Re: Perfectly valid medical experiment
I'm more concerned with what happens to the jubblies. I can see myself generating a lot of money for breast cancer research with just a few hours of mesmerising footage.
540 posts • joined 13 Mar 2010
They seem to have the idiotic impression that:
A) the term 'play' means that performing music is your form of entertainment, and therefore, since it's "fun" for you, then payment for services rendered is optional.
B) that since you "play" for an hour, they should be able to pay you minimum wage for that time, ignoring all the time you spend practising, learning new music, etc.
C) Since they can "replace" you with recorded music, there is no reason at all to pay you.
To which I say:
Fuck you very much.
According to the good doctor's logic, he can state with absolute assurance that he has had soup du jour, it was chicken, and [bedevere voice]logically,[/bedevere voice] every time you have soup du jour, it will be chicken for you as well.
Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
I don't. I find this kind of stuff (bogus science used to demonise opposing viewpoints) with the added legitimacy of "peer review" that turns out to be more of a "buddy review" to be downright scary. Especially when it gets used to gin up media lynch mobs that trash real people with real careers.
Yeah, but ol' Meg was a Schmuck after the mold of Romney.
Election 2012: "The Battle of the Schmucks".
Would that they be allowed to battle to the death for office -- then, regardless of who wins, we'd see a 50% reduction in political schmucks, and after a few cycles, could effectively flush the toilet we know as "Our Nation's Capital"
or: "hackneyed simile that ignores so much that you have to be totally stoned to make sense of it."
You need therapy dude. I suggest reading the comic nancy, what with all the fucked up zen-metaphors punctuated with the totally hotness of Auntie Fritzi and all her pop culture references. A good read when you're stoned, but hard to explain when you're not.
Meh. Any of them offering IMAP service *own* your data, and can troll/mine it for whatever they want. (Yeah, I know, even without IMAP, you can mine it, but this just makes it convenient and easy.)
I figure between Michael and Non Reagan, we have us a real life ying and yang thing going on.
You know why I never got a reagan.com email address? First off, it detracts from whatever I say. People discount whatever you say based upon social cues like email domains and such, much like we automatically think the hipster in the coffee shop bragging over his bluetooth about his sexual escapades is a douchebag (and a liar -- the army has good reason to call those glasses hipsters wear "VD-prevention eyewear").
Google is entitled to free speech in the form of political donations, but apparently, Republicans are not socially entitled to such a liberty. Possessing a conservative bumper sticker is a good way to get your car keyed. Usually, you'll hear some self-righteous juvenile bullshit about sticking it to the man or whatever. Case in point: you think it's intelligent to block the domain. Sadly, you'll get shown a good deal more respect for exercising your right to free speech than I will get for exercising mine in pointing out this hypocrisy. I suppose your next trick will be trotting out the usual the lame-assed excuses and ad hominem justifications afterwards.
You could, of course, grow up, and realize that anybody sporting this domain has handily singled themselves out as a ripe target for your abuse, but I suppose that's too much for you to comprehend.
"Somewhere along the way, you need someone to call out, "Wait a minute!" and keep the system within the bounds of civilized behavior."
This is what governments are for. They bridge the gap between what is most economic and what we as a society want. That is why we don't resolve liability issues with weregild.
However, to say that you should have all of one or the other is like building an airplane that is all wing, or all engine. Either way, it won't fly.
I'm not saying that socialist economies cannot come up with any innovation -- just that they tend to kill it off more than a country that acknowledges capitalism and leverages it. We *are* after all, flying into space on Russian rockets.
Argh. More fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism.
Capitalism is descriptive. "I value X more than Y, so I am willing to pay more for X." Capitalism exists even in the deepest darkest socialist economies. (AKA Black Market).
If we as a society value keeping lights on more than having them off, we will find a way. We may not anticipate the exact way, but eventually someone will find a way, and allowing them to get filthy rich is actually a small cost in comparison to the benefit. Punishing people for coming up with clever solutions is not effective in the long run, which is why socialism tends to be less successful than a society that encourages capitalism.
Good example IRL. I know somebody that knows where a mineral is. It is in the control of a socialist economy. If he tells them they have it, and where it is, they may give him $30,000/year as a worker bee. He says "Screw it. Why bother? If the mineral yield is expensive/poorer than anticipated, they'll be after my hide, and if it works, I get a paltry sum." I agree.
You are thinking in terms of the technology you "know", and not of the drive to develop a new technology when you throw out your "it'll never work because the numbers are too big" argument. The failure to develop profound new technologies is endemic to socialist economies, by the way, as they all devolve into bureaucracies, and there is no better way to smother growth than to have 10,000 GS-5's go after innovation because it challenges their place in the hierarchy of things...
Just as an example, assuming they set up the filter using a small portion of the Gulf Stream flow, your entire argument sequence falls apart. (I'm not saying that's the best plan -- wouldn't want to screw up the climate changes the Gulf Stream brings to northern Europe, for just one thing)
I disagree. I think you need a profit motive to make it as efficient as possible, and you need rigorous governmental oversight to bend the economics curve so the profit motive incorporates safety into the plan. If you go all one way or the other, you miss out on the unique benefits either organizational structure brings. I want cake and to eat it.
Yes, I am more than willing to take it out on him in the invoicing, but he's playing with somebody else's money, and doesn't care. While I'm not so proud that I wouldn't wash cars and type papers for $300/hr, it sets a bad precedent, and hard to get that sort of work at that rate once I let it get started. Far better to whip my cattle prod out early in the process, show him how it's all charged up & ready to go. I do it for the satisfaction of the look on his face.
I can't figure out why they were testing something that they claim can explode in the course of testing right next to a truck full of hydrogen tanks.
Methinks that if you'd asked them *before* they lit the fuse, they'd have said it was "perfectly safe. We don't blow shit up anymore."
I'm just happy that wacky hijinks didn't ensue with hydrogen for added kaboom.
Every previous Hobbit movie had that gawd-awful singing in it, trying to keep faithful to the book. Don't get me wrong -- I love all the books, but 'The Hobbit' was pure kiddie lit, while the 2nd and 3rd volume of the LOTR were serious fiction.
Tolkien's genius took a long time to evolve, but it turned into a masterpiece. Watching/reading 'The Hobbit' after those is like looking at the stick figures Van Gogh drew and stuck on whatever passed his mum's refrigerator.
[ducking from the inevitable hailstorm of fanboy abuse]
yes and no. Like listening to the wife, and nodding at random times and saying "uh huh", "yep", "That's right", "You're right", you can safely coast through until you discover later that you've agreed to paint the house or some other odious chore. (Happened to me.)
Best idea now is to carry two cell phones, call one from the other, and then look like I'm deep in listening to someone troubleshooting an issue.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018