his guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls
To be fair, at 74, I don't think he really has any other option to try to monetize it. He doesn't have that long to enjoy the trophy wife the millions will get him.
. I did something I think was fairly smart. Joined the military. 10 years and loans are gone.
Good for you. The only mistake you made was not joining at the start of med school. It would have simplified your residency process, for one. But more importantly, going in early requires a lesser commitment (IIRC). I think it's still 10 years, but the time you spend in medical school counts towards your length of service.
It's dickish to take pictures of people without their consent. About surveillance cameras:
People do mind security cameras
The lack of a person affects more what people can do about it (who do you ask to turn it off?) than if people are offended.
The purpose is different (at least theoretically). Identifying/deterring criminals is worth X. Taking pictures of a bar that you happen to be in is worth less than X.
Most security cameras record on a loop, and are never viewed before they are recorded over.
Even the ones that are viewed are typically seen by a small group of people in an isolated environment, not uploaded into a massive data collection for later facial recognition/data mining
they had obviously been misled into thinking that Glass is some sort of uber spy device that records everything that's happening with no external notification
Yeah, wait until the 3rd or 4th (or 44th) update pushed OTA. Just because the inevitable problem has not reared it's head yet, doesn't mean that it's not both obviously going to happen and something that should be passively accepted.
So does it bother you that people can buy much better spy cameras for much less money and you wouldn't even know you were being filmed by the 2nd button down on their shirt?
Not really. First, people aren't able to trick themselves into thinking that they're not being an offensive ass when they film. Second, and as important, if the filming is that surreptitious, they won't be uploading it to a giant database.
What about the CCTV in the bar?
Yeah, that video is really unlikely to ever be looked at before it gets overwritten. But I do generally try to stay out of those camera's FOV
You know people can take pictures of you anytime anywhere in public.
And it's probably legal to hold a hand in front of someone's face as they go about the day. But it doesn't happen. Because we tend to recognize "don't be a dick" is something we expect without a law preventing it.
Also, you are ASSuming that Fedex, UPS, et. al., couldn't survive or thrive without the USPS. You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Y
Of course Fedex and UPS would survive without the USPS. You just wouldn't be able to (afford to) ship a package to a rural area... and some of the less populous suburbs.
let's not forget how the USPS is losing billions of dollars out the ass every year and the only reason it's able to exist is government loans.
Let's not forget that those "billions of dollars of losses" disappear if they use any commonly accepted accounting system. They have a uniquely dysfunctional accounting system forced on them by legislators who want to bemoan the losses.
A shipping organization that still collects shipping information in triplicate, separately stamps each of the copies, files them in separate bins for later processing and can't provide adequate tracking information is, in my opinion, inefficient.
First off, it may in fact be efficient. I mean, the marginal cost per package is higher, but it could be that ways of fixing it wouldn't pay back for N years. Waiting until the next update cycle may be efficient. But I won't make that case.
You were bad at using the USPS. You can, at USPS.gov:
- Fill out the shipping information online.
- Print the mailing label and affix it to your box
- Have some guy who was going to come to your door pick up the package Finally, a difference, 30 seconds savings
I'm not sure about the drop-off receipt or the tracking.
But, yeah, waiting in line at the post office tends to be pretty slow. But its pretty slow when I have to wait in line at the UPS store or the FedEx store as well. So, I think all three are pretty slow if you need help, and are pretty fast to drop off. (I've dropped off packages at USPS in seconds as well.)
But yeah, the USPS has wanted to upgrade for a while from forms in triplicate. There are some issues with the accounting methods they have to use, the way that their surpluses are confiscated and they cannot deficit spend. Which means that they have no way of making a large capital investment. That falls squarely on the shoulders of Congressmen who passed laws making it impossible for them to pay one time costs for long-term efficiencies, solely so they could bemoan the horribly inefficient post office.
In other words I will have to pay $2 to Comcast to allow me to access Netflix through the connection which I already pay $50?
WTF??
At least you're getting what you pay for. I'm going to be paying $2 for Netflix to pay Comcast, and my ISP is neither Comcast nor Time-Warner Cable. Zero benefit for me
Before anyone goes off on how I can send a letter all the way across the country for whatever the 1st class rate is today really consider how inefficient their operation runs. I go out of my way to use private entities in lieu of the US Postal service.
How are they inefficient?
Maybe before you go off about how they are inefficient, you should consider what that word means and how you think they are inefficient.
I would posit it's super inefficient to not use the USPS, and instead pay FedEx/UPS 10x the rate for the same service.
. Far more valuable than the bit they keep for themselves most of the time.
That's very true, except for the fact that it's totally false. From an investors point of view, the fees from certain types of financial institutions outstrip their supposed returns. Not, returns relative to index funds, or returns relative to inflation, but nominal returns. And not for "bad mutual funds" but for things like "the entire hedge fund industry from conception til now".
If you need evidence of how valuable it is, merely look at our recent financial crisis when the flow of money froze up.
So, these overcompensated people were so bad at their jobs that they practically destroyed the world market? Maybe, if we assumed that these jobs weren't super-important things a rare few could manipulate, we would have avoiding concentrating billions of dollars of investment power in a few people, so there would be more common, bust less ghastly, failures?
Try building a company without access to banking or financial services.
Being able to borrow money: important. Being able to have reliable accounting: important. However, access to Goldman: meaningless most of the time.
But other fields like law, medicine, finance? The common perception is that when you're starting out as an intern or assistant, the way you get ahead is working 12 hours days or weekends or whatnot.
That fits in with what the GP is saying. The way to get ahead is to book/claim 12 hour days. But no human really can work that hard.
That's why 90% of the people in finance are gone in two years (the remaining 10% get promoted).
That's why you hear about lawyers billing commutes, or lunches, or context switching so they can bill 8 rounded-up 15 minute segments in an hour.
There productive time is far less than 12 hours a day.
Well, the state would pay. It has good credit, and the sums to do this are a minor percentage of their outlays. So, in other words, it seems trivially easy to do.
I apparently did. Why is "2 girls, 0 guys" okay, but "2 girls, 1 guy" is a society destroying ratio-of-single-men-to-single-women distorter? Esp. since it does a better job preserving the ratio of single men to single women then a lesbian relationship?
you don't benefit from my education as much as I do, so I should pay more for it than you, right?
But if I assume that's true of everyone, than isn't it easier to just say "equal* shares" and assume that balances out? Within some tolerances, as modified by saved overhead costs.
*Equal can then be debated as progressive taxation or some non-progressive taxation, whatever. Different argument.
How is 'go to school now, pay it back later' any different than 'go to school now, pay it back later'?
It's not deterministic how much you pay back. You can go to school, then go to work at a non-profit without being so far in debt that you'll never be able to save. Theoretically offset by the people who graduate and go work for a ton of cash.
All in all, not a bad system, if your goal is to incentivize the creation of, for example, low paid social workers at the cost of highly paid (boogeyman of choice).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Britain had treaty obligations to defend Poland. But more importantly, maybe starting to arm then would have resulted in a much shorter WWII.
Good for you. The only mistake you made was not joining at the start of med school. It would have simplified your residency process, for one. But more importantly, going in early requires a lesser commitment (IIRC). I think it's still 10 years, but the time you spend in medical school counts towards your length of service.
The lenders already get a bailout. College loans are not bankruptable. They'll just take 20% of your wages for life.
Well, there's a damn good reason. Cause retention can generate almost as much "one-time costs" as new accounts. Maybe more
It's dickish to take pictures of people without their consent. About surveillance cameras:
Yeah, wait until the 3rd or 4th (or 44th) update pushed OTA. Just because the inevitable problem has not reared it's head yet, doesn't mean that it's not both obviously going to happen and something that should be passively accepted.
Not really. First, people aren't able to trick themselves into thinking that they're not being an offensive ass when they film. Second, and as important, if the filming is that surreptitious, they won't be uploading it to a giant database.
Yeah, that video is really unlikely to ever be looked at before it gets overwritten. But I do generally try to stay out of those camera's FOV
And it's probably legal to hold a hand in front of someone's face as they go about the day. But it doesn't happen. Because we tend to recognize "don't be a dick" is something we expect without a law preventing it.
Of course Fedex and UPS would survive without the USPS. You just wouldn't be able to (afford to) ship a package to a rural area... and some of the less populous suburbs.
Let's not forget that those "billions of dollars of losses" disappear if they use any commonly accepted accounting system. They have a uniquely dysfunctional accounting system forced on them by legislators who want to bemoan the losses.
First off, it may in fact be efficient. I mean, the marginal cost per package is higher, but it could be that ways of fixing it wouldn't pay back for N years. Waiting until the next update cycle may be efficient. But I won't make that case.
You were bad at using the USPS. You can, at USPS.gov:
- Fill out the shipping information online.
- Print the mailing label and affix it to your box
- Have some guy who was going to come to your door pick up the package Finally, a difference, 30 seconds savings
I'm not sure about the drop-off receipt or the tracking.
But, yeah, waiting in line at the post office tends to be pretty slow. But its pretty slow when I have to wait in line at the UPS store or the FedEx store as well. So, I think all three are pretty slow if you need help, and are pretty fast to drop off. (I've dropped off packages at USPS in seconds as well.)
But yeah, the USPS has wanted to upgrade for a while from forms in triplicate. There are some issues with the accounting methods they have to use, the way that their surpluses are confiscated and they cannot deficit spend. Which means that they have no way of making a large capital investment. That falls squarely on the shoulders of Congressmen who passed laws making it impossible for them to pay one time costs for long-term efficiencies, solely so they could bemoan the horribly inefficient post office.
At least you're getting what you pay for. I'm going to be paying $2 for Netflix to pay Comcast, and my ISP is neither Comcast nor Time-Warner Cable. Zero benefit for me
Yes, it did. Hell, it was so bad that we had to involve the government to prevent farmers from being unable to make a living.
How are they inefficient?
Maybe before you go off about how they are inefficient, you should consider what that word means and how you think they are inefficient.
I would posit it's super inefficient to not use the USPS, and instead pay FedEx/UPS 10x the rate for the same service.
I'm fine with Steve Jobs-esqe CEOs getting paid bank. But, there are probably 3 in the world, not even 500 for the Fortune 500.
Come to think of it, I'd rather Wozniak get paid bank.
That's very true, except for the fact that it's totally false. From an investors point of view, the fees from certain types of financial institutions outstrip their supposed returns. Not, returns relative to index funds, or returns relative to inflation, but nominal returns. And not for "bad mutual funds" but for things like "the entire hedge fund industry from conception til now".
So, these overcompensated people were so bad at their jobs that they practically destroyed the world market? Maybe, if we assumed that these jobs weren't super-important things a rare few could manipulate, we would have avoiding concentrating billions of dollars of investment power in a few people, so there would be more common, bust less ghastly, failures?
Being able to borrow money: important. Being able to have reliable accounting: important. However, access to Goldman: meaningless most of the time.
That fits in with what the GP is saying. The way to get ahead is to book/claim 12 hour days. But no human really can work that hard.
That's why 90% of the people in finance are gone in two years (the remaining 10% get promoted).
That's why you hear about lawyers billing commutes, or lunches, or context switching so they can bill 8 rounded-up 15 minute segments in an hour.
There productive time is far less than 12 hours a day.
It's a pretty bad judgement. Lesbians outnumber gay men approximately 2-1 (in the United States, as of a report published in 2011 about 2006-2008).
Which, I suppose, flows into my point.
I have no objection to lesbians marrying. But I also don't care if there are non-monogamous marriages either.
The OP cares about this strange ratio business. So, why is the OP okay with homosexual marriages?
He's constrained his comments to a vocational education.
Why? It seems like an incredibly high-risk loan.
Well, the state would pay. It has good credit, and the sums to do this are a minor percentage of their outlays. So, in other words, it seems trivially easy to do.
Ivy League schools offer neither academic nor athletic scholarships.
I apparently did. Why is "2 girls, 0 guys" okay, but "2 girls, 1 guy" is a society destroying ratio-of-single-men-to-single-women distorter? Esp. since it does a better job preserving the ratio of single men to single women then a lesbian relationship?
But if I assume that's true of everyone, than isn't it easier to just say "equal* shares" and assume that balances out? Within some tolerances, as modified by saved overhead costs.
*Equal can then be debated as progressive taxation or some non-progressive taxation, whatever. Different argument.
It's not deterministic how much you pay back. You can go to school, then go to work at a non-profit without being so far in debt that you'll never be able to save. Theoretically offset by the people who graduate and go work for a ton of cash.
All in all, not a bad system, if your goal is to incentivize the creation of, for example, low paid social workers at the cost of highly paid (boogeyman of choice).