Fuck that, I have no time for a child. Besides, they should be seen (when schedule permits; perhaps once a quarter?) and not heard.
In that case, get a vasectomy *now* (unless you happen to belong to the/. minority and would need a tubal ligation).
It would be massively irresponsible for you to breed with this attitude. I love kids, I've always wanted kids, and I'm thrilled I have a kid now... but people who don't share such feelings have a responsibility to society to corral their gametes.
And, as such, your advice is useless to people who actually *want* children... move along to a conversation where you have more relevance.
(One of my best friends had a vasectomy earlier this year... I was kind of sad, because I think his kids would have been a kick and a half, but I admire him for taking that responsibility for his total lack of interest in breeding.)
I agree, anyone who would even consider leaving their child alone for even a second should be at the top of CPS's hit list. Gonna cook, have the kid with you, or move the kitchen appliances into the kids room.
Wear the kid on your back, once they're old enough (can sit up on their own). Until then, set up the Kick & Play in the kitchen.
Hafta poop, take the kid with you, or have a commode put in the kids room, or better yet, bond with the kid by wearing diapers yourself.
Diapers are passé. Yes, take the kid with you, that way they can realize that mommy and daddy do it *this* way. Take them to the potty when they need it, too, as soon as you can (we started at two weeks). That way you never have the struggle of potty training... they just get better at controlling it, and letting you know they need the bathroom... until one day they can just go by themselves. (This method usually sees them "graduated" around 18-24 months... more work for a lot of that time, but beats diapering a 3-year-old.)
I'm sure your employer won't mind you taking 18years of maternity/paternity leave.
Duh, you just take them *with* you to work. Or come up with a new job and work from home.
Wanna have some, uh, intimate time with your SO, do it right there. Junior will be two young and out of it to really grasp what's going on anyway (that and like your likely to get any anytime soon after just having a kid, yeah right).
Oh, you get a little bit in.;-) But if they're asleep in bed, you just have to get more creative with locations (office chairs are interesting). I mean, geez, having sex in the same place *all* the time gets boring! This is why young kids go to bed at 8 or 9...
You were being facetious, but there really is a school of parenting that basically keeps the baby with you all the time. And it's not totally impractical to do and still have a life... in fact, it's *easier* to have a life if you are comfortable bringing the baby with you into it. My husband and I go to movies, eat out, visit with friends, etc. and take our son with us... he's in a sling or wrap, so he's cozy and more inclined to sleep than if he's isolated in a stroller, and we pick environments/times/activities that are more "baby friendly" (i.e. restaurants with a high noise quotient, underpopulated matinee movies, etc.)
Getting my wife pregnant is the WORST mistake I ever made.
Obviously, with that attitude. It was a terrible mistake. That poor kid has to go through life with *you* for a father. I can't imagine the misery to be so unwanted by the people who are supposed to love you unconditionally...
I have no pity for you, but all kinds for your child.
How do you expected to be able to trust some 16 year old down the street? Hell, I want to be able to check my child in daycare from time to time.
In fact, you *should* do this... drop in unexpected. If they don't welcome you, change daycare *fast*.
Same goes for nursing homes. Any facility caring for those who can't care for themselves should be fine with unannounced visitors, if they have nothing to hide. (There may be cases where you'd be interrupting a particular activity if you go in and say hi to your loved one, but they should at least be able to show you what's going on through a window.)
Any care facility that has a policy of no unannounced visitation is one to steer very clear of.
Between 1992 to 1998, the number of babies put to sleep on their stomachs went from 70% to 17%. The SIDS rate declined in that same time period by 40%.
Correlation.
What is the SIDS rate for the control case?
Correlation, true, but with implications of causation. You could dismiss a correlation like "The SIDS rate in Society A, which puts babies to sleep on their stomachs, is five times that in Society B, which puts babies to sleep on their backs." This correlation does not imply causation, because between two groups, there may be many other uncontrolled differences that lead to the different SIDS rates.
However, when the *same* population changes a particular behavior, and at the same time another statistic changes, it is reasonable to infer causality (unless another change happened at exactly the same time).
No, no one has gotten ahold of 10,000 babies and, in otherwise identical situations, put half to sleep on their backs and half on their stomachs every night, and then compared SIDS rates (since the rate in even the highest risk categories is less than 1 percent, you'd need a huge sample size for statistically significant results). This type of study isn't feasible. The best we can do is examine the results after a particular change in behavior within the same population.
Of course, many countries around the world have initiated "back to sleep" campaigns and noticed a commensurate decline in SIDS rates, so it's very unlikely that another change is responsible. But keep on fantasizing and maybe you'll come up with one.
(BTW, it's true that babies should not *always* be on their backs. But for that matter, when they're not sleeping, they shouldn't be spending a whole lot of time lying around alone anyway... they learn and develop better when they are worn by their parents and can watch the world from that point of view. They should get some tummy time, to develop the muscles they need in order to crawl, but the risks of developmental problems aren't from lying *on their backs*... they're from being left alone all the time.)
And what is worse, is that you'll end up fullfilling every little need he have, and he'll get used to that.
Oh, yes, how horrible it would be to respond to all the needs of your own child, who can't speak, can't even *move* without your help...
Please, PLEASE don't take this advice, new dad. There's no better way to ensure that your baby has no motivation to learn to communicate with you than to ignore it. If a baby cries, it's because they need something, period. They don't cry for no reason. If they're lonely, or scared, that's a need... and one they simply can't fulfill themselves.
Instead, take a look at "The Baby Book" by Dr. William Sears... it dispells all the myths about it being "good" for tiny helpless infants to be left alone to cry their lungs out.
(BTW, they do get used to having their needs met... the result is, they trust you to meet their needs, and then learn independence faster, because they know they can come to you if they need something. Kids who are ignored the way the AC suggests become *more* dependent and clingy. Just in case you don't have time to get the book... but I seriously recommend it anyway, just as a general instruction manual.;-)
And the developers seem stuck in a rut -- they just churn out more sprawl each year. I wonder if its possible to make them change? Signed, Sad is Suburbia.
Yes, but...
There's several issues. The two big ones are zoning and the cost of transportation.
Zoning: Once upon a time, cities were horribly dirty and disgusting places to live. (No, I mean, way more than now.) Industrialization led to rampant pollution, and there were people living right outside the factories they worked in.
Zoning laws were created to address this and make urban environments more livable, but unfortunately, they also make them *less* so in some ways. By strictly separating uses (this area is for housing, this area is for retail, this area is for industrial) we end up with people living far from their work, the places they shop, even their kids' schools.
As a result, everyone started needing and getting cars. The one-car family became a two-car family when women started working outside the home more often. This made the problem even *worse*, because now we had to store all those cars; allow another 320-350 square feet per parking space in a typical lot... that's increasing the square footage for a typical one-bedroom unit by more than 30%. Zoning laws stepped in once again, forcing developers to include "enough" parking for the future residents of their houses and apartments. This resulted in much lower densities, higher costs to build, and fewer units available.
Nowadays there are many developers who would jump at the chance to build with reduced parking requirements and higher densities, if you can just convince the city to allow it. By offering density bonuses (increasing the density allowed on a parcel... zoning laws restrict that too) and parking requirement reductions for developers who set aside units for affordable housing, who build near transit stations, and who create mixed-use developments (i.e. retail on the first floor, offices on the second, housing on the third and fourth), cities can help encourage developers to make the urban environment less car-dependent and, in so doing, more livable and affordable.
The cost of transportation: But it doesn't happen all by itself; the cost savings of living in the city need to offset the cost savings of living in the suburbs. But transportation is too cheap.
The typical bid-rent curve for an urban environment is a smooth descent from high prices closest to the city center and lower prices as you go toward the periphery. Theoretically, the decrease in housing prices is offset by the increase in transportation prices, but as transportation becomes cheaper (mostly due to increases in fuel efficiency, but also there's the time cost of travel... freeway building reduces the costs of transportation severely), the bid-rent curve flattens out, giving people economic reason to live farther and farther from the city center. (Yes, the bid-rent curve looks very different in a polycentric city like Los Angeles, but it still sort of works.)
The biggest problem is that much of the cost of transportation is externalized. Though you pay the price of extracting oil from the ground, transporting it, and refining it into gasoline, you don't pay anywhere near the full costs of air pollution, traffic accidents, or congestion when you fill up your tank. Nor do you pay the full cost of maintaining the roads; California, for example, subsidizes basic freeway maintenance from general funds nowadays, because our gas taxes, vehicle license fees, and commercial truck fees only pay about 2/3 the cost of maintaining our highways. More and more of our transportation funding is coming from non-transportation-related sources, like sales taxes. This gives people no economic reason whatsoever to make decisions that will result in driving fewer miles on the road.
(The main reason gas taxes are so out of whack is that they are a specific tax, i.e. they are a particular dollar amo
I don't doubt you can park better than your husband, but if you think that particular examples of y being greater for y = female(x) than y = male(x) are some kind of valid evidence that the distribution of female(x) can't be different than the distribution of male(x) your math instincts are certainly lacking -- so maybe you fit the gender stereotypes better than you think.
My point was, as far as I can tell, men are not inherently better at parallel parking than women. That *is* a comment on the distribution. I gave a single example. Would you like me to list all of the people whose parallel parking skills I know something about, their gender, and rank them? Would that make you feel better about my math skills?
Instead of futilely trying to defend the indefensible position that women and men are identical
Which I did... where? I said that men are not inherently better at parallel parking. That it's a learned skill that a *lot* of people are bad at, regardless of gender. It's a big leap from there to "men and women are identical."
Turning a blind eye to gender differences entrenches discrimination rather than alleviating it.
Imagining gender differences where none exist entrenches discrimination, too. Women have less physical strength than men do; our laws *should* recognize that and consider threats of physical harm differently based on gender. They don't, though. On the other hand, women can learn to parallel park just as easily as men can, but people perpetuate the idea that they can't, and therefore it's no use teaching them. It's a matter of picking your imagined vs. real gender differences carefully.
Just read and enjoy/. and let others fight for the "priviledge" of having a story accepted. There are more worthwhile things to get upset about.
He's not upset about his story getting rejected. He's amused by the incongruity between what it reports the submission as on his user page, and the fact that it actually showed up on the front page.
Though it seems maybe the discrepancy is because they changed the headline. It may be that in order to do that, they have to "reject" it and reenter it manually.
Maybe it's true. Neatly dismissing the accuser because the defendant is Google seems foolish to me.
Maybe it's true that the code is the same. It may be true that this is a violation of agreements between Orkut Buwhatever and Affinity. It might also be true that Google hired Orkut to write the software, knowing that he would steal code he didn't have a right to use. But with each layer of maybe, it becomes less probable.
On the other hand, if the company was Microsoft, it would be more probable... simply because that is the sort of thing they have done before.
Sounds like to me someone maybe did something dumb to stay in the country. It was probably also stupid of Google not to check out what agreements he had with Affinity. But it seems unlikely in this case that the parent company is at fault more than the individual engineer is.
What claim by Orkut? Which Orkut, the engineer or the social networking service? Affinity is making the claims... Google is saying they're without merit.
Granted, but nowhere in Europe would you find a street where there are as many cars as residents. Between cost and culture they just don't drive as much. As such, one car per family is more than enough.
But housing is usually more dense, too. So a typical lot in a US subdivision is 50 ft across, while rowhousing in a European city may allot more like 25 ft. to a unit. So you have twice as many households in the same linear footage of street.
On the other hand, cars tend to be smaller and shorter in Europe, too...
Turn on your local news for the first snow storm of the season (if you don't get snow, find the Denver newscast - it's always humorus). I'm always amazed at the way people who live in an area that gets bad weather EVERY YEAR will wreck their car the first time there is three inches of snow.
You think that's bad... turn on the TV in Los Angeles when it rains. When*ever* it rains.
For one thing, it's the top story... "There's water falling from the sky!" But there's a ton of traffic accidents caused by people driving exactly how they always do, even though the pavement's wet and visibility is cut down. The best are people who go blazing through foot-deep puddles without slowing down, flood their brakes, and then slam into someone....
Women, and also alot of men, really HAVE problems parking
The original poster said:
I know a few women (no offense) who could really use this.
If it said "I know a few people..." not only would the "no offense" tag have been unnecessary, because it wouldn't have been an inherently chauvinistic statement, but it would have been more accurate and not flamebait.
I've had to take over the wheel and parallel park for my husband before. It's a learned skill. If you know how to do it, you can p-park anything (I once astonished and amazed my friends by parallel parking a U-Haul with about 24" clearance). If you don't properly learn how to do it, it's very difficult. But it's not like men are inherently better at it or anything, at least in my experience.
Well, if you implement my suggestion in the worst way possible, of course it will fail.
That was my point. The OS that we're talking about is Windows. It's made by Microsoft. You have to take into account how you can reasonably expect them to implement something new, when suggesting an OS-based solution. My description is based on how they have previously implemented security measures designed to keep certain attacks from happening (like Word Macro Viruses for example).
And why shouldn't it be? To please pseudo-liberal, middle-class wannabe socialists who like to indulge in white guilt with their clueless, self-help-loving, crystal-power-worshipping friends?
No, actually, because human beings are social animals, and we would freakin' DIE OUT if we decided to be totally antisocial.
In the old days, we could just kick troublemakers like you out of the tribe and into exile (and probable suffering death). But these days we're just too civilized;-). Lucky you! You get to benefit from the system too, even though you don't support it!
Or the gift they give lower income people that don't have good jobs and too many kids?
Awww... does it hurt your feelings that, when our minimum wage is so low that two fully employed people can't feed a family of four on it, the government steps in to keep them from starving? After we've removed all federal funding for EVER teaching ANYONE about birth control? I'm so sorry. Let me give you a hug.
It makes you forget the money they are giving you is actually your in the first place.
Election? Makes it sound like you made a choice. One could almost forget that we hired our government (those folks taxing us) in the first place.
Don't like it? Vote and campaign to change it. It's not a dictatorship. But don't be surprised if you encounter some resistance from the majority of people that the system works just fine for.
Sounds like you were born into the least taxed, most government-hostile, richest society on earth... and deeply resent the fact that it's not even moreso. Let the violin music begin.
My 1997 Honda del Sol, which I sold last year, had an EPA sticker of 30/36. When I used to commute long distances, I'd routinely get 34-35 MPG on a tank. By the time I sold it, when it was six years old, sat in the garage for over a week at a time, and rarely got on the highway, my typical mileage was 29. Not too shabby when you consider how much evaporation probably happened... (seriously, I drove so little that I had to remember to go start it up now and then, or the battery would go dead.) That was a manual transmission.
I well remember my first car.. a 1985 Honda Civic, which on one round trip to San Diego (about 110 miles each way) got 40 MPG. Usually she got about 35. Never got below 30 that I recall. That was an automatic transmission.
My husband doesn't get the EPA mileage, though. He didn't on his Toyota Camry and doesn't on his Honda Accord. I'm not sure why; we definitely have different driving styles, but I couldn't tell you what might be the differences. Maybe I'm more inclined to take my foot off the gas, or maybe it's because he uses air conditioning more (though some folks argue that the wind drag from open windows hurts fuel economy more than running the AC). But we don't have the same experience with fuel economy, that's for sure.
replying to your sig more than the post..if you've ever lived in LA (Hollywood especially), that isn't much to live on. If you want to have any sort of relations with the females around here making that much is a bare minimum unfortunatley, and they pretty much always ask you how much you make within 5 minutes of striking up a conversation.
BTW, I live in Los Angeles, West Hollywood more specifically. I was born in Los Angeles. I went to college here, and grad school. 30 out of 30.5 years of my life have been spent here. And I've never personally or lived with anyone who made over $60k a year. But I've always been solidly middle-class.
He's talking about individual incomes, not household incomes. Our household income is about $75-80k/year, and we have a large 2 bed, 2 bath apartment with a dishwasher and a pool, a couple IRAs, nice clothes, and plenty of money for entertainment. We're not exactly working-class on that money. So if one of us made $75k/year (currently the split is $49/24 salary + random other stuff), we'd feel pretty darn affluent.
Median household income in Los Angeles County is about $41,000/year (adjusting for inflation since the Census' 1999 data), and in 1999, there were only two Los Angeles ZIP codes (out of 63) with median household incomes of more than $75,000. Again adjusting for inflation, only four ZIP codes made above $66k/yr in 1999, which is roughly equal to $75k in 2004.
So, actually, $75-100k/year is plenty to live on, even in Los Angeles.
Can someone point me to an easy-to-read article that explains the problems with IE, what alternatives like Firefox exist, and how to switch? I want to send it to everyone I know, urging them to switch away from IE.
You don't need a whole article.
These are the points to cover:
- All those nasty web bugs and stuff you keep hearing about? Almost all of them *require* Internet Explorer to get on your computer. If you don't use it, you won't get them.
- There's a free browser called Mozilla (or Firefox, if you prefer). Download it from [give them exact link to the Windows self-installer]. It's really cool.
- Mozilla (Firefox) automatically blocks pop-up ads. Neat, huh?
- There's this thing called tabbed browsing you can do with it. (This only works if you can be at their house demonstrating, really... in which case you already installed the browser for them). See... [google something they're interested in, middle-click a bunch of links, show them all the shiny tabs.] Spiffy!
For most people, it's not a political battle, a holy war, or even a pressing security concern. It's "What's going to make my life easier?" So all you tell them is why Mozilla makes their life easier. They simply don't care about, and will tune out, anything else.
This activity needs to be ILLEGAL...and that's the only way to stop it. They're wiretapping without consent.
So if a company manufactures and sells a cordless phone that is very, very easy to listen in on, and gives it away for free to new homeowners... do they bear any responsibility at all? Should they be required to at least *notify* people that their product is very insecure?
I think FCC regulations would actually step on them, don't you?
There's attractive nuisance laws, product liability laws, etc. to prevent stuff like this in other industries. It's actually a heck of a lot easier to police a few well-known companies than to try to find a thousand fly-by-night scam artists. Why should we waste our resources on fighting everything the hard way?
I haven't seen anything like that in any US bank; it's always a number pad where you type your password, or a text field to type the password online.
Not for account access, but we just rented a safe deposit box at a brand-new Wells Fargo branch, which has self-service.
You slide your driver license and key in a PIN you established on a dynamic keypad. Then the door unlocks, and you have to close it from the inside. Sensors can tell if there's someone in there, and won't let anyone else in (unless they have a bank override code or something).
Pretty neat system. Wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing this sort of thing more often.
Our ability to think and reason was not the product of evolution, argues a new and credible scientific theory called intelligent design, but was deliberately chosen for us. Perhaps this is a thought that should again be applied to the creation of software.
You're right. Fire everyone at MS, and wait for a diety to come up with a better OS!
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck that, I have no time for a child. Besides, they should be seen (when schedule permits; perhaps once a quarter?) and not heard.
/. minority and would need a tubal ligation).
In that case, get a vasectomy *now* (unless you happen to belong to the
It would be massively irresponsible for you to breed with this attitude. I love kids, I've always wanted kids, and I'm thrilled I have a kid now... but people who don't share such feelings have a responsibility to society to corral their gametes.
And, as such, your advice is useless to people who actually *want* children... move along to a conversation where you have more relevance.
(One of my best friends had a vasectomy earlier this year... I was kind of sad, because I think his kids would have been a kick and a half, but I admire him for taking that responsibility for his total lack of interest in breeding.)
I agree, anyone who would even consider leaving their child alone for even a second should be at the top of CPS's hit list. Gonna cook, have the kid with you, or move the kitchen appliances into the kids room.
;-) But if they're asleep in bed, you just have to get more creative with locations (office chairs are interesting). I mean, geez, having sex in the same place *all* the time gets boring! This is why young kids go to bed at 8 or 9...
Wear the kid on your back, once they're old enough (can sit up on their own). Until then, set up the Kick & Play in the kitchen.
Hafta poop, take the kid with you, or have a commode put in the kids room, or better yet, bond with the kid by wearing diapers yourself.
Diapers are passé. Yes, take the kid with you, that way they can realize that mommy and daddy do it *this* way. Take them to the potty when they need it, too, as soon as you can (we started at two weeks). That way you never have the struggle of potty training... they just get better at controlling it, and letting you know they need the bathroom... until one day they can just go by themselves. (This method usually sees them "graduated" around 18-24 months... more work for a lot of that time, but beats diapering a 3-year-old.)
I'm sure your employer won't mind you taking 18years of maternity/paternity leave.
Duh, you just take them *with* you to work. Or come up with a new job and work from home.
Wanna have some, uh, intimate time with your SO, do it right there. Junior will be two young and out of it to really grasp what's going on anyway (that and like your likely to get any anytime soon after just having a kid, yeah right).
Oh, you get a little bit in.
You were being facetious, but there really is a school of parenting that basically keeps the baby with you all the time. And it's not totally impractical to do and still have a life... in fact, it's *easier* to have a life if you are comfortable bringing the baby with you into it. My husband and I go to movies, eat out, visit with friends, etc. and take our son with us... he's in a sling or wrap, so he's cozy and more inclined to sleep than if he's isolated in a stroller, and we pick environments/times/activities that are more "baby friendly" (i.e. restaurants with a high noise quotient, underpopulated matinee movies, etc.)
Getting my wife pregnant is the WORST mistake I ever made.
Obviously, with that attitude. It was a terrible mistake. That poor kid has to go through life with *you* for a father. I can't imagine the misery to be so unwanted by the people who are supposed to love you unconditionally...
I have no pity for you, but all kinds for your child.
How do you expected to be able to trust some 16 year old down the street? Hell, I want to be able to check my child in daycare from time to time.
In fact, you *should* do this... drop in unexpected. If they don't welcome you, change daycare *fast*.
Same goes for nursing homes. Any facility caring for those who can't care for themselves should be fine with unannounced visitors, if they have nothing to hide. (There may be cases where you'd be interrupting a particular activity if you go in and say hi to your loved one, but they should at least be able to show you what's going on through a window.)
Any care facility that has a policy of no unannounced visitation is one to steer very clear of.
What is the SIDS rate for the control case?
Correlation, true, but with implications of causation. You could dismiss a correlation like "The SIDS rate in Society A, which puts babies to sleep on their stomachs, is five times that in Society B, which puts babies to sleep on their backs." This correlation does not imply causation, because between two groups, there may be many other uncontrolled differences that lead to the different SIDS rates.
However, when the *same* population changes a particular behavior, and at the same time another statistic changes, it is reasonable to infer causality (unless another change happened at exactly the same time).
No, no one has gotten ahold of 10,000 babies and, in otherwise identical situations, put half to sleep on their backs and half on their stomachs every night, and then compared SIDS rates (since the rate in even the highest risk categories is less than 1 percent, you'd need a huge sample size for statistically significant results). This type of study isn't feasible. The best we can do is examine the results after a particular change in behavior within the same population.
Of course, many countries around the world have initiated "back to sleep" campaigns and noticed a commensurate decline in SIDS rates, so it's very unlikely that another change is responsible. But keep on fantasizing and maybe you'll come up with one.
(BTW, it's true that babies should not *always* be on their backs. But for that matter, when they're not sleeping, they shouldn't be spending a whole lot of time lying around alone anyway... they learn and develop better when they are worn by their parents and can watch the world from that point of view. They should get some tummy time, to develop the muscles they need in order to crawl, but the risks of developmental problems aren't from lying *on their backs*... they're from being left alone all the time.)
Oh, yes, how horrible it would be to respond to all the needs of your own child, who can't speak, can't even *move* without your help...
Please, PLEASE don't take this advice, new dad. There's no better way to ensure that your baby has no motivation to learn to communicate with you than to ignore it. If a baby cries, it's because they need something, period. They don't cry for no reason. If they're lonely, or scared, that's a need... and one they simply can't fulfill themselves.
Instead, take a look at "The Baby Book" by Dr. William Sears... it dispells all the myths about it being "good" for tiny helpless infants to be left alone to cry their lungs out.
(BTW, they do get used to having their needs met... the result is, they trust you to meet their needs, and then learn independence faster, because they know they can come to you if they need something. Kids who are ignored the way the AC suggests become *more* dependent and clingy. Just in case you don't have time to get the book... but I seriously recommend it anyway, just as a general instruction manual.
Yes, but...
There's several issues. The two big ones are zoning and the cost of transportation.
Zoning:
Once upon a time, cities were horribly dirty and disgusting places to live. (No, I mean, way more than now.) Industrialization led to rampant pollution, and there were people living right outside the factories they worked in.
Zoning laws were created to address this and make urban environments more livable, but unfortunately, they also make them *less* so in some ways. By strictly separating uses (this area is for housing, this area is for retail, this area is for industrial) we end up with people living far from their work, the places they shop, even their kids' schools.
As a result, everyone started needing and getting cars. The one-car family became a two-car family when women started working outside the home more often. This made the problem even *worse*, because now we had to store all those cars; allow another 320-350 square feet per parking space in a typical lot... that's increasing the square footage for a typical one-bedroom unit by more than 30%. Zoning laws stepped in once again, forcing developers to include "enough" parking for the future residents of their houses and apartments. This resulted in much lower densities, higher costs to build, and fewer units available.
Nowadays there are many developers who would jump at the chance to build with reduced parking requirements and higher densities, if you can just convince the city to allow it. By offering density bonuses (increasing the density allowed on a parcel... zoning laws restrict that too) and parking requirement reductions for developers who set aside units for affordable housing, who build near transit stations, and who create mixed-use developments (i.e. retail on the first floor, offices on the second, housing on the third and fourth), cities can help encourage developers to make the urban environment less car-dependent and, in so doing, more livable and affordable.
The cost of transportation:
But it doesn't happen all by itself; the cost savings of living in the city need to offset the cost savings of living in the suburbs. But transportation is too cheap.
The typical bid-rent curve for an urban environment is a smooth descent from high prices closest to the city center and lower prices as you go toward the periphery. Theoretically, the decrease in housing prices is offset by the increase in transportation prices, but as transportation becomes cheaper (mostly due to increases in fuel efficiency, but also there's the time cost of travel... freeway building reduces the costs of transportation severely), the bid-rent curve flattens out, giving people economic reason to live farther and farther from the city center. (Yes, the bid-rent curve looks very different in a polycentric city like Los Angeles, but it still sort of works.)
The biggest problem is that much of the cost of transportation is externalized. Though you pay the price of extracting oil from the ground, transporting it, and refining it into gasoline, you don't pay anywhere near the full costs of air pollution, traffic accidents, or congestion when you fill up your tank. Nor do you pay the full cost of maintaining the roads; California, for example, subsidizes basic freeway maintenance from general funds nowadays, because our gas taxes, vehicle license fees, and commercial truck fees only pay about 2/3 the cost of maintaining our highways. More and more of our transportation funding is coming from non-transportation-related sources, like sales taxes. This gives people no economic reason whatsoever to make decisions that will result in driving fewer miles on the road.
(The main reason gas taxes are so out of whack is that they are a specific tax, i.e. they are a particular dollar amo
I don't doubt you can park better than your husband, but if you think that particular examples of y being greater for y = female(x) than y = male(x) are some kind of valid evidence that the distribution of female(x) can't be different than the distribution of male(x) your math instincts are certainly lacking -- so maybe you fit the gender stereotypes better than you think.
My point was, as far as I can tell, men are not inherently better at parallel parking than women. That *is* a comment on the distribution. I gave a single example. Would you like me to list all of the people whose parallel parking skills I know something about, their gender, and rank them? Would that make you feel better about my math skills?
Instead of futilely trying to defend the indefensible position that women and men are identical
Which I did... where? I said that men are not inherently better at parallel parking. That it's a learned skill that a *lot* of people are bad at, regardless of gender. It's a big leap from there to "men and women are identical."
Turning a blind eye to gender differences entrenches discrimination rather than alleviating it.
Imagining gender differences where none exist entrenches discrimination, too. Women have less physical strength than men do; our laws *should* recognize that and consider threats of physical harm differently based on gender. They don't, though. On the other hand, women can learn to parallel park just as easily as men can, but people perpetuate the idea that they can't, and therefore it's no use teaching them. It's a matter of picking your imagined vs. real gender differences carefully.
Just read and enjoy /. and let others fight for the "priviledge" of having a story accepted. There are more worthwhile things to get upset about.
He's not upset about his story getting rejected. He's amused by the incongruity between what it reports the submission as on his user page, and the fact that it actually showed up on the front page.
Though it seems maybe the discrepancy is because they changed the headline. It may be that in order to do that, they have to "reject" it and reenter it manually.
Maybe it's true. Neatly dismissing the accuser because the defendant is Google seems foolish to me.
Maybe it's true that the code is the same. It may be true that this is a violation of agreements between Orkut Buwhatever and Affinity. It might also be true that Google hired Orkut to write the software, knowing that he would steal code he didn't have a right to use. But with each layer of maybe, it becomes less probable.
On the other hand, if the company was Microsoft, it would be more probable... simply because that is the sort of thing they have done before.
Sounds like to me someone maybe did something dumb to stay in the country. It was probably also stupid of Google not to check out what agreements he had with Affinity. But it seems unlikely in this case that the parent company is at fault more than the individual engineer is.
Assuming this claim by Orkut is true
What claim by Orkut? Which Orkut, the engineer or the social networking service? Affinity is making the claims... Google is saying they're without merit.
So why don't you buy a few 200 gb hard drives?
Maybe because...
It's pretty bad when you have to buy 200 gb HDs and use them to backup your images and stick'em in the closet. There are better uses.
He already does, but would like a better option?
Granted, but nowhere in Europe would you find a street where there are as many cars as residents. Between cost and culture they just don't drive as much. As such, one car per family is more than enough.
But housing is usually more dense, too. So a typical lot in a US subdivision is 50 ft across, while rowhousing in a European city may allot more like 25 ft. to a unit. So you have twice as many households in the same linear footage of street.
On the other hand, cars tend to be smaller and shorter in Europe, too...
Turn on your local news for the first snow storm of the season (if you don't get snow, find the Denver newscast - it's always humorus). I'm always amazed at the way people who live in an area that gets bad weather EVERY YEAR will wreck their car the first time there is three inches of snow.
You think that's bad... turn on the TV in Los Angeles when it rains. When*ever* it rains.
For one thing, it's the top story... "There's water falling from the sky!" But there's a ton of traffic accidents caused by people driving exactly how they always do, even though the pavement's wet and visibility is cut down. The best are people who go blazing through foot-deep puddles without slowing down, flood their brakes, and then slam into someone....
Why is this modded flamebait?
Because, while you're right that:
Women, and also alot of men, really HAVE problems parking
The original poster said:
I know a few women (no offense) who could really use this.
If it said "I know a few people..." not only would the "no offense" tag have been unnecessary, because it wouldn't have been an inherently chauvinistic statement, but it would have been more accurate and not flamebait.
I've had to take over the wheel and parallel park for my husband before. It's a learned skill. If you know how to do it, you can p-park anything (I once astonished and amazed my friends by parallel parking a U-Haul with about 24" clearance). If you don't properly learn how to do it, it's very difficult. But it's not like men are inherently better at it or anything, at least in my experience.
Well, if you implement my suggestion in the worst way possible, of course it will fail.
That was my point. The OS that we're talking about is Windows. It's made by Microsoft. You have to take into account how you can reasonably expect them to implement something new, when suggesting an OS-based solution. My description is based on how they have previously implemented security measures designed to keep certain attacks from happening (like Word Macro Viruses for example).
And why shouldn't it be? To please pseudo-liberal, middle-class wannabe socialists who like to indulge in white guilt with their clueless, self-help-loving, crystal-power-worshipping friends?
;-). Lucky you! You get to benefit from the system too, even though you don't support it!
No, actually, because human beings are social animals, and we would freakin' DIE OUT if we decided to be totally antisocial.
In the old days, we could just kick troublemakers like you out of the tribe and into exile (and probable suffering death). But these days we're just too civilized
AC generally costs around 10% fuel-wise. It's extremely unlikely that leaving windows open would cause that much drag.
/shrug
I don't claim to know for sure, but this came from a Transportation Engineering grad student at UCI. So you'd think he'd know.
Or the gift they give lower income people that don't have good jobs and too many kids?
Awww... does it hurt your feelings that, when our minimum wage is so low that two fully employed people can't feed a family of four on it, the government steps in to keep them from starving? After we've removed all federal funding for EVER teaching ANYONE about birth control? I'm so sorry. Let me give you a hug.
It makes you forget the money they are giving you is actually your in the first place.
Election? Makes it sound like you made a choice. One could almost forget that we hired our government (those folks taxing us) in the first place.
Don't like it? Vote and campaign to change it. It's not a dictatorship. But don't be surprised if you encounter some resistance from the majority of people that the system works just fine for.
Sounds like you were born into the least taxed, most government-hostile, richest society on earth... and deeply resent the fact that it's not even moreso. Let the violin music begin.
My 1997 Honda del Sol, which I sold last year, had an EPA sticker of 30/36. When I used to commute long distances, I'd routinely get 34-35 MPG on a tank. By the time I sold it, when it was six years old, sat in the garage for over a week at a time, and rarely got on the highway, my typical mileage was 29. Not too shabby when you consider how much evaporation probably happened... (seriously, I drove so little that I had to remember to go start it up now and then, or the battery would go dead.) That was a manual transmission.
I well remember my first car.. a 1985 Honda Civic, which on one round trip to San Diego (about 110 miles each way) got 40 MPG. Usually she got about 35. Never got below 30 that I recall. That was an automatic transmission.
My husband doesn't get the EPA mileage, though. He didn't on his Toyota Camry and doesn't on his Honda Accord. I'm not sure why; we definitely have different driving styles, but I couldn't tell you what might be the differences. Maybe I'm more inclined to take my foot off the gas, or maybe it's because he uses air conditioning more (though some folks argue that the wind drag from open windows hurts fuel economy more than running the AC). But we don't have the same experience with fuel economy, that's for sure.
replying to your sig more than the post..if you've ever lived in LA (Hollywood especially), that isn't much to live on. If you want to have any sort of relations with the females around here making that much is a bare minimum unfortunatley, and they pretty much always ask you how much you make within 5 minutes of striking up a conversation.
See my journal for the whole quote.
BTW, I live in Los Angeles, West Hollywood more specifically. I was born in Los Angeles. I went to college here, and grad school. 30 out of 30.5 years of my life have been spent here. And I've never personally or lived with anyone who made over $60k a year. But I've always been solidly middle-class.
He's talking about individual incomes, not household incomes. Our household income is about $75-80k/year, and we have a large 2 bed, 2 bath apartment with a dishwasher and a pool, a couple IRAs, nice clothes, and plenty of money for entertainment. We're not exactly working-class on that money. So if one of us made $75k/year (currently the split is $49/24 salary + random other stuff), we'd feel pretty darn affluent.
Median household income in Los Angeles County is about $41,000/year (adjusting for inflation since the Census' 1999 data), and in 1999, there were only two Los Angeles ZIP codes (out of 63) with median household incomes of more than $75,000. Again adjusting for inflation, only four ZIP codes made above $66k/yr in 1999, which is roughly equal to $75k in 2004.
So, actually, $75-100k/year is plenty to live on, even in Los Angeles.
Can someone point me to an easy-to-read article that explains the problems with IE, what alternatives like Firefox exist, and how to switch? I want to send it to everyone I know, urging them to switch away from IE.
You don't need a whole article.
These are the points to cover:
- All those nasty web bugs and stuff you keep hearing about? Almost all of them *require* Internet Explorer to get on your computer. If you don't use it, you won't get them.
- There's a free browser called Mozilla (or Firefox, if you prefer). Download it from [give them exact link to the Windows self-installer]. It's really cool.
- Mozilla (Firefox) automatically blocks pop-up ads. Neat, huh?
- There's this thing called tabbed browsing you can do with it. (This only works if you can be at their house demonstrating, really... in which case you already installed the browser for them). See... [google something they're interested in, middle-click a bunch of links, show them all the shiny tabs.] Spiffy!
For most people, it's not a political battle, a holy war, or even a pressing security concern. It's "What's going to make my life easier?" So all you tell them is why Mozilla makes their life easier. They simply don't care about, and will tune out, anything else.
This activity needs to be ILLEGAL...and that's the only way to stop it. They're wiretapping without consent.
So if a company manufactures and sells a cordless phone that is very, very easy to listen in on, and gives it away for free to new homeowners... do they bear any responsibility at all? Should they be required to at least *notify* people that their product is very insecure?
I think FCC regulations would actually step on them, don't you?
There's attractive nuisance laws, product liability laws, etc. to prevent stuff like this in other industries. It's actually a heck of a lot easier to police a few well-known companies than to try to find a thousand fly-by-night scam artists. Why should we waste our resources on fighting everything the hard way?
I haven't seen anything like that in any US bank; it's always a number pad where you type your password, or a text field to type the password online.
Not for account access, but we just rented a safe deposit box at a brand-new Wells Fargo branch, which has self-service.
You slide your driver license and key in a PIN you established on a dynamic keypad. Then the door unlocks, and you have to close it from the inside. Sensors can tell if there's someone in there, and won't let anyone else in (unless they have a bank override code or something).
Pretty neat system. Wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing this sort of thing more often.
Our ability to think and reason was not the product of evolution, argues a new and credible scientific theory called intelligent design, but was deliberately chosen for us. Perhaps this is a thought that should again be applied to the creation of software.
You're right. Fire everyone at MS, and wait for a diety to come up with a better OS!