Reservations are for snobs. Most American restaurants only take reservations for large groups. You can ask for a reservation, and they'll say yes, but you didn't actually reserve anything and you'll still have to wait if it is busy.
It is actually quite absurd to always have a reservation, because it means you're never "doing anything" other than going to your meal. It is both more heavily scheduled, and yet contains less activities, than what most other people are doing.
LOL you have a floating baseball analogy with no relevance. Keep trying Jr, some day you'll graduate to an actual comment.
I'm assuming you just meant you also don't know what the word boondoggle means, since it was clearly misused. Congratulations, you're an idiot. Do you want a ribbon?
An intelligent person would confront ignorance of vocabulary by consuming written knowledge, but I know in advance that's too much to ask.
The question is, who approves the content you input? I recommend to control it yourself, instead of just passively consuming whatever somebody wants you to see. Maybe you feel differently, maybe you want to just dump as much garbage in as you can, so you can also increase your output? Life is full of choices. Following random links isn't a choice I make. There is an information glut on my planet, I'll already follow many less links than I would prefer. And there is a limit to how much input can be assimilated per day.
Some amount of crap is necessary, in order to keep track of what is going on in society. If some idiot can formulate their blatherings well enough, they just might get included in my sample. But just having a link isn't going to cut it.
I didn't alliterate, but you also just failed at using a dictionary. It is because of your aliteracy that you can't tell the difference between that and alliteration.
I'm not even going to get into your use of "illiterate," other than to recommend that if you ever obtain the psychological capability to look up words in dictionaries, perhaps start there?
(although a cure for cancer would reduce payouts on policies whose premiums have already been collected).
Curing cancer would mean increased value for past payments they received, but it would also be expected to reduce the value of the insurance as the financial cost of cancer is a big part of the risk that people want medical insurance to cover. Long term, it probably reduces their profits.
Insurance companies are unlikely to value short-term windfalls over long-term profits. For reasons.
Yes, insurance is well-positioned to think about risk, but keep in mind that their analysis is clipped at the top end with, "if we lose that much, we just file bankruptcy."
All their formulas have a low-pass filter on them so that they only consider scenarios within a certain range where they make money. Total failure just means they all get to keep their marbles, but they have to go home and find another job. They don't lose anything, the corporate paperwork is just declared naughty.
I do agree they have the skillsets to do the analysis, but they have no experience at all in considering the type of problem that climate change is. They're specifically targeting problems that are small compared to the economy as a whole, but large in comparison to individual spending power.
I'll sit here patiently waiting for you to care what investments this firm currently has before you decide on the veracity of their claims and their motives.
All of them. They're so big, they're involved in all the investments, in all the industries.
Britain was already well-developed when the Romans got there.
Keep in mind that most of the reports the Romans sent back from there are now known to have been complete lies designed to encourage the sending of supplies(!) by claiming to have fought lots of battles. Now when they dig up the sites, they find that the Romans mostly married locals and built farms.
If you go back 5000 years, you'll find much more advanced boat-building in Britain than in Greece.
Romans had good civic engineering, but they were not generally more advanced than other Europeans of their age. Their metalworking skills were less advanced, for example, than most of the "barbarians" they were conquering. From a modern perspective it sure seems like metalworking is more important to the development of civilization than the development of civic stone-working. Obviously in the short-to-medium term the stoneworking is going to support the political expansion of a group, but in the long term the metalworking changes civilization a lot more.
If you can't tell the difference between science and media reports that use the word science, why are you even on slashdot? This is a place for nerds, bro.
I wouldn't really care much if it had been an extremist and sexist piece but it isn't.
It was, but that's just how deep into it you are. This is the path that gamergate lead some people on. They're basically all disabled now, because they have deeply-held beliefs that preclude long-term economic participation.
Read your own fucking link, asshole, that isn't what it says.
One guy says it isn't a "rant" and that he found many responses on twitter that are "little more than snarky modern slurs." No science, just some dube-bro bullshit about how random twitter responses being banal means that google isn't serious about diversity.
Next guy says, "Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not." OK, if your sexist bullshit is "maybe, maybe not" supported by what you claim, that's exactly the same as it not supporting the claim. He goes on to say,
In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong.... But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors.
OK, so he's not supporting it at all, he's tearing it down.
Third guy is very supportive, and goes on an extended political rant without ever addressing the controversial parts of the memo. I do agree with him that if you cherry-pick individual phrases, you can limit yourself just to the true ones. Easily.
The fourth person, honestly I'm not convinced she actually read the memo. I suspect she read some out-takes and was responding only to those. She seems to think that the debate is over the existence of average physical differences, rather than the appropriateness of using those differences to categorize people in the workplace. And she seems to also think that the memo was written in support of individualism, which is odd.
More importantly, once the company has decided how to respond if executives are coming out against it they're being openly insubordinate and do need to be fired. If they were supposed to be making the decision, they should have already been the one making it! This is very basic.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of workplace discrimination.
In the statement, "I believe men and women are equal" there is no discrimination going on. It is like saying, "I believe red and blue are both colors." It has no weight at all when viewed from the perspective of state anti-discrimination laws and the requirement that employers provide a non-hostile workplace.
If you disagree with the existence of anti-discrimination laws as they relate to employment in the State of California, you should do that political advocacy away from work, and comply with the laws in the meantime. Same as all the other laws. "I didn't like the law" doesn't get your employer off the hook; they're required to prevent you from saying those things in the workplace, because it creates a hostile environment. It doesn't matter what you believe or if you believe that all opinions are relative and anything should go. Your employer has to follow the law as it is now, and not every opinion is equal; some create a hostile workplace, others do not. Some opinions violate the State constitution when expressed to co-workers, others do not. Note that it isn't the person saying the obscene thing that is violating the Constitution; when they say it, their employer is violating the Constitution. And they're required to take some action to remedy the situation.
At-will employment refresher - IF YOU ARE A DICK WHO SAYS CUNTY THINGS, YOU MIGHT GET FUCKED, BRO. That's not Obama's fault, snowflake. Stop crying and STFU and do your damn JOB that you're overpaid for! Bitch!
Exactly. His response shows why it is not reasonable to attempt to "educate" or "reform" these sorts of employees. If you have one, just fire them and reduce the damage. And when you're hiring, make sure you're not hiring one of these clowns.
Education and reform of people who are despicable in ways that preclude compliance with labor laws should be done on their own time, driven by their own desire to better themselves. Because it is very very unlikely to be achieved otherwise.
Except it has nothing to do with "at-will" work. In most States, it is required to take action to prevent what he did. (creating a hostile work environment based on categories prohibited from being used for workplace discrimination)
It also helps in understanding those laws to open a dictionary (impossible for most of you, sad to say) and look up "discrimination." I'm not going to tell you what it says, because the aliterate deserve their ignorance, but I will say that actual meaning is neutral. It is not a synonym for oppression. It has a narrow, clear meaning, and you're not allowed to do it at work based on a bunch of categories that you must be aware of to work with others. Claiming it is your opinion doesn't shield you at work; keep opinions on those subjects for your personal time, work at work and politic somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he's from North Korea, and watching them carries a death sentence? Don't always just assume the worst and that it is a troll.
--
"Whatever the problem: solve it with fire!" -- Magical Kyoko
In many cases these channels are the only source of Japanese anime videos with Japanese audio and English subtitles.
Reservations are for snobs. Most American restaurants only take reservations for large groups. You can ask for a reservation, and they'll say yes, but you didn't actually reserve anything and you'll still have to wait if it is busy.
It is actually quite absurd to always have a reservation, because it means you're never "doing anything" other than going to your meal. It is both more heavily scheduled, and yet contains less activities, than what most other people are doing.
LOL you have a floating baseball analogy with no relevance. Keep trying Jr, some day you'll graduate to an actual comment.
I'm assuming you just meant you also don't know what the word boondoggle means, since it was clearly misused. Congratulations, you're an idiot. Do you want a ribbon?
An intelligent person would confront ignorance of vocabulary by consuming written knowledge, but I know in advance that's too much to ask.
The question is, who approves the content you input? I recommend to control it yourself, instead of just passively consuming whatever somebody wants you to see. Maybe you feel differently, maybe you want to just dump as much garbage in as you can, so you can also increase your output? Life is full of choices. Following random links isn't a choice I make. There is an information glut on my planet, I'll already follow many less links than I would prefer. And there is a limit to how much input can be assimilated per day.
Some amount of crap is necessary, in order to keep track of what is going on in society. If some idiot can formulate their blatherings well enough, they just might get included in my sample. But just having a link isn't going to cut it.
Don't be dull, just look up the criticisms to understand the words.
I didn't alliterate, but you also just failed at using a dictionary. It is because of your aliteracy that you can't tell the difference between that and alliteration.
I'm not even going to get into your use of "illiterate," other than to recommend that if you ever obtain the psychological capability to look up words in dictionaries, perhaps start there?
(although a cure for cancer would reduce payouts on policies whose premiums have already been collected).
Curing cancer would mean increased value for past payments they received, but it would also be expected to reduce the value of the insurance as the financial cost of cancer is a big part of the risk that people want medical insurance to cover. Long term, it probably reduces their profits.
Insurance companies are unlikely to value short-term windfalls over long-term profits. For reasons.
Yes, insurance is well-positioned to think about risk, but keep in mind that their analysis is clipped at the top end with, "if we lose that much, we just file bankruptcy."
All their formulas have a low-pass filter on them so that they only consider scenarios within a certain range where they make money. Total failure just means they all get to keep their marbles, but they have to go home and find another job. They don't lose anything, the corporate paperwork is just declared naughty.
I do agree they have the skillsets to do the analysis, but they have no experience at all in considering the type of problem that climate change is. They're specifically targeting problems that are small compared to the economy as a whole, but large in comparison to individual spending power.
What do they know about climate change? If they are so concerned about it, how about invest in projects to combat it.
That is how investment works. First they figure out what they think is going on, then they invest.
You seem to think they would decide first what projects to do, and then do the study to find out why they're doing it?
I'll sit here patiently waiting for you to care what investments this firm currently has before you decide on the veracity of their claims and their motives.
All of them. They're so big, they're involved in all the investments, in all the industries.
Didn't have to wait too long, I hope?
Dunno, I don't click random links. Instead of spewing spam, why don't you come up with your own understanding, and use it to formulate your own words?
Media reports are still just media reports, though, not science.
Britain was already well-developed when the Romans got there.
Keep in mind that most of the reports the Romans sent back from there are now known to have been complete lies designed to encourage the sending of supplies(!) by claiming to have fought lots of battles. Now when they dig up the sites, they find that the Romans mostly married locals and built farms.
If you go back 5000 years, you'll find much more advanced boat-building in Britain than in Greece.
Romans had good civic engineering, but they were not generally more advanced than other Europeans of their age. Their metalworking skills were less advanced, for example, than most of the "barbarians" they were conquering. From a modern perspective it sure seems like metalworking is more important to the development of civilization than the development of civic stone-working. Obviously in the short-to-medium term the stoneworking is going to support the political expansion of a group, but in the long term the metalworking changes civilization a lot more.
If you can't tell the difference between science and media reports that use the word science, why are you even on slashdot? This is a place for nerds, bro.
Most people agree that a small population might survive, at least in the short to medium term.
I wouldn't really care much if it had been an extremist and sexist piece but it isn't.
It was, but that's just how deep into it you are. This is the path that gamergate lead some people on. They're basically all disabled now, because they have deeply-held beliefs that preclude long-term economic participation.
"Contempt of boss" is a totally legit reason for firing, held up in the courts. Interesting angle. He gave them a buffet of reasons to fire him.
Read your own fucking link, asshole, that isn't what it says.
One guy says it isn't a "rant" and that he found many responses on twitter that are "little more than snarky modern slurs." No science, just some dube-bro bullshit about how random twitter responses being banal means that google isn't serious about diversity.
Next guy says, "Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not." OK, if your sexist bullshit is "maybe, maybe not" supported by what you claim, that's exactly the same as it not supporting the claim. He goes on to say,
OK, so he's not supporting it at all, he's tearing it down.
Third guy is very supportive, and goes on an extended political rant without ever addressing the controversial parts of the memo. I do agree with him that if you cherry-pick individual phrases, you can limit yourself just to the true ones. Easily.
The fourth person, honestly I'm not convinced she actually read the memo. I suspect she read some out-takes and was responding only to those. She seems to think that the debate is over the existence of average physical differences, rather than the appropriateness of using those differences to categorize people in the workplace. And she seems to also think that the memo was written in support of individualism, which is odd.
More importantly, once the company has decided how to respond if executives are coming out against it they're being openly insubordinate and do need to be fired. If they were supposed to be making the decision, they should have already been the one making it! This is very basic.
At-will employment has nothing at all to do with this situation, this is a for-cause firing not a no-cause.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of workplace discrimination.
In the statement, "I believe men and women are equal" there is no discrimination going on. It is like saying, "I believe red and blue are both colors." It has no weight at all when viewed from the perspective of state anti-discrimination laws and the requirement that employers provide a non-hostile workplace.
If you disagree with the existence of anti-discrimination laws as they relate to employment in the State of California, you should do that political advocacy away from work, and comply with the laws in the meantime. Same as all the other laws. "I didn't like the law" doesn't get your employer off the hook; they're required to prevent you from saying those things in the workplace, because it creates a hostile environment. It doesn't matter what you believe or if you believe that all opinions are relative and anything should go. Your employer has to follow the law as it is now, and not every opinion is equal; some create a hostile workplace, others do not. Some opinions violate the State constitution when expressed to co-workers, others do not. Note that it isn't the person saying the obscene thing that is violating the Constitution; when they say it, their employer is violating the Constitution. And they're required to take some action to remedy the situation.
You might want to consult a dictionary, because you don't know what "boondoggle" means.
You're just another aliterate asshole on the internet.
He's a dick who says cunty things. Get over yourself, Secret Neckbeard.
At-will employment refresher - IF YOU ARE A DICK WHO SAYS CUNTY THINGS, YOU MIGHT GET FUCKED, BRO. That's not Obama's fault, snowflake. Stop crying and STFU and do your damn JOB that you're overpaid for! Bitch!
Exactly. His response shows why it is not reasonable to attempt to "educate" or "reform" these sorts of employees. If you have one, just fire them and reduce the damage. And when you're hiring, make sure you're not hiring one of these clowns.
Education and reform of people who are despicable in ways that preclude compliance with labor laws should be done on their own time, driven by their own desire to better themselves. Because it is very very unlikely to be achieved otherwise.
Except it has nothing to do with "at-will" work. In most States, it is required to take action to prevent what he did. (creating a hostile work environment based on categories prohibited from being used for workplace discrimination)
It also helps in understanding those laws to open a dictionary (impossible for most of you, sad to say) and look up "discrimination." I'm not going to tell you what it says, because the aliterate deserve their ignorance, but I will say that actual meaning is neutral. It is not a synonym for oppression. It has a narrow, clear meaning, and you're not allowed to do it at work based on a bunch of categories that you must be aware of to work with others. Claiming it is your opinion doesn't shield you at work; keep opinions on those subjects for your personal time, work at work and politic somewhere else.