The main thing I want is a heart rate monitor and calorie tracking. Everything else is just a bonus. Does it actually track calories burned based on heart rate? If so, I'll definitely consider getting one.
Thermodynamics has been proven false by medicine? Please, show these brilliant "articles". People who want to bitch about being fat without having to DO anything to lose weight are always claiming that "SCIENCE SHOWS I CAN"T HELP SITTING ON THE COUCH POUNDING DOWN THE OREOS!", yet it's never true.
It's completely true. Anyone will lose weight by eating fewer calories, this is a scientific fact that only idiots try to deny. While the number of calories each person needs to stay at a given weight vary based on height, gender, current weight, genetic factors, etc, it is a simple truth that by eating fewer calories, you will lose weight. You will lose weight faster if you combine eating fewer calories with increased exercise, but that doesn't change the fact that you will still lose weight without changing your activity at all and just consume fewer calories.
The difference is that the police work for us; we do not work for the police. Another way of looking at it is that an employer has every right to know where their employees are and what they're doing while they are on the clock - an employee does not have the right to know where their boss is and what their boss is doing while on the clock.
When the police stop behaving like criminals, I'll worry about your concerns. Why am I more worried about the police than some thug on the street? Because a thug can suffer negative consequences for their actions, whether via the justice system or vigilantism. A police officer who commits a crime will rarely ever suffer any negative consequences for their actions and they are often rewarded with additional paid time off and promotions for their crimes.
Well the problem was that Democrats wanted to use it to win elections - "If you don't vote for us, the oceans will cover the entire planet and we'll all die!!" Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.
I guess you haven't paid much attention to the news for the last 13 years. A much smaller force with often inferior weapons to what the typical American has access to has been holding the mighty US military at bay for over a decade. Then Chris Dorner (one man!) was able to essentially shut down a large part of California and took out several police officers. If just one man could wreak that much havoc, imagine what 100 or 1,000 with the same ordinary weapons could do? Hubris like yours is what caused both the Soviet Union and the US to fail in Afghanistan.
I'm at work so I can't go digging for sources right now, but I know research has been done showing that legal gun owners (so the overwhelming majority of people with guns in the US) commit crimes at a much lower (I think half?) rate than police officers in the US. Why? Because legal gun owners in the US know that pretty much any screw up and you lose your guns - for life.
If you're going to count the TV license, you'll need to include a portion of your cable bill in the U.S.
Except that I don't need to pay for cable (Netflix, digital antenna, etc). In the UK if you own a TV, you have to pay a yearly tax.
The $11,000 in 'lost' wages is quite questionable since it is compensated with vacation time
Do you honestly think that a few extra weeks of vacation time is worth losing 23% of your pay? A price differential, absolutely - I'd gladly take a small paycut for more vacation time. But nearly a quarter of your income lost? That's a horrible trade off for the increase in vacation days.
I'm not sure why you're comparing the NHS insurance to Social Security, when that's a separate program for them entirely - I just wasn't able to find numbers on what they pay as a tax rate for their equivalent of Social Security.
Alright. I couldn't find data on the taxes to fund UK retirement, so that's not included here and SS is left out to compensate. If you can find the numbers, I'll gladly update with that data. I currently make $52,000 per year. Health insurance premiums are $50 $63.75 per bi-weekly paycheck for health, vision, and dental combined.
US - Federal Income Tax: $6,078.75 State Income Tax: $1,330.94 Insurance Premiums: $1,657.50 Healthcare Expenses (this year, highest I've had due to surgery, ongoing sinus issues, and a higher deductible): $1,123.90 Fuel Tax (assumed 12 gallons per week * 52 weeks): $404.35 Medicare: $738.92. Ohio Sales Tax (assumed $200 per month taxable expenses): $156.00 Grand Total: $11,490.36.
UK - Income Tax: $4,830.00 NHS Tax: $3,292.45 Fuel Tax (assumed 12 gallons per week * 52 weeks): $3,112.61 VAT (assumed $200 per month taxable expenses): $480.00 TV License: $234.26 Grand Total: $11,949.32. However, due to the mandatory additional vacation, paternity leave, etc, UK companies do not pay as high of a salary initially - I have been approached by UK recruiters and it seems that there's about a 23% decrease in pay for my field (Applied Economics / Econometrics) simply for working in the UK. That means that instead of making $52,000 per year, I'd make roughly $40,250.00 per year ( £25,000.00). Adding in the lost salary of an extra $11,750.00 (pre tax, so some of that money would be added to the taxes paid and the rest would be lost income), and you have a final value of $23,699.32 paid in taxes if I were to move to the UK and obtain a similar job.
That's an extra $12,208.95 in taxes paid if I were to work in the UK instead of the US. That's roughly twice as much in taxes paid. You also have to remember that the UK tax rate increases are much steeper, so as I would work and earn raises, my taxes paid would increase far faster in the UK than in the US.
Sure thing. I'm busy (working) today, but over the weekend I'll pull up actual tax rates for a country or two and compare them to my actual rates and post them. Sound good?
Far more days off, no copays/deductibles/coinsurance plus premium healthcare...and even have paternity leave.
And a much lower income as a result. Also, the "no copay / deductible / insurance premium" is crap since they pay HUGE income taxes instead. There's a reason all of those nations rage about how Americans are "materialistic" - because the United States is the only developed world that doesn't tax the living shit out of their citizens to the point where they have very little disposable income. Also, for those benefits (mandatory longer vacations, mandatory paternity leave, etc), compare salaries for the same job across countries - you'll find that (with few, if any, exceptions) the US jobs pay more because you're being more productive and spending more time working. I've been approached by recruiters in other nations (such as the UK) and my pre-tax pay would be significantly lower if I accepted a their job - and that's before their absurd tax rates.
Except if you compare those same drivers and their tickets while driving different cars, I'll bet money (based on my personal experience owning both family sedans and sports cars) that you'll see that it's the car and not the driver that drives the ticket count.
When I drove an old sedan, I never got a speeding ticket. Ever since buying a new coupe (driving the same speeds) I've gotten at least one ticket per year. I don't care about paying the money because I'll openly admit I was speeding, but to claim that cops don't target sporty cars to punish them is a joke.
Actually the skill non-Americans have is called "math". They refuse to teach it in almost all American schools, so foreign immigrants are needed in order to invent things.
We should just start moving away from free trade arrangements. Go back to having tariffs likely through a VAT with subsidies for domestic job creation.
You just made every economist cry with that statement. Free trade benefits all countries involved and tariffs harm both the nation enacting the tariff as well as the nations they trade with.
Well 4) (GPS on a bike / motorcycle) is more about the "turn left in 100 feet" or the audio directions would be a lot more useful than trying to figure out something with your phone while riding.
In case of (3), if there's a message so important that it's worth interrupting a meeting for (why else would you check notifications?), just have your secretary check on it and warn you in person when such a message comes in.
First off, most people don't have "secretaries" to take their messages. Secondly, it allows you to discreetly tell if the incoming alert is just an email that you don't care about or your wife saying that she has to take one of the kids to the hospital. A quick glance at your wrist lets you know if you can just ignore it or if you need to leave. Also, how is glancing at a notification "interrupting" a meeting? Something tells me that you don't attend many meetings....
The things that I can currently think of that I'd use a smartwatch for - 1) GPS / pedometer for running 2) music (without the need for a phone) while working out 3) discreetly checking notifications during meetings 4) navigation when riding a bike / motorcycle. I realize not everyone would value these and will say "JUST USE YOUR PHONE!", but for a $200 - $250 smart watch, I'd definitely drop down the money for these apps.
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing I want is a heart rate monitor and calorie tracking. Everything else is just a bonus. Does it actually track calories burned based on heart rate? If so, I'll definitely consider getting one.
It's always funny to see those who've never interacted with the police in a professional manner claim that it's a "minority" that are criminal.
Thermodynamics has been proven false by medicine? Please, show these brilliant "articles". People who want to bitch about being fat without having to DO anything to lose weight are always claiming that "SCIENCE SHOWS I CAN"T HELP SITTING ON THE COUCH POUNDING DOWN THE OREOS!", yet it's never true.
It's completely true. Anyone will lose weight by eating fewer calories, this is a scientific fact that only idiots try to deny. While the number of calories each person needs to stay at a given weight vary based on height, gender, current weight, genetic factors, etc, it is a simple truth that by eating fewer calories, you will lose weight. You will lose weight faster if you combine eating fewer calories with increased exercise, but that doesn't change the fact that you will still lose weight without changing your activity at all and just consume fewer calories.
The difference is that the police work for us; we do not work for the police. Another way of looking at it is that an employer has every right to know where their employees are and what they're doing while they are on the clock - an employee does not have the right to know where their boss is and what their boss is doing while on the clock.
When the police stop behaving like criminals, I'll worry about your concerns. Why am I more worried about the police than some thug on the street? Because a thug can suffer negative consequences for their actions, whether via the justice system or vigilantism. A police officer who commits a crime will rarely ever suffer any negative consequences for their actions and they are often rewarded with additional paid time off and promotions for their crimes.
Well the problem was that Democrats wanted to use it to win elections - "If you don't vote for us, the oceans will cover the entire planet and we'll all die!!" Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.
I guess you haven't paid much attention to the news for the last 13 years. A much smaller force with often inferior weapons to what the typical American has access to has been holding the mighty US military at bay for over a decade. Then Chris Dorner (one man!) was able to essentially shut down a large part of California and took out several police officers. If just one man could wreak that much havoc, imagine what 100 or 1,000 with the same ordinary weapons could do? Hubris like yours is what caused both the Soviet Union and the US to fail in Afghanistan.
I'm at work so I can't go digging for sources right now, but I know research has been done showing that legal gun owners (so the overwhelming majority of people with guns in the US) commit crimes at a much lower (I think half?) rate than police officers in the US. Why? Because legal gun owners in the US know that pretty much any screw up and you lose your guns - for life.
The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency. Their mission is to force the will of politicians upon the people.
FTFY
If you're going to count the TV license, you'll need to include a portion of your cable bill in the U.S.
Except that I don't need to pay for cable (Netflix, digital antenna, etc). In the UK if you own a TV, you have to pay a yearly tax.
The $11,000 in 'lost' wages is quite questionable since it is compensated with vacation time
Do you honestly think that a few extra weeks of vacation time is worth losing 23% of your pay? A price differential, absolutely - I'd gladly take a small paycut for more vacation time. But nearly a quarter of your income lost? That's a horrible trade off for the increase in vacation days.
I'm not sure why you're comparing the NHS insurance to Social Security, when that's a separate program for them entirely - I just wasn't able to find numbers on what they pay as a tax rate for their equivalent of Social Security.
Alright. I couldn't find data on the taxes to fund UK retirement, so that's not included here and SS is left out to compensate. If you can find the numbers, I'll gladly update with that data. I currently make $52,000 per year. Health insurance premiums are $50 $63.75 per bi-weekly paycheck for health, vision, and dental combined.
US - Federal Income Tax: $6,078.75 State Income Tax: $1,330.94 Insurance Premiums: $1,657.50 Healthcare Expenses (this year, highest I've had due to surgery, ongoing sinus issues, and a higher deductible): $1,123.90 Fuel Tax (assumed 12 gallons per week * 52 weeks): $404.35 Medicare: $738.92. Ohio Sales Tax (assumed $200 per month taxable expenses): $156.00 Grand Total: $11,490.36.
UK - Income Tax: $4,830.00 NHS Tax: $3,292.45 Fuel Tax (assumed 12 gallons per week * 52 weeks): $3,112.61 VAT (assumed $200 per month taxable expenses): $480.00 TV License: $234.26 Grand Total: $11,949.32. However, due to the mandatory additional vacation, paternity leave, etc, UK companies do not pay as high of a salary initially - I have been approached by UK recruiters and it seems that there's about a 23% decrease in pay for my field (Applied Economics / Econometrics) simply for working in the UK. That means that instead of making $52,000 per year, I'd make roughly $40,250.00 per year ( £25,000.00). Adding in the lost salary of an extra $11,750.00 (pre tax, so some of that money would be added to the taxes paid and the rest would be lost income), and you have a final value of $23,699.32 paid in taxes if I were to move to the UK and obtain a similar job.
That's an extra $12,208.95 in taxes paid if I were to work in the UK instead of the US. That's roughly twice as much in taxes paid. You also have to remember that the UK tax rate increases are much steeper, so as I would work and earn raises, my taxes paid would increase far faster in the UK than in the US.
I was planning on it.
Sure thing. I'm busy (working) today, but over the weekend I'll pull up actual tax rates for a country or two and compare them to my actual rates and post them. Sound good?
oh great, another place for TSA to go and stick it to you.
"There is an unexpected item in the bagging area. Please remove your pants and wait for a TSA agent to perform a cavity search."
Far more days off, no copays/deductibles/coinsurance plus premium healthcare...and even have paternity leave.
And a much lower income as a result. Also, the "no copay / deductible / insurance premium" is crap since they pay HUGE income taxes instead. There's a reason all of those nations rage about how Americans are "materialistic" - because the United States is the only developed world that doesn't tax the living shit out of their citizens to the point where they have very little disposable income. Also, for those benefits (mandatory longer vacations, mandatory paternity leave, etc), compare salaries for the same job across countries - you'll find that (with few, if any, exceptions) the US jobs pay more because you're being more productive and spending more time working. I've been approached by recruiters in other nations (such as the UK) and my pre-tax pay would be significantly lower if I accepted a their job - and that's before their absurd tax rates.
Except if you compare those same drivers and their tickets while driving different cars, I'll bet money (based on my personal experience owning both family sedans and sports cars) that you'll see that it's the car and not the driver that drives the ticket count.
When I drove an old sedan, I never got a speeding ticket. Ever since buying a new coupe (driving the same speeds) I've gotten at least one ticket per year. I don't care about paying the money because I'll openly admit I was speeding, but to claim that cops don't target sporty cars to punish them is a joke.
Unless there's a trade agreement I'm unaware of, the US doesn't have any Free Trade agreements with countries like China.
Actually the skill non-Americans have is called "math". They refuse to teach it in almost all American schools, so foreign immigrants are needed in order to invent things.
We should just start moving away from free trade arrangements. Go back to having tariffs likely through a VAT with subsidies for domestic job creation.
You just made every economist cry with that statement. Free trade benefits all countries involved and tariffs harm both the nation enacting the tariff as well as the nations they trade with.
There's the xenophobia Americans are so known for!
In case of (3), if there's a message so important that it's worth interrupting a meeting for (why else would you check notifications?), just have your secretary check on it and warn you in person when such a message comes in.
First off, most people don't have "secretaries" to take their messages. Secondly, it allows you to discreetly tell if the incoming alert is just an email that you don't care about or your wife saying that she has to take one of the kids to the hospital. A quick glance at your wrist lets you know if you can just ignore it or if you need to leave. Also, how is glancing at a notification "interrupting" a meeting? Something tells me that you don't attend many meetings....
Nope, they just caught up with the Nexus 4 from two years ago.
The things that I can currently think of that I'd use a smartwatch for - 1) GPS / pedometer for running 2) music (without the need for a phone) while working out 3) discreetly checking notifications during meetings 4) navigation when riding a bike / motorcycle. I realize not everyone would value these and will say "JUST USE YOUR PHONE!", but for a $200 - $250 smart watch, I'd definitely drop down the money for these apps.