And then there are those of us who don't get sick much and end up losing our "sick" days. At least PTO gives you a choice.
In my experience combined PTO that includes sick days means people who are sick come into the office and get other people sick rather than lose vacation days.
This hurts the company (and the employees who get sick more often as a result).
The company I work for frowns on workers who do not take time off. Management puts out on a regular occasion that paid time off is to be used, not stored.
And there is a legitimate reason management should do this. Perhaps they have studied the science behind this.
Numerous studies have shown that worker productivity increases with regular time off. The worker who takes 6 weeks of vacation in a year is going to get more done over the course of a year than a worker who takes 2 weeks. They may be out the office for an extra 4 weeks, but productivity increases enough that they get more done total.
Despite companies in the US resisting to increase vacation time, it's actually in their best interest to do so.
It suggests that smoking pot regularly and heavily is associated with around a 5% increased incidence in lung cancer, but N in the study is pretty small for me to be happy with this number.
I don't remember the article that I'm "reciting" from, it was one of the popular science type magazines (probably from around the same timeframe as that article, and maybe partially based upon it). The article was actually talking about the relative safety of marijuana, but stated the smoke was "x time worse" (x being something around the 10 mark). I think it mentioned something about lack of filters, etc.
It might have been poorly researched, I don't remember the details.
From your article 5% increase in risk would indicate a "per-puff" more dangerous smoking product than tobacco when you consider people probably average less than 1 a day. I can't imagine many people use more than 5 a week.
That said, pot smokers are probably more likely to be tobacco smokers than non pot-smokers, so that 5% could be correlation not causation.
There are no long term effects -- if you quit, it clears out of your system end of story. There isn't even a particularly solid link between weed and e.g. lung cancer, although it wouldn't surprise anybody if smoke of any sort is a factor in inflammation, which in turn is a factor in cancer.
I can't remember the exact statistics, but, I think I recall the volume of carcinogens in Marijuana smoke (many being the same as in cigarettes) is somewhere around the 1000% that of an average tobacco cigarette. (I could be off a few hundred % there in one direction or the other- point being, its multiple times worse)
Now, that number is pretty misleading. Yeah, an individual smoke me be 10 times as *um* high, but no-one chain smokes Marijuana. (at least I hope not).
Your average cigarette smoker probably smokes way more than 10 times more frequently than your average pot-head. Cigarette smoker over their lifetime is going to get a lot more risk for lung cancer. Pot head is going to have a higher risk too but probably not in the range of a smoker.
Another problem is that they ignore the quality of the experience. A sugar pill is safe but it would be silly to say it is the "best" drug since it doesn't do anything.
They didn't say Shrooms were the "Best" drug, they said the safest. Two very different things. "Best" would surely be subjective.
"Green" land was an example of medieval marketing BS. The reason it is called "Green" land was the same reason almost every state in the US has a city called "Mount Pleasant", "Greenville", and "Springfield".
It's to make the place sound inviting. Norsemen were trying to establish permanent colonies on Greenland, and wanted to attract people with the prospect of a green fertile island. (it was in reality, a cold frigid place)
Yes, there was a few hundred years in the medieval period where the earth warmed slightly. And, yes, Greenland was slightly warmer than today. It still was a harsh, frigid place to live and work, and even colonies set up back then tended to collapse because of the harsh conditions. It was hard to get permanent settlements to thrive.
Maybe a first step in terraforming Mars. And does this "shield" keep particles in as well as out? If it works both ways it could help prevent atmospheric depletion and allow bulking up the atmosphere on celestial bodies that have lost their magnetic fields. Lake Armstrong here we come! And maybe even generation ships crossing interstellar distances.
Would it work without the magnetic field of the earth? It appears to be interacting with Earth's magnetic field. Mars has a much weaker magnetic field, I don't know if the magnetic field is important for it to work, if it is, this wouldn't work on Mars.
If you can get people there without the proteins in their brain being denatured by radiation, maybe you could keep them that way for extended periods without their brains turning into scrambled eggs.
It wouldn't work on Mars because there are no oceans to put Submarines in to communicate with.
The problem isn't diversity, it's when diversity becomes the replacement for the plot. And the marketing department knows it. If the movie's funny, push the funny. If it sucks, push the diversity. And they do it.
I guess we'll find out when it is released (or in my case, I'll find out a few years later when it's on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime because I sure as hell won't be paying for a CBS equivalent of Netflix).
My problem with most people's reactions is that they're assuming it's all about race and gender without any plot when a single episode hasn't even been made yet. By leaping to those assumptions people are essentially saying black woman are incapable of playing a leading role without making it about race and gender.
If the show does turn out to just be about "look how black I am, and look how female I am" without having a plot... then I will agree, that people have a write to pan the show. However, I think it's quite a leap for so many people to be saying it's all about race and gender when a single episode hasn't even aired yet.
Look at the leads in the last two Star Wars movies, they were both white, and both built up as perfect Mary-Sues, they could do no wrong. You don't have to be a minority to be portrayed as an infallible character. I'm trying to think back to the last show I watched with a minority lead (embarrassingly, I think it was Luther about 6 months ago, or Marco Polo I watched around the same time... I don't watch much TV though).
Luther is certainly a very flawed individual. In Marco Polo, Kublai (who is arguably more central to Marco Polo than Marco Polo is) is well developed, despite being portrayed as a wise leader, he certainly had plenty of flaws. His evil arab adopted son is certainly VERY flawed.
Will the new leading lady in Star Trek be flawed? Hard to say, but Star Trek has a long history of creating characters that are nearly perfect. It's very rare for Star Trek to have any characters with major flaws, black or white. (at least not if they're good guys).
When they do have flawed good guys, they normally use it to spin their flaw as being a positive thing.
Probably a character building name. I'm sure being a girl named Michael she got bullied in school. Probably will have some flashback to being a bullied child when facing a Romulan and start screaming "Please don't give me a wedgie... PLEEEAAAASSSEEE!"
I somehow doubt that many of them care that a black woman got the lead role. Else they would have been up in arms about Sisko and Janeway, too.
My guess is that they fear that this becomes the main topic of the show. Look, we are so cool, hip and progressive, we have a black captain, look at her, she is so great, she is so awesome, she is so black and she is so female!
Yes. We got it. We don't give a shit. Can we now have, you know, A PLOT?
If that happens- I will pan it. But to assume that that will happen just because she is black is worrying.
I didn't watch DS9 much because it was so boring a soap-opera-y but I don't recall the plots being about him being black. Voyager wasn't about Janeway being a woman either.
I somehow think it rather presumptuous for so many people to assume this is going to be ABOUT either of those things. The world is definitely a lot more racist than it was when those two shows were on the air. In a world with Brexit, and Trump winning, and someone as blatantly racist as Marine Le Pen in France putting in a strong fight, I would say the world IS a racist exclusionist place right now. Certainly moreso than the 90's when we as a species were trying to be more inclusive. I think we ARE facing a backlash against too much political correctness and the result is a wave of racism, sexism, and otherthingsism.
If Star Trek cast a black female captain in 1999 people wouldn't be bitching about it as much as they are now.
With the difference maybe being that the average 1967 audience was a bit more racist (or at the very least way more tolerant to racism) than people are today...
Based on most of the tone in this thread where so many people are up in arms and angry that the lead role went to a black woman, I'm not sure the 1967 audience WAS more racist than the current audience.
Why not have a nonhuman captain and a crew of humans and aliens that has to deal with it?
Because, ultimately, Star Trek, like many Science Fiction shows has always been about "humanity" and the "human condition". Most of the best science fiction is about looking at humanity through a different angle (hence the "sci-fi" part is usually to look at humans in a "what if" scenario, it's easier to examine issues and morality by separating it from the everyday normal).
Now, what's that got to do with your question? Well, if the alien is captain it takes the spotlight off humanity since the captain frequently becomes the focus. All the Star Trek characters had aliens, not to look at aliens, but to look at humans.
Data is the classic example, he's the Pinocchio of the series, the puppet that wanted to be human. Seven-Of-Nine another classic example, a human separated from humanity by the Borg trying to rediscover what it is to be human.
These characters were loosely based on Spock, not to be like him but to fill the same role. Spock didn't want to be human of course, but his "differentness" was frequently a plot device to compare him to humans and humanity.
You probably COULD have an alien captain, but then the screenwriters would have to work harder and more creatively to write stories about humanity and human morals. A human captain makes it easier to work those into the plots.
Slashdot Mirror
And then there are those of us who don't get sick much and end up losing our "sick" days. At least PTO gives you a choice.
In my experience combined PTO that includes sick days means people who are sick come into the office and get other people sick rather than lose vacation days.
This hurts the company (and the employees who get sick more often as a result).
The company I work for frowns on workers who do not take time off. Management puts out on a regular occasion that paid time off is to be used, not stored.
And there is a legitimate reason management should do this. Perhaps they have studied the science behind this.
Numerous studies have shown that worker productivity increases with regular time off. The worker who takes 6 weeks of vacation in a year is going to get more done over the course of a year than a worker who takes 2 weeks. They may be out the office for an extra 4 weeks, but productivity increases enough that they get more done total.
Despite companies in the US resisting to increase vacation time, it's actually in their best interest to do so.
Is it safer than ibuprofen? That's a drug and there's not a lot of recreational value there either.
Have you tried smokin' some profen? Ibuprofen brownies anyone?
I've heard this argument, but it is difficult to back with actual statistics. Here's an article from 2008 that looks comparatively clean:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
It suggests that smoking pot regularly and heavily is associated with around a 5% increased incidence in lung cancer, but N in the study is pretty small for me to be happy with this number.
I don't remember the article that I'm "reciting" from, it was one of the popular science type magazines (probably from around the same timeframe as that article, and maybe partially based upon it). The article was actually talking about the relative safety of marijuana, but stated the smoke was "x time worse" (x being something around the 10 mark). I think it mentioned something about lack of filters, etc.
It might have been poorly researched, I don't remember the details.
From your article 5% increase in risk would indicate a "per-puff" more dangerous smoking product than tobacco when you consider people probably average less than 1 a day. I can't imagine many people use more than 5 a week.
That said, pot smokers are probably more likely to be tobacco smokers than non pot-smokers, so that 5% could be correlation not causation.
There are no long term effects -- if you quit, it clears out of your system end of story. There isn't even a particularly solid link between weed and e.g. lung cancer, although it wouldn't surprise anybody if smoke of any sort is a factor in inflammation, which in turn is a factor in cancer.
I can't remember the exact statistics, but, I think I recall the volume of carcinogens in Marijuana smoke (many being the same as in cigarettes) is somewhere around the 1000% that of an average tobacco cigarette. (I could be off a few hundred % there in one direction or the other- point being, its multiple times worse)
Now, that number is pretty misleading. Yeah, an individual smoke me be 10 times as *um* high, but no-one chain smokes Marijuana. (at least I hope not).
Your average cigarette smoker probably smokes way more than 10 times more frequently than your average pot-head. Cigarette smoker over their lifetime is going to get a lot more risk for lung cancer. Pot head is going to have a higher risk too but probably not in the range of a smoker.
Another problem is that they ignore the quality of the experience. A sugar pill is safe but it would be silly to say it is the "best" drug since it doesn't do anything.
They didn't say Shrooms were the "Best" drug, they said the safest. Two very different things. "Best" would surely be subjective.
I took a Pole once and got charged with the federal crime of kidnapping.
A poll of 10 people revealed 9/10 thought taking a Pole was a bad idea.
"Green" land was an example of medieval marketing BS. The reason it is called "Green" land was the same reason almost every state in the US has a city called "Mount Pleasant", "Greenville", and "Springfield".
It's to make the place sound inviting. Norsemen were trying to establish permanent colonies on Greenland, and wanted to attract people with the prospect of a green fertile island. (it was in reality, a cold frigid place)
Yes, there was a few hundred years in the medieval period where the earth warmed slightly. And, yes, Greenland was slightly warmer than today. It still was a harsh, frigid place to live and work, and even colonies set up back then tended to collapse because of the harsh conditions. It was hard to get permanent settlements to thrive.
But in reality, a watch is quite impractical because the time gets all blurry from the motion of your wrist when you masturbate.
Yes, and a watch is very important during those times because you have to keep an eye on you watch to make sure you don't go beyond 4 hrs.
Maybe a first step in terraforming Mars. And does this "shield" keep particles in as well as out? If it works both ways it could help prevent atmospheric depletion and allow bulking up the atmosphere on celestial bodies that have lost their magnetic fields. Lake Armstrong here we come! And maybe even generation ships crossing interstellar distances.
Would it work without the magnetic field of the earth? It appears to be interacting with Earth's magnetic field. Mars has a much weaker magnetic field, I don't know if the magnetic field is important for it to work, if it is, this wouldn't work on Mars.
Perhaps if we can emit VLF radiation at very high frequency
If we emit Very Low Frequency radiation at very high frequency it won't be very low frequency any more.
Hmmm... Ok. So we can't increase the frequency, but what if we just took this Very Low Frequency radiation and shortened the wavelength?
Or you could change the Lambda instead.
Mediocre Frequency?
If you can get people there without the proteins in their brain being denatured by radiation, maybe you could keep them that way for extended periods without their brains turning into scrambled eggs.
It wouldn't work on Mars because there are no oceans to put Submarines in to communicate with.
/ yes I'm being facetious.
Because the impenetrable layer is penetrable.
Perhaps if we can emit VLF radiation at very high frequency
If we emit Very Low Frequency radiation at very high frequency it won't be very low frequency any more.
"a RIGHT" not "a WRITE".
/ insert Picard palm face here.
The problem isn't diversity, it's when diversity becomes the replacement for the plot. And the marketing department knows it. If the movie's funny, push the funny. If it sucks, push the diversity. And they do it.
I guess we'll find out when it is released (or in my case, I'll find out a few years later when it's on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime because I sure as hell won't be paying for a CBS equivalent of Netflix).
My problem with most people's reactions is that they're assuming it's all about race and gender without any plot when a single episode hasn't even been made yet. By leaping to those assumptions people are essentially saying black woman are incapable of playing a leading role without making it about race and gender.
If the show does turn out to just be about "look how black I am, and look how female I am" without having a plot... then I will agree, that people have a write to pan the show. However, I think it's quite a leap for so many people to be saying it's all about race and gender when a single episode hasn't even aired yet.
Look at the leads in the last two Star Wars movies, they were both white, and both built up as perfect Mary-Sues, they could do no wrong. You don't have to be a minority to be portrayed as an infallible character. I'm trying to think back to the last show I watched with a minority lead (embarrassingly, I think it was Luther about 6 months ago, or Marco Polo I watched around the same time... I don't watch much TV though).
Luther is certainly a very flawed individual. In Marco Polo, Kublai (who is arguably more central to Marco Polo than Marco Polo is) is well developed, despite being portrayed as a wise leader, he certainly had plenty of flaws. His evil arab adopted son is certainly VERY flawed.
Will the new leading lady in Star Trek be flawed? Hard to say, but Star Trek has a long history of creating characters that are nearly perfect. It's very rare for Star Trek to have any characters with major flaws, black or white. (at least not if they're good guys).
When they do have flawed good guys, they normally use it to spin their flaw as being a positive thing.
Probably a character building name. I'm sure being a girl named Michael she got bullied in school. Probably will have some flashback to being a bullied child when facing a Romulan and start screaming "Please don't give me a wedgie... PLEEEAAAASSSEEE!"
I somehow doubt that many of them care that a black woman got the lead role. Else they would have been up in arms about Sisko and Janeway, too.
My guess is that they fear that this becomes the main topic of the show. Look, we are so cool, hip and progressive, we have a black captain, look at her, she is so great, she is so awesome, she is so black and she is so female!
Yes. We got it. We don't give a shit. Can we now have, you know, A PLOT?
If that happens- I will pan it. But to assume that that will happen just because she is black is worrying.
I didn't watch DS9 much because it was so boring a soap-opera-y but I don't recall the plots being about him being black.
Voyager wasn't about Janeway being a woman either.
I somehow think it rather presumptuous for so many people to assume this is going to be ABOUT either of those things. The world is definitely a lot more racist than it was when those two shows were on the air. In a world with Brexit, and Trump winning, and someone as blatantly racist as Marine Le Pen in France putting in a strong fight, I would say the world IS a racist exclusionist place right now. Certainly moreso than the 90's when we as a species were trying to be more inclusive. I think we ARE facing a backlash against too much political correctness and the result is a wave of racism, sexism, and otherthingsism.
If Star Trek cast a black female captain in 1999 people wouldn't be bitching about it as much as they are now.
Hi boys! I’m looking for my lovely man!
Then you came to the wrong place, this is Slashdot, hope you like fat hairy unwashed bellies, scruffy neckbeards, and cheeto stained scrotums.
Wait the new Captain is a female with the name Michael? I am confused already.
I've known a few girls named Michael over the years, it's usually a boys name but it can be a girls name too.
Oh, and she's the first officer not captain.
With the difference maybe being that the average 1967 audience was a bit more racist (or at the very least way more tolerant to racism) than people are today...
Based on most of the tone in this thread where so many people are up in arms and angry that the lead role went to a black woman, I'm not sure the 1967 audience WAS more racist than the current audience.
Why not have a nonhuman captain and a crew of humans and aliens that has to deal with it?
Because, ultimately, Star Trek, like many Science Fiction shows has always been about "humanity" and the "human condition". Most of the best science fiction is about looking at humanity through a different angle (hence the "sci-fi" part is usually to look at humans in a "what if" scenario, it's easier to examine issues and morality by separating it from the everyday normal).
Now, what's that got to do with your question? Well, if the alien is captain it takes the spotlight off humanity since the captain frequently becomes the focus. All the Star Trek characters had aliens, not to look at aliens, but to look at humans.
Data is the classic example, he's the Pinocchio of the series, the puppet that wanted to be human.
Seven-Of-Nine another classic example, a human separated from humanity by the Borg trying to rediscover what it is to be human.
These characters were loosely based on Spock, not to be like him but to fill the same role. Spock didn't want to be human of course, but his "differentness" was frequently a plot device to compare him to humans and humanity.
You probably COULD have an alien captain, but then the screenwriters would have to work harder and more creatively to write stories about humanity and human morals. A human captain makes it easier to work those into the plots.
That's why I don't let my pet fruit fly operate a cell phone whilst flying.