Back in the '70s they would have been low-wage 'typists'.
These days they're not. How much do they spend per government employee now compared to then? How many of today's workers are contractors who don't appear on the payroll?
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Paying $6 for eight of them might explain why they 'burn out'...
If people's wages remain static, then it means 8% of adults (and some similar percentage of families) without an income. Sure, you might say those 8% were doing nothing important, but now they will be left with no money, empty stomachs and anger. This does have the potential to destabilize society.
Government cannot keep growing indefinitely (which is what it's doing at the moment).
At some point the system has to break down - when there's not enough people actually producing stuff to pay the government bills. Better to make a few functionaries miserable now than to make the entire population suffer through the meltdown (in 20, 30 years or whenever).
Then to argue that only the fat of a budget will be cut is too idealistic. If those departments can't run themselves efficiently (as a result of corruption, which is partly why there is a problem in the first place), then how will they cut their budgets appropriately?
There's no way to get past the layers of lies that have built up over the years to justify their existence so you just cut every department. Stuff like the military can probably take a 20-30% hit. A few less F22s and stealth bombers won't make any difference to anybody's security, that's a couple of trillion right there.
What people hate isn't being charged a realistic price. It's being quoted a £1 flight then having to pay £80 for it.
ie. The people who need to get a clue.
Are there really any people out there who a) Have heard of Ryan Air, and b) Don't know about the pricing?
What we're seeing here is really just a bunch of whiners. Ryan Air must be laughing at them - their incessant whining gives them loads of free publicity.
I think Ryan Air is hilarious. I truly believe it's owned by a sadist who lives only to degrade people by proving to them that they will submit to any amount of abuse in exchange for a promised discount, which typically vanishes into a puff of fees.
I like Ryan Air. Then again I'm not too cheap to pay the extra $15 to reserve a seat with some leg room and jump all the queues at the airport. $15 for that seems pretty cheap to me.
Bags? One bag with some t-shirts, socks and a spare pair of trousers is usually all I need. Even if I check an extra bag it's still a quarter of the price of a regular flight. Me and my girlfriend are both going on an international flight in a couple of weeks and return flights for both of us cost 116 pounds ($187) with priority boarding, reserved seats in the exit rows (leg room) plus one checked bag so we can go shopping. Other airlines wanted 400 pounds each. Where's the problem with Ryan Air? I'm not seeing it...
The people who bash Ryan Air are the ones who think they're entitled to a full service flight plus unlimited luggage for $20. They need to get a clue.
When I've traveled with Ryan Air everything had to fit in the single bag declared as hand luggage. If you had a camera, duty free, handbag or whatever it had to fit inside the hand luggage for boarding (pretty obvious really, given the size of some handbags...)
I know a couple of people who put on several layers of clothes to avoid checking a suitcase.
Every airline I know that charges for baggage also has strict limits for carry-on.
And they enforce them. Watching the Ryan Air baggage-nazi go along the queue with his/her luggage measuring box is one of my favorite moments when flying. Watch the smug looks turn to dismay when their overstuffed bags don't fit inside and they get dragged off to the desk to pay 40 pounds extra.
What? You don't have a tape measure at home so you didn't know...? Yeah, right.
If it wasn't being used for something, it wouldn't be the price to get less expensive groceries.
I thought it was mostly used to put the things you buy at opposite ends of the store so you have to walk past all the other stuff every time you go there.
Cue the guy who thinks his tablet has greatly improved his life/productivity/etc. and actually thinks you can use a tablet efficiently for meaningful work.
Most people don't do "meaningful" work on their computers therefore a tablet suits them much better than a machine which is ten times more complex to use and needs constant care/updates/reformatting.
How did you measure that? Maybe it's only 'better' because it's better in your mind (you went out, bought a keyboard, learned to type on it so you must have had a strong belief before you even started).
All empirical tests show Dvorak is no faster (PS: the myth that qwerty was designed to be slow is... a myth. Qwerty won several typing speed competitions before it was chosen).
There's claims that Dvorak reduces RSI but they're also unproven.
Re:I've felt like this for years, too
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 0
Pro tip: If you build something you want to keep, just epoxy the bricks together.
You pay ten times the price for something because it's made out of little bricks then epoxy the bricks together so they form a single piece of plastic?
Re:I've felt like this for years, too
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
resulting in a nicer looking whatever-it-is-you-were-making
It could be far better looking is it wasn't made of Lego.
And it wouldn't permanently have bits falling off it for kids to lose and parents to step on.
You'd have a point about the believers if the warming mechanism was complex and required years of study to understand or there was a choice of mechanisms to debate.
It isn't, and there aren't. The greenhouse gas mechanism is pretty simple and the only real source of heat around here is the sun. There's no other mechanism out there that comes close to explain the warming we see all around us.
So the only question is: Why are greenhouse gases increasing?
Because that is how science works. If science is "painful" to them maybe they shouldn't be doing it.
They're not interested in science, they're interested in having an argument to support their belief. They only change when they realize they look foolish and the only change is to a different argument.
Eventually they run out of 'factual' arguments (remember stuff like "volcanoes produce more CO2 than man"? Sounds factual, except the pesky facts are wrong...) and start using arguments based on false logic ("I was warmer before without man, therefore man isn't causing it this time around...").
It's exactly the same game creationists play, and it's not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the '70s they would have been low-wage 'typists'.
These days they're not. How much do they spend per government employee now compared to then? How many of today's workers are contractors who don't appear on the payroll?
'hair weaves'
Why doesn't slashdot have an 'edit' function?
Yep. If people spent as much on improving their situation as they do in heir weaves and cosmetic surgery a lot of them would no longer be 'poor'.
Does that imply the $699 unlocked price of the Samsung SIII isn't a high amount since thieves mostly target the iPhone?
No, it implies the 'writer' is a hipster who doesn't believe in the existence of anything other than Apple products.
CFL's rarely last more than 10 months. If they do they are at half the brightness of a ten year old bulb.
Let me guess: You also pay $6 for eight of them...
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Paying $6 for eight of them might explain why they 'burn out'...
If people's wages remain static, then it means 8% of adults (and some similar percentage of families) without an income. Sure, you might say those 8% were doing nothing important, but now they will be left with no money, empty stomachs and anger. This does have the potential to destabilize society.
Government cannot keep growing indefinitely (which is what it's doing at the moment).
At some point the system has to break down - when there's not enough people actually producing stuff to pay the government bills. Better to make a few functionaries miserable now than to make the entire population suffer through the meltdown (in 20, 30 years or whenever).
Then to argue that only the fat of a budget will be cut is too idealistic. If those departments can't run themselves efficiently (as a result of corruption, which is partly why there is a problem in the first place), then how will they cut their budgets appropriately?
There's no way to get past the layers of lies that have built up over the years to justify their existence so you just cut every department. Stuff like the military can probably take a 20-30% hit. A few less F22s and stealth bombers won't make any difference to anybody's security, that's a couple of trillion right there.
Give us more money, or people die.
8% isn't that big, you can find that much fat in any departmental budget
THIS.
Heads of government departments are all professional liars (anybody who says different has never worked on a government contract).
You can expect a lot more of this sort of doomsaying as the date approaches.
PS: Other countries have weather satellites, too. Maybe they could spend some time working on international relations...
Obligatory Louis C K: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aba_1332656862
(skip to 2:00 for the relevant part...)
What people hate isn't being charged a realistic price. It's being quoted a £1 flight then having to pay £80 for it.
ie. The people who need to get a clue.
Are there really any people out there who a) Have heard of Ryan Air, and b) Don't know about the pricing?
What we're seeing here is really just a bunch of whiners. Ryan Air must be laughing at them - their incessant whining gives them loads of free publicity.
I think Ryan Air is hilarious. I truly believe it's owned by a sadist who lives only to degrade people by proving to them that they will submit to any amount of abuse in exchange for a promised discount, which typically vanishes into a puff of fees.
I like Ryan Air. Then again I'm not too cheap to pay the extra $15 to reserve a seat with some leg room and jump all the queues at the airport. $15 for that seems pretty cheap to me.
Bags? One bag with some t-shirts, socks and a spare pair of trousers is usually all I need. Even if I check an extra bag it's still a quarter of the price of a regular flight. Me and my girlfriend are both going on an international flight in a couple of weeks and return flights for both of us cost 116 pounds ($187) with priority boarding, reserved seats in the exit rows (leg room) plus one checked bag so we can go shopping. Other airlines wanted 400 pounds each. Where's the problem with Ryan Air? I'm not seeing it...
The people who bash Ryan Air are the ones who think they're entitled to a full service flight plus unlimited luggage for $20. They need to get a clue.
When I've traveled with Ryan Air everything had to fit in the single bag declared as hand luggage. If you had a camera, duty free, handbag or whatever it had to fit inside the hand luggage for boarding (pretty obvious really, given the size of some handbags...)
I know a couple of people who put on several layers of clothes to avoid checking a suitcase.
Umbrella? Won't get past security.
I've seen the video a number of times already...
But you won't see it via any of the useless links in the Slashdot summary...
Every airline I know that charges for baggage also has strict limits for carry-on.
And they enforce them. Watching the Ryan Air baggage-nazi go along the queue with his/her luggage measuring box is one of my favorite moments when flying. Watch the smug looks turn to dismay when their overstuffed bags don't fit inside and they get dragged off to the desk to pay 40 pounds extra.
What? You don't have a tape measure at home so you didn't know...? Yeah, right.
I don't know of an airline in .au (other than weight challenged ones) that charge for carry-on.
Nor in Europe. Not even Ryan Air.
If it wasn't being used for something, it wouldn't be the price to get less expensive groceries.
I thought it was mostly used to put the things you buy at opposite ends of the store so you have to walk past all the other stuff every time you go there.
It wasn't designed to be slow
That's what I said...
Titanic 3D was the best 3D I've seen so far....
Cue the guy who thinks his tablet has greatly improved his life/productivity/etc. and actually thinks you can use a tablet efficiently for meaningful work.
Most people don't do "meaningful" work on their computers therefore a tablet suits them much better than a machine which is ten times more complex to use and needs constant care/updates/reformatting.
How did you measure that? Maybe it's only 'better' because it's better in your mind (you went out, bought a keyboard, learned to type on it so you must have had a strong belief before you even started).
All empirical tests show Dvorak is no faster (PS: the myth that qwerty was designed to be slow is... a myth. Qwerty won several typing speed competitions before it was chosen).
There's claims that Dvorak reduces RSI but they're also unproven.
Pro tip: If you build something you want to keep, just epoxy the bricks together.
You pay ten times the price for something because it's made out of little bricks then epoxy the bricks together so they form a single piece of plastic?
resulting in a nicer looking whatever-it-is-you-were-making
It could be far better looking is it wasn't made of Lego.
And it wouldn't permanently have bits falling off it for kids to lose and parents to step on.
You'd have a point about the believers if the warming mechanism was complex and required years of study to understand or there was a choice of mechanisms to debate.
It isn't, and there aren't. The greenhouse gas mechanism is pretty simple and the only real source of heat around here is the sun. There's no other mechanism out there that comes close to explain the warming we see all around us.
So the only question is: Why are greenhouse gases increasing?
That's only sulfur pollution, not greenhouse gases.
PS: Try reading your own article next time...
Because that is how science works. If science is "painful" to them maybe they shouldn't be doing it.
They're not interested in science, they're interested in having an argument to support their belief. They only change when they realize they look foolish and the only change is to a different argument.
Eventually they run out of 'factual' arguments (remember stuff like "volcanoes produce more CO2 than man"? Sounds factual, except the pesky facts are wrong...) and start using arguments based on false logic ("I was warmer before without man, therefore man isn't causing it this time around...").
It's exactly the same game creationists play, and it's not science.