Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim.
You're correct. So by classifying these red-light runners or speeders as "more dangerous" despite the fact that there is little evidence suggesting that they actually cost more, they are playing with the odds. These drivers have to pay more, while not actually costing the company the difference. In roulette, the odds of landing on black are (roughly) 2 to 1. What if I could arbitrarily change the payout to 10 to 1, then bet on black all day? It sure would increase my winnings.
Until fairly recently, a town near mine had 45 to 35 drop on a wide, open, straight road. Worse, they knowingly placed the 35MPH sign such that it was partially obstructed by a tree. There was one judge in the small town that decided early on this was no excuse. For years, the town of 60 residents had 14 police officers whose only job was to sit next to the 35MPH sign on either side of town and reel in speeders.
Eventually, the state put a stop to this and dissolved the town. But it was like that for nearly 60 years.
This has to be one of the stupidest comparisons I've heard in a while. Children are not prisoners. The intended goals are different from the start. We must, out of necessity, keep prisoners confined at all times, for the safety of society. Things like TV, libraries and weight rooms are not luxuries, but investments, because studies have shown that if you stick a violent psychopath into a cell for 20 years, you get a violent psychopath out. These things are intended to help reduce the recidivism rate for criminals, not to make them comfortable.
The educational system doesn't need to provide healthcare to students. Unlike prisoners, we haven't taken away the students' (or more accurately, their parents) ability to provide healthcare for themselves. We don't need to house them at night because that's not in any way part of the mandate of the educational system. Our educational system isn't charged with keeping students separated from the general populous, and it isn't responsible for punishing them for crimes they have committed.
This is like saying "The government provides NASA with $65 million per astronaut trained. I demand that the government provide my school with $65 million per student." When we have idiots like this superintendent running school systems, it's no wonder they're in trouble.
Honestly, I'm not really a zealot for organic stuff. I buy some things organic, and other things, I don't. I was really just trying to point out that the GP poster was talking straight out of his ass with absolutely no facts to back up his assertion. I hear these types of claims a lot. (Higher price, no difference) and they're patently untrue. I do realize and acknowledge, however, that organics can sometimes come with significant disadvantages, both for the producer and for the consumer.
paying higher prices for no measurable gain in nutrition or the number of your days left on the planet
Organic Eggs have twice the Omega-3 fatty acid content, three times the Vitamin E and seven times as much beta-carotene. Eggs are food, and the gain in nutrition is measurable. This is based on science, as the diet of the chicken significantly affects the nutrient content in the eggs. Caged chickens are five times more likely to have salmonella infections than organic raised chickens. While it's not a gain in nutrition, per se, it's most definitely going to statistically affect the number of days you have left on the planet.
Regular milk is flash-pasteurized at between 140F - 160F for a short time. Organic milk is pasteurized using UHT (Ultra High Temperature) at 275F. Because of this, organic milk has measurably less bacteria content, and it takes longer to spoil. If you don't believe me, next time you're at the grocery store, compare the expiration dates of the organic milk vs. non-organic. This is not a nutritional consideration, but for me, less trips to the store is a measurable gain.
Because organic raised cattle graze on grass versus grain, the omega-3 fatty acid content of organic beef is significantly higher than beef raised in a CAFO. Grass-fed beef also tastes different in double-blind taste tests, as the composition of the muscle tissue is different. (I didn't say better, I said different.) This makes sense, because they have a different level of physical activity and grow at different rates.
So next time you try to say something, especially if you are chastising someone else for their ignorance, first ask yourself, "Is this just some crap I heard, or does what I'm saying actually have some truth to it."
MCSE doesn't exist nowadays. I think it's too early to dismiss MCITP as a joke, as I haven't come across swathes of total morons who yet possess that certification. Not saying that isn't the ultimate endgame, though. (remember MCSE used to be an impressive certification, too.)
You seem to really buy into the concept that the sole measure of success is how much money a person has in his or her bank account. It must be comforting to have such a narrow view of the world that a person's entire life can be reduced to one series of numbers that is greater than another series of numbers. Never mind that study after study has shown that money has virtually no effect (or even a negative effect) on stress and personal happiness. Also never mind the fact that $8.3 billion is more money than a single human could ever possibly spend on material goods in his or her lifetime. But $56 billion is more, so I guess Bill Gates is the winner!
"Hey, where are my virgins?...And what is Hitler doing with that pineapple?" - Osama Bin Laden
Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Your experiment seems to have a rather high number of uncontrolled variables. A can of Pepsi and a glass of sugary Lemonade have a lot more differences than sugar vs. HFCS. Maybe try your experiment with Pepsi Throwback? And to add even more validity, you could try blinding the study. i.e. you don't know which is which when you drink them.
My hypothesis is that when you control other variables, you'll find HFCS isn't nearly as different from sugar as you think it is.
Holy crap, I'll take that deal! Where do I send the contract? (You know that unless you're a nuclear scientist or a government emergency worker, you can't get anywhere near the plant, right?)
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. I could sue a random stranger in the grocery store for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. If a verdict was awarded, this might actually mean something.
Can you provide me with a specific way (not partisan rhetoric) that Obamacare is anti-American? And when answering, don't confuse "anti-American" with "I don't like it," "It's badly implemented," or "That's what they do over in Godless Europe." I don't like Obamacare. I think it's a sham of a healthcare measure that benefits mostly insurance corporations. I think it was an ill-conceived attempt to make some sort of gesture to the left that healthcare is in crisis while not pissing off the people that paid for the presidency. But I don't think for a second that it's anti-American in the same way that censorship of free speech is. Without free speech, we wouldn't even be able to have this debate.
I will begrudgingly concede this point. There are a lot of rational, well spoken, intelligent people in the US. Unfortunately they don't yell as loud as the stupid ones. Please accept apologies on behalf of my country for that.:-/
In my defense, I'm an American, and I know the meaning of the word socialism. It's a pretty broad and unfair generalization to look at some ignorant fools who happen to be Americans and paint our whole society as a bunch of ignorant fools. If you live outside the US, then you probably only see the products of our media, which is squarely aimed at ignorant fools. That doesn't mean we're all that way. I'm sure I could come to whatever country you live in and find a few people who don't know the meaning of words, or who believe what your media tells them regardless of its veracity.
So you aren't worried that the Chinese government will look at your post, determine who you are, discover the Chinese grad students you work with and put them all onto a list of subversives? Man... with friends like you...
Few people "earn" $100 and hour, but I doubt you'll find a consultant (at least in my area, which is Central Ohio, not Silicon Valley) that will work for less than $100 an hour. The company I work for charges $175 an hour, and that's slightly above average for good work in my area. (We have a couple areas of specialty, such as SQL DBA work and VoIP expertise. We don't tend to do general PC support work, except on a few specific contracts where the customer requires it.) The real range is from about $100/hr (The cheapest I've seen. The particular company was run by college students, and frankly not very good if you need anything more than an anti-virus install or a new power supply.) to $275/hr. (Overpriced, highly specialized, but damn good work, from my observations.)
At $175 an hour, I've advised many clients to toss perfectly functional hardware, assuming they don't have specialized installations. It feels wrong to me on many levels, but I would feel morally terrible advising a customer to spend $500 to maybe save a P4 1.8GHz machine with 512MB of RAM. Also, I've spent much longer than 3 hours ridding computers of malware, so $500 is only the start of the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes because kids have so much disposable income.
Be sure to inform Saturday Morning cartoons of this.
NO Stairway. Denied.
Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim.
You're correct. So by classifying these red-light runners or speeders as "more dangerous" despite the fact that there is little evidence suggesting that they actually cost more, they are playing with the odds. These drivers have to pay more, while not actually costing the company the difference. In roulette, the odds of landing on black are (roughly) 2 to 1. What if I could arbitrarily change the payout to 10 to 1, then bet on black all day? It sure would increase my winnings.
Nope, I'm with GP. I flash my lights to let people get over, and usually they understand me. I've had people do the same to me. Ohio, 35 years old.
Until fairly recently, a town near mine had 45 to 35 drop on a wide, open, straight road. Worse, they knowingly placed the 35MPH sign such that it was partially obstructed by a tree. There was one judge in the small town that decided early on this was no excuse. For years, the town of 60 residents had 14 police officers whose only job was to sit next to the 35MPH sign on either side of town and reel in speeders.
Eventually, the state put a stop to this and dissolved the town. But it was like that for nearly 60 years.
This has to be one of the stupidest comparisons I've heard in a while. Children are not prisoners. The intended goals are different from the start. We must, out of necessity, keep prisoners confined at all times, for the safety of society. Things like TV, libraries and weight rooms are not luxuries, but investments, because studies have shown that if you stick a violent psychopath into a cell for 20 years, you get a violent psychopath out. These things are intended to help reduce the recidivism rate for criminals, not to make them comfortable.
The educational system doesn't need to provide healthcare to students. Unlike prisoners, we haven't taken away the students' (or more accurately, their parents) ability to provide healthcare for themselves. We don't need to house them at night because that's not in any way part of the mandate of the educational system. Our educational system isn't charged with keeping students separated from the general populous, and it isn't responsible for punishing them for crimes they have committed.
This is like saying "The government provides NASA with $65 million per astronaut trained. I demand that the government provide my school with $65 million per student." When we have idiots like this superintendent running school systems, it's no wonder they're in trouble.
Honestly, I'm not really a zealot for organic stuff. I buy some things organic, and other things, I don't. I was really just trying to point out that the GP poster was talking straight out of his ass with absolutely no facts to back up his assertion. I hear these types of claims a lot. (Higher price, no difference) and they're patently untrue. I do realize and acknowledge, however, that organics can sometimes come with significant disadvantages, both for the producer and for the consumer.
paying higher prices for no measurable gain in nutrition or the number of your days left on the planet
Organic Eggs have twice the Omega-3 fatty acid content, three times the Vitamin E and seven times as much beta-carotene. Eggs are food, and the gain in nutrition is measurable. This is based on science, as the diet of the chicken significantly affects the nutrient content in the eggs. Caged chickens are five times more likely to have salmonella infections than organic raised chickens. While it's not a gain in nutrition, per se, it's most definitely going to statistically affect the number of days you have left on the planet.
Regular milk is flash-pasteurized at between 140F - 160F for a short time. Organic milk is pasteurized using UHT (Ultra High Temperature) at 275F. Because of this, organic milk has measurably less bacteria content, and it takes longer to spoil. If you don't believe me, next time you're at the grocery store, compare the expiration dates of the organic milk vs. non-organic. This is not a nutritional consideration, but for me, less trips to the store is a measurable gain.
Because organic raised cattle graze on grass versus grain, the omega-3 fatty acid content of organic beef is significantly higher than beef raised in a CAFO. Grass-fed beef also tastes different in double-blind taste tests, as the composition of the muscle tissue is different. (I didn't say better, I said different.) This makes sense, because they have a different level of physical activity and grow at different rates.
So next time you try to say something, especially if you are chastising someone else for their ignorance, first ask yourself, "Is this just some crap I heard, or does what I'm saying actually have some truth to it."
MCSE doesn't exist nowadays. I think it's too early to dismiss MCITP as a joke, as I haven't come across swathes of total morons who yet possess that certification. Not saying that isn't the ultimate endgame, though. (remember MCSE used to be an impressive certification, too.)
You seem to really buy into the concept that the sole measure of success is how much money a person has in his or her bank account. It must be comforting to have such a narrow view of the world that a person's entire life can be reduced to one series of numbers that is greater than another series of numbers. Never mind that study after study has shown that money has virtually no effect (or even a negative effect) on stress and personal happiness. Also never mind the fact that $8.3 billion is more money than a single human could ever possibly spend on material goods in his or her lifetime. But $56 billion is more, so I guess Bill Gates is the winner!
"Hey, where are my virgins? ...And what is Hitler doing with that pineapple?" - Osama Bin Laden
Your experiment seems to have a rather high number of uncontrolled variables. A can of Pepsi and a glass of sugary Lemonade have a lot more differences than sugar vs. HFCS. Maybe try your experiment with Pepsi Throwback? And to add even more validity, you could try blinding the study. i.e. you don't know which is which when you drink them.
My hypothesis is that when you control other variables, you'll find HFCS isn't nearly as different from sugar as you think it is.
I see what you did there. Wish I had mod points. :-)
Wow a witty and topical first post. My hat goes off to you good sir.
My car last car went 186,000 miles! That's the speed of light!
spend a day as close as you can get to the plant
Holy crap, I'll take that deal! Where do I send the contract? (You know that unless you're a nuclear scientist or a government emergency worker, you can't get anywhere near the plant, right?)
Fine! Just go ahead and sue me! Everybody else does! The average settlement is $68,000.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. I could sue a random stranger in the grocery store for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. If a verdict was awarded, this might actually mean something.
Can you provide me with a specific way (not partisan rhetoric) that Obamacare is anti-American? And when answering, don't confuse "anti-American" with "I don't like it," "It's badly implemented," or "That's what they do over in Godless Europe." I don't like Obamacare. I think it's a sham of a healthcare measure that benefits mostly insurance corporations. I think it was an ill-conceived attempt to make some sort of gesture to the left that healthcare is in crisis while not pissing off the people that paid for the presidency. But I don't think for a second that it's anti-American in the same way that censorship of free speech is. Without free speech, we wouldn't even be able to have this debate.
I will begrudgingly concede this point. There are a lot of rational, well spoken, intelligent people in the US. Unfortunately they don't yell as loud as the stupid ones. Please accept apologies on behalf of my country for that. :-/
In my defense, I'm an American, and I know the meaning of the word socialism. It's a pretty broad and unfair generalization to look at some ignorant fools who happen to be Americans and paint our whole society as a bunch of ignorant fools. If you live outside the US, then you probably only see the products of our media, which is squarely aimed at ignorant fools. That doesn't mean we're all that way. I'm sure I could come to whatever country you live in and find a few people who don't know the meaning of words, or who believe what your media tells them regardless of its veracity.
So you aren't worried that the Chinese government will look at your post, determine who you are, discover the Chinese grad students you work with and put them all onto a list of subversives? Man... with friends like you...
This.
A plain plane. On a plain.
Few people "earn" $100 and hour, but I doubt you'll find a consultant (at least in my area, which is Central Ohio, not Silicon Valley) that will work for less than $100 an hour. The company I work for charges $175 an hour, and that's slightly above average for good work in my area. (We have a couple areas of specialty, such as SQL DBA work and VoIP expertise. We don't tend to do general PC support work, except on a few specific contracts where the customer requires it.) The real range is from about $100/hr (The cheapest I've seen. The particular company was run by college students, and frankly not very good if you need anything more than an anti-virus install or a new power supply.) to $275/hr. (Overpriced, highly specialized, but damn good work, from my observations.)
At $175 an hour, I've advised many clients to toss perfectly functional hardware, assuming they don't have specialized installations. It feels wrong to me on many levels, but I would feel morally terrible advising a customer to spend $500 to maybe save a P4 1.8GHz machine with 512MB of RAM. Also, I've spent much longer than 3 hours ridding computers of malware, so $500 is only the start of the equation.