I've actually been to Cuba but figured I'd wait to see the response(s). They seem to be a bit happier than that. I suspect that the measurement is from an outside point of view, the people seem to be, for the most part, pretty happy.
Nah, here's directions for Outlook 2k3 which is, S/MIME and I'm pretty sure it was available before that? http://windowsitpro.com/window...
I didn't bump into it until later then you. Sometime in the late 1990s with some email app named something about a bat or something called Eudora (I think?) or something similar. I'd never seen it before but it was also in Outlook. Years ago, I used to participate and was an MS MVP in IE/OE, Shell, and for a couple of years, Office (which includes Outlook) which is why I sort of remember - except we also used it at the office and I had it configured in OE at some point back around those years.
I thought I remembered it from at least that early - it may have even been in an update to an earlier version but I'll be damned if I'm gonna go dig it out.
Or insufferable tellers of truth (as they see it). I love you man! You're such an asshole.
*sighs* I do miss a good drunken evening and then hearing the stories of my previous night. Eventually, they don't even bother you - you kind of eagerly look forward to finding out what mayhem you've caused, who you've pissed off, and finding out how much money you spent.
I was a functional alcoholic for many, many years. It wasn't until a bit over three years ago when I quit. I literally drank every single day - sometimes for breakfast. It wasn't until I retired and had nothing to do that I was no longer the "functional" part. I was pretty sloppy for a bit. (I'll skip the gritty details. I've had a couple of drinks since - no more than two at a sitting and only a half dozen times or so.)
Anyhow, I drove, I worked, I went to meetings, I even drove big, heavy, and sometimes armed/armored vehicles at one point in my life - though I wasn't always drunk then but I often was. You'd have never known. Nobody really knew though my family probably could have guessed. I never had an OUI. I never wrecked a vehicle (though I did drive some into some really stupid places like the tops of mountains). I did everything a normal person would do - all while drunk. Exceedingly drunk at times.
The worst/best thing I ever learned about being drunk is that you can close one eye and no longer see double. This works while driving and all sorts of other things. I have no idea how I never killed anyone and, obviously, I no longer drive drunk. I realized I had to give up drinking or give up driving. After some serious thought, I gave up drinking because I love driving. I was gonna end up killing someone or myself. I woke up with a car out of gas, battery dead, and asleep on the couch. I have no idea where I had been and how I got home.
My luck had run out and I was going to end up in jail, dead, or the hospital. So, I quit. However, for the 40 or so years prior (I was a teen when I started drinking on a regular basis) you wouldn't have really noticed that I was drunk. After I retired it is like my brain realized it didn't have to function any more so that was no longer true. Eventually I caught on to what my brain was thinking and quit. Shitty too, 'cause I really like alcohol.
I just went and cheated - I skimmed the article. She is 61. I am okay with that. She got a flat. I am okay with that. She didn't want to change the flat. I am okay with that. She decided to continue driving with a flat. I am not okay with that. Regardless of her medical condition, revoke her license. (This was not a run flat or anything - it was obvious enough for a passer-by to notice and call the police because they feared she had been in an accident.)
Was she actually intoxicated or was it just her breath that indicated she had a higher amount of alcohol in her breath than the legal limit? The summary says "she blew" which does not, to me, indicate a state of inebriation but rather a score on a test which may (or may not - it seems) actually correlate to a state of drunkenness.
That said, I too did not read the article. I am no heretic! (Sometimes I look at the pictures. This was not one of those times.)
Are you seriously arguing *for* government mandated, universal, blood and urine screens on the off chance that one person (out of very many) may have a medical condition? Seriously? I hope that I'm reading you wrong. It doesn't seem like your typical comment.:/
To many people leave the "go ahead and contact me with your stupid shit button" ticked and then don't use the opt-out in the bottom of each message but, instead, claim it is spam/UCE.
So, fairness and accuracy will have to be figured out for your system to work.
You were able to sign emails with Outlook a long time ago? Like 10+ years ago? I used to sign (it wasn't the easiest to figure out but do-able) emails with Outlook Express, even. Once it was configured it wasn't bad but the configuration process wasn't easy. It wasn't something where you created the security certificate within the client but imported it. With Outlook we used an internal CA (IIRC - it has been years) and I had it set up with OE at home but I'll be buggered if I remember how.
Hmm... Google "digitally sign email outlook express" and it shall become clear. The feature was in Outlook as well but a different process - albeit still not intuitive.
You'd be surprised how many people find it not just funny but fitting, appropriate, and still inadequate retribution. It's a fairly common sentiment amongst some of my countrymen.
I worked as a escort/chaser (transportation officer) at a military detention facility - it was my last job before getting out. The GI Bill did not pay a whole lot as I had a wife and child at the time and had gone back in the service to be able to pay for the remainder of my education. To help pay my way, I interviewed (and toured) a civilian prison and the differences between the two are astounding.
While the detainees in a military prison (consider that these were Marines) are really quite dangerous, there's a whole different level of respect. In the military, you go to prison *as* punishment. Taking away your freedom is the absolute worst thing they can do to do you. In fact, a detainee is expected to try to escape and there is no extra time added to a sentence for escape attempts. (I think this may have changed.)
In a civilian prison, they add time to your sentence if you try to escape. The big difference, that I see, is you're sent to a civilian prison *for* punishment. The level of respect is not there.
On the wall, from the barracks into the secured section, before entering the Sally Port, was an old sign that hung on the wall. It said, "There but by the grace of God, go I." That has stuck with me ever since.
I'll probably never understand why people would wish torment on another human being. Death? I can understand that. I can accept that and I can live with that. Torment? Torture? No. I've tried, I'll never understand that. Remember, even as an atheist, "There but by the grace of Flying Spaghetti Monster, go I."
I'll thread this under here - I saw your comment below. I finally got the error on a box, the login issue. I resolved it by simply deleting the Slashdot cookies (all of them - there are quite a few) and any local storage associated with the site. Then I logged in again and all was good. I suspect it may have something to do with them adding https for the login.
I don't know if it's just kids but it seems that everyone's reading "Twitter: The Condensed Version" these days. Anything that can't be expressed in 140 characters or on a bumper sticker is too complicated. Anything that requires an attention span greater than that of a newt is more work than many are willing to invest.
This isn't limited to "kids." It's multi-generational and seems to span cultures. I can speculate as to why but, frankly, I'd be wasting the effort as nobody would bother to read it.
Well, to be fair, there are some ideas out there that (while they probably will never reach fruition) allow for some very speedy travel without actually violating the laws of physics. There are quite a few of them, actually. They're far-fetched, unrealistic, and improbable to the point of absurd but violate the laws of physics they do not.
And, as we do not yet know all the laws of physics (quite specifically at the really itty bitty scale) it's hard to actually say what violates those laws, now isn't it?;-)
According to Brian Greene (and others, like Susskind) *if* time travel is possible then there are still some possibilities (however unlikely) that we'd not know about it. One is the Many Worlds Theory with the alternate divergent realities the spawn the various choices such that you'd be in a path where such choices had not yet been made in any future. Another one was that interaction, for whatever mechanism (not specifically prohibited by the laws of physics, after all), would disallow interaction up to and including notification.
So, in theory, you might not have been told about it yesterday, they might not have been able to tell you. Second is your strange assumption that you're significant enough for someone to have taken the time and effort to clue you in about it. There's no reason to believe that. Then again, there's no reason to believe that time travel is possible or, if it is, that we actually will invent a mechanism to do so.
Well, according to Google, Wikipedia started almost 15 years ago (Jan. 15, 2001) so I dare say that it hasn't been rehashed for decades on Wikipedia.
That said, the remainder of your post stands, is salient, and should be taken to heart by the editors and powers that be here at Slashdot. Add to that the fact that Forbes is openly hostile to the user by providing no content for those who wish to stop others from running unseen code on their computers, then maybe Slashdot should consider not linking to Forbes in the future as well as ignoring content from this Ethan fellow.
I miss out on a lot of content because I don't, generally, allow scripts to run. That means that, a while back, Forbes became unusable for me. So, I no longer click those links which is unfortunate because there's a small chance that I'd have read the article.
I have a belief that it is their property and that they can set the rules. They said I can't access the site unless I enable scripts. It's their server and they can make that call but it means that I don't enable scripts and don't look at their site. I actually mouse-over and see where the links take me before clicking. If it is Forbes, I don't click.
Well, there's some chance that I'd read the article! I've done it before - I've even done it on purpose. The last time I went to Forbes, it was a white page with no content at all. I've mistakenly clicked one or two times since but not in a while. They can make that call and I can decide that their content is not worth allowing their code to run on my computer. I'm probably not missing much but it is a bit disheartening. I'd hoped we had a better web experience than we do. Ah well...
Those are good sources. I'm aware of the biases and acknowledge them which is why I'd say that I find al Jazeera to be an acceptable source. I'm not suggesting that one take them at face value and to the exclusion of all others but that one at least consider their information and seek to find more information as needed. Some days I may find a single story, and just that one story, and spend as many as a few hours learning about the background, opinions, and even delve into the history of that region. I'll then draw my own conclusions but I don't exclude al Jazeera as an informations source by default.
Hell, I'll even go to Democracy Now! as a source of news. I've caught them, more than once, so abusing editorial methods as to make things seem exactly opposite what reality is. However, I'll still go see what information they have. I don't really exclude anyone - if that makes sense? I am just aware that they're biased or might even be outright dishonest. Which leads to this:
I guess, I don't even really have a set group that I use. It really depends and I do have preferences but no exclusions (other than some obvious not-news sources). I'll even make use of Russia Today. True, I probably avoid drawing conclusions based on those sources but that doesn't mean I'll exclude them. I'll visit various sites, some not in English, and see what I can find out. I make use of machine translation a lot and sometimes will even use multiple translation services. (I use something simply called Translator by someone named SailorMax. I also *read,* but not speak well, a few other languages and can often get by without it.)
Fortunately, I'm retired. I can get away with spending that much time keeping up with things of interest. I'm in a position where I can spend that time and think for myself. I've often pondered actually putting those thoughts to keyboard and sharing the fruits of my research with others but, frankly, I'm both a bit lazy and aware of my own biases. I am sort of working on a project that enables such but it may be a while coming and may never reach fruition though it may make a repository of my thoughts which, I suppose, probably isn't of much value to anyone else but will certainly offer a feedback mechanism because I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and having to defend them as being logically consistent and well reasoned. (As an aside: That's one of the reasons that I'm here and one of the reasons that I do share as much as I do.)
Oh, the linked extension is for Opera. I don't know if there is a Chrome/Chromium version but it should work if you simply download it and import it as an unpacked extension? Prior to being able to directly use Chrome extensions, that's how I was able to get the extensions work in reverse. I've not poked at Vivaldi for a little while but worked for Vivaldi as well. I suspect that there's something similar for Firefox, Pale Moon, and whatnot - I don't know of something of that nature for Midori and I've no clue what works with IE/Edge or Safari. It's sometimes rather interesting to read news articles with one translation and then use a different translation service to check against it. Sometimes the resulting differences can be a bit interesting. The conclusions you draw are your own and you don't have to rely on someone else telling you what to think - so there's that.
> they require some discipline on YOUR part as the employee
It's not important so I'll post this as an AC. However, I think you'll find many people have (and perhaps legitimately so) forgotten that part. They've forgotten that they have an obligation to the employer just as much as the employer has an obligation to the employee. It's called "earning a paycheck" and not 'collecting a paycheck" in an ideal world. Just because some employers have neglected their end of the bargain does not mean one is entitled to a paycheck without having earned it.
That said, there are (from reading this and other sites) many companies who do not deserve to be employers and I am astonished that they've remained in business as long as they have with those sort of business practices. It's disturbing how many people have tales of woe that, at first blush, seem to be both truthful and not actually exaggerating. We didn't really have much in the way of "managers" at my company but we did have senior personnel who were nominally, at least, in charge of certain aspects of the internal work performed. I never had to fire or discipline any of them (some did get to have a few meetings but we were very light hearted) and that was it. Had any of them treated the others like the stories I hear then they would have been removed from the premises.
At any rate, yeah, people have to hold themselves to a standard and maintain the discipline to meet that standard. I think this applies to all areas of life and that a weakness in one area indicates a probability of weaknesses in other areas. An example might be, I read some of the thoughts people express or the claims they make about their behavior and I'm forced to wonder - how is their personal hygiene and how well do they keep their home clean? It is personal experience that has taught me that there's often a correlation.
But, tis immaterial and just an unimportant addition. Actually, I'll go ahead and "waste" a post on this. Someone might have some insight or offer something that I'm missing as an added bit of information.
My business was not really new per se but was new in that it was doing a lot more than had previously been done because we could now do it "on a computer!" (We modeled traffic of the vehicular type and then expanded to include pedestrian traffic.) So, we pulled in a lot of different people and even needed to send some to school. I cheated and did things like pay a university for research and then stole the researchers by paying them well and giving them good benefits. Prior to this, traffic engineers cum programmers were hard to find, they didn't really exist. There were transportation engineers but they mostly worked in fleet management or rail transportation and things of that nature.
Needless to say, we were a pretty diverse group of people. Oddly, this was before the whole diversity in the workplace was a thing. I didn't realize that I was supposed to favor females over males or those with non-standard sexual preferences had to be hired because of a status quo. I all sorts of people because, well, they were often the ones who were, to be polite, a little more open to doing something different. They were the people who could actually learn and perform and things like gender, sexuality, race, creed, age, and other innate traits really didn't factor into that. Imagine that?
Anyhow, err... Maybe I'm not understanding? See, I share the above because we were a pretty damned diverse group of people and yet, for the most part, we were still fairly involved in each other's lives outside of work. We went to each others weddings (including a few that were't actually legally considered weddings). We went to funerals and cried with our coworkers. We went to each other's kid's school plays, concerts, graduations, and more. We went to games, we played games, we even went on outings to parks, museums, and hit many, many bars together.
We laughed together, we cried together, we celebrated together, we dined together, and some of us even slept together. We weren't family, we were coworkers involved in doing new and interesting things. We built, we broke, we designed, we tore down, we built anew, we studied, we researched, we grew. Much of my prior experience, we'll call it work but it was more than a job, was being enlisted in the military. Prior to that, I went to a school where I lived on campus with a bunch of other kids. Before I'd gone off to prep school, I lived on base with my parents (or very near base) and we had our friends who were also in the same area and, while they had things in common, they were also a diverse group of people.
In all those instances, in all of my experience, you didn't "just" work with people. That would be very dull and would not result in a lot of engagement - I shouldn't think. I can't imagine being happy with that. It's not forced, you're not required to participate, and you're not even ostracized if you don't. But it's there. It's like a whole other community where real friendships and relationships are born. Some of those relationships have lasted for years.
Last month, after I left D.C. and headed to Florida - I stopped along the way and met up with a friend of mine who's still at Quantico. Hell, I have four people at my Florida house from Labor Ready (a day labor place) that are cleaning up the mess we made yesterday and last night - I know their names and will be buying them lunch. They'll even get lunch on the clock - and I'll never (probably) meet any of them again. I might even share some of the left over party favors with 'em when work is over.
I had about 200 people here last night - including three folks from Slashdot, two of which brought some family with them. All just to eat some charred dead animal flesh, drink some alcohol, and set off some explosives because it was raining on New Years Eve. These are neighbors I'll seldom interact with again (I don't live here - I just own the house, my kids use it more than I), a few folks from Slashdot who managed to be brave enough to take me up on my open invitation, and a couple of strangers who wandered
One of my employees was a wizard. Seriously. I don't know how he did what he did but he did it. He was a DB admin and I, and you might think I would, know very little about such a job and can barely join tables or even do much more than read from a database.
In all his arcane spells he seemed to have one that made him look busy - no matter who was looking. However, with careful observation you could tell that he wasn't actually doing anything - ever. I'm sure he did stuff but I don't actually know what or when.
I kept him. I'm not sure he'd have left if fired or who could have fired him. I'm not even completely positive who hired him or when he was hired. He was a strange character, I've described a bit about him in the past.
At any rate, if anyone can do that little and keep things going so well - and things went well - then keep 'em. Give them a raise. The most efficient employees are those who get the job done while doing the least. So long as they get their job done, give them room and peace - because their leaving could likely cause issues.
No, no... I kept him on. As near as I know, he's still working there. He's an older man with a shock of red hair, gay (I think), and very much an isolationist. It was rare to even see him but, when you did, it was a certainty that he'd appear to be busy. He went to lunch but I don't recall seeing him leave. He was on time, probably early, and I don't recall seeing him enter the building. I know his name but he's one of the few where we didn't know his family and hobbies. I truly don't even know who hired him nor can I place exactly when I first hired him. In fact, I know that I did not personally hire him.
He also wouldn't call or make requests for stuff often. I seem to recall he used re-purposed hardware for the most part. Sometimes, you'd get a note on your desk or my secretary would mention that he had asked for something. It didn't matter, he didn't ask for much - give it to him. He always took two weeks off to go to some event out on the West Coast - I have no idea what. I don't even know how he did what he did but before he came we had DB issues. After he came we spent a bunch of money at first and then things worked. After that, I think he just used equipment that had been depreciated or pulled from the stack and replaced.
I know he was angry with Oracle when we had them come in and attempt a roll-out and that he won that battle. I have no idea how or what he did but they gave up and tried to bill us for the "demonstration" that they spent a full 90 days on and never got to work. We mysteriously had some DB slowdowns for a week or so after they left but he got over it and things went back to normal. He has to be the strangest character we ever had work with us and I've shared some of his stories before.
Ah well... I guess the idea is - if you find someone who's automated their job away, keep 'em and don't overload 'em with new tasks. They're still working, surely. I'm pretty sure? At the very least, you hired them to do a job, they're doing it. If you want them to do more than you hired them to do then give them a new title and a raise. Not to mention, if they made it look easy - that doesn't mean it is. I wrangled with the job of a DB admin. I sucked at it. We acquired a wizard and things went swimmingly.
I owned and ran my own company for a long time. It's sold and I'm retired because of it. During that time, I was on-call 24/7. Granted, calls weren't that frequent once things got settled down and we had some growth.
I can only offer one thing, I think, and it might help. Sometimes you just have to let things go. You're on call, yes. That doesn't mean you're a fireman. Don't rush to answer the phone, check the email, or head into the office. "I'll be there as soon as I can." That means, "As soon as I am done here, have the chance to prepare, and can comfortably attend to it in a safe and sane manner."
When I expanded and had actual staff to deal with things like IT, that was one of the things I stressed. If your home life gets screwed up, you're worthless to me as an employee. You may not even be able to make it to work. Let it go, take a minute, and things will be just fine. Yes, there's a crisis but things are already down. That extra hour you spent at home reading to your kids and finishing dinner means you'll be calm and collected, and happy, when you get to fixing the problem.
Take the long way into the office, turn on the radio, stop for coffee and chat up the cute girl behind the counter. Shit has already hit the fan or we'd not be calling you in. Those extra minutes are probable better served with you being able to mentally prepare, unload, and get comfortable than they would be you being stressed, panicky, or error-prone because of distractions.
Dunno if that will help but, well, it worked for me and for my crew.
This might come as a surprise but, and you can try this and get back to me, you might find that they steal less from you if you learn and adhere to the rules - regardless of what others are "getting away with." Seriously, I drive far more than most and have driven far more than most. They haven't ever stolen a thing from me. I agreed to abide by a certain set of rules (that's part of getting a license - an agreement) and then follow those rules. When I don't follow those rules, as I am wont to do from time to time, they may (per our earlier mentioned agreement) make me pay them some money - or even take away my right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
Because I've driven so many miles, oh so many miles, I've acclimated and I do not actually follow the rules but, instead, I've learned when and where I can get away with breaking those rules - to the point where I haven't had a moving violation in some 40 years or more. On top of that, I've not had a standing violation in something akin to 25 years. But, even with those infractions and the resulting financial penalties, they've never once stolen anything from me because I'd agreed to those rules when I agreed to the regulations required in order to drive on a public highway.
That only applies to the US and a few other countries that are mostly civilized. I have, on the other hand, been to places where the police didn't necessarily "rob" me so much as they asked for things like "documentacion." They sometimes have checkpoints outside of smaller towns and cities. At those places, they ask for you to provide the proper "documentacion." That could be considered robbery but I guess you could not pay - it's just going to slow you do a bit, and probably get you really robbed.
However, I strongly suspect that's not the case where you are, where you have been, or where you'll ever dare to go.
Here's a fun one. Given the person tidbits you've shared about you and your spouse and what I know of tax rates, I can reasonably presume that I pay lower percentage in taxes than you. Add to that, I'm able to buy things that last longer so I'm putting (theoretically, realistically - I'm kind of bad at this) less back into the system with consumption. Then, I've the time and means to do things like have a giant garden and hunt/fish for a good portion of my food then I'm putting even less back into the system.
It's quite likely that I pay a greater sum in taxes than you but, added up, I may actually put less back into the system than you do - at least most years. I've been, shall we say, a bit spendy this past year and have been on the road since September. It's not unheard of for me to stay home for long period of time and not actually need to consume anything or even spend any money other than various vehicle, fuel, and property taxes. Even those can be minimized, sometimes legally avoided, and aren't really that expensive.
Oh, I understand why my tax rate works out to be (at worst) something like 23% (15 federal, 8 State - I only do long-term investing and my interest is also counted as long-term) but, let's be honest here... It's not like I'm gonna alter my lifestyle a whole lot if they raise taxes a little bit. Maybe they could start by making long-term investing mean longer than a one year period? (Short-term investment earnings are taxed not at capital gains rates but as income.) That probably wouldn't impact me so, maybe make it five years to be considered long-term? How about a 5% increase at both the State and federal levels? That's not gonna bug me - I'd probably not even notice.
Then again, as I've stated in the past, I don't really mind taxes. I mind how they're spent. For what we spend bombing little brown men, we could afford to fix our existing infrastructure and probably have enough left over to increase the effectiveness of our education systems. We might even have enough left over to do something like provide more small business loans to encourage people to go out on their own, give them a reasonable safety net to enable them to take the risks, and actually increase our productivity.
Nah, can't happen... There's terrorists in them thar hills!
And, as an aside: I had somewhere near 200 people on my lawn and it was awesome. I called Labor Ready and they're sending four people by to clean up the mess. I have not, in fact, dared to look outside this morning - and you can't make me! After that, of course, folks will be welcome back on the lawn but I'll have illegal immigrants (I assume they're really legal) meandering about for a few hours so I imagine the neighbors will be clucking silently behind their curtains even though they helped make the mess and weren't likely to assist in the cleanup.
The problem is that, with things as they are, we'll kind of need those "handouts" for quite some time to come - perhaps at an increasing rate as automation increases. If you're advocating allowing the disabled, less-fortunate, or less lucky people be allowed to starve then, by all means, just say so. However, roving hordes of disenfranchised people who are motivated by basics such as hunger doesn't sound like a good long-term plan.
It's probably cheaper to feed them than it is to hire goons to ward them off. It's probably better to educate them than it is to deal with their mistakes. It's probably better to keep them in good health than it is to deal with the plague. It's also more likely to make you wealthier in the long run but it does take some initial investment - a bit like growing food and then keep those plants in good condition to maximize the likelihood of a good harvest.
I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian but even I see the need for things like universal health care, education, and not letting people reach the point where they're disenfranchised and hungry. I dare say that many people never actually managed to read to the end of Atlas Shrugged. It is a long book, after all. If you're going to advocate letting them starve then, well, I'd submit that it would be less risky to isolate them and ensure that they're incapable of causing harm to the "productive" people. However, I'd further submit that it's unlikely to result in the utopia and freedom that you're probably envisioning.
Slashdot Mirror
I've actually been to Cuba but figured I'd wait to see the response(s). They seem to be a bit happier than that. I suspect that the measurement is from an outside point of view, the people seem to be, for the most part, pretty happy.
Nah, here's directions for Outlook 2k3 which is, S/MIME and I'm pretty sure it was available before that?
http://windowsitpro.com/window...
I didn't bump into it until later then you. Sometime in the late 1990s with some email app named something about a bat or something called Eudora (I think?) or something similar. I'd never seen it before but it was also in Outlook. Years ago, I used to participate and was an MS MVP in IE/OE, Shell, and for a couple of years, Office (which includes Outlook) which is why I sort of remember - except we also used it at the office and I had it configured in OE at some point back around those years.
Ah! Heh...
Here it is in Outlook 2000...
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...
I thought I remembered it from at least that early - it may have even been in an update to an earlier version but I'll be damned if I'm gonna go dig it out.
and become consummate liars.
Or insufferable tellers of truth (as they see it). I love you man! You're such an asshole.
*sighs* I do miss a good drunken evening and then hearing the stories of my previous night. Eventually, they don't even bother you - you kind of eagerly look forward to finding out what mayhem you've caused, who you've pissed off, and finding out how much money you spent.
I was a functional alcoholic for many, many years. It wasn't until a bit over three years ago when I quit. I literally drank every single day - sometimes for breakfast. It wasn't until I retired and had nothing to do that I was no longer the "functional" part. I was pretty sloppy for a bit. (I'll skip the gritty details. I've had a couple of drinks since - no more than two at a sitting and only a half dozen times or so.)
Anyhow, I drove, I worked, I went to meetings, I even drove big, heavy, and sometimes armed/armored vehicles at one point in my life - though I wasn't always drunk then but I often was. You'd have never known. Nobody really knew though my family probably could have guessed. I never had an OUI. I never wrecked a vehicle (though I did drive some into some really stupid places like the tops of mountains). I did everything a normal person would do - all while drunk. Exceedingly drunk at times.
The worst/best thing I ever learned about being drunk is that you can close one eye and no longer see double. This works while driving and all sorts of other things. I have no idea how I never killed anyone and, obviously, I no longer drive drunk. I realized I had to give up drinking or give up driving. After some serious thought, I gave up drinking because I love driving. I was gonna end up killing someone or myself. I woke up with a car out of gas, battery dead, and asleep on the couch. I have no idea where I had been and how I got home.
My luck had run out and I was going to end up in jail, dead, or the hospital. So, I quit. However, for the 40 or so years prior (I was a teen when I started drinking on a regular basis) you wouldn't have really noticed that I was drunk. After I retired it is like my brain realized it didn't have to function any more so that was no longer true. Eventually I caught on to what my brain was thinking and quit. Shitty too, 'cause I really like alcohol.
I just went and cheated - I skimmed the article. She is 61. I am okay with that. She got a flat. I am okay with that. She didn't want to change the flat. I am okay with that. She decided to continue driving with a flat. I am not okay with that. Regardless of her medical condition, revoke her license. (This was not a run flat or anything - it was obvious enough for a passer-by to notice and call the police because they feared she had been in an accident.)
Was she actually intoxicated or was it just her breath that indicated she had a higher amount of alcohol in her breath than the legal limit? The summary says "she blew" which does not, to me, indicate a state of inebriation but rather a score on a test which may (or may not - it seems) actually correlate to a state of drunkenness.
That said, I too did not read the article. I am no heretic! (Sometimes I look at the pictures. This was not one of those times.)
Are you seriously arguing *for* government mandated, universal, blood and urine screens on the off chance that one person (out of very many) may have a medical condition? Seriously? I hope that I'm reading you wrong. It doesn't seem like your typical comment. :/
To many people leave the "go ahead and contact me with your stupid shit button" ticked and then don't use the opt-out in the bottom of each message but, instead, claim it is spam/UCE.
So, fairness and accuracy will have to be figured out for your system to work.
Life expectancy is not the only metric of importance. Quality of life is a bit more nuanced than duration.
You were able to sign emails with Outlook a long time ago? Like 10+ years ago? I used to sign (it wasn't the easiest to figure out but do-able) emails with Outlook Express, even. Once it was configured it wasn't bad but the configuration process wasn't easy. It wasn't something where you created the security certificate within the client but imported it. With Outlook we used an internal CA (IIRC - it has been years) and I had it set up with OE at home but I'll be buggered if I remember how.
Hmm... Google "digitally sign email outlook express" and it shall become clear. The feature was in Outlook as well but a different process - albeit still not intuitive.
You'd be surprised how many people find it not just funny but fitting, appropriate, and still inadequate retribution. It's a fairly common sentiment amongst some of my countrymen.
I worked as a escort/chaser (transportation officer) at a military detention facility - it was my last job before getting out. The GI Bill did not pay a whole lot as I had a wife and child at the time and had gone back in the service to be able to pay for the remainder of my education. To help pay my way, I interviewed (and toured) a civilian prison and the differences between the two are astounding.
While the detainees in a military prison (consider that these were Marines) are really quite dangerous, there's a whole different level of respect. In the military, you go to prison *as* punishment. Taking away your freedom is the absolute worst thing they can do to do you. In fact, a detainee is expected to try to escape and there is no extra time added to a sentence for escape attempts. (I think this may have changed.)
In a civilian prison, they add time to your sentence if you try to escape. The big difference, that I see, is you're sent to a civilian prison *for* punishment. The level of respect is not there.
On the wall, from the barracks into the secured section, before entering the Sally Port, was an old sign that hung on the wall. It said, "There but by the grace of God, go I." That has stuck with me ever since.
I'll probably never understand why people would wish torment on another human being. Death? I can understand that. I can accept that and I can live with that. Torment? Torture? No. I've tried, I'll never understand that. Remember, even as an atheist, "There but by the grace of Flying Spaghetti Monster, go I."
I'll thread this under here - I saw your comment below. I finally got the error on a box, the login issue. I resolved it by simply deleting the Slashdot cookies (all of them - there are quite a few) and any local storage associated with the site. Then I logged in again and all was good. I suspect it may have something to do with them adding https for the login.
I don't know if it's just kids but it seems that everyone's reading "Twitter: The Condensed Version" these days. Anything that can't be expressed in 140 characters or on a bumper sticker is too complicated. Anything that requires an attention span greater than that of a newt is more work than many are willing to invest.
This isn't limited to "kids." It's multi-generational and seems to span cultures. I can speculate as to why but, frankly, I'd be wasting the effort as nobody would bother to read it.
Well, to be fair, there are some ideas out there that (while they probably will never reach fruition) allow for some very speedy travel without actually violating the laws of physics. There are quite a few of them, actually. They're far-fetched, unrealistic, and improbable to the point of absurd but violate the laws of physics they do not.
And, as we do not yet know all the laws of physics (quite specifically at the really itty bitty scale) it's hard to actually say what violates those laws, now isn't it? ;-)
According to Brian Greene (and others, like Susskind) *if* time travel is possible then there are still some possibilities (however unlikely) that we'd not know about it. One is the Many Worlds Theory with the alternate divergent realities the spawn the various choices such that you'd be in a path where such choices had not yet been made in any future. Another one was that interaction, for whatever mechanism (not specifically prohibited by the laws of physics, after all), would disallow interaction up to and including notification.
So, in theory, you might not have been told about it yesterday, they might not have been able to tell you. Second is your strange assumption that you're significant enough for someone to have taken the time and effort to clue you in about it. There's no reason to believe that. Then again, there's no reason to believe that time travel is possible or, if it is, that we actually will invent a mechanism to do so.
Well, according to Google, Wikipedia started almost 15 years ago (Jan. 15, 2001) so I dare say that it hasn't been rehashed for decades on Wikipedia.
That said, the remainder of your post stands, is salient, and should be taken to heart by the editors and powers that be here at Slashdot. Add to that the fact that Forbes is openly hostile to the user by providing no content for those who wish to stop others from running unseen code on their computers, then maybe Slashdot should consider not linking to Forbes in the future as well as ignoring content from this Ethan fellow.
I miss out on a lot of content because I don't, generally, allow scripts to run. That means that, a while back, Forbes became unusable for me. So, I no longer click those links which is unfortunate because there's a small chance that I'd have read the article.
I have a belief that it is their property and that they can set the rules. They said I can't access the site unless I enable scripts. It's their server and they can make that call but it means that I don't enable scripts and don't look at their site. I actually mouse-over and see where the links take me before clicking. If it is Forbes, I don't click.
Well, there's some chance that I'd read the article! I've done it before - I've even done it on purpose. The last time I went to Forbes, it was a white page with no content at all. I've mistakenly clicked one or two times since but not in a while. They can make that call and I can decide that their content is not worth allowing their code to run on my computer. I'm probably not missing much but it is a bit disheartening. I'd hoped we had a better web experience than we do. Ah well...
Those are good sources. I'm aware of the biases and acknowledge them which is why I'd say that I find al Jazeera to be an acceptable source. I'm not suggesting that one take them at face value and to the exclusion of all others but that one at least consider their information and seek to find more information as needed. Some days I may find a single story, and just that one story, and spend as many as a few hours learning about the background, opinions, and even delve into the history of that region. I'll then draw my own conclusions but I don't exclude al Jazeera as an informations source by default.
Hell, I'll even go to Democracy Now! as a source of news. I've caught them, more than once, so abusing editorial methods as to make things seem exactly opposite what reality is. However, I'll still go see what information they have. I don't really exclude anyone - if that makes sense? I am just aware that they're biased or might even be outright dishonest. Which leads to this:
I guess, I don't even really have a set group that I use. It really depends and I do have preferences but no exclusions (other than some obvious not-news sources). I'll even make use of Russia Today. True, I probably avoid drawing conclusions based on those sources but that doesn't mean I'll exclude them. I'll visit various sites, some not in English, and see what I can find out. I make use of machine translation a lot and sometimes will even use multiple translation services. (I use something simply called Translator by someone named SailorMax. I also *read,* but not speak well, a few other languages and can often get by without it.)
Fortunately, I'm retired. I can get away with spending that much time keeping up with things of interest. I'm in a position where I can spend that time and think for myself. I've often pondered actually putting those thoughts to keyboard and sharing the fruits of my research with others but, frankly, I'm both a bit lazy and aware of my own biases. I am sort of working on a project that enables such but it may be a while coming and may never reach fruition though it may make a repository of my thoughts which, I suppose, probably isn't of much value to anyone else but will certainly offer a feedback mechanism because I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and having to defend them as being logically consistent and well reasoned. (As an aside: That's one of the reasons that I'm here and one of the reasons that I do share as much as I do.)
Oh, the linked extension is for Opera. I don't know if there is a Chrome/Chromium version but it should work if you simply download it and import it as an unpacked extension? Prior to being able to directly use Chrome extensions, that's how I was able to get the extensions work in reverse. I've not poked at Vivaldi for a little while but worked for Vivaldi as well. I suspect that there's something similar for Firefox, Pale Moon, and whatnot - I don't know of something of that nature for Midori and I've no clue what works with IE/Edge or Safari. It's sometimes rather interesting to read news articles with one translation and then use a different translation service to check against it. Sometimes the resulting differences can be a bit interesting. The conclusions you draw are your own and you don't have to rely on someone else telling you what to think - so there's that.
> they require some discipline on YOUR part as the employee
It's not important so I'll post this as an AC. However, I think you'll find many people have (and perhaps legitimately so) forgotten that part. They've forgotten that they have an obligation to the employer just as much as the employer has an obligation to the employee. It's called "earning a paycheck" and not 'collecting a paycheck" in an ideal world. Just because some employers have neglected their end of the bargain does not mean one is entitled to a paycheck without having earned it.
That said, there are (from reading this and other sites) many companies who do not deserve to be employers and I am astonished that they've remained in business as long as they have with those sort of business practices. It's disturbing how many people have tales of woe that, at first blush, seem to be both truthful and not actually exaggerating. We didn't really have much in the way of "managers" at my company but we did have senior personnel who were nominally, at least, in charge of certain aspects of the internal work performed. I never had to fire or discipline any of them (some did get to have a few meetings but we were very light hearted) and that was it. Had any of them treated the others like the stories I hear then they would have been removed from the premises.
At any rate, yeah, people have to hold themselves to a standard and maintain the discipline to meet that standard. I think this applies to all areas of life and that a weakness in one area indicates a probability of weaknesses in other areas. An example might be, I read some of the thoughts people express or the claims they make about their behavior and I'm forced to wonder - how is their personal hygiene and how well do they keep their home clean? It is personal experience that has taught me that there's often a correlation.
But, tis immaterial and just an unimportant addition. Actually, I'll go ahead and "waste" a post on this. Someone might have some insight or offer something that I'm missing as an added bit of information.
My business was not really new per se but was new in that it was doing a lot more than had previously been done because we could now do it "on a computer!" (We modeled traffic of the vehicular type and then expanded to include pedestrian traffic.) So, we pulled in a lot of different people and even needed to send some to school. I cheated and did things like pay a university for research and then stole the researchers by paying them well and giving them good benefits. Prior to this, traffic engineers cum programmers were hard to find, they didn't really exist. There were transportation engineers but they mostly worked in fleet management or rail transportation and things of that nature.
Needless to say, we were a pretty diverse group of people. Oddly, this was before the whole diversity in the workplace was a thing. I didn't realize that I was supposed to favor females over males or those with non-standard sexual preferences had to be hired because of a status quo. I all sorts of people because, well, they were often the ones who were, to be polite, a little more open to doing something different. They were the people who could actually learn and perform and things like gender, sexuality, race, creed, age, and other innate traits really didn't factor into that. Imagine that?
Anyhow, err... Maybe I'm not understanding? See, I share the above because we were a pretty damned diverse group of people and yet, for the most part, we were still fairly involved in each other's lives outside of work. We went to each others weddings (including a few that were't actually legally considered weddings). We went to funerals and cried with our coworkers. We went to each other's kid's school plays, concerts, graduations, and more. We went to games, we played games, we even went on outings to parks, museums, and hit many, many bars together.
We laughed together, we cried together, we celebrated together, we dined together, and some of us even slept together. We weren't family, we were coworkers involved in doing new and interesting things. We built, we broke, we designed, we tore down, we built anew, we studied, we researched, we grew. Much of my prior experience, we'll call it work but it was more than a job, was being enlisted in the military. Prior to that, I went to a school where I lived on campus with a bunch of other kids. Before I'd gone off to prep school, I lived on base with my parents (or very near base) and we had our friends who were also in the same area and, while they had things in common, they were also a diverse group of people.
In all those instances, in all of my experience, you didn't "just" work with people. That would be very dull and would not result in a lot of engagement - I shouldn't think. I can't imagine being happy with that. It's not forced, you're not required to participate, and you're not even ostracized if you don't. But it's there. It's like a whole other community where real friendships and relationships are born. Some of those relationships have lasted for years.
Last month, after I left D.C. and headed to Florida - I stopped along the way and met up with a friend of mine who's still at Quantico. Hell, I have four people at my Florida house from Labor Ready (a day labor place) that are cleaning up the mess we made yesterday and last night - I know their names and will be buying them lunch. They'll even get lunch on the clock - and I'll never (probably) meet any of them again. I might even share some of the left over party favors with 'em when work is over.
I had about 200 people here last night - including three folks from Slashdot, two of which brought some family with them. All just to eat some charred dead animal flesh, drink some alcohol, and set off some explosives because it was raining on New Years Eve. These are neighbors I'll seldom interact with again (I don't live here - I just own the house, my kids use it more than I), a few folks from Slashdot who managed to be brave enough to take me up on my open invitation, and a couple of strangers who wandered
One of my employees was a wizard. Seriously. I don't know how he did what he did but he did it. He was a DB admin and I, and you might think I would, know very little about such a job and can barely join tables or even do much more than read from a database.
In all his arcane spells he seemed to have one that made him look busy - no matter who was looking. However, with careful observation you could tell that he wasn't actually doing anything - ever. I'm sure he did stuff but I don't actually know what or when.
I kept him. I'm not sure he'd have left if fired or who could have fired him. I'm not even completely positive who hired him or when he was hired. He was a strange character, I've described a bit about him in the past.
At any rate, if anyone can do that little and keep things going so well - and things went well - then keep 'em. Give them a raise. The most efficient employees are those who get the job done while doing the least. So long as they get their job done, give them room and peace - because their leaving could likely cause issues.
No, no... I kept him on. As near as I know, he's still working there. He's an older man with a shock of red hair, gay (I think), and very much an isolationist. It was rare to even see him but, when you did, it was a certainty that he'd appear to be busy. He went to lunch but I don't recall seeing him leave. He was on time, probably early, and I don't recall seeing him enter the building. I know his name but he's one of the few where we didn't know his family and hobbies. I truly don't even know who hired him nor can I place exactly when I first hired him. In fact, I know that I did not personally hire him.
He also wouldn't call or make requests for stuff often. I seem to recall he used re-purposed hardware for the most part. Sometimes, you'd get a note on your desk or my secretary would mention that he had asked for something. It didn't matter, he didn't ask for much - give it to him. He always took two weeks off to go to some event out on the West Coast - I have no idea what. I don't even know how he did what he did but before he came we had DB issues. After he came we spent a bunch of money at first and then things worked. After that, I think he just used equipment that had been depreciated or pulled from the stack and replaced.
I know he was angry with Oracle when we had them come in and attempt a roll-out and that he won that battle. I have no idea how or what he did but they gave up and tried to bill us for the "demonstration" that they spent a full 90 days on and never got to work. We mysteriously had some DB slowdowns for a week or so after they left but he got over it and things went back to normal. He has to be the strangest character we ever had work with us and I've shared some of his stories before.
Ah well... I guess the idea is - if you find someone who's automated their job away, keep 'em and don't overload 'em with new tasks. They're still working, surely. I'm pretty sure? At the very least, you hired them to do a job, they're doing it. If you want them to do more than you hired them to do then give them a new title and a raise. Not to mention, if they made it look easy - that doesn't mean it is. I wrangled with the job of a DB admin. I sucked at it. We acquired a wizard and things went swimmingly.
I owned and ran my own company for a long time. It's sold and I'm retired because of it. During that time, I was on-call 24/7. Granted, calls weren't that frequent once things got settled down and we had some growth.
I can only offer one thing, I think, and it might help. Sometimes you just have to let things go. You're on call, yes. That doesn't mean you're a fireman. Don't rush to answer the phone, check the email, or head into the office. "I'll be there as soon as I can." That means, "As soon as I am done here, have the chance to prepare, and can comfortably attend to it in a safe and sane manner."
When I expanded and had actual staff to deal with things like IT, that was one of the things I stressed. If your home life gets screwed up, you're worthless to me as an employee. You may not even be able to make it to work. Let it go, take a minute, and things will be just fine. Yes, there's a crisis but things are already down. That extra hour you spent at home reading to your kids and finishing dinner means you'll be calm and collected, and happy, when you get to fixing the problem.
Take the long way into the office, turn on the radio, stop for coffee and chat up the cute girl behind the counter. Shit has already hit the fan or we'd not be calling you in. Those extra minutes are probable better served with you being able to mentally prepare, unload, and get comfortable than they would be you being stressed, panicky, or error-prone because of distractions.
Dunno if that will help but, well, it worked for me and for my crew.
This might come as a surprise but, and you can try this and get back to me, you might find that they steal less from you if you learn and adhere to the rules - regardless of what others are "getting away with." Seriously, I drive far more than most and have driven far more than most. They haven't ever stolen a thing from me. I agreed to abide by a certain set of rules (that's part of getting a license - an agreement) and then follow those rules. When I don't follow those rules, as I am wont to do from time to time, they may (per our earlier mentioned agreement) make me pay them some money - or even take away my right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
Because I've driven so many miles, oh so many miles, I've acclimated and I do not actually follow the rules but, instead, I've learned when and where I can get away with breaking those rules - to the point where I haven't had a moving violation in some 40 years or more. On top of that, I've not had a standing violation in something akin to 25 years. But, even with those infractions and the resulting financial penalties, they've never once stolen anything from me because I'd agreed to those rules when I agreed to the regulations required in order to drive on a public highway.
That only applies to the US and a few other countries that are mostly civilized. I have, on the other hand, been to places where the police didn't necessarily "rob" me so much as they asked for things like "documentacion." They sometimes have checkpoints outside of smaller towns and cities. At those places, they ask for you to provide the proper "documentacion." That could be considered robbery but I guess you could not pay - it's just going to slow you do a bit, and probably get you really robbed.
However, I strongly suspect that's not the case where you are, where you have been, or where you'll ever dare to go.
Here's a fun one. Given the person tidbits you've shared about you and your spouse and what I know of tax rates, I can reasonably presume that I pay lower percentage in taxes than you. Add to that, I'm able to buy things that last longer so I'm putting (theoretically, realistically - I'm kind of bad at this) less back into the system with consumption. Then, I've the time and means to do things like have a giant garden and hunt/fish for a good portion of my food then I'm putting even less back into the system.
It's quite likely that I pay a greater sum in taxes than you but, added up, I may actually put less back into the system than you do - at least most years. I've been, shall we say, a bit spendy this past year and have been on the road since September. It's not unheard of for me to stay home for long period of time and not actually need to consume anything or even spend any money other than various vehicle, fuel, and property taxes. Even those can be minimized, sometimes legally avoided, and aren't really that expensive.
Oh, I understand why my tax rate works out to be (at worst) something like 23% (15 federal, 8 State - I only do long-term investing and my interest is also counted as long-term) but, let's be honest here... It's not like I'm gonna alter my lifestyle a whole lot if they raise taxes a little bit. Maybe they could start by making long-term investing mean longer than a one year period? (Short-term investment earnings are taxed not at capital gains rates but as income.) That probably wouldn't impact me so, maybe make it five years to be considered long-term? How about a 5% increase at both the State and federal levels? That's not gonna bug me - I'd probably not even notice.
Then again, as I've stated in the past, I don't really mind taxes. I mind how they're spent. For what we spend bombing little brown men, we could afford to fix our existing infrastructure and probably have enough left over to increase the effectiveness of our education systems. We might even have enough left over to do something like provide more small business loans to encourage people to go out on their own, give them a reasonable safety net to enable them to take the risks, and actually increase our productivity.
Nah, can't happen... There's terrorists in them thar hills!
And, as an aside: I had somewhere near 200 people on my lawn and it was awesome. I called Labor Ready and they're sending four people by to clean up the mess. I have not, in fact, dared to look outside this morning - and you can't make me! After that, of course, folks will be welcome back on the lawn but I'll have illegal immigrants (I assume they're really legal) meandering about for a few hours so I imagine the neighbors will be clucking silently behind their curtains even though they helped make the mess and weren't likely to assist in the cleanup.
The problem is that, with things as they are, we'll kind of need those "handouts" for quite some time to come - perhaps at an increasing rate as automation increases. If you're advocating allowing the disabled, less-fortunate, or less lucky people be allowed to starve then, by all means, just say so. However, roving hordes of disenfranchised people who are motivated by basics such as hunger doesn't sound like a good long-term plan.
It's probably cheaper to feed them than it is to hire goons to ward them off. It's probably better to educate them than it is to deal with their mistakes. It's probably better to keep them in good health than it is to deal with the plague. It's also more likely to make you wealthier in the long run but it does take some initial investment - a bit like growing food and then keep those plants in good condition to maximize the likelihood of a good harvest.
I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian but even I see the need for things like universal health care, education, and not letting people reach the point where they're disenfranchised and hungry. I dare say that many people never actually managed to read to the end of Atlas Shrugged. It is a long book, after all. If you're going to advocate letting them starve then, well, I'd submit that it would be less risky to isolate them and ensure that they're incapable of causing harm to the "productive" people. However, I'd further submit that it's unlikely to result in the utopia and freedom that you're probably envisioning.