ilmaestro
State Alchemist
The song you are looking for is a Japanese nursery rhyme called "Tenohira wo Taiyou ni", here is the JP wiki entry:Nonstarter Noodle said:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%89%8B% ... D%E3%81%AB
The General Conversation Area
- Thread starter Tachi
- Start date
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%89%8B% ... D%E3%81%AB
Mangaranga
Za Warudo
When I built my desktop PC I had Blue screen issues and it originally took 5-10 minutes to boot. Turned out I had a faulty Hard Drive.ayase said:
Check the status of yours with something like HDTune or Defraggler. At worst it may be a failing drive.
Kite
Pokémon Master
ayase said:(avoiding multiple quotes because of the ability of the bug to confuse matters)
@Kite - Awesome. BART is pretty cool, Muni cable cars and streetcars are better. I stayed in one of the districts of SF that has a bit of a dodgy reputation - Whenever I mentioned this fact I was constantly bemused by how afraid native San Franciscans seemed of an area that to me, seemed pretty tame. So it was a bit run down and there were a few tramps hanging around who ask for spare change - it's not as though you were likely to get mugged or gunned down on a main street. The hoteliers of my cheap and cheerful accommodation were friendly enough, I could spare a buck or two for passing tramps (who always seemed grateful) and I didn't feel in the least bit insecure. Weird how paranoid some people are - I started to wonder if the people talking about the district in question had ever even set foot there.
@Vash - I did a BBC Labs survey the other day and had to laugh when I got this result for how I view positive / negative perceptions of time:
A fairly accurate depiction of how I think the past was crap, the future's going to be crap, so I might as well just enjoy myself in the present. It's interesting because the more detailed explanation presumes I think that the future being crap is a bad thing, which I think isn't entirely true. I take a sort of perverse joy in that thought because part of me thinks people deserve for the future to be crap. Which is probably a bit unfair, but meh.
I did the muni underground, Bart trains, electric bus, regular bus, streetcar and cable car yesterday.
The area where the music shop is a bit 'dodgy', I saw someone doing drugs and almost watched a fight breaking out (something about someone being called a thief, a lier and sleepin with someones girl).
Bay bridge lit up at night is amazing. Amazing city.
Currently I'm in a hotel in a city called Fresno. Last night in CA, as tomorrow I head to Laughlin, nevada. Long 400+ mile trip on the bus though
------
In other stuff I was an idiot today, there is a girl, I'm guessing of a similar age to me, we have been friendly and I find her amazing (can't get her out of my head at night, heart beats faster around her etc), I must have misread the signs she was giving out as I did the most foolish of things and said I love her. (I blame the heat), she didn't respond at all. The worst thing is that we are sat next to each other on the bus.
-----
Silly question, but anybody know any good DVD shops around either Laughlin or Vegas?
ayase
State Alchemist
Ah, now I want to go back to California, stop making me jealous dammit!Kite said:
Seriously though, hope you're having a great time.
Reno was as far as I got into Nevada (has to be one of the oddest towns in the world) so I'm afraid I can't help with media shopping recommendations any longer. On my trip I flew in to SF, took the train to Sacramento, bus to Lake Tahoe, bus to Reno, flight down to LA and then back to UK - I planned to take trains from Reno down to LA but timings cocked up. Meant I got to fly in a cool little plane though.
Kite
Pokémon Master
I've had a quick search on Google and there is a couple places, however they seem to be 3/4 miles away from the hotels. So unless those places has a cheap public transport system I won't be going to them.
It is a state I will try and come back to, maybe drive up route 1 (the coast road)
It is a state I will try and come back to, maybe drive up route 1 (the coast road)
Random question: With the apprenticeship I have, I'll be earning £100 a week (which is around £2.86 an hour apparently). Will I have to pay National Insurance or Tax out of that, or not?
I'm pissed off that I found out that my wage is £2.86 an hour (just about the minimum wage for apprentices...by about 10p), when if there were actually any proper jobs around I'd be on at least £6.19 an hour. This country is balls >>.
I'm pissed off that I found out that my wage is £2.86 an hour (just about the minimum wage for apprentices...by about 10p), when if there were actually any proper jobs around I'd be on at least £6.19 an hour. This country is balls >>.
VoxPhantom
Stand User
Given that the personal income allowance is £8105, you shouldn't be paying any tax - assuming you're on the correct tax code. The HMRC site says that £146 a week is the limit before paying NI, so you shouldn't be paying that either.
The underpayment of apprentices is ridiculous. The daughter of a friend of mine got a job at a hotel, and was made to work 11:30pm finishes followed by 6:30am starts for about £2 an hour. Being an apprentice she couldn't kick up a fuss in case she hurt her chances of getting employed at the end of her apprenticeship.
The underpayment of apprentices is ridiculous. The daughter of a friend of mine got a job at a hotel, and was made to work 11:30pm finishes followed by 6:30am starts for about £2 an hour. Being an apprentice she couldn't kick up a fuss in case she hurt her chances of getting employed at the end of her apprenticeship.
Thanks. I was worrying about whether or not I'd have to pay, as the possibility was brought up in discussion with my grandfather yesterday.VoxPhantom said:
I've had to go for an apprenticeship simply because there's nothing out there. Throughout the 6+ months I've been searching it's all the same, jobs are there but only if you have managerial experience or PhD level research associates.
I don't see how the government can justify having a minimum wage for 16 year old kids who have a Saturday job higher than people who work full time hours. From 2nd April I'll be working 35 hours a week, 7 hours a day for £2.86 an hour. Sure, that's £400 a month on an apprenticeship compared to £224 on Jobseekers and I guess the money for the NVQ I'll be doing alongside it has to come from somewhere, but even then, I don't really need the NVQ side of it...I need the damn money.
Jet-pack Jack
Brigade Leader
Businesses are told to have apprenticeships because its so much cheaper. The company I work for was told to consider them.
Been doing some more thinking...and once I factor in costs of food and transport out of how much I'll be getting paid (£100 a week)...that will probably be about £50 gone already (£25 on transport alone). So I'll actually be £10 better off a month on Jobseeker's Allowance, as well as y'know, having some free time.
What the hell did I sign up for...*sigh*. If the hospital don't hire me on further after these 12 months....>>
What the hell did I sign up for...*sigh*. If the hospital don't hire me on further after these 12 months....>>
The experience is worth its weight in gold, though, so even if they don't hire you you're getting that much. Make sure you get the most out of it and learn as much as you can. Even doing odd jobs in the role which have nothing to do with the actual job title can bulk out a CV and catch peoples' eyes. For example, we were hiring for one role recently and the people who added that they'd done a bit of warehouse work too may not have won any awards for having a glamorous CV, but it did mean we got an idea about their work ethic and flexibility - in a positive way.
It's silly that JSA pays so much that it's a desirable alternative to gaining experience in a working environment. However, it does leave you stuck in a rut if you live like that, which results in problems if the situation changes one day.
My company has had two vacancies it cannot fill for months (even though we really need more people) because we just cannot find any applicants who are up to the job and can prove it with a work history. It's so important, even if it's unpaid charity work or some kind of structured activity done for fun. So many people promise it all in interviews and flake out on the job; we need to see some indication that a person is motivated and reliable before even considering them, no matter how well they come across in person.
R
It's silly that JSA pays so much that it's a desirable alternative to gaining experience in a working environment. However, it does leave you stuck in a rut if you live like that, which results in problems if the situation changes one day.
My company has had two vacancies it cannot fill for months (even though we really need more people) because we just cannot find any applicants who are up to the job and can prove it with a work history. It's so important, even if it's unpaid charity work or some kind of structured activity done for fun. So many people promise it all in interviews and flake out on the job; we need to see some indication that a person is motivated and reliable before even considering them, no matter how well they come across in person.
R
What Rui said is perfect. I'll add something else.
When you hire people you give a lot of weight on the amount of time they've been without a job. Being for a year or more without a job raises some suspicions. Being on Jobseeker or similars for a lot of time is seen as a HUGE malus, because it says you are really not motivated to find a job. People who REALLY want a job are able to find it, even if it's something humble or "humiliating" for their ego. If you need money you just need to ask to a couple of restaurants if they need a dishwasher. After a couple of days you get the job and have time to look for something better.
If you stay for more than a year on Jobseeker then this says (to any employer with a bit of experience) that most probably you won't be the most reliable worker for them: employers look for people that will be available to do all kinds of hard work if requested, even if it's outside what you signed for. Being on Jobseeker for more than a year is some of the worst assets when looking for a job, because it says you will the kind of person that will say "no" if an unexpected trouble occurs and there must be done some dirty work. People who say "yes" in those situations are mandatory for the good health of every business. People who are likely to say "no" are seen as black sheep.
Teo
When you hire people you give a lot of weight on the amount of time they've been without a job. Being for a year or more without a job raises some suspicions. Being on Jobseeker or similars for a lot of time is seen as a HUGE malus, because it says you are really not motivated to find a job. People who REALLY want a job are able to find it, even if it's something humble or "humiliating" for their ego. If you need money you just need to ask to a couple of restaurants if they need a dishwasher. After a couple of days you get the job and have time to look for something better.
If you stay for more than a year on Jobseeker then this says (to any employer with a bit of experience) that most probably you won't be the most reliable worker for them: employers look for people that will be available to do all kinds of hard work if requested, even if it's outside what you signed for. Being on Jobseeker for more than a year is some of the worst assets when looking for a job, because it says you will the kind of person that will say "no" if an unexpected trouble occurs and there must be done some dirty work. People who say "yes" in those situations are mandatory for the good health of every business. People who are likely to say "no" are seen as black sheep.
Teo
Amon81
Student Council President
Complete change of subject, I was just reading twitter and saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5b3nsWT ... e=youtu.be
I like the looks of it
I like the looks of it
ayase
State Alchemist
As a counterpoint to Rui and Teo's reasonable "peace with society" commentary regarding low wages and work experience, I offer my own "war with society" rebuttal of why we shouldn't be compromising at all:
Of all the things I hate about our society (which would be a list of infinite length as I'm of the opinion it needs to be torn up, fed through a wood-chipper, doused with petrol, set on fire and finally have the ashes placed in a rocket and fired into the heart of the Sun) the absolute WORST is the mandatory and encouraged reliance on the people above you in the food chain. You can see exactly what it's there to stop - It's there to stop the majority from taking their fair share from those who profit unfairly off the back of their work because they have little choice other than to rely on those same people for their own advancement. They grovel and they kowtow and they work for less than minimum wage to please them so that they'll put in a good word with them for the next person who uses them as a slightly more dignified table rather than a footstool. It's pathetic to watch frankly, and everyone who takes part in the perpetuation of this horrifying system is a pathetic weakling, me included. Perhaps one day I'll stand up to it, but the world doesn't need more Christopher Dorners, it needs more Che Guevaras, and that requires at least sizeable minority support.
People often talking about having respect for others, and how it's one of the greatest virtues. But too often the people at the top of society's pyramid show absolutely no respect for the people at the bottom. It would be playing the victim to suggest that none of their woes are their own, but it's equally unfair to suggest that they're there of their own choosing - Should they all have emigrated to China when you outsourced their jobs? No, what people mean when they say these people should "get off their arses" or "show some initiative" or similar sentiments is that they should be happy to change into the people society now requires them to be, the smiling white shirted desk workers who create profit by pushing paper and hawking the products their replacements now make onto people who otherwise wouldn't want or need them. And if need be, they should work for nothing because those above them don't want to lose out. Who will they want us to change into next, when those jobs too have too been shipped off to India? Since there's no more room around the top table, my best guess is still corpses.
Of all the things I hate about our society (which would be a list of infinite length as I'm of the opinion it needs to be torn up, fed through a wood-chipper, doused with petrol, set on fire and finally have the ashes placed in a rocket and fired into the heart of the Sun) the absolute WORST is the mandatory and encouraged reliance on the people above you in the food chain. You can see exactly what it's there to stop - It's there to stop the majority from taking their fair share from those who profit unfairly off the back of their work because they have little choice other than to rely on those same people for their own advancement. They grovel and they kowtow and they work for less than minimum wage to please them so that they'll put in a good word with them for the next person who uses them as a slightly more dignified table rather than a footstool. It's pathetic to watch frankly, and everyone who takes part in the perpetuation of this horrifying system is a pathetic weakling, me included. Perhaps one day I'll stand up to it, but the world doesn't need more Christopher Dorners, it needs more Che Guevaras, and that requires at least sizeable minority support.
People often talking about having respect for others, and how it's one of the greatest virtues. But too often the people at the top of society's pyramid show absolutely no respect for the people at the bottom. It would be playing the victim to suggest that none of their woes are their own, but it's equally unfair to suggest that they're there of their own choosing - Should they all have emigrated to China when you outsourced their jobs? No, what people mean when they say these people should "get off their arses" or "show some initiative" or similar sentiments is that they should be happy to change into the people society now requires them to be, the smiling white shirted desk workers who create profit by pushing paper and hawking the products their replacements now make onto people who otherwise wouldn't want or need them. And if need be, they should work for nothing because those above them don't want to lose out. Who will they want us to change into next, when those jobs too have too been shipped off to India? Since there's no more room around the top table, my best guess is still corpses.