Actually, I believe you mean Humphreys.
Tea Room Trade is what the study was called. (I believe that was his dissertation)
It was also published as a book under the same name, I believe, with some sort of subtitle that I don't remember.
I understand your logic, but...
without a browser, how exactly would you GET a browser? Do you happen to have a CD with Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Whatever browser you use sitting around?
Remember, there isn't a way to download programs in Windows like the package management software in linux.
You need a browser to get a browser.
Now, they should make it easy to UNINSTALL their browser once you have a different one, but that's a different story.
It's not illegal.
BUT it was CC's policy (at least up until a year or so ago when I stopped working for them) to match the shelf-listed price (as long as it was for the right item, occasionally an item would get moved to the wrong peg or whatever and that couldn't be honored, because customers would try to screw over the store). Company policy was to match the shelf-price.
But that was their policy. Their price-match "plus" was exactly what you say you want. If you found it at another store, you got it at that price minus 10% of the difference (if it was $90 somewhere else and $100 at CC, it was $89 after the price-match).
Families are destabilized as much or more by the fact that it's a crime to use drugs than the effects of drugs.
I know plenty of people who use drugs and drive now. I yell at them about it all the time. I try the "you'll hurt people" argument and it doesn't work any more than it does with people who are drinking and driving. With drinking and driving I can always use the "What if you get caught? Just let me drive you home" excuse and it works wonders. However, with drugs I often get "I won't get in much worse trouble if I'm caught driving than if I'm caught standing around here...I'm out." If it's legal to take and illegal to drive on, driving while on the substance will probably decrease, as people are less prone to commit a crime if they are NOT currently committing a different one.
Much of what is "extra detritus" now will rise up out of using welfare if drugs are not illegal. Many families are only ON welfare because one of the family members (usually the father, increasingly the mother as well, though)got arrested because of drug use. If this person did not get arrested, they may have gotten a job and been able to get their family off of welfare.
Maybe PCP is, I don't know enough about that particular drug and it's long-term effects, potential for abuse, and potential for overdose.
LSD is not NEAR as dangerous as nutmeg. I did some research on nutmeg a few years ago and that stuff can be DANGEROUS. You are MUCH more likely to cause permanent damage to yourself with nutmeg than with LSD, mentally OR physically.
Luckily, it's apparently so hard to get down pure nutmeg that it's not often abused, but...yeah...nutmeg is on a very different danger level than LSD.
There's a difference in "harm to society at large" when applied to recreational drugs vs. antibiotics.
Recreational drugs only "harm to society at large" is that a relatively small number of people will overdose and die or use them to such an extent that they become worthless. (There's also the argument about the "morals" of society, but that's a different beast). Assuming no driving while intoxicated (which would be against the law, either way) or something similar, it really only causes physical harm to one person.
Rampant antibiotic use without doctor supervision could lead to more antibiotic-resistant diseases. This will cause physical harm to MANY, MANY people, including the many who would NOT use antibiotics without a doctor's supervision.
There's a difference in regulating the medicines that doctors and pharmacists spend years in school (and out of school, they have to take continuing education classes ALL the freaking time) to learn how to treat you properly and regulating the things we use for recreational purposes.
Now, if you want to make the argument that things like opiates should be unregulated because they can be used recreationally and they don't physically harm anyone other than the one who uses them, that's a fair argument (for many substances, not just opiates). However, abusing penicillin has negative physical consequences on everyone and is never done "for fun." It would only be done by someone's attempt to cure themselves without seeing a doctor...it would be like someone deciding to repair a damaged bridge themselves with no training because it was the way they used to get to work, engineers go to school to do that, just as doctors go to school to repair YOUR body.
The harm of 1 almost definitely does outweigh the harm of 2 in a general sense.
The harm of 2 hurts only one person at a time, the harm of 1 hurts society as a whole.
If everyone avoided doctors when they were deathly ill, then 2 would be an issue that could hurt society, but that's not the case, when you get sick enough that you NEED an antibiotic (not just want one), chances are you will go to the doctor. Even for the people who don't, most of that is because of costs and because they wouldn't know exactly which antibiotic to use anyway. So if antibiotics were available and just going and grabbing one was cheaper than a doctor's visit, then people would go out, possibly get the wrong drug and still die.
That would be a best case scenario.
But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you."
Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.
That "lowest amount of money you can have per month to live" is another measure of poverty in the U.S. (And the rest of the world for that matter)
There are two types of poor, if I'm remembering Relative poverty is the "lowest X%" in a given population. That is what was mentioned before as the poor being the "lowest 10%". It is relative to the money in that population and by THAT definition, you WILL always have a set percentage be poor and a set percentage not be poor. Absolute poverty, on the other hand, is based on how much money one needs to live in an area and meet their basic needs. Now different governments and different social scientists use different numbers for different groups of people as to where the poverty line is....but it's there and that means there IS a way to determine who is 'poor' other than the lowest 10% of people.
Using MGS4 as an example of a game that is huge for a reason other than cutscenes is NOT a good idea. This is the game that has MULTIPLE (that's right MORE THAN ONE) cutscene OVER 90 MINUTES.
That means that even if there were only 2 and they were the only cutscenes in the game, you'd be looking at over 3 hours of video.
This means MGS4 has a LOT of space out of that 50GB dedicated to cutscenes.
If your kids are separated from you at a theme park that you are obviously also at (If the parents had their phone taken away by the park, they are there, the park won't have a policy to take the smart phones of parents whose kids are at the park alone) why the Hell would you send a stranger to pick the child up?
That DOESN'T mean that they will be keeping it forever. I'm sure if you refuse, they won't physically grab it out of your hands, they'll probably just kick you out of the park.
And it all comes down to reading the articles. One article says you will be asked to place them in a special zone, the other two say it will be taken away from you. In effect, these are the same thing if they are returned to you when you leave (which they would be or this place would almost definitely be facing some sort of consequences).
That's the thing though, the 'rehireable' ISN'T based on opinion. Usually the company has strict guidelines as to whether someone's status is rehireable or not. Just because your status is rehireable doesn't mean that they WOULD rehire you, it's just that the company would allow someone to hire you back if they so chose. Things like stealing, not putting in your notice, getting written up too many times....these things can place you on that list.
Ahh, you forgot one important thing.
Most companies also mention whether or not you are "rehireable" but won't necessarily say why.
Not giving notice, or just fucking around after you give notice, can get you put into the "not rehireable" category.
And as far as the company asking the previous employer knows, that means you committed major transgressions and were fired. You want to make SURE you are rehireable, not because you want a job there again one day, but because you MIGHT want a job somewhere else one day.
The quotas don't actually matter nearly as much as a lot of people think. There is an exception-rule, in that if you have family members in the States, you can immigrate here no matter what the quota. Since the majority of immigrants to our country (legal and illegal) actually DO have family here, the quotas aren't nearly as big a deal as some make them out to be. (I think that's one reason they've stayed so low...the number of immigrants naturally increases as more people have family here)
What about those whose parents were, for example, Haitian?
Try calling a Haitian-American "African American" and see how quickly you get slapped.
Black seems to offend much less people if you're in an area where people often come from the islands. (note: I live in Florida)
I think it's more laziness/miscommunication amongst the employees for many of those retailers. I used to work at Circuit City and it was AGES ago that we were "required" to put up those signs in our store. Our store did it, but I know from walking into other stores that they didn't. And I know for a fact it's the same with Best Buy and Wal-Mart because I have friends who work or worked for them within the last year. I think it more comes to lack of execution on the local level, rather than a corporate level.
They only did that because the casinos want to make more money and so will throw people out who are playing the game in a way that improves their chances. They have the right to throw them out, but that's why they had to disguise themselves.
Some people do a LOT of their web-browsing with their mouse. From what I've seen (I did some repair work for a while and would often have people SHOW me what their problem was, which means I saw their habits), this is actually quite probably the majority of 'regular people.' This means that they often only have one hand on the keyboard (and one on the mouse). For those people, the horribly named Awesomebar is MUCH more convenient than browser history. They have to either move their other hand to the keyboard (which adds a step) OR click View->Sidebars->History which is adding more than one step.
Popular brands have more failures.
You are reading it as "Popular brands have a higher failure rate" which is not necessarily true and not even close to what he was saying.
If I sell a product with a 1% failure rate and sell 6 million units I am almost definitely going to have MORE FAILURES than the shitty product with a 50% failure rate if they only sell 5,000 units
I never said that you would fully resolve the distance of a picture. I just said to see a noticeable difference. And trust me, at 10 feet, you can STILL see a noticeable difference. I promise. I've done it, on more than one occasion.
A-hem.
Go to someone's house who has, say, a 32" HD LCDTV (or Plasma).
Look at something that is NOT HD on the television.
Now, play something that IS in HD (a Blu-ray disc, HDTV channel, whatever).
Now, within any REASONABLE distance, if you don't have terrible vision (like, needing -4.0 or more contacts and not having them)...you WILL notice a difference.
And I know he said "no matter what the viewing distance"...but let's just do it in reasonable distances...unless your living room is HUGE then you won't be viewing it from far enough away to be considered unreasonable, and if your living room IS that big, then go ahead and buy yourselfa 60+" television because you have the room for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I believe you mean Humphreys. Tea Room Trade is what the study was called. (I believe that was his dissertation) It was also published as a book under the same name, I believe, with some sort of subtitle that I don't remember.
I understand your logic, but... without a browser, how exactly would you GET a browser? Do you happen to have a CD with Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Whatever browser you use sitting around? Remember, there isn't a way to download programs in Windows like the package management software in linux. You need a browser to get a browser. Now, they should make it easy to UNINSTALL their browser once you have a different one, but that's a different story.
It's not illegal. BUT it was CC's policy (at least up until a year or so ago when I stopped working for them) to match the shelf-listed price (as long as it was for the right item, occasionally an item would get moved to the wrong peg or whatever and that couldn't be honored, because customers would try to screw over the store). Company policy was to match the shelf-price.
But that was their policy. Their price-match "plus" was exactly what you say you want. If you found it at another store, you got it at that price minus 10% of the difference (if it was $90 somewhere else and $100 at CC, it was $89 after the price-match).
Families are destabilized as much or more by the fact that it's a crime to use drugs than the effects of drugs. I know plenty of people who use drugs and drive now. I yell at them about it all the time. I try the "you'll hurt people" argument and it doesn't work any more than it does with people who are drinking and driving. With drinking and driving I can always use the "What if you get caught? Just let me drive you home" excuse and it works wonders. However, with drugs I often get "I won't get in much worse trouble if I'm caught driving than if I'm caught standing around here...I'm out." If it's legal to take and illegal to drive on, driving while on the substance will probably decrease, as people are less prone to commit a crime if they are NOT currently committing a different one. Much of what is "extra detritus" now will rise up out of using welfare if drugs are not illegal. Many families are only ON welfare because one of the family members (usually the father, increasingly the mother as well, though)got arrested because of drug use. If this person did not get arrested, they may have gotten a job and been able to get their family off of welfare.
Maybe PCP is, I don't know enough about that particular drug and it's long-term effects, potential for abuse, and potential for overdose. LSD is not NEAR as dangerous as nutmeg. I did some research on nutmeg a few years ago and that stuff can be DANGEROUS. You are MUCH more likely to cause permanent damage to yourself with nutmeg than with LSD, mentally OR physically. Luckily, it's apparently so hard to get down pure nutmeg that it's not often abused, but...yeah...nutmeg is on a very different danger level than LSD.
There's a difference in "harm to society at large" when applied to recreational drugs vs. antibiotics. Recreational drugs only "harm to society at large" is that a relatively small number of people will overdose and die or use them to such an extent that they become worthless. (There's also the argument about the "morals" of society, but that's a different beast). Assuming no driving while intoxicated (which would be against the law, either way) or something similar, it really only causes physical harm to one person. Rampant antibiotic use without doctor supervision could lead to more antibiotic-resistant diseases. This will cause physical harm to MANY, MANY people, including the many who would NOT use antibiotics without a doctor's supervision. There's a difference in regulating the medicines that doctors and pharmacists spend years in school (and out of school, they have to take continuing education classes ALL the freaking time) to learn how to treat you properly and regulating the things we use for recreational purposes. Now, if you want to make the argument that things like opiates should be unregulated because they can be used recreationally and they don't physically harm anyone other than the one who uses them, that's a fair argument (for many substances, not just opiates). However, abusing penicillin has negative physical consequences on everyone and is never done "for fun." It would only be done by someone's attempt to cure themselves without seeing a doctor...it would be like someone deciding to repair a damaged bridge themselves with no training because it was the way they used to get to work, engineers go to school to do that, just as doctors go to school to repair YOUR body.
The harm of 1 almost definitely does outweigh the harm of 2 in a general sense. The harm of 2 hurts only one person at a time, the harm of 1 hurts society as a whole. If everyone avoided doctors when they were deathly ill, then 2 would be an issue that could hurt society, but that's not the case, when you get sick enough that you NEED an antibiotic (not just want one), chances are you will go to the doctor. Even for the people who don't, most of that is because of costs and because they wouldn't know exactly which antibiotic to use anyway. So if antibiotics were available and just going and grabbing one was cheaper than a doctor's visit, then people would go out, possibly get the wrong drug and still die.
That would be a best case scenario. But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you." Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.
That "lowest amount of money you can have per month to live" is another measure of poverty in the U.S. (And the rest of the world for that matter)
There are two types of poor, if I'm remembering
Relative poverty is the "lowest X%" in a given population. That is what was mentioned before as the poor being the "lowest 10%". It is relative to the money in that population and by THAT definition, you WILL always have a set percentage be poor and a set percentage not be poor.
Absolute poverty, on the other hand, is based on how much money one needs to live in an area and meet their basic needs. Now different governments and different social scientists use different numbers for different groups of people as to where the poverty line is....but it's there and that means there IS a way to determine who is 'poor' other than the lowest 10% of people.
Using MGS4 as an example of a game that is huge for a reason other than cutscenes is NOT a good idea.
This is the game that has MULTIPLE (that's right MORE THAN ONE) cutscene OVER 90 MINUTES.
That means that even if there were only 2 and they were the only cutscenes in the game, you'd be looking at over 3 hours of video.
This means MGS4 has a LOT of space out of that 50GB dedicated to cutscenes.
If your kids are separated from you at a theme park that you are obviously also at (If the parents had their phone taken away by the park, they are there, the park won't have a policy to take the smart phones of parents whose kids are at the park alone) why the Hell would you send a stranger to pick the child up?
That DOESN'T mean that they will be keeping it forever. I'm sure if you refuse, they won't physically grab it out of your hands, they'll probably just kick you out of the park. And it all comes down to reading the articles. One article says you will be asked to place them in a special zone, the other two say it will be taken away from you. In effect, these are the same thing if they are returned to you when you leave (which they would be or this place would almost definitely be facing some sort of consequences).
That's the thing though, the 'rehireable' ISN'T based on opinion. Usually the company has strict guidelines as to whether someone's status is rehireable or not. Just because your status is rehireable doesn't mean that they WOULD rehire you, it's just that the company would allow someone to hire you back if they so chose. Things like stealing, not putting in your notice, getting written up too many times....these things can place you on that list.
Ahh, you forgot one important thing. Most companies also mention whether or not you are "rehireable" but won't necessarily say why. Not giving notice, or just fucking around after you give notice, can get you put into the "not rehireable" category. And as far as the company asking the previous employer knows, that means you committed major transgressions and were fired. You want to make SURE you are rehireable, not because you want a job there again one day, but because you MIGHT want a job somewhere else one day.
The quotas don't actually matter nearly as much as a lot of people think. There is an exception-rule, in that if you have family members in the States, you can immigrate here no matter what the quota. Since the majority of immigrants to our country (legal and illegal) actually DO have family here, the quotas aren't nearly as big a deal as some make them out to be. (I think that's one reason they've stayed so low...the number of immigrants naturally increases as more people have family here)
What about those whose parents were, for example, Haitian? Try calling a Haitian-American "African American" and see how quickly you get slapped. Black seems to offend much less people if you're in an area where people often come from the islands. (note: I live in Florida)
I think it's more laziness/miscommunication amongst the employees for many of those retailers. I used to work at Circuit City and it was AGES ago that we were "required" to put up those signs in our store. Our store did it, but I know from walking into other stores that they didn't. And I know for a fact it's the same with Best Buy and Wal-Mart because I have friends who work or worked for them within the last year. I think it more comes to lack of execution on the local level, rather than a corporate level.
They only did that because the casinos want to make more money and so will throw people out who are playing the game in a way that improves their chances. They have the right to throw them out, but that's why they had to disguise themselves.
Because I interpreted it the way it was meant, NOT the way I felt would most prove my point.
Some people do a LOT of their web-browsing with their mouse. From what I've seen (I did some repair work for a while and would often have people SHOW me what their problem was, which means I saw their habits), this is actually quite probably the majority of 'regular people.' This means that they often only have one hand on the keyboard (and one on the mouse). For those people, the horribly named Awesomebar is MUCH more convenient than browser history. They have to either move their other hand to the keyboard (which adds a step) OR click View->Sidebars->History which is adding more than one step.
Popular brands have more failures. You are reading it as "Popular brands have a higher failure rate" which is not necessarily true and not even close to what he was saying. If I sell a product with a 1% failure rate and sell 6 million units I am almost definitely going to have MORE FAILURES than the shitty product with a 50% failure rate if they only sell 5,000 units
Well, ignoring the fact that he WASN'T saying the US is the center of the world... If he HAD been, how exactly would that make him RACIST?
I never said that you would fully resolve the distance of a picture. I just said to see a noticeable difference. And trust me, at 10 feet, you can STILL see a noticeable difference. I promise. I've done it, on more than one occasion.
A-hem. Go to someone's house who has, say, a 32" HD LCDTV (or Plasma). Look at something that is NOT HD on the television. Now, play something that IS in HD (a Blu-ray disc, HDTV channel, whatever). Now, within any REASONABLE distance, if you don't have terrible vision (like, needing -4.0 or more contacts and not having them)...you WILL notice a difference. And I know he said "no matter what the viewing distance"...but let's just do it in reasonable distances...unless your living room is HUGE then you won't be viewing it from far enough away to be considered unreasonable, and if your living room IS that big, then go ahead and buy yourselfa 60+" television because you have the room for it.