What if this laptop cost $2M? It wouldn't seem that much more outrageous than $1M, because they're both equally unattainable for most of us. The same could be said by any destitute person who looks at the lives of the first-world middle class, where $50,000 is just as unattainable as $1M. Maybe we don't "waste" $1M in one sitting, but we probably spend a much larger proportion of our incomes on disposible goods. After all, anyone who would buy something like this would be worth MUCH more than $1M.
Also, it's sort of misleading to call it a waste. The money doesn't just disappear, and it pays the salaries of, probably, tens or perhaps hundreds of people. Yes, it's money that didn't need to be spent, but it's no more a waste than buying a watch that's more than $5, or a regular movie ticket instead of waiting for it at the $1 theater.
For most people I've dealt with the net "loss" in income from mom staying home is very minor, and more than a third see a net increase in monthly cash flow. That job mom has making 1000/month is usually more like 150 after taking into account the cost of having the job such as transportation (including a second car and the accompanying payments and insurance), childcare, etc..
Which begs the question, what sort of people ARE you dealing with, because you sound like a military family services financial counselor to me, where the mom is just working part-time for "spending" money (and/or because it's harder to get a full-time job when you're guaranteed to move in 2-4 years).
I don't know for a fact, but I'd guess that in most dual-income families (my own for sure), the incomes are nearly equitable, and the sum is just about enough to live comfortably. It's easy to tell one spouse to quit when they're only making $5.15/hr, but when each is making half, things are a little more complicated.
Exactly -- I'd give you another mod point if I could. We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The standards-of-living have come to require a dual-income family, except in some cases where one of the two is high-paid. The only way things could change would be if Congress passed a law requiring one spouse to remain unemployed, which would be unconstitutional, unethical, and impractical since people would just stop getting officially married.
Perhaps it's the permanent disenfranchisement that bothers you. You know, that bothers me a bit, too.
Ironically, a felon isn't precluded from holding many elected positions.
As far as removing the right to vote, I don't see the point. Crime is an antisocial behavior, and voting is social participation. We should discourage the former by encouraging the latter.
Additionally, you are incorrect that numbers are irrelevant, because it's based on the premise that all laws are just and equally applied. When an unjust law, or the unequal application of a law, causes one group to lose what little influence it had, it creates a self-sustaining injustice, particularly when you remove the right to vote because then the disenfranchised group no longer holds enough sway to elect officials which will either repeal the unjust law, or work toward equal application.
In essence, it makes a mockery of the concept of democracy, particularly for extreme examples of the above. If a law were passed which, for example, made the possession or consumption of alcohol a felony, and the majority of people decided not to comply and subsequently became felons, then the law might stand indefinately, despite the fact that many (perhaps the majority of) people disagree with it. Ideally, people would abstain until the law could be repealed, however reality somewhat differs from ideals.
I feel similarly about firearms. I know -- most people's reaction will be, "How can you say that? Why would you ever give a gun to a convicted murderer?" However, I believe (all) felons should still have the same rights to self-defense as anyone else (once they've served their time), and I believe that attempting to curtail that right is rather pointless, in that anyone who is not dissuaded by the laws against murder and physical violence will not be dissuaded by a law against possession of a firearm. It only hurts the people who want to be law abiding, who are the very people we should be helping. The counter-argument would be that highly impulsive people would be more dangerous if they were allowed to keep a firearm than if they did not. However even if that is true, other considerations must be made. First, if people are not to be given second chances, then why let them out of jail? Second, an entire group should not be punished for the actions (especially the potential actions) of a few. Third, preemptive action (i.e., you might do A, therefore we will restrict your rights in order to reduce the opportunity/liklihood) tends to be self destructive for a society. I think a restriction during probation would be fine, as long as there was a method to request exemptions in circumstances of high risk, i.e., the dealer who testified against his supplier for a reduced sentence (assuming he made it out of jail alive).
I'm hourly, and I'm not allowed to work overtime, which is regrettable, but on the bright side I never have to stay late unexpectedly either, and I can do part-time work at nearly the same rate as my fulltime job if I want extra cash. My girlfriend is salaried, makes significantly less, and routinely has to work late and/or work weekends.
That video was pretty funny, and while it's a good illustration of the power of suggestion, it's a very poor illustration of actual differences. I buy filtered water where I live, but only because there's crap floating around in the tap water here (which they assure me is simply calcium flakes), and about once a year there are water quality warnings to boil before drinking. If I want some water on the go, I'll typically buy Evian, simply because it's generally only slightly more expensive than the other brands available here, and some of the generic brands are of dubious third-world quality and occasionally they really do taste or smell bad. But stateside, I always drink tap.
that the end of Motorola processors would pretty much be the end of the Macintosh.
Different argument, same logical fallacy. There is more to the PS3 than the exclusivity of a single title (or set of titles), and if FF___ is multiplatform then buyers will simply use other metrics to make their decision. I don't particularly care about Halo - Combat Rehashed, so that wouldn't affect my decision. I wouldn't want to have to buy a console AND an HD drive, so that's a strike against the 360. I want a console with enough power that it still looks relevant in 2-3 years. I like that I can run Linux on the PS3. Of course, I'm not everyone, but those are some examples off the top of my head. The point is not that the PS3 is better/worse than the 360, merely that title exclusivity is not a console's only merit. Personally, I buy on hardware features/overall capability rather than a given title's availablility, but that's why I'm a PC gamer (when I game).
If you think about it, you can't force someone to learn.
You can't force someone to learn, but you can remove prominent distractions to better help them learn. Some schools require freshmen to live on campus, some have curfews, and some have alcohol-free dorms. I don't really see this as an issue since the function of the school is to provide a learning environment, not to cater to the whims of students.
Also this is not censorship, as no specific material is being filtered (although I'd argue that's not entirely beyond the purview of a university anyway), merely the times of availability. If you don't like it, go to school somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
...like his orange spectacles.
thermal paste itself is very inefficient for its thermal properties
Maybe YOUR thermal paste. My thermal paste is 1 part mercury, 1 part automatic leveler to prevent thermal runaway.. literally.
What if this laptop cost $2M? It wouldn't seem that much more outrageous than $1M, because they're both equally unattainable for most of us. The same could be said by any destitute person who looks at the lives of the first-world middle class, where $50,000 is just as unattainable as $1M. Maybe we don't "waste" $1M in one sitting, but we probably spend a much larger proportion of our incomes on disposible goods. After all, anyone who would buy something like this would be worth MUCH more than $1M.
Also, it's sort of misleading to call it a waste. The money doesn't just disappear, and it pays the salaries of, probably, tens or perhaps hundreds of people. Yes, it's money that didn't need to be spent, but it's no more a waste than buying a watch that's more than $5, or a regular movie ticket instead of waiting for it at the $1 theater.
Talk about some gamey mutton.
If you see anything you'd like to endow, please be in touch.
So many possible puns, so little time.
Me thinks you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through
Well, there's cunning stunts, and then there's..
the fact that "a degree" is often all that's needed is good evidence that it's useless.
If that's good evidence of uselessness, then I've been misunderstanding the word useless for a while now...
That may well be the first time I've ever seen someone get the joke without getting the joke.
Deep Space 9...was full of short morality plays intermingled with the longer story arks.
Look, if God tells you to build a longer story ark, you build it.
-Space Noah
For most people I've dealt with the net "loss" in income from mom staying home is very minor, and more than a third see a net increase in monthly cash flow. That job mom has making 1000/month is usually more like 150 after taking into account the cost of having the job such as transportation (including a second car and the accompanying payments and insurance), childcare, etc..
Which begs the question, what sort of people ARE you dealing with, because you sound like a military family services financial counselor to me, where the mom is just working part-time for "spending" money (and/or because it's harder to get a full-time job when you're guaranteed to move in 2-4 years).
I don't know for a fact, but I'd guess that in most dual-income families (my own for sure), the incomes are nearly equitable, and the sum is just about enough to live comfortably. It's easy to tell one spouse to quit when they're only making $5.15/hr, but when each is making half, things are a little more complicated.
Exactly -- I'd give you another mod point if I could. We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The standards-of-living have come to require a dual-income family, except in some cases where one of the two is high-paid. The only way things could change would be if Congress passed a law requiring one spouse to remain unemployed, which would be unconstitutional, unethical, and impractical since people would just stop getting officially married.
Perhaps it's the permanent disenfranchisement that bothers you. You know, that bothers me a bit, too.
Ironically, a felon isn't precluded from holding many elected positions.
As far as removing the right to vote, I don't see the point. Crime is an antisocial behavior, and voting is social participation. We should discourage the former by encouraging the latter.
Additionally, you are incorrect that numbers are irrelevant, because it's based on the premise that all laws are just and equally applied. When an unjust law, or the unequal application of a law, causes one group to lose what little influence it had, it creates a self-sustaining injustice, particularly when you remove the right to vote because then the disenfranchised group no longer holds enough sway to elect officials which will either repeal the unjust law, or work toward equal application.
In essence, it makes a mockery of the concept of democracy, particularly for extreme examples of the above. If a law were passed which, for example, made the possession or consumption of alcohol a felony, and the majority of people decided not to comply and subsequently became felons, then the law might stand indefinately, despite the fact that many (perhaps the majority of) people disagree with it. Ideally, people would abstain until the law could be repealed, however reality somewhat differs from ideals.
I feel similarly about firearms. I know -- most people's reaction will be, "How can you say that? Why would you ever give a gun to a convicted murderer?" However, I believe (all) felons should still have the same rights to self-defense as anyone else (once they've served their time), and I believe that attempting to curtail that right is rather pointless, in that anyone who is not dissuaded by the laws against murder and physical violence will not be dissuaded by a law against possession of a firearm. It only hurts the people who want to be law abiding, who are the very people we should be helping. The counter-argument would be that highly impulsive people would be more dangerous if they were allowed to keep a firearm than if they did not. However even if that is true, other considerations must be made. First, if people are not to be given second chances, then why let them out of jail? Second, an entire group should not be punished for the actions (especially the potential actions) of a few. Third, preemptive action (i.e., you might do A, therefore we will restrict your rights in order to reduce the opportunity/liklihood) tends to be self destructive for a society. I think a restriction during probation would be fine, as long as there was a method to request exemptions in circumstances of high risk, i.e., the dealer who testified against his supplier for a reduced sentence (assuming he made it out of jail alive).
AWK-WARD!
A salary of $50,000 equates to a monthly pay of $4,167, weekly pay of $962, and an hourly wage of $24.04.
I'm hourly, and I'm not allowed to work overtime, which is regrettable, but on the bright side I never have to stay late unexpectedly either, and I can do part-time work at nearly the same rate as my fulltime job if I want extra cash. My girlfriend is salaried, makes significantly less, and routinely has to work late and/or work weekends.
Hell...just take up smoking and you get at least 3-5 breaks a day of about 5 minutes.
I assume you're referring to the breaks from smoking where you go back inside for a few.
At least one...
That video was pretty funny, and while it's a good illustration of the power of suggestion, it's a very poor illustration of actual differences. I buy filtered water where I live, but only because there's crap floating around in the tap water here (which they assure me is simply calcium flakes), and about once a year there are water quality warnings to boil before drinking. If I want some water on the go, I'll typically buy Evian, simply because it's generally only slightly more expensive than the other brands available here, and some of the generic brands are of dubious third-world quality and occasionally they really do taste or smell bad. But stateside, I always drink tap.
it is all...like product, barcoded, generic...
What ya gonna do with all that junk?
Can anyone tell me a Windows game Sony makes?
http://www.station.sony.com/
I don't think I need to tell you...
that the end of Motorola processors would pretty much be the end of the Macintosh.
Different argument, same logical fallacy. There is more to the PS3 than the exclusivity of a single title (or set of titles), and if FF___ is multiplatform then buyers will simply use other metrics to make their decision. I don't particularly care about Halo - Combat Rehashed, so that wouldn't affect my decision. I wouldn't want to have to buy a console AND an HD drive, so that's a strike against the 360. I want a console with enough power that it still looks relevant in 2-3 years. I like that I can run Linux on the PS3. Of course, I'm not everyone, but those are some examples off the top of my head. The point is not that the PS3 is better/worse than the 360, merely that title exclusivity is not a console's only merit. Personally, I buy on hardware features/overall capability rather than a given title's availablility, but that's why I'm a PC gamer (when I game).
If you think about it, you can't force someone to learn.
You can't force someone to learn, but you can remove prominent distractions to better help them learn. Some schools require freshmen to live on campus, some have curfews, and some have alcohol-free dorms. I don't really see this as an issue since the function of the school is to provide a learning environment, not to cater to the whims of students.
Also this is not censorship, as no specific material is being filtered (although I'd argue that's not entirely beyond the purview of a university anyway), merely the times of availability. If you don't like it, go to school somewhere else.
Someone who spends that much time cleaning is either OCD or a janitor.
Or has kids.
Why can't people be satisfied with a nice new but still economical honda or something when they make it big? Why always blow it out on frivolous shit?
The same reason people without money drop $4k on some shiny rims, I guess.
I'd say the lack of prudent spending habits is more of a national problem than a class one. You definately don't have to be rich to squander money.
I prefer to jump, and let the earth spin beneath me.