hawkinson76's forum posts

#1 Edited by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

Since you asked: I step out of myself for the job, I am much more outgoing at work, because it pays dividends. The fact that I am actually very unsocial rarely comes up. Instances that come to mind are when coworkers mention facebook, because that is strictly for family and real friends and I will never add a current coworker, or when someone leaves, because I absolutely know I will not Keep In Touch.

After about 15 years of working in the same industry, I have a couple of observations of myself to offer:

  • Little of the social ease I express at work translates to home life; I am a gregarious and friendly coworker, yet I almost never speak with my neighbors (and fellow home owners) and when I do I am very nervous.
  • Social skills are invaluable. I don't mean being intrinsically social, I mean being able to turn it one when necessary. I supervise other employees (as in sign their timesheets, which means approving or rejecting their requests for schedule changes due to finals, dead grandmothers, etc), provide training for contractors, and do presentations when necessary. Never by choice, and not without some nerves before things get started, but once I am in the moment, it takes a life of its own and I am pretty good at it.
  • For the most part, people are in their own world's (as I am) and really don't give a shit about you on a personal level. I take this as a huge relief.
  • Don't take other poeple's word on who is or isn't difficult to work with. People generally aren't looking for fights, so go into every interaction with an open mind. It is entirely possible that the "friends" that warned you are the difficulty ones.
#2 Posted by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

As and American: absolutely not. Show me Probable Cause, or maybe (if the circumstances warrant) Reasonable Suspicion.

To be clear: When crime is a minority behavior (whilch is almost always, hell I can't think of a time it isn't, the assumption MUST be innocence.

#3 Edited by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

Just to clarify to The international users out there: I am a 36 year old America and I have not idea what this poll is about, let alone have a strong opinion about it.

#4 Posted by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

PJ's. Never owned any before my wife, very useful, can go outside late at night or early morning if I need, without putting anything else on.

#5 Posted by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

The worst thing about my last girlfriend (the one before my wife) is that I always liked her, and I losing her meant losing one of my few friends. The real kicker is that after 13 years without contact she contacts me on facebook and I found out she got WAY into video games. Real pity, I've never had friends that are into video games.

#6 Posted by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

John Q American here. This jumped out at me:

Up here in Canada (in Ontario at least) it is against the law to sell M rated games to those who can't prove they are at least 17

What about due process? The M rating on an individual game isn't the result of legislation, nor is it the result of a decision by a body authorized by the legislature in either the US nor Canada. It is a category determined by a private group privately, with the actual identity of the reviewers remaining private (unlike legislation. So how does it make sense to imbue this arbitrary and secretive process with the weight of law by attaching civil or criminal penalties?

The only way to preserve due process would be for the legislature to judge each game, or create a government body to do so, openly, and with clear rules that could be altered by the legislature when the people demand it. And even if this was attempted, it runs right into the 1st Amendment, which protects expression (artistic, political, religious, etc) as a fundamental right to ALL citizens. If the case could be made that the material was obscene (patently offensive and puerile with no artistic value), or directly harmful in a way that outweighed any artistic merit. That is an incredibly tough case to win in a nation as diverse as ours, most don't attempt it.

And regarding this:

I'm talking about tools that are designed to take lives, and simply being able to say or make a statement about something without fear of repercussions

You will find a large number of people, I think maybe the majority world wide, who think that words DO take lives/souls. China, as a secular example, and any large religion who feels that a member who loses their faith also loses their soul (or at least a place in the afterlife) take words VERY seriously and would LOVE to impose legal penalties for saying things, in some cases penalties that exceed the taking of life (if you publish a book that converts many away from a religion, for example, and that religion thought it was the one true way, they would feel justified in calling the author a mass murder of souls).

As for the 2nd Amendment: I am okay with it, even though I have no personal relationship with firearms. I dislike the interpretation that it is intended to protect us from a tyrannical government, it is much more logical to accept we are primarily responsible for our own security, that things the police and fire departments arrive AFTER the bad things have happened, and if we want to include firearms in that security we are allowed to do so. There are many situations it makes total sense: areas with wild animals, areas with no police (try Montana, they don't even have 911).

In the end, the Constitution is a package deal, and I'll abide by it and fight for it (all law is by consensus anyway, any prison could be taken over by its prisoners) because I've been able to provide for myself and my family in this context in relative comfort.

YOu know what is really crazy? the 18th amendment, that outlawed the sale of alcohol. Crazier? The 21st, canceling the 18th. Lets not do too much of that.

#7 Edited by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

Living room PC, which has been my family's only TV since 2003. My kids have zero concept of traditional television.

#8 Posted by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

I did not notice. But to be fair, I've never owned a PS3

#10 Edited by hawkinson76 (373 posts) -

Sounds like someone who doesn't have kids. I find it pretty hard to get bored with life when my kids are constantly experiencing new things. And when the no longer entertain me I'll kick them out and adopt a bunch of big dogs, they always make me feel better.