I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.
Note that the CPI in reality isn't a constant basket of goods and services, it's an expanding basket.
Maybe in the USA (?) "The CPI measures the change in the cost of purchasing a fixed basket of goods and services."Source Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those figures are calculated from costs in capital cities. Costs in regional areas are much higher (and that's where most of "poverty" is).
But the US keeps adding on new benefits on top of the basic welfare system: food, health care, housing, phone service, Internet service, etc.
No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive.
Interesting (thanks). It's defined differently here (we currently use an international standard). i.e. welfare is actually below the defined level of poverty. Labor (left) wants to use "relative" poverty, the Liberals (right, currently in power) disagree.
In fact, "poverty" in the US (and Australia I imagine) has largely been eliminated. The term "poverty" these days is defined as "relative poverty"; it has little to do with lack of material resources, it's just another measure of the spread of the income distribution.
I've covered our use of relative poverty (see above). As to whether it's largley (1 in 7) been eliminated here, I'd go with "less visible in the capital cities". This article is based on the fairly recent ACCOS report.
I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future.
I don't think so. Since poverty is defined in relative terms [sic in the USA], raising the general level of education doesn't affect poverty rates at all, even if it makes everybody more productive. Public housing has been a failure, and you can't force people to live next to people they don't want to live next to.
Raising the level of education could change the number of people who qualify for jobs for which there are few or no candidates. We (Australia) can put public housing anywhere - and do. I don't know that it's been declared a general failure (here). Certainly when it's segregated high density it's a failure - people tend to be more likely to change when shown how to do things differently as opposed to told. When all the people you "know" (your neighbours) sleep all day, drink all night, and spend their waking hours trying to work out how to get by without working, and how to get "things" without paying - there's little to contradict the belief that you can't change how you live. Especially when it's institutionalised i.e. public schools in low income areas cater to the perceived outcomes - lifestyle subjects, little or no preparation for higher education, and what's called "vegie" subject (math and english for the unemployed - not for the workplace). As an example of proposed measures to "solve" the problem (which seem unlikely to work) one proposed plan is: to relocate large numbers of people from a Southern NSW housing estate - to a high density, low income estate in Canberra (yet to be built). Canberra is a relatively small place, not on a port or with a major river from the sea. Not only is the local market small - it's economy is based almost entirely on a trickle down from Federal government expenditure. The "idea" is that this move will somehow create a manufacturing industry by providing a large workfo
Given that we are showing how little is known about DNA should we really be doing genetic modifications to things that might be important - like humans or food?
The trouble with these arguments is that base resources (iron, oil, aluminum, copper, etc...) cost to extract and then there are the people who own those resources. So, in a Star Trek economy, I guess robots show up in your back yard and start mining - whether you like it or not?
How will you know? You'll be on a ship somewhere deep in space - on your way to make friends and exchange merit badges with friendly advance life forms.
That journalists are the ones arguing about 'not having to work to live'?
Of course. It's a natural progression - from research and writing to copying and pasting. The logical next step is to be a wealthy retiree - but in a meritocracy, somewhere near the top obviously (next to Kim, and Kane). Kind of like a never-ending press junket, but with better food, wine, and not having to read Twitter in order to post a story afterwards. "travelling [through space] and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy."
There are a few places where the version of communism they are calling "trekonomy" works [...]. So do non-evil prison systems - they don't charge the inmates for food, clothing, etc.
Communism has shown us that going by things other than a currency results in countries that fall over due to bankruptcy in a generation at most.
The sad part about life is that there are only two types of nations which survive for the long haul: Extremely brutal theocracies and oligarchies. The rest just get mowed over by those types, or just collapse from within.
A Star Trek is a nice fantasy, but Ayn Rand's words are reality.
Communism uses currency. The proposed utopia doesn't. Not everything that isn't capitalism is communism.
Ayn Rand died eating her words.Unless you are blinded by the sort of drivel produced by Onkar Ghate - who simultaneously says, yes she received Social Security, but she was opposed to it because it's a theft from the young by the old (though she was old at the time) - but she was a genius, so it's all not true, while it's all true.
I never bought into the Star Trek economy anyway - seemed some owned things that weren't made in replicators (antiquities). Where they gifted them? What did the show mean by Federation credit (a mention at the end of every series)?
Maybe the planets full of people who didn't aspire to a meritocracy weren't worthy of inclusion is series/movies - or the method by which the innate human drive to expend as little energy as possible was magically overcome (were they all on Ice?). I guess that's part of the beauty of fiction - because it's audience can visualise it they can recognise that it's fiction while believing it as almost fact at the same time. Maybe the series was based in a time after the period of which we do not speak (the great troll cull)?
The summary mentions "Wealthy retirees today also already live an essentially post-money existence, "travelling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy." which sounds great. Though the Balinese may have a different opinion - especially about the money-free bit (but why do they haggle if they have no money?). Meanwhile budget cat food still sells well.
I knew I should have spent more time at the Firehose this week - it's my own fault. Not Hugh Picken's at all, no.
I'd be curious to see how much of that money actually gets to the recipients.
That sounds as if you think that somehow invalidates the analysis;
No. I have no opinion on the subject. I'm curious as to what the percentage is - there doesn't seem to be a publicly available figure for this country. Just opinions. I'll wait until I have figures until I form an opinion.
... actually, it strengthens it: the fact that a lot of that money does not reach the recipients is not only an unavoidable consequence of these programs, it's what drives much of the increase in welfare and its failures in the first place.
Roughly, a lot of the money intended to help people goes into financing government departments and private non-profits. These organizations then create programs that by and large are not very effective or even harmful. But you now have a large number of people whose livelihood depends on this funding, and who have a strong incentive to expand their organizations. Since their programs aren't working well, they then go back to Congress and ask for more funding, and since they are considered the experts, they often get it.
That's my suspicion. Based on my experience with organisations. I can't think of any that finished the financial year with unspent budgets. Few that don't return to the government every year asking for more money, and none that don't find ways of spending an increased percentage on administration and "programs" - both of which don't increase the percentage received by the intended recipients. Worse is the thing called "work for the dole" - where taxpayers fund government departments to administer funding for private (prosperous) "non-profits" to run programs that provide welfare recipients to "for-profit" companies as unpaid staff - supposedly to create "work opportunities". The cost to administer those programs, the cost to competing businesses that pay legal wages, and the cost to the economy don't seem to be available to the public.
I'm unconvinced by the rising level of people on welfare and welfare as a cause.
Well, notice that "on welfare" is a shifting target: people "on welfare" these days receive a lot more than they did 50 years ago.
I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.
So the rising level of people on welfare is in part simply due to changes in who we consider needy. If we applied the same criteria as half a century ago (or the same criteria as many others), a lot fewer people would receive welfare, and those that did would get a lot less of it. And, of course, a lot of the people whose work is related to welfare are lobbying for these increases.
That happens here - but the lobbying from the social welfare sector is largely ineffective.
The increase in welfare spending has many causes. The harm that welfare spending does to its recipients is only one part, but it is probably the worst of it. As a society, wasting a few percent of our GDP on useless government programs isn't such a big deal; but using those programs to create a permanent underclass is morally wrong and economically destructive.
No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive. Particularly to when considering those that wear their underpants on the outside. I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future. Improved funding for public schools and re-examination of the education system is an unpopular view given the "demand" for more people willing to work lower paid jobs.
(If you're asking for an alternative, I think German-style welfare or a basic income would be better choices.)
By that logic if I had an app for my credit card company. If I deleted the app, my balance should be gone, and my account closed.[...]
Stop there. That's not logic. A broken analogy. But not logic.
Try this - read the referenced article. Then consider the logic of complaining because the remote backup of your local data - still exists, even though you removed the app that created the backup.
Go ahead. Read the referenced article. Here I'll save you doing the clicking thing:-
There they were, hundreds of photos I’d taken of my wife, my daughter, and me, grouped together by Google’s facial-recognition technology in the company’s Photos app, all snapped over the course of a little more than a month. The problem was, I’d deleted all of those pictures[on the local device], and most distressing, I didn’t even have the Google Photos app on my phone."
Except that in your little analogy, uninstalling the app should correspond to taking the TV away. [...]
Huh? Where did 140Mandak262Jamuna say "I stepped on the TV""?
No wonder you see bogeymen when you uninstall and app that initiated a backup. Obviously Google needs to update the documentation so that it's clearer to "users" that they need to disable the automatic backup before uninstalling the app that initiates the process and allows you to select what gets backed up. Calling it "stealth" is either ignorant, or click-bait (oh nose it was the internet pixies).
After prompting you the first time, every time you connect that phone, camera, or storage card to your computer, the photos and videos on it will back up automatically (if you set it to do so).
There needs to be a series of big popups, maybe with an acceptance code send to your email that has to be entered before you can install the app, and start the auto backup process - or the same process before uses can remove the app. And another one warning them that just because they deleted local copies of files they'd backed up - having removed the backup controlling app they still had the backup copies (what a stupid backup system!). Just in case they found the documentation hard to read, or, um, don't know how backups work (but shouldn't the backup copy vanish if my local copies do?).
Just because I'd never use it doesn't mean I don't care. I care a lot. [about the flowers and the trees, I care a lot]
Of course. How obvious - the Z gene, how's that for intuitive wisdom -and the last zombie movie I watched had Charlton Heston in it (now he is a zombie). I was so stunned that I finished reading the referenced article and found I'd written the first post that I failed to notice the obvious clue. This is going to really drive the preppers batshit.
I wonder what the P gene does? On second thoughts I'd rather find out second-hand.
I wouldn't protest this, but I will say that I expect mostly subtle--with occasional fabulous--disasters.
O-K. Sounds like conception as normal.
It's all fun and games until the Trolloc army comes through, spreading the sort of affection that would make a locust swarm seem a mere inconvenience.
Or worse - so cute that just a passing glimpse turns the viewers brain to mush. Like cabbage patch dolls and cute kittens times 10000. Everyone will want one, but having got one, do nothing but stand oohing until they die of self-neglect in a pool of their own waste.
That's nonsense. Welfare spending has increased pretty steadily since the 1920's, from a fraction of 1% of GDP to 5% of GDP. You can also look at it on a per capita basis or in constant dollars, same result.
The Heritage foundation has a pretty good article on the failure of the war on poverty:
I'd be curious to see how much of that money actually gets to the recipients. The cost of unemployment welfare is often touted by our government (Oz) as reason for cutting it - while deceitfully hiding the true unemployment figures (work for the dole and/or "training" is compulsory - and "participants" are not counted as unemployed) and failing to mention that the bill for "administration" (much of which winds up in private enterprise) is a much larger cost. Failing to consider the costs if welfare didn't exist is another barrel of rotten fish.
I'm unconvinced by the rising level of people on welfare and welfare as a cause. But I admit to being biased by the number of times I've been stiffed by business that went (profitably, through sleight of hand) bankrupt (*cough* Geoff "back again" Hewatt *cough* and *cough* Urban Contractors *cough*) due to "unforseen circumstances" that a blind man could have seen coming.
Big business by itself doesn't work that way. Big businesses have no way of socializing risk by themselves.
Big businesses can socialize risk only in collusion with big government. So, the determining factor of socializing risk isn't whether a business is big, but whether government is big and whether government has the power to socialize risk.
So, your statement would be more accurate as:
"Privatize the profits, socialize the risks."
That's how big government works in the USA and elsewhere.
And the solution to this problem isn't to regulate big businesses more (that only makes the problem worse) but to cut back the culprit, big and powerful government.
And for this some arse clowns have moderated you troll... which speaks volumes of their intelligence and integrity. And just reinforces my (earlier stated) reasons for reading at -1 and wanting to see the removal of the troll tag.
I browse at -1 and I mod by quality and relevance of comments. If you're moderating by username, AC or otherwise, you're effectively performing a continuous ad hominem.
I read and moderate at -1. Gold, like the truth, is where you find it. i.e. plenty of stupid and just plain wrong gets moderated up, likewise facts, insights, and interesting posts can be found at below 1. Sometimes the most insightful is moderated down as a troll or overrated, by those with a warped agenda (and more than one account).
I'm all in favour of removing the troll tag - let other readers provide context to indicate a troll (or stupid) posts. Tags and ratings aren't reliable - just useful for those the want to censor, and they're no substitute for clear thinking and fact checking.
As for ad hominem - it's a frequently misused term. It's a form of argument that attacks the arguer instead of the argument. Not moderating someone on the basis of username is not an "ad hominem" attack. Which is not what you said - but it is what the OP you're replying to said. There are plenty of occasions when the character of someone is relevant. Even when it's not relevant the merits of an argument should be based on the argument - not the opinion of the arguer. Or all arguments will be won by honey-tongued sophists.
If someone posts something ignorant or stupid - they are ignorant and stupid, it's the context of ad hominem that determines whether it's wrong (a bad argument) or not. e.g. if someone argues that they make the sun come up, and you call them an idiot and challenge them to make it come up at noon tomorrow - it's not an ad hominem. Just calling them an idiot is.
There are two forms of ad hominem argument: a cowardly form - the fallacious analogy e.g. "Smith has proposed we should go on a sailing holiday, though he knows as much about ships as an Armenian bandleader does." (Perhaps you do not need to know all that much for a sailing holiday. Smith can always learn. The point here is that the comparison is deliberately drawn to make him look ridiculous. There may even be several Armenian bandleaders who are highly competent seamen.); and the less subtle abusive analogy - as a direct attack in lieu of facts to support and argument, e.g. "Dr Green argues very plausibly for fluoridation. What he doesn't say is that he is the same Dr Green who ten years ago published in favour of both euthanasia and infanticide". (Unless his argument is that fluoride will kill off the old people and infants more effectively, it is hard to see how this bears on the arguments for or against fluoride.)".
Perhaps you meant "misreferencing? I figured that was the sort of "information" he(?) was grasping at. Misrepresented and unsubstantiated references to try and support damaged logic and false conclusions. The same sort of bullshit the NSA and FBI trots out to support their excesses. Different dog, same leg action.
The Russian comment was most likely referencing this (35 years ago)
" Amid swirling anti-gay sentiment in Russia, Sochi’s mayor claims there are no gay people in his city.
“It’s not accepted here in the Caucasus where we live. We do not have them in our city,” Anatoly Pakhomov told BBC Panorama in an interview."
He then "went on to say that he was not sure if there are gay people in Sochi."
A little further on the same article quotes Putin "individuals of non-traditional orientation cannot feel like second-rate humans in this country because they are not discriminated against in any way,”
Of course what those crafty Reds mean is because there are no "individuals of non-traditional orientation" - they therefore "cannot feel like second-rate humans". Cunning. Very cunning indeed if you've ever visited Moscow - the extent they go to is astounding. If you haven't just Google to check the degree they're willing to go to so they can convince us in the West they really do have gays.
As for the handicapped... that's laughable. They have holograms of handicapped people to lecture Rimmers about using handicapped parking spaces.
Which Russian politician claims they don't know of the effects of Afghan and Chechen landmines?
You asked for proof and I pointed out that we don't have the visibility necessary for proof.
Read again. You demanded proof. I replied that as you made the unsubstantiated claims it was, and still is, incumbent on you to provide proof. "The Moving Finger writes..."
I then appealed to wisdom vis-a-vis human nature to establish concern.
A specious claim. You tried to sell a false conclusion as a fact - and now you spew half-understood rhetoric in denial. I don't know whether you're a pro-panopticon shill trying to discredit those of us opposed to spying without transparent oversight (and review), or just over-excited and ignorant. Either way your claims help Five Eyes more than the hinder.
[...] The drumbeat of incremental power grabs is very telling though, at least to those of us who've seen a bit of history.
Then you are seriously deluded if you people won't read all of your posts and conclude your claim to have "seen a bit of history" extends beyond 16 years of watching Fox "News" (which your rhetoric and hyperbole echoes) and snatches of the History Channel. "Russia claiming they don't have any handicap or gay people" - yeah, that's an accurate piece "bit of history" - worthy of a Fox "News". About as accurate as me saying "America is opposed to gay marriage".
But feel free to close your eyes and pretend you aren't boiling...
If stupid was worth 1c a gram you'd be worth millions. Five minutes of reading my posting history (for someone whose lips don't get to sore the read beyond the length of a Twitter post) would show I believe no such thing.
The NSW Police force has a long history of corruption - but it doesn't follow that all NSW cops are corrupt. It's been demonstrated that some have abused their access to the police databases - but again, not all of them. As with any position of power, misuse is a predictable occurrence. The intelligent solution is to continually police the police - and punish those the abuse their positions. The stupid reaction is to punish, or accuse, all of them. That's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Someone too stupid to extrapolate the obvious would oppose police having the ability to monitor communications, or even stupider, propose we don't need police or intelligence agencies. Like the libertarian idiots who take libertarian to the extremes and believe they can do fine without police - because they have guns (a "bit of history" shows that for the dangerous naivety that it is)
I am retired so, yeah, I pretty much sleep when I want to sleep. I probably get four hours out of every day on a good day. The thing is, I really do not get tired until after that day is over. Even then when I do get tired and go to bed I end up sitting there, thinking, trying to ignore everything.
The active mind bit is familiar - when I used to try and sleep in a single block I had that problem. The only way to get around it and avoid involuntary all-nighters (sometimes two in a row) was to exhaust myself mentally and physically, ensure that mental stimulation (conversation and noise) as well as bright light was avoided for an hour before bed (which didn't make relationships easier). Any light at night was enough to make sleep difficult.
I meditate sometimes, that helps at times but not always. Sometimes just a short spell of meditation makes me feel refreshed and then I can not sleep again for another 20 - 30 hours.
Sounds similar - the biggest problem I found with that was loss of productivity. Instead I try and spend a couple of hours a day, in smaller chunks, doing mindless tasks. Household chores, driving the tractor, walking, or weeding the garden all seem to help (active meditations?) - anything I can task to muscle memory while I concentrate on breathing to demand. I do feel benefits but don't know if it comes from breaking up longer tasks or the meditation process.
I did a 3 day sleep study at a specialist's facility out on the other coast. They prescribed me a bunch of sleeping pills. Those just make me more tired and I do not sleep. Then when I do sleep they make me go down for a little longer and I wake up as groggy as a bear coming out of hibernation. I guess I also have sleep apnea[...]
Everything but the apnea is similar - though as I explained in an earlier post, I have a polyphasic family history.
So I do not take any medicine for it. I used to drink and I did a lot of opiates (I do neither any more) and those put me out. I ended up horribly addicted and needed rehabilitation and am still on Suboxone today but that does not make me sleep. (I had a huge tolerance.) I did opiates for years but was a functioning addict for most of forty five years. It started at 13, I got cluster headaches and they gave me codeine. I have used daily until just recently and that includes Fentanyl extraction for IV use. I functioned fine until I retired then I went out and had a hell of a good time. I was already drinking by that age. Ah well. I had a hell of a lot of fun and what else is life for? Not many can honestly say their life is complete and they are content. I am lucky.
Apart from a relatively brief period of my late teens (foolishly thinking I was Keith Richards) I've steered clear of opiates - unless you count a dozen or so opium sessions over almost 40 years (when in places that offer it). Cannabis and booze was another story - that I did use for a long time to help me sleep. Cannabis (indicas) worked well - still does, but it's a waste of good weed (and I prefer the stimulation of sativas) if you sleep through most of the effects (and makes it difficult to deal with business at all hours), and it leaves me stoned the next morning. I still enjoy both, just not as regularly, in the same amounts, or for the same purposes. I got selfish in my old age and prefer to only enjoy the best - and when I do I don't want to compromise the enjoyment by doing so when I have to do other things better done with a clear head - especially the next day.
Anyhow, so no... I do not sleep. I can usually tell when my body is going to want to sleep and I will drink a couple of chamomile teas in the hours leading up to it. Then I just crash when I crash. I am not scheduled to do a whole lot so it is not as if it effects me much any more.
That's um, relatively good then. I guess I'm lucky that I've found a way not to be tired anymore. No more s
I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.
(grin)
Actually, the problem isn't Powerpoint or presentations. The problem is people who do not know how to create or give good presentations.
Agreed. It's the wasted time that bites. IMO the worst offenders spend too much time preparing it (which hasn't been a problem for years). Then there are those that create Powerpoint presentations which should have just been written documents - which they could have emailed me (no Powerpoint on my computers). In which case I would have just read it and the meeting would become redundant. As a general rule I won't go to presentations unless they've sent me something that explained the presentation first - that also allows me to research the subject. When I do go it's because I want to ask questions - and I make a point of sending them the questions before I go.
Most boring presentations fall into the following categories:
1. a presentation that you are forced to attend but that has no direct relevance to you, your job, etc.
2. a presentation with too many details for the time slot. The Presenter speed reads the presentation
3. a presentation where the presenter just reads the presentation. There are no explanations and no expansion on what appears on the slides. You could have just read the presentation in 10 minutes and gotten the same information.
4. a presentation that has not been tailored to the audience.
If you have ever watched a Ted Talk presentation, you will see that they use Powerpoint. The difference is that you are interested in the topic, the presenter is passionate about the topic and tells a story, and the slides include just the major points, they don't go into too much detail.
Oh... and banning Powerpoint just wouldn't work... They would just use Word or, horrors, Excel.... (grin)
Spreadsheets go in the big round grey filing cabinet unless they actually do math - often followed by the "writer"'s chances of an extended contract. Though usually I try and educate them first "we have these things called databases - have you heard of them? Did you know that Word includes tables?". My rule of the thumb is a document shouldn't take longer to write than the sum total of the time taken by all the recipients to read it - if it does it's either badly written or should have been professionally written.
Why do so many point and click MS Office/LibreOffice clown think they're a writer and/or a publisher? Quite often they're otherwise smart people - yet they assume they don't need to spend the time and effort that professional writers and publishers do to learnt the craft.
I find presentations are good for sales (which I don't do) - and it's also a reason why I'm wary of them. They're useful for getting people to visualise things - but if it involves precision or concepts I greatly prefer the written word. Presentations are also logistical challenges to organise (like bloody teleconferences). I find it more efficient to try and train people to learn how to use email properly ("no really it's not like electronic postcards - learn to interleave when appropriate").
There are some TED talks I've enjoyed - but most I'd prefer to have in written form.
I have been diagnosed with severe chronic insomnia, I have had it my whole life. I stay awake for days and then sleep just a few hours though I sometimes crash hard and sleep or a whole 24+ hours (not in a while though). My problem is that if I wake up then I am awake. I had a hell of a time getting to sleep and if something wakes me up just a short time later I am done sleeping. I spend a lot of time with my eyes closed but fully awake. It is good for introspection but the mind dwells on some pretty stupid things that can not be changed.
Have you tried just going to bed when you're tired, and getting up when you wake? Or won't your lifestyle allow it? It does mean changing a few other things - like when you eat and the size of your meals (3 -4 smaller meals eaten shortly before sleeping).
Five hours seems to do it for me, but I've had many partners where they couldn't function on any less than 7-8. Annoying case, it is...
That's about what I get. I don't know if it's genetic or just environmental but my siblings, my mother, and many other relatives all get little sleep. My mother said she was an insomniac - but she insisted on going to bed at a "normal" time, getting up early and then complaining of lying awake all night. That meant that she was always getting up through the night to cook, clean and read - which may have created a pattern in her children's sleep habits (the washing machine was right next to our bedroom wall). The rest of us just say "polyphasic".
My aunties, and uncle, and my grandfather were all "nappers". Likewise my brothers and I. My sisters are "insomniacs". The go to bed when their husbands do and complain of difficulty sleeping - or take sleeping pills.
Yeah - it can play hell with relationships, but it's not something I have a choice about. I can either stay up very late and wake early, which I prefer not to do; or do what suits me best when life allows it - go to sleep when I'm tired (and fall asleep instantly) and get up when I wake up (usually about an hour and a half later). Sleeping in a single block leaves me feeling sluggish in the evening, napping leaves me feeling sharp all the time. My brothers and I all agree that's the main reason we've never liked working for other people - because it forces a sleep cycle on us we don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.
Note that the CPI in reality isn't a constant basket of goods and services, it's an expanding basket.
Maybe in the USA (?)
"The CPI measures the change in the cost of purchasing a fixed basket of goods and services." Source Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those figures are calculated from costs in capital cities. Costs in regional areas are much higher (and that's where most of "poverty" is).
But the US keeps adding on new benefits on top of the basic welfare system: food, health care, housing, phone service, Internet service, etc.
No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive.
The problem is that welfare isn't poverty:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...
Interesting (thanks). It's defined differently here (we currently use an international standard). i.e. welfare is actually below the defined level of poverty. Labor (left) wants to use "relative" poverty, the Liberals (right, currently in power) disagree.
In fact, "poverty" in the US (and Australia I imagine) has largely been eliminated. The term "poverty" these days is defined as "relative poverty"; it has little to do with lack of material resources, it's just another measure of the spread of the income distribution.
I've covered our use of relative poverty (see above). As to whether it's largley (1 in 7) been eliminated here, I'd go with "less visible in the capital cities".
This article is based on the fairly recent ACCOS report.
I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future.
I don't think so. Since poverty is defined in relative terms [sic in the USA], raising the general level of education doesn't affect poverty rates at all, even if it makes everybody more productive. Public housing has been a failure, and you can't force people to live next to people they don't want to live next to.
Raising the level of education could change the number of people who qualify for jobs for which there are few or no candidates. We (Australia) can put public housing anywhere - and do. I don't know that it's been declared a general failure (here). Certainly when it's segregated high density it's a failure - people tend to be more likely to change when shown how to do things differently as opposed to told. When all the people you "know" (your neighbours) sleep all day, drink all night, and spend their waking hours trying to work out how to get by without working, and how to get "things" without paying - there's little to contradict the belief that you can't change how you live. Especially when it's institutionalised i.e. public schools in low income areas cater to the perceived outcomes - lifestyle subjects, little or no preparation for higher education, and what's called "vegie" subject (math and english for the unemployed - not for the workplace).
As an example of proposed measures to "solve" the problem (which seem unlikely to work) one proposed plan is: to relocate large numbers of people from a Southern NSW housing estate - to a high density, low income estate in Canberra (yet to be built). Canberra is a relatively small place, not on a port or with a major river from the sea. Not only is the local market small - it's economy is based almost entirely on a trickle down from Federal government expenditure. The "idea" is that this move will somehow create a manufacturing industry by providing a large workfo
I'm going to go with Plague Zombies.
Send a postcard, let us know how it goes. I'm not that adventurous.
Given that we are showing how little is known about DNA should we really be doing genetic modifications to things that might be important - like humans or food?
I don't know. Yet.
Though the Balinese may have a different opinion - especially about the money-free bit (but why do they haggle if they have no money?)
You're wrong on all counts
You seem to be an expert on wrong.
-- I don't believe they haggle,
Try facts instead of a belief based "reality".
and you can't back up your statements with citations.
How hard would it be to check your own facts instead of living with your head up your arse?
Besides, why would anyone haggle, bicker, or argue if they had something better to do?
You're ideally placed to answer that question for yourself.
See, this is all about getting free stuff.
The trouble with these arguments is that base resources (iron, oil, aluminum, copper, etc ...) cost to extract and then there are the people who own those resources. So, in a Star Trek economy, I guess robots show up in your back yard and start mining - whether you like it or not?
How will you know? You'll be on a ship somewhere deep in space - on your way to make friends and exchange merit badges with friendly advance life forms.
That journalists are the ones arguing about 'not having to work to live'?
Of course. It's a natural progression - from research and writing to copying and pasting. The logical next step is to be a wealthy retiree - but in a meritocracy, somewhere near the top obviously (next to Kim, and Kane). Kind of like a never-ending press junket, but with better food, wine, and not having to read Twitter in order to post a story afterwards. "travelling [through space] and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy."
There are a few places where the version of communism they are calling "trekonomy" works [...]. So do non-evil prison systems - they don't charge the inmates for food, clothing, etc.
And the warders work for merit? Interesting.
Communism has shown us that going by things other than a currency results in countries that fall over due to bankruptcy in a generation at most.
The sad part about life is that there are only two types of nations which survive for the long haul: Extremely brutal theocracies and oligarchies. The rest just get mowed over by those types, or just collapse from within.
A Star Trek is a nice fantasy, but Ayn Rand's words are reality.
Communism uses currency. The proposed utopia doesn't. Not everything that isn't capitalism is communism.
Ayn Rand died eating her words.Unless you are blinded by the sort of drivel produced by Onkar Ghate - who simultaneously says, yes she received Social Security, but she was opposed to it because it's a theft from the young by the old (though she was old at the time) - but she was a genius, so it's all not true, while it's all true.
I never bought into the Star Trek economy anyway - seemed some owned things that weren't made in replicators (antiquities). Where they gifted them? What did the show mean by Federation credit (a mention at the end of every series)?
Maybe the planets full of people who didn't aspire to a meritocracy weren't worthy of inclusion is series/movies - or the method by which the innate human drive to expend as little energy as possible was magically overcome (were they all on Ice?). I guess that's part of the beauty of fiction - because it's audience can visualise it they can recognise that it's fiction while believing it as almost fact at the same time. Maybe the series was based in a time after the period of which we do not speak (the great troll cull)?
The summary mentions "Wealthy retirees today also already live an essentially post-money existence, "travelling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy." which sounds great. Though the Balinese may have a different opinion - especially about the money-free bit (but why do they haggle if they have no money?). Meanwhile budget cat food still sells well.
I knew I should have spent more time at the Firehose this week - it's my own fault. Not Hugh Picken's at all, no.
That sounds as if you think that somehow invalidates the analysis;
No. I have no opinion on the subject. I'm curious as to what the percentage is - there doesn't seem to be a publicly available figure for this country. Just opinions. I'll wait until I have figures until I form an opinion.
... actually, it strengthens it: the fact that a lot of that money does not reach the recipients is not only an unavoidable consequence of these programs, it's what drives much of the increase in welfare and its failures in the first place.
Roughly, a lot of the money intended to help people goes into financing government departments and private non-profits. These organizations then create programs that by and large are not very effective or even harmful. But you now have a large number of people whose livelihood depends on this funding, and who have a strong incentive to expand their organizations. Since their programs aren't working well, they then go back to Congress and ask for more funding, and since they are considered the experts, they often get it.
That's my suspicion. Based on my experience with organisations. I can't think of any that finished the financial year with unspent budgets. Few that don't return to the government every year asking for more money, and none that don't find ways of spending an increased percentage on administration and "programs" - both of which don't increase the percentage received by the intended recipients. Worse is the thing called "work for the dole" - where taxpayers fund government departments to administer funding for private (prosperous) "non-profits" to run programs that provide welfare recipients to "for-profit" companies as unpaid staff - supposedly to create "work opportunities". The cost to administer those programs, the cost to competing businesses that pay legal wages, and the cost to the economy don't seem to be available to the public.
I'm unconvinced by the rising level of people on welfare and welfare as a cause.
Well, notice that "on welfare" is a shifting target: people "on welfare" these days receive a lot more than they did 50 years ago.
I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.
So the rising level of people on welfare is in part simply due to changes in who we consider needy. If we applied the same criteria as half a century ago (or the same criteria as many others), a lot fewer people would receive welfare, and those that did would get a lot less of it. And, of course, a lot of the people whose work is related to welfare are lobbying for these increases.
That happens here - but the lobbying from the social welfare sector is largely ineffective.
The increase in welfare spending has many causes. The harm that welfare spending does to its recipients is only one part, but it is probably the worst of it. As a society, wasting a few percent of our GDP on useless government programs isn't such a big deal; but using those programs to create a permanent underclass is morally wrong and economically destructive.
No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive. Particularly to when considering those that wear their underpants on the outside. I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future. Improved funding for public schools and re-examination of the education system is an unpopular view given the "demand" for more people willing to work lower paid jobs.
(If you're asking for an alternative, I think German-style welfare or a basic income would be better choices.)
I'm not familiar with either of those systems.
We have some differences to the USA her
I understand what's going on, having read the summary[...]
The summary is an inaccurate representation of the referenced articles misunderstanding of how backups work. (at least you read the summary)
By that logic if I had an app for my credit card company. If I deleted the app, my balance should be gone, and my account closed.[...]
Stop there. That's not logic. A broken analogy. But not logic.
Try this - read the referenced article. Then consider the logic of complaining because the remote backup of your local data - still exists, even though you removed the app that created the backup.
Go ahead. Read the referenced article. Here I'll save you doing the clicking thing:-
There they were, hundreds of photos I’d taken of my wife, my daughter, and me, grouped together by Google’s facial-recognition technology in the company’s Photos app, all snapped over the course of a little more than a month. The problem was, I’d deleted all of those pictures [on the local device] , and most distressing, I didn’t even have the Google Photos app on my phone."
Except that in your little analogy, uninstalling the app should correspond to taking the TV away. [...]
Huh? Where did 140Mandak262Jamuna say "I stepped on the TV""?
No wonder you see bogeymen when you uninstall and app that initiated a backup. Obviously Google needs to update the documentation so that it's clearer to "users" that they need to disable the automatic backup before uninstalling the app that initiates the process and allows you to select what gets backed up. Calling it "stealth" is either ignorant, or click-bait (oh nose it was the internet pixies).
After prompting you the first time, every time you connect that phone, camera, or storage card to your computer, the photos and videos on it will back up automatically (if you set it to do so).
There needs to be a series of big popups, maybe with an acceptance code send to your email that has to be entered before you can install the app, and start the auto backup process - or the same process before uses can remove the app. And another one warning them that just because they deleted local copies of files they'd backed up - having removed the backup controlling app they still had the backup copies (what a stupid backup system!).
Just in case they found the documentation hard to read, or, um, don't know how backups work (but shouldn't the backup copy vanish if my local copies do?).
Just because I'd never use it doesn't mean I don't care. I care a lot. [about the flowers and the trees, I care a lot]
Yep, Zombies I bet.
Of course. How obvious - the Z gene, how's that for intuitive wisdom -and the last zombie movie I watched had Charlton Heston in it (now he is a zombie). I was so stunned that I finished reading the referenced article and found I'd written the first post that I failed to notice the obvious clue. This is going to really drive the preppers batshit.
I wonder what the P gene does? On second thoughts I'd rather find out second-hand.
I wouldn't protest this, but I will say that I expect mostly subtle--with occasional fabulous--disasters.
O-K. Sounds like conception as normal.
It's all fun and games until the Trolloc army comes through, spreading the sort of affection that would make a locust swarm seem a mere inconvenience.
Or worse - so cute that just a passing glimpse turns the viewers brain to mush. Like cabbage patch dolls and cute kittens times 10000. Everyone will want one, but having got one, do nothing but stand oohing until they die of self-neglect in a pool of their own waste.
That's all I've got to say on the subject - even if I knew much about it the likely outcomes are speculative. Though not the predictable protests.
That's nonsense. Welfare spending has increased pretty steadily since the 1920's, from a fraction of 1% of GDP to 5% of GDP. You can also look at it on a per capita basis or in constant dollars, same result.
The Heritage foundation has a pretty good article on the failure of the war on poverty:
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
I'd be curious to see how much of that money actually gets to the recipients. The cost of unemployment welfare is often touted by our government (Oz) as reason for cutting it - while deceitfully hiding the true unemployment figures (work for the dole and/or "training" is compulsory - and "participants" are not counted as unemployed) and failing to mention that the bill for "administration" (much of which winds up in private enterprise) is a much larger cost. Failing to consider the costs if welfare didn't exist is another barrel of rotten fish.
I'm unconvinced by the rising level of people on welfare and welfare as a cause. But I admit to being biased by the number of times I've been stiffed by business that went (profitably, through sleight of hand) bankrupt (*cough* Geoff "back again" Hewatt *cough* and *cough* Urban Contractors *cough*) due to "unforseen circumstances" that a blind man could have seen coming.
Big business by itself doesn't work that way. Big businesses have no way of socializing risk by themselves.
Big businesses can socialize risk only in collusion with big government. So, the determining factor of socializing risk isn't whether a business is big, but whether government is big and whether government has the power to socialize risk.
So, your statement would be more accurate as:
And the solution to this problem isn't to regulate big businesses more (that only makes the problem worse) but to cut back the culprit, big and powerful government.
And for this some arse clowns have moderated you troll... which speaks volumes of their intelligence and integrity. And just reinforces my (earlier stated) reasons for reading at -1 and wanting to see the removal of the troll tag.
I browse at -1 and I mod by quality and relevance of comments. If you're moderating by username, AC or otherwise, you're effectively performing a continuous ad hominem.
I read and moderate at -1. Gold, like the truth, is where you find it. i.e. plenty of stupid and just plain wrong gets moderated up, likewise facts, insights, and interesting posts can be found at below 1. Sometimes the most insightful is moderated down as a troll or overrated, by those with a warped agenda (and more than one account).
I'm all in favour of removing the troll tag - let other readers provide context to indicate a troll (or stupid) posts. Tags and ratings aren't reliable - just useful for those the want to censor, and they're no substitute for clear thinking and fact checking.
As for ad hominem - it's a frequently misused term. It's a form of argument that attacks the arguer instead of the argument.
Not moderating someone on the basis of username is not an "ad hominem" attack. Which is not what you said - but it is what the OP you're replying to said. There are plenty of occasions when the character of someone is relevant. Even when it's not relevant the merits of an argument should be based on the argument - not the opinion of the arguer. Or all arguments will be won by honey-tongued sophists.
If someone posts something ignorant or stupid - they are ignorant and stupid, it's the context of ad hominem that determines whether it's wrong (a bad argument) or not. e.g. if someone argues that they make the sun come up, and you call them an idiot and challenge them to make it come up at noon tomorrow - it's not an ad hominem. Just calling them an idiot is.
There are two forms of ad hominem argument: a cowardly form - the fallacious analogy e.g. "Smith has proposed we should go on a sailing holiday, though he knows as much about ships as an Armenian bandleader does." (Perhaps you do not need to know all that much for a sailing holiday. Smith can always learn. The point here is that the comparison is deliberately drawn to make him look ridiculous. There may even be several Armenian bandleaders who are highly competent seamen.); and the less subtle abusive analogy - as a direct attack in lieu of facts to support and argument, e.g. "Dr Green argues very plausibly for fluoridation. What he doesn't say is that he is the same Dr Green who ten years ago published in favour of both euthanasia and infanticide". (Unless his argument is that fluoride will kill off the old people and infants more effectively, it is hard to see how this bears on the arguments for or against fluoride.)".
Perhaps you meant "misreferencing? I figured that was the sort of "information" he(?) was grasping at. Misrepresented and unsubstantiated references to try and support damaged logic and false conclusions. The same sort of bullshit the NSA and FBI trots out to support their excesses. Different dog, same leg action.
The Russian comment was most likely referencing this (35 years ago)
But somehow disregarded the [citation needed]
and this (a bit more recently).
" Amid swirling anti-gay sentiment in Russia, Sochi’s mayor claims there are no gay people in his city.
“It’s not accepted here in the Caucasus where we live. We do not have them in our city,” Anatoly Pakhomov told BBC Panorama in an interview."
He then "went on to say that he was not sure if there are gay people in Sochi."
A little further on the same article quotes Putin "individuals of non-traditional orientation cannot feel like second-rate humans in this country because they are not discriminated against in any way,”
Of course what those crafty Reds mean is because there are no "individuals of non-traditional orientation" - they therefore "cannot feel like second-rate humans". Cunning. Very cunning indeed if you've ever visited Moscow - the extent they go to is astounding. If you haven't just Google to check the degree they're willing to go to so they can convince us in the West they really do have gays.
As for the handicapped... that's laughable. They have holograms of handicapped people to lecture Rimmers about using handicapped parking spaces.
Which Russian politician claims they don't know of the effects of Afghan and Chechen landmines?
You asked for proof and I pointed out that we don't have the visibility necessary for proof.
Read again. You demanded proof. I replied that as you made the unsubstantiated claims it was, and still is, incumbent on you to provide proof. "The Moving Finger writes..."
I then appealed to wisdom vis-a-vis human nature to establish concern.
A specious claim. You tried to sell a false conclusion as a fact - and now you spew half-understood rhetoric in denial. I don't know whether you're a pro-panopticon shill trying to discredit those of us opposed to spying without transparent oversight (and review), or just over-excited and ignorant. Either way your claims help Five Eyes more than the hinder.
[...] The drumbeat of incremental power grabs is very telling though, at least to those of us who've seen a bit of history.
Then you are seriously deluded if you people won't read all of your posts and conclude your claim to have "seen a bit of history" extends beyond 16 years of watching Fox "News" (which your rhetoric and hyperbole echoes) and snatches of the History Channel. "Russia claiming they don't have any handicap or gay people" - yeah, that's an accurate piece "bit of history" - worthy of a Fox "News". About as accurate as me saying "America is opposed to gay marriage".
But feel free to close your eyes and pretend you aren't boiling...
If stupid was worth 1c a gram you'd be worth millions. Five minutes of reading my posting history (for someone whose lips don't get to sore the read beyond the length of a Twitter post) would show I believe no such thing.
The NSW Police force has a long history of corruption - but it doesn't follow that all NSW cops are corrupt. It's been demonstrated that some have abused their access to the police databases - but again, not all of them. As with any position of power, misuse is a predictable occurrence. The intelligent solution is to continually police the police - and punish those the abuse their positions. The stupid reaction is to punish, or accuse, all of them. That's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Someone too stupid to extrapolate the obvious would oppose police having the ability to monitor communications, or even stupider, propose we don't need police or intelligence agencies. Like the libertarian idiots who take libertarian to the extremes and believe they can do fine without police - because they have guns (a "bit of history" shows that for the dangerous naivety that it is)
Nothing gained. But money for new registrars.
I haven't realised any greater revenue from the new domains - at least none that isn't cancelled out by the additional administration costs.
I am retired so, yeah, I pretty much sleep when I want to sleep. I probably get four hours out of every day on a good day. The thing is, I really do not get tired until after that day is over. Even then when I do get tired and go to bed I end up sitting there, thinking, trying to ignore everything.
The active mind bit is familiar - when I used to try and sleep in a single block I had that problem. The only way to get around it and avoid involuntary all-nighters (sometimes two in a row) was to exhaust myself mentally and physically, ensure that mental stimulation (conversation and noise) as well as bright light was avoided for an hour before bed (which didn't make relationships easier). Any light at night was enough to make sleep difficult.
I meditate sometimes, that helps at times but not always. Sometimes just a short spell of meditation makes me feel refreshed and then I can not sleep again for another 20 - 30 hours.
Sounds similar - the biggest problem I found with that was loss of productivity. Instead I try and spend a couple of hours a day, in smaller chunks, doing mindless tasks. Household chores, driving the tractor, walking, or weeding the garden all seem to help (active meditations?) - anything I can task to muscle memory while I concentrate on breathing to demand. I do feel benefits but don't know if it comes from breaking up longer tasks or the meditation process.
I did a 3 day sleep study at a specialist's facility out on the other coast. They prescribed me a bunch of sleeping pills. Those just make me more tired and I do not sleep. Then when I do sleep they make me go down for a little longer and I wake up as groggy as a bear coming out of hibernation. I guess I also have sleep apnea[...]
Everything but the apnea is similar - though as I explained in an earlier post, I have a polyphasic family history.
So I do not take any medicine for it. I used to drink and I did a lot of opiates (I do neither any more) and those put me out. I ended up horribly addicted and needed rehabilitation and am still on Suboxone today but that does not make me sleep. (I had a huge tolerance.) I did opiates for years but was a functioning addict for most of forty five years. It started at 13, I got cluster headaches and they gave me codeine. I have used daily until just recently and that includes Fentanyl extraction for IV use. I functioned fine until I retired then I went out and had a hell of a good time. I was already drinking by that age. Ah well. I had a hell of a lot of fun and what else is life for? Not many can honestly say their life is complete and they are content. I am lucky.
Apart from a relatively brief period of my late teens (foolishly thinking I was Keith Richards) I've steered clear of opiates - unless you count a dozen or so opium sessions over almost 40 years (when in places that offer it). Cannabis and booze was another story - that I did use for a long time to help me sleep. Cannabis (indicas) worked well - still does, but it's a waste of good weed (and I prefer the stimulation of sativas) if you sleep through most of the effects (and makes it difficult to deal with business at all hours), and it leaves me stoned the next morning. I still enjoy both, just not as regularly, in the same amounts, or for the same purposes. I got selfish in my old age and prefer to only enjoy the best - and when I do I don't want to compromise the enjoyment by doing so when I have to do other things better done with a clear head - especially the next day.
Anyhow, so no... I do not sleep. I can usually tell when my body is going to want to sleep and I will drink a couple of chamomile teas in the hours leading up to it. Then I just crash when I crash. I am not scheduled to do a whole lot so it is not as if it effects me much any more.
That's um, relatively good then. I guess I'm lucky that I've found a way not to be tired anymore. No more s
I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.
(grin)
Actually, the problem isn't Powerpoint or presentations. The problem is people who do not know how to create or give good presentations.
Agreed. It's the wasted time that bites. IMO the worst offenders spend too much time preparing it (which hasn't been a problem for years). Then there are those that create Powerpoint presentations which should have just been written documents - which they could have emailed me (no Powerpoint on my computers). In which case I would have just read it and the meeting would become redundant. As a general rule I won't go to presentations unless they've sent me something that explained the presentation first - that also allows me to research the subject. When I do go it's because I want to ask questions - and I make a point of sending them the questions before I go.
Most boring presentations fall into the following categories:
1. a presentation that you are forced to attend but that has no direct relevance to you, your job, etc. 2. a presentation with too many details for the time slot. The Presenter speed reads the presentation 3. a presentation where the presenter just reads the presentation. There are no explanations and no expansion on what appears on the slides. You could have just read the presentation in 10 minutes and gotten the same information. 4. a presentation that has not been tailored to the audience.
If you have ever watched a Ted Talk presentation, you will see that they use Powerpoint. The difference is that you are interested in the topic, the presenter is passionate about the topic and tells a story, and the slides include just the major points, they don't go into too much detail.
Oh... and banning Powerpoint just wouldn't work... They would just use Word or, horrors, Excel.... (grin)
Spreadsheets go in the big round grey filing cabinet unless they actually do math - often followed by the "writer"'s chances of an extended contract. Though usually I try and educate them first "we have these things called databases - have you heard of them? Did you know that Word includes tables?". My rule of the thumb is a document shouldn't take longer to write than the sum total of the time taken by all the recipients to read it - if it does it's either badly written or should have been professionally written.
Why do so many point and click MS Office/LibreOffice clown think they're a writer and/or a publisher? Quite often they're otherwise smart people - yet they assume they don't need to spend the time and effort that professional writers and publishers do to learnt the craft.
I find presentations are good for sales (which I don't do) - and it's also a reason why I'm wary of them. They're useful for getting people to visualise things - but if it involves precision or concepts I greatly prefer the written word. Presentations are also logistical challenges to organise (like bloody teleconferences). I find it more efficient to try and train people to learn how to use email properly ("no really it's not like electronic postcards - learn to interleave when appropriate").
There are some TED talks I've enjoyed - but most I'd prefer to have in written form.
I have been diagnosed with severe chronic insomnia, I have had it my whole life. I stay awake for days and then sleep just a few hours though I sometimes crash hard and sleep or a whole 24+ hours (not in a while though). My problem is that if I wake up then I am awake. I had a hell of a time getting to sleep and if something wakes me up just a short time later I am done sleeping. I spend a lot of time with my eyes closed but fully awake. It is good for introspection but the mind dwells on some pretty stupid things that can not be changed.
Have you tried just going to bed when you're tired, and getting up when you wake? Or won't your lifestyle allow it? It does mean changing a few other things - like when you eat and the size of your meals (3 -4 smaller meals eaten shortly before sleeping).
Five hours seems to do it for me, but I've had many partners where they couldn't function on any less than 7-8. Annoying case, it is...
That's about what I get. I don't know if it's genetic or just environmental but my siblings, my mother, and many other relatives all get little sleep. My mother said she was an insomniac - but she insisted on going to bed at a "normal" time, getting up early and then complaining of lying awake all night. That meant that she was always getting up through the night to cook, clean and read - which may have created a pattern in her children's sleep habits (the washing machine was right next to our bedroom wall). The rest of us just say "polyphasic".
My aunties, and uncle, and my grandfather were all "nappers". Likewise my brothers and I. My sisters are "insomniacs". The go to bed when their husbands do and complain of difficulty sleeping - or take sleeping pills.
Yeah - it can play hell with relationships, but it's not something I have a choice about. I can either stay up very late and wake early, which I prefer not to do; or do what suits me best when life allows it - go to sleep when I'm tired (and fall asleep instantly) and get up when I wake up (usually about an hour and a half later). Sleeping in a single block leaves me feeling sluggish in the evening, napping leaves me feeling sharp all the time. My brothers and I all agree that's the main reason we've never liked working for other people - because it forces a sleep cycle on us we don't like.