joshthelegodude

[joshthelegodude]

I had dole ban me for 3 days. I have a really busy weekend. Please unban me early if I post:
1. An outline on internet wiretapping
2. A rough draft on my thoughts of the movie "Amistad"
3. My Math quiz grade.
4. A paragraph on Employer/Employee relationships.
If not, then just let the ban expire after 3 days.
Thanks,
Josh

[kolo]

why are you banned?

[Korthic]

he just said why... he has work to do and to make sure he doesnt play the game he had himself banned.. its a very common practice heh it works

[joshthelegodude]

This is the second time I've done it. Countypo has done it twice, and once he banned Fabeth so she would do chores. Not sure who else on Junkie has.

[Nicolu]

I remember the banning of fabs till she did her laundry. We even made her give us a pic before we let her back on lol.

[joshthelegodude]

By the way, is there anyway to prevent my chest shops at the mall from being taken by someone else in the mean time?

[Korthic]

Yeah fill them up so they don't run out

[joshthelegodude]

Wrote this in leiu of the employee/employer relationships:
This article is about the application to different colleges. Early, it focuses on an algorithm. The algorithm states that:
1. Every college applicant will apply to their college of choice.
2. If rejected, they will apply their next college of choice.
3. Repeat step 2 as necessary.
Although this my seem like a very practical algorithm, it has flaws. The article assumes that all college applicants have the requirements to make it into college. Even if they do, each time they apply, there is a chance someone else can bump them out of the category of people capable of making it into the college. Quotas cause even more trouble, despite the questionable leaglity. If a college has a quota, people can get bumped out of admission due to number limits if they are not part of the correct people group. Although this algorithm is useful for determining where better students go, it is filled with many problems.

I found the article very intesting. It demonstrates problems with quotas through its algorithm. Although quotas may help in some places, such as a racists neighborhoods and town, they general cause trouble and swing racism in the opposite direction. Sweden is a prime example of this, and affirmative action and quotas have swung from legal to illegal in the past years. In an ideal society, people would think nothing of skin color, however, we do not live in said society, so sometimes quotas are a "necessary evil"

[Xeronaile]

Wrote this in leiu of the employee/employer relationships:
This article is about the application to different colleges. Early, it focuses on an algorithm. The algorithm states that:
1. Every college applicant will apply to their college of choice.
2. If rejected, they will apply their next college of choice.
3. Repeat step 2 as necessary.
Although this my seem like a very practical algorithm, it has flaws. The article assumes that all college applicants have the requirements to make it into college. Even if they do, each time they apply, there is a chance someone else can bump them out of the category of people capable of making it into the college. Quotas cause even more trouble, despite the questionable leaglity. If a college has a quota, people can get bumped out of admission due to number limits if they are not part of the correct people group. Although this algorithm is useful for determining where better students go, it is filled with many problems.

I found the article very intesting. It demonstrates problems with quotas through its algorithm. Although quotas may help in some places, such as a racists neighborhoods and town, they general cause trouble and swing racism in the opposite direction. Sweden is a prime example of this, and affirmative action and quotas have swung from legal to illegal in the past years. In an ideal society, people would think nothing of skin color, however, we do not live in said society, so sometimes quotas are a "necessary evil"

I HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

[joshthelegodude]

Got a 90% on the ethics quiz. Also, steroid stuff
Perfromance-enhancing drugs can cause disunity in a team. Some players support them, while others strongly oppose them. This creates a conflict of interest between players. Because some players support keeping the game "pure" and others think that winning is more important. Another major conflict of interest comes from the the health of the player. Steroids are very unhealthy, causing a conflict between the health of the player and their desire to win. Because conflicts of interest are bad and cause more ethical issues than necessary, they should be avoided. Therefore, all performance-enhancing drugs are unethical and should not be used.
3/6 assignments complete!