It's a cell phone. Vmax is going to be extremely high: the large, flat side will provide wind resistance on a slope without a strong force backing it (indeed, as it falls it creates a slight vacuum... low pressure area above it), and unless it's perfectly flat and there is no wind it's going to rotate away from the pressure.
If the phone is tilted clockwise, for example, then the wind coming up will be skewed to the left. This will put more pressure on the left: the air travels left, but there is air in the way, creating a high pressure area; as there is lower pressure on the other side of the inclined plane it's sliding up, it'll just rotate the plane in an attempt to head toward this low pressure area. Thus the phone rotates further clockwise until it is vertical. Now, since it's very thin on two sides and has a very wide rectangular face, it'll maintain this profile--its most aerodynamic orientation--as it falls and accelerates. It's not alive, it's not actively trying to flatten out and use itself as an air brake, like a cat.
Caveat: the above was completely computed by building a closed universe in my head and running a full simulation. I've never studied physics and mostly get by with full scale simulations.
* A perfectly serviceable window is destroyed. The glazier must make (and sell) a new window to replace it.
* A man drinks the contents of a glass bottle and throws it in the trash. The glass bottle, being undamaged and exactly identical to a brand new glass bottle, is thus destroyed. A bottle company makes a new bottle, and sells it to Pepsi Co.
* Glass bottles are abandoned for plastic, which is more impact resistant but more prone to degrade--and thus not reusable at all.
* 43% of car trips in the US are under 2 miles and 85% are under 5 miles. These trips are easily done on a bicycle, a vehicle of minimal cost and minimal maintenance needs. The additional use of a car requires the unnecessary use of additional fuel, increase in maintenance, and decrease in the life of a car.
Also I know I focused around bottles a lot. It's an easy target, and reinforcement by exploring the various ways to destroy things is slightly interesting. Also I somewhat expect a recycling argument or a "we use plastic now" argument from someone who completely misses the point.
Anything to do with broken window fallacy either
1. Is an actual criminal act. Literally going around breaking people's windows and the like
2. A government program like the war on drugs
In a voluntary market (monopolies skew this... as below), the broken window fallacy does not exist.
The broken window fallacy presents the naive assumption that destruction of a perfectly serviceable product greases the wheels of economy by making money flow. The parable gives a window in good repair as an example, whereby it is destroyed through careless action; however, we can analog this to other things.
A perfectly serviceable window is destroyed. The glazier must make (and sell) a new window to replace it.
A man drinks the contents of a glass bottle and throws it in the trash. The glass bottle, being undamaged and exactly identical to a brand new glass bottle, is thus destroyed. A bottle company makes a new bottle, and sells it to Pepsi Co.
Glass bottles are abandoned for plastic, which is more impact resistant but more prone to degrade--and thus not reusable at all.
43% of car trips in the US are under 2 miles and 85% are under 5 miles. These trips are easily done on a bicycle, a vehicle of minimal cost and minimal maintenance needs. The additional use of a car requires the unnecessary use of additional fuel, increase in maintenance, and decrease in the life of a car.
Above, we must acknowledge that glass bottles degrade by impact and thermal stress, both of which are minimal in most cases. Thus, an empty and used bottle being equivalent to a new bottle, we can effectively just clean and reuse the same bottle while manufacturing and immediately destroying a brand new bottle to achieve the exact same economic effect. In fact, even if we assume the glass bottles degrade such that they can be reused 10 times, we're still experiencing whole loss: to make a bottle and destroy it after one use is exactly identical, down the line, to making one bottle and destroying another brand new bottle at each of ten reuses before finally replacing the worn-out bottle with a brand new bottle we don't destroy outright.
It is true that glass bottles cost money; but lo, even the glass makers and bottle blowers must sell their wares, yes?
Contrasting with a reclamation system, bottle companies would make less money. Meanwhile, beverage companies would have trouble inspecting and cleaning glass bottles; this is best done on scale, and so outsource to a specialist company would become an in-demand service. Shipping companies would return the bottles to these companies after delivering beverages to stores, minimizing the number of trips spent on this--although fuel costs would be slightly higher (carrying heavy glass instead of empty truck). The beverage companies would levy and pay deposits, while citizens collect bottles and their shiny nickel. The beverage company would then acquire reclaimed bottles for a fraction of the cost of brand new bottles; damaged bottles would go to glass makers as refined glass, rather than raw sand to be processed and purified and mixed (with lime, etc, depending on the quality of glass desired.
In this way, the cost to Pepsi Co for a glass bottle drops from 35 cents per bottle to (for example) 12.5 cents per bottle; inspection and cleaning can be done in (say) 8.5 cents per bottle on a large scale. The reclamation companies are also using any damaged bottles as glass salvage--they will of course price reclaimed bottles above their value as salvage but cheaper than new bottles, and they absolutely will destroy any unsold reclaimed bottles and sell them for salvage to glass companies.
Jobs are created, money flows, the original glass makers and bottle makers make slightly less, but society as a whole becomes richer by not destroying something.
The same can be said of overusing or undermaintaining your car to the point of its own destruction in half its reasonably achievable lifesp
Not necessarily. If you destroy windows, people pay money for windows, and the glass makers benefit; but society loses wealth of the value of the broken windows. That money could go to other economic interests such as food, entertainment, or clothing; rather than a society of malnourished people in rickety, moth-eaten clothing, we could see less poverty due to expenses being lower. The middle class would have significantly less income.
In the same way, if a company gains control of a valuable public interest, then that public interest is lost. The company gains a revenue stream, and supplies something different. If the company supplies something similar to or less valuable than what the public has lost, then the company becomes richer while society becomes poorer.
Health care and health insurance are two different things. Health care is what doctors do; health insurance is what pays for it.
Health insurance works by mitigation of risk. Everyone pays into a pool, and then everyone draws from that pool as needed. A slight bump can ruin your life, but most of us will completely avoid those bumps. Insurance helps smooth out the small bumps, but more importantly handles the moderate sized ones so they don't cripple us. They occasionally have to deal with really big ones, as per agreement.
To make health insurance work, they basically have to get rid of the bottom of the barrel. The idea of health insurance for all is a fantasy. Insurance costs are too high to insure everyone, and nobody can pay it. To increase profits, you increase customer base. To do that, you reduce prices. To do that, you cut away the worst, reducing overall risk, reducing the fees needed to operate. The fewer you cut away, the higher the fees go. To maximize profits, you stop cutting when you have the most people on health insurance; interestingly, this also denies insurance to the fewest. On top of that, you cut away a few more (without dropping fees) as a margin for control of risk variance, which also functions as a surrogate profit margin. Because this model is optimal, most insurance companies operate as NPOs: they can only bring in a little bit of profit anyway, so they file for a lighter tax burden.
The one and only way to increase the number of people on health insurance is to decrease the cost of health care. This is hard. Doctors are well-off, but not really that well off; they are the remainder of the middle class, living in upscale neighborhoods with fairly large houses, with two cars, but without their own private jet or yachts or 180 days of vacation per year. Still, doctors carry a lot of risk: they come out of medical school with huge loans; they have to worry about malpractice suits and insurance; and in general the job is commission based, which carries all of its own problems.
So somehow, you have to reduce the risk to doctors; you have to reduce other costs; and you have to do it without lowering their standard of living to the point where it isn't worth it or producing shitty doctors. Your basic general practitioner is, for his PCP patients, generally laid back and doing pretty much nursing duty; he's also cheap, at worst trying to extort a $300 office visit from you if you're uninsured. Insurance pays $80-$120 and bills you $10.
The real costs come from in-patient work, especially surgery. Doctors often juggle multiple ICU or other overnight patients, with nurses keeping watch, sometimes stretching their hours. Surgeons, on the other hand, always get overtaxed, working 36-48 hours without sleep because changing over to another doctor is infeasible. The risks they take are huge; but the risk of mistakes from sleep deprivation are lower than the risks of mistake from someone who's been told about all the things that have gone on thus far and handed a knife to continue poking around inside you.
Recall I said I didn't want to lower the general standard of living for these people. How often do you have lives on the line that you can't find conscionable to leave in someone else's hands, when you've been awake for 30 hours, under high pressure, one tiny mistake away from crippling or killing someone, always just one breath away from being too late? It's a rough job and they've earned the private jets, yachts, and half-year vacations they're not getting far more than the big oil tycoons that have 'em. Besides, their overall take-home is what, $80-$100k/year after all taxes and doctor-specific expenses (malpractice insurance etc.)? Whew, good chunk of change, and it's also a surface scratch on the cost of health care.
Tough problem. It needs lots of study to fix. Fixable, but requires study. The closest guy to bludgeon with a club isn't really causing most of the expenses.
The labor costs of passing out the tiny snack are irrelevant, because the god damn waitress can't just open the flight deck door and go home while the plane is 30,000 feet in the air!
Yes and all they know is that you're in a demographic. You bought shoes that aren't work boots... you probably buy shoes. Macy's usually sends out a catalog including that stuff to anyone who purchases from them anyway, and they'll... send one to you. Why would they do anything different? Doing all that work based on demographics is a pain, mainly due to having to print other shit; blasting the full catalog at anyone in their sights works better. Special offers? Weekend sale, you come this weekend or you don't come at all.
How did all you idiots get the fool idea that Macy's is going to have a [Non-Identified User]:[Specific Coupon Code] mapping? The bank goes, "We sent out offers. People clicked. We need 50 coupons." End of story. Macy's knows they sent out 50 coupons this time for these offers in this pool (maybe the bank doesn't tell them that, but they can still jockey the offers to differentiate the pools). They know the people showing up to claim are CitiBank customers. They know where they live because, well, you're either shopping locally or you're putting your address in online for delivery.
They have roughly the same amount of data mining space as sending out coupons to all addresses in a mass mailing, but with much fewer things to mail due to preoptimization.
Shave soap has more glycerin or tallow to help hydrate (read: damage) the hair. Mama Bear's body soaps with the high glycerin content are good enough in a pinch; often shave soaps have a caustic ash component to further damage the hair.
Don't be stupid and it's not dangerous. It's difficult in the same way piano is difficult... takes practice. If you can't maintain one properly (sharpening a knife is hard), look into the Feather Artist Club series. A real, well-honed straight razor is so much nicer; the blade cuts better and, if you hone it yourself, you can customize the blade characteristics (sharpness, smoothness, aggressiveness, bevel, double bevel, half bevel...). A Feather AC does a fantastic job.
I have accidentally dug my razor right into my jugular... but I didn't penetrate all the way through the skin (it got stuck), and so didn't cut the artery. I had a little, nasty-looking cut under my jaw. It took an amazing amount of stupidity to pull off... I can't remember if I was busy texting while shaving or what. I do remember nearly cutting my finger off because I tried to free-spin the razor to reorient, completely disconnected, then forcefully grabbed it by the blade, while looking somewhere else entirely. That kind of thing is an indicator that you may be mentally retarded.
It's a knife. Don't play around with it like a moron. At worst, you'll knick yourself a bit.
I get a fantastic shave off the 5 blade Fusions; however, the skin is slightly raw and tingly, no matter what. Eventually, I start getting serious bumps. The blades basically pull, tug, and rape at the face. They work much nicer with a brush and real shave soap (Tabac is good); but same issue. I can shave daily off a straight razor with no issue; and yet the shave lasts longer.
Shaving typically irritates the pores and causes the hair to draw into the face, and then it pokes back out when the skin relaxes (or gets caught inside); the dry chemicals in shave gels and creams cause hair to harden and retract into the skin a bit, and the blade pulls them out and cuts (the first blade to catch doesn't cut, it just tugs so the next can cut), while scraping the skin. Depending on skin and facial hair type, this can lead to (oddly enough) either cutting not enough hair (due to it retracting) or cutting too much hair (due to the razor pulling it out). Further, because the irritated hairs pull back temporarily, either result ends in hair cut below the skin, which can get caught and become ingrown--red bumps form. It's even worse with the skin all scraped up like that.
With a straight or safety razor and proper technique, hair is soaked and softened; the face is warmed so hair gently extends; and then the blade glides along a wet, lubricated surface (instead of a dry chemical lubricated surface) and cuts extremely weakened hairs (rather than hard whiskers). A sharp blade won't pull if done right. Going with the grain gets extremely close, and then the cooled skin (cold water splash, or after shave) lets the hairs retract a bit, but not much. Going against the grain gets even closer, but some people are prone to ingrown hairs and thus against-the-grain shaving can cause tons of little red bumps.
Shaving is, oddly enough, extremely complex. Straight and safety razors have different benefits; modern single-blade safety razors are much better than old 1904 technology, too, and have better heads (old ones could grab at the hair by wedging it into odd spots between the blade and head).
Actually I own a mechanical wrist watch that cost $300 (limited edition 70 piece run custom with a Swiss ETA movement), and I'll only shave with a straight razor (best results). The advantage of a mechanical wrist watch is that it doesn't have a battery to die; whereas a digital watch can include a heart rate monitor and stop watch, among other things. It is, as well, one of the very few ways men can successfully accessorize; gaudy earrings, bracelets, piercings, and the like are not professional, nor are they attractive outside a minority group.
I live in Baltimore City and I have had to go around the police barricade with my house in view at 4pm after work because someone was shot in front of my house. People keep getting shot here, but there are a lot more brutal beatings, rapes, and knife murders. Often these happen right out in the streets, not out of view... well, except the rapes, those happen out of view, if often just slightly.
The US states with stricter gun control don't tend to have less violent crime. See DC, Maryland, etc. Washington and Texas (both open carry no permit states--as in you need a CCP to conceal, but you can carry a god damn shotgun on your back in public if you want with no written consent) have lower crime rates... not extremely low, but lower. There are of course states with little gun control and yet high crime, and with high gun control and low crime.
The fact that the criminals don't have guns there is a byproduct of the low crime, though; criminals here get guns just fine, illegally, no documentation. There are many factors to consider; but if you live in a gang-riddled area, then taking away the ability of the common man to defend himself and those around him is a huge mistake. A gun is not the ability to defend yourself; the ability to defend yourself is the ability to defend yourself. That doesn't mean a black belt in Judo or third dan in Aikido or whatever; this is one of those goals that cannot be purely embodied, and thus has many roads to it.
I firmly believe that the separation between good people and violent criminals is inherent. There are many criminals that just want to eat, that are good people who have fallen out of the favor of society, who are now homeless and naked and must steal for their living. They generally don't want to hurt people. There are also those who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, and whether by necessity or will have been forced to crime; in their criminal dealings, they will make liberal use of violence where effective. Making the good strong is not going to make them evil; however, it will make the use of violence with criminal intent less effective due to increased danger, either by someone fighting back or by constantly creating loud, attention-grabbing scenarios (gunshots, dead bodies... look when you are the target of a man hunt for murder it's very different than when you robbed someone at knife-point). This acts as a deterrent.
All of these things influence my feelings on the value of self defense, although primarily the concept of cowards abandoning those in need during violent and brutal beatings and raping disturbs me. I believe this is primarily driven by fear and a feeling of personal helplessness, which degrades a feeling of community and of communal responsibility or one another. A man without such fear will be disturbed and offended by witnessing brutal beatings and raping of the innocent and, as he is not afraid to do so, will be extremely likely to do something about it immediately and personally. I want that threat hanging over the heads of violent criminals, at all times. I want them to face the threat of everyone.
As I mentioned before, the two driving forces for crime are necessity and choice. I also mentioned that people lose a feeling of community when they are afraid for themselves. One large factor for gang activity and for the choice of violent criminal lifestyles is... well, simply put, there's nothing else to do. Therefor, I also hold value in community centers and community activities which bring younger children together in ways that fill in the gaps that gang membership usually occupies.
I dislike children, personally; but asshole kids become asshole adults. It is well known and statistically proven that engaging and, indeed, empowering growing children actually keeps them out of gangs, which leads them to grow up to not be criminals. Social centers, Go clubs, charity efforts to get kids and families bicycles
The UK, has been subject to terrorism far longer than 9/11. We had the IRA trying it on and succeeding very often. Sure their methods were different than the current fundamentalists, as well as their reasons.
Wait, wait. Which IRA is the problem over there? Our government funds some of the IRAs in the UK, though I can't remember which. They're all knock-offs of the original Irish Republican Army anyway, I don't get why we fund some and don't fund others.
The chicken nuggets at McDonalds are bleached mechanically separated chicken, so it's all white, and all meat, and all chicken. They get away with calling it "All white meat."
People don't always need guns. Around here people get raped and stabbed to death in alleyways.
Convenience store owners are the only ones that can get gun permits here, sometimes. Really, liquor license is needed to get a sure thing. And yes, I've seen them successfully defend themselves. Moreover, I've seen someone rob a gun shop (there are gun shops here), because he was retarded; that is an atypical scenario even in an armed society (a gun shop in an unarmed society concentrates extremists), but it was funny. He surrendered.
In the US, a large number of people don't carry guns. Nobody around my city (actually, entire state) legally carries a gun when walking down the street. The same is said for the nation's capital, where guns are illegal and violent crimes are extremely high. Still, I am interested in the bystander effect; giving people guns as-is is a bad idea. People are untrained, scared animals, and will shoot blindly or just cower and not use the guns. Teaching them to defend themselves--with fists, rocks, nunchaku, whatever--makes them less tolerant of violent crime, as they feel they have the ability to fight it. Thus, instead of slinking silently away from 2 big guys with just their fists or knives mugging or raping someone in an alley, they will be inclined to fight; currently, even a group of 10 people will look at 1 big man with big fists and cower.
By the way, your sweeping generalization across America is a fallacious statistical error. America is like Europe: it's a landmass encompassing 50 small countries with varied laws and cultures.
Standard Oil also owned railroads, and would shift box cars in front of pipelines and disallow running pipelines under the railroad. This meant that other oil companies had to put the oil in barrels and carry it across the tracks... which of course is why they put box cars there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cell phone. Vmax is going to be extremely high: the large, flat side will provide wind resistance on a slope without a strong force backing it (indeed, as it falls it creates a slight vacuum... low pressure area above it), and unless it's perfectly flat and there is no wind it's going to rotate away from the pressure.
If the phone is tilted clockwise, for example, then the wind coming up will be skewed to the left. This will put more pressure on the left: the air travels left, but there is air in the way, creating a high pressure area; as there is lower pressure on the other side of the inclined plane it's sliding up, it'll just rotate the plane in an attempt to head toward this low pressure area. Thus the phone rotates further clockwise until it is vertical. Now, since it's very thin on two sides and has a very wide rectangular face, it'll maintain this profile--its most aerodynamic orientation--as it falls and accelerates. It's not alive, it's not actively trying to flatten out and use itself as an air brake, like a cat.
Caveat: the above was completely computed by building a closed universe in my head and running a full simulation. I've never studied physics and mostly get by with full scale simulations.
Also I know I focused around bottles a lot. It's an easy target, and reinforcement by exploring the various ways to destroy things is slightly interesting. Also I somewhat expect a recycling argument or a "we use plastic now" argument from someone who completely misses the point.
Anything to do with broken window fallacy either 1. Is an actual criminal act. Literally going around breaking people's windows and the like 2. A government program like the war on drugs
In a voluntary market (monopolies skew this... as below), the broken window fallacy does not exist.
The broken window fallacy presents the naive assumption that destruction of a perfectly serviceable product greases the wheels of economy by making money flow. The parable gives a window in good repair as an example, whereby it is destroyed through careless action; however, we can analog this to other things.
Above, we must acknowledge that glass bottles degrade by impact and thermal stress, both of which are minimal in most cases. Thus, an empty and used bottle being equivalent to a new bottle, we can effectively just clean and reuse the same bottle while manufacturing and immediately destroying a brand new bottle to achieve the exact same economic effect. In fact, even if we assume the glass bottles degrade such that they can be reused 10 times, we're still experiencing whole loss: to make a bottle and destroy it after one use is exactly identical, down the line, to making one bottle and destroying another brand new bottle at each of ten reuses before finally replacing the worn-out bottle with a brand new bottle we don't destroy outright.
It is true that glass bottles cost money; but lo, even the glass makers and bottle blowers must sell their wares, yes?
Contrasting with a reclamation system, bottle companies would make less money. Meanwhile, beverage companies would have trouble inspecting and cleaning glass bottles; this is best done on scale, and so outsource to a specialist company would become an in-demand service. Shipping companies would return the bottles to these companies after delivering beverages to stores, minimizing the number of trips spent on this--although fuel costs would be slightly higher (carrying heavy glass instead of empty truck). The beverage companies would levy and pay deposits, while citizens collect bottles and their shiny nickel. The beverage company would then acquire reclaimed bottles for a fraction of the cost of brand new bottles; damaged bottles would go to glass makers as refined glass, rather than raw sand to be processed and purified and mixed (with lime, etc, depending on the quality of glass desired.
In this way, the cost to Pepsi Co for a glass bottle drops from 35 cents per bottle to (for example) 12.5 cents per bottle; inspection and cleaning can be done in (say) 8.5 cents per bottle on a large scale. The reclamation companies are also using any damaged bottles as glass salvage--they will of course price reclaimed bottles above their value as salvage but cheaper than new bottles, and they absolutely will destroy any unsold reclaimed bottles and sell them for salvage to glass companies.
Jobs are created, money flows, the original glass makers and bottle makers make slightly less, but society as a whole becomes richer by not destroying something.
The same can be said of overusing or undermaintaining your car to the point of its own destruction in half its reasonably achievable lifesp
the US gov is a 3rd world country.
Not necessarily. If you destroy windows, people pay money for windows, and the glass makers benefit; but society loses wealth of the value of the broken windows. That money could go to other economic interests such as food, entertainment, or clothing; rather than a society of malnourished people in rickety, moth-eaten clothing, we could see less poverty due to expenses being lower. The middle class would have significantly less income.
In the same way, if a company gains control of a valuable public interest, then that public interest is lost. The company gains a revenue stream, and supplies something different. If the company supplies something similar to or less valuable than what the public has lost, then the company becomes richer while society becomes poorer.
CITE you ignorant fucking curr, CITE! Sight is what you do with your fucking EYES!
Health care and health insurance are two different things. Health care is what doctors do; health insurance is what pays for it.
Health insurance works by mitigation of risk. Everyone pays into a pool, and then everyone draws from that pool as needed. A slight bump can ruin your life, but most of us will completely avoid those bumps. Insurance helps smooth out the small bumps, but more importantly handles the moderate sized ones so they don't cripple us. They occasionally have to deal with really big ones, as per agreement.
To make health insurance work, they basically have to get rid of the bottom of the barrel. The idea of health insurance for all is a fantasy. Insurance costs are too high to insure everyone, and nobody can pay it. To increase profits, you increase customer base. To do that, you reduce prices. To do that, you cut away the worst, reducing overall risk, reducing the fees needed to operate. The fewer you cut away, the higher the fees go. To maximize profits, you stop cutting when you have the most people on health insurance; interestingly, this also denies insurance to the fewest. On top of that, you cut away a few more (without dropping fees) as a margin for control of risk variance, which also functions as a surrogate profit margin. Because this model is optimal, most insurance companies operate as NPOs: they can only bring in a little bit of profit anyway, so they file for a lighter tax burden.
The one and only way to increase the number of people on health insurance is to decrease the cost of health care. This is hard. Doctors are well-off, but not really that well off; they are the remainder of the middle class, living in upscale neighborhoods with fairly large houses, with two cars, but without their own private jet or yachts or 180 days of vacation per year. Still, doctors carry a lot of risk: they come out of medical school with huge loans; they have to worry about malpractice suits and insurance; and in general the job is commission based, which carries all of its own problems.
So somehow, you have to reduce the risk to doctors; you have to reduce other costs; and you have to do it without lowering their standard of living to the point where it isn't worth it or producing shitty doctors. Your basic general practitioner is, for his PCP patients, generally laid back and doing pretty much nursing duty; he's also cheap, at worst trying to extort a $300 office visit from you if you're uninsured. Insurance pays $80-$120 and bills you $10.
The real costs come from in-patient work, especially surgery. Doctors often juggle multiple ICU or other overnight patients, with nurses keeping watch, sometimes stretching their hours. Surgeons, on the other hand, always get overtaxed, working 36-48 hours without sleep because changing over to another doctor is infeasible. The risks they take are huge; but the risk of mistakes from sleep deprivation are lower than the risks of mistake from someone who's been told about all the things that have gone on thus far and handed a knife to continue poking around inside you.
Recall I said I didn't want to lower the general standard of living for these people. How often do you have lives on the line that you can't find conscionable to leave in someone else's hands, when you've been awake for 30 hours, under high pressure, one tiny mistake away from crippling or killing someone, always just one breath away from being too late? It's a rough job and they've earned the private jets, yachts, and half-year vacations they're not getting far more than the big oil tycoons that have 'em. Besides, their overall take-home is what, $80-$100k/year after all taxes and doctor-specific expenses (malpractice insurance etc.)? Whew, good chunk of change, and it's also a surface scratch on the cost of health care.
Tough problem. It needs lots of study to fix. Fixable, but requires study. The closest guy to bludgeon with a club isn't really causing most of the expenses.
The labor costs of passing out the tiny snack are irrelevant, because the god damn waitress can't just open the flight deck door and go home while the plane is 30,000 feet in the air!
Yes and all they know is that you're in a demographic. You bought shoes that aren't work boots... you probably buy shoes. Macy's usually sends out a catalog including that stuff to anyone who purchases from them anyway, and they'll ... send one to you. Why would they do anything different? Doing all that work based on demographics is a pain, mainly due to having to print other shit; blasting the full catalog at anyone in their sights works better. Special offers? Weekend sale, you come this weekend or you don't come at all.
How did all you idiots get the fool idea that Macy's is going to have a [Non-Identified User]:[Specific Coupon Code] mapping? The bank goes, "We sent out offers. People clicked. We need 50 coupons." End of story. Macy's knows they sent out 50 coupons this time for these offers in this pool (maybe the bank doesn't tell them that, but they can still jockey the offers to differentiate the pools). They know the people showing up to claim are CitiBank customers. They know where they live because, well, you're either shopping locally or you're putting your address in online for delivery.
They have roughly the same amount of data mining space as sending out coupons to all addresses in a mass mailing, but with much fewer things to mail due to preoptimization.
Shave soap has more glycerin or tallow to help hydrate (read: damage) the hair. Mama Bear's body soaps with the high glycerin content are good enough in a pinch; often shave soaps have a caustic ash component to further damage the hair.
Don't be stupid and it's not dangerous. It's difficult in the same way piano is difficult... takes practice. If you can't maintain one properly (sharpening a knife is hard), look into the Feather Artist Club series. A real, well-honed straight razor is so much nicer; the blade cuts better and, if you hone it yourself, you can customize the blade characteristics (sharpness, smoothness, aggressiveness, bevel, double bevel, half bevel...). A Feather AC does a fantastic job.
I have accidentally dug my razor right into my jugular ... but I didn't penetrate all the way through the skin (it got stuck), and so didn't cut the artery. I had a little, nasty-looking cut under my jaw. It took an amazing amount of stupidity to pull off... I can't remember if I was busy texting while shaving or what. I do remember nearly cutting my finger off because I tried to free-spin the razor to reorient, completely disconnected, then forcefully grabbed it by the blade, while looking somewhere else entirely. That kind of thing is an indicator that you may be mentally retarded.
It's a knife. Don't play around with it like a moron. At worst, you'll knick yourself a bit.
I get a fantastic shave off the 5 blade Fusions; however, the skin is slightly raw and tingly, no matter what. Eventually, I start getting serious bumps. The blades basically pull, tug, and rape at the face. They work much nicer with a brush and real shave soap (Tabac is good); but same issue. I can shave daily off a straight razor with no issue; and yet the shave lasts longer.
Shaving typically irritates the pores and causes the hair to draw into the face, and then it pokes back out when the skin relaxes (or gets caught inside); the dry chemicals in shave gels and creams cause hair to harden and retract into the skin a bit, and the blade pulls them out and cuts (the first blade to catch doesn't cut, it just tugs so the next can cut), while scraping the skin. Depending on skin and facial hair type, this can lead to (oddly enough) either cutting not enough hair (due to it retracting) or cutting too much hair (due to the razor pulling it out). Further, because the irritated hairs pull back temporarily, either result ends in hair cut below the skin, which can get caught and become ingrown--red bumps form. It's even worse with the skin all scraped up like that.
With a straight or safety razor and proper technique, hair is soaked and softened; the face is warmed so hair gently extends; and then the blade glides along a wet, lubricated surface (instead of a dry chemical lubricated surface) and cuts extremely weakened hairs (rather than hard whiskers). A sharp blade won't pull if done right. Going with the grain gets extremely close, and then the cooled skin (cold water splash, or after shave) lets the hairs retract a bit, but not much. Going against the grain gets even closer, but some people are prone to ingrown hairs and thus against-the-grain shaving can cause tons of little red bumps.
Shaving is, oddly enough, extremely complex. Straight and safety razors have different benefits; modern single-blade safety razors are much better than old 1904 technology, too, and have better heads (old ones could grab at the hair by wedging it into odd spots between the blade and head).
Dovo Astrale and Feather Artist's Club.
Also, look up the Officer's Watch that Bernhardt made. I have the face on the right: http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f30/239943d1260933746-bernhardts-officer-watch-unitas-officerall.jpg Sapphire crystal so it's scratch-resistant.
Yes but how much does a wind of the springs cost and how long does it take you to disassemble the watch to do so?
Actually I own a mechanical wrist watch that cost $300 (limited edition 70 piece run custom with a Swiss ETA movement), and I'll only shave with a straight razor (best results). The advantage of a mechanical wrist watch is that it doesn't have a battery to die; whereas a digital watch can include a heart rate monitor and stop watch, among other things. It is, as well, one of the very few ways men can successfully accessorize; gaudy earrings, bracelets, piercings, and the like are not professional, nor are they attractive outside a minority group.
I remember a client called LOLChat that did this.
I think the US funds the Provisional IRA.
I live in Baltimore City and I have had to go around the police barricade with my house in view at 4pm after work because someone was shot in front of my house. People keep getting shot here, but there are a lot more brutal beatings, rapes, and knife murders. Often these happen right out in the streets, not out of view... well, except the rapes, those happen out of view, if often just slightly.
The US states with stricter gun control don't tend to have less violent crime. See DC, Maryland, etc. Washington and Texas (both open carry no permit states--as in you need a CCP to conceal, but you can carry a god damn shotgun on your back in public if you want with no written consent) have lower crime rates... not extremely low, but lower. There are of course states with little gun control and yet high crime, and with high gun control and low crime.
The fact that the criminals don't have guns there is a byproduct of the low crime, though; criminals here get guns just fine, illegally, no documentation. There are many factors to consider; but if you live in a gang-riddled area, then taking away the ability of the common man to defend himself and those around him is a huge mistake. A gun is not the ability to defend yourself; the ability to defend yourself is the ability to defend yourself. That doesn't mean a black belt in Judo or third dan in Aikido or whatever; this is one of those goals that cannot be purely embodied, and thus has many roads to it.
I firmly believe that the separation between good people and violent criminals is inherent. There are many criminals that just want to eat, that are good people who have fallen out of the favor of society, who are now homeless and naked and must steal for their living. They generally don't want to hurt people. There are also those who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, and whether by necessity or will have been forced to crime; in their criminal dealings, they will make liberal use of violence where effective. Making the good strong is not going to make them evil; however, it will make the use of violence with criminal intent less effective due to increased danger, either by someone fighting back or by constantly creating loud, attention-grabbing scenarios (gunshots, dead bodies ... look when you are the target of a man hunt for murder it's very different than when you robbed someone at knife-point). This acts as a deterrent.
All of these things influence my feelings on the value of self defense, although primarily the concept of cowards abandoning those in need during violent and brutal beatings and raping disturbs me. I believe this is primarily driven by fear and a feeling of personal helplessness, which degrades a feeling of community and of communal responsibility or one another. A man without such fear will be disturbed and offended by witnessing brutal beatings and raping of the innocent and, as he is not afraid to do so, will be extremely likely to do something about it immediately and personally. I want that threat hanging over the heads of violent criminals, at all times. I want them to face the threat of everyone.
As I mentioned before, the two driving forces for crime are necessity and choice. I also mentioned that people lose a feeling of community when they are afraid for themselves. One large factor for gang activity and for the choice of violent criminal lifestyles is ... well, simply put, there's nothing else to do. Therefor, I also hold value in community centers and community activities which bring younger children together in ways that fill in the gaps that gang membership usually occupies.
I dislike children, personally; but asshole kids become asshole adults. It is well known and statistically proven that engaging and, indeed, empowering growing children actually keeps them out of gangs, which leads them to grow up to not be criminals. Social centers, Go clubs, charity efforts to get kids and families bicycles
The UK, has been subject to terrorism far longer than 9/11. We had the IRA trying it on and succeeding very often. Sure their methods were different than the current fundamentalists, as well as their reasons.
Wait, wait. Which IRA is the problem over there? Our government funds some of the IRAs in the UK, though I can't remember which. They're all knock-offs of the original Irish Republican Army anyway, I don't get why we fund some and don't fund others.
Cola is made from the Kola nut. Coca-Cola is made from Cocaine and Kola.
The chicken nuggets at McDonalds are bleached mechanically separated chicken, so it's all white, and all meat, and all chicken. They get away with calling it "All white meat."
People don't always need guns. Around here people get raped and stabbed to death in alleyways.
Convenience store owners are the only ones that can get gun permits here, sometimes. Really, liquor license is needed to get a sure thing. And yes, I've seen them successfully defend themselves. Moreover, I've seen someone rob a gun shop (there are gun shops here), because he was retarded; that is an atypical scenario even in an armed society (a gun shop in an unarmed society concentrates extremists), but it was funny. He surrendered.
In the US, a large number of people don't carry guns. Nobody around my city (actually, entire state) legally carries a gun when walking down the street. The same is said for the nation's capital, where guns are illegal and violent crimes are extremely high. Still, I am interested in the bystander effect; giving people guns as-is is a bad idea. People are untrained, scared animals, and will shoot blindly or just cower and not use the guns. Teaching them to defend themselves--with fists, rocks, nunchaku, whatever--makes them less tolerant of violent crime, as they feel they have the ability to fight it. Thus, instead of slinking silently away from 2 big guys with just their fists or knives mugging or raping someone in an alley, they will be inclined to fight; currently, even a group of 10 people will look at 1 big man with big fists and cower.
By the way, your sweeping generalization across America is a fallacious statistical error. America is like Europe: it's a landmass encompassing 50 small countries with varied laws and cultures.
Standard Oil also owned railroads, and would shift box cars in front of pipelines and disallow running pipelines under the railroad. This meant that other oil companies had to put the oil in barrels and carry it across the tracks... which of course is why they put box cars there.