What happens if all the members of that team are above average in terms of company wide productivity? Or you have a weak team where all of them are below average? You lose one of the better employees and one of the worst employees. But, it's not even a break even situation as stress and burn out will affect the stronger team more than the weak team.
Normally, I'd assume that you're trolling, but there's a lot of morons on here that view humans as replaceable machinery to be used and discarded on a whim because having a job is a "privilege" and not a right. But, without a decent job, you can't afford an apartment, food or anything beyond the most meager of necessities, because ZOMG we can't actually set up a system that will care for people that aren't already hugely wealthy.
The right wing's complete and utter incompetence on economic matters is threatening to render the US back to the 3rd world.
100% right now, but that will come down. Also, you're ignoring the cost of energy dependence on foreign nations. It costs 100% right now, but whenever there's a war or scuffle in the middle east, the price of oil goes up. The Russians regularly use their natural gas supplies to influence politics outside of Russia, and the Chinese have little control over solar cells that have already been deployed outside of China.
100% is a bit much, but it's hardly a full 100%, they do get some stuff for it and the longer the solar cells are up, the less the difference is.
Right now things are booming for North Dakota, but in the long run, oil is a dieing industry. We've been using oil at a rate that will take millions of years to replenish, so it's a matter of when we run out, not if.
At some point we'll either migrate to other forms of energy or we'll run out and be forced to migrate to other forms of energy. In the mean time, the oil industry will have foiled the air and the water and the land and there'll be bills related to shutting down and cleaning up.
Anytime you're reliant on one or two industries you're susceptible to downturn when that industry falls on hard times. Around here we learned that lesson in the '70s when Boeing was having a hard time, since then we've managed to regulate our fisheries back to good health, keep our timber industry going, as well as gain an IT industry with notables such as Nintendo, MS as Amazon having operations here.
And there's a crap load of precious medals buried in deep the earth's mantle and core, but it doesn't make it any more efficient to go for it. And those metals are tons more cost effective than anything you're going to find in space, even if we do solve the problem of the nearest planet being a full year away.
The problem there is that propulsion systems are still improving and the nearest planet is still a over a year away. During which time there's massive radiation exposure to worry about. A new propulsion system that would halve that would drastically reduce the problems of radiation sickness and death on the voyage.
As far as extra solar system planets go, or even ones further out, even a relatively minor improvement on efficiency could result in decades or even centuries being taken off the transit time.
No, IIRC, that was a sensor failure during a storm where visibility was presumably shit. Under conditions like that it wouldn't have mattered whether it was man or machine flying, the result was more or less inevitable.
The point I was making is that this is still the same laser as ever, the fact that they've added nifty controls to it, doesn't change the fact that it's still the same laser as before. They've just added more options and increased the flexibility.
They would, most of those facilities is dedicated to cooling and shielding. They may not be able to use the reactor from a sub, and I'm pretty sure they couldn't, but that's merely because they're designed for terrestrial use and aren't designed to be put onto a rocket.
The other issue is that putting nuclear things into orbit is something that has to be done cautiously. If they blow up or fail to make it into orbit, they'll spew tons of radioactive particles all over the place. And paranoid states might think it's an excuse to put nukes into space.
But, technically putting something the size of a nuclear reactor from a sub into orbit should be doable.
Nope, even when I have a crapload of resources, I dislike losing them. They're like an extension of me. Sort of like my camera, it's an extension of me, so I treat it as if it's a part of my body.
It might be maladaptive psychologically, but you get much better results like that.
My parents can hook their record player up to a computer, does that mean that the record player is digital?
The fact is that the laser is just a laser, they've added some cool technology to it, but it's still the same laser that it always was. Using digital controls doesn't make for a digital laser, there've been digital controls for years.
That was my thought, premium still has ads and not everything can be shown on the TV screen. I'm still trying to figure out precisely what it is that they're charging for.
The thing that pissed me off the most though was the waiting period on programming.
You'd be surprised. I hate letting my units get destroyed when I'm playing an RTS, it's hardly a shocker that people using real robots on the battlefield might get a bit attached to them after controlling a small number of them as they maneuver to their target.
You seriously think that a robot can't become contaminated? Anyways, that's what quarantine is for. In the extremely unlikely case that there's something on a planet with no lifeforms similar to humans, there is a virus or bacteria that's harmful to us, what do you think the odds of us picking it up is?
Pretty much zero. Even with the flu, if you stay 10 feet away from other people and don't put your hands to your face the likelihood of catching it is minimal. And that a virus that's adapted to spreading easily amongst humans, can you imagine one that's never encountered humans before? It's unlikely to even be capable of infecting human DNA.
I love how you pretend like this hasn't been a problem over the last couple decades. Magically when they passed the ACA suddenly the health care rates became unaffordable. The reality is that the ACA was a conservative proposal that the Democrats barely got passed because it was the best they could do.
The fact that you're willfully ignorant of the trend in insurance costs is adequate justification for calling you misinformed.
Nexus 4 was $250, I'm not sure if you can still get them and I'm guessing the upcoming Nexus 5 or whatever they're going to call it is going to be similarly priced before too long. The number of features that you really need and aren't affordable has come down a lot over the years. Screens can't get too much larger without no longer fitting in my pocket and the touch screens are pretty good.
And yes, it definitely does have a bearing on this. Back when it was free, they just had to justify it being good enough to risk bricking the cell phone and voiding the warranty. Now they have to justify bricking the phone, voiding the warranty and paying for that. Meanwhile if you get a decent phone that hasn't had all that carrier crap loaded onto it, the OS is fairly good.
And you failed to provide any evidence in your post either. Just another misinformed moron spreading FUD about the health care overhaul without even bothering to understand what the reality is.
I have anecdotes as well. The year after it kicked in, my insurer sent me a check for the premiums they collected, but didn't spend on health care. This year my premiums didn't rise at all. The year before Obamacare, my rates rose by nearly $15 a month, which for a health plan that was only charging a bit over $100 a month, that was a huge increase.
Bottom line is that insurance rates have been increasing by an average of 12% for a long time, blaming Obamacare when it hasn't even finished coming into effect is just plain ignorant.
Also, it's less than 2 weeks before the insurance exchanges open up and a ton of options come on the market. Right now, I can't change my insurance due to multiple misdiagnoses that the doctors won't remove, but in two weeks I'll have something like 20 plans to choose from.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit there. Again, it's profitable to screen people and the treatments themselves are very expensive. What's more, we have a tendency to keep treating people that are probably best just allowed to have their dignity. Most Americans don't want to be hooked up to a ton of machines when their time comes, but when it comes to what actually happens, they usually wind up hooked up to a ton of machines.
I'm not sure how your assertion disproves my assertion. Doctors in the US over test patients.
Depends which phone you're talking about and yes, you can get a decent phone for that kind of money without a contract. Paying for an OS that fixes what the carrier and Google should have gotten right in the first place isn't something that I view as reasonable.
Pretty much. I put it on my phone because it's free and awesome, I'm curious how they're going to make any money on this. My new phone is going to set me back $250 and they're then wanting to have some of my money for the OS? Or they'll want to do something with ads, which isn't going to be acceptable either. Or perhaps an alternate app shop that I won't use because it's going to be competing with Play.
Most of those treatments are available because it's more profitable to neglect preventative care and treat the chronic conditions that result from it. We do very well at treating strokes and heart disease at later stages because we allow for the conditions that are likely to lead to those disorders to crop up unchecked. And then spend a crapload of money treating something that could have been prevented.
Slashdot Mirror
The workers, and they must be punished with layoffs and having their bonuses suspended until they fix the problem of leadership.
What happens if all the members of that team are above average in terms of company wide productivity? Or you have a weak team where all of them are below average? You lose one of the better employees and one of the worst employees. But, it's not even a break even situation as stress and burn out will affect the stronger team more than the weak team.
Normally, I'd assume that you're trolling, but there's a lot of morons on here that view humans as replaceable machinery to be used and discarded on a whim because having a job is a "privilege" and not a right. But, without a decent job, you can't afford an apartment, food or anything beyond the most meager of necessities, because ZOMG we can't actually set up a system that will care for people that aren't already hugely wealthy.
The right wing's complete and utter incompetence on economic matters is threatening to render the US back to the 3rd world.
100% right now, but that will come down. Also, you're ignoring the cost of energy dependence on foreign nations. It costs 100% right now, but whenever there's a war or scuffle in the middle east, the price of oil goes up. The Russians regularly use their natural gas supplies to influence politics outside of Russia, and the Chinese have little control over solar cells that have already been deployed outside of China.
100% is a bit much, but it's hardly a full 100%, they do get some stuff for it and the longer the solar cells are up, the less the difference is.
Right now things are booming for North Dakota, but in the long run, oil is a dieing industry. We've been using oil at a rate that will take millions of years to replenish, so it's a matter of when we run out, not if.
At some point we'll either migrate to other forms of energy or we'll run out and be forced to migrate to other forms of energy. In the mean time, the oil industry will have foiled the air and the water and the land and there'll be bills related to shutting down and cleaning up.
Anytime you're reliant on one or two industries you're susceptible to downturn when that industry falls on hard times. Around here we learned that lesson in the '70s when Boeing was having a hard time, since then we've managed to regulate our fisheries back to good health, keep our timber industry going, as well as gain an IT industry with notables such as Nintendo, MS as Amazon having operations here.
And there's a crap load of precious medals buried in deep the earth's mantle and core, but it doesn't make it any more efficient to go for it. And those metals are tons more cost effective than anything you're going to find in space, even if we do solve the problem of the nearest planet being a full year away.
The problem there is that propulsion systems are still improving and the nearest planet is still a over a year away. During which time there's massive radiation exposure to worry about. A new propulsion system that would halve that would drastically reduce the problems of radiation sickness and death on the voyage.
As far as extra solar system planets go, or even ones further out, even a relatively minor improvement on efficiency could result in decades or even centuries being taken off the transit time.
No, IIRC, that was a sensor failure during a storm where visibility was presumably shit. Under conditions like that it wouldn't have mattered whether it was man or machine flying, the result was more or less inevitable.
The point I was making is that this is still the same laser as ever, the fact that they've added nifty controls to it, doesn't change the fact that it's still the same laser as before. They've just added more options and increased the flexibility.
That's not surprising, the components are heavy and dense. Whereas the ISS is mostly air.
They would, most of those facilities is dedicated to cooling and shielding. They may not be able to use the reactor from a sub, and I'm pretty sure they couldn't, but that's merely because they're designed for terrestrial use and aren't designed to be put onto a rocket.
The other issue is that putting nuclear things into orbit is something that has to be done cautiously. If they blow up or fail to make it into orbit, they'll spew tons of radioactive particles all over the place. And paranoid states might think it's an excuse to put nukes into space.
But, technically putting something the size of a nuclear reactor from a sub into orbit should be doable.
Nope, even when I have a crapload of resources, I dislike losing them. They're like an extension of me. Sort of like my camera, it's an extension of me, so I treat it as if it's a part of my body.
It might be maladaptive psychologically, but you get much better results like that.
My parents can hook their record player up to a computer, does that mean that the record player is digital?
The fact is that the laser is just a laser, they've added some cool technology to it, but it's still the same laser that it always was. Using digital controls doesn't make for a digital laser, there've been digital controls for years.
That was my thought, premium still has ads and not everything can be shown on the TV screen. I'm still trying to figure out precisely what it is that they're charging for.
The thing that pissed me off the most though was the waiting period on programming.
I fail to see how that's digital, but it's a cool advancement none the less. The beam itself is still just a laser beam.
You'd be surprised. I hate letting my units get destroyed when I'm playing an RTS, it's hardly a shocker that people using real robots on the battlefield might get a bit attached to them after controlling a small number of them as they maneuver to their target.
I take it you haven't heard of electro-gonorrhea the noisy killer.
You seriously think that a robot can't become contaminated? Anyways, that's what quarantine is for. In the extremely unlikely case that there's something on a planet with no lifeforms similar to humans, there is a virus or bacteria that's harmful to us, what do you think the odds of us picking it up is?
Pretty much zero. Even with the flu, if you stay 10 feet away from other people and don't put your hands to your face the likelihood of catching it is minimal. And that a virus that's adapted to spreading easily amongst humans, can you imagine one that's never encountered humans before? It's unlikely to even be capable of infecting human DNA.
I love how you pretend like this hasn't been a problem over the last couple decades. Magically when they passed the ACA suddenly the health care rates became unaffordable. The reality is that the ACA was a conservative proposal that the Democrats barely got passed because it was the best they could do.
The fact that you're willfully ignorant of the trend in insurance costs is adequate justification for calling you misinformed.
Nexus 4 was $250, I'm not sure if you can still get them and I'm guessing the upcoming Nexus 5 or whatever they're going to call it is going to be similarly priced before too long. The number of features that you really need and aren't affordable has come down a lot over the years. Screens can't get too much larger without no longer fitting in my pocket and the touch screens are pretty good.
And yes, it definitely does have a bearing on this. Back when it was free, they just had to justify it being good enough to risk bricking the cell phone and voiding the warranty. Now they have to justify bricking the phone, voiding the warranty and paying for that. Meanwhile if you get a decent phone that hasn't had all that carrier crap loaded onto it, the OS is fairly good.
And you failed to provide any evidence in your post either. Just another misinformed moron spreading FUD about the health care overhaul without even bothering to understand what the reality is.
I have anecdotes as well. The year after it kicked in, my insurer sent me a check for the premiums they collected, but didn't spend on health care. This year my premiums didn't rise at all. The year before Obamacare, my rates rose by nearly $15 a month, which for a health plan that was only charging a bit over $100 a month, that was a huge increase.
Bottom line is that insurance rates have been increasing by an average of 12% for a long time, blaming Obamacare when it hasn't even finished coming into effect is just plain ignorant.
Also, it's less than 2 weeks before the insurance exchanges open up and a ton of options come on the market. Right now, I can't change my insurance due to multiple misdiagnoses that the doctors won't remove, but in two weeks I'll have something like 20 plans to choose from.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit there. Again, it's profitable to screen people and the treatments themselves are very expensive. What's more, we have a tendency to keep treating people that are probably best just allowed to have their dignity. Most Americans don't want to be hooked up to a ton of machines when their time comes, but when it comes to what actually happens, they usually wind up hooked up to a ton of machines.
I'm not sure how your assertion disproves my assertion. Doctors in the US over test patients.
Depends which phone you're talking about and yes, you can get a decent phone for that kind of money without a contract. Paying for an OS that fixes what the carrier and Google should have gotten right in the first place isn't something that I view as reasonable.
Pretty much. I put it on my phone because it's free and awesome, I'm curious how they're going to make any money on this. My new phone is going to set me back $250 and they're then wanting to have some of my money for the OS? Or they'll want to do something with ads, which isn't going to be acceptable either. Or perhaps an alternate app shop that I won't use because it's going to be competing with Play.
Most of those treatments are available because it's more profitable to neglect preventative care and treat the chronic conditions that result from it. We do very well at treating strokes and heart disease at later stages because we allow for the conditions that are likely to lead to those disorders to crop up unchecked. And then spend a crapload of money treating something that could have been prevented.