Now scientists studying earthquakes will become like the various environuts who say the world is going to end at midnight, every night
No, we just wont have scientists studying earthquakes anymore because they don't want the liability. This is something we call "shooting the messenger".
just download the insurance form from our website.
And of course, the insurance company will not pay out unless you have filed a police report. But that is okay, even if they do pay out, the deductible is nearly the same cost as a new phone. Phone Insurance is almost as bad a scam as someone stealing it from you.
Why would it be "a matter of time"? Are terrorists going to figure out how to hijack a high speed train and fly it into a building?
I was talking about obnoxious security, which will eventually find its way into the train stations. You're talking about actual terrorist acts, which are almost completely irrelevant when talking about security.
Perhaps a better question is why is the USA now failing to implement major infrastructure projects?
Because we are in a constant battle between trying to decide whether to spend all our money on the military or spend all our money on making everybody dependent on the government for sustenance.
if you want to for example get from London to Paris, I can't really think of any reason why you won't go by Euro Star (the high speed rail service between those two cities).
Well, it looks to be about the same cost as the airlines, but takes longer. Perhaps it is more comfortable. I haven't been on it. I am sure that the security is, for now, less obnoxious than the airlines, but it's only a matter of time.
There's no point trying to have this discussion with made-up numbers.
Well, I could talk real numbers, at least o the Social Security side. I get statements from the government every year that show how much I have paid into Social Security, and also estimates that say that if I continue to pay in at the rate that I am doing now, then when I am 67, and if I live to be the average age, then I will indeed receive some small fraction back of what I paid in over my lifetime. That doesn't include the fact that my employer is also paying in the same amount that I am putting in (actually more for the last couple of years). of course, if people realized that they were paying in 400,000 between their payment and their employers payment and after 45 years of compounded interest, getting paid back less than half that amount, there would be uproar. Fortunately, people are bad at math, and don't realize they are getting ripped off. If you took the amount that the average household puts into SS and put that into the stock market, after 45 years, you would have $1.5 million.
You are exactly right. Unfortunately, "Average starting salary" doesn't take into account people who just couldn't find a job period, or people who come out with an engineering degree and are now working in some other field that pays less just so they could have a job.
if $100k isn't enough, you're doing something wrong.
Yeah, like you had kids or something. I'm convinced that kids cost $15,000 a year each. I used to spend maybe $50 a month at the store before kids, now, it is about $1,500.00, Now granted, part of that is the fact that over the last decade the price of everything has gone up by a factor of 3 or 4 despite the constant claim of 3% inflation. But the rest of it is due to more mouths to feed. I guess it was kind of irresponsible of me to have children without making enough to support them, but to my credit, when we had the kids 10 years ago, I was making more than twice as much money than I am now. Yeah, that's right, salary gone down by about 55%, cost of food gone up by 400%, all in the same time period. Isn't the economy great?
an extensive social security and healthcare coverage provided by the government
It's not provided by the government, it's provided by you, the tax payer. They are just taking it away from you, running it through an expensive bureaucracy, and then handing back 1/4 of what they took, and somehow convincing you that it is free money.
64K USD is less than the salary of a fresh engineer graduate, at least in Munich.
That's OK, here in the U.S., the starting salary for an engineer is about $50k, but just try finding a job that will pay you that fresh out of school. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Frankly, I would rather earn 90k, work less, and have more free time to spend with my family.
So would I, but unfortunately, I don't make that much, I work way too many hours, and have little time to spend with my family. But then, I am just a lowly Director of Development, not one of those fancy entry level software engineers.
In my school, you had to take X amount of science, and I ended up taking Biology. They also offered Physics and Chemistry, but I was intimidated by both, especially Chemistry. When I got to college, the engineering major required 4 semesters of Chemistry. I started with Intro to Chemistry (which made it 5 semesters) because I was scared of how difficult it would be. It turns out that was a big waste of time. I found out that Chemistry is just simple algebra where the variables happen to be chosen from the Periodic Table of Elements. Chemistry didn't get hard until we got to the part where they teach you that the foundational information they gave you was all just theoretical practice. At the beginning they teach you that two Hydrogens and an Oxygen make water. Well, in actuality, that is not the case. If you had an exact 2 to 1 ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen, you will get mostly water, but not all of the individual atoms would actually bond. That is where it got tricky, but they didn't start teaching you that until the third semester I think.
Solution: send your kids to a private school.
An additional plus is that most private schools costs less than $30 per day, while apparently public schools apparently cost $30 per day just to make sure the child is there, and then who knows how much more on top of that to actually educate the child.
Exactly, if people want to drive tin cans then they should have the option and let the insurance companies figure out what the risk premium is.
Perhaps if people knew that their cars were going to kill them if they got into an accident, then people would drive more safely.
$1565 in 1960 is worth around $12,400 today.
That seems like a good price for an average brand new car. Oh, wait the average price of a new car is 2.5 times that much.
SUV vs Nano = not so good. Nano vs Nano = fender bender.
INTerestingly, another person trying to argue for the safety of Nanos said that they are designed to use the OTHER vehicle as a crumple zone, so their argument would be that an SUV versus nano would be safer than nano versus nano.
It is the nature of accidents to happen on accident, most of the time when at least one of the parties involved was doing nothing wrong.
Yes, but most of the time when two cars collide, it was not an accident. It was a "negiligent".
When every other car around you can stop very quickly in an emergency situation, you are very likely to crash if your stopping distance is longer than everyone else's
Yeah, but everybody else isn't even going to hit their brakes until they are done texting. You could have stopped, pulled over to the side, smoked a cigarette, and listened to the extended play version of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida before somebody texting even realized that traffic ahead was stopped.
To make matters worse, you are paying $70 an hour for someone whose only training is how to read the message on the ECM. Once they've done that, they don't know what to actually do about it. They will charge you $300 parts and labor to replace part X just guessing that that will fix the problem and when that turns out not to have been the problem, you still get stuck with the bill.
They lose half their value if you try to sell them to a dealer. They don't lose half their value if you try to sell the to the man on the street, The man on the street would rather pay you the 75% of new than the 90% of new he would have to pay the dealer.
When you add in the fact that you can almost always get zero percent financing or close to it on new cars, and they want 8 or 9 percent on used cars, and it makes more sens to buy a new car than a two or three year old one. Me personally, I usually am buying 6 or 7 year old cars. I am upper middle class and can't afford newer cars than that. Only rich people and people who are lower middle class trying to become poor people can afford new or late model used cars these days.
Poor people should not be buying a new car. Middle class people should not even be buying a new car at today's prices. With the cost of a new car now equal to about half of a middle class family's income, there is no reason to be buying a new car. Instead of spending the estimated $9,000 that a roadworthy Tata would cost in the U.S., a poor person should buy a good quality used vehicle. They will get a more practical car for their family, which can haul the family AND groceries more comfortably and safer.
The last time we funded NASA, it resulted in three decades of Earth shattering scientific advances, an increase in desire for higher education and an explosion of growth in employment in technology fields. Let's be sure not to make that mistake again.
So, the only car manufacturer that stands to gain if California increases targets for electric vehicles also happens to be the only one asking California to increase those standards? I'm shocked!
Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
The difference being that that was a long time ago, and Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong and does not engage in those practices. While some of the more extreme Muslims still openly practice those techniques and have not recanted them.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that thinks that you should be held to account for the sins of people who died before your grandfather was born, perpetrated on someone else whose living relatives are also half a dozen generations removed from the sin. And yet, we also live in a society where you are not responsible for your own current sins because everything is somebody else's fault. Amazing.,
Slashdot Mirror
Now scientists studying earthquakes will become like the various environuts who say the world is going to end at midnight, every night
No, we just wont have scientists studying earthquakes anymore because they don't want the liability. This is something we call "shooting the messenger".
just download the insurance form from our website.
And of course, the insurance company will not pay out unless you have filed a police report. But that is okay, even if they do pay out, the deductible is nearly the same cost as a new phone. Phone Insurance is almost as bad a scam as someone stealing it from you.
Why would it be "a matter of time"? Are terrorists going to figure out how to hijack a high speed train and fly it into a building?
I was talking about obnoxious security, which will eventually find its way into the train stations. You're talking about actual terrorist acts, which are almost completely irrelevant when talking about security.
Perhaps a better question is why is the USA now failing to implement major infrastructure projects?
Because we are in a constant battle between trying to decide whether to spend all our money on the military or spend all our money on making everybody dependent on the government for sustenance.
if you want to for example get from London to Paris, I can't really think of any reason why you won't go by Euro Star (the high speed rail service between those two cities).
Well, it looks to be about the same cost as the airlines, but takes longer. Perhaps it is more comfortable. I haven't been on it. I am sure that the security is, for now, less obnoxious than the airlines, but it's only a matter of time.
There's no point trying to have this discussion with made-up numbers.
Well, I could talk real numbers, at least o the Social Security side. I get statements from the government every year that show how much I have paid into Social Security, and also estimates that say that if I continue to pay in at the rate that I am doing now, then when I am 67, and if I live to be the average age, then I will indeed receive some small fraction back of what I paid in over my lifetime. That doesn't include the fact that my employer is also paying in the same amount that I am putting in (actually more for the last couple of years). of course, if people realized that they were paying in 400,000 between their payment and their employers payment and after 45 years of compounded interest, getting paid back less than half that amount, there would be uproar. Fortunately, people are bad at math, and don't realize they are getting ripped off. If you took the amount that the average household puts into SS and put that into the stock market, after 45 years, you would have $1.5 million.
You are exactly right. Unfortunately, "Average starting salary" doesn't take into account people who just couldn't find a job period, or people who come out with an engineering degree and are now working in some other field that pays less just so they could have a job.
if $100k isn't enough, you're doing something wrong.
Yeah, like you had kids or something. I'm convinced that kids cost $15,000 a year each. I used to spend maybe $50 a month at the store before kids, now, it is about $1,500.00, Now granted, part of that is the fact that over the last decade the price of everything has gone up by a factor of 3 or 4 despite the constant claim of 3% inflation. But the rest of it is due to more mouths to feed. I guess it was kind of irresponsible of me to have children without making enough to support them, but to my credit, when we had the kids 10 years ago, I was making more than twice as much money than I am now. Yeah, that's right, salary gone down by about 55%, cost of food gone up by 400%, all in the same time period. Isn't the economy great?
an extensive social security and healthcare coverage provided by the government
It's not provided by the government, it's provided by you, the tax payer. They are just taking it away from you, running it through an expensive bureaucracy, and then handing back 1/4 of what they took, and somehow convincing you that it is free money.
64K USD is less than the salary of a fresh engineer graduate, at least in Munich.
That's OK, here in the U.S., the starting salary for an engineer is about $50k, but just try finding a job that will pay you that fresh out of school. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Frankly, I would rather earn 90k, work less, and have more free time to spend with my family.
So would I, but unfortunately, I don't make that much, I work way too many hours, and have little time to spend with my family. But then, I am just a lowly Director of Development, not one of those fancy entry level software engineers.
In my school, you had to take X amount of science, and I ended up taking Biology. They also offered Physics and Chemistry, but I was intimidated by both, especially Chemistry. When I got to college, the engineering major required 4 semesters of Chemistry. I started with Intro to Chemistry (which made it 5 semesters) because I was scared of how difficult it would be. It turns out that was a big waste of time. I found out that Chemistry is just simple algebra where the variables happen to be chosen from the Periodic Table of Elements. Chemistry didn't get hard until we got to the part where they teach you that the foundational information they gave you was all just theoretical practice. At the beginning they teach you that two Hydrogens and an Oxygen make water. Well, in actuality, that is not the case. If you had an exact 2 to 1 ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen, you will get mostly water, but not all of the individual atoms would actually bond. That is where it got tricky, but they didn't start teaching you that until the third semester I think.
Solution: send your kids to a private school.
An additional plus is that most private schools costs less than $30 per day, while apparently public schools apparently cost $30 per day just to make sure the child is there, and then who knows how much more on top of that to actually educate the child.
Exactly, if people want to drive tin cans then they should have the option and let the insurance companies figure out what the risk premium is.
Perhaps if people knew that their cars were going to kill them if they got into an accident, then people would drive more safely.
$1565 in 1960 is worth around $12,400 today.
That seems like a good price for an average brand new car. Oh, wait the average price of a new car is 2.5 times that much.
SUV vs Nano = not so good. Nano vs Nano = fender bender.
INTerestingly, another person trying to argue for the safety of Nanos said that they are designed to use the OTHER vehicle as a crumple zone, so their argument would be that an SUV versus nano would be safer than nano versus nano.
It is the nature of accidents to happen on accident, most of the time when at least one of the parties involved was doing nothing wrong.
Yes, but most of the time when two cars collide, it was not an accident. It was a "negiligent".
When every other car around you can stop very quickly in an emergency situation, you are very likely to crash if your stopping distance is longer than everyone else's
Yeah, but everybody else isn't even going to hit their brakes until they are done texting. You could have stopped, pulled over to the side, smoked a cigarette, and listened to the extended play version of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida before somebody texting even realized that traffic ahead was stopped.
To make matters worse, you are paying $70 an hour for someone whose only training is how to read the message on the ECM. Once they've done that, they don't know what to actually do about it. They will charge you $300 parts and labor to replace part X just guessing that that will fix the problem and when that turns out not to have been the problem, you still get stuck with the bill.
They lose half their value if you try to sell them to a dealer. They don't lose half their value if you try to sell the to the man on the street, The man on the street would rather pay you the 75% of new than the 90% of new he would have to pay the dealer.
When you add in the fact that you can almost always get zero percent financing or close to it on new cars, and they want 8 or 9 percent on used cars, and it makes more sens to buy a new car than a two or three year old one. Me personally, I usually am buying 6 or 7 year old cars. I am upper middle class and can't afford newer cars than that. Only rich people and people who are lower middle class trying to become poor people can afford new or late model used cars these days.
Poor people should not be buying a new car. Middle class people should not even be buying a new car at today's prices. With the cost of a new car now equal to about half of a middle class family's income, there is no reason to be buying a new car. Instead of spending the estimated $9,000 that a roadworthy Tata would cost in the U.S., a poor person should buy a good quality used vehicle. They will get a more practical car for their family, which can haul the family AND groceries more comfortably and safer.
I'm against this. There is entirely too much drilling on campus already. And furthermore, I was not invited.
The last time we funded NASA, it resulted in three decades of Earth shattering scientific advances, an increase in desire for higher education and an explosion of growth in employment in technology fields. Let's be sure not to make that mistake again.
So, the only car manufacturer that stands to gain if California increases targets for electric vehicles also happens to be the only one asking California to increase those standards? I'm shocked!
Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
The difference being that that was a long time ago, and Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong and does not engage in those practices. While some of the more extreme Muslims still openly practice those techniques and have not recanted them.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that thinks that you should be held to account for the sins of people who died before your grandfather was born, perpetrated on someone else whose living relatives are also half a dozen generations removed from the sin. And yet, we also live in a society where you are not responsible for your own current sins because everything is somebody else's fault. Amazing.,