Posts by Bucky 2 637 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I defy anyone to prove that he DIDN'T banish ghost embryos from that woman.
Indeed, given my vasty expertise in the matter of embryonic ghostly possession, together with the what seems should be effective exorcism rituals, I'm willing to bet that you would be completely unable to detect ANY ghost embryos possessing that woman at this point.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Makes sense to me.
I have a vasty trove of scientific knowledge about women's health after spending some time watching commercials on daytime TV.
My thoughtful conclusion: Women's bodies pretty much don't work right at ALL, whereas most male health problems are limited to sexual functioning (which is apparently iffy at best).
If I were a goddess, and someone named something after me, I would either be pleased or displeased. If I were displeased, I would smite them.
If, not being displeased with the recognition, someone UN-named a thing after me, I'd be SURE to smite them.
I think what we have here is proof positive of the power of the Earth Goddess.
The first paragraph has the phrase "pop them up on other people's screens."
I thought this article was going to be about all these porn mongers with the administrative ability to pop images up on terminals they don't own.
Yet, I didn't read anything about the misuse of THOSE administrative rights.
The sysadmin obviously made a bad mistake by wiping out an entire filesystem.
Human resources made a bad mistake by tasking the sysadmin with the eradication of porn, instead of the porn downloaders.
But I think the greatest misuse of power here, is the misuse by the porn downloaders. Not because it was porn, but because they inflicted it willfully on others.
I am IN LOVE with the idea that all those people shuffling vaguely through my local CostCo with their unruly clouds of children clogging the aisles might now be arrested on suspicion of shoplifting.
It would be nice to somehow extend this to childless folks who park themselves in traffic-blocking ad-hoc coffee klatsches, but I'll take what I can get when I can get it.
[That is, if you're not part of the solution]
I remember a couple years ago I got my shiny new Windows laptop, it came with 3-months free versions of Norton and...something else...I don't remember what anymore.
The first thing I did was create a couple of user accounts without admin privileges for day to day use (one for me, one for the husband).
The anti-virus programs whined and complained that they wouldn't work unless I logged in as an Administrator.
The only reasonable conclusion was that the AV thing is just a protection racket, and I uninstalled them post-haste.
As my old Chemistry professor used to say, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
I think the most profound narcissism of a generation I've ever witnessed was in a documentary of Woodstock, where the assembled masses believed they could alter the weather by force of will.
That's a level of self-importance that the lazy-ass slackers of today can only aspire to.
The problem they're trying to solve is that it's difficult to identify whether someone's qualified for a particular task. Their proposed solution is to make it so that there is an accreditation system through which every prospective employee can be so identified.
This solution is overbroad.
Rather, the only ability one needs is the ability to tell the difference between the competent and the incompetent.
Require an accreditation in this skill for all recruiters (with yearly re-accreditation, naturally), and fire those cannot comply.
If their solution is attainable, then my solution is much, much easier to attain, at much less cost.
[Beer, because I just like the picture]
"of 49 main characters listed in the show, only eight were female, reflecting a general trend among children's programming"
It seems a little backwards to me to fault a children's show which more or less accurately depicts gender disparity.
Gender inequality is a very real and difficult problem. Turn off the TV and deal with it.
If children were so easily influenced by television, today I certainly would be driving around the countryside in a psychedelic van, solving groovy mysteries involving creepy ghosts.
When you're trying to select a candidate for a position, determining whether the person is academically qualified for the job is comparatively easy. You have things like education and work history which you can evaluate qualitatively.
What's difficult about the hiring process is identifying some of the more difficult-to-quantify attributes of the candidate. Which is to say, are their individual eccentricities going to be compatible with the team they're going to be working with?
If one were applying for a teaching position in a Catholic school, and one were Protestant, it might be wise to add that to the CV simply to avoid wasting time or getting into unpleasant conflicts down the road. If I were reviewing the application, I might consider it a thoughtful addition.
On the other hand, volunteering information which is personal, and irrelevant to a particular occupation (e.g.: religion, marital status, Macintosh user ;-)) can sometimes be an indication that the applicant has a chip on his shoulder or a neurotic sense of entitlement. Nobody wants to come to work and deal with the daily ramblings of a drama generator.
This is a good example of why I'd have been happy just letting GM fail. Except I guess that would have turned Detroit from the Thunderdome to BEYOND the Thunderdome.
I guess the reason we didn't just let it happen and wall the city off is that it's supposed to be "Escape from New York."
Well, of course texting while driving is dangerous.
But that doesn't really apply to me, because I'm a good driver.
Also, I'm just going to be texting for a few moments, so how bad can that be?
Besides, the road looks pretty clear. I'll just make sure to look back and forth a lot.
"What you wear has a direct impact on how you feel about yourself and it is important a woman feels exceptional in her outfit. Whatever the occasion your clothes portray an image and we understand this is fundamentally important to women."
The statement seems completely reasonable on its face. But then if you think about it for a second, it doesn't explain why anyone would have anything in closet the which makes her feel like crap, nor indeed, why it takes that kind of time to rule out such clothing.
I need a better reason than that for such alarming indecision.
I remember being cautioned about light pollution in grade school -- which would be the '70's, for those of you keeping score at home.
The new twist is just a "won't someone think of the children" dodge. Except they replaced the weak, defenseless children with weak, defenseless ... women?
Am I the only one who's seriously offended by this nonsense?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
