Why couldn't we let market forces play in a bit? For example, why can't we wait until analog broadcasts aren't economically feasible? It seems that the rapid adoption of digital TV would make most analog channels economically unfeasible rather soon, anyway.
Take your car back and ask for a refund. Even if you don't get it at least you will have made it very clear to the dealership that you are extremely unhappy and want to take back your business.
Also try to get in touch with someone fairly high up in Toyota's management / marketing at their corporate HQ and explain to them that you will never buy Toyota again and why. In the mean time keep complaining on the Internet and contact the local business / consumer watch-dogs (Better Business Bureau or whatever) and tell them that it was not made clear to you that your information would be used this way and that you are outraged.
A few years ago Comcast telemarketed to me advertising their new phone system. I called them back telling them to never SPAM me again. Apparently, they were used to getting customer complaints and told me some silly story about how most of their customers appreciate it when they're called about new features.
Honda, on the other hand, is pretty bad. They started calling me EVERY time I took my car in for service. Are their service centers so bad that they have to follow up with every customer every time?
Rosenfeld noted that a number of television makers already produce models that meet the proposed commission efficiency standards and that 87% of current stock complies with the planned 2011 threshold
Somehow I think the difference between the compliant and non-compliant TVs is the cost of the power supply. IE, the 13% non-compliant TVs might need to use a power supply that costs $1 more.
Have you seen any of the laptop stands for the MacBook? You stick your keyboard under the stand, and it positions the laptop's display into a very comfortable location. (The stand is also cheaper then a 2'nd monitor.)
Combine the stand with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, and all you have to do is just plug the laptop in! The Macbook's speakers sound better then most desktop speakers, although you can use a Bluetooth audio transmitter if you need to.
Has anyone ever tried to read or implement the OpenID spec? It's too complicated. The real problem with OpenID is that it's so complicated that it essentially requires a 3rd party library.
When I looked at my last Comcast bill, I realized I'm paying almost $100 a month! (I have basic HDTV + the shitty Motorola DVR.) For that kind of money I'm better off buying a Mac Mini or dipping my toe into Linux + MythTV!
But what irks me the most about the Wii thing is that the old games are pretty damned expensive. According to this page NES games average $5 and SNES games average $8. That's quite a lot of money just for a trip down memory lane.
Adjusted for inflation, that's about what I used to pay to rent a game for the NES and SNES.
Without a set top Box rental, you will be better off watching OTA ATSC, and not subscribing to cable at all.
That is exactly what I realized when I looked at my last Comcast bill. I pay about $45 for Internet, and about $95 for basic HD + DVR. Everything that I watch either can come from the Internet, Netflix, or old-fashioned broadcast TV.
Furthermore, by canceling cable and buying a run-of-the-mill Mac Mini, the purchase pays for itself within a year. It's even cheaper if I want to spend a weekend or two messing with Myth. Some people might be happy using an XBox 360 or PS3.
Did we ever do something similar with electricity development in the US?
For the most part, our electricity services are the best in the world. Granted, 120 volts is a little low; but we have very reliable, inexpensive, and standardized electric service. Any device purchased in any state will work in any other state without an adapter. (The EU has differing standards for 3-prong outlets, and Japan runs both 60 and 50 hz.)
Hopefully we can make American internet work just as easily and reliably as American electricity.
Even in the realm of "magic object persistence layer" (what you're refering to is called an ORM though, Object Relational Mapper), there are pure OOP ways of doing things without having to load everything in RAM though, that don't even require loading all the objects...
The senior engineer's attitude was that he wanted something along the lines of "I don't care how you store my objects, just store them". These guys decided to use a schema generator and NHibernate code generators to write ALL the SQL. That's why I'm saying "magic object persistence layer" instead of ORM. ORM implies that you actually know what the database is doing.
Another reason why I say "Magic object persistence layer" instead of ORM is that they would call a generated GetXXXByName method 50,000 times instead of writing a query that used the "in" clause and adding an index. See what I mean? They wrote code that would perform thousands of table scans because they just assumed that NHibernate would do all the work.
It doesn't matter at this point, anyway. The people who don't understand data access are no longer on the project and we're throwing out the really bad code and redoing it in Java.
I agree with most of your post, but what does understanding relational theory have to do with anything? There's no RDBMS out there that is theoritically sound, and even the most complex of stored procedure won't need any relational algebra. That stuff is only useful if you're -writing the RDBMS itself-, not if you're using it. Oh, you need to know the basics of normalisation (IF you're designing the database...), know how keys work... index aren't part of the theory and is a purely pragmatic concept... By port of Hibernate, you probably mean NHibernate (thus the C# reference above), and thats used by thousands of companies, including extremely large projects with high levels of success (and is actually growing in adoption).
I called NHibernate a "magic object persistence layer." Hibernate and NHibernate never work well when used as a "magic object persistence layer."
To be frank; I spent a day reading the book on Hibernate and it's really is useful when developers understand how to do SQL and mapping the old-fashioned way. At that point, Hibernate can save a lot of time with boilerplate queries. It's very nice to not have to write a getById() or getByName() method.
The root cause of the problem I fixed was that the previous developers only understood object-oriented programming. In OO, you can iterate over a collection of in-memory objects with very little performance overhead. This isn't the case when working a database. Running 1000 update statements is much faster then loading 1000 objects into RAM and then calling the magic save method. Other times, one only needs to manipulate IDs instead of loading and saving full objects. Because the programmers didn't understand this, they wrote painfully slow and buggy code.
The above statement is also very relevant when it comes to throwing hardware at a slow program! Yeah, one could throw hardware at a program that needlessly loads data into RAM; however I doubt that fancy hardware will get a poorly written program to run with acceptable performance.
I do have issues with NHibernate; some are based on its immaturity, and others are based on its approach to lazy loading. (The version we use can't map a nullable int column to a nullable enumeration. WTF?!?!?) That's another discussion, however.
For my first job out of College, I was a contractor.
Many of the contractors I worked with loved it because they would take long vacations in between gigs. They also were able to control their hours and avoid death marches.
Contractors are also easily fired, which means that when working with contractors; those who write bad code are given the boot very quickly!
From someone who has been there, done that. I can say that throwing hardware at a problem rarely works.
If nothing else, faster hardware tend to increase the advantage of good algorithms over poorer ones.
Say I have an alghorithm who runs at O(N) and another one functionally equivalent that runs at O(N^2). Now let's say that you need to double the size of the input keeping the execution time constant. For the first algorithm you will need a machine which is 2X faster than the current one, for the second O(N^2) you'll need a 10X times faster machine.
Let's not forget that you need not only things to run fast, but to run correctly, and the absurdity of choosing less skilled programmers with more expensive hardware will become painfully evident.
I think I can sum it up without numbers:
Make sure the programmers understand the requirements
Make sure the programmers have a decent understanding of the theory behind the language. (They don't have to be C# experts but should understand OO; they don't have to be SQL experts but should understand relational theory.)
Make sure that the programmers understand that the implemented code has to meet the requirements.
Last week, I had to fix a bug where a value in the database was constantly flipping to a default state. Upon inspection of the code, I found that the bug existed because the code wasn't written to requirements; and the programmers who wrote it just didn't understand relational theory. They were using a port of Hibernate as a magic object persistence tool.
The irony was that once I understood the requirements; I realized that query that was overwriting existing data was completely unnecessary. Once I replaced it with queries that met the requirements; the program started running much, much, much faster! The program went from trashing the disk for a few minutes to trashing the disk for a few seconds. I then added an index to the database, and the program stopped trashing the disk.
So, by understanding relational theory and writing code to meet requirements; I significantly improved performance. No extra hardware needed!
So, I'm in the process of a remodel and have an easy opportunity to install a high-amperage electric circuit to some location in the garage. Is there any emerging standard for charging electric cars that would dictate the ideal location to put the outlet? I.e. in front of the car, driver side, passenger side, what height from ground, etc. Also amperage, type of plug etc would be good to anticipate, although initially I'd just have an empty conduit running there from the load center.
I think this is going to be trickier then you realize. The simplest answer is to run the same kind of circuit that you would use for an electric dryer or electric stove; although the kind of circuit run varies depending on your electrical service.
The US is standardized on outlets providing 120 volts, single phase, 60hz. Most circuits are 15 amps; although 20 is the maximum allowed in residential wiring. (20-amp outlets have that T-shaped wider prong so you can't plug a 20-amp device into a 15-amp circuit.) The Chevy Volt will charge off of a 15-amp circuit; and it's sounding like it'll need 4 hours to charge for 40 miles.
Things get weirder when you want to go for a higher level of current. 30 amp 120-volt circuits are illegal in residential wiring for a very good reason: If you were to plug a run-of-the-mill extension cord into a 30-amp circuit, you could start a fire if you actually pulled 30 amps of power!
For 240 volt circuits, like what dryers and electric stoves use; the outlet varies depending on the kind of electric service to your home and local electrical code. Thus, it's difficult to standardize for cars because there are a few different standards throughout the US. I know of "single-phase", "three-phase", and "three-phase with a high leg." In all cases; it's trivial to make a standard 120-volt circuit, however, high-voltage equipment needs to be designed to handle the kind of electric service at your home.
Thus, run the highest voltage circuit that your electrical service allows. It'll be trivial to add a standard 120-volt outlet to the circuit. When standards for high-voltage automotive charging appear, you'll be able to easily install the correct equipment as the circuit already exists.
Maybe it's the billing, the cable is already hooked up to my house, and the house is already wired. Ten dollars a month for billing sounds realistic, they don't have any other expenses do they?
Hah, when I paid my bill last Monday, I noticed that I get a $15 discount for having both Internet and TV...
Well, I'll stick with my point: written reports are just no vehicle for a healthy work relationship.
Perhaps in a small company. Perhaps I should state that the "hair that broke the camel's back" with my old employer was when a manager criticized my status report.
The problem with verbal communication is that it gets forgotten. I have a wonderful work relationship with all of my peers; yet we still have a bi-weekly status report so we can keep track of what we did. In the long run, the status reports help us understand where we concentrated our time once our verbal communications are forgotten.
The normal process for dealing with a problem-employee would be to talk about it. You know, stuff like: "Hey bob, what's up with your performance recently". And to closely monitor problem areas in order to find ways for improvment. Know what, it seems like that would be your actual job if you weren't all busy passing written self-assessments back and forth.
It's a good start, however; a paper trail is often needed when a problem-employee is to be promoted to non-employee. In some cases it's because the company doesn't want to fire someone due to a personal issue between a manager and subordinate; in other cases it's a legal defense in case of a discrimination lawsuit.
Even though written status reports might sound burdensome; they really are helpful when one needs to know what was going on at a particular point in time. Furthermore, if a status report is highly burdensome; while it can indicate poor management practice; it can also indicate a dangerous communication problem from the employee.
Status reports are a bunch of non-sense. Requiring your employees to file status reports tells me three things. 1) You don't know enough about what they are doing to manage them, 2) how long it should take, and 3) you don't trust them to work as professionals to deliver a quality product
Actually, I think that a lack of written status reports is evidence of a failing work environment. In my case, when people stop paying attention to status reports; it shows that management is no longer paying attention to what's actually going on, even if I'm in regular verbal and visual communication.
For example, at my current job I have to do a bi-weekly status report. It can sometimes take 30 minutes to write. While I know that it will serve as an objective list of my accomplishments; I use it to emphasize shortcomings in our current architecture. Some of my status reports are nice basically word-smithed versions of "I spent 3 days fixing a bug because some dolt doesn't know SQL and can't tell when to use an ID and when to use an object" or "WTF??? I stayed late last week tracking down a bug related to some dumbass overloading the == operator!"
The problem isn't that they give you a discount when you order multiple services, it's that the base 'advertised' price is the one you get when you have multiple services. They charge 'extra' when you only get one service. They say High speed internet is only $39.99/month. Then they say, oh yeah, that's only if you already have cable. Otherwise its $49.99/month. The bill shows up as: $39.99 High speed internet $10.00 Fee
It's because it costs money to bring the physical cable into a residence. Assuming that a subscriber has all three services; the cost of the physical cable can be spread out. If the subscriber only has one service, the cost of the cable needs to be re-captured.
Simply put; it costs about $10 a month to have a cable hooked up to your house and handle billing.
People aren't buying new games because the market is flooded with crap. This is just simple supply and demand economics; the supply is too high for the demand.
Actually, it also says that Jesus and his disciples had a meal together and Thomas even touched him. Not that I believe any of it, but that's what the New Testament says.
That sounds a lot like the described hallucinations. Remember, Jesus's disciples really loved him; and his execution was rather tramatic. (At least that's what the historians think probablly happened.) Thus, if the hypothesis is correct, each disciple would have an 80% chance of hallucinating Jesus after his execution.
That in 80% of cases some remnant, some energy of that person was left behind? Just because it happens frequently doesn't mean it is *not* supernatural in nature.
Do they have MRIs of people while they are experiencing a hallucination like this? Something to show the brain is dreaming, and not simply observing?
By the same token, I suppose we can't really prove that there is an observation going on. I've had family members relate to me that they remember a sequence of events, in a very specific way. I remember the same events differently. Either we are people from different dimensions who have slipped between worlds to share this one, or we have altered our own memories to suit what we would have liked to happen. One of these is more consistent with current science. It doesn't guarantee that the other option won't be found to be possible at some point.
There's a rational explanation for everything.
Once I thought my dead grandmother kissed me when I was asleep. It turns out my lips brushed against the blanket when I was moving my head.
Another time, I thought I saw a "flash of light" when I was falling asleep... It turns out it was just the LED on my Mac book, which was shining right into my face.
I looked up just as a woman wearing contemporary-looking clothing walked up to the door, startled out of her wits as if she'd seen a ghost, as was I, -- and then she vanished.
Let me guess, you normally keep your doors unlocked?
You'd be surprised how many thieves are brazen enough to randomly try doors and walk in even if people might be home.
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't we let market forces play in a bit? For example, why can't we wait until analog broadcasts aren't economically feasible? It seems that the rapid adoption of digital TV would make most analog channels economically unfeasible rather soon, anyway.
Take your car back and ask for a refund. Even if you don't get it at least you will have made it very clear to the dealership that you are extremely unhappy and want to take back your business. Also try to get in touch with someone fairly high up in Toyota's management / marketing at their corporate HQ and explain to them that you will never buy Toyota again and why. In the mean time keep complaining on the Internet and contact the local business / consumer watch-dogs (Better Business Bureau or whatever) and tell them that it was not made clear to you that your information would be used this way and that you are outraged.
A few years ago Comcast telemarketed to me advertising their new phone system. I called them back telling them to never SPAM me again. Apparently, they were used to getting customer complaints and told me some silly story about how most of their customers appreciate it when they're called about new features.
Honda, on the other hand, is pretty bad. They started calling me EVERY time I took my car in for service. Are their service centers so bad that they have to follow up with every customer every time?
Rosenfeld noted that a number of television makers already produce models that meet the proposed commission efficiency standards and that 87% of current stock complies with the planned 2011 threshold
Somehow I think the difference between the compliant and non-compliant TVs is the cost of the power supply. IE, the 13% non-compliant TVs might need to use a power supply that costs $1 more.
You have a wireless monitor? Where you get it?
Have you seen any of the laptop stands for the MacBook? You stick your keyboard under the stand, and it positions the laptop's display into a very comfortable location. (The stand is also cheaper then a 2'nd monitor.)
Combine the stand with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, and all you have to do is just plug the laptop in! The Macbook's speakers sound better then most desktop speakers, although you can use a Bluetooth audio transmitter if you need to.
Has anyone ever tried to read or implement the OpenID spec? It's too complicated. The real problem with OpenID is that it's so complicated that it essentially requires a 3rd party library.
When I looked at my last Comcast bill, I realized I'm paying almost $100 a month! (I have basic HDTV + the shitty Motorola DVR.) For that kind of money I'm better off buying a Mac Mini or dipping my toe into Linux + MythTV!
But what irks me the most about the Wii thing is that the old games are pretty damned expensive. According to this page NES games average $5 and SNES games average $8. That's quite a lot of money just for a trip down memory lane.
Adjusted for inflation, that's about what I used to pay to rent a game for the NES and SNES.
Without a set top Box rental, you will be better off watching OTA ATSC, and not subscribing to cable at all.
That is exactly what I realized when I looked at my last Comcast bill. I pay about $45 for Internet, and about $95 for basic HD + DVR. Everything that I watch either can come from the Internet, Netflix, or old-fashioned broadcast TV.
Furthermore, by canceling cable and buying a run-of-the-mill Mac Mini, the purchase pays for itself within a year. It's even cheaper if I want to spend a weekend or two messing with Myth. Some people might be happy using an XBox 360 or PS3.
Did we ever do something similar with electricity development in the US?
For the most part, our electricity services are the best in the world. Granted, 120 volts is a little low; but we have very reliable, inexpensive, and standardized electric service. Any device purchased in any state will work in any other state without an adapter. (The EU has differing standards for 3-prong outlets, and Japan runs both 60 and 50 hz.)
Hopefully we can make American internet work just as easily and reliably as American electricity.
Given that all good security must be based on rigorous unbreakability, not secrecy
Rigorous unbreakability implies secrecy; either or both the algorithm and the keys must be kept secret.
good thing you got rid of these people :)
Well, they're on different projects; hopefully in a situation where they can't do much damage.
Even in the realm of "magic object persistence layer" (what you're refering to is called an ORM though, Object Relational Mapper), there are pure OOP ways of doing things without having to load everything in RAM though, that don't even require loading all the objects...
The senior engineer's attitude was that he wanted something along the lines of "I don't care how you store my objects, just store them". These guys decided to use a schema generator and NHibernate code generators to write ALL the SQL. That's why I'm saying "magic object persistence layer" instead of ORM. ORM implies that you actually know what the database is doing.
Another reason why I say "Magic object persistence layer" instead of ORM is that they would call a generated GetXXXByName method 50,000 times instead of writing a query that used the "in" clause and adding an index. See what I mean? They wrote code that would perform thousands of table scans because they just assumed that NHibernate would do all the work.
It doesn't matter at this point, anyway. The people who don't understand data access are no longer on the project and we're throwing out the really bad code and redoing it in Java.
I agree with most of your post, but what does understanding relational theory have to do with anything? There's no RDBMS out there that is theoritically sound, and even the most complex of stored procedure won't need any relational algebra. That stuff is only useful if you're -writing the RDBMS itself-, not if you're using it. Oh, you need to know the basics of normalisation (IF you're designing the database...), know how keys work... index aren't part of the theory and is a purely pragmatic concept... By port of Hibernate, you probably mean NHibernate (thus the C# reference above), and thats used by thousands of companies, including extremely large projects with high levels of success (and is actually growing in adoption).
I called NHibernate a "magic object persistence layer." Hibernate and NHibernate never work well when used as a "magic object persistence layer."
To be frank; I spent a day reading the book on Hibernate and it's really is useful when developers understand how to do SQL and mapping the old-fashioned way. At that point, Hibernate can save a lot of time with boilerplate queries. It's very nice to not have to write a getById() or getByName() method.
The root cause of the problem I fixed was that the previous developers only understood object-oriented programming. In OO, you can iterate over a collection of in-memory objects with very little performance overhead. This isn't the case when working a database. Running 1000 update statements is much faster then loading 1000 objects into RAM and then calling the magic save method. Other times, one only needs to manipulate IDs instead of loading and saving full objects. Because the programmers didn't understand this, they wrote painfully slow and buggy code.
The above statement is also very relevant when it comes to throwing hardware at a slow program! Yeah, one could throw hardware at a program that needlessly loads data into RAM; however I doubt that fancy hardware will get a poorly written program to run with acceptable performance.
I do have issues with NHibernate; some are based on its immaturity, and others are based on its approach to lazy loading. (The version we use can't map a nullable int column to a nullable enumeration. WTF?!?!?) That's another discussion, however.
For my first job out of College, I was a contractor.
Many of the contractors I worked with loved it because they would take long vacations in between gigs. They also were able to control their hours and avoid death marches.
Contractors are also easily fired, which means that when working with contractors; those who write bad code are given the boot very quickly!
From someone who has been there, done that. I can say that throwing hardware at a problem rarely works. If nothing else, faster hardware tend to increase the advantage of good algorithms over poorer ones. Say I have an alghorithm who runs at O(N) and another one functionally equivalent that runs at O(N^2). Now let's say that you need to double the size of the input keeping the execution time constant. For the first algorithm you will need a machine which is 2X faster than the current one, for the second O(N^2) you'll need a 10X times faster machine. Let's not forget that you need not only things to run fast, but to run correctly, and the absurdity of choosing less skilled programmers with more expensive hardware will become painfully evident.
I think I can sum it up without numbers:
Last week, I had to fix a bug where a value in the database was constantly flipping to a default state. Upon inspection of the code, I found that the bug existed because the code wasn't written to requirements; and the programmers who wrote it just didn't understand relational theory. They were using a port of Hibernate as a magic object persistence tool.
The irony was that once I understood the requirements; I realized that query that was overwriting existing data was completely unnecessary. Once I replaced it with queries that met the requirements; the program started running much, much, much faster! The program went from trashing the disk for a few minutes to trashing the disk for a few seconds. I then added an index to the database, and the program stopped trashing the disk.
So, by understanding relational theory and writing code to meet requirements; I significantly improved performance. No extra hardware needed!
So, I'm in the process of a remodel and have an easy opportunity to install a high-amperage electric circuit to some location in the garage. Is there any emerging standard for charging electric cars that would dictate the ideal location to put the outlet? I.e. in front of the car, driver side, passenger side, what height from ground, etc. Also amperage, type of plug etc would be good to anticipate, although initially I'd just have an empty conduit running there from the load center.
I think this is going to be trickier then you realize. The simplest answer is to run the same kind of circuit that you would use for an electric dryer or electric stove; although the kind of circuit run varies depending on your electrical service.
The US is standardized on outlets providing 120 volts, single phase, 60hz. Most circuits are 15 amps; although 20 is the maximum allowed in residential wiring. (20-amp outlets have that T-shaped wider prong so you can't plug a 20-amp device into a 15-amp circuit.) The Chevy Volt will charge off of a 15-amp circuit; and it's sounding like it'll need 4 hours to charge for 40 miles.
Things get weirder when you want to go for a higher level of current. 30 amp 120-volt circuits are illegal in residential wiring for a very good reason: If you were to plug a run-of-the-mill extension cord into a 30-amp circuit, you could start a fire if you actually pulled 30 amps of power!
For 240 volt circuits, like what dryers and electric stoves use; the outlet varies depending on the kind of electric service to your home and local electrical code. Thus, it's difficult to standardize for cars because there are a few different standards throughout the US. I know of "single-phase", "three-phase", and "three-phase with a high leg." In all cases; it's trivial to make a standard 120-volt circuit, however, high-voltage equipment needs to be designed to handle the kind of electric service at your home.
Thus, run the highest voltage circuit that your electrical service allows. It'll be trivial to add a standard 120-volt outlet to the circuit. When standards for high-voltage automotive charging appear, you'll be able to easily install the correct equipment as the circuit already exists.
Maybe it's the billing, the cable is already hooked up to my house, and the house is already wired. Ten dollars a month for billing sounds realistic, they don't have any other expenses do they?
Hah, when I paid my bill last Monday, I noticed that I get a $15 discount for having both Internet and TV...
Well, I'll stick with my point: written reports are just no vehicle for a healthy work relationship.
Perhaps in a small company. Perhaps I should state that the "hair that broke the camel's back" with my old employer was when a manager criticized my status report.
The problem with verbal communication is that it gets forgotten. I have a wonderful work relationship with all of my peers; yet we still have a bi-weekly status report so we can keep track of what we did. In the long run, the status reports help us understand where we concentrated our time once our verbal communications are forgotten.
The normal process for dealing with a problem-employee would be to talk about it. You know, stuff like: "Hey bob, what's up with your performance recently". And to closely monitor problem areas in order to find ways for improvment. Know what, it seems like that would be your actual job if you weren't all busy passing written self-assessments back and forth.
It's a good start, however; a paper trail is often needed when a problem-employee is to be promoted to non-employee. In some cases it's because the company doesn't want to fire someone due to a personal issue between a manager and subordinate; in other cases it's a legal defense in case of a discrimination lawsuit.
Even though written status reports might sound burdensome; they really are helpful when one needs to know what was going on at a particular point in time. Furthermore, if a status report is highly burdensome; while it can indicate poor management practice; it can also indicate a dangerous communication problem from the employee.
Status reports are a bunch of non-sense. Requiring your employees to file status reports tells me three things. 1) You don't know enough about what they are doing to manage them, 2) how long it should take, and 3) you don't trust them to work as professionals to deliver a quality product
Actually, I think that a lack of written status reports is evidence of a failing work environment. In my case, when people stop paying attention to status reports; it shows that management is no longer paying attention to what's actually going on, even if I'm in regular verbal and visual communication.
For example, at my current job I have to do a bi-weekly status report. It can sometimes take 30 minutes to write. While I know that it will serve as an objective list of my accomplishments; I use it to emphasize shortcomings in our current architecture. Some of my status reports are nice basically word-smithed versions of "I spent 3 days fixing a bug because some dolt doesn't know SQL and can't tell when to use an ID and when to use an object" or "WTF??? I stayed late last week tracking down a bug related to some dumbass overloading the == operator!"
The problem isn't that they give you a discount when you order multiple services, it's that the base 'advertised' price is the one you get when you have multiple services. They charge 'extra' when you only get one service. They say High speed internet is only $39.99/month. Then they say, oh yeah, that's only if you already have cable. Otherwise its $49.99/month. The bill shows up as: $39.99 High speed internet $10.00 Fee
It's because it costs money to bring the physical cable into a residence. Assuming that a subscriber has all three services; the cost of the physical cable can be spread out. If the subscriber only has one service, the cost of the cable needs to be re-captured.
Simply put; it costs about $10 a month to have a cable hooked up to your house and handle billing.
People aren't buying new games because the market is flooded with crap. This is just simple supply and demand economics; the supply is too high for the demand.
Actually, it also says that Jesus and his disciples had a meal together and Thomas even touched him. Not that I believe any of it, but that's what the New Testament says.
That sounds a lot like the described hallucinations. Remember, Jesus's disciples really loved him; and his execution was rather tramatic. (At least that's what the historians think probablly happened.) Thus, if the hypothesis is correct, each disciple would have an 80% chance of hallucinating Jesus after his execution.
That in 80% of cases some remnant, some energy of that person was left behind? Just because it happens frequently doesn't mean it is *not* supernatural in nature. Do they have MRIs of people while they are experiencing a hallucination like this? Something to show the brain is dreaming, and not simply observing? By the same token, I suppose we can't really prove that there is an observation going on. I've had family members relate to me that they remember a sequence of events, in a very specific way. I remember the same events differently. Either we are people from different dimensions who have slipped between worlds to share this one, or we have altered our own memories to suit what we would have liked to happen. One of these is more consistent with current science. It doesn't guarantee that the other option won't be found to be possible at some point.
There's a rational explanation for everything.
Once I thought my dead grandmother kissed me when I was asleep. It turns out my lips brushed against the blanket when I was moving my head.
Another time, I thought I saw a "flash of light" when I was falling asleep... It turns out it was just the LED on my Mac book, which was shining right into my face.
I looked up just as a woman wearing contemporary-looking clothing walked up to the door, startled out of her wits as if she'd seen a ghost, as was I, -- and then she vanished.
Let me guess, you normally keep your doors unlocked?
You'd be surprised how many thieves are brazen enough to randomly try doors and walk in even if people might be home.