I can't decide if he's a, b, or c either. But I recall being surprised at finding out how many undigested calories really are in poop. And how and why fiber plays a role in that.
So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."
More like flying while brown and setting off the explosives detector. Granted, TSA went overboard here, in hindsight, but I would expect them to give a little extra scrutiny to someone who sets off the bomb detector.
The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger."
What has me curious is whether or not JetBlue acted lawfully by denying Mukerjee boarding after he was cleared by TSA, the FBI, and airport police to fly. As providers of public accommodation, they cannot discriminate based on religion, race, etc.
After he was cleared to fly by the aviation security professionals, what lawful reason did JetBlue have to deny boarding?
Does anyone have a good template for giving notice in such a way that if the employer immediately fires you, they can't say you "quit" in order to deny benefits?
What benefits would they be denying you if they immediately terminated your employment?
If your having left with no notice winds up making your former coworkers' lives more difficult, they will remember. That might come back to haunt you in the future, but it might not. If you give the standard 2 weeks of notice, then you might still make their lives difficult, but they won't really be upset about it. After all, 2 weeks is the standard. Nobody expects more. What do you have to lose by following custom?
I've only ever resigned from one job and when I did, I gave 2 weeks. I hated the job, and I was happy to be rid of it. Looking back over a decade later, I can say with total confidence that had I just walked off the job with no notice, it would not have had any negative repercussions on my career. Had I known that at the time, however, I still think I would have given 2 weeks, because that's customary.
Historically people went to AA because they chose to, not because they were ordered to by courts.
I suspect that this has a lot to do with it. A buddy of mine really needed to hit rock bottom before he seeked help on his own, and was only then able to recover.
Addiction is a habit that has developed a chemical dependancy. Try taking a regular coffee drinker's coffee away from them for a couple of weeks. It is down right scary to watch the withdrawal.
It really depends on the person.
I've been chemically dependent on opiates as well as caffeine and quitting was not scary. It was physically painful, the nausea (opiates) and the headaches (caffeine), but it was not a meaningful challenge, and it certainly was not scary.
Personally, I think that people's bodies are just different. Because if not, then that means that I have some sort of heightened level discipline or mental prowess, which is doubtful. The withdrawal symptoms were just not the debilitating for me.
That's the problem with these programs - they teach people that they are helpless to their "addiction" which actually encourages addiction. If you are a permanent addict then if you have a drink well you are fucked so in for a penny in for a pound.
I don't think that's the problem, that AA gives recovering alcoholics permission to go off the deep end if they have just one sip. I think it's addressing the problem that if a recovering alcoholic *does* again begin drinking, that person will go into a very rapid downward spiral.
I have never experienced this personally. Just going off of what I hear and read from people who have.
If it were so easy to quit cold turkey, there would have been no need for AA or other treatment programs. I mean, really, it's a lot of effort to go to if stopping were as simple as "just stop".
Never been there myself, but I've seen others go through it, and it doesn't look easy to me. I'm sure alcoholics don't want to alienate all of their loved ones and wind up homeless and penniless. It'd be much easier to just quit drinking. If they could.
If anything, the women might need the "companionship" more, as we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a noisy vibrator where others could hear it.
The difference is that women can find male companionship much more readily than the reverse. This is simply due to most women wanting to establish some modicum of trust in a man before hopping into bed with him, for obvious reasons. Remember, when we walk outside our front door, we don't instantaneously have 10 women hitting on us.
Oh, and I guess it's worth pointing out that women's effort required in jilling themselves off is highly variable. I'll agree that "apply vrooms to clit" is the least effort, most reliable technique, though! But doesn't having a dude make the mechanical part less-efficient? Especially if he's not a regular partner?
since rapists of both genders attack because they get off on the power of violent domination
I'm not totally sure that that's precisely the motivation. I think it's more along the lines of caring about oneself, to the exclusion of anyone else. I'm thinking narcissism vs. brutalism here.
That was my experience, anyway. I had a woman attempt to rape me in college (as in, I told her plainly that I wanted to hook up, but I didn't want to have sex and that I never have sex without a condom, which we had none, but which was irrelevant, because I did not want to have sex, only hook up. We started hooking up, and she got on top of me and tried to have sex with me anyway, without a condom. So I'm not throwing the R-word around lightly.) Anyway, there was no chance that she was trying to violently dominate me, because I had probably 3x her strength (I was a student athlete). But what was clear was that she didn't care what I wanted or didn't want--she knew what she wanted, and decided I'd see it her way or at least try not to hurt her feelings by rejecting her.
FWIW just because some folks below keep using the term wrong, those are the views of a feminist geek -- someone that sees guys as people to fight alongside, not fight against.
FWIW, "feminism" is a big tent, and under it are many reasonable and non-so-reasonable people. Just because you are reasonable and self-identify as a feminist doesn't make all feminists reasonable people! Heck, just look at the existence of radical feminism (yes, people do actually self-identify as "radical feminists"!) and what it stands for and tell me I don't have a point, here!
There would be a line wrapped around the block 3 times to sign up for that job. Most women are perfectly happy to have sex with soldiers, free of charge. To get paid to do it would be a dream job.
Marriage gets you a shittonne more than just sex. So no.
Depends on the couple. I know people who are married but hate each other and are just staying together for the kids. My guess is that they never asked their kids how much they enjoyed having their parents who hate each other stay together and fight all the time, but that's a topic for another comment.
I once had a business owner tell me he wouldn't hire a man with long hair. I said "that's illegal!"
You were wrong about it being illegal.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
Nothing in there about long-haired hippy types.
That's the way that these discrimination laws work. There's a list of protected classes, and you can't making employment decisions based on protected class membership. Hippies aren't a protected class.
Thanks for the advice. We actually updated our wills, guardians, estate plans, and living wills a few years ago after she got sick, so I think we're in decent shape there.
A little curious why you put your cars in individual names, because our attorney had us own them jointly to avoid probate. Is there a liability concern with jointly owning cars?
First of all, a word is either spelled correctly or it isn't. The caustic attitude of the messenger doesn't change that.
Secondly, I can confirm the situation described by the AC. Way back when, I thought the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone could improve was pretty cool. Wanting to do my part, I corrected a few typos here and there. Nothing controversial, mind you, and nothing where there are multiple acceptable spellings. As you probably suspected by now, my corrections were reverted. So, I threw up my hands and said, "Why should I waste my time here?"
Lots of people claiming that they wanted to hire me, if only they had the budget.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I have never had a client whose budgeting process was so rigid that exceptions were forbidden, even when a good business case was made. When a company can hire a person for $X and that person's work will make or save the company some multiple of $X, then budget gets freed up to hire that person.
You how chicks like to dump us saying, "It's not you, it's me!" so that we supposedly won't feel badly about it? That's what is happening to you, except in your case it's, "it's not you, and it's not me either. It's some asshole in accounting."
I doubt anything we do in our bedrooms comes close to what these guys do.
This is pretty much the bottom line. At the end of the day, all BDSM-related activities are intended to be erotic on some level. There is simply no point in comparing a BDSM single-tailing or caning with their judicial counterparts. The only similarity is in the implement.
I once read a description of a judicial caning in Singapore (I think), and it seemed like the goal was to beat the victim ("prisoner" doesn't seem totally accurate here) to within an inch of his life. They had a medical staff monitoring him to try to keep him from dying. Crazy stuff.
And, yeah, 150 "lashings" means nothing. I could easily give someone 150 lashings and not break the skin, or 1 lashing that would land her in the emergency room.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't decide if he's a, b, or c either. But I recall being surprised at finding out how many undigested calories really are in poop. And how and why fiber plays a role in that.
What role does fiber play in that? Just curious.
Huh? Why do you think that eating 25% fewer calories than are required would trigger a vasovagal response?
Anyway, a vasovagal syncope doesn't typically require medical attention (or inpatient hospitalization!).
Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany.
I agree. We are rounding up dark-skinned people into cattle trains, tattooing numbers on them and then gassing them to death.
Oh, wait. We're not. Never mind. You're just a hyperbolical clown.
So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."
More like flying while brown and setting off the explosives detector. Granted, TSA went overboard here, in hindsight, but I would expect them to give a little extra scrutiny to someone who sets off the bomb detector.
The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger."
What has me curious is whether or not JetBlue acted lawfully by denying Mukerjee boarding after he was cleared by TSA, the FBI, and airport police to fly. As providers of public accommodation, they cannot discriminate based on religion, race, etc.
After he was cleared to fly by the aviation security professionals, what lawful reason did JetBlue have to deny boarding?
Does anyone have a good template for giving notice in such a way that if the employer immediately fires you, they can't say you "quit" in order to deny benefits?
What benefits would they be denying you if they immediately terminated your employment?
Pardon me, but I don't understand what you mean by "eligible for rehire". My former employers have absolutely no say over who I work for now.
It's your former employer stating whether or not you're eligible for rehire with that old employer.
Obviously your old employer can't declare you ineligible for hire with the new employer, absent some sort of noncompetition agreement!
If your having left with no notice winds up making your former coworkers' lives more difficult, they will remember. That might come back to haunt you in the future, but it might not. If you give the standard 2 weeks of notice, then you might still make their lives difficult, but they won't really be upset about it. After all, 2 weeks is the standard. Nobody expects more. What do you have to lose by following custom?
I've only ever resigned from one job and when I did, I gave 2 weeks. I hated the job, and I was happy to be rid of it. Looking back over a decade later, I can say with total confidence that had I just walked off the job with no notice, it would not have had any negative repercussions on my career. Had I known that at the time, however, I still think I would have given 2 weeks, because that's customary.
Historically people went to AA because they chose to, not because they were ordered to by courts.
I suspect that this has a lot to do with it. A buddy of mine really needed to hit rock bottom before he seeked help on his own, and was only then able to recover.
Hitting rock bottom seemed to be very important.
Addiction is a habit that has developed a chemical dependancy. Try taking a regular coffee drinker's coffee away from them for a couple of weeks. It is down right scary to watch the withdrawal.
It really depends on the person.
I've been chemically dependent on opiates as well as caffeine and quitting was not scary. It was physically painful, the nausea (opiates) and the headaches (caffeine), but it was not a meaningful challenge, and it certainly was not scary.
Personally, I think that people's bodies are just different. Because if not, then that means that I have some sort of heightened level discipline or mental prowess, which is doubtful. The withdrawal symptoms were just not the debilitating for me.
That's the problem with these programs - they teach people that they are helpless to their "addiction" which actually encourages addiction. If you are a permanent addict then if you have a drink well you are fucked so in for a penny in for a pound.
I don't think that's the problem, that AA gives recovering alcoholics permission to go off the deep end if they have just one sip. I think it's addressing the problem that if a recovering alcoholic *does* again begin drinking, that person will go into a very rapid downward spiral.
I have never experienced this personally. Just going off of what I hear and read from people who have.
If it were so easy to quit cold turkey, there would have been no need for AA or other treatment programs. I mean, really, it's a lot of effort to go to if stopping were as simple as "just stop".
Never been there myself, but I've seen others go through it, and it doesn't look easy to me. I'm sure alcoholics don't want to alienate all of their loved ones and wind up homeless and penniless. It'd be much easier to just quit drinking. If they could.
That's because people are weak, and even after 10 years they do slip up, and the results aren't pretty.
If anything, the women might need the "companionship" more, as we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a noisy vibrator where others could hear it.
The difference is that women can find male companionship much more readily than the reverse. This is simply due to most women wanting to establish some modicum of trust in a man before hopping into bed with him, for obvious reasons. Remember, when we walk outside our front door, we don't instantaneously have 10 women hitting on us.
Oh, and I guess it's worth pointing out that women's effort required in jilling themselves off is highly variable. I'll agree that "apply vrooms to clit" is the least effort, most reliable technique, though! But doesn't having a dude make the mechanical part less-efficient? Especially if he's not a regular partner?
since rapists of both genders attack because they get off on the power of violent domination
I'm not totally sure that that's precisely the motivation. I think it's more along the lines of caring about oneself, to the exclusion of anyone else. I'm thinking narcissism vs. brutalism here.
That was my experience, anyway. I had a woman attempt to rape me in college (as in, I told her plainly that I wanted to hook up, but I didn't want to have sex and that I never have sex without a condom, which we had none, but which was irrelevant, because I did not want to have sex, only hook up. We started hooking up, and she got on top of me and tried to have sex with me anyway, without a condom. So I'm not throwing the R-word around lightly.) Anyway, there was no chance that she was trying to violently dominate me, because I had probably 3x her strength (I was a student athlete). But what was clear was that she didn't care what I wanted or didn't want--she knew what she wanted, and decided I'd see it her way or at least try not to hurt her feelings by rejecting her.
FWIW just because some folks below keep using the term wrong, those are the views of a feminist geek -- someone that sees guys as people to fight alongside, not fight against.
FWIW, "feminism" is a big tent, and under it are many reasonable and non-so-reasonable people. Just because you are reasonable and self-identify as a feminist doesn't make all feminists reasonable people! Heck, just look at the existence of radical feminism (yes, people do actually self-identify as "radical feminists"!) and what it stands for and tell me I don't have a point, here!
Except the government paid prostitutes.
There would be a line wrapped around the block 3 times to sign up for that job. Most women are perfectly happy to have sex with soldiers, free of charge. To get paid to do it would be a dream job.
Marriage gets you a shittonne more than just sex. So no.
Depends on the couple. I know people who are married but hate each other and are just staying together for the kids. My guess is that they never asked their kids how much they enjoyed having their parents who hate each other stay together and fight all the time, but that's a topic for another comment.
I once had a business owner tell me he wouldn't hire a man with long hair. I said "that's illegal!"
You were wrong about it being illegal.
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
Nothing in there about long-haired hippy types.
That's the way that these discrimination laws work. There's a list of protected classes, and you can't making employment decisions based on protected class membership. Hippies aren't a protected class.
Thanks for the information. Hoping not to have to use it for a very long time.
Thanks for the advice. We actually updated our wills, guardians, estate plans, and living wills a few years ago after she got sick, so I think we're in decent shape there.
A little curious why you put your cars in individual names, because our attorney had us own them jointly to avoid probate. Is there a liability concern with jointly owning cars?
First of all, a word is either spelled correctly or it isn't. The caustic attitude of the messenger doesn't change that.
Secondly, I can confirm the situation described by the AC. Way back when, I thought the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone could improve was pretty cool. Wanting to do my part, I corrected a few typos here and there. Nothing controversial, mind you, and nothing where there are multiple acceptable spellings. As you probably suspected by now, my corrections were reverted. So, I threw up my hands and said, "Why should I waste my time here?"
Needless to say, I have never made another edit.
Thank you. You're the first person to have mentioned reading it.
I'd love to read it, but I don't dare. My wife is in her third year battling a rare, obnoxious cancer and I'm at the office.
I'm sure she was an amazing woman, and I'm sorry to see that things ended as they did.
Lots of people claiming that they wanted to hire me, if only they had the budget.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I have never had a client whose budgeting process was so rigid that exceptions were forbidden, even when a good business case was made. When a company can hire a person for $X and that person's work will make or save the company some multiple of $X, then budget gets freed up to hire that person.
You how chicks like to dump us saying, "It's not you, it's me!" so that we supposedly won't feel badly about it? That's what is happening to you, except in your case it's, "it's not you, and it's not me either. It's some asshole in accounting."
Riiiiiiight.
That sucks.
And yeah, I saw you move the goalposts with " living in poverty, as defined by the US Census Bureau".
That's not moving the goalposts. That's just being specific. What's your definition of "poor"?
I doubt anything we do in our bedrooms comes close to what these guys do.
This is pretty much the bottom line. At the end of the day, all BDSM-related activities are intended to be erotic on some level. There is simply no point in comparing a BDSM single-tailing or caning with their judicial counterparts. The only similarity is in the implement.
I once read a description of a judicial caning in Singapore (I think), and it seemed like the goal was to beat the victim ("prisoner" doesn't seem totally accurate here) to within an inch of his life. They had a medical staff monitoring him to try to keep him from dying. Crazy stuff.
And, yeah, 150 "lashings" means nothing. I could easily give someone 150 lashings and not break the skin, or 1 lashing that would land her in the emergency room.