ever since I won that old space suit writing soap slogans, I have had a tough time getting it back into good shape. i bet he could give me some good pointers.
2) Never look at the products at eye level, they are the most expensive and worst value.
That is really not a valid statement, for a couple reasons. The first error is the last two words 'worst value'. Only the customer can determine what the value is. If I'm looking at a condiment section and at eye level is a name brand catsup, and below it is a private label equivalent, the price per unit will probably be lower on the private label. That doesn't necessarily make it a better value. If I think the private label tastes rotten and wont eat it, the more expensive catsup is a much better value.
The second issue is that quite often what you see at eye level is determined by who payed for the placement. It may not be the highest margin item for the retailer on its own. But it is their because the vendor payed a royalty to have it where they want it.
3) Move as fast as you can to the back of the store. Start at the back of the store and work your way forwards.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are talking grocery, very few stores are laid out the same way. There's no way this can be a 'rule' that will help you when what is at the front or back will vary from location to location. I think a better way of looking at this might be - don't buy what is on end-caps and floor displays until you have looked at the prices for comparable items. This means, not running to the back, but going to the aisle where the item is normally located.
In larger stores this really doesn't make sense. If I go to Fry's Electronics and run to the back, how does that help me? If I go to Best Buy and hustle right back to home appliances, I'm not sure what I've done to help myself out.
The psychology of all this is over rated. A little common sense - like many of the other suggestions in the list, will go a long way. That's not manipulating the 'system' it's just using your mind and operating above a visceral level.
oh i got it. sometimes when people don't laugh it isn't because they don't get it. just like when people don't like someone it isn't always because they are jealous.
the summary changed between when the story was first up in the 'mysterious future' and when it went live. which is how it is supposed to work - but could also explain the confusion.
good - i emailed the editor when i saw the story was going to hit the front page. nice to see it wasn't for nothing. when i read the summary after it went live, i missed that they had made the change, so i appreciate your pointing it out.
fwiw - you've got a ton of great books still to go - and if you make it through all of them, you'll get to experience the joy of going back and finding out they are just as awesome the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th or 5th time around. i just finished bluebeard a month or two back for the fourth time, but i hadn't read it in a while, and it was awesome still. i'm so glad a sliver of his genius is preserved in print.
it's the age old situation. not one tool does every job best. there are still plenty of situations where desktop apps are appropriate. as nifty as web 2.0 apps are, they still aren't as good, in certain situations. that there is a demand for disconnected apps is undeniable. all one has to do is look at the disparity between the number of households with computers and the number of households with dial-up or less. me, i prefer desktop apps in a number of areas - personal finance, my office suite, games, my coding tools - and there are probably more.
at the same time, on those rare occasions i find myself sitting somewhere with my laptop but no internet access, i feel lost to some extent. i am very, very used to having both types of software at my disposal constantly.
As fun as it might be -- George Lucas is not the ultimate reason for this. The ultimate reason is that the major film studios are afraid to innovate and want every film to be a sure thing. He didn't make hollywood that way.
that's an interesting take on it. i work with hr and financials data - so i know it is pretty critical and sensitive. i don't know about what kind of paper records exist, but i think many of the transactions that take place between us and the people we work for are purely electronic.
i think the biggest lesson here is that it really pays to test your backups. i've seen this happen over and over again -- where the first time someone is trying to recover - is when there has been a loss. even if the media and the backups are good, the people doing the recovery have zero experience with doing an actual recovery. makes no sense. if you practice on a regular basis - you verify that your backups are good, and your staff get good training. that's invaluable. but i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir here.
right - the account is worth 38 billion - the file was apparently worth about 200 grand in labor. of course it didn't cost that much to make the first time, as it was done over a longer period without all the o.t.
No. Most laws that are enacted when the vast majority of the populace hold a different moral conviction fail. Prohibition did not fail because it was a purely moral act. It failed because more people thought it was not immoral to consume alcohol than supported the law.
Laws against theft and murder are enacted purely because people think they are wrong. Most emphatically when they consider that they themselves might be the victims of those actions. A state will not function well without those protections because once again - the morality of the majority will face the state to change.
There is a good possibility that drug laws in the u.s. are going to radically change and it will primarily be due to a shift in the morality of the populace. Once enough people are 'o.k.' with something, it takes a huge expenditure of resources to restrict that activity and it inevitably fails.
here is a definition of morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
that is why laws are always about morality. they are about what actions society considers right and which actions it considers wrong.
when you discuss harm - you are now talking about the basis used to decide what is moral and what is not. that's a whole different thing. you think morality should be based on proof of harm. a bunch of other people don't agree with you. if history has taught us one thing, it is that it is normal for people to disagree on what is moral and what is not. to this point i think the best system we've devised to deal with that problem is democracy.
Driving on the right side of the road (or left depending on where you are) is codified as a method of avoiding accidents and helping people get where they want to go safely. Another system could be everyone drives on what side they want, the bigger faster vehicles push the smaller vehicles out of the way.
The law was written to enforce morality. It may be worth looking at a definition of morality since it seems to not be too clear to a lot of people who have responded. Here is one: "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" Why do we have traffic laws? Because of moral concerns about what is right and wrong in how we get around. A person who landed here from a culture that valued strength and conflict might see driving on the right as immoral as it gave the weak too much opportunity to flourish. What many religions do is argue that their system of morality is derived from an absolute standard that exists outside of mankind. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that laws are moral judgments.
Slashdot Mirror
so you think my plan to build a nuclear powered rocket and go to the moon with some friends might run into regulatory problems as well?
ever since I won that old space suit writing soap slogans, I have had a tough time getting it back into good shape. i bet he could give me some good pointers.
2) Never look at the products at eye level, they are the most expensive and worst value.
That is really not a valid statement, for a couple reasons. The first error is the last two words 'worst value'. Only the customer can determine what the value is. If I'm looking at a condiment section and at eye level is a name brand catsup, and below it is a private label equivalent, the price per unit will probably be lower on the private label. That doesn't necessarily make it a better value. If I think the private label tastes rotten and wont eat it, the more expensive catsup is a much better value.
The second issue is that quite often what you see at eye level is determined by who payed for the placement. It may not be the highest margin item for the retailer on its own. But it is their because the vendor payed a royalty to have it where they want it.
3) Move as fast as you can to the back of the store. Start at the back of the store and work your way forwards.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are talking grocery, very few stores are laid out the same way. There's no way this can be a 'rule' that will help you when what is at the front or back will vary from location to location. I think a better way of looking at this might be - don't buy what is on end-caps and floor displays until you have looked at the prices for comparable items. This means, not running to the back, but going to the aisle where the item is normally located.
In larger stores this really doesn't make sense. If I go to Fry's Electronics and run to the back, how does that help me? If I go to Best Buy and hustle right back to home appliances, I'm not sure what I've done to help myself out.
The psychology of all this is over rated. A little common sense - like many of the other suggestions in the list, will go a long way. That's not manipulating the 'system' it's just using your mind and operating above a visceral level.
don't yell at us because you got the wrong kind of degree. i covered all my bases- picked up a BA and a BS.
oh i got it. sometimes when people don't laugh it isn't because they don't get it. just like when people don't like someone it isn't always because they are jealous.
Those who can, teach, those who cant become principals.
um - no.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach phys. ed.
the summary changed between when the story was first up in the 'mysterious future' and when it went live. which is how it is supposed to work - but could also explain the confusion.
good - i emailed the editor when i saw the story was going to hit the front page. nice to see it wasn't for nothing. when i read the summary after it went live, i missed that they had made the change, so i appreciate your pointing it out.
if you read the links, you will see that the author has already switched back to gpl v2
fwiw - you've got a ton of great books still to go - and if you make it through all of them, you'll get to experience the joy of going back and finding out they are just as awesome the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th or 5th time around. i just finished bluebeard a month or two back for the fourth time, but i hadn't read it in a while, and it was awesome still. i'm so glad a sliver of his genius is preserved in print.
If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC
* Vonnegut's Blues For America 07 January, 2006 Sunday Herald
a little more decency - please.
but it does last for a long time.
i save the big stuff for your mom.
it's the age old situation. not one tool does every job best. there are still plenty of situations where desktop apps are appropriate. as nifty as web 2.0 apps are, they still aren't as good, in certain situations.
that there is a demand for disconnected apps is undeniable. all one has to do is look at the disparity between the number of households with computers and the number of households with dial-up or less.
me, i prefer desktop apps in a number of areas - personal finance, my office suite, games, my coding tools - and there are probably more.
at the same time, on those rare occasions i find myself sitting somewhere with my laptop but no internet access, i feel lost to some extent. i am very, very used to having both types of software at my disposal constantly.
I for one welcome our new pigeon overlords.
As fun as it might be -- George Lucas is not the ultimate reason for this. The ultimate reason is that the major film studios are afraid to innovate and want every film to be a sure thing. He didn't make hollywood that way.
that's an interesting take on it. i work with hr and financials data - so i know it is pretty critical and sensitive. i don't know about what kind of paper records exist, but i think many of the transactions that take place between us and the people we work for are purely electronic.
i think the biggest lesson here is that it really pays to test your backups. i've seen this happen over and over again -- where the first time someone is trying to recover - is when there has been a loss. even if the media and the backups are good, the people doing the recovery have zero experience with doing an actual recovery. makes no sense. if you practice on a regular basis - you verify that your backups are good, and your staff get good training. that's invaluable. but i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir here.
right - the account is worth 38 billion - the file was apparently worth about 200 grand in labor. of course it didn't cost that much to make the first time, as it was done over a longer period without all the o.t.
yeah they do - when it is more than a couple boxes in ma's basement.
um yeah - we posted it at the same time. thanks for pointing it out though.
apparently L. VeGas did
No. Most laws that are enacted when the vast majority of the populace hold a different moral conviction fail. Prohibition did not fail because it was a purely moral act. It failed because more people thought it was not immoral to consume alcohol than supported the law.
Laws against theft and murder are enacted purely because people think they are wrong. Most emphatically when they consider that they themselves might be the victims of those actions. A state will not function well without those protections because once again - the morality of the majority will face the state to change.
There is a good possibility that drug laws in the u.s. are going to radically change and it will primarily be due to a shift in the morality of the populace. Once enough people are 'o.k.' with something, it takes a huge expenditure of resources to restrict that activity and it inevitably fails.
here is a definition of morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
that is why laws are always about morality. they are about what actions society considers right and which actions it considers wrong.
when you discuss harm - you are now talking about the basis used to decide what is moral and what is not. that's a whole different thing. you think morality should be based on proof of harm. a bunch of other people don't agree with you. if history has taught us one thing, it is that it is normal for people to disagree on what is moral and what is not. to this point i think the best system we've devised to deal with that problem is democracy.
Driving on the right side of the road (or left depending on where you are) is codified as a method of avoiding accidents and helping people get where they want to go safely. Another system could be everyone drives on what side they want, the bigger faster vehicles push the smaller vehicles out of the way.
The law was written to enforce morality. It may be worth looking at a definition of morality since it seems to not be too clear to a lot of people who have responded. Here is one: "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" Why do we have traffic laws? Because of moral concerns about what is right and wrong in how we get around. A person who landed here from a culture that valued strength and conflict might see driving on the right as immoral as it gave the weak too much opportunity to flourish. What many religions do is argue that their system of morality is derived from an absolute standard that exists outside of mankind. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that laws are moral judgments.