According to the bag of peas in my freezer, I'd need to eat 1.9 pounds / day to get the RDA. Regardless, since I wasn't some kind of pea-eating rich man at the time, I was only eating a small amount - I would fry the rice and add some peas and soy sauce to make it less boring. Not nearly enough to meet vitamin requirements.
I have some friends who are teachers at a school in a rich neighborhood in New York City, so I've gotten quite an earful about what an awful idea this is. New York did something similar with their public schools: "parents should have the 'freedom' to choose among the schools available, to pick what's best for their kids."
Result: the children of parents who care and who are fast enough get to go to school in their neighborhoods. Other children spend three hours commuting every day. The schools in rich neighborhoods tend to be the worst ones, since the rich folks send their kids to private school. So almost none of the children in those schools are local.
It is not exclusively a matter of responsibility. The birth rate is strongly tied to the availability of affordable birth control. Condoms are great and all, glad you're using them, but when you buy them in the drug store they're upwards of $1 each. That's expensive for a disposable piece of single-use rubber.
If you're going to hold people accountable, you first have to give them every opportunity to act responsibly. Like the GP said, in many parts of the country abortions are harder to get than is really reasonable, and it's only very recently with the Affordable Care Act that heath care programs cover birth control.
You CAN NOT expect people to live on rice and lettuce because "they are poor, so they don't deserve any better food".
I ate nothing but rice and peas for a while back when I was younger, because I couldn't afford anything else. After my gums started receding and my hair started falling out I talked to the doctor. He said I had scurvy.
You seem to be implying that meat consumption means that you don't have to pay attention to what you eat. Really, it just seems like your girlfriend was more conscientious about her diet than you were. Which maybe isn't that surprising - being vegan implies that you're paying attention to what you eat.
Government programs are usually, not always, more efficient than private counterparts. Medicare, for example, operates at an 8% overhead, while insurance companies were complaining that the 15% overhead that the Affordable Care Act allows them was untenable. The advantage that private industry has is in innovation, not efficiency.
It's the government's job to promote the economy and maintain public resources. In this case that meant pushing clean energy, both as a long-term economic goal and as a means of environmental conservation. There are many ways that the government can work towards objectives like this one, one way is to give money to private organizations and another is to simply go ahead and do it. You're asking me why I have the preference that I do: one factor is that giving public money to private companies is one avenue, the most traveled avenue, for corruption. So this always makes me pause. Even when everything is above board, this isn't taking advantage of the system that we've set up for ourselves - the market and private companies are there as a source of innovation. Innovation can sometimes lead to efficiency, and that's great and all, but when you're looking to just get something done as smoothly as possible you're not looking for new methods and creative ways of thinking about the problem. If we're looking to flood the country with solar panels then we can do it ourselves, there's no need to go through some roundabout public/private process.
He's a shill because he's phrasing his criticism of the president (in the middle of a conversation about the governor of New Jersey) in a way that implies neutrality. He claims to be talking about corruption in government, and yet for some reason every one of his examples (other than "the fed") is either related to the president or is claimed to relate to the president. Again, in a conversation that has nothing to do with the president.
The reason he ignored GP's comments is because it's been done to death. Anyone reading this who doesn't know the reasoning behind each of those is blinded by partisanship.
Briefly though, because the Solyndra BS pisses me off more than any of the others:
I would fucking *love it* if the federal government would start making solar panels and selling them to people directly, but certain agitators would start screaming about socialism if the money isn't given to private interests instead. When you give money to to private companies there's always the chance that they'll go bankrupt. That's how it works. If you look at the whole program, rather than just at Solyndra, most of the companies did fine - a better success rate than most programs like this one.
Oh, come on. This was revealed, what? Two days ago? You're angry because convictions don't happen instantaneously? You can get angry about this is in a few months when we find out that the prosecutor has decided to drop the investigation. You're really jumping the gun here.
The Federalists didn't exist until after the constitution was already in place. The people who would become the federalists certainly had a lot of influence over what went into the constitution, but so did Jefferson and the rest of the people who would become the Democratic Republicans. That's sorta the point: a constitution isn't just any bill, where you can tolerate a certain amount of legislative impropriety. A constitution needs consensus. If the Egyptians had accepted the constitution that Morsi had slipped through, they would have effectively been giving him and his party the power to dictate the future of the country. Likewise, rejecting the constitution meant rejecting Morsi.
What I'm saying is that they had plenty of reason to get rid of him, and plenty of reasons to celebrate his ousting (as many of them did). There may or may not be ties between the Egyptian military and the United States, but regardless of that those ties cannot be assumed to be the reason for the coup.
Morsi isn't a great example, he was ousted for slipping in a constitution favorable to him and his party though a bit of parliamentary trickery. A better example might be Hammas in Gaza.
We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.
It seems to me that there's a significant call for a wearable display without an integrated camera. Losing the camera would make the glasses less funny lookin', would upset other people a lot less, and given that most of the functionality seems to be notifications and mapping, which don't have anything to do with the camera, there doesn't seem to be much loss.
I, at least, have no desire for Google Glass, but would quite like some otherwise normal glasses that could give me notifications.
The headline is stupid, tablet speed is largely irrelevant - your machine is either fast enough or it isn't. It's not like a PC, where framerate is a moving target.
None the less, the Tegra Note does have a standout feature in the style that you're asking for: it's the cheapest tablet by far to support a pressure sensitive stylus, and supposedly it works quite well. I've considered one of these (over a Nexus 7-2) for the sake of have a little sketch pad.
A company gains profit by doing something in the market better than it's competitors.
What you're describing is revenue, not profit. A company may gain a first-mover advantage by identifying a new market segment, and gain revenue from catering to that segment, but increasing profits means exploiting that advantage to raise prices (shafting customers), lower wages (shafting employees), or reduce expenses by squeezing suppliers.
There aren't a lot of careers that link your salary to your productivity. It's usually not possible - how would you suggest doing that for a social media startup? Pay employees by total lines of code written? By smallest number of bugs? These sorts of things have been tried by many companies, but they always seem to create detrimental incentives. If you pay by lines of code then you're telling your employees to use longer, sloppier code. You're also punishing them for helping out around the office in any way that doesn't involve writing code.
The method that has stood the test of time is to hire employees who have a good work ethic and fire those who don't. If all of your employees are helpful, contributing employees, then paying a standard wage isn't a problem.
I realize that I'm not adding much to the conversation by saying this, but: Woohoo! Sequester! Yeah! Praise be to our elected representatives, dedicated to stopping anything that might resemble compromise. There's no government like no government.
This is a poor example. Chicago public schools are actually reasonably good, their record is worse than competing private schools because the public schools are required to admit the problem students while the private schools can just push them away. If you control for high-risk students the graduation rate is about the same.
No, it is not "profitable" at all. It is a pyramid scam, even if it is a complicated one.
Thank you for using the word pyramid. I've seen "Ponzi" so many times in relation to Bitcoin, despite being utterly unrelated. And then the Bitcoin defenders come out and say, "No, it isn't a Ponzi scheme." and of course they're correct, even though that's missing the point entirely.
Back when OCZ was a memory company, they provided really excellent service the couple of times that I had to deal with them. And lifetime warranties for their RAM. They were also pretty much the only good option available in Canada that wasn't way too expensive. I'm genuinely very sorry to see them go.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the bag of peas in my freezer, I'd need to eat 1.9 pounds / day to get the RDA. Regardless, since I wasn't some kind of pea-eating rich man at the time, I was only eating a small amount - I would fry the rice and add some peas and soy sauce to make it less boring. Not nearly enough to meet vitamin requirements.
Agreed. I suspect that they never got the sales that they needed to make Farmville-style paid DLC to be viable.
I have some friends who are teachers at a school in a rich neighborhood in New York City, so I've gotten quite an earful about what an awful idea this is. New York did something similar with their public schools: "parents should have the 'freedom' to choose among the schools available, to pick what's best for their kids."
Result: the children of parents who care and who are fast enough get to go to school in their neighborhoods. Other children spend three hours commuting every day. The schools in rich neighborhoods tend to be the worst ones, since the rich folks send their kids to private school. So almost none of the children in those schools are local.
It is not exclusively a matter of responsibility. The birth rate is strongly tied to the availability of affordable birth control. Condoms are great and all, glad you're using them, but when you buy them in the drug store they're upwards of $1 each. That's expensive for a disposable piece of single-use rubber.
If you're going to hold people accountable, you first have to give them every opportunity to act responsibly. Like the GP said, in many parts of the country abortions are harder to get than is really reasonable, and it's only very recently with the Affordable Care Act that heath care programs cover birth control.
You CAN NOT expect people to live on rice and lettuce because "they are poor, so they don't deserve any better food".
I ate nothing but rice and peas for a while back when I was younger, because I couldn't afford anything else. After my gums started receding and my hair started falling out I talked to the doctor. He said I had scurvy.
Why should anyone the right to create more people with no consequences?
I don't see why this is a problem exclusively surrounding poor people. We live in an overcrowded world.
You seem to be implying that meat consumption means that you don't have to pay attention to what you eat. Really, it just seems like your girlfriend was more conscientious about her diet than you were. Which maybe isn't that surprising - being vegan implies that you're paying attention to what you eat.
Government programs are usually, not always, more efficient than private counterparts. Medicare, for example, operates at an 8% overhead, while insurance companies were complaining that the 15% overhead that the Affordable Care Act allows them was untenable. The advantage that private industry has is in innovation, not efficiency.
It's the government's job to promote the economy and maintain public resources. In this case that meant pushing clean energy, both as a long-term economic goal and as a means of environmental conservation. There are many ways that the government can work towards objectives like this one, one way is to give money to private organizations and another is to simply go ahead and do it. You're asking me why I have the preference that I do: one factor is that giving public money to private companies is one avenue, the most traveled avenue, for corruption. So this always makes me pause. Even when everything is above board, this isn't taking advantage of the system that we've set up for ourselves - the market and private companies are there as a source of innovation. Innovation can sometimes lead to efficiency, and that's great and all, but when you're looking to just get something done as smoothly as possible you're not looking for new methods and creative ways of thinking about the problem. If we're looking to flood the country with solar panels then we can do it ourselves, there's no need to go through some roundabout public/private process.
He's a shill because he's phrasing his criticism of the president (in the middle of a conversation about the governor of New Jersey) in a way that implies neutrality. He claims to be talking about corruption in government, and yet for some reason every one of his examples (other than "the fed") is either related to the president or is claimed to relate to the president. Again, in a conversation that has nothing to do with the president.
The reason he ignored GP's comments is because it's been done to death. Anyone reading this who doesn't know the reasoning behind each of those is blinded by partisanship.
Briefly though, because the Solyndra BS pisses me off more than any of the others:
I would fucking *love it* if the federal government would start making solar panels and selling them to people directly, but certain agitators would start screaming about socialism if the money isn't given to private interests instead. When you give money to to private companies there's always the chance that they'll go bankrupt. That's how it works. If you look at the whole program, rather than just at Solyndra, most of the companies did fine - a better success rate than most programs like this one.
Oh, come on. This was revealed, what? Two days ago? You're angry because convictions don't happen instantaneously? You can get angry about this is in a few months when we find out that the prosecutor has decided to drop the investigation. You're really jumping the gun here.
I'd say the other main difference is that there was no standing army back then.
The Federalists didn't exist until after the constitution was already in place. The people who would become the federalists certainly had a lot of influence over what went into the constitution, but so did Jefferson and the rest of the people who would become the Democratic Republicans. That's sorta the point: a constitution isn't just any bill, where you can tolerate a certain amount of legislative impropriety. A constitution needs consensus. If the Egyptians had accepted the constitution that Morsi had slipped through, they would have effectively been giving him and his party the power to dictate the future of the country. Likewise, rejecting the constitution meant rejecting Morsi.
What I'm saying is that they had plenty of reason to get rid of him, and plenty of reasons to celebrate his ousting (as many of them did). There may or may not be ties between the Egyptian military and the United States, but regardless of that those ties cannot be assumed to be the reason for the coup.
Vietnam is a better example of a middle eastern country with democratically elected leaders?
Morsi isn't a great example, he was ousted for slipping in a constitution favorable to him and his party though a bit of parliamentary trickery. A better example might be Hammas in Gaza.
We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.
It seems to me that there's a significant call for a wearable display without an integrated camera. Losing the camera would make the glasses less funny lookin', would upset other people a lot less, and given that most of the functionality seems to be notifications and mapping, which don't have anything to do with the camera, there doesn't seem to be much loss.
I, at least, have no desire for Google Glass, but would quite like some otherwise normal glasses that could give me notifications.
The headline is stupid, tablet speed is largely irrelevant - your machine is either fast enough or it isn't. It's not like a PC, where framerate is a moving target.
None the less, the Tegra Note does have a standout feature in the style that you're asking for: it's the cheapest tablet by far to support a pressure sensitive stylus, and supposedly it works quite well. I've considered one of these (over a Nexus 7-2) for the sake of have a little sketch pad.
I'm not going to be satisfied until I see an Antarctic expedition on Segway.
A company gains profit by doing something in the market better than it's competitors.
What you're describing is revenue, not profit. A company may gain a first-mover advantage by identifying a new market segment, and gain revenue from catering to that segment, but increasing profits means exploiting that advantage to raise prices (shafting customers), lower wages (shafting employees), or reduce expenses by squeezing suppliers.
There aren't a lot of careers that link your salary to your productivity. It's usually not possible - how would you suggest doing that for a social media startup? Pay employees by total lines of code written? By smallest number of bugs? These sorts of things have been tried by many companies, but they always seem to create detrimental incentives. If you pay by lines of code then you're telling your employees to use longer, sloppier code. You're also punishing them for helping out around the office in any way that doesn't involve writing code.
The method that has stood the test of time is to hire employees who have a good work ethic and fire those who don't. If all of your employees are helpful, contributing employees, then paying a standard wage isn't a problem.
That didn't choose Silverlight based on "hype," they chose Silverlight because flash didn't offer DRM'd video streaming.
Sure the law was completely unjust by modern standards
The law was unjust. Standards can change, but when you criminalize existing it is always unjust.
I realize that I'm not adding much to the conversation by saying this, but: Woohoo! Sequester! Yeah! Praise be to our elected representatives, dedicated to stopping anything that might resemble compromise. There's no government like no government.
This is a poor example. Chicago public schools are actually reasonably good, their record is worse than competing private schools because the public schools are required to admit the problem students while the private schools can just push them away. If you control for high-risk students the graduation rate is about the same.
No, it is not "profitable" at all. It is a pyramid scam, even if it is a complicated one.
Thank you for using the word pyramid. I've seen "Ponzi" so many times in relation to Bitcoin, despite being utterly unrelated. And then the Bitcoin defenders come out and say, "No, it isn't a Ponzi scheme." and of course they're correct, even though that's missing the point entirely.
Back when OCZ was a memory company, they provided really excellent service the couple of times that I had to deal with them. And lifetime warranties for their RAM. They were also pretty much the only good option available in Canada that wasn't way too expensive. I'm genuinely very sorry to see them go.