Nope. Men don't care about bling. Women wear bling to impress OTHER WOMEN.
No sensible man is going to be attracted to a woman because she has an LV bag. Most men will see it as a sign that she is self-absorbed and high maintenance... or already has a rich boyfriend.
This is also true of fashionable behavior, like the anorexic emaciated look of models on the cover of Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and other magazines TARGETED AT WOMEN. But if you look at men's magazines, you see healthy women with full breasts and muscular abs. The pressure to be ultra-thin is not coming from men. It is something women are doing to themselves.
Learn critical thinking. What critical word appears in the very first sentence of the summary?
Answer: "Questionnaire"
This was a SURVEY, of people that selected their own diets, not a controlled study. People that give up meat and eat "plant based proteins" are the same people that will exercise, avoid smoking, drink a glass of red wine instead of a keg of beer, etc. Correlation is not causation, and the results of this survey really don't mean anything.
Maybe the fashion designers could create bigger and more numerous, smartphone compatible pockets on the clothing for women?
They do. Women can buy clothes with roomy pockets, and some women do buy them. But most don't.
The market is not "forcing" small/no pockets on women. Women are forcing their preferences on the market. Women prefer small pockets, or no pockets. My wife has bought many blouses and jackets that have fake pockets, with just a flap or button but no actual pocket. I have never seen that on men's clothing.
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerator, why does she never have a pen?
No, you do not need to OWN different cars for different uses. You just need to USE different cars.
You don't need to drive an F150 to drop off an envelope at the post office. Nor do you need to own a four ton truck just in case you may need to haul something someday.
When I am in Shanghai, and I need to go to a local shop, I can grab a bicycle for one RMB (about 12 cents) or hop on an electric scooter for 10 RMB ($1.20). It takes about 2 seconds to scan the QR code, and then I am ready to go. I see no reason these cars can't work the same way.
They may not work for you, but not everyone thinks like you do. For the 95% of the world that are not Americans, these cars could be useful.
This car is for driving on neighborhood streets at low speed. It is also focused on the non-American market, where people drive slower, shorter distances, and in smaller cars.
A car like this could work well in China, India, South-East Asia, Japan, and much of Europe.
If they are made available on-demand, like Ofo and Mobike do with electric scooters, this could be a really big deal.
There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries
Poor countries tend to squander talent. That is why they are poor.
So don't feel too bad about "brain drain". It is often beneficial for both the sending and receiving countries. The remittances sent home by overseas workers often far exceeds what they would contribute to the economy if they had stayed home.
When Deng Xiaoping first opened up China's economy in 1979, he decided on an explicit policy of exporting talent that China's domestic economy could not effectively utilize. He figured that China would get remittances in the short term, and in the long term many of these emigrants would return, bringing back skills and new perspectives. This turned out to be an extremely successful policy.
However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers
1. Teaching does not require an advanced degree. A BA/BS is sufficient. Some teachers get advanced degrees, but there is no evidence that these degrees make them better teachers.
2. There is no general shortage of teachers. Some schools in bad areas have trouble recruiting, but most schools have plenty of applicants for open jobs.
My daughter is in college. In-state tuition+books+boarding is costing me about $20k/yr, or about $80k total. If she had gone to community college for the first 2 years, I would have saved $25k (lower tuition, and live at home), so $55k total. That isn't cheap, but is less than my wife spent on her car.
Google search is not currently available in China, but other Google products are, including maps, translation, and Android. Google search may be returning soon.
There are a LOT of reasons why a lot of electronics and other tech are made in China.
A big reason is the pre-existing supply chain. If you manufacture in Shenzhen, you can get almost any components you need, because they are also manufactured in Shenzhen. Need some 2mm #000-120 screws? You can send a guy on a bicycle to go get some and he will be back in 30 minutes.
China isn't so cheap anymore. In Shenzhen, even someone straight off the bus is going to cost you $3/hr. You may need to pay $5/hr to keep experienced workers. Vietnam is less than half that, and Bangladesh is a quarter. Labor intensive industries, such as textiles, are fading away in China.
So this whole overblown mess over the last few years is that young people wanted to use shorthand to describe an ideology and the word means something else to the old people?
No, that is NOT the problem. First, this not a "young vs old" issue. Some people are using the word "socialism" to mean "progressivism", which is also called "liberalism" in America (but not in other English speaking countries). But other people, in this very thread, are using it to mean "capitalism without subsidies", so "socialism" apparently means the free market should be more unfettered. Other people, in this thread, think socialism is communism.
On a scale of economic ideologies it is being used for everything from 0 to 10.
In the field of economics, the word has a specific meaning. But to the general public, the word now means everything and nothing. It is meaningless when used by a non-economist.
Greece is more geographically separated, by water thus making distribution, travel, more expensive money-wise and time-wise,
Hogwash. Manhattan, San Francisco, Britain, and Japan are also "separated by water", yet none of them are poor. Water makes distribution easier, not harder. Look at a map of rich and poor countries. Poor countries tend to be inland, with poor access to ports.
And when did Detroit have a socialist government?
Never. Who said they did? I was specifically pointing out that the high welfare spending model used in Detroit was NOT socialist.
I think it also depends on which bits are socialised, which bits not.
Sure, and it is obvious which sectors work reasonably well with socialism: natural monopolies, and markets with no transparency. Roads and healthcare are good examples.
But socialism works very poorly in manufacturing, the delivery of most services, and any sector that relies on innovation and creativity.
Socialist agriculture has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it has been applied.
Nixon introduced HMOs to America, and health insurance has suffered for it every since.
HMOs were a compromise after Nixon's initial proposal for universal healthcare was rejected by congress. Most of the opposition came from Democrats. Northeastern Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, objected because they thought his proposal wasn't generous enough. Southern Democrats objected because they didn't want to tax white people to pay for healthcare for blacks. So we got HMOs instead.
Disclaimer: I get my healthcare from Kaiser, an HMO, and I am mostly satisfied.
What you describe is a classic "liberal" or "progressive", which as a political movement is more than a century old, and was dominant in America from the election of FDR in 1932 to the election of Reagan in 1980.
FDR, Truman, Nixon (yes, Nixon), and Clinton all tried to introduce universal healthcare. That is nothing new.
You are a liberal. You are not a "socialist". If you think you are, then you are diluting the term to be point of being meaningless.
No, that is socialism. Communism is a subset of socialism. Cuba is communist. Venezuela is socialist, but not communist.
The greek never had a 'danish model'. Only the scandinavian countries have...
The Greeks had the same model. The only difference was cultural. Poor work ethic, lower productivity and more tax evasion meant the same model failed in Greece. Same for Detroit. The "Nordic Model" is successful because they are Nordic, not because they are "socialist". Even in Scandinavia, their social model is not working well for refugees from other cultures, and there is a right-wing backlash against the "lazy freeloaders".
they want healthcare, welfare and pensions...
That is just normal liberalism/progressivism. It is not "socialism".
it is responsible for the distribution of the produced goods and services.
When economists talk about "production" they mean the production of goods AND SERVICES. Distribution is a service.
Production of physical goods is about 20% of the economy of developed countries. The other 80% is services.
We want to see less focus on propping up private industry
Capitalists see subsidies as Lemon Socialism. Liberals see subsides as a form of capitalism. The capitalists have a better claim: The TARP bank bailout, and the auto industry bailout were both passed by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
When I asked a customer service rep at a company that shall remain namelesz ...
What is your reason for not naming the company?
It sounds like you just made this up. A "customer service rep" is not going to have any insight in a company's pricing strategies.
Lots of technology requires reference literature, and while some of it is available in digital form, ALL of it is available in dead trees.
This is backwards. Plenty of technical reference literature is only available online.
men go goo-goo eyed at extravagant bling.
Nope. Men don't care about bling. Women wear bling to impress OTHER WOMEN.
No sensible man is going to be attracted to a woman because she has an LV bag. Most men will see it as a sign that she is self-absorbed and high maintenance ... or already has a rich boyfriend.
This is also true of fashionable behavior, like the anorexic emaciated look of models on the cover of Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and other magazines TARGETED AT WOMEN. But if you look at men's magazines, you see healthy women with full breasts and muscular abs. The pressure to be ultra-thin is not coming from men. It is something women are doing to themselves.
Women's clothes are also more expensive but that's due to the cut of the fabric.
Nope. It is because many women's clothes are Veblen Goods.
Eat what makes you feel good and die when you die.
So how much did the cheesecake lobby pay you to say that?
Who to believe?
Learn critical thinking. What critical word appears in the very first sentence of the summary?
Answer: "Questionnaire"
This was a SURVEY, of people that selected their own diets, not a controlled study. People that give up meat and eat "plant based proteins" are the same people that will exercise, avoid smoking, drink a glass of red wine instead of a keg of beer, etc. Correlation is not causation, and the results of this survey really don't mean anything.
Maybe the fashion designers could create bigger and more numerous, smartphone compatible pockets on the clothing for women?
They do. Women can buy clothes with roomy pockets, and some women do buy them. But most don't.
The market is not "forcing" small/no pockets on women. Women are forcing their preferences on the market. Women prefer small pockets, or no pockets. My wife has bought many blouses and jackets that have fake pockets, with just a flap or button but no actual pocket. I have never seen that on men's clothing.
Here is a question for scientists: If a woman is carrying a purse with the volume of a small refrigerator, why does she never have a pen?
we want the game play to be human
Speak for yourself. I would prefer to watch a fully robotic competition.
Maybe we can have a separate league for robots, like the old Negro Leagues.
Check your math.
Check your reading.
Is Vice really a valid source for news like this?
What do you mean by "news like this"? This is a non-story.
No, you do not need to OWN different cars for different uses. You just need to USE different cars.
You don't need to drive an F150 to drop off an envelope at the post office. Nor do you need to own a four ton truck just in case you may need to haul something someday.
When I am in Shanghai, and I need to go to a local shop, I can grab a bicycle for one RMB (about 12 cents) or hop on an electric scooter for 10 RMB ($1.20). It takes about 2 seconds to scan the QR code, and then I am ready to go. I see no reason these cars can't work the same way.
They may not work for you, but not everyone thinks like you do. For the 95% of the world that are not Americans, these cars could be useful.
It only works if everybody drives small cars.
This car is for driving on neighborhood streets at low speed. It is also focused on the non-American market, where people drive slower, shorter distances, and in smaller cars.
A car like this could work well in China, India, South-East Asia, Japan, and much of Europe.
If they are made available on-demand, like Ofo and Mobike do with electric scooters, this could be a really big deal.
Who gets to define what "normal use" is?
Anyone with eyeballs. Just watch cars go by. 70-80% have a single occupant. That is "normal use".
There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries
Poor countries tend to squander talent. That is why they are poor.
So don't feel too bad about "brain drain". It is often beneficial for both the sending and receiving countries. The remittances sent home by overseas workers often far exceeds what they would contribute to the economy if they had stayed home.
When Deng Xiaoping first opened up China's economy in 1979, he decided on an explicit policy of exporting talent that China's domestic economy could not effectively utilize. He figured that China would get remittances in the short term, and in the long term many of these emigrants would return, bringing back skills and new perspectives. This turned out to be an extremely successful policy.
However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers
1. Teaching does not require an advanced degree. A BA/BS is sufficient. Some teachers get advanced degrees, but there is no evidence that these degrees make them better teachers.
2. There is no general shortage of teachers. Some schools in bad areas have trouble recruiting, but most schools have plenty of applicants for open jobs.
My daughter is in college. In-state tuition+books+boarding is costing me about $20k/yr, or about $80k total. If she had gone to community college for the first 2 years, I would have saved $25k (lower tuition, and live at home), so $55k total. That isn't cheap, but is less than my wife spent on her car.
Google search is not currently available in China, but other Google products are, including maps, translation, and Android. Google search may be returning soon.
There are a LOT of reasons why a lot of electronics and other tech are made in China.
A big reason is the pre-existing supply chain. If you manufacture in Shenzhen, you can get almost any components you need, because they are also manufactured in Shenzhen. Need some 2mm #000-120 screws? You can send a guy on a bicycle to go get some and he will be back in 30 minutes.
China isn't so cheap anymore. In Shenzhen, even someone straight off the bus is going to cost you $3/hr. You may need to pay $5/hr to keep experienced workers. Vietnam is less than half that, and Bangladesh is a quarter. Labor intensive industries, such as textiles, are fading away in China.
I just assumed since they said "flash" meant removable.
Removable storage makes no sense. It will just encourage people to buy a model with less storage soldered in. Where's the profit in that?
So this whole overblown mess over the last few years is that young people wanted to use shorthand to describe an ideology and the word means something else to the old people?
No, that is NOT the problem. First, this not a "young vs old" issue. Some people are using the word "socialism" to mean "progressivism", which is also called "liberalism" in America (but not in other English speaking countries). But other people, in this very thread, are using it to mean "capitalism without subsidies", so "socialism" apparently means the free market should be more unfettered. Other people, in this thread, think socialism is communism.
On a scale of economic ideologies it is being used for everything from 0 to 10.
In the field of economics, the word has a specific meaning. But to the general public, the word now means everything and nothing. It is meaningless when used by a non-economist.
Greece is more geographically separated, by water thus making distribution, travel, more expensive money-wise and time-wise,
Hogwash. Manhattan, San Francisco, Britain, and Japan are also "separated by water", yet none of them are poor. Water makes distribution easier, not harder. Look at a map of rich and poor countries. Poor countries tend to be inland, with poor access to ports.
And when did Detroit have a socialist government?
Never. Who said they did? I was specifically pointing out that the high welfare spending model used in Detroit was NOT socialist.
Are we talking about the same Detroit in MI?
Yes.
I think it also depends on which bits are socialised, which bits not.
Sure, and it is obvious which sectors work reasonably well with socialism: natural monopolies, and markets with no transparency. Roads and healthcare are good examples.
But socialism works very poorly in manufacturing, the delivery of most services, and any sector that relies on innovation and creativity.
Socialist agriculture has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it has been applied.
Nixon introduced HMOs to America, and health insurance has suffered for it every since.
HMOs were a compromise after Nixon's initial proposal for universal healthcare was rejected by congress. Most of the opposition came from Democrats. Northeastern Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, objected because they thought his proposal wasn't generous enough. Southern Democrats objected because they didn't want to tax white people to pay for healthcare for blacks. So we got HMOs instead.
Disclaimer: I get my healthcare from Kaiser, an HMO, and I am mostly satisfied.
What you describe is a classic "liberal" or "progressive", which as a political movement is more than a century old, and was dominant in America from the election of FDR in 1932 to the election of Reagan in 1980.
FDR, Truman, Nixon (yes, Nixon), and Clinton all tried to introduce universal healthcare. That is nothing new.
You are a liberal. You are not a "socialist". If you think you are, then you are diluting the term to be point of being meaningless.
That is communism, not socialism.
No, that is socialism. Communism is a subset of socialism. Cuba is communist. Venezuela is socialist, but not communist.
The greek never had a 'danish model'. Only the scandinavian countries have ...
The Greeks had the same model. The only difference was cultural. Poor work ethic, lower productivity and more tax evasion meant the same model failed in Greece. Same for Detroit. The "Nordic Model" is successful because they are Nordic, not because they are "socialist". Even in Scandinavia, their social model is not working well for refugees from other cultures, and there is a right-wing backlash against the "lazy freeloaders".
they want healthcare, welfare and pensions ...
That is just normal liberalism/progressivism. It is not "socialism".
it is responsible for the distribution of the produced goods and services.
When economists talk about "production" they mean the production of goods AND SERVICES. Distribution is a service.
Production of physical goods is about 20% of the economy of developed countries. The other 80% is services.
We want to see less focus on propping up private industry
Capitalists see subsidies as Lemon Socialism. Liberals see subsides as a form of capitalism. The capitalists have a better claim: The TARP bank bailout, and the auto industry bailout were both passed by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans.