Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Lowest yearly dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk: 100 mSv
This is equivalent to 2500 NY-LA flights. I think few people can accomplish that in a year.
I don't think any can, unless someone's got a time machine. A NY-LA flight is 6.5 hours. Even if you flew constantly, you'll only get 1350 flights done in a year.
The joke was that no one is likely to spend their vacation staring at a nuclear reactor. I'd enjoy a tour, but not more than an hour. Boredom not radiation.
Just start pulling out the control rods manually. It'll become quite exciting in short order.
Why do you think it should be compared to the best burger he ever had? By definition, he has only ever had one "best burger" in his entire life. Wouldn't a more accurate measurement be against what an average burger should be? If it is better than what you expect, who cares if it is made of vegetables or not- it is still better than your expectations of a meat burger.
Sure, I'd like a comparison against the 10th, 25th, median, 75th and 90th quantile burgers as well.
...the[ir] bean burgers are amazing and as good as a hamburger. There are nothing like the frozen bean burger ilk.
Ok, but being better than a frozen veggie burger is a very low bar, and hamburgers have a huge range of tastiness. What I want to know is, are they better than the best hamburger you've ever had?
I'd definitely recommend installing automatic lights at home if you haven't already, or look into actual light therapy. You can't do much about the earth's tilt anyways so adjusting your own environment is the next best thing.
The sun rising after 9 here in a winter summer time is problematic, it would also set before 5. In the summer it would rise at 3.30 on GMT and set at 8.30.
No matter how you shift that clock in the winter you're not going to be able to get up at sunrise and still have any sunlight after work. Actually, I'm pretty sure if you go any further north, you're just not going to have daylight in the winter, period.
Also, why is that problematic in the first place? If you actually do any work that requires daylight, your schedule is going to be following the sunrise anyways, and not DST. The DST would need to shift 6 hours each year (at your latitude) if it needs to follow the sunrise. For everything else, we have LED lights.
What's wrong with having just your business shift their schedule?
What's wrong with shifting your own schedule? If it's bright out at 4 AM, maybe you should just get up at 4 AM and do your yard work or TV-watching then. Think of work as an afternoon thing.
But stores have opening hours, public transport runs on a schedule, nurses work shifts, in all sorts of production facilities you need a whole staff to run the machinery. Or they're done just in time, like when a bakery makes fresh bread or you order a pizza.
Literally none of those operate on a 9-5 schedule! My local bakery opens from 8 AM to 8 PM. The light rail runs from 5 AM to 1 AM the next day. The hospital opens 24/7 so it literally doesn't matter when their shifts change.
Yes, the whole staff need to get there at the same time, but it really doesn't matter whether other businesses operate with the exact same schedule. In fact, most don't!
What kind of dividends are you making on your index funds investments?
Once the house is paid for, it becomes a cash machine less property tax and the occasional maintenance.
It's not about the dividends. You might think getting rent for nothing is great, but they really don't add up anywhere close to the amount of increase in stock prices. You can sell 1% of your stock every year, and still end up with both more cash in your pocket and more equity at the end of the day.
Of course, if you don't have a house and you need a place to live, then yeah, buying a house makes your life much better. But by the time you can afford a second house, you should really start looking around for other kinds of investments as well.
If you can afford property, it is a great investment.
Over the course of a generation, they have firmly cemented our family as upper middle class. We will never be rich, but unless someone picks up a massive drug habit or makes some extremely stupid investments, our family is going to be okay. That never would have happened with index funds.
The DJI rose from $1266 in 1985 to $24,792 today - a 19.5x increase. Meanwhile, a median house in California was $85,000 in the 1980's. Even if that was bought in SF, where it's worth $1,000,000 now, that's still only a 11.8x increase. So yes, you could be very well off with index funds. In fact, you'd be twice as well off with the DJI. S&P 500 is not quite as good, at a 14.8x increase, but still better than real estate.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. The value of real estate is directly tied to the number of people who need housing, so immigration is the only driver for any increases. Meanwhile, the value of a business depends on consumer spending in their market. The market itself grows from immigration, but consumer spending can also grow, giving it one more way to grow than the real estate market. So over the long run, stocks will always outperform housing.
Landlords don't base their rent on their mortgage costs. Some don't even have active mortgages on their property. But they aren't going to price it below a potential mortgage.
Yes they will. By the time they're looking for renters, the mortgage is a sunk cost. If the rental market rate is $300 a month less their monthly mortgage payment, they'll still want to rent it out, because it's still hundreds of dollars less of a loss every month than keeping the property empty. This is the risk they took by buying a property instead of renting one.
Averages say very little about a nation as large and diverse as the United States. Every school district is different. There are some districts close to where I live that are amongst the best in the world, with the majority of graduates ending up at Ivy League or comparable universities. Some, just a little bit further away, are below national average, with many students not even going to community college. And these are public school districts, mind you.
If you can't explain the convenience or purpose provided for the end-user of your software in layman's terms, maybe you shouldn't be writing the software.
Not all software have end users. Not all projects can be discussed with the public.
If you're writing a simulation for some quantum phenomenon, which might turn into a scientific paper, it's going to take more than a few words to explain what you're doing. Especially if the other person hasn't heard of quantum mechanics, or just haven't taken any Physics classes at all.
Given the population of Vermont, they have practically no negotiating power against any of the health care or drug providers. Try it again with California or Texas and you'll get a different result.
Deflation is almost always bad because it dis-incentivizes investment and creates perverse incentives. (why invest if your money will grow in value without the risk?)
Because you can get even more money from the investment. All inflation does is get you to make bad investments. Even if the investment doesn't make any money at all, it's still better than holding the money, because at least that's not losing value. That is a huge waste of resources.
By the way, there's a really easy way to get around inflation, and that is to buy and hoard scarce resources, such as real estate and precious metals. And guess what? Tons of people do that, making it very hard for people and businesses who actually need those to function.
Slashdot Mirror
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Lowest yearly dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk: 100 mSv
This is equivalent to 2500 NY-LA flights. I think few people can accomplish that in a year.
I don't think any can, unless someone's got a time machine. A NY-LA flight is 6.5 hours. Even if you flew constantly, you'll only get 1350 flights done in a year.
The joke was that no one is likely to spend their vacation staring at a nuclear reactor. I'd enjoy a tour, but not more than an hour. Boredom not radiation.
Just start pulling out the control rods manually. It'll become quite exciting in short order.
Why do you think it should be compared to the best burger he ever had? By definition, he has only ever had one "best burger" in his entire life. Wouldn't a more accurate measurement be against what an average burger should be? If it is better than what you expect, who cares if it is made of vegetables or not- it is still better than your expectations of a meat burger.
Sure, I'd like a comparison against the 10th, 25th, median, 75th and 90th quantile burgers as well.
...the[ir] bean burgers are amazing and as good as a hamburger. There are nothing like the frozen bean burger ilk.
Ok, but being better than a frozen veggie burger is a very low bar, and hamburgers have a huge range of tastiness. What I want to know is, are they better than the best hamburger you've ever had?
I'd definitely recommend installing automatic lights at home if you haven't already, or look into actual light therapy. You can't do much about the earth's tilt anyways so adjusting your own environment is the next best thing.
The sun rising after 9 here in a winter summer time is problematic, it would also set before 5. In the summer it would rise at 3.30 on GMT and set at 8.30.
No matter how you shift that clock in the winter you're not going to be able to get up at sunrise and still have any sunlight after work. Actually, I'm pretty sure if you go any further north, you're just not going to have daylight in the winter, period.
Also, why is that problematic in the first place? If you actually do any work that requires daylight, your schedule is going to be following the sunrise anyways, and not DST. The DST would need to shift 6 hours each year (at your latitude) if it needs to follow the sunrise. For everything else, we have LED lights.
Can the FCC's 'Net Neutrality' Decision Be Overturned in Congress?
Of course it can. Congress created the FCC, so it can make whatever law it wants to override FCC's decision. Will it is a better question.
What we *COULD* do is have everyone south of about 45 degrees on DST year 'round, and everyone north of it on standard time year 'round.
Or just redraw the time zones so they include more northwest areas and less northeast areas.
What's wrong with having just your business shift their schedule?
What's wrong with shifting your own schedule? If it's bright out at 4 AM, maybe you should just get up at 4 AM and do your yard work or TV-watching then. Think of work as an afternoon thing.
But stores have opening hours, public transport runs on a schedule, nurses work shifts, in all sorts of production facilities you need a whole staff to run the machinery. Or they're done just in time, like when a bakery makes fresh bread or you order a pizza.
Literally none of those operate on a 9-5 schedule! My local bakery opens from 8 AM to 8 PM. The light rail runs from 5 AM to 1 AM the next day. The hospital opens 24/7 so it literally doesn't matter when their shifts change.
Yes, the whole staff need to get there at the same time, but it really doesn't matter whether other businesses operate with the exact same schedule. In fact, most don't!
The study is invalid. The participants are recruited from Mechanical Turk. Just how many rich and successful people are looking for work on there?
Moreover, the effect seems to be much stronger for those with some college than a bachelors. Which the authors didn't address at all.
Not to mention the ridiculous definition of "wise".
My point is, nobody is going to launch anything until...never. It's just cheaper and easier on earth.
Never is a long time. Eventually every square foot of Earth will be as expensive as San Francisco.
What kind of dividends are you making on your index funds investments?
Once the house is paid for, it becomes a cash machine less property tax and the occasional maintenance.
It's not about the dividends. You might think getting rent for nothing is great, but they really don't add up anywhere close to the amount of increase in stock prices. You can sell 1% of your stock every year, and still end up with both more cash in your pocket and more equity at the end of the day.
Of course, if you don't have a house and you need a place to live, then yeah, buying a house makes your life much better. But by the time you can afford a second house, you should really start looking around for other kinds of investments as well.
If you can afford property, it is a great investment.
Over the course of a generation, they have firmly cemented our family as upper middle class. We will never be rich, but unless someone picks up a massive drug habit or makes some extremely stupid investments, our family is going to be okay. That never would have happened with index funds.
The DJI rose from $1266 in 1985 to $24,792 today - a 19.5x increase. Meanwhile, a median house in California was $85,000 in the 1980's. Even if that was bought in SF, where it's worth $1,000,000 now, that's still only a 11.8x increase. So yes, you could be very well off with index funds. In fact, you'd be twice as well off with the DJI. S&P 500 is not quite as good, at a 14.8x increase, but still better than real estate.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. The value of real estate is directly tied to the number of people who need housing, so immigration is the only driver for any increases. Meanwhile, the value of a business depends on consumer spending in their market. The market itself grows from immigration, but consumer spending can also grow, giving it one more way to grow than the real estate market. So over the long run, stocks will always outperform housing.
Landlords don't base their rent on their mortgage costs. Some don't even have active mortgages on their property. But they aren't going to price it below a potential mortgage.
Yes they will. By the time they're looking for renters, the mortgage is a sunk cost. If the rental market rate is $300 a month less their monthly mortgage payment, they'll still want to rent it out, because it's still hundreds of dollars less of a loss every month than keeping the property empty. This is the risk they took by buying a property instead of renting one.
They know where you live anyways. Who owns which house is public information.
Averages say very little about a nation as large and diverse as the United States. Every school district is different. There are some districts close to where I live that are amongst the best in the world, with the majority of graduates ending up at Ivy League or comparable universities. Some, just a little bit further away, are below national average, with many students not even going to community college. And these are public school districts, mind you.
If you can't explain the convenience or purpose provided for the end-user of your software in layman's terms, maybe you shouldn't be writing the software.
Not all software have end users. Not all projects can be discussed with the public.
If you're writing a simulation for some quantum phenomenon, which might turn into a scientific paper, it's going to take more than a few words to explain what you're doing. Especially if the other person hasn't heard of quantum mechanics, or just haven't taken any Physics classes at all.
They're worse than 5-year-olds. When you tell them to "get lost", even a 5-year-old wouldn't literally go into the woods and try to get lost.
Voters are going to vote their own wallet over voting for their doctors. If they believe single payer will be cheaper for them, they'll vote that way.
Given the population of Vermont, they have practically no negotiating power against any of the health care or drug providers. Try it again with California or Texas and you'll get a different result.
And.. Have you considered what situation we'd be in without a military?
Oh yeah, Canada's totally going to invade us. Next thing you know, we'll be speaking Canadian French!
Deflation is almost always bad because it dis-incentivizes investment and creates perverse incentives. (why invest if your money will grow in value without the risk?)
Because you can get even more money from the investment. All inflation does is get you to make bad investments. Even if the investment doesn't make any money at all, it's still better than holding the money, because at least that's not losing value. That is a huge waste of resources.
By the way, there's a really easy way to get around inflation, and that is to buy and hoard scarce resources, such as real estate and precious metals. And guess what? Tons of people do that, making it very hard for people and businesses who actually need those to function.
If you could hire them, they wouldn't be homeless. I'm still seeing wanted posters a few blocks away from beggars.