Blacklisting people for placing claims is illegal. If they don't want people to claim, then they should make products that aren't crap. Insurance isn't supposed to be profitable.
Earn interest? If you're lucky you get 1% on that savings, which is a half or a third of inflation in a typical year. More likely you'll get 0.1% interest on that money.
Never worth it? Apart from my current extended warranty that hasn't yet expired, I have yet to have a single extended warranty that didn't pay for itself over the life of the warranty. I'm honestly unsure as to how they're making any money on these plans when they always seem to save me money.
It is and it really depends on the specifics if it's worth it. Historically, I've come out well ahead on extended warranties on the laptops I've owned. But for everything else, I just put aside the insurance money in my own bank account. If I ever need that money to replace an item, it's there, but mostly I don't need it.
The other thing that these warranties sometimes get you is service. When I was in China last year, I had to get my laptop fixed and Lenovo was able to handle it for me at one of their authorized service centers. Took too long because of the bureaucracy and language barrier, but it was much more likely to work out than trying to get help from one of the small shops.
Does it really matter? The thing which concerns me here is that this sort of critical infrastructure is wired to the net without any sort of airgap. Regardless of whether it's the Chinese government backing it or just some random anarchist group, it's deeply concerning that these systems are connect to the net at all.
You can't have it both ways. If women want to complain about being underpaid, then they're going to have to accept the cut to benefits like this that it's going to take. They're also going to have to be willing to make the other sacrifices that men make in order to get those bonuses.
Also, women should stop complaining about men being less involved in the lives of their children, when men are being provided with fewer opportunities to do so.
Just because they're going above and beyond 99% of the other employers, doesn't make the practice of granting women additional leave any less sexist. It just means that they aren't as bad as the other companies are.
I do understand the process and I've met women that were back at work the next day. Yes, that's a bit extreme, but animals as a general rule do not require large periods of time to get back to work after pregnancy. The only exceptions to that are when something goes medically wrong or where a c-section is necessary. Both of which are more appropriately handled by a medical leave of absence than included as a part of maternity leave.
Yes, father's are incapable of giving milk, but there are breast pumps and ultimately there are alternatives available as well. What's more, this maternity leave is automatic, whether or not a woman needs to time, they have a legal right to it. My former sister-in-law wasn't able to breast feed, and she still got the standard leave. Same goes for women that choose not to.
Also, I'd like to see some evidence that there's a connection between babies and mothers is related to pheromones. Ultimately, if that is the case, that's an argument in favor of giving men more time than we give to women, as it's socially desirable for men to bond with their children.
On precisely what basis does this seem ridiculous? Humans as a species would never have survived if our females required weeks where they couldn't do anything after childbirth. In fact I can't think of any species where the females require a full week as the norm before they're out and about.
No, men don't get paid more than women. I've yet to see a study that comes to that conclusion without gerrymandering around the other aspects of compensation and productivity. And the whole idea doesn't make any sense anyways. If women really were working for 80 cents on the dollar for what men are being paid, what's your explanation for why companies aren't preferentially hiring women? Because that would be the cost effective decision for the business.
The answer is that the payrate is only one aspect of compensation. Things like maternity leave and preferences with regards to benefits are another dimension that needs to be considered. Not to mention the willingness to put up with crap that the companies expect of their employees.
There may be a compensation gap, but without actually looking at the whole cost of employing an employee and the productivity you can't say with any reasonable certainty that women are being under paid.
Except that the law isn't supposed to work like that. The US constitution does not permit women to get special rights that are not available to men. Which is why things like title IX don't specify a sex, they specify that both sexes are required to get equal opportunity to resources covered under the title. And that can mean extra resources for men, even though it usually works out benefiting women.
What's more the bulk of the maternity leave has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with bonding with the newborn. It's questionable as to why we're granting women all that time off and then bitching about how men don't spend as much time with their children. Well, no shit, we don't give them the same sort of break in terms of availability to bond with their own children.
Under normal circumstances women need less than a week. And in general giving birth is considered the equivalent of day surgery. The main exception being for c-sections.
Remember that as a species we used to have to be on the move constantly, and having women need 16 weeks to recover from giving birth would likely have meant the death of the species.
What's more, there's absolutely no evidence to back up the belief that babies require more bonding between them and their mother than with their father.
Sigh, this sort of ignorance is rather astonishing. The average EE makes more than double what the average teacher makes.
What's more, you're only including class time there, schools don't make the lessons for their teacher nor do they do any of the grading. When you have 150 students, even just 5 minutes per student per day adds up quite quickly. It's not unusual for teachers to be at it late into the evening during the year to keep up with the demands of the job.
And we still have to deal with folks like you that have this astonishingly low opinion of us, because clearly we only work when we're at school with students, it's not like we have to prepare new lesson plans each year and grade papers.
Spoken like somebody who has never taught. Summer is the time we have to keep up with our certifications and many of us have to have a second job during the summer because the pay sucks, compared with other jobs that require a similar level of education.
What's more, you never know how your classes are going to react to content until you actually meet with them a few times which could lead to you having to make adjustments to the materials.
I realise that it's easy to make fun of teachers, but the bottom line here is that the job is hard enough without having the peanut gallery knocking us down over perceived incompetence.
Seriously, I'm a teacher and even though I already know the content, it doesn't let me off the hook for figuring out how to convey that content to a new group of students. For every 5 minutes of homework I assign to the students, that's easily an hour of my time that I have to spend designing the assignment and assessing the results. And that's just if I'm doing a check off that they did it. If I have to actually check the quality in any meaningful way it can take a lot more time than that.
As for knowing less than the student, perhaps if the tax payers would shoulder some of the expense of training and certification that would be more reasonable. As it is, teachers work long hours and have to keep up with their certifications on their own. Expecting them to have time to also keep on top of the subject in areas where students might have interested, is rather unreasonable.
The reason why few teachers can handle more than one subject is primarily an issue of training. If you don't train the teachers to teach multiple subjects, and permit them time to learn the ins and outs of teaching it, then you're not going to get many teachers that go to the trouble.
When all is said and done, if you want higher standards, then you're going to have to pay better, do a better job of managing the schools and generally stop treating teachers like crap. There's a reason why the average career as a teacher in the US is only 5 years. By the time they've gotten the hang of it, they're being pushed out the door.
Not really, some of the games I used to play would crash randomly and be generally unstable with my previous nVidia chipset, but now that I've switched to AMD, I haven't had a single game behaving in such a flaky manner.
I'm not sure what nVidia was doing wrong, but it's something that they really need to address.
That might be your opinion, but a significant portion of the student body won't learn anything if the teacher doesn't make them learn it. What's more, the teacher can lose his or her job if they don't do sufficiently well on the state tests.
The latter teachers are taking a rather substantial risk which may or may not pay off. And certainly will not pay off if they have classes of more than 30 students and more than 5 classes at any given time.
It's nice to be idealistic sometimes, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how motivated the average student is, that isn't there by choice.
What you're paying for when you take a paid course is individual attention and verification that you passed the exams that the instructor gave you. Coursera is great if you're personally motivated to learn the material, but it's shit if you want any guarantee that the person did the work themselves or took the tests. Yes, it's possible to cheat in regular classes, but it's harder to do so when there's at most a few hundred people in the class rather than the tens of thousands in a free course.
In this case, the correct answer is for the school to just pay the fees associated with teacher training. And leave free alternatives like this to the 2nd and 3rd world where they might not have funding to provide it at all.
I used to work in security and I'm well aware of where the cameras are located, and I'm definitely not being recorded every step of my trip to Starbucks. What's more, any cameras that I am caught on are unlikely to be looked at by anybody ever. They're recording in case something happens. And rarely if ever do businesses around here pool those tapes or otherwise share them. In most cases the footage is deleted within a month, provided they aren't specifically retaining a section, because storing footage with no value for years is expensive.
What's more, they don't generally change their position, they're where they are, and what they see is relatively fixed. Whereas with Google glass and such, the cameras are constantly moving and unpredictable. What's more once the footage is uploaded, it's much more likely that it will be seen by people at large.
Just because you don't get the situation, doesn't mean my views are paranoid, it just means that I'm well aware of the situation and have done actually thinking about it.
A few thousand? Developers don't seem to be having any trouble making money on Android and iOS even with free games. And the good games tend to have a much larger number of people playing them.
Sure it isn't like the early days of the platforms where it was basically just printing money, but there's still plenty of money to be had if you're providing something that people want.
It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
Blacklisting people for placing claims is illegal. If they don't want people to claim, then they should make products that aren't crap. Insurance isn't supposed to be profitable.
Earn interest? If you're lucky you get 1% on that savings, which is a half or a third of inflation in a typical year. More likely you'll get 0.1% interest on that money.
Never worth it? Apart from my current extended warranty that hasn't yet expired, I have yet to have a single extended warranty that didn't pay for itself over the life of the warranty. I'm honestly unsure as to how they're making any money on these plans when they always seem to save me money.
It is and it really depends on the specifics if it's worth it. Historically, I've come out well ahead on extended warranties on the laptops I've owned. But for everything else, I just put aside the insurance money in my own bank account. If I ever need that money to replace an item, it's there, but mostly I don't need it.
The other thing that these warranties sometimes get you is service. When I was in China last year, I had to get my laptop fixed and Lenovo was able to handle it for me at one of their authorized service centers. Took too long because of the bureaucracy and language barrier, but it was much more likely to work out than trying to get help from one of the small shops.
Does it really matter? The thing which concerns me here is that this sort of critical infrastructure is wired to the net without any sort of airgap. Regardless of whether it's the Chinese government backing it or just some random anarchist group, it's deeply concerning that these systems are connect to the net at all.
You can't have it both ways. If women want to complain about being underpaid, then they're going to have to accept the cut to benefits like this that it's going to take. They're also going to have to be willing to make the other sacrifices that men make in order to get those bonuses.
Also, women should stop complaining about men being less involved in the lives of their children, when men are being provided with fewer opportunities to do so.
Just because they're going above and beyond 99% of the other employers, doesn't make the practice of granting women additional leave any less sexist. It just means that they aren't as bad as the other companies are.
I do understand the process and I've met women that were back at work the next day. Yes, that's a bit extreme, but animals as a general rule do not require large periods of time to get back to work after pregnancy. The only exceptions to that are when something goes medically wrong or where a c-section is necessary. Both of which are more appropriately handled by a medical leave of absence than included as a part of maternity leave.
Yes, father's are incapable of giving milk, but there are breast pumps and ultimately there are alternatives available as well. What's more, this maternity leave is automatic, whether or not a woman needs to time, they have a legal right to it. My former sister-in-law wasn't able to breast feed, and she still got the standard leave. Same goes for women that choose not to.
Also, I'd like to see some evidence that there's a connection between babies and mothers is related to pheromones. Ultimately, if that is the case, that's an argument in favor of giving men more time than we give to women, as it's socially desirable for men to bond with their children.
On precisely what basis does this seem ridiculous? Humans as a species would never have survived if our females required weeks where they couldn't do anything after childbirth. In fact I can't think of any species where the females require a full week as the norm before they're out and about.
No, men don't get paid more than women. I've yet to see a study that comes to that conclusion without gerrymandering around the other aspects of compensation and productivity. And the whole idea doesn't make any sense anyways. If women really were working for 80 cents on the dollar for what men are being paid, what's your explanation for why companies aren't preferentially hiring women? Because that would be the cost effective decision for the business.
The answer is that the payrate is only one aspect of compensation. Things like maternity leave and preferences with regards to benefits are another dimension that needs to be considered. Not to mention the willingness to put up with crap that the companies expect of their employees.
There may be a compensation gap, but without actually looking at the whole cost of employing an employee and the productivity you can't say with any reasonable certainty that women are being under paid.
Except that the law isn't supposed to work like that. The US constitution does not permit women to get special rights that are not available to men. Which is why things like title IX don't specify a sex, they specify that both sexes are required to get equal opportunity to resources covered under the title. And that can mean extra resources for men, even though it usually works out benefiting women.
What's more the bulk of the maternity leave has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with bonding with the newborn. It's questionable as to why we're granting women all that time off and then bitching about how men don't spend as much time with their children. Well, no shit, we don't give them the same sort of break in terms of availability to bond with their own children.
Under normal circumstances women need less than a week. And in general giving birth is considered the equivalent of day surgery. The main exception being for c-sections.
Remember that as a species we used to have to be on the move constantly, and having women need 16 weeks to recover from giving birth would likely have meant the death of the species.
What's more, there's absolutely no evidence to back up the belief that babies require more bonding between them and their mother than with their father.
To be fair, his critical reasoning skills are shit as well.
Sigh, this sort of ignorance is rather astonishing. The average EE makes more than double what the average teacher makes.
What's more, you're only including class time there, schools don't make the lessons for their teacher nor do they do any of the grading. When you have 150 students, even just 5 minutes per student per day adds up quite quickly. It's not unusual for teachers to be at it late into the evening during the year to keep up with the demands of the job.
And we still have to deal with folks like you that have this astonishingly low opinion of us, because clearly we only work when we're at school with students, it's not like we have to prepare new lesson plans each year and grade papers.
Spoken like somebody who has never taught. Summer is the time we have to keep up with our certifications and many of us have to have a second job during the summer because the pay sucks, compared with other jobs that require a similar level of education.
What's more, you never know how your classes are going to react to content until you actually meet with them a few times which could lead to you having to make adjustments to the materials.
I realise that it's easy to make fun of teachers, but the bottom line here is that the job is hard enough without having the peanut gallery knocking us down over perceived incompetence.
I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit.
Seriously, I'm a teacher and even though I already know the content, it doesn't let me off the hook for figuring out how to convey that content to a new group of students. For every 5 minutes of homework I assign to the students, that's easily an hour of my time that I have to spend designing the assignment and assessing the results. And that's just if I'm doing a check off that they did it. If I have to actually check the quality in any meaningful way it can take a lot more time than that.
As for knowing less than the student, perhaps if the tax payers would shoulder some of the expense of training and certification that would be more reasonable. As it is, teachers work long hours and have to keep up with their certifications on their own. Expecting them to have time to also keep on top of the subject in areas where students might have interested, is rather unreasonable.
Yes, you're completely clueless.
The reason why few teachers can handle more than one subject is primarily an issue of training. If you don't train the teachers to teach multiple subjects, and permit them time to learn the ins and outs of teaching it, then you're not going to get many teachers that go to the trouble.
When all is said and done, if you want higher standards, then you're going to have to pay better, do a better job of managing the schools and generally stop treating teachers like crap. There's a reason why the average career as a teacher in the US is only 5 years. By the time they've gotten the hang of it, they're being pushed out the door.
Not really, some of the games I used to play would crash randomly and be generally unstable with my previous nVidia chipset, but now that I've switched to AMD, I haven't had a single game behaving in such a flaky manner.
I'm not sure what nVidia was doing wrong, but it's something that they really need to address.
That might be your opinion, but a significant portion of the student body won't learn anything if the teacher doesn't make them learn it. What's more, the teacher can lose his or her job if they don't do sufficiently well on the state tests.
The latter teachers are taking a rather substantial risk which may or may not pay off. And certainly will not pay off if they have classes of more than 30 students and more than 5 classes at any given time.
It's nice to be idealistic sometimes, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how motivated the average student is, that isn't there by choice.
Do you have a HOSTS file that can save me from all this HOSTS file spam?
What you're paying for when you take a paid course is individual attention and verification that you passed the exams that the instructor gave you. Coursera is great if you're personally motivated to learn the material, but it's shit if you want any guarantee that the person did the work themselves or took the tests. Yes, it's possible to cheat in regular classes, but it's harder to do so when there's at most a few hundred people in the class rather than the tens of thousands in a free course.
In this case, the correct answer is for the school to just pay the fees associated with teacher training. And leave free alternatives like this to the 2nd and 3rd world where they might not have funding to provide it at all.
I used to work in security and I'm well aware of where the cameras are located, and I'm definitely not being recorded every step of my trip to Starbucks. What's more, any cameras that I am caught on are unlikely to be looked at by anybody ever. They're recording in case something happens. And rarely if ever do businesses around here pool those tapes or otherwise share them. In most cases the footage is deleted within a month, provided they aren't specifically retaining a section, because storing footage with no value for years is expensive.
What's more, they don't generally change their position, they're where they are, and what they see is relatively fixed. Whereas with Google glass and such, the cameras are constantly moving and unpredictable. What's more once the footage is uploaded, it's much more likely that it will be seen by people at large.
Just because you don't get the situation, doesn't mean my views are paranoid, it just means that I'm well aware of the situation and have done actually thinking about it.
A few thousand? Developers don't seem to be having any trouble making money on Android and iOS even with free games. And the good games tend to have a much larger number of people playing them.
Sure it isn't like the early days of the platforms where it was basically just printing money, but there's still plenty of money to be had if you're providing something that people want.
Being consistent with the API is more or less meaningless if you've only got a few dozen users.
It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.
Well, at least you've saved iGlasshole for the Apple fans.