>made out of metal styrofoam.
>made out of metal styrofoam.
>By their statement they obviously mean directly under...so what area are they using? The area of the soles of your feet? The widest area looking down from a top view? I assume it doesn't matter and they are assuming any area projected towards and through the Earth.
The easiest way would be to define that as the center point of your mass, reducing you to a point, which at the size of a human is not an unreasonable assumption. Humans are not really large enough to have a barycenter.
Yeah, I read TFS as a big giant "holy cow are police forces actually this damned stupid?"
How can these idiots take themselves seriously when they have such monumentally idiotic ideas? And why should they expect us to take them seriously?
You're talking about someone who managed to make it his paid, full-time job to write X-File fanfic and hang out at Star Trek conventions, most likely putting everything on a government expense account. The word you're looking for isn't "stupid", it's "brilliant".
What is the circumference of a circle with radius r? It is (Pi * r^2), of course.. So a circle with radius of 1 mile would have a circumference of (Pi * 1 * 1).
I'm just going to skip the bit about you calling someone else braindead and asking them to turn in their geek card for displaying poor math skills and leave this bit here while we move on to the bonus round.
In your own words, what is the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle? Please be precise, as your geek card is at stake here.
And then the Intern goes to Ask Slashdot, and we start the whole thing over.
It's some kind of Internception.
Is there anything that uses Ethernet without using */IP?
I'm not even going to start answering that, but I am curious about one thing.
Which major corporation are you the CIO for? Please be honest, as I stand to win $20 here.
Don't worry folks. I always carry around a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" for hitting people like this on the head at times like these.
Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.
Those workers will be spending all their wage increase by having to pay more at, for example, fast food restaurants when prices go up to accommodate higher wages. Or the worker will get laid off completely in an effort by their employer to reduce ever growing costs and to avoid raising prices. In your utopian view of economics you forget that businesses have costs associated with running their businesses. It isn't all profit. So when their labor expenses go up they won't magically see an increase in sales because new sales and labor charges are NOT linked. Someone who makes an extra $1/hr or $8/day won't suddenly decide to buy something new just because of that new found money. If anything they will put the money towards repairs for their 10 year old car or their rent for the month that they are behind on because their child needed new clothes for school.
So all you do is raise the cost of those goods and services and make it harder for minimum wage workers to afford those things. You can't increase the spending power of residents if you just forced them to pay MORE for the same thing they paid $2 less for a week before the new minimum wage kicked in. If you think you can increase spending power that way then you don't know real world economics. You only think you do. What you really know is utopian economics.
Spending more comes from how much one can buy with $1. Giving someone $2 does not increase their spending power. Making goods and services cost less so that more can be purchased with the SAME $1 is what increases spending power. Maybe that simple description is what democrats and socialists really need to figure out just how economics really works rather than how they think it works.
I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"
Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.
Is it really that hard to grasp that concept?
You assume the employees getting a higher wage are going to perform better in order to justify that new wage. If they did then their employer would already be giving them raises and, oh, lo and behold, those special employees aren't considered minimum wage anymore (note: that's how the real world actually works). Only the best employees will do that and by the law of statistics the best employees are a small percentage of the employee base. So you are asking for a business to be able to do more work with the same mediocre employees who now get paid more for being mediocre? Why should the mediocre employees do anything more than they did before if they can get a wage increase w/o working any harder than they did before?
And it now costs that business more money to pay its employees. To maintain profit margins cost either go up or employees are laid off. If costs go up then the employees earning more are now still earning the same amount as before if they are now having to pay more money as customers for goods/services that have had price increases. So the net change is 0 for those employees. If people are laid off then those employees whom you thought would generate more sales are now simply receiving food stamps careof us through the federal gov't. Good job!
It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?