what I find more surprising is that someone was able to discover such a small crater. 80m isn't big relative to how big Siberia is.
True that it is not that big. But would you consider monitoring area + taking images from satellite(s) as the reason? Why would they monitor the whole area? I don't know. But images from satellite nowadays are much much higher resolution (compared to 15~20 years ago when I was using them on my study) and could easily be analysed using a computer software. So any changes in the area would alert those who are monitoring.
The baby continued on antiretroviral treatment until 18 months of age, when the child was lost to follow up and no longer received treatment. Yet, when the child was again seen by medical staff five months later, blood samples revealed undetectable HIV levels (less than 20 copies of HIV per milliliter of blood (copies/mL)) and no HIV-specific antibodies. The child continued to do well in the absence of antiretroviral medicines and was free of detectable HIV for more than two years.
However, during a routine clinical care visit earlier this month, the child, now nearly 4 years of age, was found to have detectable HIV levels in the blood (16,750 copies/mL).
Hmm... I would assume that the #5 is correct (see bold portion in the quote from TFA). The only wrong info I am seeing is the "almost 4 years" instead of "4.5 years" time range...
(in other words, all bad news about Teslas are exaggerated beyond belief, kind of how like cyclists are a menace on city streets due to all of the traffic laws they break, even though cars kill tens of thousands of people a year).
Wait... What 'cars kill tens of thousands of people' has to do with 'cyclist are menace on city'? They are 2 completely different stories. In other words, even though the statement about cars kill a lot of people is true, the statement does NOT make the cyclist are menace to be false.
look on Wells Fargo's website for their location addresses and then put the closest one's street address into google's map for navigation.
Google's location-address information is not always accurate. I have put many addresses in only to find the actual business and/or home a few blocks away.
If you carefully read, you would see that the GP is suggesting to use Google Map to navigate, not to find where the location of the business should be.
The companies (and I do hate Amazon and pretty much all the other monopolies in this country) should also use common sense knowing you have idiots that lack any sense to better protect your company.
If you think it differently, you would see that common sense is not equal to profit. Big corporations (or any of those who are out to make more money) do try any business practice and hope they can get away with. In this case, they have a certain level of expectation on parents' to be able to foresee what their kids are going to do. They try to push the responsibility on parents and exploit the loop hole in order to get away with their business practice. So why do they care for common sense that many parents are idiot or short sighted?
Also, let me ask you this. How many big business out there that really care and apply common sense of their customers to their practice? They may start off with caring for their customers. Once their customers are locked in, at one point they all make their own rules and expect customers to follow. Now it becomes "take it or leave it." How many customers actually leave even though they make a complaint? This happens not only in the U.S. but everywhere else in the world. It is the business common sense to exploit other humans...
Perhaps, if you one day you find yourself teaching a bunch of uninterested twits as a non union, non tenured contractor, you might wanna throw that into the equation.
Perhaps, unless you are the mentioned person of the parent post, who is a teacher, a non-union, and a non-tenured, you should not want fewer students. Why? Think about it. If there are not many students, why do they need to hire more adjunct/instructors for when they already have enough tenured? Even though the money from tuition does not make as much profit as research grants, it does provide steady revenue to the school. Also, the larger the student body, the more tuition they earn. If the number of students is small enough for faculty people to handle, then there would be no need of adjunct professors or instructors. Then the mentioned person in the parent post will come out and make a different complaint...
Schools in the U.S. is operating in the way to maximize the profit (even with public schools). Getting a couple extra students into a class is extra money for them. So there is no reason for them to try to stay at the minimum number of students per class, but rather try to pack as close to the maximum as they can. Student loan is the student personal problem, not the school, because the student makes his/her own decision to go for. One can argue the issue with student loan from a for-profit private school (that it is the school that lure/entice students into more debt), but that would be a different story.
I think the guy just replied to GGP on the part saying " They have a convenient clause in their constitution which lets them refuse to extradite anybody, no matter what" which is exactly what Article 61 is.
You gotta be pretty freaking lazy and weak to get tired moving a Wiimote around.
It all depends on what game you play, who you are playing with, how often do you play, how intense you play, etc. You may never experience fatigue or muscle pain on the next day because you keep playing certain game that does not require much of the movement. Or you spend all your time playing Wii everyday so your muscle gets used to the movement. Who knows?
They are probably replacing a $2 a device worker with a $1 a device machine.
I am not so sure that that is the case. If a Chinese can assemble an iPhone in an hour, then this old news -- http://www.mercurynews.com/bus... -- would give some idea that the replacement is not that much different (think about maintenance cost). I believe it is more on the labor law issues (less headache). The law suit from "human" could be very expensive. So it would be much easier to have robots do the work instead of humans, so that they can no longer need to worry about how many hours a day each robot can work. They could simply swap a robot out if it breaks (no hospital cost, just maintenance).
I'm skeptical since there doesn't seem to be an actual patent application
If he filed a provisional application, then it would not be searchable or published yet. You will have to wait until either he wants to convert it to a patent or the time to file non-provisional is expired. If the time is expired, the information in the application will disappeare -- http://www.uspto.gov/patents/r... for more info.
Actually, any diety religious has an answer for what you are saying... If something good happens, it is the God plan. If something bad happens, it is either the God punishment or the Satan works... The God mercy is also interpreted differently from those who believe. It is very tricky when religious is involved...
an IUD induces abortion by preventing the implantation of an embryo
An embryo means the egg has been fertilized. There are 2 kinds of IUDs. One, as knightghost said, the device prevents pregnancy by killing the sperms (or preventing them to get to the egg) before they FERTILIZE the egg. The other, is targeting more on embryo implantation (but still has some effects on prevention on ferilization). If they ban all IUDs because of the latter type (and they do because of oversimplification), they are in the wrong.
When I went to college here (10 years ago), there were about 30% or less women in most CS classes. No black woman. A few black men. A few hispanic. Almost half and half Asians and Whites. When I went back to college again for graduate (about 7 years ago), there were one or two women in classes. Most of those women who were in class were Indian. I saw similar number of Asians and Whites. Still no black woman. Still one or two black men. No hispanic...
With what did the collision happen if the earth wasn't already there? I fail to see how the moon being carved out the earth 60 Myr earlier affects the age of the earth.
This. I thought exactly the same thing. It's like, I have a 20 year old toaster, I made toast in it 4 years ago. So, that means it has to be a 24 year old toaster?
From what I understand, the article should say that the earth could be up to 60 million years older than we thought. Because we do not know the exact time difference of the formation between the earth and the moon, we may still say it is 0 up to 60 millions years. If the earth and the moon have formed at the same time, then the earth is 60 million years older than we thought. If the earth had been there 60 million years or longer before the moon formed, then there is no change in the earth age.
In the worst case, if your company somehow has 100% of their costs being labor, a 5% increase in wages would be a 5% increase in costs. It is mathematically impossible for what you say to happen.
I got your point and I agreed. However, I would not take the 100% cost being labor as the worst case because external cost that you have no control of could easily be even worse. In other words, you would be relying on your supplier mercy on the cost increment. Therefore, increment in wage can't (and shouldn't) directly translate into increment in cost...
But the GP point about reducing regulation is simple minded. Doing so, he/she assumes that 1)big companies won't exploit the deregulation, 2)new business will be successful with less regulation, and 3)new business won't exploit the deregulation.
The cutting program is also tricky as well because a program may be important to certain group of people but is not attractive to others. How would one know which program should be cut and which should not be? It would become a political game instead of attempt to improve the economy.
What? You said something. I responded, and then asked your point. So... what was your point?
Straw man;)
Yeah, almost.
As for firing them, that's just petty. However, I only try to convince others through argumentation; nothing more. That is not control, and it seems you have trouble understanding what it means to control others.
No, all of any human interaction can be seen as control, not most. Using your "convince" word, I can still say I am trying to "convince" others, not control. It is just your perspective seeing that it is "control" if anything comes from others and it is "convince" if it is come from you. Period.
You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Why should I debunk when those who have a brain will see it clearly, so there is no debunk. Besides, if I say something, you will come back with pointless questions again. No need to go further than that.
Once again, you didn't provide an actual counterargument. Insulting me and saying "history" is not a counterargument for what I said.
See what I said in the previous quote. No need further reply.
In a workplace, employers are sort of important. If they let you stick around, then your workplace is rather different. As for where you mentioned bosses, well, since this is a discussion about workplaces and firing people, it's not surprising that I would bring it up.
I have no ability to make you understand still. Workplace != Clients && Boss is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to employer && Boss != Clients. Are you living in the U.S.A. where we are talking about? Don't try to narrow the topic to only WORK PLACE where you could get fired. The topic is about using "curse word" which is NOT LIMITED to only work place. You kept saying or defining words/situation to favor your own convenience. The short-sighted is not an insult but it is a message to open your eye, but it doesn't work. Also, cursing to your boss may not get you fired (most likely is depended on a situation and if the boss is the owner of the company) but cursing your clients and then the company loses the client could easily get you fired. I am not going to explain why but anyone who has a brain will know why.
Your sentence != reasoning, either. These words can be used to convey a meaning, *just like any other words that you would use in their place to convey the same meaning*. There is absolutely no reason that you can't reason while using these words; that's just a non sequitur.
Haha, you are defining the meaning of "conveying a meaning" to your own convenience. To CONVEY a meaning MAY IMPLY reason, but it is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to reasoning. One can convey one's meaning to others to demonstrate the one's understanding. This is NOT REASONING. To REASON, the meaning MUST BE CONVEYED; otherwise, others may not know the meaning of the reasoning. If it is not clear to you, you may graphically think using Venn Diagram to help you understand (and of course, I hope you know how to apply this to Venn Diagram).
Your English is rather awkward. Are you a native English speaker?
I am going to use your own word, "what was your point?" I do not need to speak/write perfect English because others already understood what I said (but maybe only you who can't). But even native English speakers may not speak/write perfect English. Anyway the answer is no. English is my second language. While my English is awkward, your English demonstrates your inability to value and/or understand others' opinion but yourself.
You don't even know what a straw man is, it seems.
Hmm.. I don't know the meaning but others kept saying the same thing. I think you are the one who does not know the meaning and that's the reason why you keep argue with nonsensical reasoning.
My straight point is that you will never understand because you always come back with pointless question as always.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
Every single interaction of humans can be seen as control in every way (and if you let it be). So you are trying to control me to NOT fire them? Of course. So please don't try to impose that there is only one side of control here.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
You confirm me that you are a short-sighted person. You cannot see anything far ahead and can't plan on anything because you are so afraid of anyone controlling you. It is not my problem anyway.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
It is call history. Oh yes, I forgot that you can't understand anything from others. I am sorry that I am trying to control you to understand.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
Boss != Clients period. Besides, did I ever said a word about boss in my previous post anyway? Don't know where you dig it from. I hope this is not another tactic to open up more distractions.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
Conveying a meaning != reasoning. Therefore, you are still missing the point and don't understand. I hope English is not your native language because you demonstrate that you can't understand the point in many places of your replies (including to others) but rather sway it and throw in new distractions.
As I said, cultural indoctrination.
Who said you can't criticize? It is an argument and you lose all the way through, but you try to be a straw man and argue your way out with non-sense reasoning. So I can't reason with someone who does not know how to argue but rather distort the topic and play a victim. I guess this is enough said.
Hmm... You are really a straw man... Not the AC...
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
That is exactly what the AC said -- so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.. Others see what this mean but it seems that you are the only one who doesn't...
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
You can think that way about "controlling" others if you are looking from the opposite point of view. Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself. When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought. If one does not have self control and say it whenever one wants, then the message could be wrongly delivered to others. Oh, and you may be fired if you say something like that to important clients of the company. If they feel the same way you do, then there is nothing to lose or gain. However, should it be enough reason to fire you when the company lost confident from clients (and could lose the clients) because they have opposite feeling from yours? And not hiring these people would prevent the situation I mentioned. Furthermore, working is a team work. Any destructive argument that can be prevented should be prevented.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words. You could say whatever you want as long as it does not involve others (some what 1st amendment?). If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation. I have to prevent any bad consequence even though you may not see it (and obviously you don't). If I am the person being talked to, I have to consider my own right (as you consider yours). I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
When I was in school, in the summer most of the profs were still around. Either because they had summer classes, or because that's where they went to keep doing their normal research.
They could be there but it is not required. If you are already a professor, you are required to teach 2 semesters (Spring and Fall). Summer semester is not really their standard. The professor would get paid extra if teach all 3 semesters (but they don't really want to do that because they usually want to work on their research/publication).
Maybe 55 was optimal with 1970's auto technology but it doesn't seem so today, at least for me.
You should also realize that there are still many highways that limit the speed at 55mph (I still see 50mph in certain places that the highway turns into a town/city road). I believe it is much safer for the auto manufacturer to officiate the mph to a lower number, or it would likely become a false advertisement (in a bad way for consumer).
Maybe 1 in 10 people actually understand long division. Most just do it because they were told to. And who gives a shit about efficiency? The fastest arithmetic method in the world is about a trillion times slower than a calculator. Understanding is what is important.
You just said maybe which already indicates that you do not know and just try to be a straw man. Also, I already stated that teachers MUST EXPLAIN to their students to make them UNDERSTAND.
And who gives a shit about efficiency? Well, that's what younger generation think that if it is not DIRECTLY APPLIED to REAL LIFE, they don't give a shit. Arithmetic is everywhere but we use it so much that we do not even know. You are suggesting that every time we go out to do shopping, we must have a calculator to do that for us? Then don't complain about Americans are weak in Maths nowadays because you want them to be.
And yes, UNDERSTANDING is NOT EQUAL to STANDARDIZE! How many times did I say that in my previous post? You are MISSING the point! Your American school board is standardizing the common core technique in your school! In other words, they try to enforce common core as the ONLY WAY to solve the problem. Any other technique used to solve a maths problem is WRONG! Got it?
You can teach kids to do the "borrowing" from the next column, and they will be able to do it, but they won't understand why they are doing it, which is a bad precedent to set.
Yes, they WILL UNDERSTAND why they do it because they should be TAUGHT to understand! Why there is a carrying or borrowing? Because its own digit does not have ENOUGH quantity to deal with the operator. Students need to already know and understand the significant of number digit (which is the knowledge from learning how to count)! The problem is not from the technique, but the problem tends to be from teachers themselves. Schools need good teachers who LIKE or are WILLING to teach, not teachers who are there to earn money and pay their bills. The former will be able to explain and get students to understand, but the latter are there for other reasons...
For your division example, I am sure that is not the end of the unit. That is a great way to understand the concept of division, you can't argue with that.
No, no argue about how to teach them, but no argue is NOT EQUAL to standard. When I was growing up, I learn how to do LONG DIVISION which is directly involved multiplication. Yes, it is all about number without graphical application, but it gives me the fundamental of how to deal with numbers. I am not against them teaching the technique in common core, but I am against it to standardize the technique because it is not the ONLY correct way of solving maths problem (besides its inefficiency).
Of course you need to know the shortcut way to do it, but if you learn just that then you won't really be learning division, you will just be learning an algorithm which gives you the answer.
Subtraction and Long division are NOT short cut, but they are techniques involving only numbers and have been taught for a very long time. The common core is also a technique but it attempts to cooperate graphics to the computation. There are other ways that are much more efficient to solve arithmetic maths. You should google for one that use Abacus, fingers, etc., as "a tool" to help kids think in their head. I could not give a link to you because I could find them only in my language. Not sure whether any western countries apply this method to teach their kids yet. Oh and by the way, it is still NOT a STANDARD in my country but rather a technique to help kids calculate numbers.
Can you not see how this way is better? Just because you did it a certain way when you were in school doesn't mean it is one way, or even the right way, to learn it.
No, I can't see how this way is better. Easier to see how the solution is found is NOT better in other aspects especially efficiency. You are talking about how to get from where you are to a destination that you could see it from where you are. In common core, you would go around a couple buildings to get to a destination because you recognize and associate those landmarks with the destination. In contrast with traditional technique, you simply walk directly to the destination. So is it wrong to walk directly instead of go around blocks? That's what they are talking about "standard" here.
In conclusion, I do not have problems if they want to teach kids this technique, but I have huge problems with them trying to push this technique as standard solution and do not accept or even teach other techniques that are much more efficient!
Slashdot Mirror
You are stating as a cause, what is really a consequence.
You can't think of the consequence? It is rather obvious to be honest...
what I find more surprising is that someone was able to discover such a small crater. 80m isn't big relative to how big Siberia is.
True that it is not that big. But would you consider monitoring area + taking images from satellite(s) as the reason? Why would they monitor the whole area? I don't know. But images from satellite nowadays are much much higher resolution (compared to 15~20 years ago when I was using them on my study) and could easily be analysed using a computer software. So any changes in the area would alert those who are monitoring.
The baby continued on antiretroviral treatment until 18 months of age, when the child was lost to follow up and no longer received treatment. Yet, when the child was again seen by medical staff five months later, blood samples revealed undetectable HIV levels (less than 20 copies of HIV per milliliter of blood (copies/mL)) and no HIV-specific antibodies. The child continued to do well in the absence of antiretroviral medicines and was free of detectable HIV for more than two years.
However, during a routine clinical care visit earlier this month, the child, now nearly 4 years of age, was found to have detectable HIV levels in the blood (16,750 copies/mL).
Hmm... I would assume that the #5 is correct (see bold portion in the quote from TFA). The only wrong info I am seeing is the "almost 4 years" instead of "4.5 years" time range...
(in other words, all bad news about Teslas are exaggerated beyond belief, kind of how like cyclists are a menace on city streets due to all of the traffic laws they break, even though cars kill tens of thousands of people a year).
Wait... What 'cars kill tens of thousands of people' has to do with 'cyclist are menace on city'? They are 2 completely different stories. In other words, even though the statement about cars kill a lot of people is true, the statement does NOT make the cyclist are menace to be false.
look on Wells Fargo's website for their location addresses and then put the closest one's street address into google's map for navigation.
Google's location-address information is not always accurate. I have put many addresses in only to find the actual business and/or home a few blocks away.
If you carefully read, you would see that the GP is suggesting to use Google Map to navigate, not to find where the location of the business should be.
The companies (and I do hate Amazon and pretty much all the other monopolies in this country) should also use common sense knowing you have idiots that lack any sense to better protect your company.
If you think it differently, you would see that common sense is not equal to profit. Big corporations (or any of those who are out to make more money) do try any business practice and hope they can get away with. In this case, they have a certain level of expectation on parents' to be able to foresee what their kids are going to do. They try to push the responsibility on parents and exploit the loop hole in order to get away with their business practice. So why do they care for common sense that many parents are idiot or short sighted?
Also, let me ask you this. How many big business out there that really care and apply common sense of their customers to their practice? They may start off with caring for their customers. Once their customers are locked in, at one point they all make their own rules and expect customers to follow. Now it becomes "take it or leave it." How many customers actually leave even though they make a complaint? This happens not only in the U.S. but everywhere else in the world. It is the business common sense to exploit other humans...
We need fewer students in university, not more.
Perhaps, if you one day you find yourself teaching a bunch of uninterested twits as a non union, non tenured contractor, you might wanna throw that into the equation.
Perhaps, unless you are the mentioned person of the parent post, who is a teacher, a non-union, and a non-tenured, you should not want fewer students. Why? Think about it. If there are not many students, why do they need to hire more adjunct/instructors for when they already have enough tenured? Even though the money from tuition does not make as much profit as research grants, it does provide steady revenue to the school. Also, the larger the student body, the more tuition they earn. If the number of students is small enough for faculty people to handle, then there would be no need of adjunct professors or instructors. Then the mentioned person in the parent post will come out and make a different complaint...
Schools in the U.S. is operating in the way to maximize the profit (even with public schools). Getting a couple extra students into a class is extra money for them. So there is no reason for them to try to stay at the minimum number of students per class, but rather try to pack as close to the maximum as they can. Student loan is the student personal problem, not the school, because the student makes his/her own decision to go for. One can argue the issue with student loan from a for-profit private school (that it is the school that lure/entice students into more debt), but that would be a different story.
Reading comprehension problems?
I think the guy just replied to GGP on the part saying " They have a convenient clause in their constitution which lets them refuse to extradite anybody, no matter what" which is exactly what Article 61 is.
You gotta be pretty freaking lazy and weak to get tired moving a Wiimote around.
It all depends on what game you play, who you are playing with, how often do you play, how intense you play, etc. You may never experience fatigue or muscle pain on the next day because you keep playing certain game that does not require much of the movement. Or you spend all your time playing Wii everyday so your muscle gets used to the movement. Who knows?
They are probably replacing a $2 a device worker with a $1 a device machine.
I am not so sure that that is the case. If a Chinese can assemble an iPhone in an hour, then this old news -- http://www.mercurynews.com/bus... -- would give some idea that the replacement is not that much different (think about maintenance cost). I believe it is more on the labor law issues (less headache). The law suit from "human" could be very expensive. So it would be much easier to have robots do the work instead of humans, so that they can no longer need to worry about how many hours a day each robot can work. They could simply swap a robot out if it breaks (no hospital cost, just maintenance).
I'm skeptical since there doesn't seem to be an actual patent application
If he filed a provisional application, then it would not be searchable or published yet. You will have to wait until either he wants to convert it to a patent or the time to file non-provisional is expired. If the time is expired, the information in the application will disappeare -- http://www.uspto.gov/patents/r... for more info.
Actually, any diety religious has an answer for what you are saying... If something good happens, it is the God plan. If something bad happens, it is either the God punishment or the Satan works... The God mercy is also interpreted differently from those who believe. It is very tricky when religious is involved...
an IUD induces abortion by preventing the implantation of an embryo
An embryo means the egg has been fertilized. There are 2 kinds of IUDs. One, as knightghost said, the device prevents pregnancy by killing the sperms (or preventing them to get to the egg) before they FERTILIZE the egg. The other, is targeting more on embryo implantation (but still has some effects on prevention on ferilization). If they ban all IUDs because of the latter type (and they do because of oversimplification), they are in the wrong.
If you do not know more about IUD, google it...
When I went to college here (10 years ago), there were about 30% or less women in most CS classes. No black woman. A few black men. A few hispanic. Almost half and half Asians and Whites. When I went back to college again for graduate (about 7 years ago), there were one or two women in classes. Most of those women who were in class were Indian. I saw similar number of Asians and Whites. Still no black woman. Still one or two black men. No hispanic...
With what did the collision happen if the earth wasn't already there? I fail to see how the moon being carved out the earth 60 Myr earlier affects the age of the earth.
This. I thought exactly the same thing. It's like, I have a 20 year old toaster, I made toast in it 4 years ago. So, that means it has to be a 24 year old toaster?
From what I understand, the article should say that the earth could be up to 60 million years older than we thought. Because we do not know the exact time difference of the formation between the earth and the moon, we may still say it is 0 up to 60 millions years. If the earth and the moon have formed at the same time, then the earth is 60 million years older than we thought. If the earth had been there 60 million years or longer before the moon formed, then there is no change in the earth age.
In the worst case, if your company somehow has 100% of their costs being labor, a 5% increase in wages would be a 5% increase in costs. It is mathematically impossible for what you say to happen.
I got your point and I agreed. However, I would not take the 100% cost being labor as the worst case because external cost that you have no control of could easily be even worse. In other words, you would be relying on your supplier mercy on the cost increment. Therefore, increment in wage can't (and shouldn't) directly translate into increment in cost...
But the GP point about reducing regulation is simple minded. Doing so, he/she assumes that 1)big companies won't exploit the deregulation, 2)new business will be successful with less regulation, and 3)new business won't exploit the deregulation.
The cutting program is also tricky as well because a program may be important to certain group of people but is not attractive to others. How would one know which program should be cut and which should not be? It would become a political game instead of attempt to improve the economy.
What? You said something. I responded, and then asked your point. So... what was your point?
Straw man ;)
Yeah, almost.
As for firing them, that's just petty. However, I only try to convince others through argumentation; nothing more. That is not control, and it seems you have trouble understanding what it means to control others.
No, all of any human interaction can be seen as control, not most. Using your "convince" word, I can still say I am trying to "convince" others, not control. It is just your perspective seeing that it is "control" if anything comes from others and it is "convince" if it is come from you. Period.
You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Why should I debunk when those who have a brain will see it clearly, so there is no debunk. Besides, if I say something, you will come back with pointless questions again. No need to go further than that.
Once again, you didn't provide an actual counterargument. Insulting me and saying "history" is not a counterargument for what I said.
See what I said in the previous quote. No need further reply.
In a workplace, employers are sort of important. If they let you stick around, then your workplace is rather different. As for where you mentioned bosses, well, since this is a discussion about workplaces and firing people, it's not surprising that I would bring it up.
I have no ability to make you understand still. Workplace != Clients && Boss is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to employer && Boss != Clients. Are you living in the U.S.A. where we are talking about? Don't try to narrow the topic to only WORK PLACE where you could get fired. The topic is about using "curse word" which is NOT LIMITED to only work place. You kept saying or defining words/situation to favor your own convenience. The short-sighted is not an insult but it is a message to open your eye, but it doesn't work. Also, cursing to your boss may not get you fired (most likely is depended on a situation and if the boss is the owner of the company) but cursing your clients and then the company loses the client could easily get you fired. I am not going to explain why but anyone who has a brain will know why.
Your sentence != reasoning, either. These words can be used to convey a meaning, *just like any other words that you would use in their place to convey the same meaning*. There is absolutely no reason that you can't reason while using these words; that's just a non sequitur.
Haha, you are defining the meaning of "conveying a meaning" to your own convenience. To CONVEY a meaning MAY IMPLY reason, but it is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to reasoning. One can convey one's meaning to others to demonstrate the one's understanding. This is NOT REASONING. To REASON, the meaning MUST BE CONVEYED; otherwise, others may not know the meaning of the reasoning. If it is not clear to you, you may graphically think using Venn Diagram to help you understand (and of course, I hope you know how to apply this to Venn Diagram).
Your English is rather awkward. Are you a native English speaker?
I am going to use your own word, "what was your point?" I do not need to speak/write perfect English because others already understood what I said (but maybe only you who can't). But even native English speakers may not speak/write perfect English. Anyway the answer is no. English is my second language. While my English is awkward, your English demonstrates your inability to value and/or understand others' opinion but yourself.
You don't even know what a straw man is, it seems.
Hmm.. I don't know the meaning but others kept saying the same thing. I think you are the one who does not know the meaning and that's the reason why you keep argue with nonsensical reasoning.
I now can see why others
Then I confirmed what he said. What's your point?
My straight point is that you will never understand because you always come back with pointless question as always.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
Every single interaction of humans can be seen as control in every way (and if you let it be). So you are trying to control me to NOT fire them? Of course. So please don't try to impose that there is only one side of control here.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
You confirm me that you are a short-sighted person. You cannot see anything far ahead and can't plan on anything because you are so afraid of anyone controlling you. It is not my problem anyway.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
It is call history. Oh yes, I forgot that you can't understand anything from others. I am sorry that I am trying to control you to understand.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
Boss != Clients period. Besides, did I ever said a word about boss in my previous post anyway? Don't know where you dig it from. I hope this is not another tactic to open up more distractions.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
Conveying a meaning != reasoning. Therefore, you are still missing the point and don't understand. I hope English is not your native language because you demonstrate that you can't understand the point in many places of your replies (including to others) but rather sway it and throw in new distractions.
As I said, cultural indoctrination.
Who said you can't criticize? It is an argument and you lose all the way through, but you try to be a straw man and argue your way out with non-sense reasoning. So I can't reason with someone who does not know how to argue but rather distort the topic and play a victim. I guess this is enough said.
> I saw a quad core for 200 baht) ~$10? Really?
It is actually less than $10 (a little less than $7). ;-)
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
That is exactly what the AC said -- so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.. Others see what this mean but it seems that you are the only one who doesn't...
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
You can think that way about "controlling" others if you are looking from the opposite point of view. Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself. When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought. If one does not have self control and say it whenever one wants, then the message could be wrongly delivered to others. Oh, and you may be fired if you say something like that to important clients of the company. If they feel the same way you do, then there is nothing to lose or gain. However, should it be enough reason to fire you when the company lost confident from clients (and could lose the clients) because they have opposite feeling from yours? And not hiring these people would prevent the situation I mentioned. Furthermore, working is a team work. Any destructive argument that can be prevented should be prevented.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words. You could say whatever you want as long as it does not involve others (some what 1st amendment?). If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation. I have to prevent any bad consequence even though you may not see it (and obviously you don't). If I am the person being talked to, I have to consider my own right (as you consider yours). I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
When I was in school, in the summer most of the profs were still around. Either because they had summer classes, or because that's where they went to keep doing their normal research.
They could be there but it is not required. If you are already a professor, you are required to teach 2 semesters (Spring and Fall). Summer semester is not really their standard. The professor would get paid extra if teach all 3 semesters (but they don't really want to do that because they usually want to work on their research/publication).
Maybe 55 was optimal with 1970's auto technology but it doesn't seem so today, at least for me.
You should also realize that there are still many highways that limit the speed at 55mph (I still see 50mph in certain places that the highway turns into a town/city road). I believe it is much safer for the auto manufacturer to officiate the mph to a lower number, or it would likely become a false advertisement (in a bad way for consumer).
Don't need to go back that far (or maybe it was the beginning?). I've heard about it in late 80s...
Maybe 1 in 10 people actually understand long division. Most just do it because they were told to. And who gives a shit about efficiency? The fastest arithmetic method in the world is about a trillion times slower than a calculator. Understanding is what is important.
You just said maybe which already indicates that you do not know and just try to be a straw man. Also, I already stated that teachers MUST EXPLAIN to their students to make them UNDERSTAND.
And who gives a shit about efficiency? Well, that's what younger generation think that if it is not DIRECTLY APPLIED to REAL LIFE, they don't give a shit. Arithmetic is everywhere but we use it so much that we do not even know. You are suggesting that every time we go out to do shopping, we must have a calculator to do that for us? Then don't complain about Americans are weak in Maths nowadays because you want them to be.
And yes, UNDERSTANDING is NOT EQUAL to STANDARDIZE! How many times did I say that in my previous post? You are MISSING the point! Your American school board is standardizing the common core technique in your school! In other words, they try to enforce common core as the ONLY WAY to solve the problem. Any other technique used to solve a maths problem is WRONG! Got it?
You can teach kids to do the "borrowing" from the next column, and they will be able to do it, but they won't understand why they are doing it, which is a bad precedent to set.
Yes, they WILL UNDERSTAND why they do it because they should be TAUGHT to understand! Why there is a carrying or borrowing? Because its own digit does not have ENOUGH quantity to deal with the operator. Students need to already know and understand the significant of number digit (which is the knowledge from learning how to count)! The problem is not from the technique, but the problem tends to be from teachers themselves. Schools need good teachers who LIKE or are WILLING to teach, not teachers who are there to earn money and pay their bills. The former will be able to explain and get students to understand, but the latter are there for other reasons...
For your division example, I am sure that is not the end of the unit. That is a great way to understand the concept of division, you can't argue with that.
No, no argue about how to teach them, but no argue is NOT EQUAL to standard. When I was growing up, I learn how to do LONG DIVISION which is directly involved multiplication. Yes, it is all about number without graphical application, but it gives me the fundamental of how to deal with numbers. I am not against them teaching the technique in common core, but I am against it to standardize the technique because it is not the ONLY correct way of solving maths problem (besides its inefficiency).
Of course you need to know the shortcut way to do it, but if you learn just that then you won't really be learning division, you will just be learning an algorithm which gives you the answer.
Subtraction and Long division are NOT short cut, but they are techniques involving only numbers and have been taught for a very long time. The common core is also a technique but it attempts to cooperate graphics to the computation. There are other ways that are much more efficient to solve arithmetic maths. You should google for one that use Abacus, fingers, etc., as "a tool" to help kids think in their head. I could not give a link to you because I could find them only in my language. Not sure whether any western countries apply this method to teach their kids yet. Oh and by the way, it is still NOT a STANDARD in my country but rather a technique to help kids calculate numbers.
Can you not see how this way is better? Just because you did it a certain way when you were in school doesn't mean it is one way, or even the right way, to learn it.
No, I can't see how this way is better. Easier to see how the solution is found is NOT better in other aspects especially efficiency. You are talking about how to get from where you are to a destination that you could see it from where you are. In common core, you would go around a couple buildings to get to a destination because you recognize and associate those landmarks with the destination. In contrast with traditional technique, you simply walk directly to the destination. So is it wrong to walk directly instead of go around blocks? That's what they are talking about "standard" here.
In conclusion, I do not have problems if they want to teach kids this technique, but I have huge problems with them trying to push this technique as standard solution and do not accept or even teach other techniques that are much more efficient!