Comment Re: How many really make $140k ? (Score 3, Insightful) 198
It's precisely because of that fact that you see some silicon valley companies open up show in middle america, when they can get the senior people for the $120-$130 range
It's precisely because of that fact that you see some silicon valley companies open up show in middle america, when they can get the senior people for the $120-$130 range
If it does, we need to look at steak, beer, and caramel too.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look at any effect consumption of those have on telomeres? Unless I'm reading your sarcasm wrong there, it seems that in two posts you've flipped from a pro-science, anti-ingredient-scaremongering position to an anti-science, can't-study-anything position.
Not a bad idea. Mosin Nagants are still cheap, plentiful and there's still a bunch of ammo available.
LK
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring?
1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates. 2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.
And does consuming a high dose of caramelized carbohydrates or a mixture of approximately 50-50 fructose and sucrose cause telomere shortening?
Simply saying "well, X ingredient is really Y" doesn't mean that Y (or X) has no effect.
Sodium benzoate
I think that this one ingredient, (which is also in many juices) would explain most of this. That is why they are starting to phase it out in many pop formulations.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring? Study needs to be done with seltzer, diet cola, diet clear soda, regular cola, regular clear soda, etc.
I'm never giving money to anything that is funded via that method.
LK
In 2011, I couldn't reach my sister for over an hour after an earthquake. It would have been awesome if I could have just checked her page.
LK
The US has its own internet. It's called: The Internet.
Is Inkscape's handling of text any better?
On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it.
If the idea requires a level of effort to implement that only those large companies can provide, then it's probably something deserving of getting paid for. That implementation is protected by copyright. If, on the other hand, it's simple enough that other people can implement it without a great deal of work, then eventually a free (gratis) implementation will rise up.
The free (gratis) implementation would not infringe the copyright on the large company's implementation, since it would be separately created and not a copy. This is why copyright is great when the original item is what's desired - Harry Potter, rather than Larry Kotter; World of Warcraft, rather than Troll-Human MMO Saga; the Hulk movie rather than the Strong Green Man movie from Bollywood, etc. It's terrible when the implementation is what's desired, but not the specific copy - for example, Photoshop vs. GIMP vs. Sketch vs. Paint.Net; or SimTower vs. Dream Heights vs. TinyTower vs. Hotel Simulator, etc. Basically, it only works with software when the software is a de facto standard, and particularly if it fights interoperability, which is something geeks should be opposed to generally.
Those patents disclose algorithms. Basically, applied math.
35 USC 101 allows patenting a process, which is an algorithm. And the judicial exception carves out mathematical algorithms, not applied math. In fact, applied algorithms are probably exactly what we want patents to cover, rather than the abstract mathematics themselves.
Which should have never, ever been allowed as claims in a patent since they are antithetical to the compromise between the inventor's and society's benefit the patent system was designed to facilitate.
In what way? The patent discloses the invention, so society benefits over the inventor keeping it a trade secret. In return for the disclosure, the patent owner gets a limited monopoly. That's exactly the compromise.
My point was that HBO has A LOT more high quality original programming than AMC, that lately has a lot more misses than hits. They have good, expensive content, but not enough to warrant subscriptions IMO. And when they have good content, they have trouble paying for it. Look at all the cuts they had to do to Mad Men's run length, and the issues they had with actors and pay. That's the reason they cannot 'move up' to being a premier, pay by itself channel.
In any given season, there are at least 3 new HBO shows worth watching. AMC, not so much.
ESPN has plenty of people that are willing to give them much more than $7 a month for their content: There is an entire demographic that uses TV just to watch sports.
The ones that are really in trouble are smaller channels that still have some real expenses. Think of someone like AMC, that justifies its existence due to a relatively small number of valuable content they finance themselves, while the rest is filler. Would people really subscribe to the channel if all they wanted as 20 hours of television a year?
So, if they install a wheelchair ramp for a disabled employee at your company, do you demand they spend the same amount on amenities for everyone else? If they employ an on-site councillor to help employees deal with stress but you never use the service, do you demand they employ someone to mow your lawn instead?
No, GP poster insists that they break his kneecaps and install random flashing lights in his cube so that he can take advantage of the same benefits.
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.
