Your logic has a certain flaw, right there. No business can do without expansion nowadays. It doesn't matter anymore, whether you make a billion dollars in profits, it's important that you make more profit than you did last year.
Even ignoring that, people who buy your products aren't automatically addicted to them. Sometimes they even have the nerve and die. That means you need new customers to replace those who no longer can or want to buy from you.
I am 27 and the one thing I've learnt is that while I'm good at what I'm doing, I really should have done something else.
So keeping this in mind, what good would a degree have done?
Another way of looking at things: Would you enjoy only the goal or the way to get there as well? For me, getting the degree would be a pain, so I would weigh my options differently than someone who likes to study.
On the one hand, it will never again be as easy to learn as it is now. The older you get and the more time passes between having been in school and then doing it again, the harder it will be. Not only to find the motivation (unless you really do like school), but also to get your brain into learning mode again. Not to think about actually fitting school into your budget, especially if you already have family.
On the other hand, I'd expect you lack experience on what kind of jobs are out there for you and which of them suits you best. If what you like to do best falls into your current degree, then getting a higher degree will make it harder for you to find employment in this field. Wacky companies aside, it is usually not a good idea to hire people with too high degrees for a certain job. Bored people are just as detrimental to your overall success as people who are overworked.
Frankly, without having any idea what you actually LIKE to do with your life, this question is a pretty tough one. As unhelpful as it may be, you should try to match your education with the profession and amount of responsibility you target. The closer you get, the easier things shall be for you.
That would be a matter of taste, now wouldn't it? Personally, I'm just fed up with all those Paris Hilton wannabes wit porno pouts and oh so realistic 'acting'. I am fed up with silicone tits on top of malnourished torsos.
I'd rather look at someone's chubby girlfriend really having fun than most of those 'professionals'.
Government must step in when stuff is advertised falsely and it is not directly visible for the customer.
As an example, even hard drugs are nobody's business, as long as the customer is an adult. We all know what cocaine does, right? So we are able to decide whether we want to put our body through that.
When they sell you rat poison, though, you'll probably not know until you're foaming at the mouth.
I have nothing against taxing drugs (other than the belief that government taxes way too much anyway;)) but I see no justifiable reason to prohibit them. I've yet to hear a logical reason why it's okay to smoke and drunk but not to use cocaine.
What about the PS3, then? I find this step rather interesting. Microsoft often does not acknowledge their competitors even when those are market leaders. That they do so now, IMO, just points out how shaky they feel about the Vista situation and Windows 7.
On the other hand, the question might arise where to draw the line.
In Switzerland, as an example, you can put a sticker on your mailbox that you do not want to receive ads. Technically, people are required by law to honour that wish. Of course, depending where you are, they couldn't care less.
Now political propaganda, on the other hand, has been deemed important enough to warrant exemption from that rule. The post office is required to deliver those to ALL mailboxes. The fact that I consider this stuff to be just as bothersome as ads is of no importance.
So who gets to decide what is important enough to warrant an exemption? And I'm sure there are things that do make sense to be an automatic opt-in.
Which is a good point. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
This is about a company trying to shut up doctors who didn't like their product. There is nothing wrong with deciding to take the risk, but first you ought to KNOW the risk.
And how, exactly, did he fail to do what any other somewhat successful politician does? He avoided answering questions and did whatever the hell he wanted to do after he was elected.
So far, I'd say he does a pretty darn good job as a politician... just not as a leader of a state. But if we wanted leaders we wouldn't elect politicians in the first place, now would we?
You all seem to be ignoring that deep down, most of us are still hunter-gatherers.
Personally, I like reading stuff on screen. Gives me way less cramps than holding a book or keeping my head at weird angles because the book is on the table. Yet, when I buy stuff, I want a physical presentation of that to put on a shelf. I want my books looking as nice as possible, I want my movies as DVDs and I want the good games to have the packaging standing around somewhere (with such a low number of good games coming out these days, the space used is negligible).
What I'd like to see is this: I go to Amazon, buy a book/movie/game/music and they'll send it just as we're used to. Then there's the option, like a gift wrap, to download the thing for another 3 bucks (gotta pay for bandwidth and server storage after all).
That's the way I want it. I don't want to have to bend over backwards to get my digital content from my media onto my harddrive. Even worse with non-digital content. The mind boggles at the thought of scanning a whole book let alone half a dozen or more. Considering that publishers have digital versions of just about anything they produce, one should think this would be a piece of cake.
In Switzerland, when the whole roof is supposed to be fitted with PV, they often do not even build the usual roof but use stronger panels that can be walked on and used as a roof themselves.
A roof isn't a cheap thing, at least around here, so this method puts the cost of PV a bit in perspective.
Since this is a city built from scratch, what would stop them from having all rooftops point the same direction?
Your third point ties into my statement towards your thirst. Since the panels could be used as the roof itself, there wouldn't be any more leverage for storms to rip them off.
Another thing that came to mind, though: Having a big effing generator is all nice and well, but what do they do at night? Do they have a dam nearby they can use as a power reservoir?
Do I understand correctly? They want to build a city from scratch?
In that case, why build a massive solar generator instead of fitting the rooftops with solar panels from the start? It would have the added advantage that one 'incident' at the generator site would nut shut down the whole city.
And it would probably save massive amounts of space.
How is it then, oh wise one, that so many kids have grown up with Tom and Jerry on TV, Rambo on VHS, Doom on the computer and a toy colt in the holsters at their hips and failed to go on violent rampages?
Do you not think that the stability of the individuals psyche would play a part in how one deals with violence?
It's how much energy you consume vs how much you use which decide if you get fatter, stay the same or thinner.
That is plain wrong. It is how much energy of the amount you consume is processed that decides whether you're obese.
And I can prove it: When under stress from work, I tend to eat very little. I usually gain weight during that period of time. In contrast, whenever I have a vacation of more than one week where I am indeed relaxing while stuffing my face with food (e.g. Christmas), I usually tend to lose weight.
This phenomenon is not unique either. Studies have been conducted (at reputable universities like Harvard, mind) that came to the conclusion that the amount and type of food is not directly linked to obesity.
Again, for those who understand German I'd recommend "Esst doch endlich normal" by Udo Pollmer.
He has collected many references (with sources mentioned) to studies that show more correlation between levels of cortisol and obesity than fat or sugar.
Since I have made observations that agree with this theory, I tend to agree with it as well.
Also, I don't quite understand your comment about omnivores. Are you saying we are or we are not omnivores?
The human body is pretty darn good at healing itself. There is absolutely no replacement for a decent diet, moderate exercise, and a positive attitude. The last factor alone has been repeatedly shown to boost immune system health over a variety of drug-based treatments.
In light of this artice, what IS a decent diet? Is it five portions of fruit a day, no fat and no salt, as many people with diverse degrees say, or is it rather a good idea to listen to what your body wants to eat even though it may partially contradict common standards?
How are we, common citizens, to know when and to what extent certain studies are a sham and when to trust them?
Personally, I've started to keep an eye open for chewing gums and the like containing sugar. I, and my wife, have made the observation that 'sweets' with sugar replacements usually lead to ravenous appetite, making us consume stuff we usually don't consume (again, speaking from experience) after chewing stuff containing sugar. The same principle applies to diet coke (apart from the fact that diet coke tastes like shit...).
Also, drinking four to five liters of water a day while being on a no-salt diet can lead to very serious consequences, yet going as far back as the Cosby Show it seems that a lot of people believe this to be healthy.
Frankly, what is a common man like myself to do besides ignoring all diet and health fads and just live the way that makes me feel best?
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic has a certain flaw, right there. No business can do without expansion nowadays. It doesn't matter anymore, whether you make a billion dollars in profits, it's important that you make more profit than you did last year.
Even ignoring that, people who buy your products aren't automatically addicted to them. Sometimes they even have the nerve and die. That means you need new customers to replace those who no longer can or want to buy from you.
So basically, his question makes a lot of sense.
I am 27 and the one thing I've learnt is that while I'm good at what I'm doing, I really should have done something else.
So keeping this in mind, what good would a degree have done?
Another way of looking at things: Would you enjoy only the goal or the way to get there as well? For me, getting the degree would be a pain, so I would weigh my options differently than someone who likes to study.
And that's my whole point. If you ain't got it, how the hell will you wrap your mind around going to school after a twenty year abstinence?
I am pretty torn on this question...
On the one hand, it will never again be as easy to learn as it is now. The older you get and the more time passes between having been in school and then doing it again, the harder it will be. Not only to find the motivation (unless you really do like school), but also to get your brain into learning mode again. Not to think about actually fitting school into your budget, especially if you already have family.
On the other hand, I'd expect you lack experience on what kind of jobs are out there for you and which of them suits you best. If what you like to do best falls into your current degree, then getting a higher degree will make it harder for you to find employment in this field. Wacky companies aside, it is usually not a good idea to hire people with too high degrees for a certain job. Bored people are just as detrimental to your overall success as people who are overworked.
Frankly, without having any idea what you actually LIKE to do with your life, this question is a pretty tough one. As unhelpful as it may be, you should try to match your education with the profession and amount of responsibility you target. The closer you get, the easier things shall be for you.
How did that post not get modded +5, Fucking Hilarious?
After they fucked with women's hormones for decades, in the process fucking up many a life, they now turn their eyes on us?
Well, thanks, but I'll keep using condoms during the time my wife is fertile, thank you very much.
Or it might have been a jab at the FBI that you have thoroughly missed... Or I just missed YOUR joke ;).
Just read it in Ultimate Spiderman yesterday:
Kitty Pryde: I've been in High School for three seconds and I already can't stand these people.
Peter Parker: Then you've now learned everything there is to learn in High School.
That would be a matter of taste, now wouldn't it? Personally, I'm just fed up with all those Paris Hilton wannabes wit porno pouts and oh so realistic 'acting'. I am fed up with silicone tits on top of malnourished torsos.
I'd rather look at someone's chubby girlfriend really having fun than most of those 'professionals'.
Government must step in when stuff is advertised falsely and it is not directly visible for the customer.
As an example, even hard drugs are nobody's business, as long as the customer is an adult. We all know what cocaine does, right? So we are able to decide whether we want to put our body through that.
When they sell you rat poison, though, you'll probably not know until you're foaming at the mouth.
I have nothing against taxing drugs (other than the belief that government taxes way too much anyway ;)) but I see no justifiable reason to prohibit them. I've yet to hear a logical reason why it's okay to smoke and drunk but not to use cocaine.
What about the PS3, then? I find this step rather interesting. Microsoft often does not acknowledge their competitors even when those are market leaders. That they do so now, IMO, just points out how shaky they feel about the Vista situation and Windows 7.
Works for me with spamgourmet.com. Every address I give out has a maximum of 5 mails to be handled by senders not white-listed.
I've given my address, in this way, to porn sites and to this day I receive one spam mail per half a year on average.
Which reminds me: Don't open an account on brandibelle.com. They sell addresses ;).
That would be way too easy, now wouldn't it?
On the other hand, the question might arise where to draw the line.
In Switzerland, as an example, you can put a sticker on your mailbox that you do not want to receive ads. Technically, people are required by law to honour that wish. Of course, depending where you are, they couldn't care less.
Now political propaganda, on the other hand, has been deemed important enough to warrant exemption from that rule. The post office is required to deliver those to ALL mailboxes. The fact that I consider this stuff to be just as bothersome as ads is of no importance.
So who gets to decide what is important enough to warrant an exemption? And I'm sure there are things that do make sense to be an automatic opt-in.
Which is a good point. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
This is about a company trying to shut up doctors who didn't like their product. There is nothing wrong with deciding to take the risk, but first you ought to KNOW the risk.
Oversimplifying much? Today's medicine is way cool. One just has to make a difference between scientific medicine and corporate driven business.
And how, exactly, did he fail to do what any other somewhat successful politician does? He avoided answering questions and did whatever the hell he wanted to do after he was elected.
So far, I'd say he does a pretty darn good job as a politician... just not as a leader of a state. But if we wanted leaders we wouldn't elect politicians in the first place, now would we?
I said that's what _I_ would like to see. Naturally, the other way round wouldn't be rocket science after that.
You all seem to be ignoring that deep down, most of us are still hunter-gatherers.
Personally, I like reading stuff on screen. Gives me way less cramps than holding a book or keeping my head at weird angles because the book is on the table. Yet, when I buy stuff, I want a physical presentation of that to put on a shelf. I want my books looking as nice as possible, I want my movies as DVDs and I want the good games to have the packaging standing around somewhere (with such a low number of good games coming out these days, the space used is negligible).
What I'd like to see is this: I go to Amazon, buy a book/movie/game/music and they'll send it just as we're used to. Then there's the option, like a gift wrap, to download the thing for another 3 bucks (gotta pay for bandwidth and server storage after all).
That's the way I want it. I don't want to have to bend over backwards to get my digital content from my media onto my harddrive. Even worse with non-digital content. The mind boggles at the thought of scanning a whole book let alone half a dozen or more. Considering that publishers have digital versions of just about anything they produce, one should think this would be a piece of cake.
Indeed. That and a new Star Wars game.
In Switzerland, when the whole roof is supposed to be fitted with PV, they often do not even build the usual roof but use stronger panels that can be walked on and used as a roof themselves.
A roof isn't a cheap thing, at least around here, so this method puts the cost of PV a bit in perspective.
Since this is a city built from scratch, what would stop them from having all rooftops point the same direction?
Your third point ties into my statement towards your thirst. Since the panels could be used as the roof itself, there wouldn't be any more leverage for storms to rip them off.
Another thing that came to mind, though: Having a big effing generator is all nice and well, but what do they do at night? Do they have a dam nearby they can use as a power reservoir?
Do I understand correctly? They want to build a city from scratch?
In that case, why build a massive solar generator instead of fitting the rooftops with solar panels from the start? It would have the added advantage that one 'incident' at the generator site would nut shut down the whole city.
And it would probably save massive amounts of space.
How is it then, oh wise one, that so many kids have grown up with Tom and Jerry on TV, Rambo on VHS, Doom on the computer and a toy colt in the holsters at their hips and failed to go on violent rampages?
Do you not think that the stability of the individuals psyche would play a part in how one deals with violence?
It's how much energy you consume vs how much you use which decide if you get fatter, stay the same or thinner.
That is plain wrong. It is how much energy of the amount you consume is processed that decides whether you're obese.
And I can prove it: When under stress from work, I tend to eat very little. I usually gain weight during that period of time. In contrast, whenever I have a vacation of more than one week where I am indeed relaxing while stuffing my face with food (e.g. Christmas), I usually tend to lose weight.
This phenomenon is not unique either. Studies have been conducted (at reputable universities like Harvard, mind) that came to the conclusion that the amount and type of food is not directly linked to obesity.
Again, for those who understand German I'd recommend "Esst doch endlich normal" by Udo Pollmer.
He has collected many references (with sources mentioned) to studies that show more correlation between levels of cortisol and obesity than fat or sugar.
Since I have made observations that agree with this theory, I tend to agree with it as well.
Also, I don't quite understand your comment about omnivores. Are you saying we are or we are not omnivores?
Considering most RIAA lawyers are in dire need of a good killing.... ;)
The human body is pretty darn good at healing itself. There is absolutely no replacement for a decent diet, moderate exercise, and a positive attitude. The last factor alone has been repeatedly shown to boost immune system health over a variety of drug-based treatments.
In light of this artice, what IS a decent diet? Is it five portions of fruit a day, no fat and no salt, as many people with diverse degrees say, or is it rather a good idea to listen to what your body wants to eat even though it may partially contradict common standards?
How are we, common citizens, to know when and to what extent certain studies are a sham and when to trust them?
Personally, I've started to keep an eye open for chewing gums and the like containing sugar. I, and my wife, have made the observation that 'sweets' with sugar replacements usually lead to ravenous appetite, making us consume stuff we usually don't consume (again, speaking from experience) after chewing stuff containing sugar. The same principle applies to diet coke (apart from the fact that diet coke tastes like shit...).
Also, drinking four to five liters of water a day while being on a no-salt diet can lead to very serious consequences, yet going as far back as the Cosby Show it seems that a lot of people believe this to be healthy.
Frankly, what is a common man like myself to do besides ignoring all diet and health fads and just live the way that makes me feel best?