactly something that you could miss - I was driving a giant, lifted, white Ford F250 Diesel that is impossible to miss, even from a block away. I was watching the person the whole time, and did not see him look, or show any hint of knowing that I was there, even when he walked out in front of me about 6' from the giant winch on the front of my truck. How he could miss a giant white rectangle with a very loud rumbling 7.3L diesel engine in it, I am still not clear on.
This isn't an isolated case, as it i very common to see other people just like him - completely oblivious to what is going on, and more interested in paying attention to their music, than the giant vehicles they are stepping in front of.
Society need to just admit it - Some people are just not capable of walking and listening to music at the same time. Nobody wants to admit it though, as it is never the fault of the individual who makes the bad choice (especially here in California, where nobody likes to be held accountable for their own actions).
So the RIAA says that CDs should cost more, eh? Well, with piracy rates skyrocketing, why should I care? People already pirate music because:
1. Nobody wants to shovel out $25 for a CD with 9 crappy songs we don't want and 1 that we do. 2. We can make out own compilations with the songs we want on them, in the order we want. Nothing is more of a buzzkill than listening to a Van Halen power track, and have the next track be some sappy love ballad, or one we don't like. 3. If we don't like the music, which is sometimes the case, since labels don't usually differentiate different versions of the same song by the same band on different albums, we're stuck with a $25 beer coaster. 4. Why the hell would we want to pony up $25 for the one or two songs we actually want to listen to?
I don't really understand why the RIAA is publicly saying that CDs should cost more. We feel ripped off even at $15 for a CD, let alone $35. Just saying that something should cost more than it actually does isn't gonna make people feel like thy are getting a bargain. Just because the price of diesel dropped from $3.20 a gallon doesn't make me feel thankful for having to pay $2.90 a gallon now.
So, why should I, or anyone else, feel thankful for being overcharged less that the RIAA says they *should* be charging? It's like someone telling you that you should be thankful for 9 spankings instead of 10. Either way, it still sucks. This is just a really bad attempt at making up want to stop pirating because we should be thankful that the are not charging us as much as they *should* be.
Although my house can be seen from the street, my cousin's ranch would be little more difficult to get to.
Considering that it is behind a mountain, which has about a dozen very large pastures between the mountain and the road, and sits on the banks of a river, and is heavily obscured by trees from the air. It would be very difficult to access. Also, there are about 4 houses (all relatives) that sit next to each other (he owns the vast majority of the land), it would be impossible to just stroll up and take a picture of the correct house. Further, they would have to jump two large iron gates and cross about 700 yards of land and walk behind the mountain just to get a photo of anything.
What's more is that anybody trying to get a shot of the house would likely have a shot or five returned back towards them. I hope that photo is a good one because they will be verrry lucky if they get one at all. Even if they do get one, it will have been illegally obtained, since they had to leave a public roand and drive down a private road over privately over land just to get it.
It's getting ridiculous when I have to protect my property from photographers.
This is just another story - among dozens - of people taking copyrights too far. When you copyright something, and it becomes ingrained into social culture, the courts should rule that it has been assimilated to the extent that it is now social property. I do believe that copyrights should be enforced, but when people are simply having fun, the last thing that they should be worrying about is wheather they are violating a copyright held by some obscure selfish 'artist'. I think that copyright law should be that unless there is a clear motive to generate massive amounts of revenue, then the case should be dropped. There shuild be criteria in determining copyright infringement:
1: Social Assimilation. - Has the song/dance/slogan/look become ubiquitous in today's society? Doest the recognition of the "creator"/"artist" critical to society? 2: Financial Motives. - Is the "offending" individual solely attempting to generate revenue? Is the "offender" simply re"creating" th work in question for the benefit of society and/or interested individuals, or are they simply doing it for financial gain? 3: Factual Engineering. - Is there clear evidence that the work in question was solely and explicitly designed with the clear intentions of discrediting the other "artist"?
Soon, everything in today's society will be copyrighted. Someday, we'll have to pay royalties to whoever owns the rights to the Kama Sutra just so we can have sex.
Voice from under the bed: Sir.....? Me: What? Voice from under the bed: Sir, I am required by law to serve you with this Cease And Desist Order. Me: What the hell did I do? Voice from under the bed: Sir, you are using a copyrighted sexual position without citing proper credit to the original creators and/or paying the appropriate copyright fees to the creator. Me: What?! What the hell am I supposed to do then? Voice from under the bed: Try the "Sixty-Nine Position", it's only in the Patent-Pending stage.....for now. Me: Then who do I pay royalties to? Voice from under the bed: The Gods demand payment in the form of a virgin sacrifice. Girlfriend: Do you represent the Gods? Voice from under the bed: Yes Ma'am, as a matter of fact, I do. Girlfriend: Tell them we're broke.
BTW, if you need marijuana, maybe its better for the contributing members of society if those pharmaceutical companies that you sent your resumes to DIDN'T hire someone who smoked pot.
"> seeing as how you missed the context it was in and took this personally
How did you miss the "Homeless" part in my handle?"
-----Still missed the context. The statement was non-specific in its directive, being rhetorical and not directed at a specific individual, or you, but at society.
Why wouldn't you make it past the front desk?
Also, just because you responded for a position that you were qualified for doesn't obligate companies to hire you. You were probably one among dozens of applicants that applied for the job. Just because you were "qualified" for the position doesn't mean that there were not other applicants who had more appealing resumes.
Apparently, you have forgotten that it is your responsibility to find a job, not others to give jobs to you.
"The ball is in somebody else's court. It is not my fault. Not this time." If you think getting a job is a game, you're wrong. Regardless of who has the "ball" or who's "court" it is in, you still lose if you blame the company for not hiring you, because there are dozens of people who they will hire if they are more appealing than you. And given the fact you mentioned Pharmaceutical companies, I'm sure that there are dozens of applicants who applied, not just you.
Actually, now, I don't blame companies for not hiring you. With the kind of "It's their fault, not mine!" mentality, who would want to hire you? I wouldn't hire anybody no matter how qualified or skilled he was if he blamed others for his failures.
BTW, have you figured it out yet that you could probably earn more money from working at the local hardware store (provided you get hired) than you could by blaming other companies for your failures? Did you ever think that even though you may be 'qualified', that there are other people who are more skilled than you? And that they may have hired them because they were just as qualified but had more experience or skill than you?
My father didn't buy his house because he waited for people to approve his resume, he went looking for a job until he found one and hasn't stopped making his money since.
Funny, I've been able to get jobs without a resume, and so did other people, and they have their own houses or apartments, so I'm pretty damn sure it is possible to get a job that will support both you and a home.
I read your info page and you worked in some horrible place with a shady pay/bonus scheme, and Betelle.
But, seeing as how you missed the context it was in and took this personally:
Try going in and asking for a job or by calling an scheduling an interview rather than checking your Inbox. Seeing as how there are other ways of getting a job other than checking your Inbox, it is still your fault.
Welfare. Evrytime I hear someone justify Welfare, they call it a social obligation. I have no problem with welfare going to Honorably discharged Veterans, the mentally retarded, or the *TRULY* physically handicapped ( a sprained ankle or McDonalds Belly doesn't count). When it goes to people with 6 kids or those who don't want to go through the inconvenience of looking for a job and doing what it takes to hold one, THAT is what I am against.
I have given money out of my own pocket to Veterans, and the only mentally retarded people I know are already getting State assistance. If you don't have a job, go look for one. It's not even remotely difficult. Jusk go in and ask. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Politicians, yes, I will give that to you; They don't do anything for people except use them for PR photo ops.
Bankers EARN their salary. Stock Brokers get their commission when you decide to make a trade through them. Investment brokers make their commission when you choose to got through them to make a deal with a buyer or seller.
When a major computer manufacturer crams their PC systems with proprietary hardware and software, and only offers Intel processors despite ther obvious drawbacks (high cost, underperformance), it is obvious that they are getting some kind of deal from their processor supplier. Honestly, the majority of Dell products are below par for anything more that minor gaming.
Being a system builder, I am deeply skeptical of the prodducts that Dell offers. When I needed to build a new system, my father suggested that I give Dell a call, since his company has a contract with them as a supplier and he could get a steep discount. So I gave them a try.
One afternoon, I called them and told them that I wanted to order a custom system. I told them that I wanted a systems that could be used as a server as well as a high-end gaming rig (I was anticipating using it as a server in the future and wanted to use it initially as a gaming and rendering rig). Right off the bat, the salesperson said that they don't specify what kind/brand of parts they put in your computer. THAT was the first indicator of generic parts. Second, they would not allow me to specify what parts I wanted in my 'custom PC (custom being relative to what THEY wat to put in it, not what I want). The only processor they would install was an Intel (I wanted dual AMD Opteron 242's), generic sound and video cards, generic motherboard, generic 350W psu, and generic HDD.
Checking out Dell's 'custom' website, I noticed a few things:
"Dell Roccomends Windows Vista Home Premium" ---Obvious Contract Promotion
AMD processors are now being offered alongside Intel CPUs, but the graph they provide shows an obvious bias toward Intel, seeing as how the processors are hideously overpriced. Must be because gamers (the people most likely to be picky when ordering a custom system) kept asking for AMD processors, and then left when they were told that they would only get Intel.
ONE THING TO REMEMBER: When you buy custom computers from anybody, but most definitely DELL:
YOU ARE GETTING A BUNCH OF PROPRIETARY JUNK THAT WILL BE EXPENSIVE TO UPGRADE.
Jeeezus, they'll say anything nowadays. The ACLU thnks that anything negative that happens to minorities is directly attributable to, or ultimately caused by, racist white people.
ACLU = Arguably Confused Liberal Underworld
However, I have managed to separate intelligent liberals from the extremists. Yes, they DO exist. Also, if the minority voters don't bother to learn English in our society, why should they be able to control it's direction? Are the ballots written in Morse code or something? No, they are written in English. Also, how is the inability to fill in a box, put a hole through a preforated paper punch card, or follow a straight line something that is minority race specific? There is absolutely NO way anybody could connect that as being race-related. Unless they are implying that minorities aren't mentally and physically capable of completing such a simple task, but I would seriously doubt that is what they are saying, but they would probably blast anybody who raised that question..... Using race as an excuse is a poor argument, and just makes people care that much less each time they play the race card when they don't get there way. Yes, there are some race related issues in today's society, but the *ability* to vote isn't one of them. Of course, if some scientist were to actually validate that minorities were incapable of the task of voting, the ACLU would probably brand that researcher a racist, even though his findings validated their claims.
There is absolutely no reason that anybody can't execute the simple task of voting, unless they are either retarded, physically handicapped, or have some other legitimate, seriously incapacitating illness/deficiency. Race HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. All races are equally capable of the task of voting.
But alas, since I am white (Italian, but technically Caucasian, even though I am brown) I must be a racist and Evil and such and all bad things that happen to minorities are all my fault and I am a bad person because of what I just said...........yadda.....yadda.....yadaa.....
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe now we can have the two-key security that would make identity theft alot harder. Now that there is such a thing as a national ID card, maybe now we could keep our Socil Security numbers to ourselves, the way they were mean't to be kept.
Nowadays, SSN's are used for just about everything. I can understand for bank accounts, but I am having to disclose my SSN to just about everybody, even to get a counseling appointment at school, or to sign up for classes, or to add/or drop classes. Now, I am being asked by everyone to disclose my social because that is the way that they do business. Don't get me wrong, I know who to and who not to disclose my SSN to, but now, everybody asks for it even for the most menial of tasks. I have encountered countless forms and technicalities where someone "absolutely needs" my social.
Now, with a National ID Card (NIC), this can come to a justifiable end. SSNs are supposed to be kept secret because they are EXACTLY who you are in the eyes of the government. With NIC cards, citizens can have a two-party key, one that is public, and one that is private. It works on the same principle as why most people have two email accounts: One for all the BS spam and general mail, and one private account for known, important contacts that we feel really do matter about hearing from. It's a public key and a private key. The public key is for everything that is not individual-critical: College courses, cell phone accounts, counseling appointments, credit card accounts, and other stuff that is important to know who they are dealing with is, but way too common for releasing such sensitive personal data. The private key is for things where it is absolutely critical, a matter of life and limb, where the exact identity of the individual must be known to authorities: Driver's licences, bank accounts, court proceedings, background checks for firearms or other highly-sensitive materials, or other government-critical matters.
Only government agencies should be legally authorized to even ask for the private key, since the government is the only body who truly needs to know xactly who you are. Anyone else can use the public key, and if an issue with identity theft arises, then they should be able to ask for the private key ONLY for verifying that you are who you say you are, and be forbidden from storing any kind of record of it, aside from maybe a line or two that reads "PRIVATE KEY SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY. KEY RECORD DESTROYED".
Remember: A two-key system is excellent for proving ho you are. If you have both the correct public and private keys, and someone posing as you only has the correct public key, then it is pretty clear who is really the correct person in question. The only reason that people are against this sort of this are people who don't want to be found out - ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (operative word: ILLEGAL), groups whos stated goal is aiding and abetting people who are here illegally, and individuals who know their source of income from identity theft will disappear if it become tougher to get away with their crimes.
So when does the evil Bowser and the Koopa Troopers start regulating the wole thing?
I'm assuming the whole project was written by two little Italian plumber brothers, and tha they forsaw the threats posed by Bowser.
As soon as the People's Republic of Kalifornia starts telling stupid people that they are stupid, and that the current situation that the are in is a direct result of their own stupid actions.
My father usd to tell me about the times when someone screwed up, they were left to deal with whatever they had coming their way. It was their fault, so why should everyone else be made to suffer or be held accountable? Nowadays, anyone can be held liable for anything and sued for everything. Nobody accepts responsibility when they catch hell for making a stupid decision. It's like suing someone for assault and battery after they beat you up because they caught you in the act of burglerizing their house.
If you make a stupid decision, it should be the law that you suffer the consequences.
Yeah a bunch of money was spent responding to the stupidity of the few, but they were so kind to take themselves out of the gene pool for the rest of us. Now, we won't have to spend any more money fixing up after all the stupid things they were probably going to do anyways (if the were stupid enough to weave between the lowered gates and cross onto the tracks while a train was bearing down on them, then they were almost guarenteed to do something stupid.....if not continue weaving aroung rail crossings.).
Be vewwy vewwy quiet..... Congwess is hunting tewwowwists.
I'm assuming that SlashDot will be at the top of the Congressional Watch List, since most of the slashdotting here is usually blasting the politicos and their stupid laws.
Long live the clan of the Wardriving WiFi Moochers! Huzzah!
(clicks heels, salutes)
She looked alot better before the surgery than after. She looks much more attractive before the surgery.
Remember, the Doc can always say:
"She asked for it."
People who seek cosmetic surgery and *honestly* don't need it should be aware that they might not be happy with the outcome. Look, if you think need cosmetic surgery in the first place, then you should be spending your money on a therapist or counselor, NOT surgery. The only people who should be having cosmetic surgery are people who were either born with birth defects or are disfigured as the result of an accident.
Therefore, if you weren't disfigure in an accident or born with a birth defect or some kind of disfigurement, then I really don't feel sorry for you if you don't like the way you turned out.
I have only one question to ask these idiotic people who get cosmetic surgery simply for vanity and then complain: "Did you learn a lesson?"
Today, I saw a prie example of exactly what the article was talking about. As I was driving out of the paring lot at college, A teenager listening to their headphones simply just walked out in front of my car, without even looking at me and walked away. Now, if I had hit that individual, I would be homeless and broke, because here in California, they would have had more than an easy time suing my pants off. This wasn't exactly something that you could miss - I was driving a giant, lifted, white Ford F250 Diesel that is impossible to miss, even from a block away. I was watching the person the whole time, and did not see him look, or show any hint of knowing that I was there, even when he walked out in front of me about 6' from the giant winch on the front of my truck. How he could miss a giant white rectangle with a very loud rumbling 7.3L diesel engine in it, I am still not clear on.
This isn't an isolated case, as it i very common to see other people just like him - completely oblivious to what is going on, and more interested in paying attention to their music, than the giant vehicles they are stepping in front of.
Society need to just admit it - Some people are just not capable of walking and listening to music at the same time. Nobody wants to admit it though, as it is never the fault of the individual who makes the bad choice (especially here in California, where nobody likes to be held accountable for their own actions).
I second that statement! Unfortunately, the resuts of one person's stupid behavior or decision are accepted by society as not being their fault.
So the RIAA says that CDs should cost more, eh? Well, with piracy rates skyrocketing, why should I care? People already pirate music because:
1. Nobody wants to shovel out $25 for a CD with 9 crappy songs we don't want and 1 that we do.
2. We can make out own compilations with the songs we want on them, in the order we want. Nothing is more of a buzzkill than listening to a Van Halen power track, and have the next track be some sappy love ballad, or one we don't like.
3. If we don't like the music, which is sometimes the case, since labels don't usually differentiate different versions of the same song by the same band on different albums, we're stuck with a $25 beer coaster.
4. Why the hell would we want to pony up $25 for the one or two songs we actually want to listen to?
I don't really understand why the RIAA is publicly saying that CDs should cost more. We feel ripped off even at $15 for a CD, let alone $35. Just saying that something should cost more than it actually does isn't gonna make people feel like thy are getting a bargain. Just because the price of diesel dropped from $3.20 a gallon doesn't make me feel thankful for having to pay $2.90 a gallon now.
So, why should I, or anyone else, feel thankful for being overcharged less that the RIAA says they *should* be charging? It's like someone telling you that you should be thankful for 9 spankings instead of 10. Either way, it still sucks. This is just a really bad attempt at making up want to stop pirating because we should be thankful that the are not charging us as much as they *should* be.
Although my house can be seen from the street, my cousin's ranch would be little more difficult to get to.
Considering that it is behind a mountain, which has about a dozen very large pastures between the mountain and the road, and sits on the banks of a river, and is heavily obscured by trees from the air. It would be very difficult to access. Also, there are about 4 houses (all relatives) that sit next to each other (he owns the vast majority of the land), it would be impossible to just stroll up and take a picture of the correct house. Further, they would have to jump two large iron gates and cross about 700 yards of land and walk behind the mountain just to get a photo of anything.
What's more is that anybody trying to get a shot of the house would likely have a shot or five returned back towards them. I hope that photo is a good one because they will be verrry lucky if they get one at all. Even if they do get one, it will have been illegally obtained, since they had to leave a public roand and drive down a private road over privately over land just to get it.
It's getting ridiculous when I have to protect my property from photographers.
This is just another story - among dozens - of people taking copyrights too far. When you copyright something, and it becomes ingrained into social culture, the courts should rule that it has been assimilated to the extent that it is now social property. I do believe that copyrights should be enforced, but when people are simply having fun, the last thing that they should be worrying about is wheather they are violating a copyright held by some obscure selfish 'artist'. I think that copyright law should be that unless there is a clear motive to generate massive amounts of revenue, then the case should be dropped. There shuild be criteria in determining copyright infringement:
1: Social Assimilation. - Has the song/dance/slogan/look become ubiquitous in today's society? Doest the recognition of the "creator"/"artist" critical to society?
2: Financial Motives. - Is the "offending" individual solely attempting to generate revenue? Is the "offender" simply re"creating" th work in question for the benefit of society and/or interested individuals, or are they simply doing it for financial gain?
3: Factual Engineering. - Is there clear evidence that the work in question was solely and explicitly designed with the clear intentions of discrediting the other "artist"?
Soon, everything in today's society will be copyrighted. Someday, we'll have to pay royalties to whoever owns the rights to the Kama Sutra just so we can have sex.
Voice from under the bed: Sir.....?
Me: What?
Voice from under the bed: Sir, I am required by law to serve you with this Cease And Desist Order.
Me: What the hell did I do?
Voice from under the bed: Sir, you are using a copyrighted sexual position without citing proper credit to the original creators and/or paying the appropriate copyright fees to the creator.
Me: What?! What the hell am I supposed to do then?
Voice from under the bed: Try the "Sixty-Nine Position", it's only in the Patent-Pending stage.....for now.
Me: Then who do I pay royalties to?
Voice from under the bed: The Gods demand payment in the form of a virgin sacrifice.
Girlfriend: Do you represent the Gods?
Voice from under the bed: Yes Ma'am, as a matter of fact, I do.
Girlfriend: Tell them we're broke.
Too late. I already have photos! Take 'em while ya can.
A place that will actually serve a decent Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster?
Belligerant and numerous! :-)
BTW, if you need marijuana, maybe its better for the contributing members of society if those pharmaceutical companies that you sent your resumes to DIDN'T hire someone who smoked pot.
"> seeing as how you missed the context it was in and took this personally
How did you miss the "Homeless" part in my handle?"
-----Still missed the context. The statement was non-specific in its directive, being rhetorical and not directed at a specific individual, or you, but at society.
Why wouldn't you make it past the front desk?
Also, just because you responded for a position that you were qualified for doesn't obligate companies to hire you. You were probably one among dozens of applicants that applied for the job. Just because you were "qualified" for the position doesn't mean that there were not other applicants who had more appealing resumes.
Apparently, you have forgotten that it is your responsibility to find a job, not others to give jobs to you.
"The ball is in somebody else's court. It is not my fault. Not this time."
If you think getting a job is a game, you're wrong. Regardless of who has the "ball" or who's "court" it is in, you still lose if you blame the company for not hiring you, because there are dozens of people who they will hire if they are more appealing than you. And given the fact you mentioned Pharmaceutical companies, I'm sure that there are dozens of applicants who applied, not just you.
Actually, now, I don't blame companies for not hiring you. With the kind of "It's their fault, not mine!" mentality, who would want to hire you? I wouldn't hire anybody no matter how qualified or skilled he was if he blamed others for his failures.
BTW, have you figured it out yet that you could probably earn more money from working at the local hardware store (provided you get hired) than you could by blaming other companies for your failures? Did you ever think that even though you may be 'qualified', that there are other people who are more skilled than you? And that they may have hired them because they were just as qualified but had more experience or skill than you?
My father didn't buy his house because he waited for people to approve his resume, he went looking for a job until he found one and hasn't stopped making his money since.
Funny, I've been able to get jobs without a resume, and so did other people, and they have their own houses or apartments, so I'm pretty damn sure it is possible to get a job that will support both you and a home.
I read your info page and you worked in some horrible place with a shady pay/bonus scheme, and Betelle.
But, seeing as how you missed the context it was in and took this personally:
Try going in and asking for a job or by calling an scheduling an interview rather than checking your Inbox. Seeing as how there are other ways of getting a job other than checking your Inbox, it is still your fault.
That wasn't directed at you!
Nothing motivates environmental disputes like a 'Green'-back!
Sounds like a dare to me...so...OK! So I will!
Welfare. Evrytime I hear someone justify Welfare, they call it a social obligation. I have no problem with welfare going to Honorably discharged Veterans, the mentally retarded, or the *TRULY* physically handicapped ( a sprained ankle or McDonalds Belly doesn't count). When it goes to people with 6 kids or those who don't want to go through the inconvenience of looking for a job and doing what it takes to hold one, THAT is what I am against.
I have given money out of my own pocket to Veterans, and the only mentally retarded people I know are already getting State assistance. If you don't have a job, go look for one. It's not even remotely difficult. Jusk go in and ask. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Politicians, yes, I will give that to you; They don't do anything for people except use them for PR photo ops.
Bankers EARN their salary. Stock Brokers get their commission when you decide to make a trade through them. Investment brokers make their commission when you choose to got through them to make a deal with a buyer or seller.
Ohhhhhhhh BURNED!
Suggested meta tags:
Faced!, pwned, burned, SlashBombed, fired.
When a major computer manufacturer crams their PC systems with proprietary hardware and software, and only offers Intel processors despite ther obvious drawbacks (high cost, underperformance), it is obvious that they are getting some kind of deal from their processor supplier. Honestly, the majority of Dell products are below par for anything more that minor gaming.
Being a system builder, I am deeply skeptical of the prodducts that Dell offers. When I needed to build a new system, my father suggested that I give Dell a call, since his company has a contract with them as a supplier and he could get a steep discount. So I gave them a try.
One afternoon, I called them and told them that I wanted to order a custom system. I told them that I wanted a systems that could be used as a server as well as a high-end gaming rig (I was anticipating using it as a server in the future and wanted to use it initially as a gaming and rendering rig). Right off the bat, the salesperson said that they don't specify what kind/brand of parts they put in your computer. THAT was the first indicator of generic parts. Second, they would not allow me to specify what parts I wanted in my 'custom PC (custom being relative to what THEY wat to put in it, not what I want). The only processor they would install was an Intel (I wanted dual AMD Opteron 242's), generic sound and video cards, generic motherboard, generic 350W psu, and generic HDD.
Checking out Dell's 'custom' website, I noticed a few things:
"Dell Roccomends Windows Vista Home Premium" ---Obvious Contract Promotion
AMD processors are now being offered alongside Intel CPUs, but the graph they provide shows an obvious bias toward Intel, seeing as how the processors are hideously overpriced. Must be because gamers (the people most likely to be picky when ordering a custom system) kept asking for AMD processors, and then left when they were told that they would only get Intel.
ONE THING TO REMEMBER: When you buy custom computers from anybody, but most definitely DELL:
YOU ARE GETTING A BUNCH OF PROPRIETARY JUNK THAT WILL BE EXPENSIVE TO UPGRADE.
CONFUSE MINORITY VOTERS?!?!?!
.....yadda.....yadda.....yadaa.....
Jeeezus, they'll say anything nowadays. The ACLU thnks that anything negative that happens to minorities is directly attributable to, or ultimately caused by, racist white people.
ACLU = Arguably Confused Liberal Underworld
However, I have managed to separate intelligent liberals from the extremists. Yes, they DO exist. Also, if the minority voters don't bother to learn English in our society, why should they be able to control it's direction? Are the ballots written in Morse code or something? No, they are written in English. Also, how is the inability to fill in a box, put a hole through a preforated paper punch card, or follow a straight line something that is minority race specific? There is absolutely NO way anybody could connect that as being race-related. Unless they are implying that minorities aren't mentally and physically capable of completing such a simple task, but I would seriously doubt that is what they are saying, but they would probably blast anybody who raised that question..... Using race as an excuse is a poor argument, and just makes people care that much less each time they play the race card when they don't get there way. Yes, there are some race related issues in today's society, but the *ability* to vote isn't one of them. Of course, if some scientist were to actually validate that minorities were incapable of the task of voting, the ACLU would probably brand that researcher a racist, even though his findings validated their claims.
There is absolutely no reason that anybody can't execute the simple task of voting, unless they are either retarded, physically handicapped, or have some other legitimate, seriously incapacitating illness/deficiency. Race HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. All races are equally capable of the task of voting.
But alas, since I am white (Italian, but technically Caucasian, even though I am brown) I must be a racist and Evil and such and all bad things that happen to minorities are all my fault and I am a bad person because of what I just said......
NOT SOON ENOUGH!