Amazon won by being more efficient than the companies it wiped out. That frequently means they use fewer employees or pay less. It's impossible to say, but I suspect Amazon has caused a net loss in jobs.
Counter to that though, it has probably made, for those of us still with decent-paying jobs, an increase in our quality of life and lowering our cost of living. So bad for some, good for others.
Be that as it may, ice sheets move, it's well known from contemporary histories that Greenland had large ice coverings when Erik the Red was exiled there and named it Greenland to try and get people to join him there from the warmer island of Iceland.
Yeah, Ironically, the worry is global warming will make Europe colder (it is at the same latitude as Canada but is saved the brutal cold because of warming ocean currents).
If the ice melts, especially if it melts quickly, the relative lower salinity that results in the Northern Atlantic could screw up the ocean currents. That warm water that makes Europe warmer than say, Mongolia and Siberia no longer warms Europe. Europe freezes over like much of Canada.
Historically, the artic, has, Been ice free. If you look at the history of the Vikings, you will notice an odd naming of Greenland.
Greenland wasn't named Greenland because it was green, it was named Greenland much for the same reason the US is full of small towns named "Greenville", "Mt Pleasant", "Pleasantville", "Spring Valley". It would have been hard getting a colony going if they called it "Frozen Piece of Shitland". By giving it a pleasant sounding name they hoped to attract people to come move there, as, for rather obvious reasons, most Danes were reluctant to move there.
Narrow enough, You could probably place a lock at the straights of Gibraltar if there was a desire. Even as far back as world war 2, Germany had envisioned doing such a thing if they won the war- they also planed on lowering the water level of the Mediterranean substantially.
Back when smoking was more popular in South Carolina every stop sign and traffic light had butts littered all around them where drivers had stopped and flicked them out. It was really quite disgusting.
I've had Americans tell me that my English is amazing, I sound almost fluent. (I'm English). I've also had an American say "I love your accent, are you from Korea" (I'm not asian).
For instance, "Do Birds Fly?" or "Is ice hotter than the Sun?" are questions that even full-on amnesiacs can answer correctly.
Also, 70% seems like a pretty horrible accuracy rate. For yes/no answers to such super-simple questions, the success rate should be 100% or close to it.
Yes, but if you ask someone if birds fly- they might think about penguins or emu, or ostrich, or dodo, or one of the other flightless birds.
OK Mr. Jurgenmeyer, I am going to ask you a question. Are you OK with me sleeping with your wife? Lay very still and don't say anything if you approve of me doing this. Jump up and down and pat your belly if you'd rather I not sleep with your wife whilst you're in a coma.
Tesla doesn't have any descendants, to complain about it.
I think it is a wonderful homage to Tesla rather than a gratuitous use of his name. Newton's name has been invoked by companies. Faraday's name has been used.
The names are homages to the great scientists. I don't think anyone thinks Nikola Tesla founded the car company- or that Sir Isaac Newton worked with JSON or that Faraday's future was to create over ambitious cars that no one wanted to buy.
Sorry, I meant to imply anyone who had smoked recently but is indeed past tense. When someone has smoked recently, they frequently don't realize the smell hangs around for hours.
The problem is that when you follow an unhealthy lifestyle, society ultimately pays the price.
You make a valid point for people living in countries that actually have a public health care system instead of some backwards "rich people deserve better medical care" system. I agree with you- if something costs public health care extra money there might be a justification. Are we going to have a "sit on your bum all day" tax as well though for people who don't exercise?
Again though, make it relative. If government pays health care costs then, fine, add a 1% unhealthy-choice tax on pizza or ice-cream. The point should be about recouping costs though, not being punitive or trying to force some sort of morality. If you can justify a cost by empirically saying "eating this Ice Cream will cost the public 1cent more in health costs" - fine add a cent to the cost of that ice-cream.
Saying you can't have a big drink because it's unhealthy or adding 20% to the cost of a chocolate bar because it's unhealthy isn't about recouping public health costs - it's about forcing a "be healthy" morality on lard-arses and being smug about what is vice and what isn't.
Yeah, people who eat burgers and pizza all the time probably should eat a salad and exercise from time to time, but I don't think it's really government's business to tell them that.
That's fine if you can justify- it costs the public tax payer "50p" per pack smoked. I don't think you can honestly say it costs the public tax payer £15 in health costs per pack smoked.
The extra tax in most countries has long surpassed the extra cost in healthcare. This is about punishing people who don't think the same way the people in charge do.
Many locations are trying to pass laws extending to diet and lifestyle. Some of them I approve of, some of them I don't.
I approve of ones that inform the consumer (show calorie content). I don't approve of ones that force the consumer to not have choice (New York banning drink size).
There is a right and a wrong way to handle this. The right way is to inform the consumer. This has been done pretty well most places regarding smoking. If you don't know smoking is bad and how bad it is... you're never going to know.
That said, if you know how bad smoking is and still do it- I might question your judgement, but I fully support your right to smoke (in private).
Whether it works or not the question is whether they [government] should be doing it.
I've never smoked in my life. I hate being around people who have smoked (I think they grow insensitive to the smell and don't realize how it permeates everything they own). That said, should government be in the business of making everyone stop smoking?
I'm fully behind keeping it out of kids hands. I'm fully behind banning smoking in the same room/car as children, and banning it in public spaces. I'm not behind taxing it so high that it ends up $30USD a box. If people really want to smoke- especially with the knowledge of how horribly bad it is for them, and they do it in their own space in their own time- why are we so dead set on stopping them. Almost seems like they're trying to criminalize smoking without actually having the balls to pass that legislation.
Stopping people smoking in private doesn't seem that different to trying to stop gay people having sex. WhyTF does it matter what someone does in their own home if no one is being harmed other than the smoker?
The world is moving at the moment to allow Marijuana to be legalized (I'm OK with that), but at the same time trying to kill smoking cigarettes. (both contain harmful compounds when smoked.
If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it? Government shouldn't be in the business of private morals.
Creativity comes from many sources, absolutely it appears some highs may stimulate creativity and conversely some seem to suppress creativity. Interestingly, lack of sleep is supposed to stimulate creativity too.
Whereas that is absolutely true, it makes me think of "Yoda". Yoda get's his meaning across in films, despite talking funny. If you or I went around talking like him, people would assume a few screws were loose. It takes that tiny fraction of a second to interpret "odd but understandable" language. When things are almost right, but not quite right it naturally gets on a lot of people's wick.
There might be a plus side to it though. I remember reading that students learn material better when they have a professor with an odd accent. When it takes more effort to understand what someone is saying, you're more likely to remember what they said.
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful double plus.
Amazon won by being more efficient than the companies it wiped out. That frequently means they use fewer employees or pay less. It's impossible to say, but I suspect Amazon has caused a net loss in jobs.
Counter to that though, it has probably made, for those of us still with decent-paying jobs, an increase in our quality of life and lowering our cost of living. So bad for some, good for others.
Be that as it may, ice sheets move, it's well known from contemporary histories that Greenland had large ice coverings when Erik the Red was exiled there and named it Greenland to try and get people to join him there from the warmer island of Iceland.
Yeah, Ironically, the worry is global warming will make Europe colder (it is at the same latitude as Canada but is saved the brutal cold because of warming ocean currents).
If the ice melts, especially if it melts quickly, the relative lower salinity that results in the Northern Atlantic could screw up the ocean currents. That warm water that makes Europe warmer than say, Mongolia and Siberia no longer warms Europe. Europe freezes over like much of Canada.
Historically, the artic, has, Been ice free. If you look at the history of the Vikings, you will notice an odd naming of Greenland.
Greenland wasn't named Greenland because it was green, it was named Greenland much for the same reason the US is full of small towns named "Greenville", "Mt Pleasant", "Pleasantville", "Spring Valley". It would have been hard getting a colony going if they called it "Frozen Piece of Shitland". By giving it a pleasant sounding name they hoped to attract people to come move there, as, for rather obvious reasons, most Danes were reluctant to move there.
Narrow enough, You could probably place a lock at the straights of Gibraltar if there was a desire. Even as far back as world war 2, Germany had envisioned doing such a thing if they won the war- they also planed on lowering the water level of the Mediterranean substantially.
Amazon Planes must be seaplanes.
Midi chlorians.
Do you mean Georgia the American state, or do you mean Georgia the country?
Or Georgia, the chubby girl I went to school with?
Back when smoking was more popular in South Carolina every stop sign and traffic light had butts littered all around them where drivers had stopped and flicked them out. It was really quite disgusting.
I've had Americans tell me that my English is amazing, I sound almost fluent. (I'm English). I've also had an American say "I love your accent, are you from Korea" (I'm not asian).
On the plus side, if you're completely paralyzed bad web GUI on Slashdot won't bother you.
For instance, "Do Birds Fly?" or "Is ice hotter than the Sun?" are questions that even full-on amnesiacs can answer correctly.
Also, 70% seems like a pretty horrible accuracy rate. For yes/no answers to such super-simple questions, the success rate should be 100% or close to it.
Yes, but if you ask someone if birds fly- they might think about penguins or emu, or ostrich, or dodo, or one of the other flightless birds.
OK Mr. Jurgenmeyer, I am going to ask you a question. Are you OK with me sleeping with your wife? Lay very still and don't say anything if you approve of me doing this. Jump up and down and pat your belly if you'd rather I not sleep with your wife whilst you're in a coma.
Tesla doesn't have any descendants, to complain about it.
I think it is a wonderful homage to Tesla rather than a gratuitous use of his name. Newton's name has been invoked by companies. Faraday's name has been used.
The names are homages to the great scientists. I don't think anyone thinks Nikola Tesla founded the car company- or that Sir Isaac Newton worked with JSON or that Faraday's future was to create over ambitious cars that no one wanted to buy.
Sorry, I meant to imply anyone who had smoked recently but is indeed past tense. When someone has smoked recently, they frequently don't realize the smell hangs around for hours.
You make a valid point, if you posted this 15 years ago and Slashdot only just published it.
The fact is, you can't smoke in public in most places in the South anymore.
The problem is that when you follow an unhealthy lifestyle, society ultimately pays the price.
You make a valid point for people living in countries that actually have a public health care system instead of some backwards "rich people deserve better medical care" system. I agree with you- if something costs public health care extra money there might be a justification. Are we going to have a "sit on your bum all day" tax as well though for people who don't exercise?
Again though, make it relative. If government pays health care costs then, fine, add a 1% unhealthy-choice tax on pizza or ice-cream. The point should be about recouping costs though, not being punitive or trying to force some sort of morality. If you can justify a cost by empirically saying "eating this Ice Cream will cost the public 1cent more in health costs" - fine add a cent to the cost of that ice-cream.
Saying you can't have a big drink because it's unhealthy or adding 20% to the cost of a chocolate bar because it's unhealthy isn't about recouping public health costs - it's about forcing a "be healthy" morality on lard-arses and being smug about what is vice and what isn't.
Yeah, people who eat burgers and pizza all the time probably should eat a salad and exercise from time to time, but I don't think it's really government's business to tell them that.
That's fine if you can justify- it costs the public tax payer "50p" per pack smoked. I don't think you can honestly say it costs the public tax payer £15 in health costs per pack smoked.
The extra tax in most countries has long surpassed the extra cost in healthcare. This is about punishing people who don't think the same way the people in charge do.
Unless they move to New Zealand, then they are African American Australian New Zealanders.
Many locations are trying to pass laws extending to diet and lifestyle. Some of them I approve of, some of them I don't.
I approve of ones that inform the consumer (show calorie content). I don't approve of ones that force the consumer to not have choice (New York banning drink size).
There is a right and a wrong way to handle this. The right way is to inform the consumer. This has been done pretty well most places regarding smoking. If you don't know smoking is bad and how bad it is... you're never going to know.
That said, if you know how bad smoking is and still do it- I might question your judgement, but I fully support your right to smoke (in private).
Racist. The correct term is African-American Australians.
Whether it works or not the question is whether they [government] should be doing it.
I've never smoked in my life. I hate being around people who have smoked (I think they grow insensitive to the smell and don't realize how it permeates everything they own). That said, should government be in the business of making everyone stop smoking?
I'm fully behind keeping it out of kids hands. I'm fully behind banning smoking in the same room/car as children, and banning it in public spaces. I'm not behind taxing it so high that it ends up $30USD a box. If people really want to smoke- especially with the knowledge of how horribly bad it is for them, and they do it in their own space in their own time- why are we so dead set on stopping them. Almost seems like they're trying to criminalize smoking without actually having the balls to pass that legislation.
Stopping people smoking in private doesn't seem that different to trying to stop gay people having sex. WhyTF does it matter what someone does in their own home if no one is being harmed other than the smoker?
The world is moving at the moment to allow Marijuana to be legalized (I'm OK with that), but at the same time trying to kill smoking cigarettes. (both contain harmful compounds when smoked.
If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it? Government shouldn't be in the business of private morals.
Creativity comes from many sources, absolutely it appears some highs may stimulate creativity and conversely some seem to suppress creativity. Interestingly, lack of sleep is supposed to stimulate creativity too.
Whereas that is absolutely true, it makes me think of "Yoda". Yoda get's his meaning across in films, despite talking funny. If you or I went around talking like him, people would assume a few screws were loose. It takes that tiny fraction of a second to interpret "odd but understandable" language. When things are almost right, but not quite right it naturally gets on a lot of people's wick.
There might be a plus side to it though. I remember reading that students learn material better when they have a professor with an odd accent. When it takes more effort to understand what someone is saying, you're more likely to remember what they said.
Perhaps that's why, talk like that, Yoda does.