Well, Steve was an odd duck. He was a huge asshole, but when it came to people coming up with new and innovative ideas, he would support you into either success or failure (god help you if it was failure though). Once he died, there was a noticeable shift in direction towards conformity and the bottom line.

As an example, one of the managers I worked with had a team that was breaking customer satisfaction records because he had them actually caring about the customer. Unfortunately, it also meant they weren't pulling in the same amount of profit because they weren't trying to ram Applecare contracts down customer's throats, they were also supporting some customers that were just outside their free support, and finally they were using the internal program put in place under Steve that allowed escalation reps to go beyond the norm. Like helping a smaller school set up a mac mini server network without forcing them to go to server support and paying 300 bucks for a one time call. Yeah, bottom line wise, Apple lost a 300 dollar support call fee. But they later sold quite a few macbooks to the students who were used to hearing how good Apple was.

Anyway, after some of the other groups started complaining, that manager was quietly removed and put over a non support team. This pattern continued to grow worse right up until the time I left, whatever brought in the most money was king and thinking outside the box was verboten. It certainly influenced my decision to retire early, as it did others who went on to other jobs.

Pinrockets is printed on this video. Looks like self-dealing to me.

Verboten, my friend.

@ban

Here's one of the most nighmarish aspects of Brexit: trade deals

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/brexit-huge-spanner-in-the-works-negotiation-of-new-uk-trade-deals-verboten-till-exit-complete.html

Here's a counter theory by another racer:

"I haven't seen how Stewart handled the car preimpact. That said, those vehicles require speed for what little grip they have, as it's largely generated by the roof fin, and they don't really steer so much as surf. If you watch the cornering style it's a full on drift. That makes twitch steering pretty ineffective - you steer from the back which requires heavy throttle.

You don't see Stewart's approach ( at least on the vid I've seen ), and the fishtail post impact I would attribute to the impact itself. His approach does not seem consistent with trying to spray the other driver with dirt ; that would have to be a at a high angle relatively speaking and he seemed to come in straight.

It's possible that Stewart intended to kill, but I really think it's highly unlikely. When you're racing you have a lot to deal with, and whilst under a yellow flag undertaking is typically verboten and in theory you should be slowing down, but in reality you are always looking to get the drop as soon as the yellows disappear. To that end you're scanning the track looking for disabled vehicles.

You're not scanning for drivers standing in the middle of the track - the assumption would be that the driver stays safely secured in the car, or they hop the barrier. If that can't happen for some reason, it's the job of race control to red flag the race.

My personal theory, based on incomplete footage - I'd like to see in car footage from Stewart ideally - is that Stewart just didn't see him in time to make any effective attempt to miss. It's a night race, and Stewart would have been concentrating on the disabled vehicle to his right. There's not much about Ward's outfit that would attract attention - from Stewart's perspective, black helmet, black racesuit, against a dark dirt background. These vehicles don't use headlights, so there's nothing to offset the glare of the spotlights.

In a perfect world Stewart would have seen and avoided, but ultimately Ward put himself in a fucking stupid position and paid the price. I'm not surprised to see lack of remorse on Stewart's part ; Ward shouldn't have been there, plain and simple.

Anyhow, that's my thinking on this - I don't know or follow anyone in that type of series, so I'm claiming to be bias free here. Racers know that motorsport is dangerous, so you do what you can to mitigate risk, not increase it by orders of magnitude.

Edit : Looking at it a few more times, it's also possible that Stewart was trying to rotate the car around Ward - throttling up and steering right would have pushed the back away from Ward, which might have made the outcome different. I still say it's a Darwin."

Whoa. Hey.

So Simpso -- did you know posting your own "stuff" is absolutely verboten here on the Sift? If you discard this quickly, you won't get banned. Boos boos happen.

Good luck on getting this off the Sift quickly!!!!!!

Yay, I think this is self posting. Staire is Alistaire, ja?

Self posting is verboten ici.

Send me links to both and I'll fix it for you tonight after work... or (equally likely) someone else will see your comment and do it before I get near it.

The restrictions on hosts make more sense to me than the restriction on updating thumbnail images on your own posts before you're bronze... but really, these are small things. Come for the cool videos, the entertaining comments... stay for the petty restrictions and occasional bouts of bitter in-fighting. Hang on, that didn't come out right....
In reply to this comment by Retroboy:
Here's an example of restrictions limiting "newbies": I have a dead video as one of my 3 submissions that I've found a replacement for and easily could fix, but I'm not at the right level so it's verboten. This makes me feel a little as if I'm a lower-class sifter even though all I want to do is correct one of my own posts.

Pretty sure a spambot would never self-repair a broken link that they submitted.

Likely one of those "special cases" that the VideoSift programmers didn't consider, and perfectly understandable if so. But it, and all the other grayed-out options, are a little limiting for "genuine" new members.

Here's an example of restrictions limiting "newbies": I have a dead video as one of my 3 submissions that I've found a replacement for and easily could fix, but I'm not at the right level so it's verboten. This makes me feel a little as if I'm a lower-class sifter even though all I want to do is correct one of my own posts.

Pretty sure a spambot would never self-repair a broken link that they submitted.

Likely one of those "special cases" that the VideoSift programmers didn't consider, and perfectly understandable if so. But it, and all the other grayed-out options, are a little limiting for "genuine" new members.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^shuac:

Rape an exception? No, sir. There are no exceptions because everything's on the table when you have the First Amendment. Your example set in France was sweet and everything but it is utterly moot when there's a land across the pond where no topic is verboten in debate, discussion, and/or comedy.
Let me put it this way. In a country where the Westboro Baptist Church is protected for doing what they do by the highest court in that country, you better goddamn believe that we'll joke about rape when and if we feel like it. Bank on it.
Don't like it? Great. Your like/dislike, approval/disapproval is not a hurdle the First Amendment has to jump. Debate about the merits of the joke and/or topic all you want. The outcome of that debate will also present no impediment to the First Amendment. Short of libel and slander, feel free to demonize the participants if you feel you must. That's a right you have and a right I'll die defending.
In conclusion, rape is not an exception because exceptions do not enter into it.
That is all there is to say.


You're arguing against a strawman. I'm pretty sure that when hpqp said rape is an exception he/she didn't mean it should be a legal exception. The argument is not that comedians making tasteless rape jokes should be fined, so nobody is attacking the First Amendment here. The argument is that certain sort of rape jokes should not be considered socially or morally legitimate. I think racism shouldn't be considered socially or morally legitimate, but I don't think the government has any business punishing racists.

So yeah, nobody disagrees with what you're saying here as far as I'm aware.

Rape an exception? No, sir. There are no exceptions because everything's on the table when you have the First Amendment. Your example set in France was sweet and everything but it is utterly moot when there's a land across the pond where no topic is verboten in debate, discussion, and/or comedy.

Let me put it this way. In a country where the Westboro Baptist Church is protected for doing what they do by the highest court in that country, you better goddamn believe that we'll joke about rape when and if we feel like it. Bank on it.

Don't like it? Great. Your like/dislike, approval/disapproval is not a hurdle the First Amendment has to jump. Debate about the merits of the joke and/or topic all you want. The outcome of that debate will also present no impediment to the First Amendment. Short of libel and slander, feel free to demonize the participants if you feel you must. That's a right you have and a right I'll die defending.

In conclusion, rape is not an exception because exceptions do not enter into it.

That is all there is to say.

You are only proving my point that we live in a blatantly sexist world.

It is one of the saddest things in my life that more than 40 years after we as women (and enlightened men) started having the conversation about how denigrating it is for full grown women to be referred as girls -- and to simper coyly and call ourselves girls -- that it is even worse now than it ever was.

And here you show up, making fun of a serious topic as if you have the least notion of what the heck you are talking about.

How often do you hear males over age 17-19 as being referred to as "boys"?

Take a moment as you move through the world and give it some attention. Women are girls, men are guys or men or dudes. See how often it happens that women are called ONLY girls. Maybe consider changing your language and use the word "woman" once in a while and see how your world view shifts.

That is, if you are open to learning something. If you have an open mind. If you don't think that you have achieved perfection in your thinking process and know absolutely everything there is to know is this vast world.

If you tell me that you routinely refer to grown men as "boys" and I'll back off on you personally. Some people do. That's great, I have no beef with them.

But if you aren't "equal" in your use of language, then yes, you and your female friends are blatantly sexist, and unconsciously so.

I first had this conversation in 1974. At that time, it wasn't uncommon to call a black man a boy -- getting rarer, but it wasn't uncommon. Yet here we are, calling grown women "girls."

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

And you "lol."

Even sadder.

The video, by the way, has a great payoff at the end of a rambling conversation.

By the way, I just looked up and saw #28 on the list of videos expiring soon. "Anal Cunt 'I respect your feelings as Woman.' " Another thing that saddens me. Coon, nigger, spook, jiggabo -- all verboten. But Cunt? Used now more than ever.

Saddens me.






>> ^packo:

didn't watch the vid, didn't really care... the only thing that caught my interest was that calling women "girls" is blatant sexism... that made me laugh
primarily because more women i know refer to themselves in different ways as "girls" than guys refer to them
is this a new "n word"? lol

@bareboards2

Gut feelings, dislikes, and the opinions of our bones seem to be more about instincts and yuck factors than about science.

Most people who dance like this probably read less news than even Sarah Palin. It's extraordinary that that statement is verboten, and it's unlikely we'll get people to reduce their personal intelligence for the sake of those norms, if that's what people are implying we should do.