Yet more proof that the idea of it being some biological clock that changes when you become an adult is utter BS. It is quite simply the habits and social tendencies of the local population and the age group.
If Daylight Savings Time is any indicator, then after a couple of weeks of that extra hour, your half-brother would have been right back to sleeping too late again.
'it was now medically established that it was better for teenagers to start their school day later in terms of their mental and physical health and how they learn better in the afternoon'
ITYM 'socially' not 'medically'. Teenagers are not biologically predisposed to staying up late and getting up late, otherwise they would have been doing this in the 1800s. We don't evolve fast enough to have gone from creatures that go to sleep and rise with the sun to creatures who go to sleep at 1 and wake up at noon and then miraculously at the age of 22 suddenly change to creatures that go to bed at reasonable hours and wake up at reasonable hours. It is all just social custom.
Well, my school district replaced the buses with having all the parents drive their kids to school. It is worse for the environment, costs more money per student, is more dangerous per student, but since all of the cost and legal liability is now on the parent, it works out better for the school.
No, it continues to be broken, only now you have to pay more for it. They have done nothing to address the exorbitant cost of healthcare, they have only mandated that everyone has to take part in it whether they want to or not. The issue that it is too expensive is swept under the rug. We needed healthcare reform, not mandatory healthcare. First of all, shoot all the the lawyers, second of all, shoot all the people who sue for millions of dollars over a botched elective surgery when they were made aware of the possibilities of complications and signed an agreement not to sue. Doctors are paying astronomical malpractice insurance. In my state, doctors are leaving in droves because they can't afford to practice medicine any more. The problem with healthcare is an overly litigious society. If not for that, people could afford to get treated out of their SAVINGS like they did 30 or 40 years ago, and not HAVE to have insurance except to cover catastrophic injuries. Time was, if you broke your arm, you could go to the doctor, get it X-rayed and set for a couple of hundred bucks. This was only like 30 years ago. Now, that would cost you over $1,500. My stepson was in an auto accident where he got bruises from the seat belt. $12,000 was the bill. That is quite simply ridiculous.
I can't fault the doctor's. They are not making the money. It mostly goes to pay malpractice. I had an ObGyn friend who collected $350,000 a year in fees, and paid $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance. To my knowledge, he never killed a baby.
To expand on this, the other lie in the article is that banks are sending paper winging around the country. While it is true that some banks still do this, most of the large banks have their own private image sharing network where they scan the checks on high speed scanners (usually around 1200-2000 docs per minute), or even on check scanners at the tell station, and then send the image to the bank that the check originated on. I worked for a company that built and hosted an image exchange that ANY bank could get on and do this (the national bank of Singapore was their first customer).
The bulk of checks deposited clear overnight, and the funds from the check you wrote your buddy will be withdrawn from your account overnight, but he may not be able to spend the funds for anywhere from a day to, depending on the amount, as much as two weeks later.
The jerk off vs rape logic is myth. Jerking off is about sex drive, rape is about power over another person.
That seems to be the pop psychology thought and one that is a helpful assumption to womens' rights groups, but the idea that rape is an act of violence and not a sexual act doesn't seem to be accepted by the professional psychology community. For one thing, rape and sexual violence are not necessarily the same thing, although again it is helpful for certain agendas to group them together.
I've never been a Mac fan, but at least once upon a time I could see their viewpoint. Macs were really different than PCs. They had Motorola processors, a unique graphical interface, had a large software base that only ran on Macs, etc. Now, pretty much anything you can run on Windows can be run on a Mac, the processor is Intel, the Windows interface (thanks to Microsoft) is no longer particularly unique. The only real difference is that a Mac costs $1000 more (anecdotal evidence from a recent laptop purchase. YMMV).
That works fine in a world where popularity determines the price of something. Two otherwise similarly built pairs of jeans may cost $100 different because one of them sports a popular name brand. But when you get into something as expensive as a computer, how far can that popularity go?
IBM used to be the expensive PC, but people still bought them for awhile, because they were the originators of the PC standard. But after a decade or so, IBM had to lower their prices because people saw no real issues with the thousands of compatible brands. Now Mac is practically speaking just an expensive PC, and has been that way for about a decade. They need to differentiate themselves or come down in price.
Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision. If I keep putting off deciding to do something then I am in fact not doing it - only under the guise of indecision, procrastination or requiring further consideration.
Uh oh, you've figured out how the government works. Some men in black suits will be by shortly to dispatch you.
It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country. Therefore the only argument that I am hearing is that the porn industry worries that this TLD would make it too easy for the government to restrict them from operating illegally.
I'm not speaking out against porn, just trying to think logically. Porn doesn't bother me much. I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.
This sounds just like my company having to deal with security from multiple different clients who all believe security means different things. On the one hand, you have some colleges who want to ban laptops from classrooms. On the other hand, you have colleges which REQUIRE you to bring a laptop.
Sore subject anyway, as I just had to part with $1000 for a laptop for my college bound stepson. He was disappointed that I didn't spring for the 6GB of memory on one model and just got the base 3 GB. I'm sorry, but my own laptop only has 2 GB of memory and I run multiple applications including OCR, and I never even use the 2 GB. There is no point throwing spare battery power away keeping 4 GB of memory alive that is never going to be used for anything. Of course this is from the generation of kids who go through a computer class in high school and come out knowing how to surf for porn and how to burn illegally downloaded music and games, but not know that Microsoft Word would be an example of a program to use for writing a document.
Anybody can type 90-110 words per hour. Oh, wait, you weren't talking about texting were you. Texting is really awesome though. Why some of the fastest texters are able to get speeds as high as the average hunt and peck typist.
On TV, they pay for commercials regardless of whether anyone is watching them or not. Your advertisers need to pay you for every attempted served ad, regardless of whether it was blocked.
That being said, no business that I have ever seen could prove that their bottom line increased by advertising enough to pay for the advertising that was done. On the internet, it's even worse.
For example, I could pay $75 to run my ad for an available rent house on one day in our local paper. The end result of this in my experience will be zero calls. However, I can put a sign out in front of the house for free, and get half a dozen calls. Or I could post it for free on Craigslist and get a half dozen calls, but even if I got 0 from Craiglist, it is still worth the price of admission. I could also advertise on the radio. I'm sure a 30 second spot late at a time when someone might be listening would only cost a few thousand dollars, but would probably net me a renter, however, It would have still been cheaper to let the house sit empty for two years then to run the spot and fill the vacancy.
I'm not convince that Coca-Cola is able to improve their bottom line by billions of dollars a year due to match their advertising budget. I'm not convince that Red Bulls aggressive marketing is the reason it became so popular. I think it has all to do with the power of word-of-mouth amongst teenagers looking for a buzz.
Managers just always feel like they need to be doing something in order to justify their position. This is why reorganizations happen about once every two years in just about every company. Re-orgs have a short term higher cost, but the savings is supposedly in the long term. Unfortunately, this has never been proven, because no company ever gets to the long term before the middle management starts another re-org in order to prove they are doing something. Ironically, it would be cheaper for the company to actually pay the middle management to do nothing, rather than bear the constant "one time" costs of constant re-orgs.
What competition? These people aren't printing tickets and underselling the vendors. They are buying up all the tickets and then reselling them at more than face value. One wonders why the vendor even cares since they have made their money. But the truth of the matter is that it is bad for the vendor's business when the only tickets available to the average Joe are at much higher than face value. The average Joe wants the vendor to do something about it so that he can buy a ticket at the price which he is willing to pay and that the vendor is willing to sell it to him. This is why the business model says "no reselling". It is not a failed business model. It's just that some people are breaking the agreement that was enacted when they purchased the tickets.
I would agree with you on the speeding laws. There are much more dangerous activities on the road that should be punished more severely. For instance, last night I witnessed a guy driving down my residential street go through two stop signs without so much as a flash of the brake lights, and also drive down the wrong side of the road for half of the length of the street. If I was a cop, I would ignore the people going a few percent over the limit, and would go after the people who are dangerous: People who run stop signs or traffic lights, people who drive twice the speed limit in residential areas, people who text while driving, people who drive 25% under the speed limit, people who change lanes without having adequate room and without using turn signals, etc.
The analogy is more like Burger King is willing to sell you a meal for $5. However, every morning, a couple of guys come in and buy all the meals, then hang around on Burger King's property offering to sell the meals for $15.
The scalpers in that case are providing a valuable service of holding back inventory for those that are willing to pay a little extra for the opportunity to purchase a ticket closer to the event date.
However valuable that service may be, it is not a service that is allowed under the business model of the ticket vendors. Therefore, whether it is illegal or not, it is certainly wrong.
A quick back of the hand calculation tells me that tidal friction is only two orders of magnitude less effect than this. So about 100 days of tidal friction is equal to this event.
b. All your billing is coming from a single corporation (i.e. you are really an employee, not a consultant.) This is a catch-22. If you are working on any kind of dedicated project, it would obviously take all of your attention, so you as the only employee of your company can not supply services to multiple companies.
As an example of the government looking the other way when they want to, I can name any number of other large firms with multiple employees that all service only one client (usually the government). No one seems to be claiming that all of that firms employees are employees of the government.
I really can't understand why the government chooses to make this distinction. If I am the only employee of my firm (which I was for a long time, but now I have a couple of other people), and I pay myself a salary and withhold FICA, what is the difference between that and being employed by somebody else who does the same thing, other than that I am more in control of my wages, and that some of my expenses are deductible?
The government can not mandate that a certain chosen profession is only allowed to be employees and not allowed to be an independent contractor. That interferes with the basic right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness accorded to us in the Bill of Rights and is thus illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what a job! I get paid to play games and all I have to do is pretend to be a girl to some guys that I will never have to meet in real life.
Yet more proof that the idea of it being some biological clock that changes when you become an adult is utter BS. It is quite simply the habits and social tendencies of the local population and the age group.
If Daylight Savings Time is any indicator, then after a couple of weeks of that extra hour, your half-brother would have been right back to sleeping too late again.
'it was now medically established that it was better for teenagers to start their school day later in terms of their mental and physical health and how they learn better in the afternoon'
ITYM 'socially' not 'medically'. Teenagers are not biologically predisposed to staying up late and getting up late, otherwise they would have been doing this in the 1800s. We don't evolve fast enough to have gone from creatures that go to sleep and rise with the sun to creatures who go to sleep at 1 and wake up at noon and then miraculously at the age of 22 suddenly change to creatures that go to bed at reasonable hours and wake up at reasonable hours. It is all just social custom.
Well, my school district replaced the buses with having all the parents drive their kids to school. It is worse for the environment, costs more money per student, is more dangerous per student, but since all of the cost and legal liability is now on the parent, it works out better for the school.
No, it continues to be broken, only now you have to pay more for it. They have done nothing to address the exorbitant cost of healthcare, they have only mandated that everyone has to take part in it whether they want to or not. The issue that it is too expensive is swept under the rug. We needed healthcare reform, not mandatory healthcare. First of all, shoot all the the lawyers, second of all, shoot all the people who sue for millions of dollars over a botched elective surgery when they were made aware of the possibilities of complications and signed an agreement not to sue. Doctors are paying astronomical malpractice insurance. In my state, doctors are leaving in droves because they can't afford to practice medicine any more. The problem with healthcare is an overly litigious society. If not for that, people could afford to get treated out of their SAVINGS like they did 30 or 40 years ago, and not HAVE to have insurance except to cover catastrophic injuries. Time was, if you broke your arm, you could go to the doctor, get it X-rayed and set for a couple of hundred bucks. This was only like 30 years ago. Now, that would cost you over $1,500. My stepson was in an auto accident where he got bruises from the seat belt. $12,000 was the bill. That is quite simply ridiculous. I can't fault the doctor's. They are not making the money. It mostly goes to pay malpractice. I had an ObGyn friend who collected $350,000 a year in fees, and paid $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance. To my knowledge, he never killed a baby.
My part of the internet would look exactly the same.
Never heard of it? Anyone who has not heard of facebook has obviously been living in the real world and not under a rock.
To expand on this, the other lie in the article is that banks are sending paper winging around the country. While it is true that some banks still do this, most of the large banks have their own private image sharing network where they scan the checks on high speed scanners (usually around 1200-2000 docs per minute), or even on check scanners at the tell station, and then send the image to the bank that the check originated on. I worked for a company that built and hosted an image exchange that ANY bank could get on and do this (the national bank of Singapore was their first customer). The bulk of checks deposited clear overnight, and the funds from the check you wrote your buddy will be withdrawn from your account overnight, but he may not be able to spend the funds for anywhere from a day to, depending on the amount, as much as two weeks later.
The jerk off vs rape logic is myth. Jerking off is about sex drive, rape is about power over another person.
That seems to be the pop psychology thought and one that is a helpful assumption to womens' rights groups, but the idea that rape is an act of violence and not a sexual act doesn't seem to be accepted by the professional psychology community. For one thing, rape and sexual violence are not necessarily the same thing, although again it is helpful for certain agendas to group them together.
I've never been a Mac fan, but at least once upon a time I could see their viewpoint. Macs were really different than PCs. They had Motorola processors, a unique graphical interface, had a large software base that only ran on Macs, etc. Now, pretty much anything you can run on Windows can be run on a Mac, the processor is Intel, the Windows interface (thanks to Microsoft) is no longer particularly unique. The only real difference is that a Mac costs $1000 more (anecdotal evidence from a recent laptop purchase. YMMV).
That works fine in a world where popularity determines the price of something. Two otherwise similarly built pairs of jeans may cost $100 different because one of them sports a popular name brand. But when you get into something as expensive as a computer, how far can that popularity go?
IBM used to be the expensive PC, but people still bought them for awhile, because they were the originators of the PC standard. But after a decade or so, IBM had to lower their prices because people saw no real issues with the thousands of compatible brands. Now Mac is practically speaking just an expensive PC, and has been that way for about a decade. They need to differentiate themselves or come down in price.
Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision. If I keep putting off deciding to do something then I am in fact not doing it - only under the guise of indecision, procrastination or requiring further consideration.
Uh oh, you've figured out how the government works. Some men in black suits will be by shortly to dispatch you.
Not a bad idea, we could use it to have nude pictures of slashdotters.
Won't work for me. I don't have a wide aspect screen yet.
It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country. Therefore the only argument that I am hearing is that the porn industry worries that this TLD would make it too easy for the government to restrict them from operating illegally.
I'm not speaking out against porn, just trying to think logically. Porn doesn't bother me much. I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.
This sounds just like my company having to deal with security from multiple different clients who all believe security means different things. On the one hand, you have some colleges who want to ban laptops from classrooms. On the other hand, you have colleges which REQUIRE you to bring a laptop.
Sore subject anyway, as I just had to part with $1000 for a laptop for my college bound stepson. He was disappointed that I didn't spring for the 6GB of memory on one model and just got the base 3 GB. I'm sorry, but my own laptop only has 2 GB of memory and I run multiple applications including OCR, and I never even use the 2 GB. There is no point throwing spare battery power away keeping 4 GB of memory alive that is never going to be used for anything. Of course this is from the generation of kids who go through a computer class in high school and come out knowing how to surf for porn and how to burn illegally downloaded music and games, but not know that Microsoft Word would be an example of a program to use for writing a document.
Anybody can type 90-110 words per hour. Oh, wait, you weren't talking about texting were you. Texting is really awesome though. Why some of the fastest texters are able to get speeds as high as the average hunt and peck typist.
On TV, they pay for commercials regardless of whether anyone is watching them or not. Your advertisers need to pay you for every attempted served ad, regardless of whether it was blocked.
That being said, no business that I have ever seen could prove that their bottom line increased by advertising enough to pay for the advertising that was done. On the internet, it's even worse.
For example, I could pay $75 to run my ad for an available rent house on one day in our local paper. The end result of this in my experience will be zero calls. However, I can put a sign out in front of the house for free, and get half a dozen calls. Or I could post it for free on Craigslist and get a half dozen calls, but even if I got 0 from Craiglist, it is still worth the price of admission. I could also advertise on the radio. I'm sure a 30 second spot late at a time when someone might be listening would only cost a few thousand dollars, but would probably net me a renter, however, It would have still been cheaper to let the house sit empty for two years then to run the spot and fill the vacancy.
I'm not convince that Coca-Cola is able to improve their bottom line by billions of dollars a year due to match their advertising budget. I'm not convince that Red Bulls aggressive marketing is the reason it became so popular. I think it has all to do with the power of word-of-mouth amongst teenagers looking for a buzz.
Managers just always feel like they need to be doing something in order to justify their position. This is why reorganizations happen about once every two years in just about every company. Re-orgs have a short term higher cost, but the savings is supposedly in the long term. Unfortunately, this has never been proven, because no company ever gets to the long term before the middle management starts another re-org in order to prove they are doing something. Ironically, it would be cheaper for the company to actually pay the middle management to do nothing, rather than bear the constant "one time" costs of constant re-orgs.
What competition? These people aren't printing tickets and underselling the vendors. They are buying up all the tickets and then reselling them at more than face value. One wonders why the vendor even cares since they have made their money. But the truth of the matter is that it is bad for the vendor's business when the only tickets available to the average Joe are at much higher than face value. The average Joe wants the vendor to do something about it so that he can buy a ticket at the price which he is willing to pay and that the vendor is willing to sell it to him. This is why the business model says "no reselling". It is not a failed business model. It's just that some people are breaking the agreement that was enacted when they purchased the tickets.
I would agree with you on the speeding laws. There are much more dangerous activities on the road that should be punished more severely. For instance, last night I witnessed a guy driving down my residential street go through two stop signs without so much as a flash of the brake lights, and also drive down the wrong side of the road for half of the length of the street. If I was a cop, I would ignore the people going a few percent over the limit, and would go after the people who are dangerous: People who run stop signs or traffic lights, people who drive twice the speed limit in residential areas, people who text while driving, people who drive 25% under the speed limit, people who change lanes without having adequate room and without using turn signals, etc.
Not sure if it the anology holds, but more people die of drowning in the desert than die of thirst.
The analogy is more like Burger King is willing to sell you a meal for $5. However, every morning, a couple of guys come in and buy all the meals, then hang around on Burger King's property offering to sell the meals for $15.
The scalpers in that case are providing a valuable service of holding back inventory for those that are willing to pay a little extra for the opportunity to purchase a ticket closer to the event date.
However valuable that service may be, it is not a service that is allowed under the business model of the ticket vendors. Therefore, whether it is illegal or not, it is certainly wrong.
A quick back of the hand calculation tells me that tidal friction is only two orders of magnitude less effect than this. So about 100 days of tidal friction is equal to this event.
b. All your billing is coming from a single corporation (i.e. you are really an employee, not a consultant.)
This is a catch-22. If you are working on any kind of dedicated project, it would obviously take all of your attention, so you as the only employee of your company can not supply services to multiple companies.
As an example of the government looking the other way when they want to, I can name any number of other large firms with multiple employees that all service only one client (usually the government). No one seems to be claiming that all of that firms employees are employees of the government.
I really can't understand why the government chooses to make this distinction. If I am the only employee of my firm (which I was for a long time, but now I have a couple of other people), and I pay myself a salary and withhold FICA, what is the difference between that and being employed by somebody else who does the same thing, other than that I am more in control of my wages, and that some of my expenses are deductible?
The government can not mandate that a certain chosen profession is only allowed to be employees and not allowed to be an independent contractor. That interferes with the basic right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness accorded to us in the Bill of Rights and is thus illegal.