He didn't but he was using the coin to determine who should be punished, the Joker flipped heads.
Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Nokia phones were in it (Lucius Fox's mobile).
Re:You BELIEVED the maniac?!?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I fully expected that guy to push the button and then have a few frames to look shocked as their boat blew up. In every choice the Joker gave he provided the wrong information (Dawes and Dent were at the opposite locations, the guards/hostages).
Re: I appreciated the ending to the story...
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
When Bruce asked him if they ever captured the thief he said, yes. To this Bruce asks how, and the reply was a quip of, we burnt the forest down.
True, but he was ready to consider it and threaten it, which tied the two major themes of the film together. What is an appropriate response to attacks on the nature of society and the justaposition of the white knight of Gotham with the dark knight of Gotham.
I saw the interrogation as him peering into the abyss and realizing that his previously relied upon tools were incapable of dealing with what he found there. The Joker showed him he had always had tool that allowed him to not be slowed by limitations (similar to Batman), but lacking Batman's singular devotion to remeding injustice he devolved to a killer. I agree it was a change to his nature, but wanted to allow room for others to say it had been there all along and revealed.
Re:Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular.
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 2
Yes, I thought it was an interesting parallel. I appreciated the ending to the story about the jewel thief, as well.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Funny
This is a pretty simple misconception. Think of it this way, at a 0% tax rate no one pays any taxes so income tax revenue is 0, easy right? Also at 100% tax rate, no one does anything taxable (you'll just pay the government so it's silly), so government revenue is 0 again. This is a pretty good clue that tax revenues is a curve with a peak/plateau at some point and curves to the 0s. However, no one really knows the full shape of the curve.
Smart folks will argue about the placement of the peak, while politicians of one party usually trumpet the obvious point that revenues rise when tax rates are cut but neglect the key point (if you're tax rate is beyond the peak on the downward sloping side of the curve).
Granted pocket watch chains wear out slowly but, shall we say that you replace a few links in the chain over time. Would the pocketwatch chain still not be your grandfathers? What if, over a period of centuries your progeny continue to care for the pocket watch chain and over that time continue to replace links, would the chain not continue to be your grandfathers pocketwatch chain? How about after every single link were to have been replaced each individually, perhaps without the knowledge that all the other links had previously been changed?
The watch chain remains authentic, even though with wear, it has been slowly renewed. Most of the cells in your body are imperfect copies of the originals, but the whole remains the same whole. Authenticity is a funny thing.
Some of the sellers are oil well owners who are hedging the value of the oil in their wells, but other than that you're correct. Also, at the end of the contract 0 oil is delivered (it's fairly similar to betting on the final score of the Superbowl).
They do, but drilling an oil well isn't just drive out to a lease and sink it. First, a lot of the leased land requires new drilling methods that are still being developed. Second, It's expensive, so first you do lots of geologic modeling (oil companies are huge supercomputer users) to find the most promising locations. Then you drill a test well (exploratory well) and after you learn from the data you got, you might be able to increase production.
No one is going to do much geologic modeling work on land that you have no chance of ever leasing so the longer you wait for them to lease it, add 10-20 years for it to reach production.
You're just a little late to the party, brokers call theirs program trading, and hedge funds call theirs black box/anylitical trading. It's probably 60-80% of the shares traded on any given day.
On the last point, I'm glad to hear that. Too often when people are upset with an entity's actions they try to pass a law. Interesting discussion, and while I disagree with some of your ideas, you are a reasoned and intelligent fellow and I wish you all the best. Hope you have a wonderful rest of the week.
Personally, I have no problems with smokers or smoking, (I even like a cigar every so often). I'd hire smokers, but I support another's right not to do so and strongly support a business owner's right to restrict or include smokers as clients at their discretion (not the city or county).
Currently private employeers can discriminate all they want on anything except the protected classes: age, disability, national origin, race, religion, and sex. Although states have other protected classes. I'm in favor of allowing someone hiring another person to choose anything they like that's not on that list as a reason to hire or not hire them.
The reason you're there is to make money. You're there to earn a wage or salary, and you're employeer is hiring you because they expect that you will enable their organization to be more effective (for most organizations this means make more money).
Personally, I'd love to see an end to health insurance tied to employment.
It's dumb, but during WWII the government started giving companies a tax break for providing health insurance. Meaning the company could write off the expense, but the employee wouldn't be taxed on health insurance. This pushed health insurance to a part of the employement package. Once there, companies bought pooled insurance (meaning every employee is covered you and the insurance company cannot pick employees to cover).
If employees can opt in or out of the insurance, the price rises dramatically. In essense by removing the choice to raise salary by the amount of the premiums or take insurance, the lemon problem is solved. You're half correct that companies won't make you buy insurance with your own money, but few will let you opt out of their insurance either. You can pick your plan/HMO sometimes, but you can't get the premiums as a bonus.
You're correct over a lifetime, but over a working career (18 or 22 to 65, smokers are vastly more expensive. Health care costs are 40% higher for smokers at the same age as non-smokers, non smokers get more expensive in their later years (after the smokers have mostly died). Since employeer paid insurance is provided during your working years, it's much more expensive to insure smokers.
Since the insurance is bought on a pooled basis, changing the nature of the pool (eliminating smokers as an example) dramatically reduces the insurance premiums for the pool. Of course the company could stop offering employeer paid insurance, but the premiums for individual policies would be substantially higher than the previous pooled premiums had been.
Because the $20 fee is less than the $40 overdraft fee your bank charges. Not monitoring your money is dumb, but minimizing the cost of your mistakes is, um, less dumb.
Corporate insurance is only cheap because it is a pool of insurables. Basically, health care costs are power series distributed (with a very small minority drawing a huge amount of the cost). Smokers and the overweight are two contiditions that greatly increase the likelihood of being in that group.
Also, insurance companies will only write profitable insurance. So if a client (even a corporate client) doesn't pay in more premiums than benefits cost, there won't be insurance. Because you know your health history better than your employeer and the insurance company, the majority of the people who are in the low cost group will keep the bonus and the insurance will be taken by those who are or expect to be in the tails.
As a result, if individuals are purchasing it, rather than the company covering all employees with the same coverage, the price shoots up dramatically (from a few thousand a year to 10s of thousands a year).
Since the company is generally paying for health insurance (and most people don't compare that nearly as much as salary information). Their costs drop dramatically when they can show the insurance company that by restricting smokers they have cut their expected likelihood of having those very expensive patients dramatically.
So the company can restrict to non-smokers provide insurance and pay higher salaries than the company that hires anyone. With the same total employee costs as the other company.
A decent number of payday loans are used to cover checking account overdrafts which have even higher fees. Funny how folks aren't always as dumb as we make them out to be.
What about something like 2008 Basic and 2008 Performance that held steady for a year and then were reset the year after, it would allow game boxes to say complient with 2009 Performance 2010 Basic and all newer systems.
That isn't too far from consoles which are on a slightly longer than annual cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't but he was using the coin to determine who should be punished, the Joker flipped heads.
Nokia phones were in it (Lucius Fox's mobile).
I fully expected that guy to push the button and then have a few frames to look shocked as their boat blew up. In every choice the Joker gave he provided the wrong information (Dawes and Dent were at the opposite locations, the guards/hostages).
When Bruce asked him if they ever captured the thief he said, yes. To this Bruce asks how, and the reply was a quip of, we burnt the forest down.
True, but he was ready to consider it and threaten it, which tied the two major themes of the film together. What is an appropriate response to attacks on the nature of society and the justaposition of the white knight of Gotham with the dark knight of Gotham.
I saw the interrogation as him peering into the abyss and realizing that his previously relied upon tools were incapable of dealing with what he found there. The Joker showed him he had always had tool that allowed him to not be slowed by limitations (similar to Batman), but lacking Batman's singular devotion to remeding injustice he devolved to a killer. I agree it was a change to his nature, but wanted to allow room for others to say it had been there all along and revealed.
Yes, I thought it was an interesting parallel. I appreciated the ending to the story about the jewel thief, as well.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
Fact #1 Bats=bugs!
This is a pretty simple misconception. Think of it this way, at a 0% tax rate no one pays any taxes so income tax revenue is 0, easy right? Also at 100% tax rate, no one does anything taxable (you'll just pay the government so it's silly), so government revenue is 0 again. This is a pretty good clue that tax revenues is a curve with a peak/plateau at some point and curves to the 0s. However, no one really knows the full shape of the curve.
Smart folks will argue about the placement of the peak, while politicians of one party usually trumpet the obvious point that revenues rise when tax rates are cut but neglect the key point (if you're tax rate is beyond the peak on the downward sloping side of the curve).
Under/over rated are the chicken mod choice because they don't subject the moderator to potential punishment in meta moderation.
Granted pocket watch chains wear out slowly but, shall we say that you replace a few links in the chain over time. Would the pocketwatch chain still not be your grandfathers? What if, over a period of centuries your progeny continue to care for the pocket watch chain and over that time continue to replace links, would the chain not continue to be your grandfathers pocketwatch chain? How about after every single link were to have been replaced each individually, perhaps without the knowledge that all the other links had previously been changed?
The watch chain remains authentic, even though with wear, it has been slowly renewed. Most of the cells in your body are imperfect copies of the originals, but the whole remains the same whole. Authenticity is a funny thing.
Some of the sellers are oil well owners who are hedging the value of the oil in their wells, but other than that you're correct. Also, at the end of the contract 0 oil is delivered (it's fairly similar to betting on the final score of the Superbowl).
They do, but drilling an oil well isn't just drive out to a lease and sink it. First, a lot of the leased land requires new drilling methods that are still being developed. Second, It's expensive, so first you do lots of geologic modeling (oil companies are huge supercomputer users) to find the most promising locations. Then you drill a test well (exploratory well) and after you learn from the data you got, you might be able to increase production.
No one is going to do much geologic modeling work on land that you have no chance of ever leasing so the longer you wait for them to lease it, add 10-20 years for it to reach production.
Seeing your enimies driven before you and hearing the lamentations of their women.
I was following you until you got to bacteria cultures and an infected tomato, and I'm just wondering what's the tomato's purpose?
You're just a little late to the party, brokers call theirs program trading, and hedge funds call theirs black box/anylitical trading. It's probably 60-80% of the shares traded on any given day.
On the last point, I'm glad to hear that. Too often when people are upset with an entity's actions they try to pass a law. Interesting discussion, and while I disagree with some of your ideas, you are a reasoned and intelligent fellow and I wish you all the best. Hope you have a wonderful rest of the week.
Personally, I have no problems with smokers or smoking, (I even like a cigar every so often). I'd hire smokers, but I support another's right not to do so and strongly support a business owner's right to restrict or include smokers as clients at their discretion (not the city or county).
Currently private employeers can discriminate all they want on anything except the protected classes: age, disability, national origin, race, religion, and sex. Although states have other protected classes. I'm in favor of allowing someone hiring another person to choose anything they like that's not on that list as a reason to hire or not hire them.
The reason you're there is to make money. You're there to earn a wage or salary, and you're employeer is hiring you because they expect that you will enable their organization to be more effective (for most organizations this means make more money).
Personally, I'd love to see an end to health insurance tied to employment.
It's dumb, but during WWII the government started giving companies a tax break for providing health insurance. Meaning the company could write off the expense, but the employee wouldn't be taxed on health insurance. This pushed health insurance to a part of the employement package. Once there, companies bought pooled insurance (meaning every employee is covered you and the insurance company cannot pick employees to cover).
If employees can opt in or out of the insurance, the price rises dramatically. In essense by removing the choice to raise salary by the amount of the premiums or take insurance, the lemon problem is solved. You're half correct that companies won't make you buy insurance with your own money, but few will let you opt out of their insurance either. You can pick your plan/HMO sometimes, but you can't get the premiums as a bonus.
You're correct over a lifetime, but over a working career (18 or 22 to 65, smokers are vastly more expensive. Health care costs are 40% higher for smokers at the same age as non-smokers, non smokers get more expensive in their later years (after the smokers have mostly died). Since employeer paid insurance is provided during your working years, it's much more expensive to insure smokers.
Since the insurance is bought on a pooled basis, changing the nature of the pool (eliminating smokers as an example) dramatically reduces the insurance premiums for the pool. Of course the company could stop offering employeer paid insurance, but the premiums for individual policies would be substantially higher than the previous pooled premiums had been.
Because the $20 fee is less than the $40 overdraft fee your bank charges. Not monitoring your money is dumb, but minimizing the cost of your mistakes is, um, less dumb.
Corporate insurance is only cheap because it is a pool of insurables. Basically, health care costs are power series distributed (with a very small minority drawing a huge amount of the cost). Smokers and the overweight are two contiditions that greatly increase the likelihood of being in that group.
Also, insurance companies will only write profitable insurance. So if a client (even a corporate client) doesn't pay in more premiums than benefits cost, there won't be insurance. Because you know your health history better than your employeer and the insurance company, the majority of the people who are in the low cost group will keep the bonus and the insurance will be taken by those who are or expect to be in the tails.
As a result, if individuals are purchasing it, rather than the company covering all employees with the same coverage, the price shoots up dramatically (from a few thousand a year to 10s of thousands a year).
Since the company is generally paying for health insurance (and most people don't compare that nearly as much as salary information). Their costs drop dramatically when they can show the insurance company that by restricting smokers they have cut their expected likelihood of having those very expensive patients dramatically.
So the company can restrict to non-smokers provide insurance and pay higher salaries than the company that hires anyone. With the same total employee costs as the other company.
A decent number of payday loans are used to cover checking account overdrafts which have even higher fees. Funny how folks aren't always as dumb as we make them out to be.
Here's the info for all three. This is regulated by the states so it's possible that you might not be able to initiate this from your state. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20030613c2.asp Experian has a handy online form for you to do it. https://www.experian.com/consumer/cac/InvalidateSession.do?code=FREEZE
What about something like 2008 Basic and 2008 Performance that held steady for a year and then were reset the year after, it would allow game boxes to say complient with 2009 Performance 2010 Basic and all newer systems. That isn't too far from consoles which are on a slightly longer than annual cycle.
Monty never actually played the Monty Hall game on Let's Make a Deal as the math problem has it.