SiriusXM is a monopoly in the satellite radio space.
I respectfully suggest further study of the term substitute goods before making that argument. There does not need to be another satellite radio provider for there to be competition in the audio entertainment or even the radio market. Note I didn't say satellite radio because that is not the market - and that is not (solely) my opinion. The fact that there isn't another close to identical service is IRRELEVANT. You may not prefer the alternatives to Sirius XM products but iPods, terrestrial radio, cellular radio, and other technologies ARE without question substitute goods. They do NOT have to be perfect substitutes for them to compete.
If you define the marketplace sufficiently narrowly you can make almost any company a monopoly. If Sirius XM didn't compete with terrestrial radio, why were Clear Channel and the other terrestrial broadcasters arguing against the merger? After all, if they don't compete and satellite radio is a market unto itself, there is no issue and the terrestrial broadcasters should not care. If they do compete then terrestrial and satellite radio are substitute goods and there is ample competition in the form of terrestrial radio, cellular networks and MP3 players among others. You can't have it both ways.
You don't have to be a mathematician or a business major to know that if you have two companies competing and they merge into one, that is the very definition of a monopoly.
Well I do have degrees in both engineering and business and I submit you left something very critical out. You have to have ONLY two SIGNIFICANT companies competing for a merger to make a monopoly. I think it is quite clear that there are FAR more than two large players competing in this marketplace.
This is a tired and wrong argument. From wikipedia: "Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." There are PLENTY of viable substitute goods (iPods, terrestrial radio, etc), plenty of economic competition, and Sirius XM lacks the pricing power of a monopoly. The mere fact that they use a satellite to transmit their signal directly to customers does not make them a monopoly by itself. If satellite were the only way to reach all or even am economically significant fraction of customers then it would be a credible argument.
Our federal government took over a year (far too long btw) to review the case and came to the correct conclusion that there is no monopolistic power here. Customers are free to use any of the numerous alternatives and there is ample customer churn for Sirius XM to back this fact up. There is no compelling argument to be made against the merger and it is reasonably likely Sirius XM will go bankrupt no matter what happens thanks to the downturn in the auto industry.
Sirius XM may go out of business. Their revenue model has always been questionable and they have spent money somewhat recklessly. Their debt load is what ultimately might kill them. They have a decent product but that by itself is never enough. They are not and never have been a monopoly. There simply are too many other options.
There, their & they're
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
There is no such thing as an "accent".
Really? That is astonishing news. I'll be sure to alert the English department at my local university that accents don't actually exist. Thanks for clearing that up.
There is speaking proper English, and there is not speaking proper English, and while I do not claim to always do the former (English is my second language, after all)...
As someone who admits English isn't their first language you seem awfully arrogant telling those of us who are native speakers how to pronounce our own language. There is no "proper" English. There are widely accepted grammar and pronunciation rules but virtually none are universal - hence we have accents, dialects, and an evolving language.
For the record the grandparent post is correct. While I haven't been everywhere, I've traveled over most of the US extensively and the words "there", "their" and "they're" are pronounced the same by nearly all native (American) English speakers. Absent a sentence for context you would be hard pressed to tell which they are using.
It seemd if there was good news, it was Obama. Bad news? McCain.
Cause or effect? Hmmm...
Yes I'm being a little snarky but I think a lot of folks are "seeing" bias in places where there is none. I'm not saying there isn't any media bias (Fox "news" clearly has taken sides) but that media bias is an easy scapegoat for poor or unpopular policies. Just because others disagree with you and the media reports that they don't agree doesn't mean the media is automatically biased.
John McCain ran a poor campaign and there was a lot of bad news (stuff like wars and a shitty economy) that as a republican he wears some responsibility for. Not always fair but that's life as the candidate for the incumbent party. Unfortunately for McCain, he/his campaign chose to pander to the republican base instead of clearly distancing himself from a very unpopular president Bush and the result was an incoherent message. That was NOT the media's fault. McCain failed to communicated a clear or compelling message and the voters responded as one would expect. John Kerry failed the same test four years ago.
I firmly believe that journalism as we know it is dead.
Are you naive enough to believe the press is ever completely impartial or objective? Sometimes they make a good effort at it but anyone who thinks there was some golden age of the press is deluding themselves. They're no better or worse than they ever were.
WHen the media would prefer to dig in top Ms. Palin's kid's personal life than Obamas, what does that say?
It says you are a candidate for the second highest elected office in the land and your children are nearly adults themselves. Obama's kids did nothing newsworthy. I'm not so naive as to think that children of political figures are actually off limits despite the press claiming that they are. I remember during the 1992 campaign members of the press commenting on what an ugly child Chelsea Clinton was. Mean, unfair and wrong but that's politics. When you run for high office you accept that EVERY little detail of your life will be scrutinized in minute detail. This include children, parents, family, close associates and people they barely know. Whether the politician has any control over the other persons actions is irrelevant and perception is more important than fact most of the time.
Not only were they unlikely to run a positive story on McCain...
Or maybe there weren't many positive stories to run about the McCain campaign. That is possible you know. Perhaps if McCain and Palin spent less time trying to hint that Obama was a terrorist and more time on actual policy differences from the current administration there would have been more positive to talk about. We're had 8 years of what most people regard as very poor republican leadership. McCain needed to distance himself from that which was going to be very hard for any republican. Instead he pandered to the republican base and muddled his message.
...in all fairness McCain had lots of positive messages but they were flatly refused to be reported.
John McCain did have some decent ideas on policy but the campaign was too busy pandering to the right and trying to smear Obama's character. Their "joe the plumber" meme was a vague and condescending attempt at populism. They couldn't keep a consistent message and really stumbled on the economy. There are a LOT of serious problem right now. Two wars, an economy in serious trouble, deeply unpopular international policies, etc. The McCain/Palin campaign wasted our time trying to brand Obama as a terrorist instead of really talking about serious problems and how they would do it differently than the current administration.
McCain is a good man and I actually respect him a lot but he ran a shitty campaign and chose a VERY questionable VP. My concerns weren't with him specifically but with the people he would likely appoint and the Palin selection pretty much confirmed my worries. With all the problems in the last 8 years under a republican administration any republican was a long shot to win even with a perfectly executed campaign and his was anything but perfect.
And yes, it's been known for years by anyone who powerlifts that stretching prior to a lift will make you weaker. The 'tightness' helps move the weight and is something you want when trying to move maximal loads.
Generally speaking that only works if you have a relatively predicable range of motion. The sports I have been involved with over the years (martial arts, wrestling, rough terrain running, and several others) require extreme and dynamic positioning of limbs and high levels of flexibility are valuable. The only way to get this flexibility that I am aware of is through a stretching regimen. A proper warmup with some targeted (usually dynamic) stretching is far more useful.
Actually I have trained dancers, high-jumpers, hurdlers and a slew/bevy/scad of other athletes, and you'll find that they all perform better with a consistent warm up routine that dynamically lengthens and prepares the muscle.
Don't know where you think I disagree with that. Since I am an athlete who has competed at a fairly high level, my experience would support what you say above. However...
Static stretching mostly lengthens the tendon and leaves the muscle inhibited and unprepared for action.
That I don't agree with. It certainly has some effect on the tendons but "mostly lengthens the tendon" is overstating things in my opinion. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but I find that statement to be quite inaccurate.
You can stick with your aged info and beleaguered FAQs but the strength and conditioning world have left you and your paramour behind.
Since my paramour is an MD as well as an athlete herself, I'm pretty sure your snide comment is off the mark.
an almost equal number of subjects developed lower-limb injuries (shin splints, stress fractures, etc.), regardless of whether they had performed static stretches before training sessions.
Stress fractures are a bone problem from repeated impacts, not a muscle problem and stretching has never been thought to help prevent stress fractures.
Shin splints are from an overused or too rapidly stretched muscle. I've had them myself. The recommended treatments in order are rest, anti-inflammatory treatment, good shoes, taping, and dynamic stretching exercises to help prevent recurrence. A generalized stretching routine will do nothing whatsoever to prevent shin splints. I can speak from personal experience that rest, advil and a new pair of shoes does FAR more to prevent shin splints than any stretching ever will. (it's hard to stretch the muscles involved anyway) Furthermore there is nothing in the "study" linked to indicate that any of those factors were controlled for in the study. Perhaps they were but it doesn't say so.
For instance, I coach a hockey team, and any stretching is considered bad, as it loosens the tendons, and you are now more prone to injury because "things" can move too far...
While neither of us likely have scientific data to support us and each person is different, intuitively what you are saying makes little sense to me as an athlete. Baseball players used to believe they should never lift weights either because they believed it would hurt their performance. It was a myth of course but widely believed until fairly recently. A tighter muscle is *more* injury prone just like a weaker muscle is. The amount of stretching and warmup required varies by activity and individual but it's a rare individual that wouldn't benefit from at some well chosen stretching exercises.
In my experience as a college athlete (yes there are some of us on slashdot) when we did not stretch regularly and appropriately muscles tended to get pulled because we exceeded our range of motion. Though admittedly anecdotal, in over 20 years in my sport I've seen exceeding one's range of motion injuries happen far too often to believe there is nothing to it. The stretching needs for different sports are, well... different as you point out but but stretching is useful and has its place in most of them.
Since the link requires registration I can't actually RTFA. That said:
Even accepting at face value that stretching does weaken the muscle (which I do not without seeing the evidence), there are plenty of good reasons to stretch. Exercising without stretching will often limit your range of motion. This can have significant performance consequences as well as making one more prone to injury. Without stretching certain extreme movements (such as kicking high above your head - think dance or martial arts) are impossible for most people and they risk injury if they try. If you don't stretch, you might be stronger for a limited range of motion but you *will* be weaker at the extremes. It's a rare sport where you will not have to move at least some muscles through a full range of motion at some point.
For some good reading check out this FAQ about stretching. It's been around a while and not everything in it is gospel but it's a decent and approachable overview.
It's really nothing special, just more idiot-proof and much less flexible.
Flexibility in a mobile device is a two edged sword. It might give you capabilities but the designer isn't careful the cost is usually a degradation in usability. I have an S60 based phone and my wife has the iPhone 3G. I'm a geek with plenty of technical skill and if given the choice today I'd take the iPhone over my Nokia without a second thought. It's just easier to use for the stuff I actually use a smartphone for. All that "flexibility" bites Nokia in the ass when it comes time to actually use the device since they paid (IMO) so little attention to how people actually use these things.
Other than the lightsaber app, that's pretty standard on most high-end phones. I pay a lot less for my Nokia N95 8GB, and on features alone it beats the iPhone.
My primary phone these days is a Nokia E70. Nice phone overall and I like it. The features are roughly identical to my wife's iPhone 3G - but only if you are just doing a checkbox feature comparison. Technically it has the "same" stuff but not all of it is usable. In actual usability there is a pretty wide gap for most people. Why? The interface.
The interface on Nokia's S60 phones just sucks in comparison. Yes, a geek like me (and presumably you) can make it work just fine but ONLY a geek like me would bother. Getting an iPhone configured is a breeze by comparison - not to mention using it. It took me hours of navigating obscure menus to get my E70 working "properly" and I've had a series of Nokia phones for 10 years so I'm plenty familiar with their interface. The physical keyboard is nice but the iPhones virtual one works adequately. Particularly galling were:
the poorly considered default options
the need for special headphone adapters to use the MP3 player
the need for special Nokia specific cables
the lack of attention to the interface in many of the applications including the MP3 player and the camera
By comparison, setting up my wife's iPhone took 30 minutes and I had never held one before hers. Is the iPhone perfect? Heck no, but I've spent quality time with plenty of S60, Blackberries and Treos and for 9/10 people I'd recommend the iPhone over any of them if they have a choice. It's just less hassle. Fortunately it seems to have gotten the handset manufacturers off their rear ends so we are seeing a nice wave of innovative new phones coming out.
Voting should be about democracy, not democracy subject to one's ability to adhere to subtleties that any individual could honestly overlook. There's no reason for making the system more complicated than it needs to be.
Agreed but there comes a point when you can't make things any simpler. Voting is a right but it is a responsibility too. Presuming that the system indeed been made as simple as practically possible (a big if, I know) and someone still can't be bothered to actually read some very simple instructions, it's hard to feel much sympathy. I think there is no greater insult to the democratic process than low expectations from the electorate.
... She is, however, a PhD, extremely literate and well-read, and very informed on political issues. Her vote should count in any election, but she would definitely have an even chance of yanking the fucking card out...
Your description of your mother sounds remarkably similar to mine. I'm frequently astonished at how well my mother has done in her career. But the way I interpret it is that our respective mothers can't be bothered to follow basic instructions probably sitting right there on the screen. While it certainly is *possible* that the instructions are unclear, I doubt it since 98% of the people managed just fine.
If I showed that sort of lack of attention to my job I'd be fired and would deserve it. I frankly expect no less from someone who is doing something as important as casting a ballot. Voting is a right but it is a responsibility too.
So, when did it become possible to sell mortgage-backed securities, and why did it go into overdrive around 2002, 2003?
Modern US incarnations started in 1938 with the creation of Fannie Mae.
There are a LOT of reasons why they went into overdrive lately. Low interest rates, hedge funds, deregulation, policies to encourage home ownership gone awry, big profits in securitization, lack of transparency into exotic securities, inadequate risk management policies at banks, and several other reasons come to mind.
It isn't a simple situation with a simple solution unfortunately. Any solution that does come however will need to come from regulation requiring disclosure of exotic security positions and limits on the ability to endlessly bundle and transfer risk through securitization. A better term for sub-prime is high risk. But everyone thought they could just transfer the risk to someone else and eventually there was so much high risk debt that it clogged up the credit markets.
So sad. Read up, sonny - it was the Carter administration.
Read up yourself. The grandparent post wasn't right either but neither are you. Mortgage backed securities have been with us at least since 1938 when Fannie Mae was created. First modern uses were in the early 1970s when Ginnie Mae was created - well before Carter or Bush were in office.
Sorry to burst your respective partisan dreamworlds.
And why would the financial world trust Excel at anything statistical?
No one who knows what they are doing does trust Excel. But most financial analytics don't depend on Excel's stats functions. The places that do depend on them often buy third party add on packages and libraries which have been validated for serious stats.
Excel's problems are numerous but in practical terms the accuracy of their stats library just isn't a big problem in the financial world. Wouldn't use it for scientific research or serious stats analytics but that's not generally what most finance/accounting geeks do.
If your using excel for accounting, aren't you potentially running afowl of some of the legal regulations, specifically the ones which make you liable for knowingly using a process that's known to produce incorrect results?
Good question but no, not really. No one uses Excel for financial statement generation which is where you could have problems. Real accounting packages get used for areas where accuracy in calculations are important. Sometimes Excel is used to help with some aspects of accounting but it's usually for small scale or prototype tools, nothing that could cause serious problems or run afoul of the IRS or SEC.
Excel is really more used for data mining and forward looking analytics - mostly finance and not so much for accounting. The difference is finance is forward looking and accounting is backward looking.
Exactly. I have used Word and Excel for ~15 years. I'm not what I'd consider a "power user," but I've grown comfortable with the UI and basic features over this time. Since approximately version 2.0 or 2.1, I haven't felt the need to use the real Word or Excel even once.
Just for comparisons sake, I am a heavy use of Excel (a "power user" if you will) and while I would switch to use OO.o in a heartbeat I simply cannot yet. Why? Two reasons fundamentally. The first is that Excel has a HUGE installed base in the finance world and that isn't going away any time soon. Want to work in finance? Better learn Excel - substitutes need not apply. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Excel is a de-facto monopoly in financial analytics. (disclosure: I'm a certified accountant as well as an engineer)
Second reason is that there are some things that Excel (as of OO.o 2.4) simply does better. (I'm just now checking out 3.0) Pivot tables, charting, and a lot of statistical tools have been better in Excel so far. I genuinely hope that changes. Excel has PLENTY of flaws but it's simply had more development time. Not to say you can't get excellent quality work done in OO.o but as someone who uses pretty much every feature Excel has I can say with authority Excel is the better tool overall - so far. If your needs are rather basic, OO.o is terrific but for many advanced users so far there simply hasn't been a choice.
If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money.
That is not even remotely true. I've tried to raise money and fairly often work with bankers and VCs. Having a good product and a good plan are rarely enough by themselves. A very significant part of getting capital is what the lender thinks of you, the borrower, personally. Your character, how you present yourself and your track record of creating successful ventures usually matter more than the particulars of your product and plan.
Lending is a relationship business and anyone who has tried to raise money (like me) or lent money will tell you so. Lenders don't really invest in business plans - though business plans are important; what they really invest in is you, the borrower. If you are some random person who is not known the the lender and you don't have a track record of successful ventures, you are going to have a MUCH harder time raising money.
Furthermore in a market like right now formal lending institutions sometimes simply won't lend to anyone - regardless of their credit worthiness. The banks and investment houses are afraid of losing their capital because they can't predict who is safe to lend to. They don't know who they can reliably lend to because there is so little transparency in these exotic securities we've all become far to familiar with recently. Credit markets work on confidence. In 1999 it was extremely easy to raise money, in 2002 and right now not so much. There is always money being lent but that doesn't mean everyone with a decent plan can get adequate funding.
Copyright holder loses money because income is not received from unauthorized copies.
Seems to make sense at first.
Problem with that logic is that it typically implies that every instance of copying equals an instance of lost sales which is clearly and demonstrably not true. Someone who cannot afford the authorized copy will never purchase it so that cannot be a lost sale. Someone who is unwilling to pay the price being asked is likewise never going to be a lost sale. Ergo the only population in question is those who are able and willing to pay the price being asked but decide to pirate anyway. This is necessarily a smaller population.
What really is being claimed is that copyright infringement cannibalizes a percentage of sales that otherwise *may* have come to the copyright holder. For digital works, the marginal cost of a copy is essentially zero so while the copyright holder may lose a sale, he/she/it doesn't lose any cash since they have not lost an asset they owned. It might induce a higher fixed cost per unit since fewer units are sold and the cost cannot be amortized over as many units. A problem to be sure but a very different issue.
It also implies that unauthorized copying never results in purchases of authorized merchandise. It is relatively easy to find examples of products where bootleg/unauthorized copies actually helped drive the popularity of the product to the point where authorized copy sales increase.
You'll notice the word theft never was mentioned because it isn't theft. This doesn't make the copyright infringement any more moral or legal but it does make it a different situation.
That is demonstrably not true under many driving conditions.
And on many others, it is true. Read the wikipedia article again. (Particularly, they stop you slower when you're driving in soft snow or on a dirty dusty road - which nicely accounts for about 80% of my daily driving activities.)
The article says "In gravel, sand and deep snow, ABS tends to increase braking distances." I don't know about you but I know few people who do significant amounts of their driving on gravel, sand, or deep snow. It happens of course but not frequently for most folks. Furthermore the article just a little lower also says "A June 1999 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study found that ABS increased stopping distances on loose gravel by an average of 22 percent" so the actual evidence provided in the wikipedia article actually indicates ABS helps at least on gravel. It also says "On high-traction surfaces such as bitumen, or concrete, many (though not all) ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better (i.e. shorter) than those that would be easily possible without the benefit of ABS." And you say I lack reading comprehension?
The reason is that your average driver does not know how to pump his brakes so he can maintain steering during a fast braking,
Even the earliest ABS system did a better job of modulating the brakes than any drive can by pumping them manually. Threshold braking is a learned skill which too many people lack. You are correct that steering out of a potential accident is proper behavior but plenty of studies indicate that a huge percentage of people in panic situations just slam on the brakes with little to no steering.
And mea culpa you are correct on your last item - I misread your last statement regarding getting ABS. Sometimes I read too fast for my own good.
But reducing stopping distance is not even what they are supposed to do.
Actually that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. With most cars under most conditions cars equipped with ABS will stop FASTER than those without. Hell I used to work at a test track and I've seen it first hand myself. They ALSO let you steer while braking but that is an added benefit.
I know they tell you that the direction of front tires have no effect on where the car is going when the brakes are locked
If you are skidding you are relying solely on the friction of the rubber on the ground to stop you. That contact patch does not change size (significantly) regardless of what direction you point the wheels. If you regain traction, the wheel direction will matter but without ABS you cannot modulate the brakes and steer at the same time as effectively as with ABS.
Would not buy a car without ABS again.
Good luck with that since they are mandated on nearly all vehicles sold today. And please don't drive anywhere near me.
ABS brakes will put you under the trailer. Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
If you are that close to the trailer you are driving WAY too close to begin with. ABS is for stopping when the traction sucks and locking the brakes would induce a dangerous skid. ABS is no substitute for safe driving technique.
ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it.
A) If you aren't that used to the car you shouldn't be driving in dangerous conditions. B) If ABS comes on and the weather isn't horrendous, you are driving WAY too close. C) If the weather is horrendous, you should be providing even more distance to the car ahead anyway and ABS will help you stop faster than without.
You are wearing that mandated seat belt, yes? Ever try to think of unbuckling it so you can dive for the floor in a panic situation?
No. That would be retarded. I cannot even conceive of a reasonably likely scenario where I would ever want to do that while moving. I'm also not aware of case where that would have saved anyone. Want the best odds of survival in an accident? Wear your seatbelt.
FWIW, I lived in the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County area for 25 years without needing snow chains.
I lived in Geauga County, right in the heart of the snowbelt for 20 years and my parents still live there. You are right, snow chains are not necessary there, though snow tires aren't a bad idea if you have the cash to get some. I did however keep a set of snow chains just in case and did have occasion to use them once. However go to Tahoe or various parts of the Rockies and snow chains are not only a good idea they are often required.
It's my opinion that ABS and traction control are NOT needed if the driver is properly trained in local conditions.
Normally you are correct in most locations. ABS and traction control are no substitute for safe driving technique. That does not however make them useless. They demonstrably improve safety which is why their use has been mandated.
Slashdot Mirror
SiriusXM is a monopoly in the satellite radio space.
I respectfully suggest further study of the term substitute goods before making that argument. There does not need to be another satellite radio provider for there to be competition in the audio entertainment or even the radio market. Note I didn't say satellite radio because that is not the market - and that is not (solely) my opinion. The fact that there isn't another close to identical service is IRRELEVANT. You may not prefer the alternatives to Sirius XM products but iPods, terrestrial radio, cellular radio, and other technologies ARE without question substitute goods. They do NOT have to be perfect substitutes for them to compete.
If you define the marketplace sufficiently narrowly you can make almost any company a monopoly. If Sirius XM didn't compete with terrestrial radio, why were Clear Channel and the other terrestrial broadcasters arguing against the merger? After all, if they don't compete and satellite radio is a market unto itself, there is no issue and the terrestrial broadcasters should not care. If they do compete then terrestrial and satellite radio are substitute goods and there is ample competition in the form of terrestrial radio, cellular networks and MP3 players among others. You can't have it both ways.
You don't have to be a mathematician or a business major to know that if you have two companies competing and they merge into one, that is the very definition of a monopoly.
Well I do have degrees in both engineering and business and I submit you left something very critical out. You have to have ONLY two SIGNIFICANT companies competing for a merger to make a monopoly. I think it is quite clear that there are FAR more than two large players competing in this marketplace.
...a monopoly is a monopoly.
This is a tired and wrong argument. From wikipedia: "Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." There are PLENTY of viable substitute goods (iPods, terrestrial radio, etc), plenty of economic competition, and Sirius XM lacks the pricing power of a monopoly. The mere fact that they use a satellite to transmit their signal directly to customers does not make them a monopoly by itself. If satellite were the only way to reach all or even am economically significant fraction of customers then it would be a credible argument.
Our federal government took over a year (far too long btw) to review the case and came to the correct conclusion that there is no monopolistic power here. Customers are free to use any of the numerous alternatives and there is ample customer churn for Sirius XM to back this fact up. There is no compelling argument to be made against the merger and it is reasonably likely Sirius XM will go bankrupt no matter what happens thanks to the downturn in the auto industry.
Sirius XM may go out of business. Their revenue model has always been questionable and they have spent money somewhat recklessly. Their debt load is what ultimately might kill them. They have a decent product but that by itself is never enough. They are not and never have been a monopoly. There simply are too many other options.
There is no such thing as an "accent".
Really? That is astonishing news. I'll be sure to alert the English department at my local university that accents don't actually exist. Thanks for clearing that up.
There is speaking proper English, and there is not speaking proper English, and while I do not claim to always do the former (English is my second language, after all)...
As someone who admits English isn't their first language you seem awfully arrogant telling those of us who are native speakers how to pronounce our own language. There is no "proper" English. There are widely accepted grammar and pronunciation rules but virtually none are universal - hence we have accents, dialects, and an evolving language.
For the record the grandparent post is correct. While I haven't been everywhere, I've traveled over most of the US extensively and the words "there", "their" and "they're" are pronounced the same by nearly all native (American) English speakers. Absent a sentence for context you would be hard pressed to tell which they are using.
A joke's pretty worthless if your audience does not understand it. You might as well be speaking in Japanese.
He who laughs last thinks slowest
It seemd if there was good news, it was Obama. Bad news? McCain.
Cause or effect? Hmmm...
Yes I'm being a little snarky but I think a lot of folks are "seeing" bias in places where there is none. I'm not saying there isn't any media bias (Fox "news" clearly has taken sides) but that media bias is an easy scapegoat for poor or unpopular policies. Just because others disagree with you and the media reports that they don't agree doesn't mean the media is automatically biased.
John McCain ran a poor campaign and there was a lot of bad news (stuff like wars and a shitty economy) that as a republican he wears some responsibility for. Not always fair but that's life as the candidate for the incumbent party. Unfortunately for McCain, he/his campaign chose to pander to the republican base instead of clearly distancing himself from a very unpopular president Bush and the result was an incoherent message. That was NOT the media's fault. McCain failed to communicated a clear or compelling message and the voters responded as one would expect. John Kerry failed the same test four years ago.
I firmly believe that journalism as we know it is dead.
Are you naive enough to believe the press is ever completely impartial or objective? Sometimes they make a good effort at it but anyone who thinks there was some golden age of the press is deluding themselves. They're no better or worse than they ever were.
WHen the media would prefer to dig in top Ms. Palin's kid's personal life than Obamas, what does that say?
It says you are a candidate for the second highest elected office in the land and your children are nearly adults themselves. Obama's kids did nothing newsworthy. I'm not so naive as to think that children of political figures are actually off limits despite the press claiming that they are. I remember during the 1992 campaign members of the press commenting on what an ugly child Chelsea Clinton was. Mean, unfair and wrong but that's politics. When you run for high office you accept that EVERY little detail of your life will be scrutinized in minute detail. This include children, parents, family, close associates and people they barely know. Whether the politician has any control over the other persons actions is irrelevant and perception is more important than fact most of the time.
Not only were they unlikely to run a positive story on McCain...
Or maybe there weren't many positive stories to run about the McCain campaign. That is possible you know. Perhaps if McCain and Palin spent less time trying to hint that Obama was a terrorist and more time on actual policy differences from the current administration there would have been more positive to talk about. We're had 8 years of what most people regard as very poor republican leadership. McCain needed to distance himself from that which was going to be very hard for any republican. Instead he pandered to the republican base and muddled his message.
...in all fairness McCain had lots of positive messages but they were flatly refused to be reported.
John McCain did have some decent ideas on policy but the campaign was too busy pandering to the right and trying to smear Obama's character. Their "joe the plumber" meme was a vague and condescending attempt at populism. They couldn't keep a consistent message and really stumbled on the economy. There are a LOT of serious problem right now. Two wars, an economy in serious trouble, deeply unpopular international policies, etc. The McCain/Palin campaign wasted our time trying to brand Obama as a terrorist instead of really talking about serious problems and how they would do it differently than the current administration.
McCain is a good man and I actually respect him a lot but he ran a shitty campaign and chose a VERY questionable VP. My concerns weren't with him specifically but with the people he would likely appoint and the Palin selection pretty much confirmed my worries. With all the problems in the last 8 years under a republican administration any republican was a long shot to win even with a perfectly executed campaign and his was anything but perfect.
And yes, it's been known for years by anyone who powerlifts that stretching prior to a lift will make you weaker. The 'tightness' helps move the weight and is something you want when trying to move maximal loads.
Generally speaking that only works if you have a relatively predicable range of motion. The sports I have been involved with over the years (martial arts, wrestling, rough terrain running, and several others) require extreme and dynamic positioning of limbs and high levels of flexibility are valuable. The only way to get this flexibility that I am aware of is through a stretching regimen. A proper warmup with some targeted (usually dynamic) stretching is far more useful.
Actually I have trained dancers, high-jumpers, hurdlers and a slew/bevy/scad of other athletes, and you'll find that they all perform better with a consistent warm up routine that dynamically lengthens and prepares the muscle.
Don't know where you think I disagree with that. Since I am an athlete who has competed at a fairly high level, my experience would support what you say above. However...
Static stretching mostly lengthens the tendon and leaves the muscle inhibited and unprepared for action.
That I don't agree with. It certainly has some effect on the tendons but "mostly lengthens the tendon" is overstating things in my opinion. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but I find that statement to be quite inaccurate.
You can stick with your aged info and beleaguered FAQs but the strength and conditioning world have left you and your paramour behind.
Since my paramour is an MD as well as an athlete herself, I'm pretty sure your snide comment is off the mark.
an almost equal number of subjects developed lower-limb injuries (shin splints, stress fractures, etc.), regardless of whether they had performed static stretches before training sessions.
Stress fractures are a bone problem from repeated impacts, not a muscle problem and stretching has never been thought to help prevent stress fractures.
Shin splints are from an overused or too rapidly stretched muscle. I've had them myself. The recommended treatments in order are rest, anti-inflammatory treatment, good shoes, taping, and dynamic stretching exercises to help prevent recurrence. A generalized stretching routine will do nothing whatsoever to prevent shin splints. I can speak from personal experience that rest, advil and a new pair of shoes does FAR more to prevent shin splints than any stretching ever will. (it's hard to stretch the muscles involved anyway) Furthermore there is nothing in the "study" linked to indicate that any of those factors were controlled for in the study. Perhaps they were but it doesn't say so.
For instance, I coach a hockey team, and any stretching is considered bad, as it loosens the tendons, and you are now more prone to injury because "things" can move too far...
While neither of us likely have scientific data to support us and each person is different, intuitively what you are saying makes little sense to me as an athlete. Baseball players used to believe they should never lift weights either because they believed it would hurt their performance. It was a myth of course but widely believed until fairly recently. A tighter muscle is *more* injury prone just like a weaker muscle is. The amount of stretching and warmup required varies by activity and individual but it's a rare individual that wouldn't benefit from at some well chosen stretching exercises.
In my experience as a college athlete (yes there are some of us on slashdot) when we did not stretch regularly and appropriately muscles tended to get pulled because we exceeded our range of motion. Though admittedly anecdotal, in over 20 years in my sport I've seen exceeding one's range of motion injuries happen far too often to believe there is nothing to it. The stretching needs for different sports are, well... different as you point out but but stretching is useful and has its place in most of them.
Since the link requires registration I can't actually RTFA. That said:
Even accepting at face value that stretching does weaken the muscle (which I do not without seeing the evidence), there are plenty of good reasons to stretch. Exercising without stretching will often limit your range of motion. This can have significant performance consequences as well as making one more prone to injury. Without stretching certain extreme movements (such as kicking high above your head - think dance or martial arts) are impossible for most people and they risk injury if they try. If you don't stretch, you might be stronger for a limited range of motion but you *will* be weaker at the extremes. It's a rare sport where you will not have to move at least some muscles through a full range of motion at some point.
For some good reading check out this FAQ about stretching. It's been around a while and not everything in it is gospel but it's a decent and approachable overview.
It's really nothing special, just more idiot-proof and much less flexible.
Flexibility in a mobile device is a two edged sword. It might give you capabilities but the designer isn't careful the cost is usually a degradation in usability. I have an S60 based phone and my wife has the iPhone 3G. I'm a geek with plenty of technical skill and if given the choice today I'd take the iPhone over my Nokia without a second thought. It's just easier to use for the stuff I actually use a smartphone for. All that "flexibility" bites Nokia in the ass when it comes time to actually use the device since they paid (IMO) so little attention to how people actually use these things.
Other than the lightsaber app, that's pretty standard on most high-end phones. I pay a lot less for my Nokia N95 8GB, and on features alone it beats the iPhone.
My primary phone these days is a Nokia E70. Nice phone overall and I like it. The features are roughly identical to my wife's iPhone 3G - but only if you are just doing a checkbox feature comparison. Technically it has the "same" stuff but not all of it is usable. In actual usability there is a pretty wide gap for most people. Why? The interface.
The interface on Nokia's S60 phones just sucks in comparison. Yes, a geek like me (and presumably you) can make it work just fine but ONLY a geek like me would bother. Getting an iPhone configured is a breeze by comparison - not to mention using it. It took me hours of navigating obscure menus to get my E70 working "properly" and I've had a series of Nokia phones for 10 years so I'm plenty familiar with their interface. The physical keyboard is nice but the iPhones virtual one works adequately. Particularly galling were:
By comparison, setting up my wife's iPhone took 30 minutes and I had never held one before hers. Is the iPhone perfect? Heck no, but I've spent quality time with plenty of S60, Blackberries and Treos and for 9/10 people I'd recommend the iPhone over any of them if they have a choice. It's just less hassle. Fortunately it seems to have gotten the handset manufacturers off their rear ends so we are seeing a nice wave of innovative new phones coming out.
Voting should be about democracy, not democracy subject to one's ability to adhere to subtleties that any individual could honestly overlook. There's no reason for making the system more complicated than it needs to be.
Agreed but there comes a point when you can't make things any simpler. Voting is a right but it is a responsibility too. Presuming that the system indeed been made as simple as practically possible (a big if, I know) and someone still can't be bothered to actually read some very simple instructions, it's hard to feel much sympathy. I think there is no greater insult to the democratic process than low expectations from the electorate.
... She is, however, a PhD, extremely literate and well-read, and very informed on political issues. Her vote should count in any election, but she would definitely have an even chance of yanking the fucking card out...
Your description of your mother sounds remarkably similar to mine. I'm frequently astonished at how well my mother has done in her career. But the way I interpret it is that our respective mothers can't be bothered to follow basic instructions probably sitting right there on the screen. While it certainly is *possible* that the instructions are unclear, I doubt it since 98% of the people managed just fine.
If I showed that sort of lack of attention to my job I'd be fired and would deserve it. I frankly expect no less from someone who is doing something as important as casting a ballot. Voting is a right but it is a responsibility too.
So, when did it become possible to sell mortgage-backed securities, and why did it go into overdrive around 2002, 2003?
Modern US incarnations started in 1938 with the creation of Fannie Mae.
There are a LOT of reasons why they went into overdrive lately. Low interest rates, hedge funds, deregulation, policies to encourage home ownership gone awry, big profits in securitization, lack of transparency into exotic securities, inadequate risk management policies at banks, and several other reasons come to mind.
It isn't a simple situation with a simple solution unfortunately. Any solution that does come however will need to come from regulation requiring disclosure of exotic security positions and limits on the ability to endlessly bundle and transfer risk through securitization. A better term for sub-prime is high risk. But everyone thought they could just transfer the risk to someone else and eventually there was so much high risk debt that it clogged up the credit markets.
So sad. Read up, sonny - it was the Carter administration.
Read up yourself. The grandparent post wasn't right either but neither are you. Mortgage backed securities have been with us at least since 1938 when Fannie Mae was created. First modern uses were in the early 1970s when Ginnie Mae was created - well before Carter or Bush were in office.
Sorry to burst your respective partisan dreamworlds.
And why would the financial world trust Excel at anything statistical?
No one who knows what they are doing does trust Excel. But most financial analytics don't depend on Excel's stats functions. The places that do depend on them often buy third party add on packages and libraries which have been validated for serious stats.
Excel's problems are numerous but in practical terms the accuracy of their stats library just isn't a big problem in the financial world. Wouldn't use it for scientific research or serious stats analytics but that's not generally what most finance/accounting geeks do.
If your using excel for accounting, aren't you potentially running afowl of some of the legal regulations, specifically the ones which make you liable for knowingly using a process that's known to produce incorrect results?
Good question but no, not really. No one uses Excel for financial statement generation which is where you could have problems. Real accounting packages get used for areas where accuracy in calculations are important. Sometimes Excel is used to help with some aspects of accounting but it's usually for small scale or prototype tools, nothing that could cause serious problems or run afoul of the IRS or SEC.
Excel is really more used for data mining and forward looking analytics - mostly finance and not so much for accounting. The difference is finance is forward looking and accounting is backward looking.
Exactly. I have used Word and Excel for ~15 years. I'm not what I'd consider a "power user," but I've grown comfortable with the UI and basic features over this time. Since approximately version 2.0 or 2.1, I haven't felt the need to use the real Word or Excel even once.
Just for comparisons sake, I am a heavy use of Excel (a "power user" if you will) and while I would switch to use OO.o in a heartbeat I simply cannot yet. Why? Two reasons fundamentally. The first is that Excel has a HUGE installed base in the finance world and that isn't going away any time soon. Want to work in finance? Better learn Excel - substitutes need not apply. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Excel is a de-facto monopoly in financial analytics. (disclosure: I'm a certified accountant as well as an engineer)
Second reason is that there are some things that Excel (as of OO.o 2.4) simply does better. (I'm just now checking out 3.0) Pivot tables, charting, and a lot of statistical tools have been better in Excel so far. I genuinely hope that changes. Excel has PLENTY of flaws but it's simply had more development time. Not to say you can't get excellent quality work done in OO.o but as someone who uses pretty much every feature Excel has I can say with authority Excel is the better tool overall - so far. If your needs are rather basic, OO.o is terrific but for many advanced users so far there simply hasn't been a choice.
If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money.
That is not even remotely true. I've tried to raise money and fairly often work with bankers and VCs. Having a good product and a good plan are rarely enough by themselves. A very significant part of getting capital is what the lender thinks of you, the borrower, personally. Your character, how you present yourself and your track record of creating successful ventures usually matter more than the particulars of your product and plan.
Lending is a relationship business and anyone who has tried to raise money (like me) or lent money will tell you so. Lenders don't really invest in business plans - though business plans are important; what they really invest in is you, the borrower. If you are some random person who is not known the the lender and you don't have a track record of successful ventures, you are going to have a MUCH harder time raising money.
Furthermore in a market like right now formal lending institutions sometimes simply won't lend to anyone - regardless of their credit worthiness. The banks and investment houses are afraid of losing their capital because they can't predict who is safe to lend to. They don't know who they can reliably lend to because there is so little transparency in these exotic securities we've all become far to familiar with recently. Credit markets work on confidence. In 1999 it was extremely easy to raise money, in 2002 and right now not so much. There is always money being lent but that doesn't mean everyone with a decent plan can get adequate funding.
You're losing sales.
Let's go through the logic of that shall we?
Seems to make sense at first.
Problem with that logic is that it typically implies that every instance of copying equals an instance of lost sales which is clearly and demonstrably not true. Someone who cannot afford the authorized copy will never purchase it so that cannot be a lost sale. Someone who is unwilling to pay the price being asked is likewise never going to be a lost sale. Ergo the only population in question is those who are able and willing to pay the price being asked but decide to pirate anyway. This is necessarily a smaller population.
What really is being claimed is that copyright infringement cannibalizes a percentage of sales that otherwise *may* have come to the copyright holder. For digital works, the marginal cost of a copy is essentially zero so while the copyright holder may lose a sale, he/she/it doesn't lose any cash since they have not lost an asset they owned. It might induce a higher fixed cost per unit since fewer units are sold and the cost cannot be amortized over as many units. A problem to be sure but a very different issue.
It also implies that unauthorized copying never results in purchases of authorized merchandise. It is relatively easy to find examples of products where bootleg/unauthorized copies actually helped drive the popularity of the product to the point where authorized copy sales increase.
You'll notice the word theft never was mentioned because it isn't theft. This doesn't make the copyright infringement any more moral or legal but it does make it a different situation.
You fail at reading comprehension.
If so you have just joined me.
That is demonstrably not true under many driving conditions.
And on many others, it is true. Read the wikipedia article again. (Particularly, they stop you slower when you're driving in soft snow or on a dirty dusty road - which nicely accounts for about 80% of my daily driving activities.)
The article says "In gravel, sand and deep snow, ABS tends to increase braking distances." I don't know about you but I know few people who do significant amounts of their driving on gravel, sand, or deep snow. It happens of course but not frequently for most folks. Furthermore the article just a little lower also says "A June 1999 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study found that ABS increased stopping distances on loose gravel by an average of 22 percent" so the actual evidence provided in the wikipedia article actually indicates ABS helps at least on gravel. It also says "On high-traction surfaces such as bitumen, or concrete, many (though not all) ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better (i.e. shorter) than those that would be easily possible without the benefit of ABS." And you say I lack reading comprehension?
The reason is that your average driver does not know how to pump his brakes so he can maintain steering during a fast braking,
Even the earliest ABS system did a better job of modulating the brakes than any drive can by pumping them manually. Threshold braking is a learned skill which too many people lack. You are correct that steering out of a potential accident is proper behavior but plenty of studies indicate that a huge percentage of people in panic situations just slam on the brakes with little to no steering.
And mea culpa you are correct on your last item - I misread your last statement regarding getting ABS. Sometimes I read too fast for my own good.
abs brakes do not really help or hurt your stopping distance in most cases
That is demonstrably not true under many driving conditions.
But reducing stopping distance is not even what they are supposed to do.
Actually that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. With most cars under most conditions cars equipped with ABS will stop FASTER than those without. Hell I used to work at a test track and I've seen it first hand myself. They ALSO let you steer while braking but that is an added benefit.
I know they tell you that the direction of front tires have no effect on where the car is going when the brakes are locked
If you are skidding you are relying solely on the friction of the rubber on the ground to stop you. That contact patch does not change size (significantly) regardless of what direction you point the wheels. If you regain traction, the wheel direction will matter but without ABS you cannot modulate the brakes and steer at the same time as effectively as with ABS.
Would not buy a car without ABS again.
Good luck with that since they are mandated on nearly all vehicles sold today. And please don't drive anywhere near me.
Traction control and ABS brakes are for people who want to feel safe without being safe.
That is demonstrably not true.
ABS brakes will put you under the trailer. Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
If you are that close to the trailer you are driving WAY too close to begin with. ABS is for stopping when the traction sucks and locking the brakes would induce a dangerous skid. ABS is no substitute for safe driving technique.
ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it.
A) If you aren't that used to the car you shouldn't be driving in dangerous conditions. B) If ABS comes on and the weather isn't horrendous, you are driving WAY too close. C) If the weather is horrendous, you should be providing even more distance to the car ahead anyway and ABS will help you stop faster than without.
You are wearing that mandated seat belt, yes? Ever try to think of unbuckling it so you can dive for the floor in a panic situation?
No. That would be retarded. I cannot even conceive of a reasonably likely scenario where I would ever want to do that while moving. I'm also not aware of case where that would have saved anyone. Want the best odds of survival in an accident? Wear your seatbelt.
FWIW, I lived in the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County area for 25 years without needing snow chains.
I lived in Geauga County, right in the heart of the snowbelt for 20 years and my parents still live there. You are right, snow chains are not necessary there, though snow tires aren't a bad idea if you have the cash to get some. I did however keep a set of snow chains just in case and did have occasion to use them once. However go to Tahoe or various parts of the Rockies and snow chains are not only a good idea they are often required.
It's my opinion that ABS and traction control are NOT needed if the driver is properly trained in local conditions.
Normally you are correct in most locations. ABS and traction control are no substitute for safe driving technique. That does not however make them useless. They demonstrably improve safety which is why their use has been mandated.