Estimate the price of the time saved. When you have to be deployed to fix someone's desktop, you can usually assume that it would have been down for a day or more otherwise. That's 8 to 10 hours of their time, plus other people's time if anyone else is relying on their work. Manufacturing is usually a very fast paced world, and a day lost by someone usually translates to large losses. You should also consider a daily cost savings to preventative work. When you keep the servers running, what would be the likelihood of a major failure without that maintenance and what would an entire hour of server downtime cost the company. Imagine that everyone in the company has just had their productivity cut to 33% or less. In a moderately sized manufacturing facility, that can add up to millions within a day.
Not to mention that there are many peer reviewed articles showing that the elasticity of tendons and ligaments significantly increases with a little stretching, thereby reducing the chance of permanent injury. The fact that your power reduces as a result is only a concern to the most foolishly minded athlete who will not have an athletic career for long.
I think you're partially right here. I believe it would be more accurate to say that it is a stigma attached from the days of yore where Protestants immigrating from Europe brought a much more extreme view of sex as a "filthy" act. Europe was evolving to lighten up on their views of sex, and has continued to do so since. However, all of those groups with extremist views immigrated to the US and created a concentration of those with negative views on sex. The US has been behind in this evolution ever since.
So your child says to you "Fuck off!" Would you find it less offensive if your child said to you "I find your dabbling in my affairs to be inexcusable and demand that you desist. I don't care if you are my parent." Even though option 2 uses "clean" language, they both show an equal level of disrespect for you as a parent. That disrespect is the real problem, not the words.
Only if you can demonstrate that the kids alleged to be harmed actually know what fuck means. If it's just "a word you can't say in church", then there's no significant connection with sex.
A similar point is brought up in that transcript. Personally, I would like to know why any word is considered vulgar. Context is the only thing that gives meaning to the human language. You can say the same thing in two different contexts, and one way will really hurt someone's feelings, and the other hurts no one. I partially blame this way of looking at words for the lack of tact in much of society.
No one is denying your authority to determine what you will and will not allow your children to be exposed to. Many parents who do not like the idea of their children seeing what is on TV have a very simple solution; ditch the TV. You can't forever stop your kids from seeing the many things that are freely out there, you can only attempt to control the conditions under which they are exposed.
It's not so much that it isn't about sex. The arguments in the pdf continually pointed out that FUCK is a vulgar explicit word for sexual intercourse. So in this case about the word FUCK, sex is an issue. What I want to know is, why is a vulgar expression considered harmful over a non-vulgar expression.
Almost everyone here has completely missed my point. Certainly many youth will look to Obama as an inspiration. That does not mean that a black man becoming President of the US will stop people from insisting that they can't succeed "because they are black". Those who refuse to place blame regardless on themselves for a failure to meet challenges will always find some reason to lay blame elsewhere. That goes for people of all shapes, color, and size. I guarantee there will be those who point to Obama and say "Well he's not as black as I am", just as there are people who blame being born to non-wealthy parents as the cause of their failure.
I also blame everyone under 35, because we are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for ourselves.
I also blame everyone over 35, because they are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for themselves.
You would be correct about the Jews not voting for Hitler. However, not much of anyone voted for Hitler. He was appointed Vice Chancellor and seized power when President Hindenburg died in office by cleverly manipulating the elections of parliamentary members to ensure a NSDAP stronghold. He then got the parliament to pass a law giving the cabinet legislative powers.
No it won't. Obama is technically interracial. It should quell the interracial people from insisting they can't succeed, but it will do nothing for people insisting they can't succeed because they are black. You don't give people enough credit for finding ways to pass blame to things they are not in control of.
Be a nerd damnit. Mount an electric motor with a small rubber wheel to your rear wheel rim to generate current and then wire it to a 5V regulating circuit.
That's a pretty fair request. Though it's obvious typical politician speak to not give these details. The saddest part is, if they did, the majority of the voting population wouldn't be able to look at it objectively enough to understand. I for one think that the scope of health insurance has gone out of control. No other insurance that I know of pays for "routine maintenance". Insurance is for the tragic and unexpected. If your car is due for a transmission fluid flush, your auto insurance isn't going to drop a dime on it, though they might raise your premium if they find out that you are skipping the maintenance. Ultimately the cost of dealing with the insurance companies every day for routine checkups and care raises the prices. Insurance companies are cut a deal in exchange for being able to receive their patients while the uninsured has to pay the full un-discounted price. They can't lower prices for uninsured patients because that would be discrimination by extending different base prices to different patients for the same treatment. So prices have to go up to pay for the administration cost and to make sure that the average revenue stream (mostly from insurance companies) is able to pay the bills.
Too bad I can't meet these people first hand, review their insurance policy, and then talk to the insurance company about their reason for denying coverage. "First hand" is key here since Sicko isn't exactly an impartial documentary that seeks to communicate all of the information.
That's the service they offer. It's called the rule of large numbers. You alone cannot afford to pay if some horrible medical problem descends upon you. Even though it is not likely to happen, you don't want to be caught off guard. So you pay for insurance that you can afford. At the same time, the insurance company can lower their costs by bargaining low deals with health care providers by promising to send customers their way. Don't get me wrong, I think the health insurance system is broken and ultimately is raising the cost of health care to obscene prices, but to say that they offer nothing is a serious misunderstanding of what they do.
Seriously how often does this actually happen? I hear about it but have never known someone to have it happen. I know people who have recovered from breast cancer, a rare form of blood cancer and had a triple bypass surgery. They all had no problems with insurance. I seriously want to see one of these cases first hand so that I have all of the unspoken details from both sides.
Any Presidential candidate who throws out a planned date on something that needs to first go through Congress is just blowing smoke. Detailed numbers on such plans suffer from the same problem. Congress holds the ultimate authority on writing the final plan.
I don't see your face on the streets either buddy. The fact is, things need to get a LOT worse before people are going to be willing to revolt. In general, everyone still lives comfortably (even low-income households when compared to much of the rest of the world), so why would they want to risk their lives? The government knows this and for a long time to come will make sure that we live in general comfort despite any freedoms they take away. It's not like the American Revolutionary War rebels were all that popular among the other colonists even when the government WASNT ensuring the general comfort of the people.
How do they keep on saying Obama has no experience when he served as an Illinois State Senator for six years before serving as a US Senator? That's at least eight years of experience. That's more experience than many of our first Presidents had.
I am not a Democrat, and I do find experience to be at least somewhat important here. Namely that Obama has worldly experience, and Palin has experience appointing old high school chums to state government positions. I find it laughable that Republicans point to Obama's supposed lack of experience all the while raving about Palin. I think state governments should also be outraged that Republicans are saying that elected state government positions are not quality governmental experience.
It's not about the value of Iraqi lives. It's about looking after the interests of the US first and foremost. It's just not sensible for us to trash our own finances and risk our soldiers lives if it will cost us more in the end. Like a father or a mother, you don't put your family into ruin to save another family on the other side of the world. It's just outright irresponsible.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Al-Qaida. Are they the sort that would express support for the candidate they don't want, or the candidate that they do want? Now, a clever terrorist group would support the candidate thats bad for them, because they would know that only a great fool would vote for the candidate that a terrorist group supports. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose Obama. But they must have known I was not a great fool; they would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose McCain. But Al-Quaida comes from the Middle East, as everyone knows. And the Middle East is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose Obama. They've managed to survive years of combat, which means they're exceptionally strong. So, they could have endorsed the candidate they dont want, trusting on their strength to save them. So I can clearly not choose Obama. But, they've also destroyed the twin towers which means they must have studied. And in studying, they must have learned that man is mortal so they would have put the candidate they don't want as far from themselves as possible, so I can clearly not choose McCain.
Slashdot Mirror
Estimate the price of the time saved. When you have to be deployed to fix someone's desktop, you can usually assume that it would have been down for a day or more otherwise. That's 8 to 10 hours of their time, plus other people's time if anyone else is relying on their work. Manufacturing is usually a very fast paced world, and a day lost by someone usually translates to large losses. You should also consider a daily cost savings to preventative work. When you keep the servers running, what would be the likelihood of a major failure without that maintenance and what would an entire hour of server downtime cost the company. Imagine that everyone in the company has just had their productivity cut to 33% or less. In a moderately sized manufacturing facility, that can add up to millions within a day.
Not to mention that there are many peer reviewed articles showing that the elasticity of tendons and ligaments significantly increases with a little stretching, thereby reducing the chance of permanent injury. The fact that your power reduces as a result is only a concern to the most foolishly minded athlete who will not have an athletic career for long.
I think you're partially right here. I believe it would be more accurate to say that it is a stigma attached from the days of yore where Protestants immigrating from Europe brought a much more extreme view of sex as a "filthy" act. Europe was evolving to lighten up on their views of sex, and has continued to do so since. However, all of those groups with extremist views immigrated to the US and created a concentration of those with negative views on sex. The US has been behind in this evolution ever since.
So your child says to you "Fuck off!" Would you find it less offensive if your child said to you "I find your dabbling in my affairs to be inexcusable and demand that you desist. I don't care if you are my parent." Even though option 2 uses "clean" language, they both show an equal level of disrespect for you as a parent. That disrespect is the real problem, not the words.
Only if you can demonstrate that the kids alleged to be harmed actually know what fuck means. If it's just "a word you can't say in church", then there's no significant connection with sex.
A similar point is brought up in that transcript. Personally, I would like to know why any word is considered vulgar. Context is the only thing that gives meaning to the human language. You can say the same thing in two different contexts, and one way will really hurt someone's feelings, and the other hurts no one. I partially blame this way of looking at words for the lack of tact in much of society.
No one is denying your authority to determine what you will and will not allow your children to be exposed to. Many parents who do not like the idea of their children seeing what is on TV have a very simple solution; ditch the TV. You can't forever stop your kids from seeing the many things that are freely out there, you can only attempt to control the conditions under which they are exposed.
It's not so much that it isn't about sex. The arguments in the pdf continually pointed out that FUCK is a vulgar explicit word for sexual intercourse. So in this case about the word FUCK, sex is an issue. What I want to know is, why is a vulgar expression considered harmful over a non-vulgar expression.
Almost everyone here has completely missed my point. Certainly many youth will look to Obama as an inspiration. That does not mean that a black man becoming President of the US will stop people from insisting that they can't succeed "because they are black". Those who refuse to place blame regardless on themselves for a failure to meet challenges will always find some reason to lay blame elsewhere. That goes for people of all shapes, color, and size. I guarantee there will be those who point to Obama and say "Well he's not as black as I am", just as there are people who blame being born to non-wealthy parents as the cause of their failure.
I also blame everyone under 35, because we are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for ourselves.
I also blame everyone over 35, because they are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for themselves.
You would be correct about the Jews not voting for Hitler. However, not much of anyone voted for Hitler. He was appointed Vice Chancellor and seized power when President Hindenburg died in office by cleverly manipulating the elections of parliamentary members to ensure a NSDAP stronghold. He then got the parliament to pass a law giving the cabinet legislative powers.
No it won't. Obama is technically interracial. It should quell the interracial people from insisting they can't succeed, but it will do nothing for people insisting they can't succeed because they are black. You don't give people enough credit for finding ways to pass blame to things they are not in control of.
I'm sure that device is already patent pending.
Be a nerd damnit. Mount an electric motor with a small rubber wheel to your rear wheel rim to generate current and then wire it to a 5V regulating circuit.
Interesting. I can only guess at why this is not standard practice then.
That's a pretty fair request. Though it's obvious typical politician speak to not give these details. The saddest part is, if they did, the majority of the voting population wouldn't be able to look at it objectively enough to understand. I for one think that the scope of health insurance has gone out of control. No other insurance that I know of pays for "routine maintenance". Insurance is for the tragic and unexpected. If your car is due for a transmission fluid flush, your auto insurance isn't going to drop a dime on it, though they might raise your premium if they find out that you are skipping the maintenance. Ultimately the cost of dealing with the insurance companies every day for routine checkups and care raises the prices. Insurance companies are cut a deal in exchange for being able to receive their patients while the uninsured has to pay the full un-discounted price. They can't lower prices for uninsured patients because that would be discrimination by extending different base prices to different patients for the same treatment. So prices have to go up to pay for the administration cost and to make sure that the average revenue stream (mostly from insurance companies) is able to pay the bills.
Too bad I can't meet these people first hand, review their insurance policy, and then talk to the insurance company about their reason for denying coverage. "First hand" is key here since Sicko isn't exactly an impartial documentary that seeks to communicate all of the information.
That's the service they offer. It's called the rule of large numbers. You alone cannot afford to pay if some horrible medical problem descends upon you. Even though it is not likely to happen, you don't want to be caught off guard. So you pay for insurance that you can afford. At the same time, the insurance company can lower their costs by bargaining low deals with health care providers by promising to send customers their way. Don't get me wrong, I think the health insurance system is broken and ultimately is raising the cost of health care to obscene prices, but to say that they offer nothing is a serious misunderstanding of what they do.
Seriously how often does this actually happen? I hear about it but have never known someone to have it happen. I know people who have recovered from breast cancer, a rare form of blood cancer and had a triple bypass surgery. They all had no problems with insurance. I seriously want to see one of these cases first hand so that I have all of the unspoken details from both sides.
Any Presidential candidate who throws out a planned date on something that needs to first go through Congress is just blowing smoke. Detailed numbers on such plans suffer from the same problem. Congress holds the ultimate authority on writing the final plan.
Ask yourself: "what product do insurance companies offer in terms of health care?" What do they create? How do they contribute to health care?
They prevent you from bankruptcy should you come down with cancer or need an organ transplant.
I don't see your face on the streets either buddy. The fact is, things need to get a LOT worse before people are going to be willing to revolt. In general, everyone still lives comfortably (even low-income households when compared to much of the rest of the world), so why would they want to risk their lives? The government knows this and for a long time to come will make sure that we live in general comfort despite any freedoms they take away. It's not like the American Revolutionary War rebels were all that popular among the other colonists even when the government WASNT ensuring the general comfort of the people.
How do they keep on saying Obama has no experience when he served as an Illinois State Senator for six years before serving as a US Senator? That's at least eight years of experience. That's more experience than many of our first Presidents had.
I am not a Democrat, and I do find experience to be at least somewhat important here. Namely that Obama has worldly experience, and Palin has experience appointing old high school chums to state government positions. I find it laughable that Republicans point to Obama's supposed lack of experience all the while raving about Palin. I think state governments should also be outraged that Republicans are saying that elected state government positions are not quality governmental experience.
It's not about the value of Iraqi lives. It's about looking after the interests of the US first and foremost. It's just not sensible for us to trash our own finances and risk our soldiers lives if it will cost us more in the end. Like a father or a mother, you don't put your family into ruin to save another family on the other side of the world. It's just outright irresponsible.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Al-Qaida. Are they the sort that would express support for the candidate they don't want, or the candidate that they do want? Now, a clever terrorist group would support the candidate thats bad for them, because they would know that only a great fool would vote for the candidate that a terrorist group supports. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose Obama. But they must have known I was not a great fool; they would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose McCain. But Al-Quaida comes from the Middle East, as everyone knows. And the Middle East is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose Obama. They've managed to survive years of combat, which means they're exceptionally strong. So, they could have endorsed the candidate they dont want, trusting on their strength to save them. So I can clearly not choose Obama. But, they've also destroyed the twin towers which means they must have studied. And in studying, they must have learned that man is mortal so they would have put the candidate they don't want as far from themselves as possible, so I can clearly not choose McCain.