Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Studies also show more productivity under 40 ho (Score 1) 132

The biggest creepy bit for me about smart phones is that they destroy your privacy and make everyone (work, friends, relatives) able to see your schedule. And then ask questions, hey you were off line from 1pm to 3pm today.. what were you doing?

makes me want to respond..

Well dave, I was goint to be fucking my SO for two solid hours so I turned the phone off. Thanks for asking.
Well dave, I had bad stomach cramps and was on the toilet shitting my guts out for two hours. Thanks for asking.
Well dave, I was preparing for your surprise birthday party. Thanks for asking.

People feel they have a right to know every second of my life when I have a smart phone.
And if I don't pick up on the second ring, they ask why I wasn't able to answer their last call.
Even tho I never respond so I imagine everyone must do it to everyone now.

When I was 35, two decades ago, I could still actually do whatever I wanted for 3-5 hours a day and no one had a clue and didn't ask.

Comment Re:Studies also show more productivity under 40 ho (Score 1) 132

Personally, I'd be fine with that however I don't see how you could do 10 minutes at places that require you to leave your desk for lunch for sanitary reasons.

Before I retired, I preferred working as a contractor (as long as the wage was comparable after paying my own benefits).

If I worked 5 hours, I got paid for 5 hours. If I needed to work 15 hours, I got paid for 15 hours.

And mainly, when I walked out the door they knew I wasn't being paid and it changed their attitude.

Comment Re:Studies also show more productivity under 40 ho (Score 1) 132

EXACTLY.

Companies asked for more hours at work and a larger slice of your personal time, so you use your smart phone at work to pay your bills, keep up with your personal life, and deal with emergencies.

Companies want to have it both ways. They can try, but we shouldn't let them.

Comment Re:Studies also show more productivity under 40 ho (Score 3, Interesting) 132

You know... people did all those things before cell phones right?

Your business has a land line in every office if it requires no smart phones.

Combined with RFID tags, you don't even have to log into the phones.

I have friends who work for the government and they have no access to any kind of cell phones during the day and they do not appear to have stable locations while at work (swapping between lab, office, and a lab/plane).

My point was, companies ask for 65 hours a week of your time and then require you check email and be available for on-call 24/7 via your smart phone.

If they are going to cut your smart phone then they need to return you to normal working hours and stop calling you at 11pm.

Comment Studies also show more productivity under 40 hours (Score 5, Insightful) 132

I wouldn't mind if we combine

a) Taking a way smart phones during working hours.
b) Working hours are limited to 35 hours a week (40 hour week with an hour for lunch & breaks each day).
c) Any employee not allowed to use a smart phone during work can't be required to use a smart phone for work outside of working hours.

Comment Use the Tmobile Music Unlimited prepaid plan (Score 4, Interesting) 71

It's $50 ($55 with tax).

I get unlimited music and 1 gig of data.

Recently right as the month ends I'm hitting 900mb (and that's with youtube videos).

They tried to upsell me to the post paid plan.

It was $70 ($77 with tax). And otherwise the same plan.

I looked at the salesperson and explained my plan again.

She went, "oh.. right" and stopped.

Do you have a great plan to recommend? I'd love to hear it. Every month, I have the option of changing plans or even services. I love it.

Comment Re:Captain Kirk says... (Score 1) 308

From elsewhere..

  Dr. Michael Roizen, MD , Internal Medicine, answered
Although many studies have looked at the family history of disease in relation to the onset of disease, only three major studies have correlated overall longevity trends between parents and their children. The Framingham Study, the "Termite" Study, and the Alameda County Study looked at the age of parental death to determine if it predicted longevity of the offspring. Did the two correlate? Yes, but minimally. Each study showed a minor effect. The Framingham Study, the most comprehensive of the three, found about a 6 percent correlation between life span of the parents and life span of their offspring, meaning that many other factors affect longevity as well. If both your parents lived past the age of seventy-five, the odds that you will live past seventy-five increase to some extent. But to what extent? (Note that we are discussing, for the most part, death related to disease. If a parent dies at age forty in a car accident, for example, that provides little information about how long the child will live, although alcohol-induced accidents are a possible exception.)

If you are a man and both of your parents died before the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge (physiologic age) will be as much as 4.2 years older. If you are a woman, your RealAge will be as much as 3.5 years older. If both parents lived past the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge will be 4.2 years younger if you are man, and 3.5 years younger if you are a woman. If no first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister) had breast, colon, or ovarian cancer diagnosed early, you are an additional 0.2 to eleven years younger than if your siblings or parents had those diagnoses. Some genetic conditions, such as being a carrier of the BRCA-1 breast cancer gene, can make your RealAge as much as 17 years older. This is one of the instances where genetics can make a big difference.

https://www.sharecare.com/heal...

Comment Re:Captain Kirk says... (Score 3, Insightful) 308

Given a young healthy pain free body, you would never finish your interests.

There would always be new "pokemon go"'s coming along to get excited about.
New musical instruments to master.
New places to see (because they are changing if you live long enough. The world today is almost completely different than it was in 1935.
New inventions to be excited about.
A much longer investment horizon mean you'd probably go through being wealthy and being poor multiple times (I was wiped out in the panic of 2160, 2310, 2470, the big one of 3107, and was broke again in 3705. But today in 4212, I'm comfortably wealthy.)

People who are old, people who are unhappy, people who know they will be old and unhappy in only 30 years make it sound bad to live for a thousand years. But the last 1000 years rocked.

Even with the expected collapses of non-renewable resources and likely associated rapid population collapse, you'd then have an awesome world with fewer neat things but less crowding and get to see all the areas ruined by overuse recover and see the seas verdant with life again as it was in the 1870's.

Comment I'm quite ignorant of the KKK (Score 1) 2

All I know about them is they hate blacks, Jews, and Catholics (presumably all non-protestants, but as I said, I'm ignorant). What views do they have that aren't hateful? I'm curious.

As to BLM, the entire reason that movement HAD to happen was because there really ARE people who think black lives DON'T matter, including black gangsters and bigoted whites. You have some citation for BLMers advocating hatred or violence?

Like the late humorist Will Rogers said in the 1930s, "all I know is what I read in the papers" and I have a LOT more newspapers available than he did, thanks to the internet.

Comment Advise you get a "throwdown phone" (Score 2) 42

Because putting your phone number out there will probably pollute it and soon you'll be getting telemarketing calls 24x7 effectively killing the number.

They'll promise to take care of your number but they'll sell it to a "business partner" or they'll lose the list due to poor security or when they go bankrupt it will be sold as an asset.

I've had multiple email and one phone number polluted like this so far. I don't trust'em any more.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 2) 695

The trend towards war is down.

But as we run out of non-renewable resources over the next 100 years, global warming won't matter.

The loss of pesticides, fertilizers, stainless steel, etc. all will limit our growth, lead to population declines, and possibly pretty terrible war (we have a lot of ugly stuff we agree not to use but as history shows, we will use during total war).

80 years from now, we may be at 12 billion and 80% likely to still be rising.

200 years from now, the earth is more likely to have a population of 3 billion than 20 billion. To avoid that we'll have to invent a lot of new technologies really fast as we hit multiple limits. Consumption of non-renewable resources by a population of 12 billion will be terrific.

I think most of the breakdown happens after I die. But I think we do have a breakdown- things have gotten visibly more brittle over the last 20 years. There's not as much slack in the system as their used to be. Which is fine until you have a problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Working...