I've solved lots of problems in my dreams, some involving math. I've never had an exhausting dream. Though when I solve problems in dreams, I just relax and think about it, not focus hard on it and work on the details.
Took me to about 12 just to get a basic lucid, and another 5 years to get to full lucid dreaming. Of course, I was a very very heavy sleeper before, and a light sleeper after, so it isn't as good a thing as people think. It came with a downside for me.
If your company isn't growing at 10% per year, stock will drop. 20% per year profit is great, but without growth, the stock price will drop. 0% per year with 20% gross revenue growth per year (and 0 profit growth) will probably trump actual returns for stock price.
It doesn't make sense, but that's how it works. So everyone kills for 10% growth per year, even if unsustainable and borderline illegal extortion.
The study published last week has been in the news for 2 years? I remember seeing this, and 1000 other theories over the last 2 years, but not too much about studies supporting one over another.
You can pick your dream, but you can't choose to be asleep. Those are orthoginal. Now, if there was some sleeping pill that forced REM, that would be more interesting...
I worked hard to develop my lucidity. How did you lose it? For me, it never left, and never needed to work to keep it.
For me, it started with being able to "change channels". When I didn't like a dream, I'd pick a new one. I could also wake myself up. Working on that for a while, I got to where I could "tweak" dreams. add in things, take them away, play with them.
Every cite I found indicated he "changed his mind" after seeing the movie in its entirety. He made the protagonist of the fist one Han. The protagonist in literature is the character that undergoes a "change". For IV, that was Han. He realized he intended to make Luke the hero, but screwed it up because of his bad writing and direction.
He initially intended to show Han as a rogue, who tried to talk his way out of it, and used violence when the talking failed. That's what he indicated he wanted. That's what he did. He just changed his mind about the character after seeing the complete film. Your "never" is not supported by any cites. He obviously intended for it to be the way it was.
That he changed his mind between filming it and releasing it doesn't make "never" true. It just makes him a bad writer and director.
More than once, I've seen a CEO go AWOL, and the company hardly noticed (and by "hardly" I mean they noticed the person wasn't showing up anymore, but the operations of the company were unaffected.
And if the CEO disappears for a few weeks, what happens? The company doesn't notice. It's not unusual for a CEO to go to DC to lobby, or take a retreat with other CEOs to discuss strategies/collude. And, nothing happens. The strategy is set, the other CxOs are still there. The CEO can miss any single day, and nobody would notice.
I worked at a "small" company with a CEO who died of cancer. He'd miss random days, and no single day lost cost the company anything. He was CEO until dead, wasn't pulled because his illness was incompatible with his job.
A good CEO will surround himself with a CFO, COO and any other CxOs that are effective. When left with no direction, they'll select one. The CEO just breaks ties, in a high-functioning company. But yes, I recognize most companies aren't that high-functioning.
They were pulled from production. Where can I buy the original DVD? I don't have a VHS player, though I have the last VHS version with Han shooting first.
OMG, it's like copyright wasn't originally a max of 28 years, where if it stayed, it'd be well out of copyright. Why have we abandoned the basics of copyright to limit Public Domain?
You can't go by the imsdb, it's just not authoritative.
In the absence of any other cites, it trumps everything you posted to support the "other side". So IMSDB wins. Well, that and IMSDB matches what was actually made (directed, performed, edited, and presented), so why would you doubt evidence that matches reality?
Like it or not, George Lucas never wanted Han to shoot first.
How do you know? He put Han shooting first into the first movie. That proves you wrong. Yes, he later changed his mind, but to say he "never" wanted it is silly. That's how he wrote and directed it the first time. He just didn't understand the rest of the movie, and changed his mind later.
I do not mingle with "fortune 500", however every business owner I deal with is the key to their company's success,
The first clue is that you considered "owner operator" to be CEO. You obviously don't know what CEO is or does, and are offended that I insulted something you didn't understand.
Yeah, the CEO of a 5 person company (a joke, as here, a "CEO" of a company that small would be a GM or other title) probably actually does real work. The CEO of a company that small I last worked for was also the janitor. And I've seen companies with 3 people, CEO, CFO, and CIO. It gets to be a bit of a joke.
How many fortun 500 CEOs have you met? How many of them do "real work"?
CEO's don't do *any* "work". They direct. They lead. They don't do. Most management is about control and verification, not actually doing anything. The more managers, the less work done, as the actual workers must spend more time in meetings and reviews and such, and less time doing anything.
I see this argument all the time but for the most part there is little substance behind it.
Depends on how you define "cartel". I've lived places where the number of medallions was not set by the city, but by those who own medallions. The only way to make new medallions is for the current owners to vote in new ones. And they *never* do. That meets every definition of "cartel" I know, and isn't a silly conspiracy theory as you postulate.
So getting into a car with a Uber driver with lots of good feedback is more risky than getting in an average cab? I don't think you've been many places or taken many cabs.
Actually, yes! They can provide a subpar service, without the customers knowing, or having any way of knowing that the service they are paying for, is rubbish and/or overpriced.
Then people will figure it out and correct shortly. But the Black Cab drivers disagree with you. They seem to be complaining that Uber is providing a competing service (similar enough in quality) for a lower price (not higher as you hint), and they don't like it.
Given that I've never been to London, or seen a modern map of it, I expect I would fail. But I think I'd be able to do darned well for any city I've lived in. Though none have a local variant of The Knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
I've solved lots of problems in my dreams, some involving math. I've never had an exhausting dream. Though when I solve problems in dreams, I just relax and think about it, not focus hard on it and work on the details.
Sounds like you like Fair Tax. At least guessing from the 25% number, as that's the fairtax Utopian number.
Took me to about 12 just to get a basic lucid, and another 5 years to get to full lucid dreaming. Of course, I was a very very heavy sleeper before, and a light sleeper after, so it isn't as good a thing as people think. It came with a downside for me.
If your company isn't growing at 10% per year, stock will drop. 20% per year profit is great, but without growth, the stock price will drop. 0% per year with 20% gross revenue growth per year (and 0 profit growth) will probably trump actual returns for stock price.
It doesn't make sense, but that's how it works. So everyone kills for 10% growth per year, even if unsustainable and borderline illegal extortion.
The study published last week has been in the news for 2 years? I remember seeing this, and 1000 other theories over the last 2 years, but not too much about studies supporting one over another.
I'll make sure to never try that.
You can pick your dream, but you can't choose to be asleep. Those are orthoginal. Now, if there was some sleeping pill that forced REM, that would be more interesting...
I worked hard to develop my lucidity. How did you lose it? For me, it never left, and never needed to work to keep it.
For me, it started with being able to "change channels". When I didn't like a dream, I'd pick a new one. I could also wake myself up. Working on that for a while, I got to where I could "tweak" dreams. add in things, take them away, play with them.
Why do the elderly object?
Every cite I found indicated he "changed his mind" after seeing the movie in its entirety. He made the protagonist of the fist one Han. The protagonist in literature is the character that undergoes a "change". For IV, that was Han. He realized he intended to make Luke the hero, but screwed it up because of his bad writing and direction.
He initially intended to show Han as a rogue, who tried to talk his way out of it, and used violence when the talking failed. That's what he indicated he wanted. That's what he did. He just changed his mind about the character after seeing the complete film. Your "never" is not supported by any cites. He obviously intended for it to be the way it was.
That he changed his mind between filming it and releasing it doesn't make "never" true. It just makes him a bad writer and director.
More than once, I've seen a CEO go AWOL, and the company hardly noticed (and by "hardly" I mean they noticed the person wasn't showing up anymore, but the operations of the company were unaffected.
And if the CEO disappears for a few weeks, what happens? The company doesn't notice. It's not unusual for a CEO to go to DC to lobby, or take a retreat with other CEOs to discuss strategies/collude. And, nothing happens. The strategy is set, the other CxOs are still there. The CEO can miss any single day, and nobody would notice.
I worked at a "small" company with a CEO who died of cancer. He'd miss random days, and no single day lost cost the company anything. He was CEO until dead, wasn't pulled because his illness was incompatible with his job.
A good CEO will surround himself with a CFO, COO and any other CxOs that are effective. When left with no direction, they'll select one. The CEO just breaks ties, in a high-functioning company. But yes, I recognize most companies aren't that high-functioning.
First: You are wrong.
Second: There is no second.
There is no implied second shot. The first shot prevented any response. That's "first".
They were pulled from production. Where can I buy the original DVD? I don't have a VHS player, though I have the last VHS version with Han shooting first.
OMG, it's like copyright wasn't originally a max of 28 years, where if it stayed, it'd be well out of copyright. Why have we abandoned the basics of copyright to limit Public Domain?
You can't go by the imsdb, it's just not authoritative.
In the absence of any other cites, it trumps everything you posted to support the "other side". So IMSDB wins. Well, that and IMSDB matches what was actually made (directed, performed, edited, and presented), so why would you doubt evidence that matches reality?
Like it or not, George Lucas never wanted Han to shoot first.
How do you know? He put Han shooting first into the first movie. That proves you wrong. Yes, he later changed his mind, but to say he "never" wanted it is silly. That's how he wrote and directed it the first time. He just didn't understand the rest of the movie, and changed his mind later.
I do not mingle with "fortune 500", however every business owner I deal with is the key to their company's success,
The first clue is that you considered "owner operator" to be CEO. You obviously don't know what CEO is or does, and are offended that I insulted something you didn't understand.
Yeah, the CEO of a 5 person company (a joke, as here, a "CEO" of a company that small would be a GM or other title) probably actually does real work. The CEO of a company that small I last worked for was also the janitor. And I've seen companies with 3 people, CEO, CFO, and CIO. It gets to be a bit of a joke.
How many fortun 500 CEOs have you met? How many of them do "real work"?
CEO's don't do *any* "work". They direct. They lead. They don't do. Most management is about control and verification, not actually doing anything. The more managers, the less work done, as the actual workers must spend more time in meetings and reviews and such, and less time doing anything.
I see this argument all the time but for the most part there is little substance behind it.
Depends on how you define "cartel". I've lived places where the number of medallions was not set by the city, but by those who own medallions. The only way to make new medallions is for the current owners to vote in new ones. And they *never* do. That meets every definition of "cartel" I know, and isn't a silly conspiracy theory as you postulate.
So getting into a car with a Uber driver with lots of good feedback is more risky than getting in an average cab? I don't think you've been many places or taken many cabs.
Actually, yes! They can provide a subpar service, without the customers knowing, or having any way of knowing that the service they are paying for, is rubbish and/or overpriced.
Then people will figure it out and correct shortly. But the Black Cab drivers disagree with you. They seem to be complaining that Uber is providing a competing service (similar enough in quality) for a lower price (not higher as you hint), and they don't like it.
Given that I've never been to London, or seen a modern map of it, I expect I would fail. But I think I'd be able to do darned well for any city I've lived in. Though none have a local variant of The Knowledge.