Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal in many jurisdictions. Pedestrians and vehicles don't mix well (or pedestrians are far too miscible by vehicles, if you prefer that point of view) On the other hand, I'd point out that it is, in fact, legal in many jurisdictions too. Check your local laws, seriously. For example, in my city here in Colorado there is no law against riding on the sidewalk, and so that's what I do. I scratch my head at the ridiculous risk-taking of cyclists who ride on the street.
It's also amazing how conservatives claim to strive for less state control by not regulating the market and by not taxing the rich and powerful, but they sure don't have a problem regulating the lives of the many by imposing "security measures" and by ignoring human rights in the name of national security. Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives. The term "conservatives" is inappropriate here. What you're describing is nationalism, not conservatism.
As soon as retail supply meets demand, the resale market premium will collapse, leaving these people who bought 100 $249 consoles out a lot of money. The eBay sellers are speculators, no different than the house flippers from a few years back.
I just don't understand how they could not have for seen this shortage. Hindsight is always 20/20. But if you were a Nintendo executive last July (and lacking a crystal ball), you would have had to make your best guess for your manufacturing allocation by looking at the lessons learned by Tyco, maker of Tickle Me Elmo, another Christmas hit from a few years ago.
Tyco put all its energy into manufacturing as many Tickle Me Elmos as it could, and by January and February after Christmas the market was flooded, and nobody wanted the toy anymore. Plus if you've got a product you're selling, it's definitely not bad if you've got customers begging for it. So Nintendo erred on the side of caution.
I just went to Target and asked an employee if they had any Wiis in stock. She said "no" in a very rude and arrogant manner. I decided to never buy a Wii. Count me out.
Granted, I'm just one insignificant data point.
Chess playing became a much less interesting proposition when hardware became chunky enough that you could cache the first few moves from archives of known openings, brute-force search the next 12-15 moves, and store all endgames for the last 8 or so moves in a lookup table. It should be noted that this is an unfair advantage that computers have. (I'd even say it rises to the level of cheating.) Chess computers can access a database of the first dozen (not just the first few) optimal moves of every opener. It's illegal for a human to carry a database of openers to a game. If the average grandmaster could have had easy access to the best theory on openers, they could have beaten Kasparov just as Deep Blue did.
Again, you may not like how they are doing things, and that is a very valid opinion... but what does it have to do with "age discrimination" ? Disparate impact on a protected class.
I don't work for google, so please don't try and say that I do.
Your argument is that of a strawman. You claim they are discriminating based on age because... you can't recite from memory what others could. You may not like that they want you to do so, but that's their choice and criteria.
That's the issue -- maybe it's not Google's choice to make, since older people are a protected class. You see, courts have ruled that intelligence test questions can be discriminatory if they create a "built-in headwind" protected groups must face and have no relevance to the prospective employee's actual qualifications to do the job. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co. : http://www.finduslaw.com/griggs_v_duke_power_co_1971_401_us_424_91_s_ct_849
From the text: "Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class."
Avoid absolutes. ( Always!:^) Here's another case in point: did you know that the risk of a crash actually goes down if you've got one one serving of alcohol in your bloodstream? See this chart: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/images/figure2-6.gif
(Note of course that more than that and it does start rising significantly;) )
I am all for lowering the limit even below 0.08, not because I want more "gubermint" in by business, but because it's just safer for everyone.
It would be interesting to see a study on this. In reality, it might be that small amounts of alcohol actually make you a safer driver, simply because you are more careful when you drive. You slow down and take a lot fewer risks on the road.
...is the opinion of the judge in this mp3. Listen to it starting at 3:25. Though I'll probably got modded a troll for this post, I think Judge Nault makes some good points in that audio. It's worth listening to with an open mind.
From a stockholder standpoint, it's better to own 2 different companies focused on 2 areas rather than 1 company dividing its efforts in 2 areas. If you're interested in learning more about this, I recommend the book "Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends On It" by Al Ries.
Google's focus should be on Internet search. Anything they do elsewhere dilutes their Internet search efforts. It might be that in a few years when Google has become another bloated conglomerate (like IBM was 20 years ago or Microsoft is today), the market will be open for a better search engine company to come along.
It doesn't. The people with those horror stories misinformed about tax brackets. If you make $30,650 for the year (putting you in the 15% bracket) and then you get a bonus of $1,000, then that final $1,000 is taxed at 25%. The first $30,650 in income is unaffected.
That's true. Not a single one was just a simple damn phone that a.) works as a phone is supposed to, and b.) is solidly constructed to withstand the beating that a heavily used phone goes through.
The cell phone industry is ripe for the taking for the 1st company that comes out with a cell phone that is simple and as easy to use (and indestructable) as a home phone.
If it's your money on the line and you're about to hire someone, you don't want to take risks. If you've got a business with $500k in annual revenues and you're going to hire someone for $50k a year, that means you're risking 10% of your gross annual revenues on that one person. Assuming you're rational and aren't just flushing money down the toilet, you're gonna want to minimize your risks and hire the most law-abiding, boring workaholic possible.
In the US it's just as simple to start a small business. It's when you decide to go public with your company that Sarbanes Oxley and other expensive regulations come into play.
I set aside 50% of my income. It's not hard to do. My weekly salary is $1,500, and I save $750, leaving me (after taxes) with $375 a week to live on.
My life is great. I drive a 12 year old car (no car payments!), rent is $625 a month, and I seem to always have plenty of money. About the only thing I spend money on is food, and no I don't eat Ramen Noodles. It helps that I can have fun cheaply. You'll never see me buying plasma TVs or whatever. I also don't have kids or credit card debt.
Assuming stock dividends continue their historical average growth of 5% a year and I continue putting $750 a week into Vanguard's Value Index Fund, I calculate that in 9.2 years I'll be able to simply live off of dividends if I want to.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives. The term "conservatives" is inappropriate here. What you're describing is nationalism, not conservatism.
As soon as retail supply meets demand, the resale market premium will collapse, leaving these people who bought 100 $249 consoles out a lot of money. The eBay sellers are speculators, no different than the house flippers from a few years back.
Tyco put all its energy into manufacturing as many Tickle Me Elmos as it could, and by January and February after Christmas the market was flooded, and nobody wanted the toy anymore. Plus if you've got a product you're selling, it's definitely not bad if you've got customers begging for it. So Nintendo erred on the side of caution.
I just went to Target and asked an employee if they had any Wiis in stock. She said "no" in a very rude and arrogant manner. I decided to never buy a Wii. Count me out. Granted, I'm just one insignificant data point.
Again, you may not like how they are doing things, and that is a very valid opinion
Disparate impact on a protected class.
Your argument is that of a strawman. You claim they are discriminating based on age because
That's the issue -- maybe it's not Google's choice to make, since older people are a protected class. You see, courts have ruled that intelligence test questions can be discriminatory if they create a "built-in headwind" protected groups must face and have no relevance to the prospective employee's actual qualifications to do the job. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co. : http://www.finduslaw.com/griggs_v_duke_power_co_1971_401_us_424_91_s_ct_849
You can read about "disparate impact" here: http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm
From the text: "Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class."
Found the answer to my question. It appears that accident rates actually go down if you've had one drink. Chart is here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/images/figure2-6.gif It doesn't start rising significantly until about .09 or so. That chart, as well as other alcohol stats, are at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/research/Al coholHighway/2__overview.htm
It would be interesting to see a study on this. In reality, it might be that small amounts of alcohol actually make you a safer driver, simply because you are more careful when you drive. You slow down and take a lot fewer risks on the road.
Using your logic, that means if you hire a hitman who's really an undercover cop, no crime has been committed.
...is the opinion of the judge in this mp3. Listen to it starting at 3:25. Though I'll probably got modded a troll for this post, I think Judge Nault makes some good points in that audio. It's worth listening to with an open mind.
From a stockholder standpoint, it's better to own 2 different companies focused on 2 areas rather than 1 company dividing its efforts in 2 areas. If you're interested in learning more about this, I recommend the book "Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends On It" by Al Ries.
Google's focus should be on Internet search. Anything they do elsewhere dilutes their Internet search efforts. It might be that in a few years when Google has become another bloated conglomerate (like IBM was 20 years ago or Microsoft is today), the market will be open for a better search engine company to come along.
Please give evidence of a longer than 20 year lifespan for a PV panel.
Pictured here are solar panels that are 20 years old and still have 90% output: http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar.html
It takes over 5 years for a solar panel to pay for itself.
That's a much better return on investment than you can make in the stock market. (The S&P 500 has returned an average of 10% a year since 1926.)
It doesn't. The people with those horror stories misinformed about tax brackets. If you make $30,650 for the year (putting you in the 15% bracket) and then you get a bonus of $1,000, then that final $1,000 is taxed at 25%. The first $30,650 in income is unaffected.
Some people on the No-Fly List have names similar to Irish Republican Army members. That could be what it is in your case.
How? Probably too late now since it happened in summer 2005, but I'd like to know for future reference.
I tried that when GoDaddy did the extortion on me, but my CC company refused the chargeback.
That's true. Not a single one was just a simple damn phone that a.) works as a phone is supposed to, and b.) is solidly constructed to withstand the beating that a heavily used phone goes through.
The cell phone industry is ripe for the taking for the 1st company that comes out with a cell phone that is simple and as easy to use (and indestructable) as a home phone.
Nice! And you got started early. That's great!
If it's your money on the line and you're about to hire someone, you don't want to take risks. If you've got a business with $500k in annual revenues and you're going to hire someone for $50k a year, that means you're risking 10% of your gross annual revenues on that one person. Assuming you're rational and aren't just flushing money down the toilet, you're gonna want to minimize your risks and hire the most law-abiding, boring workaholic possible.
In the US it's just as simple to start a small business. It's when you decide to go public with your company that Sarbanes Oxley and other expensive regulations come into play.
I set aside 50% of my income. It's not hard to do. My weekly salary is $1,500, and I save $750, leaving me (after taxes) with $375 a week to live on.
My life is great. I drive a 12 year old car (no car payments!), rent is $625 a month, and I seem to always have plenty of money. About the only thing I spend money on is food, and no I don't eat Ramen Noodles. It helps that I can have fun cheaply. You'll never see me buying plasma TVs or whatever. I also don't have kids or credit card debt.
Assuming stock dividends continue their historical average growth of 5% a year and I continue putting $750 a week into Vanguard's Value Index Fund, I calculate that in 9.2 years I'll be able to simply live off of dividends if I want to.