Comment So, everything? (Score 1) 331
The absolute worst part of this is that it effectively covers any job involved in any way with "any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon"
The absolute worst part of this is that it effectively covers any job involved in any way with "any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon"
Yipppppppeeeeeee!!!!! is now official English!
Yippppeeeeeee!!!!!!
You misspelled it the second time.
I would agree. And I think the notion of teaching "Proper English" is less about saying common usage is wrong than it is with trying to slow down the fragmentation of the language into dialects. If you can teach one set of rules for the language as being "correct" and make sure everyone understands it that way, then at least you have a common starting point for all the different dialects, and hopefully keep people ostensibly speaking the same language actually able to understand each other.
I don't think they "care" whether they're made in some deep volcanic process or in an industrial plant. They're still... DIAMONDS!
Frankly, I'd go out of my way to NOT buy "real" diamonds but find the manufactured ones, instead. I'll choose the ones not supporting murder, borderline slave labor, and multinational anti-competitive practices and price fixing.
Please tell me you are just trolling. Breeding is an integral part of the sport. You can't make it irrelevant and have the same sport, and you have in no way explained how that us better.
Please tell me you are just trolling. You can't just say breeding is an integral part of the sport, and you have in no way explained why it is or should be, or how it is better. Why can't you make it irrelevant and have the same sport?
You only need about 1000 customers to run a successful bar. That's a tiny fraction of the population of most cities.
Yes, but quite often the number who don't want the bar is even less. A very vocal minority rails against what they find immoral while dismissing claims that people want it - because if they want it, those people are dirty immoral deviants and should be ignored, anyway, right? This is the tyranny of the minority, and it happens constantly in politics.
I'm not arguing that. I was pointing out that the GP's point that the citizens didn't want these things is wrong - it's some citizens who do not want it.
Lots of communities CITIZENS don't want strip clubs or pawn shops or porn shops or Walmarts or whatever; but they aren't illegal and the community can't outlaw them outright.. so the local government's mazes of red-tape to make opening such a business in the community difficult are simply a reflection of what the community wants implemented with the tools they have available to them.
This is pure and complete bullshit. If the community's citizens didn't want such a business there, the business would get no customers and close down naturally. What actually is happening is that a cabal of Bible-thumping prudes who wish to impose their sense of morality upon others forces these laws through in order to control the larger population.
If I write an wikipedia article about Batman being real, will you use it too as reference?
I'm not sure about that, but if given the choice I'd definitely choose Batman as my personal Lord and Savior over the zombie guy.
[...]but did they get any of the $2b Facebook bought the company for? No! If Kickstarter were a real investment platform backers should benefit from the success of the company just as easily as they can lose their money when it fails.
The problem with this is that it would require issuing stock - which requires knowledge of securities law for wherever you are (and possibly wherever Kickstarter is). Issuing stock on Kickstarter would possibly count as an IPO, which gets even more complicated.
If this were to happen, the only decent, streamlined method would be for Kickstarter to have a staff to do it for you. Which could be good if you want to become a publicly traded corporation, but that adds more overhead in reporting and investor meetings/etc. as well.
The question, though, is does that delegation extend beyond the term of the current congress?
Yes, unless there's a clause specifically setting a point in time that the delegation of power ends or needs to be renewed.
It seems it would be unconstitutional to legislate away the law making power of future congresses.
No, because they haven't legislated away any power. If an act of Congress grants or delegates a power, then another act of Congress can reverse that - if they really wanted to, Congress could pass new legislation revoking or amending the previous legislation. The only way they could permanently legislate power away is via Constitutional amendment - which, by definition, cannot by unconstitutional.
If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.
You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.
Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.
Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.
This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a
This is totally at odds with reality. Strong pushes in branding can and will warp public perception. If Google pushes ".dev = good developers" it will cause a branding in people's minds. At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have
This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.
Well, I'd hesitate to call you colour blind since you are in fact correct. The dress really is blue and your brain is somehow undoing the mangling that's been done by the camera and lighting to arrive at the correct colour. I can't unsee it as white and gold however.
I'd actually think it was the other way around - I'm less blue colorblind which is why I always see blue, regardless of surrounding context. You've got slight blue colorblindness which is why context causes you to interpret the blue as a different color.
The other day I saw an odd green thing on the floor in my hotel room. It was actually my backpack lit with green tinged light, but was crumpled in an odd shape so I couldn't tell what it was. When I figured it was my backpack, I could no longer see it as green (the actual colour is black).
This could indicate another possible explanation; that in many people the color you first see it as becomes the "right" color, and it becomes difficult/impossible to see it otherwise, as your brain has already interpreted it, and is remembering the "right" color even if you're trying to see it "wrong".
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai
