If they're into chemistry - you can try looking at the local homebrew store - they usually have a kit for making root beer or something like that.

It looks more like "market shaping" to me - streaming is a contradictory market strategy to the "pay per download" model that Itunes uses. If they can keep control of the market leader in that arena, driving out other startups until the business model goes belly up, they have not only eliminated a competitor, but any potential competitor of that type.

The point I was trying to make on the LoD issues is that they really can't wait. Most IT questions really can wait until business hours, the caller is just impatient or they have lost perspective.

Patient's new heart failing is not equivalent to the user's password failing. While the user wants to get some work done, the patient needs to have a working heart.

The only point I can see to be had on salaries is that physicians are typically closer to what we think of as "FLSA Exempt" than IT is. I wasn't intending to imply that the handling of LoD issues shouldn't be compensated, but I do see how you could draw that from what I said. I'll have to think about my logic on that. I definitely think that impatient people should be zinged for demanding service on petty issues though.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (In the USA) defines what is a salaried job and what is an hourly job. I have always wondered how IT folks can be considered salaried when the act defines any job that is measured by man-hours to be hourly. That's a really boiled-down interpretation, so YMMV.

If you're working for $20/hour and you're working 160 hour weeks without overtime pay, you may consider a position in fast-food. They typically pay better than minimum wage, so you may come out ahead by the time you consider that you're paid for all of your overtime.

Sorry, but I do have to put a slap in here for the original post - I've said it once and I'll say it again: never underestimate the arrogance of a lawyer.

If the job is that crappy - they can have it.

I always imagined that doctors being called off-hours were being called for honest-to-goodness life-and-death issues. I can think of few IT personnel that can say that they are being called for issues so serious. I can think of even fewer that make a physician's salary.

Am I off base here?

I keep seeing this come up and I haven't seen anyone able to tell me how this meshes with the Nelson V. Sears decision:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/359/case.html

SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. I thought taxation of interstate commerce was settled law.

I was taught that if you didn't like the money, don't do the job. I'm tired of hearing so many people drone on and on about how little teachers make.

$50k is a good living - that's a little over $24/hour if they worked all year, which they don't. It takes a lot of 10 hour days and training sessions to make up for all of the time off they get.

I'm not even going to go into unionization, government job security and the lack of uniform performance requirements.

Whenever I hear this kind of droning - it just brings to mind a picture of Sally Strothers saying "think of the children".

Go ahead, mark me a troll - I'm just calling out nonsense where I see it.

If you're being paid to do work, you don't own the work - whoever is paying you does. If the schools don't have clauses in those teachers' contracts to that effect, then the school boards are allowing taxpayer money to fund "side work" for these teachers.

What you would have to offset is the value gained by employing people with little or no credentials in their area of expertise.

The whole argument supporting H1B visas is that there aren't enough qualified people for the jobs - and that's counting the meaningless credentials as actual qualifications. The addition of a professional society that will undoubtedly set the bar higher than it is now will only shrink the pool of "qualified" (and I mean that in the most liberal sense) persons.

Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?

However, it is still an "end around" of one of the central principles of a non-totalitarian government. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's an obvious head-first dive down the slippery slope.

I liked your response - I don't necessarily agree with some of it, but your response was pretty well thought through.

As of the writing of this post, I see 3 responses to my post and apparently I got marked down as a "troll".

I would encourage all who have posted about about what "studies" say to read:
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone

This is an actual study. While it does point out that cell phone usage is a problem, it is not the boogie man that some make it out to be.

It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:

1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.

Let's hope that they got permission from the patients' doctors first.

I would think that getting the patients' permission would be a little more important.