Well, did you ask for a way to put it out, or to put it out economically? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Printable View
Well, did you ask for a way to put it out, or to put it out economically? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I actually asked for a "reasonable" and "usable" way. :)
I'm not an evil person - he got half a point for that answer, due to being technically correct but not fulfilling all the requirements ;)
And another chapter in the "WTFs my pupils produce" epic story.
So, here I am, unabashedly demanding of my pupils to explain to me how an electric motor works (Only the basics - and they got pictures!)
Since that's such an easy task, one girl sets off to revolutionize physics. Because two magnetice poles are not enough! Now we've got, besides the north and the south pole, also the west and the east pole. Not to mention that electric motors work better if you include two north poles and just one south pole.
Then there was the guy who did not quite grasp what I wanted of him. Because when confronted with the task "List three examples for advantages or disadvantages of using an electric motor inside a car" - he obviously only read the first and the last word. His answer:
"If you've got a car you can drive anywhere. With the energy produced, you can power a stereo or even(!) signal where you're turning next."
To misquote Charles Babbage: " I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a sentence."
A proper answer for that would be ford, or ford mustang, no? Since he only read list car...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
That is def one of my all-time favourite quotes
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...sent-hecklers/
How in the hell could someone think it was a good idea to admit to this?, on such shaky claims of payback to boot :bulb:
Quote:
Romney brags that yes, he sent hecklers
2:00 pm June 1, 2012, by Jay
Obama strategist David Axelrod, appearing at a rally in Boston this week, was confronted by an organized group of hecklers who disrupted the event and turned it into a shouting match. Axelrod and others immediately accused the Mitt Romney campaign of organizing and orchestrating the disruption using paid Romney staffers.
That seemed unlikely. At least, it seemed unlikely until Romney admitted it:
“Most of the events I go to, or many of the events I go to, there are large groups of, if you will, Obama supporters there heckling me,” Romney told the press. “And at some point you say, ‘You know what, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.’ If they’re going to be heckling us, why we’re not going to sit back and play by very different rules. If the president is going to have his people coming to my rallies, and heckling, why, we’ll show them that, you know, we conservatives have the same kind of capacity he does.”
Asked for evidence that the Obama campaign is sending hecklers to Romney events, Romney staffers identified an incident at a New York City firehouse in which a press conference with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was interrupted by heckling.
That incident in New York was indeed regrettable.
However, the sole rude and vulgar heckler turned out to be an Occupy Wall Street activist who had heard about the event and hustled over to interrupt it. What she did was way out of line, but there is no evidence whatsoever tying her to the Obama campaign or organization.
(BTW, the whole Occupy tactic of interrupting events and trying to shout down opponents is undemocratic and uncivil and harms the credibility of its cause. It’s a tactic of those unable or unwilling to debate.)
Now, if the Romney campaign has evidence that the woman in New York was following instructions from the Obama camp, or if it has evidence of an orchestrated effort by Obama supporters and campaign staff in other efforts, let’s see it. Such tactics by either side should not be tolerated .
But by sending paid operatives to disrupt the Axelrod event, and by bragging about it afterward, Romney is setting a dangerously confrontational tone, and he’s doing it from the very top.
This is barely June, people. We have a long way to go, and a country to run once it’s over.
– Jay Bookman
America is a strange land with many peculiar customs.
Amercia #1!
:lynchmob:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...cent-off-sales
That Origin's boss trying to compare his platform to NordStrom as he defends the remark that sales cheapen games. :bulb:
Rather than Target, yes he's explaining what end of the market they're going for (not bargain bin).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What's the WTF in that?
Its a digital good, its no different than the digital copy of the same game when its purchased elsewhere. There is no quality difference to justify a NordStrom price over a Target price; and Target did 7 times the sales volume of NordStrom.
and Target rarely does good sales, its the clearance that makes a walk through worth it.
EDIT:
EA was also a pretty popular publisher to see during Steam's previous sales. Aside from the Sims 3 series.
I seriously doubt none of these titles are going to end up in this years summer sale...
My brother is currently enrolled at a university where one of the courses is about web design. His current task: Program a simple guest book.He had some problems with the SQL and asked me for advice. He also showed me the solution the professor gave them.This is what he gave them in order to create the table in a MySQL database:CREATE TABLE guestbook
(
`id_gb` int(10) PRIMARY KEY auto_increment,
`g_id_user` int(10) NOT NULL default '',
`g_time` int(10) NOT NULL default '',
`g_msg` text NOT NULL default '',
`g_lock` int(1) NOT NULL default 0
);These are the WTFs I see:
- I'm not exactly sure what purpose doubling the table name in the row name serves (e.g.: 'id_gb' instead of plain 'id') - I mean, if you must make absolutely sure that you're referencing the right table (like, when doing a JOIN) you'd want to reference the row by "guestbook.id" anyway. Also: All the other rows follow the paradigm of "g_row_name", why is id different?
- The default value for INT is an empty string. Not sure what kind of logic is behind that one. Also not sure which purpose a default value serves when using the row as a foreign key. NULL would be more descriptive and, if MySQL makes a zero out of the empty string, would not attribute all messages without a programmatically set foreign key to the user with the id of zero.
- A time row using Integer. Is there some kind of SQL database out there which doesn't have stuff like DATE or TIMESTAMP?
- And, of course, an empty string as a default value. I'm pretty sure that DEFAULT NOW() would be a better solution.
- A field to make a message non-editable using an Int. I myself would look for either a BINARY or a SET (if there's not BOOLEAN). Minor gripe, that one.
- Last, but not least: The TEXT row has a default. Which is not possible according to the MySQL manual - BLOB/TEXT may not have a default. Not to mention that even allowing an empty message to be saved makes no sense at all.
I think I now understand why my brother was having some problems...
Maybe you can answer this for me Khen. Why is it that I quite frequently see in my site logs that if someone has checked out my site from a .edu ip address, they quite frequently then try to log in via the default wordpress or phpAdmin page? I can tell its not a bot, because the bots try everything from wordpress to blogger to joomla and myPhpAdmin to phpAdmin, even sql databases, for all versions, where-as the university students only try one or two types, eg. they'll try wordpress then phpAdmin, and when they fail, give up.
It's not necessarily not a bot. Just not such a complex one that it'll try everything.
Expected cost of raising a child born today (until they turn 18): $234,000. :bulb:
http://news.yahoo.com/cost-rearing-c...nvestment.html
Fuck that shit.
Get a cat.
Or a brand new car every other year. :noob:
If you add the cost of college, then you could buy some really, really nice cars every 2 years.
That total includes car payments :noob:
The list actually includes a lot of optional stuff, like magazines. Its not so much the "cost" of raising a child, but more about what could be "spent" on children by their parents and social programs.
Yeah, buying them stuff to read is optional. :noob:
that is totally what I just said :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There's libraries for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
On the other hand,
Quote:
Expenditures for major budgetary components estimated in this study consisted of direct parental expenses made on children through age 17. These expenditures exclude college costs
and other parental expenses on children after age 17. In addition, expenditures on children
made by people outside the household and by the government are not included. Indirect costs
involved in child rearing by parents (time costs and foregone earnings and career opportunities)
are also not included in the estimates.
The total does include assistance programs like food stamps however.
Private schooling and sporting expenses are also thrown in there
I don't get why these numbers are surprising. I figure that each kid is going to set me back at least that much, probably much more. Childcare alone averages some $20-30k/year in my state. Obviously some costs go down as they get older, but others go up. Just extrapolating that figure over nearly two decades puts you at about half a million dollars, easy. There are economies of scale, of course, and ways to economize (public school, anyone?), but at the end of the day you're definitely going to spend a lot.
Then again, what's the point of wealth generation/accumulation if you don't have descendents to invest in?
Ask Alber. ;)
Ask the modern GOP
The modern GOP isn't the one supporting prohibitive estate taxes. :o
And that's why Johnny can't read!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1467944.html
That's quite a long time to hold a grudge.
God, that's a cynical way to view children. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm an outlier....by saying it's really not too expensive to have children. Breast milk is free. Toddlers don't need special baby foods from the grocery store. Even disposable diapers are an expensive convenience item that isn't necessary. One parent staying home saves at least $20K per year, just in "child care costs". Both parents working outside the home may look like more income, but not when costs of transportation, wardrobe, nannies or child care eat up that income. Even then, there's nothing quite like one parent being present for the important milestones: first smile, first words, first steps. Those are priceless.
We live in a pretty backward society when those who make large incomes, and might want to stay home with children, claim they can't "afford" it....
Today's parents can do better to save for their own retirement, than paying for their kids' college tuition. I was "lucky" enough to learn that before I'dspentwasted about $100k on my first child's college costs.
Too bad he disappeared. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I prefer to think of it as realistic. Kids are expensive, and it's obviously a bad investment if you want to be wealthy. But I still think kids are a great idea - I just don't think they're cheap in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Stay-at-home is not an option for most people nowadays. The extra money from a second professional career easily offsets the cost of childcare, especially since they're going to go to school eventually anyways. Furthermore, the cost to the career of waiting it out while you have kids is simply too great from both a financial and position/skills perspective. (Also, no free lunches. There are costs to all of your 'cost saving' ideas above.)Quote:
I'm an outlier....by saying it's really not too expensive to have children. Breast milk is free. Toddlers don't need special baby foods from the grocery store. Even disposable diapers are an expensive convenience item that isn't necessary. One parent staying home saves at least $20K per year, just in "child care costs". Both parents working outside the home may look like more income, but not when costs of transportation, wardrobe, nannies or child care eat up that income. Even then, there's nothing quite like one parent being present for the important milestones: first smile, first words, first steps. Those are priceless.
I don't deny that it might be nice in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but we don't live in that perfect world, and the reality is that there's little evidence that a stay-at-home parent produces much better outcomes for the kid than a decent daycare or nanny (caveat: there is evidence for very early childhood, but that's what maternity leave is for).
Er... how is that backward? They make large incomes because they don't stay home with their kids.Quote:
We live in a pretty backward society when those who make large incomes, and might want to stay home with children, claim they can't "afford" it....
Just out of curiosity (ie. not trying to pick a fight), why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Lots of reasons, ranging from the hard-headed to the touchy-feely. Some of them include:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
1) Economically, we need to keep at least a reasonable dependency ratio in order to support the old and frail (which I hope to be some day). Obviously that doesn't mean we can have sustainable population growth indefinitely, but a gradual tapering of population is far preferable to having our fertility fall off a cliff. Kids are good for this.
2) If you have to have kids in the world (see reason 1), I'd prefer they have my genes and upbringing. Selfishly, I like to think that the combination of my genes and my cultural/etc. outlook are better for the whole of humanity than the average. I could be deluding myself, of course, but that's my prerogative.
3) Kids can be a good investment as a hedge against longevity risk. If you run out of money and have sufficient descendents (who don't hate you), chances are you'll have someone to take care of you in your dotage.
4) Kids are adorable.
5) I understand the logic of those who argue that people are fundamentally irrelevant to the world, so all of the previous reasons are a bit moot. I disagree - I'm far more of an optimist about people in general. In specific, I think that people - or, more broadly, conscious and intelligent beings - inform the natural world with meaning that it didn't necessarily have before. A universe without intelligence is dull and mechanistic, but with intelligent self-aware beings? It can be beautiful, amazing, glorious, horrific, etc. When people see a rainbow, it is far more than an optical phenomenon. We have given the world great injustices, true, but we also gave it the ideal of justice, which I find priceless. I prefer a universe infused with semantic meaning over one without it, so I would like our species to propagate and survive. Better yet, I'd like our lives to improve in the future, and I think they will - so I will be bequeathing a better world to them than the one I inherited. I know this may be at odds with those of us who have occasional bouts of nihilism, but that's my personal feeling about our species.
6) My wife likes kids, too. I like to stay on her good side.
There's more reasons, but that's a decent sampling.
That was a wonderful piece of writing. Thank you!
Happy you enjoyed.
Children are an added expense, but they're not necessarily "expensive". I'm not sure what you meant in the bolded part....what you call a "bad" investment, let alone what it means to be "wealthy".Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Stay-at-home is still an option for millions of families, depending on their priorities. Saying that two incomes can "offset the costs" of childcare makes it sound like taking care of our own infants and toddlers is simply a financial decision. Saying all kids "eventually" spend most of their time at school is another parental punt.Quote:
Stay-at-home is not an option for most people nowadays. The extra money from a second professional career easily offsets the cost of childcare, especially since they're going to go to school eventually anyways. Furthermore, the cost to the career of waiting it out while you have kids is simply too great from both a financial and position/skills perspective. (Also, no free lunches. There are costs to all of your 'cost saving' ideas above.)
Children, and forging families, aren't "inconveniences" that interfere or interrupt our professional careers and upward mobility. Well, unless it's only mothers that stay home....because womens' lower pay scales are the automatic default position.
The US doesn't have comprehensive or universal Maternity leave. Let alone equitable Paternity leave. "Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron. Full time nannies and au pairs mean paying a care-taker more than median wage, while losing something crucial in translation between money and family, as values.Quote:
I don't deny that it might be nice in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but we don't live in that perfect world, and the reality is that there's little evidence that a stay-at-home parent produces much better outcomes for the kid than a decent daycare or nanny (caveat: there is evidence for very early childhood, but that's what maternity leave is for).
That's the paternalistic definition. :donkey:Quote:
Er... how is that backward? They make large incomes because they don't stay home with their kids.
Yes, they're expensive. By every reasonable measure. They cost quite a bit more than a car, every year until majority. I would consider that expensive. They're a bad investment in that their returns (as measured strictly in terms of money) will never pay off the money you put into them. There are other returns that boost your utility - say, loving children and having them love you back - but if we're just looking at dollars and cents, it generally isn't worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Stay at home is only an option for people who make less money. That sounds backwards, but it isn't. Straight out of college, a two-earner household can easily make more money than median household income in the US (and I'm not talking about an Ivy League education or a particularly useful degree, either). The reason median household income is so low is partly because of the people who don't go to college, but a lot of it is because there are a huge number of single-earner (or 1.5 earner) households out there - there is a great deal of statistics that back me up on this one.Quote:
Stay-at-home is still an option for millions of families, depending on their priorities. Saying that two incomes can "offset the costs" of childcare makes it sound like taking care of our own infants and toddlers is simply a financial decision. Saying all kids "eventually" spend most of their time at school is another parental punt.
Children, and forging families, aren't "inconveniences" that interfere or interrupt our professional careers and upward mobility. Well, unless it's only mothers that stay home....because womens' lower pay scales are the automatic default position.
Look, obviously kids are important and they're worth more than just dollars and cents. But they are inconvenient, and they do interrupt professional careers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but it does mean that if you want to have a real career you're going to have think carefully about work-life balance, and plan accordingly.
FMLA is pretty comprehensive. About 2/3 of the workforce works at an FMLA-covered company, and about 1/2 of the workforce has full FMLA benefits.Quote:
The US doesn't have comprehensive or universal Maternity leave. Let alone equitable Paternity leave. "Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron. Full time nannies and au pairs mean paying a care-taker more than median wage, while losing something crucial in translation between money and family, as values.
As for day care, that may be your opinion but I think there are any number of day cares that are pretty good, albeit at a cost. Nannys and au pairs also don't make even close to the median wage. They make more than minimum wage, certainly, but hardly as much as the median wage.
Do you know what paternalistic means? Because I have no idea how it fits in here.Quote:
That's the paternalistic definition. :donkey:
I believe OG would call one of those words a 'weasel word'...Quote:
"Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron.
I thought I misunderstood it, because I also didn't understand it here :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin