tsotha

While what you're saying is true, there's an amazing jump in the number of disabled people that coincides with the onset of the recession in 2008.

From what I can tell you'll get disability if you keep bothering them long enough. I know guys who are on disability for lower back pain with no physical evidence, i.e. x-rays are normal. They all got turned down a few times at first, but I get the impression if you keep at it long enough they give you benefits just to get rid of you.

Or just a bullet to the back of the head. Execution in the US is downright odd - the endless delays, the ritual, the use of doctors... it's all sort of macabre.

It's more a question of having a method codified into law than being stuck with that method. Instead of producing the drugs the states in question will probably just switch to another method of execution.

And yet a lot of people do just that.

I see what he's saying, but I wonder. There has to be a point of diminishing returns. Maybe we've already discovered the easy ones, and yet more mass screening won't turn up much.

As I understand it, most drugs are still a pretty "blunt" from the standpoint of biochemistry. Too much of X causes some problem, so you make an antagonist for X. But X does a half dozen other things, and your X antagonist is going to affect them all. 99% of the time we call them "side effects", and they're bad. It's not that they have "no fucking idea" what they're doing; it's that sometimes there's no way to isolate the system they want to affect. The human body wasn't designed for external maintenance.

If you're doing something annoying or illegal they could always follow it and see where it lands. More likely they would ask when they drive by and see someone preparing to launch one.

There are lots of hunting, firearms, and vehicular regulations that get enforced by cops (and other peace officers) who see things while on patrol.

Then there was this, guy, who may have set the the development of germ theory back by drinking cholera-laden water without getting cholera:

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html

>Fossell, the anti-aging entrepreneur, says even if Parrish were to somehow succeed in slowing the aging of her body, an outcome he rated as unlikely, the experiment would have no impact because of how it was carried out

That's not really true, is it? If she lives to 120, or she lives a normal life span with dramatically "younger" looks and energy, it will have a huge impact. Even if the treatment can't be replicated exactly they'll know where to start looking.

If you can't fire the diversicrats you should probably just give up and accept mediocrity.

>There's a similar gulf between people who support "more government assistance for people on low incomes" (popular) and people who support "more welfare" (unpopular).

Those are not the same thing, though. Someone with a low income has a job, presumably.

In the US your employer pays around 15% of your salary as tax. If you're not working for someone else that's an extra 15.3% you have to pay - it's called "self employment tax".

Without bennies it's actually kind of bad.

There's a big difference between dropping a smart bomb on a specific target and flattening an entire city in the hopes of getting that target. Guided weapons certainly aren't perfect, but they're miles better than the alternative.

If the .223 was designed to be less lethal it doesn't work very well. Over the years a hell of a lot of people have died after being shot by M-16/M-4s.

I hear this from a lot of guys.

>There's a finite number of people seeking a ride...

Is that really true? More people might ride cabs if the experience was less annoying.

As would an MRI, presumably.

There's outsourcing and there's outsourcing. There may be fewer companies trying to build internal applications using contractors on another continent, but it seems like more companies are getting rid of data center operations in favor of services like AWS.

I always give them the highest reasonable number I can come up with. For one thing, whatever you give them is the floor - if you say "I expect $140k" and then counter a $140k offer you're likely to piss them off.

I don't think giving them a low number is likely to actually generate more offers. Think of yourself as a Veblen Good - if the price is too low companies wonder about the quality and actually want you less. That's my theory, anyway.

It's hard to know if I've ever lost an offer by going to high, but I've never had any trouble getting offers, so I doubt it. I have had companies come back and say something like "We can't offer what you were expecting, but we do have a great benefits package we think will compensate." It doesn't, but it allows you to take the offer without losing face.

It has been a few years since I looked for a job, so it's possible things have changed. That's what I'd still do, though.

The problem is when people realize they're not going to get paid, they also realize there's no reason to finish.

After a constant stream of cost overruns the US military tried to do fixed price contracts for awhile. What happens is the big players don't bid, or they do it through independent subsidiaries.

Then when the project costs balloon the contractor comes to you and says "Look, you have two choices - either you can modify the contract so we can make money, or we'll declare bankruptcy and you'll have to write off every nickel you've spent so far."

So true. That's why the internet is full of bogus Thomas Jefferson quotes.

I think it's easy and dangerous to assume other people aren't doing what we want them to do because they're not as smart as we are. It allows unlimited license to meddle in other peoples' lives. There are always externalities.

>So are you suggesting that clothed women will be better for them than nude women because ...?

If they take out the nude pictures they'll be able to put the magazine in more outlets.

It has everything to do with internet ubiquity. They've realized they can't sell a product everyone can get for free.

Why do you assume people can't see what they're doing? Why can't it be that they're making the choices they want to make?

There's no end to that road. What people do in the bedroom affects their health as well. Shall we tax the more risky sex practices?

>It really isn't that hard to avoid saying offensive and distasteful things to women (or anyone else, actually).

No, actually, for some guys it is hard. If it's not hard for you, well, that's great. But the world is full of clumsy men.

That's probably exactly what it was - an awkward attempt at flattery. An expression of interest, in an attempt to see if the interest might be mutual. After all, there's no logical reason attractive women can't be engineers.

Are women really so brittle they have to take offense at something like that? Do they really think they're somehow Striking a Blow Against The Patriarchy by humiliating some poor guy for not navigating the PC minefield?