But for long term your odds are quite good especially if you diversify across different areas. So any one area could die and you are still going strong.
So if you have lots of money (to diversify) and won't need it at a particular time long term investments work. If you have a small pot and may need the money at a particular time (eg when you retire) then you're screwed and you may as well enjoy some poker, smoke big cigars and hope to die young.
Using the pronoun 'her' instead of 'his' is as sexually discriminatory as using simply 'his' has been judged to be in the past.
My grammar is terrible, but I do know that 'his' was used as the neutral/unspecified gender pronoun as well as the masculine pronoun (but we tend to use their now, it's what I would use) and that it has nothing to do with negative sexual discrimination.
Those that think women are denigrated by the use of "his" (eg "If a soldier lays down his arms...") should really wonder why they think so little of women that they might need the rules of grammar to be changed to promote them.
If I comb my hair and think that I now look attractive, that doesn't mean I'm not still ugly.
Wait, you're saying if that someone's appearance changes so that they're attractive, they're still ugly? What sort of definition is that?
Nope, what I'm saying is that even if I think I'm something else that doesn't make it so. Some people think they are immortal, or an animal, or another person... it does not make it true.
Aside from chromosomal abnormalities the question of whether someone is a male or female human is a simple test irrespective of gender specific phenotypes (ie what there genitals look like). Allowing for such abnormalities I've never heard of a human changing from male to female or vice-versa (ie changing their chromosomal make up).
If the question were one about whether someone is male or female who does have a chromosomal issue, like a non-functional SRY gene on their Y-chromosome (male as XY, but otherwise more biologically similar to a female) then the question becomes ambiguous (and I'm open for such people to choose one or the other; like those with CAIS being termed female, which seems right to me). But I don't consider this to cast ambiguity on those without chromosomal anomalies.
there's no point whining about it just because you disagree
It is biology that disagrees.
people have to make fun because one of them happens to be transsexual?
I'm not making fun of transexuals. I assume you're referring to other posts.
It is perhaps most effective because it relies on blind obedience and discourages thinking.
Nice try. Western science of course was born out of Christian religion - science being a way to understand more about the creation's of God and hence to get nearer to the creator. Even bastions of Christian-bashing like Galileo were sponsored by the church to do their research.
The [Catholic] Church founded many of the first Universities - Constantinople (Theodosius II, 5th Century; formalised in 9th Century), Salerno (Saint Alfano I, or more probably Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I building on the existing school started by Alfano), Bologna (on the behest of Frederick I), Paris (bull of Innocent III, though it's more of an organic conflagration of scholars but it was under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and professors and students were governed only by Church law and not civil at least for a large part of the beginnings),... . Sujects taught were medicine (usually the starting point it seems) arithmetic, geometry, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, law [yes, including canon law], theology, logic, rhetoric and apparently grammar [though I don't know this was a subject for such high learning in itself], etc..
it is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can. Christians have convinced themselves in the existence of an afterlife. For them killing a human is merely removing them from this world (the less important world). An atheist on the other hand realises that killing a human being is the snuffing out of an individual and unique consciousness for all time.
Err, I think you got that confused. How under an atheist world view how does a consciousness (which is usually under such a view a complex anomaly of brain chemistry) live for "all time"? Indeed as an atheist, not bound to an absolute morality, what is the problem with "snuffing out" anything, there is no wrong or right after all? On the contrary Christians have a sense of the infinite and that lifetime events have eternal consequences and that actions are very certainly right or wrong (even if "rightness" is hard to establish). If you're an atheist surely you're just stopping a chemical reaction quicker; if you're a Christian you're having eternal effects on heaven and hell and a person's position [and yours] in one or the other.
You, the OP and the person who created the "breakdown" are idiots. These people have had gender reassignment surgery and [have become?] women. You do not have GRS and become "transexual".
Assuming I read your mis-write correctly:
If I comb my hair and think that I now look attractive, that doesn't mean I'm not still ugly. Nor does it mean everyone has to call me "handsome".
A male who has "GRS" to appear to be a woman, is still male. They just now appear to be a woman. Men that wish to pass themselves off as women are called "transexual". The term is being correctly applied. Being offended, because a person was born different to how someone wishes them to be, does not mean that others have to play along.
Many goods can be made in the states by low labor machines but it is cheaper to use low tech labor intensive processes over seas because labor is cheaper, if you increase the cost of their labor without increasing its value you have a problem.
And you support that position?
Do you know what else is cheaper, harvesting organs and bloods from live subjects rather than waiting for donors or using synthetic replacements. The only difference is how quick you kill the people who are serving your needs.
I never said healthcare was a right but the compassion we share for fellow humans should be such that we feel bound to provide basic healthcare and education for low-paid workers.
If you mandate through legislation that the cost to use their labor goes up guess what happens?
That depends on how you meet the cost. Fairtrade chocolate and coffee are not appreciably more costly at the POS (I realise they're not representative crops), some are cheaper than "luxury brands". The difference is how much the shareholders make in profit. Your decision is whether you feel people need extra disposable income in the developed nations or if they need basic necessities in developing nations. Your vote is at whichever shops you use. Your argument was levelled in the UK about minimum wages, except when they came in no one really noticed... 10% of city bonuses maybe?
They are screwed, and flawed socialist policy or heavy handed western intervention has always failed.
I guess that as I live in a house in dire need of maintenance but with scarcely enough money to feed and cloth us, despite working hard. I've suffered the position of medicine or food and I don't think "they are screwed" is a good enough response. They are screwed because of a) over-population, but importantly, b) greed and c) lack of active compassion. I don't think it's a done deal...
And because of how much China exports these corrupt business practices affect the health of people outside their borders.
I for one try, as much as possible, to avoid any products that come from China because I have no idea what I'm getting.
You know what. China is serving global demand. Global business demands profit at all and any cost. Consumers don't care who sewed their shirts, that those people despite working hard can't afford healthcare and education.
They say "don't care was made to care". Well the developed nations have sown the seed of their contempt for the humanity of the people of those manufacturing nations by not caring except about price. Now we're beginning to reap what we have sown.
You've all heard of companies using child/slave labour. Clothing manufacturers, computer makers. Much of the worlds chocolate supplies are tainted with slavery #1... none of these companies go out of business.
But now our constant drive for the bottom line is affecting the health of our home nations, now will we sit up and say no to globalised exploitation?
In other words, the third or fourth country doing this isn't a great step forward for all humankind, it's one more country catching up to where other countries were decades ago.
But china did it for 100USD and provided you don't lick the paint (or attempt re-entry) you'd never know they skimped on the manufacture and used child labour to fit the electronics.
[incidentally that was a joke, we buy the stuff that china churns out and so tacitly we cast our vote that says they should keep the poor down and exploited]
These folks have done in 10 years what has taken over 100 in the US in terms of industrialization and economics. Cut them a bit of slack...
Turned from a proud and upright nation into a nation run by capitalists swine that couldn't care less how many people they trample so long as they get more money than everyone else?... No not that one? Oops, sorry.
I should have patented it, because cars more or less work like that now. [...] You aren't going to come up with a solution those guys haven't thought about.
You apparently did come up with a solution that at least hadn't been implemented. So why don't you think a small-time inventor couldn't have the right lateral view to solve the problem here?
Surely rigorous testing would involve both lab tests (carb/engine outside of vehicle), controlled vehicle tests (rolling road, etc.) and field tests (regular users testing).
Roughly a dev, alpha, beta test scheme. If the thing works miracles in the lab but does nothing to actual vehicle consumption figures on the road then it's still no good. It has to work well in the field, not just in the lab, hence road testing is the final judge of the efficacy of the device.
Engineers could design the best nozzle that's possible within the realm of physics, getting perfect misting, and if the owner doesn't take care of it then that gunk is still going to build up, and economy is still going to suffer over time.
When my printer manufacturer manages to provide automatic nozzle cleaning, I would think that car manufacturers would be able to do the same.
That's a pretty good point, despite being marked up as funny, both are time critical injections of accurately measured amounts of fluid.
At 5 it's not like they should be using the computer without supervision anyway.
Should I be worried that whilst I'm on the loo my 3 year old can put on the computer, load up firefox and go (via bookmark) to BBC iPlayer in order to get his fix of "The Owl" or "Bob the Builder" or whatever?
Sometimes he'd rather play gcompris but mostly it's iPlayer that grabs him.
From the article (which is quite poetic), the "dummy quotes" are all things that they will say (assuming they're not all killed before they get chance).
That guy that says "One minute", well every trial run that's what he said, it's part of the mission. The guy that says "Changjiang 1 on target", you guessed it, he says that so everyone knows it's on target. Air pressure,..., someone checks it every few minutes and announces the results occasionally.
The only bit in the article that's a little weird is the "target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time". But they perhaps predicted a time 12 seconds late on purpose, or are just using that as a device to show how 1337 they are.
Imagine you're writing an article about Bush addressing the nation you might prep with:
"Bush had his usual statesman like swagger as he approached the dais, 'fellow Americans' he drawled, before telling us we should give up our hard won cash to support those billionaires who'd gone one gamble to far. Why? 'stability' says President Bush whilst Obama and McCain look on silently praying Mammon that such stability can be bought before their term starts..."
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)? Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
Media has moved on in the last 40-ish years. Prepping a press release is nothing new (as many have commented). I suppose you think Armstrong just stepped down off that ladder and suddenly was inspired to speak those words without any preparation or oversight from a "media communications manager"?
If USA's [alleged! lol] moon landing was happening now you could be sure that NASA would have press releases with picture from inside the orbiter (taken pre-flight) and the quote of the first words from the moon pre-layed up and ready for near-simultaneous release with the LM landing.
Zero cost... you mean you drew attention to his company name for free?
I just assumed you were a paid promoter. You're the only way I noticed the company name... the internet really screws with me sometimes, I can't work out if the "bad publicity" is really bad or just to get more page impressions.
Many managers out there are way too stupid to understand a guy that can work in very intense bursts and then assume they can operate that way 24/7
This is capitalism. You have one guy who can work for 45 years for you at 60% productivity. But you want 80%+ so you squeeze him until he breaks and then get another guy to do his job. You pay lower wages and keep some movement in your workforce that allows you to adjust headcount down easily (you just let a few workers drop off and don't hire more).
That guy you mention can probably operate at "burst rate" for 8 hours a day, just not for more than one day. The money chasers only care at the balance point between training new hires and burning out old ones. Human resources. If his job is one anyone can do and people are queueing up to get a job...
Slashdot Mirror
But for long term your odds are quite good especially if you diversify across different areas. So any one area could die and you are still going strong.
So if you have lots of money (to diversify) and won't need it at a particular time long term investments work. If you have a small pot and may need the money at a particular time (eg when you retire) then you're screwed and you may as well enjoy some poker, smoke big cigars and hope to die young.
Using the pronoun 'her' instead of 'his' is as sexually discriminatory as using simply 'his' has been judged to be in the past.
My grammar is terrible, but I do know that 'his' was used as the neutral/unspecified gender pronoun as well as the masculine pronoun (but we tend to use their now, it's what I would use) and that it has nothing to do with negative sexual discrimination.
Those that think women are denigrated by the use of "his" (eg "If a soldier lays down his arms ...") should really wonder why they think so little of women that they might need the rules of grammar to be changed to promote them.
If I comb my hair and think that I now look attractive, that doesn't mean I'm not still ugly.
Wait, you're saying if that someone's appearance changes so that they're attractive, they're still ugly? What sort of definition is that?
Nope, what I'm saying is that even if I think I'm something else that doesn't make it so. Some people think they are immortal, or an animal, or another person ... it does not make it true.
Aside from chromosomal abnormalities the question of whether someone is a male or female human is a simple test irrespective of gender specific phenotypes (ie what there genitals look like). Allowing for such abnormalities I've never heard of a human changing from male to female or vice-versa (ie changing their chromosomal make up).
If the question were one about whether someone is male or female who does have a chromosomal issue, like a non-functional SRY gene on their Y-chromosome (male as XY, but otherwise more biologically similar to a female) then the question becomes ambiguous (and I'm open for such people to choose one or the other; like those with CAIS being termed female, which seems right to me). But I don't consider this to cast ambiguity on those without chromosomal anomalies.
there's no point whining about it just because you disagree
It is biology that disagrees.
people have to make fun because one of them happens to be transsexual?
I'm not making fun of transexuals. I assume you're referring to other posts.
It is perhaps most effective because it relies on blind obedience and discourages thinking.
Nice try. Western science of course was born out of Christian religion - science being a way to understand more about the creation's of God and hence to get nearer to the creator. Even bastions of Christian-bashing like Galileo were sponsored by the church to do their research.
The [Catholic] Church founded many of the first Universities - Constantinople (Theodosius II, 5th Century; formalised in 9th Century), Salerno (Saint Alfano I, or more probably Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I building on the existing school started by Alfano), Bologna (on the behest of Frederick I), Paris (bull of Innocent III, though it's more of an organic conflagration of scholars but it was under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and professors and students were governed only by Church law and not civil at least for a large part of the beginnings), ... . Sujects taught were medicine (usually the starting point it seems) arithmetic, geometry, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, law [yes, including canon law], theology, logic, rhetoric and apparently grammar [though I don't know this was a subject for such high learning in itself], etc..
it is my contention that a Christian cannot appreciate the true gravity of murder in the way an atheist can. Christians have convinced themselves in the existence of an afterlife. For them killing a human is merely removing them from this world (the less important world). An atheist on the other hand realises that killing a human being is the snuffing out of an individual and unique consciousness for all time.
Err, I think you got that confused. How under an atheist world view how does a consciousness (which is usually under such a view a complex anomaly of brain chemistry) live for "all time"? Indeed as an atheist, not bound to an absolute morality, what is the problem with "snuffing out" anything, there is no wrong or right after all? On the contrary Christians have a sense of the infinite and that lifetime events have eternal consequences and that actions are very certainly right or wrong (even if "rightness" is hard to establish). If you're an atheist surely you're just stopping a chemical reaction quicker; if you're a Christian you're having eternal effects on heaven and hell and a person's position [and yours] in one or the other.
You, the OP and the person who created the "breakdown" are idiots. These people have had gender reassignment surgery and [have become?] women. You do not have GRS and become "transexual".
Assuming I read your mis-write correctly:
If I comb my hair and think that I now look attractive, that doesn't mean I'm not still ugly. Nor does it mean everyone has to call me "handsome".
A male who has "GRS" to appear to be a woman, is still male. They just now appear to be a woman. Men that wish to pass themselves off as women are called "transexual". The term is being correctly applied. Being offended, because a person was born different to how someone wishes them to be, does not mean that others have to play along.
Many goods can be made in the states by low labor machines but it is cheaper to use low tech labor intensive processes over seas because labor is cheaper, if you increase the cost of their labor without increasing its value you have a problem.
And you support that position?
Do you know what else is cheaper, harvesting organs and bloods from live subjects rather than waiting for donors or using synthetic replacements. The only difference is how quick you kill the people who are serving your needs.
I never said healthcare was a right but the compassion we share for fellow humans should be such that we feel bound to provide basic healthcare and education for low-paid workers.
If you mandate through legislation that the cost to use their labor goes up guess what happens?
That depends on how you meet the cost. Fairtrade chocolate and coffee are not appreciably more costly at the POS (I realise they're not representative crops), some are cheaper than "luxury brands". The difference is how much the shareholders make in profit. Your decision is whether you feel people need extra disposable income in the developed nations or if they need basic necessities in developing nations. Your vote is at whichever shops you use. Your argument was levelled in the UK about minimum wages, except when they came in no one really noticed ... 10% of city bonuses maybe?
They are screwed, and flawed socialist policy or heavy handed western intervention has always failed.
I guess that as I live in a house in dire need of maintenance but with scarcely enough money to feed and cloth us, despite working hard. I've suffered the position of medicine or food and I don't think "they are screwed" is a good enough response. They are screwed because of a) over-population, but importantly, b) greed and c) lack of active compassion. I don't think it's a done deal ...
But the truth is that year after year, kids get more stupid.
Not disagreeing, but, why do you think that is?
TV? Genetics? Mutations? Social welfare? Religion?
Missing option ... Cowboy Neal?!
And because of how much China exports these corrupt business practices affect the health of people outside their borders.
I for one try, as much as possible, to avoid any products that come from China because I have no idea what I'm getting.
You know what. China is serving global demand. Global business demands profit at all and any cost. Consumers don't care who sewed their shirts, that those people despite working hard can't afford healthcare and education.
They say "don't care was made to care". Well the developed nations have sown the seed of their contempt for the humanity of the people of those manufacturing nations by not caring except about price. Now we're beginning to reap what we have sown.
You've all heard of companies using child/slave labour. Clothing manufacturers, computer makers. Much of the worlds chocolate supplies are tainted with slavery #1 ... none of these companies go out of business.
But now our constant drive for the bottom line is affecting the health of our home nations, now will we sit up and say no to globalised exploitation?
---
#1 about 50% of cocoa comes from West Africa (Ivory Coast, Ghana, Mali) where child slavery (abduction of children to work for no money) was considered widespread in 2001/2002. I have never seen any reports of a solution to this problem. See eg, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1963617.stm http://www.365act.com/actions/2.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/19/globalisation.benstafford;
Other sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_exploitation_in_the_chocolate_industry particularly http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/international/chocolate_bittersweet.fortune/ (read that one if nothing else).
In other words, the third or fourth country doing this isn't a great step forward for all humankind, it's one more country catching up to where other countries were decades ago.
But china did it for 100USD and provided you don't lick the paint (or attempt re-entry) you'd never know they skimped on the manufacture and used child labour to fit the electronics.
[incidentally that was a joke, we buy the stuff that china churns out and so tacitly we cast our vote that says they should keep the poor down and exploited]
Check Google "orbit view" on Google Sky ... I think he was scratching his balls at the time.
These folks have done in 10 years what has taken over 100 in the US in terms of industrialization and economics. Cut them a bit of slack...
Turned from a proud and upright nation into a nation run by capitalists swine that couldn't care less how many people they trample so long as they get more money than everyone else? ... No not that one? Oops, sorry.
Diesel fuel has very low dipole moments and is not affected by magnetic or electric fields.
To be picky, that's an internally self-contradictory statement. If they have a dipole they're affected. Perhaps you meant "hardly affected"?
I should have patented it, because cars more or less work like that now. [...] You aren't going to come up with a solution those guys haven't thought about.
You apparently did come up with a solution that at least hadn't been implemented. So why don't you think a small-time inventor couldn't have the right lateral view to solve the problem here?
Surely rigorous testing would involve both lab tests (carb/engine outside of vehicle), controlled vehicle tests (rolling road, etc.) and field tests (regular users testing).
Roughly a dev, alpha, beta test scheme. If the thing works miracles in the lab but does nothing to actual vehicle consumption figures on the road then it's still no good. It has to work well in the field, not just in the lab, hence road testing is the final judge of the efficacy of the device.
It should also allow the last fuel price to be entered so you can have the display in currency units ...!
When my printer manufacturer manages to provide automatic nozzle cleaning, I would think that car manufacturers would be able to do the same.
That's a pretty good point, despite being marked up as funny, both are time critical injections of accurately measured amounts of fluid.
At 5 it's not like they should be using the computer without supervision anyway.
Should I be worried that whilst I'm on the loo my 3 year old can put on the computer, load up firefox and go (via bookmark) to BBC iPlayer in order to get his fix of "The Owl" or "Bob the Builder" or whatever?
Sometimes he'd rather play gcompris but mostly it's iPlayer that grabs him.
lolz!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/goto.png
Moral of the story: Even when you think a goto is OK, you will still get eaten by a dinosaur.
Are you sure it's not a grue?
Wow. So.. you guys don't write comments [...]
There is a separate circle of hell for those who write:
foo++;
That's why I always write
//add one to integer variable foo := foo + 1
foo
// foo is now 1 larger
Paid by the character you say, why how did you know?
From the article (which is quite poetic), the "dummy quotes" are all things that they will say (assuming they're not all killed before they get chance).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_re_as/as_china_space_article_1:
'One minute to go!'
'Changjiang No.1 found the target!'...
'The air pressure in the cabin is normal!'
That guy that says "One minute", well every trial run that's what he said, it's part of the mission. The guy that says "Changjiang 1 on target", you guessed it, he says that so everyone knows it's on target. Air pressure, ..., someone checks it every few minutes and announces the results occasionally.
The only bit in the article that's a little weird is the "target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time". But they perhaps predicted a time 12 seconds late on purpose, or are just using that as a device to show how 1337 they are.
Imagine you're writing an article about Bush addressing the nation you might prep with:
"Bush had his usual statesman like swagger as he approached the dais, 'fellow Americans' he drawled, before telling us we should give up our hard won cash to support those billionaires who'd gone one gamble to far. Why? 'stability' says President Bush whilst Obama and McCain look on silently praying Mammon that such stability can be bought before their term starts ..."
That's got to be pretty close?
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)? Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
Media has moved on in the last 40-ish years. Prepping a press release is nothing new (as many have commented). I suppose you think Armstrong just stepped down off that ladder and suddenly was inspired to speak those words without any preparation or oversight from a "media communications manager"?
If USA's [alleged! lol] moon landing was happening now you could be sure that NASA would have press releases with picture from inside the orbiter (taken pre-flight) and the quote of the first words from the moon pre-layed up and ready for near-simultaneous release with the LM landing.
Performance based incentive is better than straight salary.
Works perfectly at the USPTO??!
Plus those technicians at the LHC being paid per petabyte of data archived are going to be looking pretty thin by next Spring.
Zero cost ... you mean you drew attention to his company name for free?
I just assumed you were a paid promoter. You're the only way I noticed the company name ... the internet really screws with me sometimes, I can't work out if the "bad publicity" is really bad or just to get more page impressions.
Many managers out there are way too stupid to understand a guy that can work in very intense bursts and then assume they can operate that way 24/7
This is capitalism. You have one guy who can work for 45 years for you at 60% productivity. But you want 80%+ so you squeeze him until he breaks and then get another guy to do his job. You pay lower wages and keep some movement in your workforce that allows you to adjust headcount down easily (you just let a few workers drop off and don't hire more).
That guy you mention can probably operate at "burst rate" for 8 hours a day, just not for more than one day. The money chasers only care at the balance point between training new hires and burning out old ones. Human resources. If his job is one anyone can do and people are queueing up to get a job ...