This is really the key right there: For most people, someone they know personally that fixes their problems is friendly and helpful. Someone they don't know personally that fixes their problems gets about the same level of respect and attention as their plumber.
The other related techniques are: 1. Learn to speak in their language, rather than speaking your language. If they call it a "whizbang", call it a "whizbang" when you're around them, even if they're wrong. At the very least, avoid computer-speak as much as possible. 2. Use their name. If you see them, say "good morning/afternoon, Bob" or something similar. 3. When you fix a problem that they can fix, you can tell them something like "next time this happens, you can try...". Obviously, don't tell them anything that could make things worse, but learning how to clean out a mouseball or check the plugs might prevent you from getting called in and at the very least will give them something to do that feels useful while you fix the problem.
Remember than when someone contacts IT, they've gone from feeling like a capable adult to feeling like a stupid helpless child. Part of what you have to do is convince them they're a capable adult as you're fixing the problem.
Just remember:
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
Well, apart from the education, the roads, intellectual achievement, scientific progress, firefighting, military protection, insurance benefits, fair markets, public order, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
The costs end up on the consumer either way. If you tax the corporations, then they raise the price of their goods, consumers pay more. If you don't tax the corporations, then the government will directly tax the people even more to make up for the income that they aren't getting from corporate taxes.
We pay either way. The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
There's a key difference in the effects of corporate and personal taxes.
In a free market economy, the corporation can't completely just pass along the cost because consumers always have the option of not buying whatever the corporation is selling and higher prices usually reduce demand. Thus the corporation (and by extension the shareholders via reduced profits) pay a portion of the tax. With no corporate taxes, the consumer pays the entire tax.
The degree to which corporate taxes fall on consumers vs owners is related to how much of a difference price makes in a market and how competitors behave. But it isn't, as many posters have been implying, a tax that is 100% paid by the consumers.
Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?
Yes. That's the really scary part: rather than actually research colleges a significant number of potential students and parents go through the list starting at the top. Others will basically apply to as many schools as they possibly can (which is getting easier to do) and go with the top-ranked school that accepts them.
While I can't speak for the GP, I do know that my sister went to a certain prestigious university in Cambridge, MA. She reported that students were instructed to call the campus police if they ever ended up in trouble with the city police. And the city police knew this, so they would often make the call for the students.
What that meant, of course, was that students at that particular university might have to deal with college sanctions, but were effectively immune to prosecution for anything less than a felony.
Since this is going to be happening in New Orleans, I'd say it's an extremely wet dream. Like up to your attic wet. Particularly with all those splash and sploosh noises.
You might think of 'End Imperial Presidency' as just childish vengeance, but the issue is certainly a valid one. Bush and Cheney took on the view of presidential power that was very similar to Andrew Jackson's, namely that they could do what they wanted and no one could stop them, legal or not ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), and there's very justifiable concern that we're moving towards the president being a temporarily elected king or dictator.
Pretend, for instance, that it was Bill Clinton doing all the things that George W Bush is accused of. Would you still be of the view that it's "childish" to call for trials, investigations, limits on presidential authority, and so forth?
once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote
You mean like 18-29 year olds did just last year at around a 50-55% rate, only a few percentage points shy of the overall turnout? Your stereotyping of young people as disinterested in politics may have been true 10 years ago, but isn't now. And they aren't necessarily going to change their views on the pot issue: there's good reason to think that much of the shift in older voters' views on this had a lot to do with the 1980's cultural backlash against hippies, not just simply getting older.
Unfortunately, the IRS can't do it. They can't even write it in a way that's completely understandable for experts. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the gazillions of changes to the tax code that get passed every year to make sure that such-and-such-organization gets a break.
The rest of Farrell's argument focuses on the socialization of men, particularly working-class men, that teaches them to sacrifice their own well-being for their families, neighbors, and nations. So what will tend to happen is that poorer men are more willing to take on extra risk in favor of earning more money, whereas women will tend to choose professions that give them more personal freedom and safety at the expense of lower pay.
The cell phone idea is definitely not a bad one. Several other posters have suggested working with your daughter to make sure she gets on the right bus and ends up where she's supposed to be.
But definitely gather allies among other parents, consider pulling in a lawyer, contacting school board officials, and so forth, so that a reassurance that they are "analyzing the issue" (i.e. not doing anything about it) don't get them out of hot water. Your daughter's other parent (whether or not they are part of your current household) can also probably help out with this process, because they also have a strong interest in the safety of your daughter. Make sure to talk to other parents in your school district about this. You'll get a lot of sympathy, a fair number of ideas, and a number of allies who can help you force the district's hands. I know PTA meetings and the like may not be your cup of tea, but they're your best source of a real solution to this.
And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?
Warren Farrell is a somewhat controversial author on men's issues who has actually spent quite a bit of time exploring this exact question. He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions. Examples of these sorts of male-dominated professions include sanitation workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig roughnecks, sailors, farm laborers, police officers, firefighters, and lumberjacks. The reason he proposes for this is really quite simple: the women most involved in feminism tend to be fairly wealthy, and that means that the millions of working-class men in those undesirable professions are essentially invisible to them, whereas the men who are at the top of the food chain are very visible to them, creating a perception that all men are doing better.
I was referring to "smaller and weaker" as the generation as a whole, not the average of its members. If the average person is stronger, but there are fewer of them, then the other side still has an advantage.
Especially in the case of China, this numbers game obviously completely worked.
Also, Western workers caught by it had a reduced ability to reproduce, thus making future generations smaller and weaker than their Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Here's a few that I've discussed with atheist friends:
- Why be charitable towards the less fortunate? - What sorts of causes beyond yourself are worth serving? - What is a morally good or just action? Why? - What would you sacrifice for? (An answer of "nothing" here is probably too easy: most parents would give up quite a bit for their kids, for instance) - When are laws wrong, and what do you do about it?
These questions don't go away just because there's no divinity involved, and many of them are key questions in theology as well as philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well played, but I think you may have swiped the idea from here.
Arthur Dent: "So people actually vote for lizards?"
Ford Prefect: "If they didn't, the wrong lizard might get in."
Well, the way I've usually heard that:
Australian immigration official: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
Traveller: "Is that still a requirement for getting in?"
This is really the key right there: For most people, someone they know personally that fixes their problems is friendly and helpful. Someone they don't know personally that fixes their problems gets about the same level of respect and attention as their plumber.
The other related techniques are: ...". Obviously, don't tell them anything that could make things worse, but learning how to clean out a mouseball or check the plugs might prevent you from getting called in and at the very least will give them something to do that feels useful while you fix the problem.
1. Learn to speak in their language, rather than speaking your language. If they call it a "whizbang", call it a "whizbang" when you're around them, even if they're wrong. At the very least, avoid computer-speak as much as possible.
2. Use their name. If you see them, say "good morning/afternoon, Bob" or something similar.
3. When you fix a problem that they can fix, you can tell them something like "next time this happens, you can try
Remember than when someone contacts IT, they've gone from feeling like a capable adult to feeling like a stupid helpless child. Part of what you have to do is convince them they're a capable adult as you're fixing the problem.
I was figuring Gov Palin could take care of the mecha problem, since she could clearly see this from her house.
Bender should not be allowed on television, according to Fathers Against Rude Television (FART).
The Bob Dole and Mitt Romney models didn't work very well either.
No, it's actually:
Yes 32%
No 22%
Cowboy Neal 46%
Just remember:
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
Well, apart from the education, the roads, intellectual achievement, scientific progress, firefighting, military protection, insurance benefits, fair markets, public order, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
The costs end up on the consumer either way. If you tax the corporations, then they raise the price of their goods, consumers pay more. If you don't tax the corporations, then the government will directly tax the people even more to make up for the income that they aren't getting from corporate taxes.
We pay either way. The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
There's a key difference in the effects of corporate and personal taxes.
In a free market economy, the corporation can't completely just pass along the cost because consumers always have the option of not buying whatever the corporation is selling and higher prices usually reduce demand. Thus the corporation (and by extension the shareholders via reduced profits) pay a portion of the tax. With no corporate taxes, the consumer pays the entire tax.
The degree to which corporate taxes fall on consumers vs owners is related to how much of a difference price makes in a market and how competitors behave. But it isn't, as many posters have been implying, a tax that is 100% paid by the consumers.
Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?
Yes. That's the really scary part: rather than actually research colleges a significant number of potential students and parents go through the list starting at the top. Others will basically apply to as many schools as they possibly can (which is getting easier to do) and go with the top-ranked school that accepts them.
While I can't speak for the GP, I do know that my sister went to a certain prestigious university in Cambridge, MA. She reported that students were instructed to call the campus police if they ever ended up in trouble with the city police. And the city police knew this, so they would often make the call for the students.
What that meant, of course, was that students at that particular university might have to deal with college sanctions, but were effectively immune to prosecution for anything less than a felony.
Just trashing my moderation, which was completely unfair.
Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard.
So in other words, game publishers prevent Fail from turning into Epic Fail. Got it.
This is a simulation physicist's wet dream
Since this is going to be happening in New Orleans, I'd say it's an extremely wet dream. Like up to your attic wet. Particularly with all those splash and sploosh noises.
You might think of 'End Imperial Presidency' as just childish vengeance, but the issue is certainly a valid one. Bush and Cheney took on the view of presidential power that was very similar to Andrew Jackson's, namely that they could do what they wanted and no one could stop them, legal or not ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), and there's very justifiable concern that we're moving towards the president being a temporarily elected king or dictator.
Pretend, for instance, that it was Bill Clinton doing all the things that George W Bush is accused of. Would you still be of the view that it's "childish" to call for trials, investigations, limits on presidential authority, and so forth?
once the students and younger generation become old enough that they actually turn up to cast their vote
You mean like 18-29 year olds did just last year at around a 50-55% rate, only a few percentage points shy of the overall turnout? Your stereotyping of young people as disinterested in politics may have been true 10 years ago, but isn't now. And they aren't necessarily going to change their views on the pot issue: there's good reason to think that much of the shift in older voters' views on this had a lot to do with the 1980's cultural backlash against hippies, not just simply getting older.
If the IRS can do it, so can the legislators.
Unfortunately, the IRS can't do it. They can't even write it in a way that's completely understandable for experts. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the gazillions of changes to the tax code that get passed every year to make sure that such-and-such-organization gets a break.
I thought I was supposed to roll up for the Magical Mystery Tour, not the End of the World As We Know It.
The rest of Farrell's argument focuses on the socialization of men, particularly working-class men, that teaches them to sacrifice their own well-being for their families, neighbors, and nations. So what will tend to happen is that poorer men are more willing to take on extra risk in favor of earning more money, whereas women will tend to choose professions that give them more personal freedom and safety at the expense of lower pay.
The cell phone idea is definitely not a bad one. Several other posters have suggested working with your daughter to make sure she gets on the right bus and ends up where she's supposed to be.
But definitely gather allies among other parents, consider pulling in a lawyer, contacting school board officials, and so forth, so that a reassurance that they are "analyzing the issue" (i.e. not doing anything about it) don't get them out of hot water. Your daughter's other parent (whether or not they are part of your current household) can also probably help out with this process, because they also have a strong interest in the safety of your daughter. Make sure to talk to other parents in your school district about this. You'll get a lot of sympathy, a fair number of ideas, and a number of allies who can help you force the district's hands. I know PTA meetings and the like may not be your cup of tea, but they're your best source of a real solution to this.
And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?
Warren Farrell is a somewhat controversial author on men's issues who has actually spent quite a bit of time exploring this exact question. He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions. Examples of these sorts of male-dominated professions include sanitation workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig roughnecks, sailors, farm laborers, police officers, firefighters, and lumberjacks. The reason he proposes for this is really quite simple: the women most involved in feminism tend to be fairly wealthy, and that means that the millions of working-class men in those undesirable professions are essentially invisible to them, whereas the men who are at the top of the food chain are very visible to them, creating a perception that all men are doing better.
I was referring to "smaller and weaker" as the generation as a whole, not the average of its members. If the average person is stronger, but there are fewer of them, then the other side still has an advantage.
Especially in the case of China, this numbers game obviously completely worked.
Also, Western workers caught by it had a reduced ability to reproduce, thus making future generations smaller and weaker than their Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Here's a few that I've discussed with atheist friends:
- Why be charitable towards the less fortunate?
- What sorts of causes beyond yourself are worth serving?
- What is a morally good or just action? Why?
- What would you sacrifice for? (An answer of "nothing" here is probably too easy: most parents would give up quite a bit for their kids, for instance)
- When are laws wrong, and what do you do about it?
These questions don't go away just because there's no divinity involved, and many of them are key questions in theology as well as philosophy.