Try to learn the Pomodoro Technique. It's all about learning to focus on a task for short periods. It has excellent techniques for deflecting distractions, both internal and external. Short description from the site:
The basic unit of work in the Pomodoro Technique can be split in five simple steps:
1. Choose a task to be accomplished
2. Set the Pomodoro to 25 minutes (the Pomodoro is the timer)
3. Work on the task until the Pomodoro rings, then put a check on your sheet of paper
4. Take a short break (5 minutes is OK)
5. Every 4 Pomodoros take a longer break
What I've found is that if the task itself isn't engaging, I tend to look for distractions. Hearing voices and conversations just makes it more difficult. Part of training yourself to tune it out involves more than just overpowering the noise. You'll need to handle disruptions such as the urge to check your email, handling phone calls, people touching you to break your trance, and even bio breaks.
The downloadable book takes a couple of hours to read, and it doesn't cost anything. There are also some software projects that are helpful as well.
Perhaps having a bell go off at regular intervals at your place of work may start to annoy everyone else. Then you can suggest that you'll trade the bell for your music.:-)
I can admit that a dinosaur might have been killed by an infection or parasite, but can someone explain how the carcass wouldn't rot or be consumed before a fossil can form.
My understanding is that the body would have to be immediately covered and pressure applied. This would be in line with a meteor/comet strike or similar effects.
Dinosaurs killed by a flu bug or whatever, couldn't have left us anything to determine a cause of death. The combination of environmental stresses seems plausible enough. Disease and starvation might wipe out whatever remained of those animals that survived the first strike.
It's an interesting, but shallow point. I'm sure the GP understands that you can't punish someone for their thoughts. But there's a dangerous path to be followed when you put an idea in someone's head and give an avenue for repeated re-inforcement of that idea. You'd be stupid to argue that someone's actions didn't originate with a thought.
The argument I'm hearing is that, if you're of a sane mind, then it's ok to play degenerate games that desensitize the reaction to violence and horror as long as you don't act on it. He's pushing a poison that's sure to kill at least somebody. If the poison doesn't kill, it leaves irreversable damage in anyone it touches.
Great idea...but what's the cost? Each added circuitry is going to add cost. Plus you'll need an engineer to set up the generator. You'll need to keep the hand-crank anyway because you won't always be near your generator. The foot pedal seems good too, but you'll need to stow it and the cord. What if the cord breaks? I think the current design is a great compromise between form, function, and flexibility.
You're saying you're smarter than God because you can explain how some of His creations work. When science explains the mysteries of our world and universe, it proves only that we learned something that God knew all along.
It's like saying that figuring out how Windows works means that Microsoft must not exist; though I wish it were true.
As you stated, "Just saying God did it is a shortcut that ends further investigation," is an excuse for lazy scientists. People have this notion that when God does something, that it is some "Miracle" that can't be explained; that it's something magic and beyond the realm of investigation.
Why can't God create something using natural means? Everyone here understands that a computer is ultimately based on tiny transistors and software instructions to control those, but to most of the population, it's magical and beyond the realm of comprehension. That said, the first reports of the biblical account of the creation would have reported the features of the creation, not the mechanics of it. That part is up to us to find out.
So, if you don't believe in God, that's up to you to work out. Leave the rest of us alone to discover "how" God did it. If you have something to contribute, then that's fine too. The more we understand His methods, the more we understand Him.
As believers and unbelievers, we should embrace science as a way to gain knowledge and truth. Both sides are letting their misunderstanding of religion to blind them and distract them from learning the truth about our world.
I think that Velikovsky was born too early. He was the kind of pioneer that the early reformers were. His ideas were radical at the time and were ridiculed as unscientific simply because the ideas were different from established theories. Without his work, of which I am impressed of its depth and breadth, we would still be in the dark ages scientifically.
Why can't some scientists objectively approach these kinds of subjects instead of dismissing them outright without applying rational scrutiny. To suggest that his theories were flawed or some type of voodoo science is in itself unscientific.
Many arguments against Velikovsky's theories are supported by more theory, not fact. The theory of slow evolution of the earth's geologic features are still theory, NOT established fact. It's like two blind men arguing that an orange is yellow instead of red. They're both half right, but wrong together.
You seem confused. This is more proof that the Bible is accurate. It changes the nature of the stories from myth to fact.
When you consider that the writers didn't use the same language that we do, they may have been unable to clearly articulate what they witnessed. Compounding that problem is the loss of meaning in the translation to Greek and then English from the original Hebrew. The translators had never seen these types of things and wouldn't know how to explain them in a scientifically robust manner.
I suggest reading the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, such as Worlds in Collision or Earth in Upheaval. He came to the same conclusions and better, years before using a similar method. This is old news.
I agree that the parent should be modded flamebait.
The technology centre of Canada is West, not East. You'll find plenty of opportunities in Calgary, Alberta and even further West on the coast of British Columbia. Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada and has the best economy. We're in the only debt-free province in Canada thanks to oil. There are several options for commuting and Calgary doesn't suffer from the sprawl and clogged roads of other cities. It's very easy to take up cycling here.
Each company is different, but I'll suggest that extra vacation time will be difficult to negotiate.
I use a large binder to keep things together. The bills get hole-punched and inserted into the appropriate section and when you're ready to file the old ones, they're easy to access. Things like credit card receipts are paper-clipped or stapled to the invoices that they were charged to. I don't think it's the best right now, but it works better than our previous (non)filing system.
Re:I won't give them the satisfaction.
on
Paperless Billing?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The savings aren't that great...here's why: The cost of sending an invoice includes the cost of paper, printing, processing, and postage.
A little less than half the total cost is postage, per item. Your provider gets a discount on bulk mailing. When you choose to go electronic, the bulk discount gets upset and the remaining mailings cost more per item. It's not just the quantity in the mailing, but also the density. Cable companies usually get good density, whereas credit card companies probably don't.
The cost of processing is fairly static. As long as they're processing any mail, they have the same costs: printer/maintenance, warehouse, paper, etc. The less that they have to process, the worse the return on investment. At some point, if there's enough participation in online invoicing, the company will realize a greater savings by outsourcing their mailings (if they don't already). And depending on their contract, less mailing may not mean a linear cost reduction).
So, you'll probably not see the savings passed on until they can see concrete dollar savings themselves, which won't likely happen until the participation rate goes high enough. But even more likely is that the savings will be spread around more and you'll never see them because they'll be hidden in the delay of price increases on services.
...Ew...I think I've been infected by the Marketing Dept...
Re:Don't trust them for reminders to pay
on
Paperless Billing?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree...Don't rely on the e-mail as a reminder. Just because you don't get the bill, doesn't mean that you don't have to pay. Any company will gladly re-send the bill if you didn't receive it as expected.
Related to the original question, I work for a local cable co. and developed their e-mail bill notification software. Once the bill is sent we don't really care about keeping a copy ourselves. We record the transactions and are usually able to reproduce a bill that closely resembles the original. Since going to e-mail notification, we needed a way to store a static image of the last two bills. That's only for the customers convenience. As far as auditing goes, the only thing that makes any difference is the transactions. When you get the bill, we have to be able to prove that the items on the bill match the transactions that we have on file. There's too many customers to review them individually, so its always up to the customer to review their bill for accuracy (We've made a lot of mistakes that have cost us money and they rarely get reported... whereas, if you get overcharged, you'll bet we hear about it). Oh...and sometimes the paper bills have just as hard a time getting delivered.
This game's pretty fun: Give each person a piece of paper. Everyone writes a name, folds it over so no one can read it, and passes it to the person next to them. Then everyone writes an activity, folds it over, passes it on... continue with a place, a time, a reason...
Then we read each one out to everyone. It gets pretty silly after you've done it a couple of times. Even geeks can have fun with it.
The chain won't fall off. You're not using a derailleur to move the chain to switch gears. So there's no reason for it to fall off unless you've really stretched it or something else has worked loose.
The point is still that the actual ad content sucks. I'd stop blocking ads if I could trust that they would be appropriate. By appropriate, I mean that the ads aren't deceptive by using scare tactics or mimicking system warning messages. Who can focus on otherwise good content with a seizure inducing multicolor blinking message next to it that I can only associate with vomit? I also mean that appropriate ads can be viewed by all age groups (What do shampoo and sex have in common?...I'm sure there's a dumb answer, but I don't want to hear it either). I'm perfectly willing to support ads and sites with ads when I see some responsibility and decency in the ads. I'm not willing to put up with 1 in 100 bad ads either. We've got viewer ratings on content but not ads. I'll block them all until I can selectively block the offensive ones. It basically validates your point about the lack of ethical behaviour. I also agree that there's not a reasonable replacement for the business model. My method still works best for me. I trusted them and they've violated that trust. I'll continue block them until THEY can PROVE that they are trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to learn the Pomodoro Technique. It's all about learning to focus on a task for short periods. It has excellent techniques for deflecting distractions, both internal and external. Short description from the site:
The basic unit of work in the Pomodoro Technique can be split in five simple steps:
1. Choose a task to be accomplished
2. Set the Pomodoro to 25 minutes (the Pomodoro is the timer)
3. Work on the task until the Pomodoro rings, then put a check on your sheet of paper
4. Take a short break (5 minutes is OK)
5. Every 4 Pomodoros take a longer break
What I've found is that if the task itself isn't engaging, I tend to look for distractions. Hearing voices and conversations just makes it more difficult. Part of training yourself to tune it out involves more than just overpowering the noise. You'll need to handle disruptions such as the urge to check your email, handling phone calls, people touching you to break your trance, and even bio breaks.
The downloadable book takes a couple of hours to read, and it doesn't cost anything. There are also some software projects that are helpful as well.
Perhaps having a bell go off at regular intervals at your place of work may start to annoy everyone else. Then you can suggest that you'll trade the bell for your music. :-)
I can admit that a dinosaur might have been killed by an infection or parasite, but can someone explain how the carcass wouldn't rot or be consumed before a fossil can form.
My understanding is that the body would have to be immediately covered and pressure applied. This would be in line with a meteor/comet strike or similar effects.
Dinosaurs killed by a flu bug or whatever, couldn't have left us anything to determine a cause of death. The combination of environmental stresses seems plausible enough. Disease and starvation might wipe out whatever remained of those animals that survived the first strike.
What they're saying is: "We won't share our stuff with you, but you should share your stuff with us." What kind of double standard is that?
Sounds a bit like "snap to grid" too.
If you're going to port it, why not rewrite it for Linux? or cross-platform in Java?
If you can't rewrite it, run it under wine or in a VM.
And if they absolutely have to upgrade, upgrade to a real OS.
It's an interesting, but shallow point. I'm sure the GP understands that you can't punish someone for their thoughts. But there's a dangerous path to be followed when you put an idea in someone's head and give an avenue for repeated re-inforcement of that idea. You'd be stupid to argue that someone's actions didn't originate with a thought.
The argument I'm hearing is that, if you're of a sane mind, then it's ok to play degenerate games that desensitize the reaction to violence and horror as long as you don't act on it. He's pushing a poison that's sure to kill at least somebody. If the poison doesn't kill, it leaves irreversable damage in anyone it touches.
Wikipedia has more info on Farming (gaming):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_(gaming)
If there were a larger mass of water from melting, wouldn't more of it pile up at the equator due to centrifugal force?
Great idea...but what's the cost? Each added circuitry is going to add cost. Plus you'll need an engineer to set up the generator. You'll need to keep the hand-crank anyway because you won't always be near your generator. The foot pedal seems good too, but you'll need to stow it and the cord. What if the cord breaks? I think the current design is a great compromise between form, function, and flexibility.
You're saying you're smarter than God because you can explain how some of His creations work. When science explains the mysteries of our world and universe, it proves only that we learned something that God knew all along.
It's like saying that figuring out how Windows works means that Microsoft must not exist; though I wish it were true.
As you stated, "Just saying God did it is a shortcut that ends further investigation," is an excuse for lazy scientists. People have this notion that when God does something, that it is some "Miracle" that can't be explained; that it's something magic and beyond the realm of investigation.
Why can't God create something using natural means? Everyone here understands that a computer is ultimately based on tiny transistors and software instructions to control those, but to most of the population, it's magical and beyond the realm of comprehension. That said, the first reports of the biblical account of the creation would have reported the features of the creation, not the mechanics of it. That part is up to us to find out.
So, if you don't believe in God, that's up to you to work out. Leave the rest of us alone to discover "how" God did it. If you have something to contribute, then that's fine too. The more we understand His methods, the more we understand Him.
As believers and unbelievers, we should embrace science as a way to gain knowledge and truth. Both sides are letting their misunderstanding of religion to blind them and distract them from learning the truth about our world.
Just sayin...get along children and play nice.
I think that Velikovsky was born too early. He was the kind of pioneer that the early reformers were. His ideas were radical at the time and were ridiculed as unscientific simply because the ideas were different from established theories. Without his work, of which I am impressed of its depth and breadth, we would still be in the dark ages scientifically.
Why can't some scientists objectively approach these kinds of subjects instead of dismissing them outright without applying rational scrutiny. To suggest that his theories were flawed or some type of voodoo science is in itself unscientific.
Many arguments against Velikovsky's theories are supported by more theory, not fact. The theory of slow evolution of the earth's geologic features are still theory, NOT established fact. It's like two blind men arguing that an orange is yellow instead of red. They're both half right, but wrong together.
You seem confused. This is more proof that the Bible is accurate. It changes the nature of the stories from myth to fact.
When you consider that the writers didn't use the same language that we do, they may have been unable to clearly articulate what they witnessed. Compounding that problem is the loss of meaning in the translation to Greek and then English from the original Hebrew. The translators had never seen these types of things and wouldn't know how to explain them in a scientifically robust manner.
I suggest reading the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, such as Worlds in Collision or Earth in Upheaval. He came to the same conclusions and better, years before using a similar method. This is old news.
I agree that the parent should be modded flamebait.
Ok...real links this time (pdfs):
1 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df
6 -B45E-27B19D2959BC/0/CustomerPrivacyMediaApril2520 05.pdf
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E5
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/529CAF5B-2594-4FA
Shaw Cable, based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is well known for supporting customer privacy:
1 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df&ei=z5wEQ663Fb6sYeGhgOQI(pdf)
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E5
The technology centre of Canada is West, not East. You'll find plenty of opportunities in Calgary, Alberta and even further West on the coast of British Columbia. Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada and has the best economy. We're in the only debt-free province in Canada thanks to oil. There are several options for commuting and Calgary doesn't suffer from the sprawl and clogged roads of other cities. It's very easy to take up cycling here.
Each company is different, but I'll suggest that extra vacation time will be difficult to negotiate.
What!!!! In our moment of Triumph!!!!
I use a large binder to keep things together. The bills get hole-punched and inserted into the appropriate section and when you're ready to file the old ones, they're easy to access.
Things like credit card receipts are paper-clipped or stapled to the invoices that they were charged to.
I don't think it's the best right now, but it works better than our previous (non)filing system.
The cost of sending an invoice includes the cost of paper, printing, processing, and postage.
Your provider gets a discount on bulk mailing. When you choose to go electronic, the bulk discount gets upset and the remaining mailings cost more per item. It's not just the quantity in the mailing, but also the density. Cable companies usually get good density, whereas credit card companies probably don't.
So, you'll probably not see the savings passed on until they can see concrete dollar savings themselves, which won't likely happen until the participation rate goes high enough. But even more likely is that the savings will be spread around more and you'll never see them because they'll be hidden in the delay of price increases on services.
...Ew...I think I've been infected by the Marketing Dept...
I agree...Don't rely on the e-mail as a reminder. Just because you don't get the bill, doesn't mean that you don't have to pay. Any company will gladly re-send the bill if you didn't receive it as expected.
Related to the original question, I work for a local cable co. and developed their e-mail bill notification software. Once the bill is sent we don't really care about keeping a copy ourselves. We record the transactions and are usually able to reproduce a bill that closely resembles the original. Since going to e-mail notification, we needed a way to store a static image of the last two bills. That's only for the customers convenience. As far as auditing goes, the only thing that makes any difference is the transactions. When you get the bill, we have to be able to prove that the items on the bill match the transactions that we have on file. There's too many customers to review them individually, so its always up to the customer to review their bill for accuracy (We've made a lot of mistakes that have cost us money and they rarely get reported... whereas, if you get overcharged, you'll bet we hear about it).
Oh...and sometimes the paper bills have just as hard a time getting delivered.
This game's pretty fun:
Give each person a piece of paper.
Everyone writes a name, folds it over so no one can read it, and passes it to the person next to them.
Then everyone writes an activity, folds it over, passes it on...
continue with a place, a time, a reason...
Then we read each one out to everyone. It gets pretty silly after you've done it a couple of times. Even geeks can have fun with it.
The chain won't fall off. You're not using a derailleur to move the chain to switch gears. So there's no reason for it to fall off unless you've really stretched it or something else has worked loose.
The point is still that the actual ad content sucks. I'd stop blocking ads if I could trust that they would be appropriate.
By appropriate, I mean that the ads aren't deceptive by using scare tactics or mimicking system warning messages. Who can focus on otherwise good content with a seizure inducing multicolor blinking message next to it that I can only associate with vomit? I also mean that appropriate ads can be viewed by all age groups (What do shampoo and sex have in common?...I'm sure there's a dumb answer, but I don't want to hear it either).
I'm perfectly willing to support ads and sites with ads when I see some responsibility and decency in the ads. I'm not willing to put up with 1 in 100 bad ads either. We've got viewer ratings on content but not ads. I'll block them all until I can selectively block the offensive ones.
It basically validates your point about the lack of ethical behaviour. I also agree that there's not a reasonable replacement for the business model. My method still works best for me. I trusted them and they've violated that trust. I'll continue block them until THEY can PROVE that they are trustworthy.
vil business tactics?
Did you mean evil or vile? Maybe shorthand for evil and vile? Or is it an accent as in: "Ve vil cvush you!"
Didn't work for Qui-Gon in episode 1...Must have been in beta then?