While iridology is bunk , it would be interesting to see what disease markers could be found with eye exams. We already know about a few. Ankylosing spondylitis is often associated with eye inflammation and abnormalities in the retina can be associated with diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease, and stroke, as well as a lot of systemic diseases.
Eye exams are generally non-invasive and the scans could be set up almost anywhere.
I'm surprised that it has that high a value at all, given that their legal and accounting expenses must be tremendous (even if they were somehow to win every lawsuit against them) and their liability insurance provider is doubtless going to fight them over every single claim.
The real question is whether Holmes was as good at deceiving herself as she was at deceiving others. If she was, her net worth may indeed be limited to personal property (which certainly she'll get to keep since it's very difficult to confiscate personal property from the wealthy), but if she was aware of just how much of it was all smoke and mirrors, then I'm sure she found ways to hide as much as she could.
What she really needs to do is declare that she's found religion, write a book, and then become a talk show guest.
It's fascinating to see how many posters here automatically assume that it must be the PHBs who pressured the engineers into this. Very few assume that the engineers saw an opportunity for a bonus or for the PHB to owe them one, and added the cheat function voluntarily. I've not seen any posts so far that suggest an engineer thought of the cheat and suggested it to a PHB.
A reminder that we tend to think of our peers as being much more ethical than "them" and look for reasons to think of them as victims of force or circumstances, and assume that "they" are only motivated by sheer callous greed. Whoever the "them" is.
They did commit what they'll reluctantly admit were mass killings of Armenians (what the rest of the world correctly recognizes as genocide) in the aftermath of World War I.
During the Ottoman era, they did occupy Greece and were, like virtually every occupying force, remarkably brutal. This got a lot of attention in the West because they were oppressing Europeans and Christians (instead of Asians and Muslims).
But here's a story about them. During the Irish genocide by famine (when a country exports food during a famine and the occupying foreign land owners raise rents during a period of starvation, that's genocide, whether the original cause was natural or not), the then Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Majid Khan, offered to send food and 10,000 pounds sterling. England refused to allow this.
Why? Why would it refuse the kind of aid that would have saved several thousand lives?
Queen Victoria gave only two thousand pounds and a gift greater than that would make her look ungenerous.
The Sultan insisted on giving something and finally they bargained him down to one thousand pounds. He also send three ships worth of food, but kept it quiet.
Technically, the government is secular (women working in government offices are even forbidden to wear head scarves, for example), but Erdogan has been doing everything possible to uproot that. As in many countries, the cities tend to back full separation of church/temple/mosque and state, while the rural areas tend to want religion integrated into government.
As you say, for a long time the military was a strong force for secular liberalism and the standard-bearer for Ataturk's secularist reforms and even led several coups to restore secular and democratic rule. Erdogan, though, made sure early on in his administration to gut their capacity to affect policy, let alone lead a coup.
I don't think that Turkey's capacity to be a mix of Muslim culture and secular government is entirely gone, but it's certainly diminishing. If it had a stronger and more diverse economy, Tunisia might be in a position to do so, but poverty (which often breeds Islamism, just like it does Christianism) and terrorism have virtually ruled out that possibility.
I can't imagine it being feasible for major elections, but it would be great if there were a voting option to say, "None of these candidates." If the majority of voters select that option, the candidates are replaced with a new batch.
It seems quite possible that polyamory/monoamory are part of human biological sexual orientation as well as part of culture. If so, oxytocin would play a strong part, probably also with factors that drive extinction of a response to a stimulus, estrogen, testosterone, etc..
One of the main reasons ebooks sold so tremendously (in volume, not price) on Amazon in the first few years was the huge number of public domain books that were suddenly free for the downloading. There was also a big spike in volume and price from this being the next generation of a format, rather like CD sales were inflated during the first few years of their popularity because people were getting on CD what they previously had on LPs or cassettes.
Where illustrations, graphs, tables, or seeing a page as a whole are important, physical books still have the advantage. I'd imagine that will last until there's a next-generation breakthrough in display.
I'm definitely not convinced of anything by this study, but it does suggest that there might be something worth examining more rigorously. If the study could be consistently replicated with people who don't have a language (or language family) in common, then it would be more indicative.
It should also be audio-only, since the instructions of "don't use facial expressions" are almost futile, considering how many our expressions are involuntary or unconscious.
Whether it's invention, integration, or just plain copying, a product has to be timely, to appeal to real and perceived needs. Steve Jobs was fortunate to be developing and marketing products during a time when gadgets and other small personal devices were taking on an extra psychological meaning to consumers. The same way that a vast number of consumers felt as though their cars were an extension of their ego and had to both reflect and enhance who they are, gadgets (and sneakers) started to do the same thing. Oprah Winfrey, for example, got a lot of her fame and fortune by combining a generic kind of spirituality with materialism and gadgets, a like of spirituality of consumption.
Apple products always implied that the people who own them are defying Big Brother or "think different." Even things like the white earbuds and headphones were designed to stand out in a crowd. People could simultaneously feel more creative and more attuned to art and design, and get the benefits of flaunting conspicuous consumption.
Even in times when a lot of people can't afford to buy a car or home, and can't show off their big electronics as a sign of conspicuous consumption, they can do so with the latest Apple device.
IANAL, but the general principles of the ADA are fairly straightforward.
The ADA prohibits asking directly about disabilities or anything else that's not directly related to the job. However, it is legal to ask questions that might reveal a disability, as long as it relates to the job.
For example, if I'm hiring for warehouse stocking, I could ask if you're capable of lifting a 20-pound box, if the job involves that. I couldn't ask, though, if you have any physical disabilities, or ask somebody who wouldn't be required to lift boxes fairly regularly.
If the person I'm hiring might have to lift one box maybe once or twice a month, but it's not a significant proportion of their job responsibilities, then if they had a disability, letting them ask somebody else to do it or providing some mechanical means would be considered a reasonable accommodation.
... for politicians, bureaucrats and profiteering corporations.
We already do that, time and time again. How many war profiteers, dishonest corporations, politicians, and other malefactors have been caught out in barefaced lies already? Of those, how many have suffered the consequences?
Confronting a self-righteous liar with the truth typically only inflames their self-righteousness and that of their followers.
If the person(s) posting the review can provide evidence that the reviews were based on fact, they could counter-sue for Malicious Prosecution. Some of the owner's responses on Yelp are potentially actionable as well (particularly defamation). While no reputable attorney would take on a suit just for the potential defamation (it would be virtually impossible to prove damages against an anonymous reviewer), if the reviewer(s) sue for Malicious Prosecution, they'd probably throw in the defamation charges just to get the owner's responses in front of the jury.
In the United States, at least, you can get any nonprofit's 990 form, either on their website or at www.guidestar.org. The 990 lists how much the top executives make, who their top vendors are, and how their budget gets spent.
Depending on the organization's lifecycle and purpose, about 15-20 percent of the budget on overhead is normal. A very new nonprofit has to spend a lot more on outreach and fundraising, as would a nonprofit that's raising funds for a major capital project.
I've found one of the most telling signs is a big gap between the CEO's salary and that of the next highest-paid staff. Unless there's some obvious reason (the CEO is the only full-time employee), that's the sign of a big CEO ego and a weak board.
The CEO and upper exec salaries should reflect their real market value, including the perks of the nonprofit sector. Most CEO turnover in the nonprofit world is voluntary, for example. In addition, the CEO of an organization with a lot of independent chapters has a lot less to do with their revenue stream than the CEO of one that's highly controlled from the parent organization.
Unless the organization is doing fundraising for a capital campaign, there shouldn't be big payments to professional fundraisers, compared to total income. Big consultant fees are another warning sign.
Well, more like "brain controlled" in that all our physical motions are brain-controlled. They're using the brain's signal to move the prosthetic as well as the nearest muscle. So somebody amputated above the knee would be able to control an artificial leg if normal functions of the leg could be coded into the prosthetic. (When this muscle flexes, move the leg like this, when that one flexes, move it like that.)
A lot of Apple's value to the consumer comes from the perception that one is standing out from the crowd as an Apple product user or for conspicuous consumption. That's the main reason that their headphone cords are white instead of black, for example.
While definitely somebody can talk about having the iTV, it's not the same as being able to carry it around.
As I understand it, by the time you reach the steam, you've gone deeper than most drilling equipment can go and gotten hot enough to melt most drills. Worse, you can't safely predict the results of releasing that much pressure, especially since there's no reliable way of imaging what you're drilling into at that depth and heat level.
You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".
In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.
The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.
In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.
Google has made so many investments in experimental and developing technology (robotics and energy to name just two examples) that its portfolio of companies and patents is tremendously valuable. It has the money to be almost anything that it wants to be and can afford to take more product development risks. Even if Google Glass turns out to be an absolute failure, the odds are strong that it can redeploy most of the research and lessons learned from developing it for something that will be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
So PHB has the obviously best laptop in the room!
There are two possible translations, based on the context.
1. Are the allegations based on a) verifiable facts or on b) unconfirmed or debunked rumors?
If answer=a, then translation="I'm so mad we got caught!"
If answer=b, then translation="This is a political attack."
It wasn't gneiss.
While iridology is bunk , it would be interesting to see what disease markers could be found with eye exams. We already know about a few. Ankylosing spondylitis is often associated with eye inflammation and abnormalities in the retina can be associated with diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease, and stroke, as well as a lot of systemic diseases.
Eye exams are generally non-invasive and the scans could be set up almost anywhere.
I'm surprised that it has that high a value at all, given that their legal and accounting expenses must be tremendous (even if they were somehow to win every lawsuit against them) and their liability insurance provider is doubtless going to fight them over every single claim.
The real question is whether Holmes was as good at deceiving herself as she was at deceiving others. If she was, her net worth may indeed be limited to personal property (which certainly she'll get to keep since it's very difficult to confiscate personal property from the wealthy), but if she was aware of just how much of it was all smoke and mirrors, then I'm sure she found ways to hide as much as she could.
What she really needs to do is declare that she's found religion, write a book, and then become a talk show guest.
It's fascinating to see how many posters here automatically assume that it must be the PHBs who pressured the engineers into this. Very few assume that the engineers saw an opportunity for a bonus or for the PHB to owe them one, and added the cheat function voluntarily. I've not seen any posts so far that suggest an engineer thought of the cheat and suggested it to a PHB.
A reminder that we tend to think of our peers as being much more ethical than "them" and look for reasons to think of them as victims of force or circumstances, and assume that "they" are only motivated by sheer callous greed. Whoever the "them" is.
They did commit what they'll reluctantly admit were mass killings of Armenians (what the rest of the world correctly recognizes as genocide) in the aftermath of World War I.
During the Ottoman era, they did occupy Greece and were, like virtually every occupying force, remarkably brutal. This got a lot of attention in the West because they were oppressing Europeans and Christians (instead of Asians and Muslims).
But here's a story about them. During the Irish genocide by famine (when a country exports food during a famine and the occupying foreign land owners raise rents during a period of starvation, that's genocide, whether the original cause was natural or not), the then Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Majid Khan, offered to send food and 10,000 pounds sterling. England refused to allow this.
Why? Why would it refuse the kind of aid that would have saved several thousand lives?
Queen Victoria gave only two thousand pounds and a gift greater than that would make her look ungenerous.
The Sultan insisted on giving something and finally they bargained him down to one thousand pounds. He also send three ships worth of food, but kept it quiet.
Technically, the government is secular (women working in government offices are even forbidden to wear head scarves, for example), but Erdogan has been doing everything possible to uproot that. As in many countries, the cities tend to back full separation of church/temple/mosque and state, while the rural areas tend to want religion integrated into government.
As you say, for a long time the military was a strong force for secular liberalism and the standard-bearer for Ataturk's secularist reforms and even led several coups to restore secular and democratic rule. Erdogan, though, made sure early on in his administration to gut their capacity to affect policy, let alone lead a coup.
I don't think that Turkey's capacity to be a mix of Muslim culture and secular government is entirely gone, but it's certainly diminishing. If it had a stronger and more diverse economy, Tunisia might be in a position to do so, but poverty (which often breeds Islamism, just like it does Christianism) and terrorism have virtually ruled out that possibility.
I can't imagine it being feasible for major elections, but it would be great if there were a voting option to say, "None of these candidates." If the majority of voters select that option, the candidates are replaced with a new batch.
It seems quite possible that polyamory/monoamory are part of human biological sexual orientation as well as part of culture. If so, oxytocin would play a strong part, probably also with factors that drive extinction of a response to a stimulus, estrogen, testosterone, etc..
One of the main reasons ebooks sold so tremendously (in volume, not price) on Amazon in the first few years was the huge number of public domain books that were suddenly free for the downloading. There was also a big spike in volume and price from this being the next generation of a format, rather like CD sales were inflated during the first few years of their popularity because people were getting on CD what they previously had on LPs or cassettes.
Where illustrations, graphs, tables, or seeing a page as a whole are important, physical books still have the advantage. I'd imagine that will last until there's a next-generation breakthrough in display.
I'm definitely not convinced of anything by this study, but it does suggest that there might be something worth examining more rigorously. If the study could be consistently replicated with people who don't have a language (or language family) in common, then it would be more indicative.
It should also be audio-only, since the instructions of "don't use facial expressions" are almost futile, considering how many our expressions are involuntary or unconscious.
Whether it's invention, integration, or just plain copying, a product has to be timely, to appeal to real and perceived needs. Steve Jobs was fortunate to be developing and marketing products during a time when gadgets and other small personal devices were taking on an extra psychological meaning to consumers. The same way that a vast number of consumers felt as though their cars were an extension of their ego and had to both reflect and enhance who they are, gadgets (and sneakers) started to do the same thing. Oprah Winfrey, for example, got a lot of her fame and fortune by combining a generic kind of spirituality with materialism and gadgets, a like of spirituality of consumption.
Apple products always implied that the people who own them are defying Big Brother or "think different." Even things like the white earbuds and headphones were designed to stand out in a crowd. People could simultaneously feel more creative and more attuned to art and design, and get the benefits of flaunting conspicuous consumption.
Even in times when a lot of people can't afford to buy a car or home, and can't show off their big electronics as a sign of conspicuous consumption, they can do so with the latest Apple device.
Of course, western Europeans never vandalize. Especially not things of special interest or value.
The ADA prohibits asking directly about disabilities or anything else that's not directly related to the job. However, it is legal to ask questions that might reveal a disability, as long as it relates to the job.
For example, if I'm hiring for warehouse stocking, I could ask if you're capable of lifting a 20-pound box, if the job involves that. I couldn't ask, though, if you have any physical disabilities, or ask somebody who wouldn't be required to lift boxes fairly regularly.
If the person I'm hiring might have to lift one box maybe once or twice a month, but it's not a significant proportion of their job responsibilities, then if they had a disability, letting them ask somebody else to do it or providing some mechanical means would be considered a reasonable accommodation.
... for politicians, bureaucrats and profiteering corporations.
We already do that, time and time again. How many war profiteers, dishonest corporations, politicians, and other malefactors have been caught out in barefaced lies already? Of those, how many have suffered the consequences?
Confronting a self-righteous liar with the truth typically only inflames their self-righteousness and that of their followers.
If the person(s) posting the review can provide evidence that the reviews were based on fact, they could counter-sue for Malicious Prosecution. Some of the owner's responses on Yelp are potentially actionable as well (particularly defamation). While no reputable attorney would take on a suit just for the potential defamation (it would be virtually impossible to prove damages against an anonymous reviewer), if the reviewer(s) sue for Malicious Prosecution, they'd probably throw in the defamation charges just to get the owner's responses in front of the jury.
Depending on the organization's lifecycle and purpose, about 15-20 percent of the budget on overhead is normal. A very new nonprofit has to spend a lot more on outreach and fundraising, as would a nonprofit that's raising funds for a major capital project.
I've found one of the most telling signs is a big gap between the CEO's salary and that of the next highest-paid staff. Unless there's some obvious reason (the CEO is the only full-time employee), that's the sign of a big CEO ego and a weak board.
The CEO and upper exec salaries should reflect their real market value, including the perks of the nonprofit sector. Most CEO turnover in the nonprofit world is voluntary, for example. In addition, the CEO of an organization with a lot of independent chapters has a lot less to do with their revenue stream than the CEO of one that's highly controlled from the parent organization.
Unless the organization is doing fundraising for a capital campaign, there shouldn't be big payments to professional fundraisers, compared to total income. Big consultant fees are another warning sign.
Or rather like cruise control, which a few people willfully interpreted as "self-driving" when it was first introduced.
Well, more like "brain controlled" in that all our physical motions are brain-controlled. They're using the brain's signal to move the prosthetic as well as the nearest muscle. So somebody amputated above the knee would be able to control an artificial leg if normal functions of the leg could be coded into the prosthetic. (When this muscle flexes, move the leg like this, when that one flexes, move it like that.)
A lot of Apple's value to the consumer comes from the perception that one is standing out from the crowd as an Apple product user or for conspicuous consumption. That's the main reason that their headphone cords are white instead of black, for example.
While definitely somebody can talk about having the iTV, it's not the same as being able to carry it around.
As I understand it, by the time you reach the steam, you've gone deeper than most drilling equipment can go and gotten hot enough to melt most drills. Worse, you can't safely predict the results of releasing that much pressure, especially since there's no reliable way of imaging what you're drilling into at that depth and heat level.
You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".
In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.
The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.
In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.
Google has made so many investments in experimental and developing technology (robotics and energy to name just two examples) that its portfolio of companies and patents is tremendously valuable. It has the money to be almost anything that it wants to be and can afford to take more product development risks. Even if Google Glass turns out to be an absolute failure, the odds are strong that it can redeploy most of the research and lessons learned from developing it for something that will be successful.