Actual winnings were 1/3 of what was predicted by his calculations since there were multiple winners.
I agree lottery tickets can be cheap entertainment (an argument for letting people buy them longer in advance before the draw). I used to give them out as party favors.
Suprisingly, apparently even with a cost of living differential, not so much.
http://work.chron.com/much-fed... As of 2012... "For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."
It's extremely unlikely that the legal documents were personally vetted by even $100 an hour attorneys.
Many attorneys who "bill" $300 an hour do not bill 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's more typical of rainmakers at large legal firms.
And only a small amount of attorneys with top grades and/or from top schools get top compensation.
"Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices...as of 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year.
Other Agencies For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."
And this presumes no automation of redaction of any kind. As if the most highly paid and experienced lawyers must manually find and redact every occurrence of "Jim Davis" in the documents. What's more likely is that they assigned the work to a highly paid and experienced lawyer who assigned it to a clerk or sub attorney to work, then the expensive attorney spot checked a few cases and signed off on the work and the entire body of work was billed as if the expensive attorney actually did the tedius and mind numbing work.
So the cases could have been reviewed by legal clerks and lawyers with two to three years experience first.
I think your information is good. As I said, I was just swagging it. One follow up question...
Whatever happened to paralegals? I.e. is there no one that any of this work could be farmed out to that is less expensive. I.e. Once the attorney determines references to "Jim Davis" need to be blotted out-- it can be done automatically from there. Once the attorney determines references to personal names should be blotted out- other less expensive government employees could do the work.
Also consider this:
Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices
Title 28 of the U.S. Codes authorizes attorney salaries for the U.S. Attorneyâ(TM)s Office. Because salaries vary by position, no general tables are published. However, job postings give some idea of the pay. As of Sept. 24, 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year. The position presumed graduating from an accredited law school, licensing in the state of California, a membership in good standing of the bar from any jurisdiction, and at least three to five years of litigation experience after law school.
Other Agencies
For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033.
---
This kind of drudge work seems ideal to farm out to new candidates with two to three years experience. (salaries of $62,500 to $89,000).
Last point- I agree there are people who gorge/binge eat and say they or not or that they are dieting and who then gain weight. And that's probably the most common case because food diaries work so well.
But I am saying there are plenty of metabolic disorders which cause weight gain. And it's a fact that some stomach bugs help us digest certain foods (such as seaweed) which are indigestible for anyone lacking those stomach bugs. And heredity plays a strong factor in weight gain via several factors.
And so it's not unreasonable that some people are just screwed when it comes to weight gain.
(this was meant to go out last night but it got caught by the 5 minute restriction and then I forgot about it and went to bed. lol).
Your quibbling, missed my point, or are intentionally treating an hypothetical example as an actual example.
First- surely you are not suggested that every person who eats the same meal absorbs exactly the same amount of calories into their system, right? Because that's crazy on the face of it. It will be on some kind of distribution curve.
So given three people who eat "1500" measured calories of food, one might absorb 1000 calories, another might absorb 1450 calories, another might absorb 2000. In some extreme cases, some might absorb 750 calories or 3000 calories. (There are already examples in this discussion of people who can get 250 calories from a serving of brocolli while others only get 100 calories).
The last person could only eat 750 calories worth of food per day and not gain weight. They'd probably need to take vitamins to meet their nutritional requirements. And they'd be eating so little physical food that they would feel like they were starving all the time. Whenever they ate like "normal" people, they would gain weight even if they exercised.
Perhaps if your last statement reads: "I ate only the amount of food that most people absorb 1,000 kcal from each day and I gained fat!"
Last factoid: I'm in the reverse case. I can eat heartily and I do not gain weight. Plenty of butter too. My weight only varies by the liquid I just drank and the food I just ate. I have a friend who must eat heartily or he loses weight because he has a kidney problem. He can't gain weight even when gorging. His body is terrible at absorbing calories from food.
It's more than that too. If the food doesn't fully digest and races through your bowels then you will get less calories from it. If the food passes thru slowly, you'll have more chance to absorb and digest it. And on top of that (as you say), if your gut bacteria are good at helping you digest and absorb the calories (like the japanese who can digest seaweed while it just passes thru everyone else untouched) (or just getting 99% of the value of a steak instead of 93% of the value of a steak as it passes thru) then you'll gain weight.
If you've exercised recently your muscles will burn more calories. If you exercise for a long time, your muscles will get more efficient at burning calories to produce the same output effort so the same amount of exercise won't burn the same amount of calories and it won't leave your muscles in high burn rate as long either.
and a person who is 200 and muscle needs more calories than a person who is 200 and more fat.
A lot of what I just said is simply supporting and backing up what you posted.
I'm lucky. I have a stable set weight and low hunger impulses most the time.
Companies that are highly profitable decide to hire female CEO's.
You'd need to look at historical profits for the companies and see how they changed when the female leader was chosen.
hmmm Brainstorming one other reason would be females often work for less money- and companies that have female CEO's might have more female workers.
In the end, a given arbitrary female can be better than a given arbitrary male. And at the CEO level for 1,000+ employee companies, you are not talking about more than 10,000 people out of the entire global population (and probably less than than) so the "top 3000 females" might easily be better at being a CEO than a simliar number of male CEO's at that level.
You are in wesley snipes territory man. He really believed cockeyed things too.
It's like people who torrent things who think they arent' doing anything illegal so they get reckless or that guy you read about who offers pot to a cop in a state where it's illegal because he's lost touch with the fact it is illegal.
anyway-- moving on from this thread. Best of luck.
If you read the fine article, you see that IBM says they don't respond to rumors and then...
Next paragraph...
IBM responds to the rumors.
Funny-- and indicative or their credibility.
It sounds like it's going to be huge layoffs- almost certainly with a high degree of age discrimination, reduced service to clients who outsourced jobs to them.
But I think IBM is dying-- can't adapt to the mobile world. So I can't entirely fault them.
But from talking to ex employees- IBM has been gutting their talented staff for at least 15 years with stack ranking, offshoring jobs to lower cost/less talented offshore resources (there are talented resources offshore-- but they do cost about $35 to $40k, not $10 to $15k).
It's very unlikely I need everything they provide. If the particular thing I need is magnesium, then I could simply get a magnesium supplement.
However- the nutrient value of our food is lower than it used to be due to our mass farming methods. You can't predict what trace minerals and vitamins will be missing from food.
In some cases, like wild salmon vs farmed salmon and pasture eggs vs industrial farmed eggs - you can literally see the difference. (you can also taste it, but taste is harder to measure). In many cases, the difference is much more subtle. Tomatoes are also pretty obvious (high cellulose for shipping and longer shelf life vs more food value from home grown).
Taking an inexpensive multi-vitamin ($9 for 90 days so about $0.10 per day) helps cover that case.
No seriously man. I wasn't saying it as an attack.
I'm saying it like- seek help. The views you are expressing are very far from reality. This is dangerous to you. You are thinking in a bubble isolated from reality.
Seems they could develop a way to non-invasively confirm pressure of the footballs that sits in front of cameras on the sidelines.
Some storage box that puts the football under a standard pressure and confirms the deformation is within the expected range. Or is 1 to 2psi too small to be noticeable that way?
Without the government, apple wouldn't be able to exist.
There is nothing to stop widespread theft of their IP by other countries (can you say "Patent protection for 0 years). There is nothing to stop widespread copyright infringement of their products. There is nothing to stop people from kidnapping and/or murdering their top employees. There is nothing to stop people from attacking apple stores and destroying product. The roads fall into disrepair. There's no guarantee of the quality of gasoline in their delivery vehicles.
A functioning government is necessary for businesses to exist.
An increasing number of vehicles don't use gasoline or diesel fuel. And many of the ones that do are getting higher gasoline mileage than they did 20 years ago. We are going to have to increase the license fee and/or add in a mileage fee.
Corporations are just a structure the wealthy use to hide their wealth and income from taxation. If you are not going to tax corporations then they need to be disallowed from building up substantial piles of cash. It should all be forced to pass thru the corporation in a timely fashion.
No they don't. There's a huge deficit because tax income hasn't met the cost of running government for a long time.
And our government recently just dropped another 2 trillion dollars and took on another trillion in vet benefit obligations to fight a couple wars to benefit oil companies in the middle east.
Slashdot Mirror
It's happened before too.
Actual winnings were 1/3 of what was predicted by his calculations since there were multiple winners.
I agree lottery tickets can be cheap entertainment (an argument for letting people buy them longer in advance before the draw). I used to give them out as party favors.
Suprisingly, apparently even with a cost of living differential, not so much.
http://work.chron.com/much-fed...
As of 2012...
"For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."
It's extremely unlikely that the legal documents were personally vetted by even $100 an hour attorneys.
Many attorneys who "bill" $300 an hour do not bill 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's more typical of rainmakers at large legal firms.
And only a small amount of attorneys with top grades and/or from top schools get top compensation.
$100,000 a year is not "$12.50" an hour. I think you need to check your math.
Besides legal clerks and junior goverment attorneys make much less than $100,000 per year.
http://work.chron.com/much-fed...
"Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices ...as of 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year.
Other Agencies
For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."
And this presumes no automation of redaction of any kind. As if the most highly paid and experienced lawyers must manually find and redact every occurrence of "Jim Davis" in the documents. What's more likely is that they assigned the work to a highly paid and experienced lawyer who assigned it to a clerk or sub attorney to work, then the expensive attorney spot checked a few cases and signed off on the work and the entire body of work was billed as if the expensive attorney actually did the tedius and mind numbing work.
So the cases could have been reviewed by legal clerks and lawyers with two to three years experience first.
I think your information is good. As I said, I was just swagging it. One follow up question...
Whatever happened to paralegals? I.e. is there no one that any of this work could be farmed out to that is less expensive. I.e. Once the attorney determines references to "Jim Davis" need to be blotted out-- it can be done automatically from there. Once the attorney determines references to personal names should be blotted out- other less expensive government employees could do the work.
Also consider this:
Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices
Title 28 of the U.S. Codes authorizes attorney salaries for the U.S. Attorneyâ(TM)s Office. Because salaries vary by position, no general tables are published. However, job postings give some idea of the pay. As of Sept. 24, 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year. The position presumed graduating from an accredited law school, licensing in the state of California, a membership in good standing of the bar from any jurisdiction, and at least three to five years of litigation experience after law school.
Other Agencies
For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033.
---
This kind of drudge work seems ideal to farm out to new candidates with two to three years experience. (salaries of $62,500 to $89,000).
Tried to download the code to confirm but atlassian said I was denied. May be slashdotted.
I read the article but not the study and the article states an unstated amount of the "fluff" is required to execute the code.
So I'm thinking
int a; is being treated as "fluff"
And perhaps even
public void longersubroutinename (int longerparametername) is mostly treated as "fluff".
i.e.
p v srA (int l) is much shorter. The rest is just fluff. Sure it names it human readable, but it's fluff!
But I'm only guessing here. The percentage seems way too high to be anything sensible tho.
I'm betting their "essential 5%" would be illegible and wouldn't execute / lacks declarations of variables or something else goofy.
Swagging it, 1.4 million implies at least 14 staff attorneys would have to work 12 months.
At the least, I'd like to see a breakout of the labor estimates. It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.
Last point- I agree there are people who gorge/binge eat and say they or not or that they are dieting and who then gain weight. And that's probably the most common case because food diaries work so well.
But I am saying there are plenty of metabolic disorders which cause weight gain. And it's a fact that some stomach bugs help us digest certain foods (such as seaweed) which are indigestible for anyone lacking those stomach bugs. And heredity plays a strong factor in weight gain via several factors.
And so it's not unreasonable that some people are just screwed when it comes to weight gain.
(this was meant to go out last night but it got caught by the 5 minute restriction and then I forgot about it and went to bed. lol).
Your quibbling, missed my point, or are intentionally treating an hypothetical example as an actual example.
First- surely you are not suggested that every person who eats the same meal absorbs exactly the same amount of calories into their system, right? Because that's crazy on the face of it. It will be on some kind of distribution curve.
So given three people who eat "1500" measured calories of food, one might absorb 1000 calories, another might absorb 1450 calories, another might absorb 2000. In some extreme cases, some might absorb 750 calories or 3000 calories. (There are already examples in this discussion of people who can get 250 calories from a serving of brocolli while others only get 100 calories).
The last person could only eat 750 calories worth of food per day and not gain weight. They'd probably need to take vitamins to meet their nutritional requirements. And they'd be eating so little physical food that they would feel like they were starving all the time. Whenever they ate like "normal" people, they would gain weight even if they exercised.
Perhaps if your last statement reads: "I ate only the amount of food that most people absorb 1,000 kcal from each day and I gained fat!"
Last factoid: I'm in the reverse case. I can eat heartily and I do not gain weight. Plenty of butter too. My weight only varies by the liquid I just drank and the food I just ate. I have a friend who must eat heartily or he loses weight because he has a kidney problem. He can't gain weight even when gorging. His body is terrible at absorbing calories from food.
It's more than that too. If the food doesn't fully digest and races through your bowels then you will get less calories from it. If the food passes thru slowly, you'll have more chance to absorb and digest it. And on top of that (as you say), if your gut bacteria are good at helping you digest and absorb the calories (like the japanese who can digest seaweed while it just passes thru everyone else untouched) (or just getting 99% of the value of a steak instead of 93% of the value of a steak as it passes thru) then you'll gain weight.
If you've exercised recently your muscles will burn more calories. If you exercise for a long time, your muscles will get more efficient at burning calories to produce the same output effort so the same amount of exercise won't burn the same amount of calories and it won't leave your muscles in high burn rate as long either.
and a person who is 200 and muscle needs more calories than a person who is 200 and more fat.
A lot of what I just said is simply supporting and backing up what you posted.
I'm lucky. I have a stable set weight and low hunger impulses most the time.
Except the physical amount of food they need to eat is so small that eating the "right" amount leaves them feeling ravenous all the time.
The feedback mechanism from their stomach is out of touch with their intestines.
Imagine if you suddenly only needed 3 table spoons of food per day to keep your body running and anything else was stored as fat.
You'd feel terribly hungry all the time.
Average taxes per year from mileage are under $150. So not sure we should sell our privacy away that cheaply.
It would be simpler and less invasive to increase the annual registration fee, perhaps based with minor modifications on the vehicle class.
Then verify the odometer at the bi-annual inspection only to verify the generic classifications (so no incentive to falsify the odometer).
Companies that are highly profitable decide to hire female CEO's.
You'd need to look at historical profits for the companies and see how they changed when the female leader was chosen.
hmmm
Brainstorming one other reason would be females often work for less money- and companies that have female CEO's might have more female workers.
In the end, a given arbitrary female can be better than a given arbitrary male. And at the CEO level for 1,000+ employee companies, you are not talking about more than 10,000 people out of the entire global population (and probably less than than) so the "top 3000 females" might easily be better at being a CEO than a simliar number of male CEO's at that level.
You are in wesley snipes territory man. He really believed cockeyed things too.
It's like people who torrent things who think they arent' doing anything illegal so they get reckless or that guy you read about who offers pot to a cop in a state where it's illegal because he's lost touch with the fact it is illegal.
anyway-- moving on from this thread. Best of luck.
If you read the fine article, you see that IBM says they don't respond to rumors and then...
Next paragraph...
IBM responds to the rumors.
Funny-- and indicative or their credibility.
It sounds like it's going to be huge layoffs- almost certainly with a high degree of age discrimination, reduced service to clients who outsourced jobs to them.
But I think IBM is dying-- can't adapt to the mobile world. So I can't entirely fault them.
But from talking to ex employees- IBM has been gutting their talented staff for at least 15 years with stack ranking, offshoring jobs to lower cost/less talented offshore resources (there are talented resources offshore-- but they do cost about $35 to $40k, not $10 to $15k).
Management continued to take high salaries.
It's very unlikely I need everything they provide. If the particular thing I need is magnesium, then I could simply get a magnesium supplement.
However- the nutrient value of our food is lower than it used to be due to our mass farming methods. You can't predict what trace minerals and vitamins will be missing from food.
In some cases, like wild salmon vs farmed salmon and pasture eggs vs industrial farmed eggs - you can literally see the difference. (you can also taste it, but taste is harder to measure). In many cases, the difference is much more subtle. Tomatoes are also pretty obvious (high cellulose for shipping and longer shelf life vs more food value from home grown).
Taking an inexpensive multi-vitamin ($9 for 90 days so about $0.10 per day) helps cover that case.
My feet started swelling-- I stated taking multivitamins and the swelling stopped the next day- like a medicine.
I forgot to take them, the swelling came back. I resumed taking them and the swelling stopped again.
So multivitamins work.
And that matters to a much smaller audience.
Most users are fine with Youtube or similar services.
When they removed the mentalist from netflix and it was only available for $1.99 an episode on Amazon, at least one user torrented a few key episodes.
No seriously man. I wasn't saying it as an attack.
I'm saying it like- seek help. The views you are expressing are very far from reality. This is dangerous to you. You are thinking in a bubble isolated from reality.
Not joking. Not attacking you.
Good lord, you are serious.
You are being irrational. You need to get back in touch with reality before you do something stupid. I'm not trolling or sniping you. I'm serious.
Seems they could develop a way to non-invasively confirm pressure of the footballs that sits in front of cameras on the sidelines.
Some storage box that puts the football under a standard pressure and confirms the deformation is within the expected range. Or is 1 to 2psi too small to be noticeable that way?
Without the government, apple wouldn't be able to exist.
There is nothing to stop widespread theft of their IP by other countries (can you say "Patent protection for 0 years).
There is nothing to stop widespread copyright infringement of their products.
There is nothing to stop people from kidnapping and/or murdering their top employees.
There is nothing to stop people from attacking apple stores and destroying product.
The roads fall into disrepair.
There's no guarantee of the quality of gasoline in their delivery vehicles.
A functioning government is necessary for businesses to exist.
An increasing number of vehicles don't use gasoline or diesel fuel.
And many of the ones that do are getting higher gasoline mileage than they did 20 years ago.
We are going to have to increase the license fee and/or add in a mileage fee.
Corporations are just a structure the wealthy use to hide their wealth and income from taxation. If you are not going to tax corporations then they need to be disallowed from building up substantial piles of cash. It should all be forced to pass thru the corporation in a timely fashion.
No they don't. There's a huge deficit because tax income hasn't met the cost of running government for a long time.
And our government recently just dropped another 2 trillion dollars and took on another trillion in vet benefit obligations to fight a couple wars to benefit oil companies in the middle east.