My concern is that Wikipedia says the temperature of the earth 10 feet deep is around 55 degrees F (12.8 degrees C). I suppose you could just not dig quite as deep if you wanted to be warmer than that, I'm not sure.
You know, if you wackjobs do your part to reduce your own pollution as much as possible, and keep your nose out of others', maybe the others will follow your example and do better at pollution reduction on the whole.
Or, other people would simply say "Great! Now I can pollute even more!" This would have the effect of hurting the environmentalists, helping the polluters, and doing no good whatsoever.
Which is exactly why right-wingers suggest it so often.
Now, for people who don't have health care, there is Medicaid and Medicare. These are basically government insurance. The problem is that over the last several years they have been gutted to the point where they are even more impotent than they used to be.
Unless you're a single male under 65. Then you can die in a ditch as far as society is concerned.
The test isn't designed to make sure everyone is a great writer. It's designed to make sure that everyone can express a thought coherently in written form (whether it does so competently is another matter).
Seems some people (at the New York Times) aren't looking at it from that perspective. Most people aren't going to go into their particular field.
Think about World War II. A very large factor in our winning World War II was our ability to ramp up our manufacturing quickly to military production. Even with all that we faced serious shortages and had to suffer through the accompanying rationing.
Actually, a good deal of the rationing wasn't necessary - it was done for psychological effect.
The way the Fed fights inflation is to raise interest rates, but if we raise interest rates now, barring some unforeseen good fortune, we would most likely end up in a recession, with some very real reasons to fear a depression. One of those real reasons to fear, is that higher interest rates, translated into a stronger currency, could accelerate the offshoring of jobs even further.
Another big worry is that it would cause a very large crash in the real estate market, due to the recent popularity of Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
The biggest drivers for job growth right now are housing and health care - job growth in any other sector over the past 6 years has been very small. And the housing bubble will burst fairly soon.
They go after companies because it's much more efficient for a large company to deal with all their old products than for every single individual out there to do so. The company has access to more information than the individual does, it has to discover this information only once instead of requiring every one of their customers to do it, and they can deal with all their products in bulk.
If it raises the prices of these products, good - it will more accurately reflect the true cost of the product up front, rather than later on when it's caused all kinds of problems.
I agree with you, but you can thank the likes of Fox News and other kooks that damage the environmental movement every time they open their mouths and spew hate-filled vitrol about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Unfortunately health care is getting more and more expensive, and the employer may well have to pay for various procedures a few times. This is probably the reason why they just toss people.
Plus, at places like Wal-Mart, turnover is so high that they are hiring near constantly anyway. Might as well just not say no to one of the people they interviewed instead of fixing an older worker.
Right, just like my employer has more bargaining power in buying radios.
The radios that a company produces will be nearly identical, and costs will be the same. The amount an insurance company will have to pay out will vary a great deal, and could be a very large amount - which is the nature of insurance.
And since insurance companies can pick and choose their individual policyholder if they go the individual insurance route, while they cannot if they deal with an employer with a large number of employees, individuals can get a far better deal through their employer than they can by themselves (if they can get individual insurance at all).
This is a problem, because it's just one more factor putting employees at the mercy of their employer. I suspect that if we got a decent single payer health care system in place, many, MANY people would change jobs because they would not be quite so shackled.
What are you talking about? Of course they can raise the employer's rates and drop your service.
They can't drop individuals from a group plan, they have to drop everybody or nobody. They also cannot single people out and raise their rates only. They also cannot refuse an individual for whatever reason - if the employer puts that person on the plan, they have to take them.
But yes, they can raise the rates for everybody, or cancel the total policy.
If they really did do something illegal, you can sue just the same as an individual.
Yes, but by the time you have a case, you're already deeply in debt to hospitals and doctors. You'll have to audition for lawyers to get them to take the case on contingency. See the fiasco with Blue Cross/Blue Shield (had to go to class action before any real action could be taken).
Another factor to think about is that food and transportation (cars at least) are transferrable - if the rich are charged more than the poor, the poor will simply buy more and sell to the rich at a discount.
You can't do this with health care - a doctor has to treat you directly. You can't buy some health care and then sell of the extra.
No, because the employer has more bargaining power with the insurance companies than the individual does.
Plus, the laws are heavily rigged in favor of getting your health insurance through an employer. They get tax breaks on it, you don't. You can't get dropped from a group health insurance plan on a whim, nor can they simply jack up your rates. With individual insurance, they can do both these things.
Plus, they can illegally drop you for simply getting sick, and you'll likely be too poor to fight back. Companies can throw a lot more weight.
Of course, I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse, so likely this information is wasted on you.
I don't understand the bizarre obsession with the concept that an employer should not maintain the integrity and functionality of their greatest capital asset.
Think about it this way. Likely you have a TV. If not, you likely have a car. What do you do if it breaks? Usually, try to fix it, or try to have someone else fix it.
Now, what if you don't own the TV/car? What if you're leasing it, and your contract says you can simply drop the lease at any time, and there are hundreds of other people willing to sign you up for a new lease on the same terms? Would you bother to try fixing it?
That's how companies view people. That's how they view YOU. You're disposable, and expensive to fix. Best to simply ditch you and replace you - it's far cheaper.
Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market.
They've done it before, like when their deli people unionized.
Except for the impulse buyer factor, which is not inconsiderable. People will go to Wal-Mart for food or clothes or something, then decide to buy a DVD they happen to see. They won't be doing that with iTunes (the overlap won't be as large, at least).
`cheating' in business is self-defeating. ie: consider cheating in school: you're paying money for a degree, yet you're not getting all you can get out of the school (namely, the knowledge you've paid for). What's the point of cheating?
The point is that many, many job ads will say "requires four year degree in _blank_".
That's the whole point - the ability to more easily con someone into thinking you know what you're talking about.
Ethics isn't a required course in many, many undergrad & graduate programs.
It was at my school in my degree plan. My ethics professor told us that it probably wasn't the sort of thing that the politicians had in mind when they wrote a law requiring it to be taught.
She said that they probably wanted values taught (don't steal, don't cheat, etc), rather than a class on how to formulate a system of ethical thought.
Even then, I think it would be pointless. The people inclined to act badly would simply tell the professors what they wanted to hear, while internalizing none of the values they were being "taught".
Slashdot Mirror
It's ok, they can always just talk to Fox News.
Yes, it works for cooling as well.
My concern is that Wikipedia says the temperature of the earth 10 feet deep is around 55 degrees F (12.8 degrees C). I suppose you could just not dig quite as deep if you wanted to be warmer than that, I'm not sure.
Which is exactly why right-wingers suggest it so often.
Which is why new homes need Geothermal heating loops installed at the time of construction.
Unfortunately this is not happening, despite large numbers of homes being constructed.
The test isn't designed to make sure everyone is a great writer. It's designed to make sure that everyone can express a thought coherently in written form (whether it does so competently is another matter).
Seems some people (at the New York Times) aren't looking at it from that perspective. Most people aren't going to go into their particular field.
The biggest drivers for job growth right now are housing and health care - job growth in any other sector over the past 6 years has been very small. And the housing bubble will burst fairly soon.
Housing: The Engine of This Expansion
They go after companies because it's much more efficient for a large company to deal with all their old products than for every single individual out there to do so. The company has access to more information than the individual does, it has to discover this information only once instead of requiring every one of their customers to do it, and they can deal with all their products in bulk.
If it raises the prices of these products, good - it will more accurately reflect the true cost of the product up front, rather than later on when it's caused all kinds of problems.
That's why we have laws - to keep people from infringing on the rights of others.
Perhaps because results varied with where he was looking? You know, what he said in the content of his comment?
Just make sure that when you burn gasoline, it's only your lungs that pay the price.
Unfortunately health care is getting more and more expensive, and the employer may well have to pay for various procedures a few times. This is probably the reason why they just toss people.
Plus, at places like Wal-Mart, turnover is so high that they are hiring near constantly anyway. Might as well just not say no to one of the people they interviewed instead of fixing an older worker.
The radios that a company produces will be nearly identical, and costs will be the same. The amount an insurance company will have to pay out will vary a great deal, and could be a very large amount - which is the nature of insurance.
And since insurance companies can pick and choose their individual policyholder if they go the individual insurance route, while they cannot if they deal with an employer with a large number of employees, individuals can get a far better deal through their employer than they can by themselves (if they can get individual insurance at all).
This is a problem, because it's just one more factor putting employees at the mercy of their employer. I suspect that if we got a decent single payer health care system in place, many, MANY people would change jobs because they would not be quite so shackled.
They can't drop individuals from a group plan, they have to drop everybody or nobody. They also cannot single people out and raise their rates only. They also cannot refuse an individual for whatever reason - if the employer puts that person on the plan, they have to take them.
But yes, they can raise the rates for everybody, or cancel the total policy.
Yes, but by the time you have a case, you're already deeply in debt to hospitals and doctors. You'll have to audition for lawyers to get them to take the case on contingency. See the fiasco with Blue Cross/Blue Shield (had to go to class action before any real action could be taken).
Another factor to think about is that food and transportation (cars at least) are transferrable - if the rich are charged more than the poor, the poor will simply buy more and sell to the rich at a discount.
You can't do this with health care - a doctor has to treat you directly. You can't buy some health care and then sell of the extra.
No, because the employer has more bargaining power with the insurance companies than the individual does.
Plus, the laws are heavily rigged in favor of getting your health insurance through an employer. They get tax breaks on it, you don't. You can't get dropped from a group health insurance plan on a whim, nor can they simply jack up your rates. With individual insurance, they can do both these things.
Plus, they can illegally drop you for simply getting sick, and you'll likely be too poor to fight back. Companies can throw a lot more weight.
Of course, I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse, so likely this information is wasted on you.
Now, what if you don't own the TV/car? What if you're leasing it, and your contract says you can simply drop the lease at any time, and there are hundreds of other people willing to sign you up for a new lease on the same terms? Would you bother to try fixing it?
That's how companies view people. That's how they view YOU. You're disposable, and expensive to fix. Best to simply ditch you and replace you - it's far cheaper.
Except for the impulse buyer factor, which is not inconsiderable. People will go to Wal-Mart for food or clothes or something, then decide to buy a DVD they happen to see. They won't be doing that with iTunes (the overlap won't be as large, at least).
That's the whole point - the ability to more easily con someone into thinking you know what you're talking about.
She said that they probably wanted values taught (don't steal, don't cheat, etc), rather than a class on how to formulate a system of ethical thought.
Even then, I think it would be pointless. The people inclined to act badly would simply tell the professors what they wanted to hear, while internalizing none of the values they were being "taught".