At their apogee, United Kingdom. Marketing Marketing Research. Se ha un problema cardiaco lo riferisca al medico.

Categories: Impotence | over the counter viagra cvs


  • secondaryaccount


    March 11, 2015, 7:26 am

    Eh, I'm not sensitive to criticism. I'd definitely be in the wrong industry (customer service) if I was. I do, however, take the time explain my actions because I feel people deserve to know the "why" behind things I do (not just in regards to my job).

    1) The title of my post refers to it as an evil insurance company. I'd say I'm pretty clear on that fact. I consider my job morally questionable, and I just try to do it in such a way as to make it morally acceptable to me (and then I've taken the time to explain why I feel it's acceptable here).

    2) Why should I not try to change people's perceptions when they are unfounded?


  • sibber


    March 10, 2015, 8:41 pm

    the major difference is that Computer Engineering incorporates hardware: Circuits, micro-controllers, embedded systems coding, and that sort of thing. Computer Science does not, it's (for the most part) on a higher level of abstraction.

    Choose whichever you like better, and whichever gives you a better chance of graduating. Worth noting though, it's easier to get a CS job with a CE degree, than the other way around.

    If you had a 5 hours to kill, would you rather code something (CS) or play around with a breadboard and some devices(CE)?


  • truco


    March 10, 2015, 9:00 pm

    I think this whole stupid argument is over a misunderstanding over what you meant in the beginning, which was that joking about the subject of prison rape makes you a bad person instead of saying that the joke itself was in bad taste. I'm defending the subject, not the content of this joke, I don't know why you haven't picked up on this yet. You were saying 'it is terrible to joke about prison rape' until your last comment, which is a pretty broad statement, so I feel like I was justified in this interpretation. Then you called me an idiot and I called you a dick and now we've wasted probably 30 minutes of our lives arguing over something we probably agree about.


  • originalucifer


    March 10, 2015, 10:22 am

    I just don't buy it. People in wheelchairs can't claim their not disabled, it would be absurd to try. They require extra things to bring them to the same level as the average human. Just because the deaf need less obvious equipment, doesnt negate the fact that they do. It's almost as if the feeling they have for defining their own culture is a psychological mechanism for coping with said disability. In essence, claiming their need to define their own culture is a Symptom of the disability they claim they dont have.


  • magikasheep


    March 10, 2015, 2:56 pm

    also good to remember if you want to avoid errors with an error check in an if statement. For example, if i want to check if an object does not exist (null) before checking if one of it's properties are true.

    if (object != null && object.x == true)

    if this is done in reverse order, or the null check never happens, a null pointer error will occur.

    edit: for those wondering, != means does not equal to. object.x refers to a local variable within the object function or class (I am working in java)


  • amarcord


    March 10, 2015, 9:04 pm

    For a few years after I abandoned my "faith", unlike others who only feel contempt for what they left behind, I preserved a childish form of nostalgia for the evident positive sides that each religious organisation has. I remember one day standing in church with my family, at that time a staunch atheist, looking at all the idols in the building and looking at them as golden calves. At the same time I felt, wished, hoped that all the people in that building would keep praising and loving those idols just as I did, for I did not wish for them to enter the tunnel of disillusion, and I saw religion as an inescapably necessary force that bound hope and sorrow in one making life possible for all those who would not dare to stare in the abyss.

    I'm quite certain that this girl probably still has leftover feelings about her experience with religion. I don't blame her.

    It's 5am. [/drunken thoughts mode][go to bed mode]


  • zahlman


    March 10, 2015, 6:58 am

    Hmm? C is fine for the things it's appropriate for. C++ likewise. Although the spectrum of "things they're appropriate for" tends to be vastly overestimated. The tasks for which they are appropriate, themselves, tend to suck. Like, say, embedded development.

    "C/C++" bites a major bag, because to the extent that it means anything at all, it refers to the practice of treating C++ like C, ignoring major swaths of the language, and shitting on what object-orientation is supposed to mean. Seriously, I can write code in pure C that does a much better job of fulfilling the OO paradigm than 99% of the "C/C++" crap I see. It sucks in the same way that any language would suck if you stripped out everything from the standard library that could possibly be re-implemented manually and added a bunch of arbitrary "you can't use language feature X" restrictions.


  • barc0001


    March 10, 2015, 7:16 am


    You're funny!

    I live in Vancouver, host city for the 2010 games. The first thing they did was get 10s of thousands of VOLUNTEERS to sign up to help staff pavilions and events during the games. They'll get some swag for their help, but they're not actually getting paid real money for it.

    The second thing that happened was both the city and province have diverted a ton of money that should have gone to other programs into Olympic related projects. Examples being that the Athletes Village in False Creek (as an aside, great idea building the Village on the most expensive real estate in Canada guys...) ran into financing problems during the real estate meltdown so Vancouver city council dumped over $80 million into it from the city's coffers. And the Sea-to-Sky highway between Whistler and Vancouver sure as hell wouldn't be getting a $600 million upgrade if the Olympics weren't coming to town. And yet the city can't find the money to upgrade our elementary schools to withstand an earthquake. Oh well, at least when the Big One hits and we have hundreds of dead kids we can use the Olympic Skating Oval ($155 million dollar project in Richmond) as a morgue.

    Thirdly, just because you're a host city doesn't mean you'll make money on the olympics. Montreal hosted in 1976 and finally paid off all the debt they rang up... in 2007.

    Fourth, don't assume the Olympics will mean the average joes will make money off the influx. In some cases people are losing money. Traffic in downtown Vancouver is going to be royally screwed during those weeks, and some workplaces that are in "secure" zones have been telling their employees that they'll have to shut down during the Olympics so they'll be on vacation, paid or otherwise, while the Olympics are on.


  • seeyardee


    March 11, 2015, 5:47 am

    I'm not hating on Chicago at all. They had a good bid, and ultimately Rio won, which is nice for them. Rio (and all of South America) deserves a chance to host the Olympics.

    Rather, I'm hating on the IOC. 53 of the 106 members of the IOC are from Europe, so they pretty much have the say-so as to where the Olympics are going to be. They acted like dicks because they're mad at the USOC. The USOC gets too much of the money, according to the IOC, nevermind the fact that a huge portion of the IOC's budget comes from the broadcast rights in the US.


  • twistedcain


    March 10, 2015, 10:31 am

    If I get a job at McDonald's, I don't make a good burger. The goal of McDonald's is not to make a "good" burger, but a burger created according to the standard. If one rouge employee started making really good burgers, customers would be accustomed to those really good burgers and would complain when others served burgers the way they are supposed to be served. McDonald's isn't about trying to make good burgers, but the same burgers. That way anyone anywhere who goes to a McDonald's experiences the same food. Not better or worse, but the same.

    Imagine a car assembly line and a rouge worker beefs up the horsepower on one of the cars on the assembly line. He tells his boss that this car is 10% faster than all the other cars on the line. His boss would tell him to fix it so it is the same as all the other cars on the line. Their goal is to make all the cars the same.

    An officer doing his job does not elevate him to a good officer. He was doing what he was supposed to be doing. Just because he wasn't a bad cop, doesn't automatically make him a good cop, but just a cop.

    If all it takes to be a "good" employee is to do your job and nothing more, then we have truly lowered our standards as a species.


  • lyricsaremylife


    March 11, 2015, 9:00 am

    Being white always works against you when you step into the circle or on to the stage. Alot of the time I'll be the only white guy there and I'll have to prove myself before anyone in the crowd/circle starts to give me respect. When someone does start out using my ethnicity it can be tricky on how to reply. The enviorment I'm in plays a large part in the decision making process. If it's a pretty "ghetto" crowd you've gotta watch what you say I always have friends with me and we've been in our share of altercations


  • YesImSardonic


    March 10, 2015, 9:36 am

    > His Royal Tolkienness

    Given how influential he is and what a master of the language he was, I think your disdain is misplaced.

    > "They're good because they're pretty!"

    If I may reference Book I of "The Lord of the Rings:"

    > [...] look fair and feel foul [...]

    Aragorn was one ugly motherfucker. Sauron appeared as an Elf before he lost the ability to shapechange (during such a time as he desired to be fearsome). Ar-Pharazon was beautiful, as well.

    In Tolkien, pretty != good.

    You may want to go back to "swarthy == bad," but if I remember correctly, the Wold were dark-skinned good guys.


  • marblelion


    March 10, 2015, 6:47 am

    I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes, alcohol is a drug which is why I use the all inclusive term "drug". My earlier comments are saying that there is no gray area b/c use of a drug automatically implies non-consent.

    One should not be allowed to argue that

    "Well, it's not my fault she can't hold her liquor. She said yes. How was I to know she didn't mean it cos she was drunk?"

    If someone gets high, drunk, inebriated, etc, they are not in a proper mental state to give consent, so anything done to them should be considered rape, battery, sexual battery, whatever.

    If a person gives any type of drug, legal or not, to someone else without their knowledge, and then uses that person for sex, they should be charged with sexual assault/battery or rape, whatever the case is, AND with druggng someone, or whatever the legal term is.

    And frankly, even if the person knowingly accepts drugs from you, but you give them enough to make them incapable of normal, rational behavior, that should still be a crime.


  • Willravel


    March 11, 2015, 9:03 am

    First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Third Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Fourth Amendment – The right of the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    Seventh Amendment – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Eighth Amendment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people*.

    Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*.

    *the People herein shall include any being deemed to legally be sentient, be it natural or artificial.


  • alpacalypse


    March 11, 2015, 7:25 am

    This is the reason that I believe that a major key to cutting out prosecutorial and police misconduct is the elimination (or even de-emphasizing) of the use of arrest/conviction rates as performance figures. A close friend of mine is a criminal prosecutor in New York City, whose DA's office is known as having the most integrity and best ethics practices of the big cities in the US. She tells me that a lot of this is due to the fact that prosecutors are made to feel comfortable dropping cases when they feel it's appropriate, and that their performance reviews take a lot more into account than conviction rates, such as ethics reviews.


  • cartooncorpse


    March 11, 2015, 12:11 am

    I feel it's coming sooner or later. But then, I'm the type that has suspected this since i got there (started with a 6 week contract job, 12 years ago). The 'good' thing is i've saved PLENTY, have eschewed having a wife and kids, so i can last a good number of years, as long as the dollar doesn't collapse, then it would be matter of several months (emergency preparedness rations).

    Theres a piece of me that would be calmed afterwards, but a bigger piece of me that would be freaked out. I don't intend my savings to go for surviving a layoff, i intended it for an oceangoing 'retirement'.

    Anybody layed off and enjoying it out there?


  • lordthadeus


    March 10, 2015, 10:54 pm

    >Do you find it strange that philosophers do not subscribe to vegetarianism/veganism on a greater percentage than the populace? I'm a philosophy doctoral student and a vegetarian. I figure that philosophers are generally more conscious than the average person about issues regarding ethics....But philosophers just seem to ignore this, or don't think that animal suffering is something that needs to be taken into account.

    Believe it or not, some people have taken a good hard look at the situation and determined that it is not immoral to eat meat. You are simply assuming that *your* conclusions regarding "animal suffering" are the only valid philosophical conclusions to reach when in fact, there is no knock-down argument either way. I think you are going to have a hard time convincing philosophers that every instance of eating meat is an immoral act and thus should be discontinued. The real world is a little more gray than that and I think it would do you well to not go around assuming that you are morally superior to other people simply because you choose to not eat meat.


  • metalola


    March 10, 2015, 11:45 am

    Remember the difference between correlation and causation though. There are alot of different reasons to not be enthusiastic about reading. I know that teaching my sis how to read was a bonding experience for us both, and I know she loves reading and writing to this day, and I'm sure part of that was because she had alot of fun having someone close to her and whom she looked up to teach her the skill as opposed to learning it in school or being forced to learn early. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Woldorf alternative schools also do not teach reading for quite some time.


Leave a comment