Curious that a theory minor would not use the traditional Roman indicating minor chords with lower case. ii iii and iv specifically.
Your explanation of the Mediant makes no sense - it is common enough to make it into the top 6 according to this study. Going to protest the differences between "classical" and modern music? "Classical" music was the pop music of the day. And just as with Pachelbel's Canon in D, the iii chord is very useful as a lead-in to the IV. The difficulty is parallel movement, specifically avoiding parallel fifths. Today's writers don't care much about that sort of pedantry, so it is probably more common than it was. The "What chord comes next" section clearly shows a spike from iii to IV. If you want to emphasize the IV chord, then iii is the obvious choice. And since IV tends to sound stable, not really leading anywhere in particular, it is very common to throw in a iii-IV lead.
The VII chord is an absurd notion. Naturally, it would be a diminished chord in a major key (vii with the super o to show it's not a normal minor), and would change from diminished to major depending on the minor mode. But it is hardly an indicator of which minor you are using. At best, it would support the melody, which gives a much stronger indication of the context. The V chord is a much stronger harmonic indicator.
The leading tone is a melodic idea, and truly only makes sense when raised - a half step leads into the next note, a whole step rarely does unless you have some sort of teleology established. VII is only valid in a minor key, and only in a natural minor context. The analysis here doesn't even address the diminished 7, I would expect it to make an appearance occasionally. Or at least a note about why they avoided mentioning it. I would like to know if they never actually found one, and why they chose Bb instead of the natural B.
And finally, the only reason J.S. Bach is the gold standard of music is because he basically codified everything that people were already doing. He took the good, removed some things that he disliked, and since he had a great sense of musicality, he was able to produce musical rules that made sense, and still do. He didn't invent it - many of his techniques are based on stand-outs like Palestrina.
200 years of toying around, and Bach had to trim some of the fat and make music musical again. The rules are there because they sound good. And it's not just what sounds good to Western ears. Many cultures have similar practices, but expand greatly and allow for additional features such as ornamentations, microtones, or even lacking the idea of a "tonic". The fundamentals of what is "musical" seems to be universal, and anything else that drives preference is based on what you grow up around. I would characterize western music as the most restrictive for that reason. Even the Baroque ornamentation and tendency towards gaudy excess shows reservation, relatively speaking.
If you apply a pop culture "least common denominator" style of writing with (arguably) the most restrictive musical basis, you will end up with the same chords repeatedly, used for the same function, which puts them largely in the same order.
If you are talking about the most recent 500 years, I would argue that advances in medicine and science make the latest 500 years far less significant than any previous period of 500 consecutive years. I would be convinced that the 500 year periods making up the "dark ages" were much more evolutionarily significant than the period in which condoms were in any manner common. According to your own link, if such knowledge and use existed prior to the 5th century AD the knowledge and practice was lost. The most critical times which might lend credibility to your argument, and the crucial usage was missing.
You replied to several comments already, but provided nothing other than "papers showing otherwise in the last twenty years." No one knows which papers you refer to, nor can anyone check if they have been redacted or superceded.
Finally, since condom use is mostly a choice, except when it is not available, I don't see it exerting much pressure at all, certainly not as much as whatever factors might be discussed in the uncited articles of yours.
Quite simply, you are protesting too much and adding little if any to the conversation. There is no evidence that an optional utility would exert any speciation change in the periods in which it may have been available, though not widely used. Feel free to post some sort of citation to the contrary, or just stop replying.
I'm not going to claim as AC did that this was intentional. But the company owes this money, not Buffett. And they have publically stated that they owe money, and intend to pay it.
It is not uncommon for companies to re-state earnings. It starts with an announcement in their quarterly or annual report, which is where this was "openly admitted." This is standard business practice, usually when a company realizes that some tax advisor was wrong about how to move things around.
They skip that loophole, re-calculate, try to find another way around it, and then when all else fails announce they will restate their earnings, or taxes, or whatever.
This type of thing is routine, if you follow business news. The only reason it is newsworthy is because the company's founder is on record saying what seems like the opposite position.
But here's how it boils down. BH said they owed this much tax, realized it was actually more, and paid it. Buffett says he should owe more, but only pays what he's required to. Both cases meet the minimum tax liability and no more. And Buffett's point isn't that *he* pays very little tax, it's that a whole class of people pay little tax. He wants the bar raised for everyone in his class, generating piles of revenue, instead of his own voluntary donation which will barely make a dent.
Your point does not stand, because the company followed the legal requirements in finding and reporting underpayments. There is no immunity. In fact, the IRS has for the last several years focused on higher earners, to ensure their taxes are calculated correctly. Return on investment is the key. Auditing someone who makes $35k will probably not turn up much, but a minor variance in a $250k earner might get several thousand dollars.
Let me guess, you've been audited and didn't like it? I hope that's the reason, otherwise you are just swallowing all the bias you are being spoon-fed without any critical thinking skills.
Many people suspected Rand's treatment was payback, although as frequently as "anomalies" happen it was probably perfectly coincidental.
Please, if you're going to make some point, make sure you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of other examples that support your point, but this is not one of them. I suspect you don't have any moderation because there is no "-1 Factually Incorrect" moderation. Since it would be abused.
It makes sense that a religious group with strong tradition would have a consistent environment. The upbringing would complement whatever innate tendency was already there. It may even encourage those lacking a genetic basis to better themselves.
Or another way to consider this: You can help the parts of an organization that do not do the animal testing, or decide which missions to take, or in some way avoid supporting the parts you don't want to support.
You can't stop something by refusing to take part in it. You can help it try to do less damage.
Finance is right out though, I couldn't come up with a defense, and you'd be paid with money chiseled from the average 401(k) investor.
I got an external offer. Gave notice, and my manger's manger offered to beat the offer. I told them, if I were worth that much, I should have been paid that much. Offering to match now that I have an offer would be an insult, and I would be more inclined to leave.
She told me I was one of two people her manager was tracking for possible increases for retention.
I said, First time I heard about this, and I don't see it on my paycheck. Anything else is talk, and I have to consider you, and your manager's history, and history on top of that, and frankly the whole thing smells like fertilizer.
Maybe they really were tracking me. Bottom line, I wouldn't trust a promise until it hit my direct deposit. And if I made a threat of leaving, I'd make damned sure I would be able to take something better immediately.
I was able, and I did, and I left my company in an awful position. I feel badly about it, but no a whole lot, since they have been panned for the last several years here.
If you are indispensable, it works. If not, it doesn't. Looking to leave is relative. Looking for payment relative to services rendered is one thing, wanting more money for doing jack shit is another.
Also, your experience accounts to a fart on the subway. Depending on the industry, and the current salary, and possible offers, HR could be happy to pay 100% of the average wage, or they could be happy to learn that the average pay for the position has increased.
Bottom line: Always network, always look for what you will earn outside your company.
Ultimately, it's not about the money. It has always been, and will always be, about job satisfaction and commute and incidental costs.
You think GP doesn't know what he's talking about because you live in a bubble. Awesome people, given an atmosphere of retention, will be retained. Idiots, which comprise the majority of the workforce, will be considered a candidate for resignation. Everything is relative.
They need to stop password reuse, but they won't. Users do not get paid for choosing passwords, but coders do get paid for writing code. If coders do their job poorly, blame lies with the coders. Expect stupidity, allow for genius.
I'm paranoid enough that I make up fake answers for security questions, and password hints are intentionally misleading, while still enough for me to figure out what it means. I also do not re-use passwords.
But I am not normal. That is why, when I have to write some sort of authentication, I assume the user is a complete and utter tool, incapable of reading or understanding any information or suggestion. At the same time, I also assume they are clever enough to want to defeat my clever scheme of forcing them to be smarter. "Don't reuse passwords" becomes "I must ensure that if a user does re-use passwords, I keep them as safe as I can."
American police in NZ are basically tourists... but a private citizen can violate the right to prevent warrantless search and seizure.
If the FBI in NZ is not considered an entity requiring a warrant where they are operating, and they hand off evidence to an entity which indemnifies a warrantless seizure, has any crime been committed?
The question boils down to whether USA agents are bound to US law. And in the recent Secret Service / South America prostitution scandal, the Executive branch had to state, very recently, that [some group] is governed by homeland law, even while in a foreign country. That happened after the seizure.
So, was this actually illegal under the law at the time of seizure, according to US law?
I really hate to reply to myself, so please no need to moderate this, but I forgot to paste this part of the article (for those unaware, Slashdot stories are largely, but frequently inaccurately, based on something posted on another site, which you can read for more information before commenting off-topic or redundant statements, or already-answered questions).
This may be because once they got to Africa, they found ideal lush conditions with few carnivores and underwent a "starburst of evolution," says Beard, rapidly giving rise to a number of new species.
This is one very broad wild-ass guess, which is commonly mentioned in discussions of human evolution, and it has the same sense to me as "...and then magic happens". Discovering this migration of our pre-ancestors should help narrow down which conditions were lush, and possibly which predators were in Asia but were less dangerous than the ones in Africa, that's the import. Beard is talking out his ass, in other words, but it makes sense to me - I just want specifics.
It's not just a part of the origin - it may help give further insights about the origin. And for that reason, it's extremely interesting. If anthropoids evolved in (or migrated to) Asia, but humans did not evolve there, what does that mean? That's my point, but if it's not clear, the rest of this will just elaborate.
It could be that the climate, or geography, or some other factor, was a trigger for adaptation. I'm certainly not a geographer, so take this with a grain of salt. Asia, for me, tends to evoke mountains and hills, while Africa, while home to very large mountains, evokes a vision of plains and trees. What if that allowed for more social interaction during hunting/gathering, requiring communication and fostering intelligence? Or maybe the need for tools favored bigger brains, and the communication and consciousness developed. It is possible that the environment is the key, and without having migrated from Asia we might all be pre-monkeys to this day.
Whatever the factor, what we have here is a *clue* - one that could lead to better ideas about how we came to be what we are. There will be countless wild-ass guesses that people favor, but one will float to the top eventually.
I have mod points now, and frequently, and I can tell you that I do not give one crap about your opinion as to whether a post should be modded up. It has become commonplace here, and is almost shorthand for "if I had points, I would mod you up, but instead I'll add marginally more value by restating your comment more concretely".
Read the parent post, and then your own, and ask yourself what specifically you added? A formatting suggestion?
I came in to post essentially this post linked below, and the logic behind figuring this out is something I try to encourage. Why did they post that number? It was a conversion for a US audience. Slashdot is not a US audience (though I believe it is hosted there), and even the US readers prefer metric more than the average US citizen due to being more scientifically literate.
It's all about writing for your audience. And as a reader, you should be aware that professional writers try to consider their audience, and if you aren't their audience, try to understand as if you were the intended audience. And as a poster, you should consider that most people reading will not have mod points available, and leave that part out.
Please forgive the long-winded nature of this. I was taught about wave-particle duality long before it was understood. I learned about cancer well before it was classified as a large number of separate diseases. The only reason these subjects are different is because of peoples' emotional responses.
Many conservatives believe evolution is impossible. Some because it says man is older than 5000 years like the Bible apparently says. Some because God made man special, and before the animals man evolved from. Regardless of the reason, they see it as an attack on their religion. And since we have religious freedom in the Constitution, but not mandatory science education, they have every right to insist on being ignorant of they so choose. And the legislative branch has every right to object to ignorance based on the general welfare of the people.
Similarly, man being powerful enough to cause climate change (including maintaining a constant temperature when it should be rising or falling) is attributing God-like powers to man, and therefore heresy. Even if it turns out to be natural, as much as previous ice ages were, the possibility that people are having this effect scares many of Orthodox faith.
And the biggest problem is natural human pattern recognition. We see evidence, fit it into our mental patterns, and have trouble accepting anything else as the cause. Bitter disputes in the sciences have happened due to holding fast to your beliefs. Yes, even as scientists place their faith in data, they also place faith in their interpretation of the data. The trend towards publishing only positive results, and burying negative results (where nothing happened, or nothing supporting your pet theory happened) is a hot topic in recent years, precisely because it lets people promote what they believe more than just reporting what they find. Assuming I have a pet theory that will make me as famous as Einstein, or any number of people in specific fields, I want to believe it and prove it, just as people once fought to convince the population the world orbits the sun.
Every well known theory had to overcome initial skepticism, because science does not accept change at first blush.
So even if you don't have an external influence, religious or otherwise, emotion can still be a driver until your theory is soundly discredited. We are not people of reason inherently. We can reason, but we don't naturally resort to that. That has to be taught, and is the whole reason behind teaching both evolution and climate change.
Overcoming your own emotions and biases to understand the world is what science is all about, even while the discovery and theory is often driven by people who want their views favored. Surely we know of Hawking's wager, which he conceded 7 years later. He (and Thorne) had the same evidence Preskill had, but came to opposite conclusions. We don't have experimental results on black holes to prove one way or another, Hawking just changed his mind. It does not exemplify the fallibility of even the smartest of men - it highlights, as with Einstein's "greatest blunder", that true men of science change their minds when evidence points towards the necessity of doing so.
The best education we can give people is to be both analytical and creative, to define the new and accept the old, all while holding a skeptic's caution. Everything at face value, with a grain of salt. So we have to teach the Rumsfeld curriculum. That is, there are known knowns, and known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. And also, we could be wrong about any or all of this. The whole point of science is not about who is right - only *what* is right. But without the ego-centrism, many brilliant theories may well be dismissed prematurely.
You question what someone else sees as obvious, and not due to any one criterion. Your experience, reading, education, casual conversation, all factor in. Given someone's suggested reading at one point in your life, your views could have been on the other
I never knew what that nagging suspicion was in the back of my head until just now. Curly brace languages will have to either die out, or become so common we think in punctuation, before this happens.
Or, the ambiguities of empty statements being legal will have to be permanently ironed out so that an IDE can auto-complete, or auto-punctuate, rather easily. BEGIN/END, try/catch, and similar constructs will have to become the standard, I think, before we can leave the 100+keyboard device. We will reort to using "begin" for the open brace, and "end" for the closing anyway - why differ spoken vs. typed code unnecessarily?
The only objection to using begin/end I see is the added typing. A brace is one character, in a time when the "unix" name for a program was as short as possible. Saying "begin" rather than "curly brace" will be easier.
In other words, we don't yet think the same as we type, consistently. When that happens, maybe.
I'm not sure what your point was - there is debate about the particulars, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.
Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.
The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening. There is no doubt from any sane person, and it should be taught just as we teach about ice ages.
What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.
You reminded me - I never put my real age. Someone who is tech savvy is likely to have a strong password, as well as keeping other personal info private. Resetting my password involves remembering a fake birthdate, fake mother's maiden name, fake first job, everything is fake.
If one site gets compromised, that info won't get someone into any other account.
So one of the assumptions here is that the ages are correct, which is not necessarily the case. For more tech savvy people, it is more likely the age will be incorrect. To me, this study therefore has no value without validating a statistically significant portion of the user data. And if asked, I would say i really was born 25 years earlier than I was.
If you're eating, just eat. If you are thirsty, have water. It is much better for your system to have one thing at a time. If you eat something so salty you need water, maybe a different diet is in order. Or drink water before eating.
My plan has been, since college: drink plenty of water 15 to 30 minutes before eating. No beverages 15 to 30 minutes on either side of food. Water is well on its way to the colon for absorption, and won't get held up with food being liquefied. Sugary beverages are a snack to be enjoyed away from food.
Of course with beer and brats, you don't really care about what you're doing to your body, so just do what comes natural. Speaking of what's natural, watch any other animal and they will have food and beverages separately.
What research? The last thing I read said that a 20 minute workout burns more calories than just the 20 minutes. The general idea is that doing 20 minutes in the morning and 20 in the evening is far more effective in burning calories than 40 minutes all at once.
Quote from a random research article, from 2011
In young male subjects, vigorous exercise for 45 min resulted in a significant elevation in postexercise energy expenditure that persisted for 14 h. The 190 kcal expended after exercise above resting levels represented an additional 37% to the net energy expended during the 45-min cycling bout. The magnitude and duration of increased energy expenditure after a 45-min bout of vigorous exercise may have implications for weight loss and management.
I think I paid $45 in 1986. It would be close to $90 in today's dollars, so they are down by about half price. And the premium doesn't come from the medium, it comes from having 25 year old games in working condition.
It only takes 1 person with the right tools to copy carts - plenty of pirate carts were available for the NES if you knew where to look. And now we have the internet where you can learn and order equipment, instead of having to know someone who knows about the process.
No premium, no piracy protection, nothing of substance. Just a bunch of words. Marketing skills indeed.
Sounds like you are trying to apply logic to a business and/or political situation. Ass-covering, instinct, and emotion are more likely to be a factor, giving us nothing to observe worth basing a conclusion on.
No. There is a direct quote, and it is prefaced by "squiggleslash writes". There is no editing being done. Lower your expectations, and ask for editors, not copy and paste monkeys.
It makes no sense to complain about something that doesn't exist. Editors not doing their job is one thing, non-editors not editing is exactly correct.
No, they don't. The summary posted looks to be a copy and paste job, as you can see by the "derekmead writes" intro and the blockquote around it. So derekmead is to blame for the terrible summary. The choice to post it we can blame on Soulskill, but I would not call Soulskill an editor. The opposite, actually, a non-editor.
I try to save the "editorializing" complaints for the stuff after the quoted material, when the non-editor decides to add their opinions to the submission.
I don't think the financial argument holds water these days. As you said, taxing to cover health problems creates incentive to avoid the legal market. The alcohol tax does not go to the people who have to pay most of the costs. Insurance, both health and auto/property, tends to be where the money is spent. Liver transplants and dialysis, car accidents, injuries, these are typical outcomes of alcohol use and not covered by the tax.
Far better to think about drugs the same way we think about alcohol. Meth is the "rubbing alcohol" of drugs - it might be a fun high but is not safe. What drugs are left should be allowed to be consumed. The consequences of consumption should be punished, not the act itself.
To put it another way - drugs are illegal because they show up in high crime areas. Guns and murder, theft to support a habit, kidnappings and abuse for drug mules. If it were legal, criminals would not profit. Gang wars for drug territory go away, along with police and hospital support required. Drug dealers need a business license, not weapons. You would have addicts and probably theft. But it would be a lot easier to find and treat addicts. You could hang out at the drug store, and just screen the "regulars".
If I use alcohol I have committed no crime, but if I get drunk and start a bar fight I should be prosecuted for "failure to hold your liquor", and possibly considered for detox or treatment. Same for any other drugs. Treatment will be far less costly than housing a convict. There's your financial argument. Taxes go to support detox, not health problems. And we only punish people who have actually committed crimes, like a civilized society should do. Just like the Prohibition experiment, we created more problems than we solved. Model it after alcohol and the problem almost goes away.
Cracking down on cocaine made people realize that transporting a powder is difficult, and they learned to cook it into crystals. Crack, far more addicting, was born. People who wanted that rush figured out how to make meth, with over-the-counter supplies. Marijuana is way more potent, I assume it was originally a similar aim - to reduce the transport need.
This argument makes more sense, to me at least. "We're only making the problem worse".
Slashdot Mirror
Curious that a theory minor would not use the traditional Roman indicating minor chords with lower case. ii iii and iv specifically.
Your explanation of the Mediant makes no sense - it is common enough to make it into the top 6 according to this study. Going to protest the differences between "classical" and modern music? "Classical" music was the pop music of the day. And just as with Pachelbel's Canon in D, the iii chord is very useful as a lead-in to the IV. The difficulty is parallel movement, specifically avoiding parallel fifths. Today's writers don't care much about that sort of pedantry, so it is probably more common than it was. The "What chord comes next" section clearly shows a spike from iii to IV. If you want to emphasize the IV chord, then iii is the obvious choice. And since IV tends to sound stable, not really leading anywhere in particular, it is very common to throw in a iii-IV lead.
The VII chord is an absurd notion. Naturally, it would be a diminished chord in a major key (vii with the super o to show it's not a normal minor), and would change from diminished to major depending on the minor mode. But it is hardly an indicator of which minor you are using. At best, it would support the melody, which gives a much stronger indication of the context. The V chord is a much stronger harmonic indicator.
The leading tone is a melodic idea, and truly only makes sense when raised - a half step leads into the next note, a whole step rarely does unless you have some sort of teleology established. VII is only valid in a minor key, and only in a natural minor context. The analysis here doesn't even address the diminished 7, I would expect it to make an appearance occasionally. Or at least a note about why they avoided mentioning it. I would like to know if they never actually found one, and why they chose Bb instead of the natural B.
And finally, the only reason J.S. Bach is the gold standard of music is because he basically codified everything that people were already doing. He took the good, removed some things that he disliked, and since he had a great sense of musicality, he was able to produce musical rules that made sense, and still do. He didn't invent it - many of his techniques are based on stand-outs like Palestrina.
200 years of toying around, and Bach had to trim some of the fat and make music musical again. The rules are there because they sound good. And it's not just what sounds good to Western ears. Many cultures have similar practices, but expand greatly and allow for additional features such as ornamentations, microtones, or even lacking the idea of a "tonic". The fundamentals of what is "musical" seems to be universal, and anything else that drives preference is based on what you grow up around. I would characterize western music as the most restrictive for that reason. Even the Baroque ornamentation and tendency towards gaudy excess shows reservation, relatively speaking.
If you apply a pop culture "least common denominator" style of writing with (arguably) the most restrictive musical basis, you will end up with the same chords repeatedly, used for the same function, which puts them largely in the same order.
If you are talking about the most recent 500 years, I would argue that advances in medicine and science make the latest 500 years far less significant than any previous period of 500 consecutive years. I would be convinced that the 500 year periods making up the "dark ages" were much more evolutionarily significant than the period in which condoms were in any manner common. According to your own link, if such knowledge and use existed prior to the 5th century AD the knowledge and practice was lost. The most critical times which might lend credibility to your argument, and the crucial usage was missing.
You replied to several comments already, but provided nothing other than "papers showing otherwise in the last twenty years." No one knows which papers you refer to, nor can anyone check if they have been redacted or superceded.
Finally, since condom use is mostly a choice, except when it is not available, I don't see it exerting much pressure at all, certainly not as much as whatever factors might be discussed in the uncited articles of yours.
Quite simply, you are protesting too much and adding little if any to the conversation. There is no evidence that an optional utility would exert any speciation change in the periods in which it may have been available, though not widely used. Feel free to post some sort of citation to the contrary, or just stop replying.
I'm not going to claim as AC did that this was intentional. But the company owes this money, not Buffett. And they have publically stated that they owe money, and intend to pay it.
It is not uncommon for companies to re-state earnings. It starts with an announcement in their quarterly or annual report, which is where this was "openly admitted." This is standard business practice, usually when a company realizes that some tax advisor was wrong about how to move things around.
They skip that loophole, re-calculate, try to find another way around it, and then when all else fails announce they will restate their earnings, or taxes, or whatever.
This type of thing is routine, if you follow business news. The only reason it is newsworthy is because the company's founder is on record saying what seems like the opposite position.
But here's how it boils down. BH said they owed this much tax, realized it was actually more, and paid it. Buffett says he should owe more, but only pays what he's required to. Both cases meet the minimum tax liability and no more. And Buffett's point isn't that *he* pays very little tax, it's that a whole class of people pay little tax. He wants the bar raised for everyone in his class, generating piles of revenue, instead of his own voluntary donation which will barely make a dent.
Your point does not stand, because the company followed the legal requirements in finding and reporting underpayments. There is no immunity. In fact, the IRS has for the last several years focused on higher earners, to ensure their taxes are calculated correctly. Return on investment is the key. Auditing someone who makes $35k will probably not turn up much, but a minor variance in a $250k earner might get several thousand dollars.
Let me guess, you've been audited and didn't like it? I hope that's the reason, otherwise you are just swallowing all the bias you are being spoon-fed without any critical thinking skills.
It's actually the other way round. Both Pauls have been anti-TSA. 6 months earlier, Rand was grilling the TSA over handling of a 6-year old girl.
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/06/23/1785359/rand-paul-questions-official-over.html
Many people suspected Rand's treatment was payback, although as frequently as "anomalies" happen it was probably perfectly coincidental.
Please, if you're going to make some point, make sure you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of other examples that support your point, but this is not one of them. I suspect you don't have any moderation because there is no "-1 Factually Incorrect" moderation. Since it would be abused.
It makes sense that a religious group with strong tradition would have a consistent environment. The upbringing would complement whatever innate tendency was already there. It may even encourage those lacking a genetic basis to better themselves.
Or another way to consider this: You can help the parts of an organization that do not do the animal testing, or decide which missions to take, or in some way avoid supporting the parts you don't want to support.
You can't stop something by refusing to take part in it. You can help it try to do less damage.
Finance is right out though, I couldn't come up with a defense, and you'd be paid with money chiseled from the average 401(k) investor.
I got an external offer. Gave notice, and my manger's manger offered to beat the offer. I told them, if I were worth that much, I should have been paid that much. Offering to match now that I have an offer would be an insult, and I would be more inclined to leave.
She told me I was one of two people her manager was tracking for possible increases for retention.
I said, First time I heard about this, and I don't see it on my paycheck. Anything else is talk, and I have to consider you, and your manager's history, and history on top of that, and frankly the whole thing smells like fertilizer.
Maybe they really were tracking me. Bottom line, I wouldn't trust a promise until it hit my direct deposit. And if I made a threat of leaving, I'd make damned sure I would be able to take something better immediately.
I was able, and I did, and I left my company in an awful position. I feel badly about it, but no a whole lot, since they have been panned for the last several years here.
If you are indispensable, it works. If not, it doesn't. Looking to leave is relative. Looking for payment relative to services rendered is one thing, wanting more money for doing jack shit is another.
Also, your experience accounts to a fart on the subway. Depending on the industry, and the current salary, and possible offers, HR could be happy to pay 100% of the average wage, or they could be happy to learn that the average pay for the position has increased.
Bottom line: Always network, always look for what you will earn outside your company.
Ultimately, it's not about the money. It has always been, and will always be, about job satisfaction and commute and incidental costs.
You think GP doesn't know what he's talking about because you live in a bubble. Awesome people, given an atmosphere of retention, will be retained. Idiots, which comprise the majority of the workforce, will be considered a candidate for resignation. Everything is relative.
They need to stop password reuse, but they won't. Users do not get paid for choosing passwords, but coders do get paid for writing code. If coders do their job poorly, blame lies with the coders. Expect stupidity, allow for genius.
I'm paranoid enough that I make up fake answers for security questions, and password hints are intentionally misleading, while still enough for me to figure out what it means. I also do not re-use passwords.
But I am not normal. That is why, when I have to write some sort of authentication, I assume the user is a complete and utter tool, incapable of reading or understanding any information or suggestion. At the same time, I also assume they are clever enough to want to defeat my clever scheme of forcing them to be smarter. "Don't reuse passwords" becomes "I must ensure that if a user does re-use passwords, I keep them as safe as I can."
American police in NZ are basically tourists... but a private citizen can violate the right to prevent warrantless search and seizure.
If the FBI in NZ is not considered an entity requiring a warrant where they are operating, and they hand off evidence to an entity which indemnifies a warrantless seizure, has any crime been committed?
The question boils down to whether USA agents are bound to US law. And in the recent Secret Service / South America prostitution scandal, the Executive branch had to state, very recently, that [some group] is governed by homeland law, even while in a foreign country. That happened after the seizure.
So, was this actually illegal under the law at the time of seizure, according to US law?
I really hate to reply to myself, so please no need to moderate this, but I forgot to paste this part of the article (for those unaware, Slashdot stories are largely, but frequently inaccurately, based on something posted on another site, which you can read for more information before commenting off-topic or redundant statements, or already-answered questions).
This is one very broad wild-ass guess, which is commonly mentioned in discussions of human evolution, and it has the same sense to me as "...and then magic happens". Discovering this migration of our pre-ancestors should help narrow down which conditions were lush, and possibly which predators were in Asia but were less dangerous than the ones in Africa, that's the import. Beard is talking out his ass, in other words, but it makes sense to me - I just want specifics.
It's not just a part of the origin - it may help give further insights about the origin. And for that reason, it's extremely interesting. If anthropoids evolved in (or migrated to) Asia, but humans did not evolve there, what does that mean? That's my point, but if it's not clear, the rest of this will just elaborate.
It could be that the climate, or geography, or some other factor, was a trigger for adaptation. I'm certainly not a geographer, so take this with a grain of salt. Asia, for me, tends to evoke mountains and hills, while Africa, while home to very large mountains, evokes a vision of plains and trees. What if that allowed for more social interaction during hunting/gathering, requiring communication and fostering intelligence? Or maybe the need for tools favored bigger brains, and the communication and consciousness developed. It is possible that the environment is the key, and without having migrated from Asia we might all be pre-monkeys to this day.
Whatever the factor, what we have here is a *clue* - one that could lead to better ideas about how we came to be what we are. There will be countless wild-ass guesses that people favor, but one will float to the top eventually.
I have mod points now, and frequently, and I can tell you that I do not give one crap about your opinion as to whether a post should be modded up. It has become commonplace here, and is almost shorthand for "if I had points, I would mod you up, but instead I'll add marginally more value by restating your comment more concretely".
Read the parent post, and then your own, and ask yourself what specifically you added? A formatting suggestion?
I came in to post essentially this post linked below, and the logic behind figuring this out is something I try to encourage. Why did they post that number? It was a conversion for a US audience. Slashdot is not a US audience (though I believe it is hosted there), and even the US readers prefer metric more than the average US citizen due to being more scientifically literate.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2899899&cid=40241949
It's all about writing for your audience. And as a reader, you should be aware that professional writers try to consider their audience, and if you aren't their audience, try to understand as if you were the intended audience. And as a poster, you should consider that most people reading will not have mod points available, and leave that part out.
Please forgive the long-winded nature of this. I was taught about wave-particle duality long before it was understood. I learned about cancer well before it was classified as a large number of separate diseases. The only reason these subjects are different is because of peoples' emotional responses.
Many conservatives believe evolution is impossible. Some because it says man is older than 5000 years like the Bible apparently says. Some because God made man special, and before the animals man evolved from. Regardless of the reason, they see it as an attack on their religion. And since we have religious freedom in the Constitution, but not mandatory science education, they have every right to insist on being ignorant of they so choose. And the legislative branch has every right to object to ignorance based on the general welfare of the people.
Similarly, man being powerful enough to cause climate change (including maintaining a constant temperature when it should be rising or falling) is attributing God-like powers to man, and therefore heresy. Even if it turns out to be natural, as much as previous ice ages were, the possibility that people are having this effect scares many of Orthodox faith.
And the biggest problem is natural human pattern recognition. We see evidence, fit it into our mental patterns, and have trouble accepting anything else as the cause. Bitter disputes in the sciences have happened due to holding fast to your beliefs. Yes, even as scientists place their faith in data, they also place faith in their interpretation of the data. The trend towards publishing only positive results, and burying negative results (where nothing happened, or nothing supporting your pet theory happened) is a hot topic in recent years, precisely because it lets people promote what they believe more than just reporting what they find. Assuming I have a pet theory that will make me as famous as Einstein, or any number of people in specific fields, I want to believe it and prove it, just as people once fought to convince the population the world orbits the sun.
Every well known theory had to overcome initial skepticism, because science does not accept change at first blush.
So even if you don't have an external influence, religious or otherwise, emotion can still be a driver until your theory is soundly discredited. We are not people of reason inherently. We can reason, but we don't naturally resort to that. That has to be taught, and is the whole reason behind teaching both evolution and climate change.
Overcoming your own emotions and biases to understand the world is what science is all about, even while the discovery and theory is often driven by people who want their views favored. Surely we know of Hawking's wager, which he conceded 7 years later. He (and Thorne) had the same evidence Preskill had, but came to opposite conclusions. We don't have experimental results on black holes to prove one way or another, Hawking just changed his mind. It does not exemplify the fallibility of even the smartest of men - it highlights, as with Einstein's "greatest blunder", that true men of science change their minds when evidence points towards the necessity of doing so.
The best education we can give people is to be both analytical and creative, to define the new and accept the old, all while holding a skeptic's caution. Everything at face value, with a grain of salt. So we have to teach the Rumsfeld curriculum. That is, there are known knowns, and known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. And also, we could be wrong about any or all of this. The whole point of science is not about who is right - only *what* is right. But without the ego-centrism, many brilliant theories may well be dismissed prematurely.
You question what someone else sees as obvious, and not due to any one criterion. Your experience, reading, education, casual conversation, all factor in. Given someone's suggested reading at one point in your life, your views could have been on the other
Good, that means lots of screwing. Know any particularly pneumatic ladies I should try out?
I never knew what that nagging suspicion was in the back of my head until just now. Curly brace languages will have to either die out, or become so common we think in punctuation, before this happens.
Or, the ambiguities of empty statements being legal will have to be permanently ironed out so that an IDE can auto-complete, or auto-punctuate, rather easily. BEGIN/END, try/catch, and similar constructs will have to become the standard, I think, before we can leave the 100+keyboard device. We will reort to using "begin" for the open brace, and "end" for the closing anyway - why differ spoken vs. typed code unnecessarily?
The only objection to using begin/end I see is the added typing. A brace is one character, in a time when the "unix" name for a program was as short as possible. Saying "begin" rather than "curly brace" will be easier.
In other words, we don't yet think the same as we type, consistently. When that happens, maybe.
Or, as Cmdr. Data would do, we strapped her desk to a furniture dolly.
Through other experiments, we discovered the paradox where the waterfall coding method is the most agile of them all. Briefly.
I'm not sure what your point was - there is debate about the particulars, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.
Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.
The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening. There is no doubt from any sane person, and it should be taught just as we teach about ice ages.
What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.
You reminded me - I never put my real age. Someone who is tech savvy is likely to have a strong password, as well as keeping other personal info private. Resetting my password involves remembering a fake birthdate, fake mother's maiden name, fake first job, everything is fake.
If one site gets compromised, that info won't get someone into any other account.
So one of the assumptions here is that the ages are correct, which is not necessarily the case. For more tech savvy people, it is more likely the age will be incorrect. To me, this study therefore has no value without validating a statistically significant portion of the user data. And if asked, I would say i really was born 25 years earlier than I was.
If you're eating, just eat. If you are thirsty, have water. It is much better for your system to have one thing at a time. If you eat something so salty you need water, maybe a different diet is in order. Or drink water before eating.
My plan has been, since college: drink plenty of water 15 to 30 minutes before eating. No beverages 15 to 30 minutes on either side of food. Water is well on its way to the colon for absorption, and won't get held up with food being liquefied. Sugary beverages are a snack to be enjoyed away from food.
Of course with beer and brats, you don't really care about what you're doing to your body, so just do what comes natural. Speaking of what's natural, watch any other animal and they will have food and beverages separately.
What research? The last thing I read said that a 20 minute workout burns more calories than just the 20 minutes. The general idea is that doing 20 minutes in the morning and 20 in the evening is far more effective in burning calories than 40 minutes all at once.
Quote from a random research article, from 2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311363
Now, where's your citation you should have put up 5 posts ago?
I think I paid $45 in 1986. It would be close to $90 in today's dollars, so they are down by about half price. And the premium doesn't come from the medium, it comes from having 25 year old games in working condition.
It only takes 1 person with the right tools to copy carts - plenty of pirate carts were available for the NES if you knew where to look. And now we have the internet where you can learn and order equipment, instead of having to know someone who knows about the process.
No premium, no piracy protection, nothing of substance. Just a bunch of words. Marketing skills indeed.
Sounds like you are trying to apply logic to a business and/or political situation. Ass-covering, instinct, and emotion are more likely to be a factor, giving us nothing to observe worth basing a conclusion on.
No. There is a direct quote, and it is prefaced by "squiggleslash writes". There is no editing being done. Lower your expectations, and ask for editors, not copy and paste monkeys.
It makes no sense to complain about something that doesn't exist. Editors not doing their job is one thing, non-editors not editing is exactly correct.
No, they don't. The summary posted looks to be a copy and paste job, as you can see by the "derekmead writes" intro and the blockquote around it. So derekmead is to blame for the terrible summary. The choice to post it we can blame on Soulskill, but I would not call Soulskill an editor. The opposite, actually, a non-editor.
I try to save the "editorializing" complaints for the stuff after the quoted material, when the non-editor decides to add their opinions to the submission.
I don't think the financial argument holds water these days. As you said, taxing to cover health problems creates incentive to avoid the legal market. The alcohol tax does not go to the people who have to pay most of the costs. Insurance, both health and auto/property, tends to be where the money is spent. Liver transplants and dialysis, car accidents, injuries, these are typical outcomes of alcohol use and not covered by the tax.
Far better to think about drugs the same way we think about alcohol. Meth is the "rubbing alcohol" of drugs - it might be a fun high but is not safe. What drugs are left should be allowed to be consumed. The consequences of consumption should be punished, not the act itself.
To put it another way - drugs are illegal because they show up in high crime areas. Guns and murder, theft to support a habit, kidnappings and abuse for drug mules. If it were legal, criminals would not profit. Gang wars for drug territory go away, along with police and hospital support required. Drug dealers need a business license, not weapons. You would have addicts and probably theft. But it would be a lot easier to find and treat addicts. You could hang out at the drug store, and just screen the "regulars".
If I use alcohol I have committed no crime, but if I get drunk and start a bar fight I should be prosecuted for "failure to hold your liquor", and possibly considered for detox or treatment. Same for any other drugs. Treatment will be far less costly than housing a convict. There's your financial argument. Taxes go to support detox, not health problems. And we only punish people who have actually committed crimes, like a civilized society should do. Just like the Prohibition experiment, we created more problems than we solved. Model it after alcohol and the problem almost goes away.
Cracking down on cocaine made people realize that transporting a powder is difficult, and they learned to cook it into crystals. Crack, far more addicting, was born. People who wanted that rush figured out how to make meth, with over-the-counter supplies. Marijuana is way more potent, I assume it was originally a similar aim - to reduce the transport need.
This argument makes more sense, to me at least. "We're only making the problem worse".