We actually do manufacture a shit-ton of things in this country. It's just that we don't have humans doing the menial tasks any more. Our innovation has destroyed a lot of low level factory jobs, but it's a myth to claim that we no longer make things.
I'm confused by both accounts, to be honest. I'll make no claims on who is in the right, but the information just seems strange to me.
Case 1 - did not stop sex after condom broke. I personally have never experienced a broken condom. It is something I'm rather paranoid about, and as such, check that condoms are not leaking after having sex. I've always been under the assumption that during continuous activity there would be no way to know about a break. So, how can someone ask me to stop for a reason they are unable to know about?
Case 2 - how in the world does someone consent to sex that was initiated while fully asleep? Unless saying, "I'm going to sleep now, but feel free to have sex with me while I'm out", I don't see how consent could be involved.
Regardless, this is a situation that's certainly raising questions - both in innate cultural misogyny and in the realm of plausible political conspiracy.
I'm curious to see how things turn out, and desperately hope that wikileaks can survive this, that my government isn't engaged in a smear campaign for conspiracy, and that Assange gets punishment in line with how faulty his character really is - freed if innocent, punished if a rapist.
It might have something to do with how long the average show sits on a Tivo, and how much ad value they feel there is for a show on Tivo vs. on Netflix.
I know everyone fast forwards through commercials with DVRs, but even seeing the existence must have more impact than not having them at all.
So, if people cycle through what's saved on their DVRs every two weeks on average, they make more in ad revenue if they delay the release beyond that window.
Why are they trying to charge base on how much total data I transfer? It doesn't save them money if the pipes are 'empty'. The expense should be based on how fast I want my bits.
I remember the days when I'd have to let a 1 min video buffer for 30s before I could watch it. Why not do that for super cheap, then let people pay more for 5Mbs, and even more for 50Mbps?
What compelling argument is there that it matters at all how much I am able to download in one month at 1Mbps or even 56k? I understand that not every person in the region can max out a 20Mbps line at the same time, but surely at lower speed that all changes....
If people aren't using the water, it gets saved, and there is MORE water later. If people aren't using electricity, the plants slow down, and the production cost is LESS.
If people aren't using bandwidth, the infrastructure is EXACTLY the same. Bits don't get saved up.
Rates based on speed make sense in this case. Rates based on total usage do not.
Exactly! Who cares how much I download in a month - if nobody uses the pipes there isn't more for later.
I'd settle for speed capping and speed-based pricing tiers. Get a standard rate for evenings and weekends, pay more to go as fast or faster during business hours (or vice versa depending on which time of day is straining their networks), and just rate limit people.
If I can cleverly buffer so that I can stream Netflix at 56k - let me! It doesn't cost extra. It's only trying to give a large number of people a smoking fast download rate at the same time that costs extra, as far as I can tell. So, sell it to me that way.
In fact, where I live, Time Warner already does this. I get about 5Mbps down for what I pay, and if I want to pay more I can jump up to 10 or 15Mbps. Seems perfectly reasonable, and if they have the ability to sell that high transfer rate it must be accessible to them, no matter how many Netflix movies I stream at 5!
But, it is the country whose bankers gamed the markets to the point of global economic collapse.
And, it is the country that entered into two wars against popular global opinion.
So, I'd say the war leaks and upcoming banking leaks are rightly US-centric. It's absurd to be sensitive and pretend the US is being singled out. I guess you could change the stats somewhat if you personally started leaking something from N. Korea?
so, you don't think I should be allowed to txt while on the bus or in an elevator?
police departments can check call logs and txt logs. why don't we just say - if you're in an accident we will look at the logs, and if you were texting at the time we will increase the penalty accordingly?
I have a hard time believing this, so I have to look for some methodology flaws. Since you wait to check for mileage at the pump, you have very little clear quantified knowledge of exactly how much time you spent at that speed as opposed to getting up to that speed, happening to be at the same speed of trucks, and thus drafting, etc.
I think it's maybe a better data point to log the revs at each speed on a flat road on a day with no wind. Gas will burn with each spin of the engine, so the total engine revolutions per mile traveled might be a better quantifiable way to determine most efficient speed.
I've always just assumed that the slowest speed I could go in my highest gear was my most efficient speed. And when I watch the guys at Top Gear try to drive insane distances on a single tank they often move along at 45 mph.
But, my current car has no tach, so I've no way to confirm my assumptions.
Why can't you just check whether your employee is doing their work the old fashioned way?
You know, by their results? If an employee is goofing off all day, they'll have nothing to show for the day. If they work, they will.
You're buying a person's time, or a person's commitment to a project. You are not buying their maximum efficiency. If I can do all my routine tasks faster than most people, should I get paid less than most people, since I will be filling the downtime with things you monitor as not work?
Clearly there are examples of jobs where there are always more tasks and more hours to fill. Just as there are jobs where there's going to be some downtime, and the more efficient or faster or more clever worker will have excess downtime. So long as you get the results you pay for, what do you care?
I'm not that curious how 9 random soldiers feel about playing as the Taliban. What I am curious about is how 9 soldiers that have been in combat against the Taliban feel.
Just as I'm more interested in an interview with a WWII soldier about WWII games than in anybody else's sense of the emotions. Everyone else is only anticipating offense or ambivalence.
As far as I can tell from a skim of TFA, there's no indication of these soldier's backgrounds, other than rank. Have they been in combat? Was it in this conflict? It's lazy reporting to ignore the detail, or to not make the effort to find people with an actual experience to found things on.
I worked on a grant from NASA. Are you going to expect special insight from me about the emotions surrounding the Columbia disaster? I'd hope not. I don't have any more connection to it than a shared high level boss.
We can't seek understanding of everything we encounter. I cannot become an expert in every aspect of my life that has a financial consequence. I like computers, so I am unlikely to fall for this sort of scam. However, when I take my car to the shop, I have to simply choose to trust the mechanic at some point. Same is true with the plumber.
I'm a curious person, and I generally ask enough questions to annoy people, but at some point I don't have the time to reach the necessary depth. Or, some things I just plain don't care about. Not many things, but enough that I pay service people, and have to trust them.
Finally, a con artist that isn't good at convincing people that they are trustworthy is not a very successful con artist.
Otherwise, I agree with you - widespread willful ignorance is sad, and leaves people with lesser and more victimized lives.
I don't know if it's a case of idiots or liars, but I am extremely tired of situations where the supposed top dog in a situation has no real power to examine individual circumstances. What the hell does the title superintendent mean if that person has no authority to make decisions?
I see this everywhere today. Have a problem at a store, and ask to see the manager - you're likely to be talking to a person that's 19 instead of the 17 year old you just finished arguing with, and this person still can't do anything or make decisions.
Where did all the authority over one's providence go? How did we end up in a situations where there are no bosses with control over anything? I just can't comprehend it.
My best hypothesis is that most people are some combination of incompetent and lazy and it's somehow always worked for them to say 'sorry, I can't help - my hands are tied. There's a POLICY'.
If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive.
Exactly. I find it far more rational to stop thinking about "my" taxes. I'm not purchasing individual goods with taxes. Whether I drive a car or not has little impact on the need for roads, as an example. There are certain needs we have as a society (I would include public education in that), and that is what "our" taxes are for. It stops being "your" money when you make your contribution to those social necessities via taxation.
You're free to argue that there is waste in our system, or that tax money goes to things that are not contributive to societal living, or that the tax law is imbalanced in some way, but none of that changes the fact that the tax money is not yours to be used solely on the parts of group living that you feel you take advantage of.
Vouchers only effect two groups of people - those in the middle class that just can't quite afford private school but don't think public school is adequate, and those that feel the need for their education to have a religious influence.
Leaving aside church/state issues, I'll comment on the first group, which I'm more passionate about anyway. Our success as a nation has everything to do with people's opportunity to pursue an education, and vouchers do nothing more than bleed money from already poorly funded public schools into private schools, broadening our already shameful socioeconomic-driven opportunity gap.
We need to make our public schools work, and removing funds doesn't seem like a productive route towards this goal. Maybe you can think of a system or institution that would be improved by poorer funding, but I can't.
I'm not saying that our public schools are great right now, but having the middle class completely abandon them does not look like a solution to me. That is why I'm against vouchers.
I really like Chrome, and according to Tom's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience, aesthetics aside. Yet, I can't make the switch.
I'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing. I switched to Opera way back when, solely for the gestures, and liked it so much I even sent them $20 (paying for a browser!). I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures' add on.
I'd really like to switch to Chrome, but simply cannot until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit. Right-clicking, or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious (which feels really lazy to say), when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab.
Car and Driver looked into how well a car could stop with the accelerator pinned, and at highway speeds it took only 80 extra feet to stop for a 540bhp Mustang. Less powerful cars had a smaller difference in stopping distances.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
In the end, the solution is to not panic, and have been trained in what to do in this particular crisis. I think this recall has caused many many people to think about what to do if they ever are stuck in a car with the throttle stuck, which is a good thing.
The Pikes Peak Hill Climb requires drifting on the dirt.
I've run to the top of Mt. Evans, on the pavement, and in the hours I was trotting my way up, I studied that ground rather intensely. It's not eroded to the point of not being paved at all.
Except there's not an annual race to the top of Mt. Evans, and therefore nothing to compare.
Also, Evans is paved. I'd say the drifting done in the Hill Climb is FAR more challenging.
You cannot simultaneously claim that ebooks should not be cheaper than physical books because they cost just as much to produce as paper books, AND that ebooks should not be cheaper because there is value added convenience. That simply reeks of arguing that ebooks should cost the same not matter how you have to frame the argument, ie. desperate. You would be better off arguing that your net profit should be the same in both worlds.
Convenience is not what your job is. Your job is to find authors, hone works, publish them, distribute them. Not trying to charge me more at the bookstore next to my house because it took less of my time to get there than the bookstore across town. That's a self-serving and absurd argument that you're making. Amazon found a way to make it convenient for me to read your books - YOU did not. But you want extra money for that convenience?
And I don't believe you one bit about ebooks costing so much to publish. You're not paying a whole line of people from lumberjack to printer to truck driver all of the sudden. There may be a larger upfront cost, due to whatever hardware/software growth, but suddenly your books are available indefinitely and don't need second printings. You can profit off of small sales books forever without risk of excess overhead and storage. And you NEVER sell out and miss on sales. Frankly, you are lying.
And it's ridiculous to classify text books in with all literature. Yes, what you work on requires fact checking, layout, et cetera for small numbers of sales. That's why textbooks cost $100 instead of $10, like the paperback novel. The latest airport novel needs none of that extra effort that is specific to your particular division.
Slashdot Mirror
We actually do manufacture a shit-ton of things in this country. It's just that we don't have humans doing the menial tasks any more. Our innovation has destroyed a lot of low level factory jobs, but it's a myth to claim that we no longer make things.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/08/130436221/the-friday-podcast-buttons-and-other-connectors
I'm confused by both accounts, to be honest. I'll make no claims on who is in the right, but the information just seems strange to me.
Case 1 - did not stop sex after condom broke. I personally have never experienced a broken condom. It is something I'm rather paranoid about, and as such, check that condoms are not leaking after having sex. I've always been under the assumption that during continuous activity there would be no way to know about a break. So, how can someone ask me to stop for a reason they are unable to know about?
Case 2 - how in the world does someone consent to sex that was initiated while fully asleep? Unless saying, "I'm going to sleep now, but feel free to have sex with me while I'm out", I don't see how consent could be involved.
Regardless, this is a situation that's certainly raising questions - both in innate cultural misogyny and in the realm of plausible political conspiracy.
I'm curious to see how things turn out, and desperately hope that wikileaks can survive this, that my government isn't engaged in a smear campaign for conspiracy, and that Assange gets punishment in line with how faulty his character really is - freed if innocent, punished if a rapist.
It might have something to do with how long the average show sits on a Tivo, and how much ad value they feel there is for a show on Tivo vs. on Netflix.
I know everyone fast forwards through commercials with DVRs, but even seeing the existence must have more impact than not having them at all.
So, if people cycle through what's saved on their DVRs every two weeks on average, they make more in ad revenue if they delay the release beyond that window.
Why are they trying to charge base on how much total data I transfer? It doesn't save them money if the pipes are 'empty'. The expense should be based on how fast I want my bits.
I remember the days when I'd have to let a 1 min video buffer for 30s before I could watch it. Why not do that for super cheap, then let people pay more for 5Mbs, and even more for 50Mbps?
What compelling argument is there that it matters at all how much I am able to download in one month at 1Mbps or even 56k? I understand that not every person in the region can max out a 20Mbps line at the same time, but surely at lower speed that all changes....
If people aren't using the water, it gets saved, and there is MORE water later.
If people aren't using electricity, the plants slow down, and the production cost is LESS.
If people aren't using bandwidth, the infrastructure is EXACTLY the same. Bits don't get saved up.
Rates based on speed make sense in this case. Rates based on total usage do not.
Exactly! Who cares how much I download in a month - if nobody uses the pipes there isn't more for later.
I'd settle for speed capping and speed-based pricing tiers. Get a standard rate for evenings and weekends, pay more to go as fast or faster during business hours (or vice versa depending on which time of day is straining their networks), and just rate limit people.
If I can cleverly buffer so that I can stream Netflix at 56k - let me! It doesn't cost extra. It's only trying to give a large number of people a smoking fast download rate at the same time that costs extra, as far as I can tell. So, sell it to me that way.
In fact, where I live, Time Warner already does this. I get about 5Mbps down for what I pay, and if I want to pay more I can jump up to 10 or 15Mbps. Seems perfectly reasonable, and if they have the ability to sell that high transfer rate it must be accessible to them, no matter how many Netflix movies I stream at 5!
Lying, greedy, extortionists - Telecom.
Napoleon apparently ate one.
madly curious: is 0.006% an arbitrary number, or have you done some math to show it's optimal for some reason?
Not the only country with dirty laundry, true.
But, it is the country whose bankers gamed the markets to the point of global economic collapse.
And, it is the country that entered into two wars against popular global opinion.
So, I'd say the war leaks and upcoming banking leaks are rightly US-centric. It's absurd to be sensitive and pretend the US is being singled out. I guess you could change the stats somewhat if you personally started leaking something from N. Korea?
so, you don't think I should be allowed to txt while on the bus or in an elevator?
police departments can check call logs and txt logs. why don't we just say - if you're in an accident we will look at the logs, and if you were texting at the time we will increase the penalty accordingly?
I have a hard time believing this, so I have to look for some methodology flaws.
Since you wait to check for mileage at the pump, you have very little clear quantified knowledge of exactly how much time you spent at that speed as opposed to getting up to that speed, happening to be at the same speed of trucks, and thus drafting, etc.
I think it's maybe a better data point to log the revs at each speed on a flat road on a day with no wind. Gas will burn with each spin of the engine, so the total engine revolutions per mile traveled might be a better quantifiable way to determine most efficient speed.
I've always just assumed that the slowest speed I could go in my highest gear was my most efficient speed. And when I watch the guys at Top Gear try to drive insane distances on a single tank they often move along at 45 mph.
But, my current car has no tach, so I've no way to confirm my assumptions.
Why can't you just check whether your employee is doing their work the old fashioned way?
You know, by their results? If an employee is goofing off all day, they'll have nothing to show for the day. If they work, they will.
You're buying a person's time, or a person's commitment to a project. You are not buying their maximum efficiency. If I can do all my routine tasks faster than most people, should I get paid less than most people, since I will be filling the downtime with things you monitor as not work?
Clearly there are examples of jobs where there are always more tasks and more hours to fill. Just as there are jobs where there's going to be some downtime, and the more efficient or faster or more clever worker will have excess downtime. So long as you get the results you pay for, what do you care?
I'm not that curious how 9 random soldiers feel about playing as the Taliban. What I am curious about is how 9 soldiers that have been in combat against the Taliban feel.
Just as I'm more interested in an interview with a WWII soldier about WWII games than in anybody else's sense of the emotions. Everyone else is only anticipating offense or ambivalence.
As far as I can tell from a skim of TFA, there's no indication of these soldier's backgrounds, other than rank. Have they been in combat? Was it in this conflict? It's lazy reporting to ignore the detail, or to not make the effort to find people with an actual experience to found things on.
I worked on a grant from NASA. Are you going to expect special insight from me about the emotions surrounding the Columbia disaster? I'd hope not. I don't have any more connection to it than a shared high level boss.
We can't seek understanding of everything we encounter. I cannot become an expert in every aspect of my life that has a financial consequence. I like computers, so I am unlikely to fall for this sort of scam. However, when I take my car to the shop, I have to simply choose to trust the mechanic at some point. Same is true with the plumber.
I'm a curious person, and I generally ask enough questions to annoy people, but at some point I don't have the time to reach the necessary depth. Or, some things I just plain don't care about. Not many things, but enough that I pay service people, and have to trust them.
Finally, a con artist that isn't good at convincing people that they are trustworthy is not a very successful con artist.
Otherwise, I agree with you - widespread willful ignorance is sad, and leaves people with lesser and more victimized lives.
Robot Indiana Jones
I don't know if it's a case of idiots or liars, but I am extremely tired of situations where the supposed top dog in a situation has no real power to examine individual circumstances. What the hell does the title superintendent mean if that person has no authority to make decisions?
I see this everywhere today. Have a problem at a store, and ask to see the manager - you're likely to be talking to a person that's 19 instead of the 17 year old you just finished arguing with, and this person still can't do anything or make decisions.
Where did all the authority over one's providence go? How did we end up in a situations where there are no bosses with control over anything? I just can't comprehend it.
My best hypothesis is that most people are some combination of incompetent and lazy and it's somehow always worked for them to say 'sorry, I can't help - my hands are tied. There's a POLICY'.
If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive.
Exactly. I find it far more rational to stop thinking about "my" taxes. I'm not purchasing individual goods with taxes. Whether I drive a car or not has little impact on the need for roads, as an example. There are certain needs we have as a society (I would include public education in that), and that is what "our" taxes are for. It stops being "your" money when you make your contribution to those social necessities via taxation.
You're free to argue that there is waste in our system, or that tax money goes to things that are not contributive to societal living, or that the tax law is imbalanced in some way, but none of that changes the fact that the tax money is not yours to be used solely on the parts of group living that you feel you take advantage of.
Vouchers only effect two groups of people - those in the middle class that just can't quite afford private school but don't think public school is adequate, and those that feel the need for their education to have a religious influence.
Leaving aside church/state issues, I'll comment on the first group, which I'm more passionate about anyway. Our success as a nation has everything to do with people's opportunity to pursue an education, and vouchers do nothing more than bleed money from already poorly funded public schools into private schools, broadening our already shameful socioeconomic-driven opportunity gap.
We need to make our public schools work, and removing funds doesn't seem like a productive route towards this goal. Maybe you can think of a system or institution that would be improved by poorer funding, but I can't.
I'm not saying that our public schools are great right now, but having the middle class completely abandon them does not look like a solution to me. That is why I'm against vouchers.
oops - I should have reinvestigated this before I posted. There is a gesture add on now.
I don't like keyboard work when casual surfing because I usually end up sitting way back from the keyboard and have a cuppa coffee in my hand.
I really like Chrome, and according to Tom's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience, aesthetics aside. Yet, I can't make the switch.
I'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing. I switched to Opera way back when, solely for the gestures, and liked it so much I even sent them $20 (paying for a browser!). I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures' add on.
I'd really like to switch to Chrome, but simply cannot until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit. Right-clicking, or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious (which feels really lazy to say), when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab.
Car and Driver looked into how well a car could stop with the accelerator pinned, and at highway speeds it took only 80 extra feet to stop for a 540bhp Mustang. Less powerful cars had a smaller difference in stopping distances. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept In the end, the solution is to not panic, and have been trained in what to do in this particular crisis. I think this recall has caused many many people to think about what to do if they ever are stuck in a car with the throttle stuck, which is a good thing.
You're being dramatic.
The Pikes Peak Hill Climb requires drifting on the dirt.
I've run to the top of Mt. Evans, on the pavement, and in the hours I was trotting my way up, I studied that ground rather intensely. It's not eroded to the point of not being paved at all.
Mount Evans Road would be more challenging...
Except there's not an annual race to the top of Mt. Evans, and therefore nothing to compare. Also, Evans is paved. I'd say the drifting done in the Hill Climb is FAR more challenging.
You cannot simultaneously claim that ebooks should not be cheaper than physical books because they cost just as much to produce as paper books, AND that ebooks should not be cheaper because there is value added convenience. That simply reeks of arguing that ebooks should cost the same not matter how you have to frame the argument, ie. desperate. You would be better off arguing that your net profit should be the same in both worlds.
Convenience is not what your job is. Your job is to find authors, hone works, publish them, distribute them. Not trying to charge me more at the bookstore next to my house because it took less of my time to get there than the bookstore across town. That's a self-serving and absurd argument that you're making. Amazon found a way to make it convenient for me to read your books - YOU did not. But you want extra money for that convenience?
And I don't believe you one bit about ebooks costing so much to publish. You're not paying a whole line of people from lumberjack to printer to truck driver all of the sudden. There may be a larger upfront cost, due to whatever hardware/software growth, but suddenly your books are available indefinitely and don't need second printings. You can profit off of small sales books forever without risk of excess overhead and storage. And you NEVER sell out and miss on sales. Frankly, you are lying.
And it's ridiculous to classify text books in with all literature. Yes, what you work on requires fact checking, layout, et cetera for small numbers of sales. That's why textbooks cost $100 instead of $10, like the paperback novel. The latest airport novel needs none of that extra effort that is specific to your particular division.
My horse is really pissed at you now. And, she bites.
So does Ann Coulter!