"Tylenol typically causes a horrible, drawn-out death that takes two to three weeks. The impression given by the media is that he tossed down a bottle of Tylenol, grabbed his throat and keeled over."
Dying from liver toxicity sucks. But he took tylenol with codeine. Enough codeine tends to suppress breathing (Codeine: toxic dose about 240 mg). Typical doses of codeine are 15 to 60mg with a maximum of 360mg per 24 hours. Not breathing for a period, say over 10 minutes, will tend to result in death.
If you have tylenol with codeine, you probably have enough to overdose.
"The big three management has a lot of the blame for their fortunes."
Which includes the following:
"That is very hard to do with those very same unions requiring that you hire X number of employees to fill those factories."
The problem with US automakers is that their management has sucked for a long time. But nobody cared when times were good, energy was cheap and there was little competition. The big three negotiated all those contracts willingly. They have only themselves to blame if they are getting bit in the behind because of them.
"3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go."
Really? So could you poste your name, SSN, address, where you work, your salary, your mother's maiden name, etc? Everybody has something to hide. Or at least doesn't want someone to know.
If they know where go and how you get there, they can now write you a ticket. But you say you never break any laws?
"For the law abiding citizen there are *tons* of benefits for this."
Well if a cop tracks you long enough or follows you long enough, you will break a law-this has been stated by cops. Nobody is a law abiding citizen. There are too many laws.
There are potential benefits. And a lot of negatives.
"I still believe that in general most cops are good and do their job."
I certainly don't believe it. Now most cops may not be bad but many are not very good at their jobs. And I have heard this from other cops.
Most of my experiences with cops have been negative. I have been ticketed for going 38mph in a 25mph zone that was actually a 50mph zone, had officers that couldn't fill out an accident report correctly and have been pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt even though I was. To be fair, I did have one encounter with a professional cop.
And I am not a minority. I can only imagine what they have to deal with.
Finally, how many cops would turn in and testify against a dirty cop? Not very many. Which makes them bad cops too. End of story.
"A real approach to education reform starts by recognizing that every child is different, every child has different needs, different motivating forces operating on him/her, different interests in different areas, etc., then tailoring the educational program in such a way that children of similar levels of ability and interests are grouped together."
Most teachers would love this. But it would require that parents accept that their kid might not be very good at everything. That all kids might not be equal. And that is not acceptable in our current society.
I know a teacher that is leaving education. They were a science teacher. They don't have time to plan, they had to take arbitrary amounts of additional coursework just to stay employed, have to deal with students who don't care, don't show up, or who are not capable of doing the work, have to be a social worker, have to teach to the tests and have to deal with parents from hell.
I am considering teaching. But why would I want to take a year of classes, do half a year of unpaid work (not counting the classes) to deal with this crap? Ever wonder why the best and brightest don't go into teaching?
"If the subject matter was fascinating and sensical/relevant to daily life, you'd not need saints and butchers to motivate students to learn
Students have different concepts of fascinating and relevance. Balancing a checkbook is relevant. But do you think most kids would care or want to spend hours doing it? I find geology relevant and fascinating but most students don't. Likewise others find physics fascinating and useful. How do you define relevance? How do you define fascinating?
School is not entertainment. Learning is hard. Learning is not fun much of the time. The outcome of learning can be fun but the process often sucks. I don't believe this can be changed. If you can, you will be rich....
"As gas prices continue to increase, there is plenty of demand for an affordable electric car."
True. But I don't consider $24000 affordable. For that I could buy a Prius now. But it doesn't make sense to spend 24K when I can get an new efficient vehicle for half that. Or drive my 30mpg car and pay for maintenance for a long time.....
If you work over 40 hours a week you are eligible for overtime if you are not exempt. It is irrelevant if you are salaried. Of course, it this is typical in her field, she may not be exempt.
And why did she go into engineering if she didn't want to work long hours? It isn't exactly a secret that it happens regularly.
"She could easily work 75% of the time from home, but engineering managers want there little money making machines where they can find them."
Then tell her to find a better company with good management. Being a woman engineer should make it pretty easy to find another job. It will be more difficult to find one with good management....
Double standards are bad. But exactly what relevance do the standards they use have to do with the job they do? Why do you need to do X push ups, Y sit ups, climb over walls Z feet tall or throw a grenade a certain distance? Does everyone in the army or military do these things all the time? Or do certain parts of the army do this more than others?
The problem is the arbitrary standards. If you have to be able to do X then fine. But if you rarely do X, is it important? Standards are always used because they are easy to measure. But they may have very little relevance to the job. That's why they are arbitrarily changed-because they don't really have any basis in fact.
"If you want to fix a problem, you have to fix it from the ground up. Don't ever lower entry and passing requirements for any subset. If you're finding out a subset don't apply as much and don't do as well, figure out what the root of that is and fix it."
And that is hard. It takes time, money and effort. And many people disagree on what is important. Which is why we get quotas.
It would be much better to determine what knowledge is important, what constitutes qualified, etc. than to just lower the bar. But that requires effort and knowledge. Which means it rarely happens.
After all, no one cares what grades you received in school but how well you do your job. Of course, how well you do your job is often subjective....
"Requiring employers to hire based on any criteria other than an applicant's qualifications is a terrible thing to do to anyone already in that profession, especially the members of whatever group is getting the preferential treatment."
Part of the problem is defining "qualified". I have worked for an employer that said that you must be able to do X,Y and Z (essential duties) but then hired people who couldn't do these things because it really wasn't necessary. But you can't get them to admit it or fix it....
I believe that most organizations have no real clue what constitutes qualified for what they need done. Or well qualified. Or over qualified. They just wing it. Which creates opportunities for bias in the the first place.
I'm confused. How does voting for a law that says a previously illegal act is/was actually legal not respecting the rule of law? Not exactly unusual. And legal unless the courts say otherwise.
Reprocessing nuclear waste may or may not reduce the waste stream. It will certainly change the makeup of the waste. And it will probably be messy. Much of the nuclear cleanup done on federal lands is related to reprocessing nuclear material.
I think nuclear power is a good idea. However, I have no confidence in US companies or the government's ability to do it in a responsible and cost effective manner.
In general, smart and/or motivated kids will learn in any system.
In general, unmotivated and/or "dumb" kids will not learn in any system.
The problem is the parents, not the schools. If the parents value education, the kids will probably succeed. If they don't, the kids will probably fail. Of course, it's easier to blame somebody else than to admit you are a poor parent....
"Is it lazy parenting if both parents are working 2 jobs to try to provide a decent life for their children and do not have the time or energy left to nurture the children's minds?"
Yes.
"Most people seem fixated on material things and maintaining a standard of living, not on making time for their children."
You answered your own question.
Good parenting takes effort. If you don't have the time or money, don't have the kids.
"I still prefer the idea of an SUV than a minivan or station wagon to try and haul people/stuff around."
An SUV is a repackaged station wagon. As are most minivans. Most SUV's have no more usable space than a station wagon. Heck, some have less usable space than a Prius.
"Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right? That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST."
Obama is the presumptive nominee. Until the delegates at the Democrat convention ratify that Obama is their nominee, he hasn't won anything. Not that anyone seriously believes he won't get it of course.
Re:fuel costs still not high enough priority
on
Big Rigs Go High Tech
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Most of these could be moved to rail which is much more energy efficient."
Companies care about cost and time. If it were cheaper and faster to ship via rail they would. It isn't, so they don't. Except for large bulky shipments.
"I agree that you would still need trucks for local and short deliveries, but so much of the industry is long haul or multi-state trucking."
And you would have the same amount of drivers. Except that you can pay the local ones less.... Trucks are far more convenient than rail lines. That's worth increased cost to many.
"They have rail cars that you can just pick up the trailer off the rail car and hook it right up to the truck for the first few miles to the rail yard and the last few miles from the rail yard."
Sure, if you don't want your cargo in a timely manner. I've worked in a warehouse-containers via rail are slow. It's quicker to ship cargo from LA to Seattle via truck.
In the end, efficiency is only important to companies if it reduces cost.
"True, but that doesnt change the fact that most of the goods around the country USED to be carried by rail, untill the automotive companies bought up the rail companies and began to ship everything with the trucks they built."
Automotive companies didn't buy up rail carriers.
We built this great transportation system (highways) that allowed people to live everywhere and get goods from anywhere. Railroads couldn't keep up. Trucks are more useful. It will take far greater prices and much time to change this.
I suspect that most goods used to be created and used locally. Which worked great when we were mostly farmers.
"I don't know about other drivers, but personally, I get BORED when I drive, especially on freeways (traffic or no traffic)."
Then there is a good chance you are not paying attention to the road or other cars or potential problems, etc. The best way to avoid collisions is to anticipate them. That shouldn't leave you bored.
Now if you are driving the same route continuously, in the same conditions and at the same times, I can see why you would get bored. It's easy to stop paying close attention.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tylenol typically causes a horrible, drawn-out death that takes two to three weeks. The impression given by the media is that he tossed down a bottle of Tylenol, grabbed his throat and keeled over."
Dying from liver toxicity sucks. But he took tylenol with codeine. Enough codeine tends to suppress breathing (Codeine: toxic dose about 240 mg). Typical doses of codeine are 15 to 60mg with a maximum of 360mg per 24 hours. Not breathing for a period, say over 10 minutes, will tend to result in death.
If you have tylenol with codeine, you probably have enough to overdose.
"The big three management has a lot of the blame for their fortunes."
Which includes the following:
"That is very hard to do with those very same unions requiring that you hire X number of employees to fill those factories."
The problem with US automakers is that their management has sucked for a long time. But nobody cared when times were good, energy was cheap and there was little competition. The big three negotiated all those contracts willingly. They have only themselves to blame if they are getting bit in the behind because of them.
"But there's another issue that this seems to raise: accountants at your HMO second guessing your doctors."
Unfortunately, they are often better at medicine than the doctors. At least in the area of drug effectiveness.
"3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go."
Really? So could you poste your name, SSN, address, where you work, your salary, your mother's maiden name, etc? Everybody has something to hide. Or at least doesn't want someone to know.
If they know where go and how you get there, they can now write you a ticket. But you say you never break any laws?
"For the law abiding citizen there are *tons* of benefits for this."
Well if a cop tracks you long enough or follows you long enough, you will break a law-this has been stated by cops. Nobody is a law abiding citizen. There are too many laws.
There are potential benefits. And a lot of negatives.
"Funny, The Economist covered short-selling this week and discussed why selling, even naked short-selling, is good for the markets."
So, doing something illegal is now considered good? I believe the rules state that you have to at least "borrow" the equity before you short it....
"I still believe that in general most cops are good and do their job."
I certainly don't believe it. Now most cops may not be bad but many are not very good at their jobs. And I have heard this from other cops.
Most of my experiences with cops have been negative. I have been ticketed for going 38mph in a 25mph zone that was actually a 50mph zone, had officers that couldn't fill out an accident report correctly and have been pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt even though I was. To be fair, I did have one encounter with a professional cop.
And I am not a minority. I can only imagine what they have to deal with.
Finally, how many cops would turn in and testify against a dirty cop? Not very many. Which makes them bad cops too. End of story.
"A real approach to education reform starts by recognizing that every child is different, every child has different needs, different motivating forces operating on him/her, different interests in different areas, etc., then tailoring the educational program in such a way that children of similar levels of ability and interests are grouped together."
Most teachers would love this. But it would require that parents accept that their kid might not be very good at everything. That all kids might not be equal. And that is not acceptable in our current society.
I know a teacher that is leaving education. They were a science teacher. They don't have time to plan, they had to take arbitrary amounts of additional coursework just to stay employed, have to deal with students who don't care, don't show up, or who are not capable of doing the work, have to be a social worker, have to teach to the tests and have to deal with parents from hell.
I am considering teaching. But why would I want to take a year of classes, do half a year of unpaid work (not counting the classes) to deal with this crap? Ever wonder why the best and brightest don't go into teaching?
"All that kids have to know is how to learn."
How exactly do you teach that? And I mean that seriously. How would you define a curriculum around that? How would you assess that?
And why would kids want to do that?
"If the subject matter was fascinating and sensical/relevant to daily life, you'd not need saints and butchers to motivate students to learn
Students have different concepts of fascinating and relevance. Balancing a checkbook is relevant. But do you think most kids would care or want to spend hours doing it? I find geology relevant and fascinating but most students don't. Likewise others find physics fascinating and useful. How do you define relevance? How do you define fascinating?
School is not entertainment. Learning is hard. Learning is not fun much of the time. The outcome of learning can be fun but the process often sucks. I don't believe this can be changed. If you can, you will be rich....
"As gas prices continue to increase, there is plenty of demand for an affordable electric car."
True. But I don't consider $24000 affordable. For that I could buy a Prius now. But it doesn't make sense to spend 24K when I can get an new efficient vehicle for half that.
Or drive my 30mpg car and pay for maintenance for a long time.....
"Working extra is the norm, not the exception."
If you work over 40 hours a week you are eligible for overtime if you are not exempt. It is irrelevant if you are salaried. Of course, it this is typical in her field, she may not be exempt.
And why did she go into engineering if she didn't want to work long hours? It isn't exactly a secret that it happens regularly.
"She could easily work 75% of the time from home, but engineering managers want there little money making machines where they can find them."
Then tell her to find a better company with good management. Being a woman engineer should make it pretty easy to find another job. It will be more difficult to find one with good management....
Double standards are bad. But exactly what relevance do the standards they use have to do with the job they do? Why do you need to do X push ups, Y sit ups, climb over walls Z feet tall or throw a grenade a certain distance? Does everyone in the army or military do these things all the time? Or do certain parts of the army do this more than others?
The problem is the arbitrary standards. If you have to be able to do X then fine. But if you rarely do X, is it important? Standards are always used because they are easy to measure. But they may have very little relevance to the job. That's why they are arbitrarily changed-because they don't really have any basis in fact.
"If you want to fix a problem, you have to fix it from the ground up. Don't ever lower entry and passing requirements for any subset. If you're finding out a subset don't apply as much and don't do as well, figure out what the root of that is and fix it."
And that is hard. It takes time, money and effort. And many people disagree on what is important. Which is why we get quotas.
It would be much better to determine what knowledge is important, what constitutes qualified, etc. than to just lower the bar. But that requires effort and knowledge. Which means it rarely happens.
After all, no one cares what grades you received in school but how well you do your job. Of course, how well you do your job is often subjective....
"Requiring employers to hire based on any criteria other than an applicant's qualifications is a terrible thing to do to anyone already in that profession, especially the members of whatever group is getting the preferential treatment."
Part of the problem is defining "qualified". I have worked for an employer that said that you must be able to do X,Y and Z (essential duties) but then hired people who couldn't do these things because it really wasn't necessary. But you can't get them to admit it or fix it....
I believe that most organizations have no real clue what constitutes qualified for what they need done. Or well qualified. Or over qualified. They just wing it. Which creates opportunities for bias in the the first place.
"So he, too, does not respect the rule of law."
I'm confused. How does voting for a law that says a previously illegal act is/was actually legal not respecting the rule of law? Not exactly unusual. And legal unless the courts say otherwise.
"Do you really think that the American people wouldn't have accepted a call for sacrifice in the months after 9/11? WTF was GWB thinking?"
Of course, if you ask for sacrifice, people might want accountability....
"But he doesn't get some special benefit for giving money to the charity, at least in the tax system."
Unless he also runs the charity. And can use the money as he sees fit. Then it makes a lot of financial sense and tax sense.
I'm much more impressed by Mr. Buffet's donations than Mr. Gates....
Reprocessing nuclear waste may or may not reduce the waste stream. It will certainly change the makeup of the waste. And it will probably be messy. Much of the nuclear cleanup done on federal lands is related to reprocessing nuclear material.
I think nuclear power is a good idea. However, I have no confidence in US companies or the government's ability to do it in a responsible and cost effective manner.
In general, smart and/or motivated kids will learn in any system.
In general, unmotivated and/or "dumb" kids will not learn in any system.
The problem is the parents, not the schools. If the parents value education, the kids will probably succeed. If they don't, the kids will probably fail. Of course, it's easier to blame somebody else than to admit you are a poor parent....
"Is it lazy parenting if both parents are working 2 jobs to try to provide a decent life for their children and do not have the time or energy left to nurture the children's minds?"
Yes.
"Most people seem fixated on material things and maintaining a standard of living, not on making time for their children."
You answered your own question.
Good parenting takes effort. If you don't have the time or money, don't have the kids.
"I still prefer the idea of an SUV than a minivan or station wagon to try and haul people/stuff around."
An SUV is a repackaged station wagon. As are most minivans. Most SUV's have no more usable space than a station wagon. Heck, some have less usable space than a Prius.
"Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right? That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST."
Obama is the presumptive nominee. Until the delegates at the Democrat convention ratify that Obama is their nominee, he hasn't won anything. Not that anyone seriously believes he won't get it of course.
"Most of these could be moved to rail which is much more energy efficient."
Companies care about cost and time. If it were cheaper and faster to ship via rail they would. It isn't, so they don't. Except for large bulky shipments.
"I agree that you would still need trucks for local and short deliveries, but so much of the industry is long haul or multi-state trucking."
And you would have the same amount of drivers. Except that you can pay the local ones less.... Trucks are far more convenient than rail lines. That's worth increased cost to many.
"They have rail cars that you can just pick up the trailer off the rail car and hook it right up to the truck for the first few miles to the rail yard and the last few miles from the rail yard."
Sure, if you don't want your cargo in a timely manner. I've worked in a warehouse-containers via rail are slow. It's quicker to ship cargo from LA to Seattle via truck.
In the end, efficiency is only important to companies if it reduces cost.
"True, but that doesnt change the fact that most of the goods around the country USED to be carried by rail, untill the automotive companies bought up the rail companies and began to ship everything with the trucks they built."
Automotive companies didn't buy up rail carriers.
We built this great transportation system (highways) that allowed people to live everywhere and get goods from anywhere. Railroads couldn't keep up. Trucks are more useful. It will take far greater prices and much time to change this.
I suspect that most goods used to be created and used locally. Which worked great when we were mostly farmers.
"I don't know about other drivers, but personally, I get BORED when I drive, especially on freeways (traffic or no traffic)."
Then there is a good chance you are not paying attention to the road or other cars or potential problems, etc. The best way to avoid collisions is to anticipate them. That shouldn't leave you bored.
Now if you are driving the same route continuously, in the same conditions and at the same times, I can see why you would get bored. It's easy to stop paying close attention.