1. They are not proportional fonts. Look at the cases where "We" show up. Proportionally this should be kerned (that is, the "e" moved to slightly under the right leg of the "W" for those who don't know what kerning is) - it's clearly not.
Proportional fonts don't imply kerning.
Just try typing "We" into Microsoft Word using times new roman-- no kerning.
In this case, it is not (at least, not officially, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one) company money, it is personal money. However, yes, companies do give money, lots of it.
All big companies donate large amounts of money to both political parties. It's too late to do any research on this particular one, but I would be surprised if they donated money to Republicans without donating to Democrats.
Wait, is it companies that donate money or individuals that donate money?
I think it most all the money comes from individuals. Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but they're still considered individual donors.
I think so when it is company money. If the company I work for would support a political party there's a (good) chance it would not be the party of my choice. I would be very upset if money that was partially made through my efforts would go to these people. Commercial entities have no business spending their money on influencing what should be a democratic process.
Are you sure companies give this money?
As far as I can tell, the money always comes from individuals.
Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but that's not the same as the company giving money.
Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check. The check on ballot tampering has always been: - statistical anomalies to spot possible tampering
Do you think they really bother checking anything at all?
For example, what should be made of Philadelphia's (mostly democrat)voter registration rate of over 98% in the 2000 election?
There's nothing fishy about 98%+ of eligible voters being registered?
"But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday."
Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.
And don't forget all those that VOTED TWICE in the same election.
"the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday. "
Here's something Charles Darwin in all his philosophies never imagined. As the third millennium of the common era kicks off more American women than men are graduating with baccalaureate and post- baccalaureate degrees. More women are enrolled in law schools, journalism schools, and soon, they will exceed men in all professional schools, with the exception the dreary schools of engineering and business. At this rate, women will soon overtake men as the top wage earners. Evolution is leaving men behind.
I would say that American culture is leaving men behind or at least grinding them into the dirt. We're now the second sex and cause of all the worlds ills and we're made to feal guilty about everything.
Men are failing because they been told it's wrong for them to succeed. It's now somebody else's turn.
EZ says: You've actually just identified the essential problem of free market journalism. In free market journalism you're allowed to print whatever stories your audience wants to read.
Oh, gee, how terrible that people decide for themselves what stories they want to write and what stories they want to read.
He'd like to believe that the pricing follows that nice bell curve, and that would be true if there weren't a monopoly skewing the graph to nearly a flat line. MS can charge whatever they want up to a point, their demand is inelastic due to their monopoly.
You completely misunderstood the graph.
#1 The graph is not of a bell curve. It's most likely a parabola. #2 The graph is of revenue as a function of price, not as demand as a function of price. #3 If demand were inelastic as you say, Microsoft would be charging $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 for their OS.
I think it's more likely that their software is priced to maintain their monopoly.
Speaking as a Reublican, I'd think you'd be shocked at just how many Republicans agree with you.
These people are cultural bigots who don't grasp anything outside their own limited experience. They believe they have some sort of monopoly on truth and are willing to do anything to gain power.
It's this kind of statement, though, that really rubs me the wrong way. The statement itself seems to be evidence of your own cultural bigotry.
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them.
It's that kind of deceptive statement the prevents me from ever being a democrat. The words you use are designed to manipulate and are pure propaganda. Do you even know you're doing it?
I'll explain what I mean. When you reduce someones taxes are you actually giving something to them? Nope. You're taking less.
And how is taking less from them at the expense of the rest? Money isn't being taking by the government from the poor to be given to the rich. It's mostly the other way around. Yet your statement is designed to manipulate people into believing that's what's happening. It's propaganda. You're propagating a deception.
And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line.
That's an example of environmental zealotry that doesn't recognize the tradeoffs involved. The fact is, we trade some "evironmental degradation" for other kinds of benefits. But it takes a balanced approach to recognize that. Do you recognize the need for a balanced approach?
I don't think so. You've been programmed to hate those bad ol' companies. Why they're enemies of mother earth! They're all evil!
Of course, you don't mind having computers, cell phones, nice house, plenty of food, and all the other things that come from evil business.
And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war.
Could be. I'd rather have more details before judging.
And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Maybe educators should try changing their busine^H^H^H^H^H education model instead of complaining.
French productivity per capita is just 72%
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 1
The French and Germans have loads of holidays compared to North Americans, and yet their productivity per capita is actually higher than in the USA.
Now, productivity per hour worked IS greater than that of the USA, but this actually makes sense when you consider the extent of the welfare state in Europe. Fewer workers supporting many people MUST produce more just so they have enough left for themselves after pulling the load of everyone else.
Everyone does this. They've done it for years. It's a cover-one's-posterior thing, not a reduce-people's-rights thing.
Cover one's butt from what? What are they trying to protect?
Fact is they are claiming control of the information.
And consider this: what is it that they REALLY provide in terms of content? The stories they mention aren't theirs. The comments aren't theirs. Just what is? Yet they assert their copyright while bashing others that do the same.
Just think about that. They provide almost zero content and all the while make big money off the content of others.
Maybe they consider getting rich off of others work and example of "fair use."
I think it's important to remind everyone that even slashdot seems concerned about protecting it's copyrighted material -- despite the stories selected for posting by people like michael.
Nonsense. You should have the right to refused to be monitored, and you should not be coerced into selling those rights by paying a premium to have the right to not upload your data.
Stop playing games with language. The insurance company is offering an option to people. If you don't like, don't take it.
What you're really after is a free-ride. You want the benefits of cheaper rates while not having to offer the information others provide.
Stop being a mooch. If you don't want monitoring, then you make yourself a more expensive unknown risk. Don't expect others to subsidize you.
But do they look for causation? I doubt it and it is VERY important. Using correlations for rates is guaranteed to INaccurately price insurance.
You're wrong. The fact is people that choose red cars, for example, are a greater risk than those that choose white. Now obviously having a red car doesn't cause an accident, yet every insurance company finds the same relationship.
So, what's going on? The choice of a red car reveals something about the driving style of the owner. The correlation between accidents and red cars comes because both things have a common cause: the character of the driver. Yet, identifying just the correlation is enough to help price insurance more accurately.
But there are other correlations that are more difficult to explain, like the relationship between poor credit and accidents. Again, insurance companies find again and again that people with bad credit are more likely to be in accidents.
What's the common link? Who knows? But ignoring the fact that there is a statistical link will put you out of the insurance business.
Bingo! Charging a surcharge if you're not willing to give up your civil liberties is illegal isn't it?
What civil liberties are being given up here?
What I see is two people making a deal. One offers a discount to the other if you voluntarily provide additional information.
That's not giving up civil liberties.
Now, if the government stepped in and prevented such deals, that's an obvious violation. People should be able to decide for themselves if such agreements are good for them.
I wonder how well Progressive's device will corralate with actual accident rates. It can't tell the difference between going 55 on a highway and going 55 in a preschool parking lot. Or, for that matter, 20 mph in the lot, and 20 on the highway.
All they need is time, speed, and direction information to plot your path.
If they fit it over a map, they should be able to smooth out any inaccuracies.
Especially if they decide that you should pay more for excessive speeding. How many people actually obey the speed limit all the time?
It may not even matter to the insurance company.
Seriously. An insurance company looks at all these things statistically. If there is no statistical relationship between speeding and how much they have to payout on a claim, they aren't going to charge extra for speeding.
And it makes business sense, too.
Suppose speeders showed no difference in their odds of getting into an accident, yet Big Insurance Corp A charges extra money for people with speeding tickets.
Big Insurance Corp B discovers during routine data-mining that there is no relationship between speeding and payouts and so charges less for insuring speeders.
At some point Corp B has all the "speeders" business while A is out of luck because they over-charged.
Profitable insurance companies look at all kinds of things that might not seem relevent like credit reports, car color, and profession. Yet, when they dump all this information into their systems they find correlations. And these correlations allow them to more accurately price insurance for people.
Those companies that use personal judgements like, ALL SPEEDERS ARE A BIG RISK -- CHARGE $$$!!! aren't going to be able to compete if their judgements are inconsistant with statistical reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Fire up Microsoft Word with the defaults -- Times New Roman 12pt, etc.
Type in the memo with SUBJECT: CYA
(Make sure you use two spaces after each period.)
Compare what you typed with the memo that supposedly was written in 1973.
They're identical. The word wrap is identical. The letters line up in the same way relative to those above and below.
1. They are not proportional fonts. Look at the cases where "We" show up. Proportionally this should be kerned (that is, the "e" moved to slightly under the right leg of the "W" for those who don't know what kerning is) - it's clearly not.
Proportional fonts don't imply kerning.
Just try typing "We" into Microsoft Word using times new roman-- no kerning.
Look at the part of the memo that reads "the 187th group". Notice anything about the "th"?
Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.
These are obvious forgeries done with Word and run through a copier 50 times to make them look old.
The scary part is how the press did nothing to verify the authenticity of these documents. You'd think they'd check their sources.
In this case, it is not (at least, not officially, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one) company money, it is personal money. However, yes, companies do give money, lots of it.
Where is this documented?
Seriously. I'd like to see the numbers.
All big companies donate large amounts of money to both political parties. It's too late to do any research on this particular one, but I would be surprised if they donated money to Republicans without donating to Democrats.
Wait, is it companies that donate money or individuals that donate money?
I think it most all the money comes from individuals. Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but they're still considered individual donors.
I think so when it is company money.
If the company I work for would support a political party there's a (good) chance it would not be the party of my choice.
I would be very upset if money that was partially made through my efforts would go to these people.
Commercial entities have no business spending their money on influencing what should be a democratic process.
Are you sure companies give this money?
As far as I can tell, the money always comes from individuals.
Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but that's not the same as the company giving money.
Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check. The check on ballot tampering has always been:
- statistical anomalies to spot possible tampering
Do you think they really bother checking anything at all?
For example, what should be made of Philadelphia's (mostly democrat)voter registration rate of over 98% in the 2000 election?
There's nothing fishy about 98%+ of eligible voters being registered?
They must have an incredible sense of civic duty.
Thousands Registered to Vote in 2 States-Report
"But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday."
Feel any better?
Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.
And don't forget all those that VOTED TWICE in the same election.
"the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday. "
I just recently came across this site.
Some of these guys are charging $0.16/minute for programming help ( $9.60/hour). Hell, the 976-HOTT girls make much more than that.
I should have gone into the sex-talk business instead of programming.
Here's something Charles Darwin in all his philosophies never imagined. As the third millennium of the common era kicks off more American women than men are graduating with baccalaureate and post- baccalaureate degrees. More women are enrolled in law schools, journalism schools, and soon, they will exceed men in all professional schools, with the exception the dreary schools of engineering and business. At this rate, women will soon overtake men as the top wage earners. Evolution is leaving men behind.
I would say that American culture is leaving men behind or at least grinding them into the dirt. We're now the second sex and cause of all the worlds ills and we're made to feal guilty about everything.
Men are failing because they been told it's wrong for them to succeed. It's now somebody else's turn.
Step aside.
EZ says: You've actually just identified the essential problem of free market journalism. In free market journalism you're allowed to print whatever stories your audience wants to read.
Oh, gee, how terrible that people decide for themselves what stories they want to write and what stories they want to read.
Ever hear of freedom of the press?
He'd like to believe that the pricing follows that nice bell curve, and that would be true if there weren't a monopoly skewing the graph to nearly a flat line. MS can charge whatever they want up to a point, their demand is inelastic due to their monopoly.
You completely misunderstood the graph.
#1 The graph is not of a bell curve. It's most likely a parabola.
#2 The graph is of revenue as a function of price, not as demand as a function of price.
#3 If demand were inelastic as you say, Microsoft would be charging $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 for their OS.
I think it's more likely that their software is priced to maintain their monopoly.
Historically trying to forcibly kill a cultural viewpoint has done nothing of the sort.
The cultural viewpoint of Nazi Germany, for example?
What about the cultural revolution in China?
Why does Islam dominate the middle east?
Why does Catholicism dominate South America?
Sorry to disappoint you, but violence seems to work.
I think radical Islam already knows this.
Speaking as a Reublican, I'd think you'd be shocked at just how many Republicans agree with you.
These people are cultural bigots who don't grasp anything outside their own limited experience. They believe they have some sort of monopoly on truth and are willing to do anything to gain power.
It's this kind of statement, though, that really rubs me the wrong way. The statement itself seems to be evidence of your own cultural bigotry.
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them.
It's that kind of deceptive statement the prevents me from ever being a democrat. The words you use are designed to manipulate and are pure propaganda. Do you even know you're doing it?
I'll explain what I mean. When you reduce someones taxes are you actually giving something to them? Nope. You're taking less.
And how is taking less from them at the expense of the rest? Money isn't being taking by the government from the poor to be given to the rich. It's mostly the other way around. Yet your statement is designed to manipulate people into believing that's what's happening. It's propaganda. You're propagating a deception.
And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line.
That's an example of environmental zealotry that doesn't recognize the tradeoffs involved. The fact is, we trade some "evironmental degradation" for other kinds of benefits. But it takes a balanced approach to recognize that. Do you recognize the need for a balanced approach?
I don't think so. You've been programmed to hate those bad ol' companies. Why they're enemies of mother earth! They're all evil!
Of course, you don't mind having computers, cell phones, nice house, plenty of food, and all the other things that come from evil business.
And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war.
Could be. I'd rather have more details before judging.
And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Maybe educators should try changing their busine^H^H^H^H^H education model instead of complaining.
The French and Germans have loads of holidays compared to North Americans, and yet their productivity per capita is actually higher than in the USA.
No. Productivity per capita is actually just 72%.
Now, productivity per hour worked IS greater than that of the USA, but this actually makes sense when you consider the extent of the welfare state in Europe. Fewer workers supporting many people MUST produce more just so they have enough left for themselves after pulling the load of everyone else.
Everyone does this. They've done it for years. It's a cover-one's-posterior thing, not a reduce-people's-rights thing.
Cover one's butt from what? What are they trying to protect?
Fact is they are claiming control of the information.
And consider this: what is it that they REALLY provide in terms of content? The stories they mention aren't theirs. The comments aren't theirs. Just what is? Yet they assert their copyright while bashing others that do the same.
Just think about that. They provide almost zero content and all the while make big money off the content of others.
Maybe they consider getting rich off of others work and example of "fair use."
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSTG.
I think it's important to remind everyone that even slashdot seems concerned about protecting it's copyrighted material -- despite the stories selected for posting by people like michael.
Nonsense. You should have the right to refused to be monitored, and you should not be coerced into selling those rights by paying a premium to have the right to not upload your data.
Stop playing games with language. The insurance company is offering an option to people. If you don't like, don't take it.
What you're really after is a free-ride. You want the benefits of cheaper rates while not having to offer the information others provide.
Stop being a mooch. If you don't want monitoring, then you make yourself a more expensive unknown risk. Don't expect others to subsidize you.
But do they look for causation? I doubt it and it is VERY important. Using correlations for rates is guaranteed to INaccurately price insurance.
You're wrong. The fact is people that choose red cars, for example, are a greater risk than those that choose white. Now obviously having a red car doesn't cause an accident, yet every insurance company finds the same relationship.
So, what's going on? The choice of a red car reveals something about the driving style of the owner. The correlation between accidents and red cars comes because both things have a common cause: the character of the driver. Yet, identifying just the correlation is enough to help price insurance more accurately.
But there are other correlations that are more difficult to explain, like the relationship between poor credit and accidents. Again, insurance companies find again and again that people with bad credit are more likely to be in accidents.
What's the common link? Who knows? But ignoring the fact that there is a statistical link will put you out of the insurance business.
Bingo! Charging a surcharge if you're not willing to give up your civil liberties is illegal isn't it?
What civil liberties are being given up here?
What I see is two people making a deal. One offers a discount to the other if you voluntarily provide additional information.
That's not giving up civil liberties.
Now, if the government stepped in and prevented such deals, that's an obvious violation. People should be able to decide for themselves if such agreements are good for them.
I wonder how well Progressive's device will corralate with actual accident rates. It can't tell the difference between going 55 on a highway and going 55 in a preschool parking lot. Or, for that matter, 20 mph in the lot, and 20 on the highway.
All they need is time, speed, and direction information to plot your path.
If they fit it over a map, they should be able to smooth out any inaccuracies.
Gotta love this. It's entrampment. They assume if you don't wish to upload your driving data that you are a bigger risk.
And what's wrong with that?
It all depends on the statistics they gather and whether or not there is a correlation.
Profitable insurance companies don't use personal judgements. They use statistics and look for correlations.
If people that upload are less a risk, they should be charged less. If people that don't upload are a greater risk, they should pay more.
The burden of payment should fall on those that are most likely to cause an accident.
Especially if they decide that you should pay more for excessive speeding. How many people actually obey the speed limit all the time?
It may not even matter to the insurance company.
Seriously. An insurance company looks at all these things statistically. If there is no statistical relationship between speeding and how much they have to payout on a claim, they aren't going to charge extra for speeding.
And it makes business sense, too.
Suppose speeders showed no difference in their odds of getting into an accident, yet Big Insurance Corp A charges extra money for people with speeding tickets.
Big Insurance Corp B discovers during routine data-mining that there is no relationship between speeding and payouts and so charges less for insuring speeders.
At some point Corp B has all the "speeders" business while A is out of luck because they over-charged.
Profitable insurance companies look at all kinds of things that might not seem relevent like credit reports, car color, and profession. Yet, when they dump all this information into their systems they find correlations. And these correlations allow them to more accurately price insurance for people.
Those companies that use personal judgements like, ALL SPEEDERS ARE A BIG RISK -- CHARGE $$$!!! aren't going to be able to compete if their judgements are inconsistant with statistical reality.