🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD
-
His most important criterion though is: if you like it, then drink it.
That is the absolute most important criteria. If you like it, drink it. I love wine. I make wine. I got married in Sonoma. I dig good wine. But not all good wine is expensive, and I have drank a fair bit of expensive wine that was rubbish. I drink what I like. Not what is stylish.
-
@Intercourse said:
That is the absolute most important criteria. If you like it, drink it. I love wine. I make wine. I got married to Skooma. I dig good wine. But not all good wine is expensive, and I have drank a fair bit of rubbish that was expensive wine. I drink what I like. Not what is stylish.
FTFY
-
Lol you added some syntactic moon sugar.
-
Aren't audiophiles notorious for imagining minute perceived differences in audio setups where none actually exist? (e.g. difference between a $10 and a $100 gold-plated HDMI cable...)
Or a $500 ethernet cable (reviews are worth a peruse if you've not seen it before). Second only to...
3m pair @ £24,995.00 - 40% deposit then 36 months at £416.58
Complementary burn-in service available.
-
there's a sucker born every minute.... or so they say.
but the fact that these things get made at all let alone stay in business makes me seriously doubt that humans are actually intelligent
...
FWIW, A back of the napkin calculation suggests that the raw material cost as such high purities as ODIN claims should be about $30/metre. add in some amortized capex cost and they could sell these things at $100/metre with a 30% margin.
they're selling them at ~22k$ for the first metre and adding an additional 3.8k$ for each additional 0.5 metre
that's..... that's highway robbery that is.
-
-
Is that thing even shielded?
No, properly balanced transmission over twisted pair is quite effective at rejecting interference -- it's why you almost never hear 50/60Hz hum out of (landline) telephones.
Besides, there's almost no point to shielded cables when half the junk out there is in blasted plastic boxes! You'd get better shielding performance out of sticking your gadget in a one-gallon metal paint can!
-
Next up: Anthropomorphizing mammals.
-
-
:D
-
Enough said.
refresh my memory.... is the daily mail more like the National Enquirer, or Cosmo?
-
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91r8UqQUYQL.SL1500.jpg
Dear God why.
-
Is that Rocket Raccoon?
/me right click > Search Google for this image ...
Yeah that's Rocket Raccoon.
Dear God why.
Because kids want to dress up like a talking raccoon that kicks ass, who has an anthropomorphic tree for a best friend.
Edit: And I guess there's the whole "saving the galaxy" thing there, too.
-
Edit: And I guess there's the whole "saving the galaxy" thing there, too.
still it does make you wonder.... why don't you see femshep cosplay more often? it's all manshep.
:grumble:
-
still it does make you wonder.... why don't you see femshep cosplay more often? it's all manshep.
:grumble:
So go put one together and stop whining.
Or just GIS.
-
So go put one together and stop whining.
i will!
now where did i put that vacuform machine?
-
My dwarves are leaving the fish they catch on top of the river.
-
My dwarves are leaving the fish they catch on top of the river.
-
Second only to...
ITYM http://www.highendcable.co.uk/Nordost ODIN Power Cords.htm (£8,795.00 power cord).Too bad the $495 wooden knob isn't being sold anymore.
-
ITYM http://www.highendcable.co.uk/Nordost ODIN Power Cords.htm (£8,795.00 power cord).
Unless you want the power cord a bit longer.
5m @ £20,495.00
-
Surely Disney could have made a better attempt than that though.
Also Discourse didn't notify me of your reply. There is literally no entry in my notifications. Thanks @discoursebot
-
-
@loopback0 - Last Day Without A Discourse Bug: null
-
I'm going to assume it's a notification issue, not that I am @codinghorrorbot
-
@JazzyJosh Is Doing It Wrong™
-
Lots of errory behavior today. Discourse got restarted and at least some of it has been observed to behave. For now.
-
-
Filed Under: Schadenboner
-
AKA “If I'm not getting it, nobody's getting it.”
-
Cook County prosecutors said Tuesday that Hubbard was outside the Daley Center smoking a cigarette when she walked past David C. Nicosia, 55, who became angry that she was smoking near him.
The two argued and Nicosia, who is white, stepped near her face and said, “Rosa Parks, move,” and spit in her face, prosecutors said. As he walked away, the [spoiler]Law Division judge[/spoiler] followed him and called out for assistance.
Nicosia then turned and allegedly slapped the [spoiler]judge[/spoiler] on the left side of her face with an open hand, prosecutors said. He was then arrested by sheriff’s deputies and charged with four counts of aggravated battery and a hate crime.
-
That article doesn't actually show any individual's opinion of Obamacare changing. My gut says that the only thing that would have changed is how vocal various factions within the organization are. Ok, there probably were a few flip-floppers, but the point is that the article didn't actually show any.
-
That article doesn't actually show any individual's opinion of Obamacare changing.
Sure, the NYT wouldn't show you that if it happened. And it would be really surprising for them to have enough self awareness to figure it all out.
Actually, I saw one reaction tweet that claimed that the ACA was just another stunt in the Harvard / MIT prank war (viz. MIT's Jonathan Gruber). That was pretty amusing.
Ah, here we go:
-
AKA “If I'm not getting it, nobody's getting it.”
Actually it was kind of the contrapositive or something: "We shouldn't have to suffer through this thing we advocated for everyone else." I really liked the one person who suggested this was deliberately timed to cause trouble for people who were needing expensive medical procedures like pregnancy-related things or surgeries.
One of the worst things about the "P""P""A""C""A" is that it didn't contain the sentence "Everything in this act shall apply to every US Citizen, particularly and especially the President, Vice President, every member of Congress, and all their staff, without exception".
-
Does legislation not apply to the government by default?
-
Sure, the NYT wouldn't show you that if it happened. And it would be really surprising for them to have enough self awareness to figure it all out.
Not going to argue, I just thought it was funny that an article that was trying to show an ironic reversal failed to show any actual reversal.
I really liked the one person who suggested this was deliberately timed to cause trouble for people who were needing expensive medical procedures like pregnancy-related things or surgeries.
They are talking about coinsurance. Green's side say that coinsurance will lead to sick people either skimping on care that could have helped them, or taking the care and being out-of-pocket right when they can least afford it. Garber's side say that health spending is out of control in the United States and that shifting some of the expense onto the people who are making the decision is a sound economic strategy for reducing unnecessary expenditure.
Garber's side was in control when this year's health budget was decided, but there may have been a shift in power. That's what I got from the article, anyway.
-
Does legislation not apply to the government by default?
Congress regularly exempts itself from legislation. Were you not aware of this?
-
Wasn't the entire point of not being a monarchy that the government would be held to the same standards as the rest of the people?
-
Green's side say that coinsurance will lead to sick people either skimping on care that could have helped them, or taking the care and being out-of-pocket right when they can least afford it.
Oh noes--just like the rest of us! Fuck her for thinking she shouldn't have to play by the same rules.
-
Wasn't the entire point of not being a monarchy that the government would be held to the same standards as the rest of the people?
Yes, and then Congress decided they didn't care.
-
I agree. My only point was—and I just realized that I forgot to actually state this—that the bad team in that article wasn't the one that was supporting obamacare.
Edit: and by bad team, I mean the ones that are invoking some hypothetical “vulnerable members of [the Harvard faculty of arts and sciences] community” and calling a fund to ensure no staff member is out of pocket by more than 3% of their total income “a band-aid on a hemorrhage”, compared to the good team, who supported obamacare, specifically the following four elements:
(1) deficit neutrality, (2) an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans,
(3) an independent Medicare commission, and (4) delivery system reformsand are standing by that, even if it costs them money—and, apparently, political standing.
What I mean is that I'm judging them by their actions right now, not their politics; I don't personally have any strong opinion either for or against coinsurance.
-
Yes, and then Congress decided they didn't care.
Proposal to generate sustainable energy by harnessing the spinning corpses of the Founding Fathers, anyone?
-
One of the worst things about the "P""P""A""C""A" is that it didn't contain the sentence "Everything in this act shall apply to every US Citizen, particularly and especially the President, Vice President, every member of Congress, and all their staff, without exception".
Q: Is it true that there are bills in Congress that would exempt members and their staffs and families from buying into “Obamacare”? A: No. Congress members and staffers will be required to buy insurance through the exchanges on Jan. 1.
...
But there is no bill in Congress calling for an exemption from the health care law. In fact, members of Congress and their staffs face additional requirements that most Americans don’t have to meet.
Under the health care law, their insurance coverage will have to switch from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the group of private insurance plans that cover 8 million federal employees and retirees, to the exchanges created by the law.
-
Also, the correct pronouns for talking about a group of people are ‘them’ and ‘they’.
-
Not going to argue, I just thought it was funny that an article that was trying to show an ironic reversal failed to show any actual reversal.
Oh. See, I didn't read it as trying to do that. Just that they were upset about the consequences of something they thought was a good idea.
Green's side say that coinsurance will lead to sick people either skimping on care that could have helped them, or taking the care and being out-of-pocket right when they can least afford it. Garber's side say that health spending is out of control in the United States and that shifting some of the expense onto the people who are making the decision is a sound economic strategy for reducing unnecessary expenditure.
There is obviously validity to both ideas. But we're coming from a mindset of not having to worry about this sort of thing. No one frets about people not getting glasses due to having to pay for them. But some people don't get designer frames or whatever.
And because patients didn't care about what anything costed, doctors were more or less free to advocate for whatever procedures since costs were passed on to the third party (and ultimately back to the patients in next year's premium increase, of course). It's still probably true that some people would prefer to have others decide for them, and maybe some people would really be better off being out of the loop.
-
Wasn't the entire point of not being a monarchy that the government would be held to the same standards as the rest of the people?
Not the entire point, but certainly a point.
-
Status: WTFing with SharePoint Designer ...
So I have two options to start this workflow ... automatically when an item is created or automatically when an item is created ... except the second one should be automatically when an item is changed.
-
I couldn't help but think of many things along this line when I saw that first option...
-
Proposal to generate sustainable energy by harnessing the spinning corpses of the Founding Fathers, anyone?
hmmm.....i've seen that idea explored somewhere..... where did i see that?
/me wanders off to the googles to see if i can find that article again
-
Reminds me a bit of
-
". The exchanges, after all, were intended for people who previously did not get employer-provided insurance, while lawmakers and their staffs previously had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums underwritten by the federal government through the FEHBP. For lawmakers and their staffs, the loss of employer contributions would have amounted to an unintended pay cut of between $5,000 to $10,000.
So a system was jury-rigged by the Obama administration, using the D.C. small-business exchange (SHOP), to allow for continued health-care stipends from the federal government."
If you're getting a subsidy not available to anyone else, you're not subject to Obamacare.