With companies and meetings, a handful is plenty. I have learned that meetings are the same at any level, in companies of any size.
With medications and reactions to them, a handful is plenty. I have learned in clinical trials that reactions are the same for any individual, and there's no chance of side effects.
If your experience with company internal meetings covers a statistically significant representative sample of corporations, you need to learn to keep a job for more than a week.
I hate to use a cliche, but it was a different time back in George Washington's day. Washington also had fairly large, lucrative property holdings- tobacco is a lucrative industry today, and in his time the industry wasn't taxed at anywhere close to modern levels.
His co-ownership of something over 10,000 acres of tobacco plantation is basically equivalent to being a majority stockholder in %MAJORCORPORATION% today ANYWAY. Which isn't to say that this was a bad thing at the time, but he wasn't exactly hurting for the cash for his presidency either...
So politicians shouldn't make money then? Do you have any idea what the implication of that is?
You may not realize it, but pretty much any political position involves a significant investment of time. However misguided or untrustworthy you consider their actions to be, it still represents a significant amount of time on their part.
Enough that a full time job along side it isn't an option. So do you expect everyone who works in politics to work a part time job on the side to cover costs? Do you seriously believe that they would be able to earn a living wage doing this?
No, fact of the matter is, if politicians weren't paid for their positions, it would just mean more bribery, best case. Worst case, the only ones able to actually maintain a political position would need to have a large corporation of some form backing them. We have enough bribery and corporate lobbying going on as is. Do you REALLY want to make it a requirement for all politicians? It's bad enough that so many do it ANYWAY.
Why should someone suffer repercussions for lying to Congress, when the members of Congress themselves face no repercussions for lying to their constituents? Just Playing Devil's Advocate.
A contradiction in terms? On what do you base that claim exactly? Someone who has a crime on their record is a criminal, regardless of whether they're actively breaking the law or not. If you've ever paid a speeding ticket rather than (successfully) contesting it in court, you are by definition a law-abiding criminal.
Similarly, Anyone who takes any form of game seriously would meet the definition of 'serious gamer;' professional sports come to mind, as well as the 'serious business' gaming crowd. And one can be dedicated without being serious, just as one can take something seriously without being particularly dedicated to it.
Yeah... except using an incorrect adverb doesn't qualify one as semi-literate. And fact of the matter is, the average individual does NOT have a full and complete understanding even of his or her native tongue. Hell, I'd say that even an individual with a doctorate in linguistics is likely to occasionally misuse words.
As far as "only so many jobs" goes, theres always government...
These are offerings never intended to be executed. And these offerings are so far off of market value, there's no way to discern anything at all about market value from them.
And from the SUMMARY (emphasis mine):
Often
, the buy or sell prices that they are offering are so far from the market price that there's no way they'd ever be part of a trade
My short response? A slashdot cliche, [citation needed]. Exactly what leads you to believe you can discern the INTENT here?
That aside, your statement implies the word 'All,' when the wording in just the summary is 'Often.' 'Often,' to me, implies that some of the trades are in fact within a decent range of the actual buy/sell price of the stock.
This is pretty ridiculous. Margin of victory? Is there a committee overseeing ethical treatment of chess pieces now? If I sacrifice everything but my King and a Bishop to checkmate you, why is that intrinsically a better strategy than sparing some of my pieces?
There are definite merits to a sacrificial strategy- it's all about board control. Long as theres more than one or two legal moves available to your opponent, you can't really predict where he'll send his pieces. A queen in the middle of the board can cover a lot of distance and do some impressive maneuvers, but any given piece only occupies one spot. Control where your opponent moves, control the game. Not to mention that less pieces on the board gives you more options for where to move with your remaining pieces, and by allowing your pieces to be taken, you have a measure of control over where the free space on the board is.
Indeed, given the rules of the game, I would say a strategy that goes to great lengths to preserve as many of ones own pieces as possible is flawed...
Times however many unsuccessful attempts are allowed before lockout, typically 3.
Re:Responsibility about who you are
on
The End of Forgetting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And who says THEY posted the picture? On facebook, for example, any and all pictures you have been tagged in can be linked to through your profile. You have the option to remove your name from the tags in a picture, but those can be readily re-added, and there is still a time delay between when you are tagged in the picture, when (and if!) you receive the notification that you were tagged in the picture, and when you can remove the tag. Facebooks notification's aren't as good as they could be- I had a photo of my car, with license plate visible, and something legal but VERY morally questionable depicted in the picture- I was not present in the picture, not was I aware the picture even existed, and I missed the tag notification. A week later, someone commented on the photo and I got THAT notification, but I have no way of knowing how many individuals saw the picture in question in the interim...
I don't believe acting like an idiot while intoxicated is mutually exclusive from being reasonably intelligent when sober. Some may argue that an intelligent person would not partake in drinking, but I would argue there is significant historical evidence to the contrary. I would also question where the person making said statement came upon the authority to make blanket statements linking all instances of an activity to low intelligence.
Who honestly reads playboy for the PICTURES these days? I dunno about everyone else, but I find the myriad free videos available online to be vastly superior to any still image, much less the glossy airbrushed crap playboy brings to the table.
On the other hand, at least in years past, Playboy has had some phenomenal articles- both serious, semi-serious, and just funny. I know they used to run a jokes page as well which was always good for laughs.
I haven't actually held a playboy for a long time now, but my point is the same- why pay for stills when you can get video free?
"Name one other profession or trade or area of expertise where expert advice is so routinely ignored for such trivial reasons. It doesn't happen with doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics or insurance agents."
Actually, advice from all of those fields is frequently ignored. Particularly doctors- I think far more people ignore sound medical advice than sound IT advice. Lawyers? I think if more people listened to the advice of their legal counsel, far fewer people would be in jail. Electricians, Plumbers, and Auto Mechanics? Regardless of how often it actually occurs, these professions are known for exploiting lack of knowledge on their clients behalf to charge extra. Even when the advice is sound and legitimate, it's not always worth the cost to do things as advised. As for Insurance Agents, well, I've never personally met one who was even the slightest bit convincing in regards to having my best interests in mind...
As I understand it... Accuracy, in terms of clocks, is instantaneous; how close it is to what is accepted as the 'correct' time.
Precision, on the other hand, is consistency in how it measures time. (ie, 10 seconds as counted by the clock is always the same timeframe)
There are cases where a clock that isn't perfectly accurate is useful (ie. setting a chronically late persons clock 10 minutes ahead to compensate for lateness), but there aren't many cases where a less precise clock could have utility over a more precise one.
Any clock can be accurate at any given moment, as you can set it to the current time, but a more precise clock will require less adjustment over time. If you lose 1 minute per year on your clock, it needs adjustment far less than if you lose 1 minute per day.
The same reason you do- despite the fact that you made dumb decisions (possibly influenced by alcohol) at a younger age that may or may not have had lasting repercussions.
Show me someone who never made a dumb decision in their youth and I'll show you either a liar or an amnesiac.
"Your reality; remember, you said it yourself, some people just can't comprehend some things, no matter how real or inevitable it may be.
It may be difficult for you to accept your own theories! After all, as a young child you couldn't accept basic realities as you've already pointed out!"
I think you're lacking some comprehension here. This isn't a question of my reality vs. your reality, or anything to that effect. The reality is that everyone makes poor decisions at times, ranging from slightly misguided to what you would call moronic. This is particularly the case in kids, regardless of intellect. While a higher IQ does seem to correlate overall to a reduction in the number and relative magnitude of poor decisions, there are still innumerable cases of intelligent, rational people making terrible decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, otherwise intelligent individuals becoming addicted to nicotine.
Certainly, more intelligent kids are less likely to start smoking, but labeling anyone and everyone who smokes as a moron is a pretty gross exaggeration and generalization.
Kudos on the dishonest debate tactics though.
Is there an actual defensible opinion somewhere in there? It's hard to see past all the straw man tactics and circular reasoning...
That is to say, regular driving will not inevitably lead to an accident- it just greatly increases your risks. Whereas smoking regularly will inevitably lead to addiction. It's not a question of 'if,' its a question of 'when,' and it's not immediately apparent when it occurs. I don't know of any smoker who can point to a specific point and say 'this is when I became addicted.' Some, like myself, can narrow it down to a timeframe, but even then who's to say thats accurate? I attribute my addiction to a smoking when drinking habit, and my drinking becoming too frequent, but its entirely possible I was already mildly addicted before that, and was just drinking often enough that I wasn't experiencing withdrawal.
There are only two ways to avoid nicotine addiction. The first, and the only sure way, is to never imbibe. The second is to quit outright before addiction sets in- and I don't believe there's a workable way to assess that ahead of time.
Slashdot Mirror
With companies and meetings, a handful is plenty. I have learned that meetings are the same at any level, in companies of any size.
With medications and reactions to them, a handful is plenty. I have learned in clinical trials that reactions are the same for any individual, and there's no chance of side effects.
If your experience with company internal meetings covers a statistically significant representative sample of corporations, you need to learn to keep a job for more than a week.
I was born in 83. Gimme ur lunch money, kid!
I hate to use a cliche, but it was a different time back in George Washington's day. Washington also had fairly large, lucrative property holdings- tobacco is a lucrative industry today, and in his time the industry wasn't taxed at anywhere close to modern levels.
His co-ownership of something over 10,000 acres of tobacco plantation is basically equivalent to being a majority stockholder in %MAJORCORPORATION% today ANYWAY. Which isn't to say that this was a bad thing at the time, but he wasn't exactly hurting for the cash for his presidency either...
Hey, come on now, let me feed the trolls in peace! If noone feeds them, I worry that they may go extinct, and where will we be without the GNAA?
So politicians shouldn't make money then? Do you have any idea what the implication of that is?
You may not realize it, but pretty much any political position involves a significant investment of time. However misguided or untrustworthy you consider their actions to be, it still represents a significant amount of time on their part.
Enough that a full time job along side it isn't an option. So do you expect everyone who works in politics to work a part time job on the side to cover costs? Do you seriously believe that they would be able to earn a living wage doing this?
No, fact of the matter is, if politicians weren't paid for their positions, it would just mean more bribery, best case. Worst case, the only ones able to actually maintain a political position would need to have a large corporation of some form backing them. We have enough bribery and corporate lobbying going on as is. Do you REALLY want to make it a requirement for all politicians? It's bad enough that so many do it ANYWAY.
Why should someone suffer repercussions for lying to Congress, when the members of Congress themselves face no repercussions for lying to their constituents? Just Playing Devil's Advocate.
A contradiction in terms? On what do you base that claim exactly? Someone who has a crime on their record is a criminal, regardless of whether they're actively breaking the law or not. If you've ever paid a speeding ticket rather than (successfully) contesting it in court, you are by definition a law-abiding criminal.
Similarly, Anyone who takes any form of game seriously would meet the definition of 'serious gamer;' professional sports come to mind, as well as the 'serious business' gaming crowd. And one can be dedicated without being serious, just as one can take something seriously without being particularly dedicated to it.
Yeah... except using an incorrect adverb doesn't qualify one as semi-literate. And fact of the matter is, the average individual does NOT have a full and complete understanding even of his or her native tongue. Hell, I'd say that even an individual with a doctorate in linguistics is likely to occasionally misuse words.
As far as "only so many jobs" goes, theres always government...
These are offerings never intended to be executed. And these offerings are so far off of market value, there's no way to discern anything at all about market value from them.
And from the SUMMARY (emphasis mine):
, the buy or sell prices that they are offering are so far from the market price that there's no way they'd ever be part of a trade
My short response? A slashdot cliche, [citation needed]. Exactly what leads you to believe you can discern the INTENT here?
That aside, your statement implies the word 'All,' when the wording in just the summary is 'Often.' 'Often,' to me, implies that some of the trades are in fact within a decent range of the actual buy/sell price of the stock.
This is pretty ridiculous. Margin of victory? Is there a committee overseeing ethical treatment of chess pieces now? If I sacrifice everything but my King and a Bishop to checkmate you, why is that intrinsically a better strategy than sparing some of my pieces?
There are definite merits to a sacrificial strategy- it's all about board control. Long as theres more than one or two legal moves available to your opponent, you can't really predict where he'll send his pieces. A queen in the middle of the board can cover a lot of distance and do some impressive maneuvers, but any given piece only occupies one spot. Control where your opponent moves, control the game. Not to mention that less pieces on the board gives you more options for where to move with your remaining pieces, and by allowing your pieces to be taken, you have a measure of control over where the free space on the board is.
Indeed, given the rules of the game, I would say a strategy that goes to great lengths to preserve as many of ones own pieces as possible is flawed...
Times however many unsuccessful attempts are allowed before lockout, typically 3.
And who says THEY posted the picture? On facebook, for example, any and all pictures you have been tagged in can be linked to through your profile. You have the option to remove your name from the tags in a picture, but those can be readily re-added, and there is still a time delay between when you are tagged in the picture, when (and if!) you receive the notification that you were tagged in the picture, and when you can remove the tag. Facebooks notification's aren't as good as they could be- I had a photo of my car, with license plate visible, and something legal but VERY morally questionable depicted in the picture- I was not present in the picture, not was I aware the picture even existed, and I missed the tag notification. A week later, someone commented on the photo and I got THAT notification, but I have no way of knowing how many individuals saw the picture in question in the interim...
I don't believe acting like an idiot while intoxicated is mutually exclusive from being reasonably intelligent when sober. Some may argue that an intelligent person would not partake in drinking, but I would argue there is significant historical evidence to the contrary. I would also question where the person making said statement came upon the authority to make blanket statements linking all instances of an activity to low intelligence.
Who honestly reads playboy for the PICTURES these days? I dunno about everyone else, but I find the myriad free videos available online to be vastly superior to any still image, much less the glossy airbrushed crap playboy brings to the table.
On the other hand, at least in years past, Playboy has had some phenomenal articles- both serious, semi-serious, and just funny. I know they used to run a jokes page as well which was always good for laughs.
I haven't actually held a playboy for a long time now, but my point is the same- why pay for stills when you can get video free?
Would love to do something like this, but my firstborn is due October 17th. Go figure...
We may not blame Ford for that, but cops DO start looking out for Mustangs at sobriety checkpoints.
I beg to differ...
"Name one other profession or trade or area of expertise where expert advice is so routinely ignored for such trivial reasons. It doesn't happen with doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics or insurance agents."
Actually, advice from all of those fields is frequently ignored. Particularly doctors- I think far more people ignore sound medical advice than sound IT advice. Lawyers? I think if more people listened to the advice of their legal counsel, far fewer people would be in jail. Electricians, Plumbers, and Auto Mechanics? Regardless of how often it actually occurs, these professions are known for exploiting lack of knowledge on their clients behalf to charge extra. Even when the advice is sound and legitimate, it's not always worth the cost to do things as advised. As for Insurance Agents, well, I've never personally met one who was even the slightest bit convincing in regards to having my best interests in mind...
As I understand it... Accuracy, in terms of clocks, is instantaneous; how close it is to what is accepted as the 'correct' time.
Precision, on the other hand, is consistency in how it measures time. (ie, 10 seconds as counted by the clock is always the same timeframe)
There are cases where a clock that isn't perfectly accurate is useful (ie. setting a chronically late persons clock 10 minutes ahead to compensate for lateness), but there aren't many cases where a less precise clock could have utility over a more precise one.
Any clock can be accurate at any given moment, as you can set it to the current time, but a more precise clock will require less adjustment over time. If you lose 1 minute per year on your clock, it needs adjustment far less than if you lose 1 minute per day.
The same reason you do- despite the fact that you made dumb decisions (possibly influenced by alcohol) at a younger age that may or may not have had lasting repercussions.
Show me someone who never made a dumb decision in their youth and I'll show you either a liar or an amnesiac.
"Your reality; remember, you said it yourself, some people just can't comprehend some things, no matter how real or inevitable it may be.
It may be difficult for you to accept your own theories! After all, as a young child you couldn't accept basic realities as you've already pointed out!"
I think you're lacking some comprehension here. This isn't a question of my reality vs. your reality, or anything to that effect. The reality is that everyone makes poor decisions at times, ranging from slightly misguided to what you would call moronic. This is particularly the case in kids, regardless of intellect. While a higher IQ does seem to correlate overall to a reduction in the number and relative magnitude of poor decisions, there are still innumerable cases of intelligent, rational people making terrible decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, otherwise intelligent individuals becoming addicted to nicotine.
Certainly, more intelligent kids are less likely to start smoking, but labeling anyone and everyone who smokes as a moron is a pretty gross exaggeration and generalization.
Kudos on the dishonest debate tactics though.
Is there an actual defensible opinion somewhere in there? It's hard to see past all the straw man tactics and circular reasoning...
"smart people just don't start smoking in the first place"
[citation needed]
Reality appears counter to your claims.
That is to say, regular driving will not inevitably lead to an accident- it just greatly increases your risks. Whereas smoking regularly will inevitably lead to addiction. It's not a question of 'if,' its a question of 'when,' and it's not immediately apparent when it occurs. I don't know of any smoker who can point to a specific point and say 'this is when I became addicted.' Some, like myself, can narrow it down to a timeframe, but even then who's to say thats accurate? I attribute my addiction to a smoking when drinking habit, and my drinking becoming too frequent, but its entirely possible I was already mildly addicted before that, and was just drinking often enough that I wasn't experiencing withdrawal.
There are only two ways to avoid nicotine addiction. The first, and the only sure way, is to never imbibe. The second is to quit outright before addiction sets in- and I don't believe there's a workable way to assess that ahead of time.