My AR10 will take out a fully armored military personnel easily. and remember, the military fires FMJ rounds. I'll be firing hunting rounds that when I hit his arm, it will blow off.
I'm bothered that anyone is posting anything like the above here. And are proud of it.
we have problems with people's attention being distracted from their jobs....
We also suffer from vandalism...
Management has dismissed half of the lessons ever learned about keeping personnel happy. They don't give a damn about happy employees.
You don't have a smartphone problem, you have serious H.R. problems. Taking away cellphones ain't gonna help one little bit with that.
If you work in a DoD environment then you have to accept the possibility that you're not going to be able to bring your device in the building. It sucks sometimes sure but if the risk is information coming in or going out then this helps mitigate it a great deal.
The problem is multifold, but the main one that jumps out at me is what if these rules are enacted AFTER you accept the position? And what if there is a completely valid reason for you having a cell phone (family crisis, etc.)? Employers who don't support their employees' needs are likely to suffer talent drain. Of course, they won't admit or recognize this until it's too late.
If not having your pacifier with you at all times makes you that uncomfortable, find a different job.
Yeah. My mom is critically ill in the hospital right now, so my iPhone is not a 'pacifier'. It is a lifeline to the doctors, nurses, family members, and friends who are helping care for her when I can't be because I have to come into that job you are so cavalier about me ditching. And several of them prefer texting (so they can communicate silently without bothering the patient), so forwarding the cell to my desk (which I often have to get up from) is not an option.
Then they shouldn't use Skype, period. Skype is so notoriously unreliable, that for FB to not have a plan to reconnect a bad Skype connection is absolutely unprofessional.
The louder one screams out against something, the less secure they feel.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot here, Apple. If you were truly the winner in this case, you wouldn't have any problem just playing the game and staying cool about it. Now you've raised eyebrows...
Read more about the actual case. Samsung added devices after the HTC agreement; Apple has to counter to keep up. It sure is interesting how you are singling out Apple when it is very clear in this case that it takes two to tango.
Biased summary much?
In this case, biased article perhaps, but not biased summary. The article (TFA) title uses the word "tantrum", so actually, the summary tones down the sensationalist phrasing.
But the summary did not have to use the "tantrum" weasel word. Further, OP didn't have to cite a biased article; there were hundreds to choose from that didn't call it a "tantrum".
No, just accurate.
"Apple throws a tantrum" is "accurate"? Nobody had headlines like "Samsung loses $1billion case, throws a tantrum and demands HTC documents." This is biased reporting, pure and simple.
But we're talking about a presidential elections, the future of the national government rests on this.
Actually, it doesn't. FiveThirtyEight has the probability of Texas breaking for Romney at 100%
While this is true, giving in to the Texas AG's biased demands is part of what keeps Texas from coming and joining modern society in terms of fair and transparent government.
come on, both major political parties in the US are considered far right in any other sane country
Your downvotes not withstanding, you are pretty much correct. Those downvoting you need to let go of their jingoism and go find out what political stances countries besides this one hold. Both U.S. parties pander to big business, something that pretty much NO other country's politicians do.
Legitimately registered voters are allowed to show up, vote, and then leave in an orderly manner. They are not allowed to loiter around the polls all day trying to influence the outcome of the election. And "observers" who aren't even legally registered to vote sure as hell shouldn't be doing that either.
Why are so many people getting uber-defensive about foreigners influencing the election? Dude, they are only here to OBSERVE. They are an impartial 3rd party just as officials in a football game are. They are the only impartial observers you're going to get. Having locals view the polls is like having the umpire of a baseball game be a member of the home team; he would have a vested interest in turning a blind eye to malfeasance.
Getting your hackles up about foreign observers is a sure sign that you're jingoistic and think the USA can do no wrong. And, my, how wrong such thinking is.
Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.
