Chris Houser's Comments

It's used to test for tripwires when dealing with explosives/IEDs. The hooks grab the wire, and you can use fishing line with the holes at the end.

Send me a random shirt, please. In small.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
To be fair, those really aren't bombs and that isn't really an explosion. A bomb is when there is contained pressure. It looks very much like there is an escape route for the gas. Now, if these were buried in such a way that it was sealed, it would be a bomb and would create an explosion.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I could see this being absurdly easy with a bill that had 100 on one side and 1 on the other. or rather, a 1 dollar bill bonded to a 100 dollar bill using double sided tape or something. If that's not it, then I'm out of guesses. I didn't see any slight of hand, just noting that I didn't see the other side of the 1 dollar bill.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Yes, I'd want to relearn an alphabet. I'm a proponent of UNIFON and was unaware of Franklin's attempt. After studying Japanese and seeing how much easier it is to have a language with tight orthography, I look back on the years I spent learning how to spell properly. What a damn waste.... English is the only language to have spelling bees. We should not be proud of the fact that our language is confusing enough to have competitions.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  1 reply
Two people got to it. It's basically an LCD and it's called smartglass. I saw this featured in a movie years ago in which the characters were at a nightclub and there were private rooms that had this capability for people to do, uh, well, whatever.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I really hope you aren't implying that, because it makes you feel bad, readers should be denied from interesting material? This is Neatorama, not PCorama. Sorry. :( Yeah, bad stuff happens. At least the headline gives away the content with "5-year old mother". No one is making you read this.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
What you seem to be missing is that the available extra funding that they have to pay baseball players is what allows for their astronomical rates. The amount of money that the players gain is proportional to how much money the company pulls in, compared to all its other expenses. The "highly paid athletes" would not be changing the amount of money they pull into the industry because they lose a portion of their paycheck. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. They're still going to perform their job as-is and fans are still going to be fans as-is. It's not like they're going to leave and go to someone that can pay more money because everyone gets hit equally with this. The entirety of the industry changes. Except now, maybe the people that work at the stadium might actually be able to afford a ticket to watch a game, so suddenly you have more people that can afford to be fans which brings more money into the baseball industry as a whole.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The problem here is that you put a lot of emphasis on the way in which the free market works. The way in which it allocates funding, etc. The problem that I'm trying to ensure that you see is that full-on capitalism has a strong tendency for the money to bunch up in places. If we worked purely on the value presented by competition, we'd have races to the bottom, and races to the top. We have things like minimum wage laws and tax brackets to help manage this. Capitalism, without regulation, is doomed to fall apart. Again, for every dollar you give to that baseball players, that's a dollar you take away from someone else. For that dollar increase in wage, you have added 0.0001% value to the million-dollar-a-year baseball player, whereas you have added 0.005% to the 20k a year (minimum wage, 40 hr/wk 52 wks/yr brings in, before taxes, 15.08k) person's value. In regards to proportions, it's absurd. That baseball player at that amount also only takes home around 50 cents for every extra dollar, whereas the 20k a year worker will get to take home at least 80 cents of it, further increasing the separation. And yet, if we took out the minimum wage regulation, the free market would only want to increase this disparity.

The entire point of this is that the free market needs regulation to keep efficiency going and to give a larger percentage of the populace spending power, which is another form of voting, mind you. The bottom of the rung jobs are what ultimately make it possible to have the absurd payscales that we commonly associate with CEOs and athletes. Forcing these employers to spend more money on their low level employees isn't going to affect the top end in any more ways except their take-home earnings. All employers would be forced to do it, so they'd all take the same cut to their top end, and the competition suffers just the same. For every 20% cut one team must take, the other teams must take as the regulation laws are universal.

So, what I'm trying to sum up here in detail for you is that the only reason we can pay these people these high wages, is because they're profiting so absurdly from the bottom because of our relatively low minimum wage laws. Low Minimum Wage = High Player Salaries. The market does not provide proper value to these people and proper value must be regulated through extra laws, such as our minimum wage law and tax laws. The invisible hand, for all intents and purposes, is mentally handicapped.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I see the error of my ways. Maybe you're right. In fact, the minimum wage law itself is absurd. As you said, anyone can sell hotdogs. We should just drop minimum wage and let hotdog sellers compete for the lowest payright! Maybe we can even get them down to 2 dollars an hour. It'll be great for the economy!

As a bonus, this would provide the owners with that much extra cash to pay players with. You might be onto something, we could show baseball players their true value by letting everyone compete for their wages! Bottom of the barrel be damned! Regulation was a stupid idea to begin with.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Isn't that the whole argument for why we should keep a free market? It's supposed to fairly distribute pay based on the value that the service brings to society. Invisible hand and everything. All it makes me see is that we should probably implement a few more of Socialism's ideas.

Think of how many underpaid workers it takes for these things to happen that are trying to support others. To keep the stadiums going and to keep the shows running to continue pulling in a profit for everyone that's making absurd amounts of money off this. If it were efficient, the distribution of income would more appropriately reflect the value gained by society. Companies are able to make lots of profit off of those with low income, leaving more room to pay these million dollar salaries to players. Classism sure is awesome.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
They look startlingly like groucho glasses. Groucho Marx played a pretty promiscuous character. He didn't have a fake nose.. but still. The potential is there for a connection.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
My understanding of the rules of operation are that they're based on weight, with multiplication and division getting equal weight. Just as addition and subtraction get equal weight (those those are commutative so it doesn't matter the order, if there was one). Outside of that, the order of operations happens linearly. I say that the answer is 9 because if you follow from front to back, that's what you get. Arguing over whether multiplication or division takes precedence is silly, I think, because the two are of equal weight. And as is mentioned, schools teach different conventions that are a little bit too simplistic by giving everything its own tier. So, grouping multiplication and division into the same tier (the blasphemy!) and following linearly to the right as is the custom, with respect to parenthesis, we get:
6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
3(3)
9
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It actually had a pretty good plot surrounding the value of his religion. Tony Jaa has some impressive scenes, such as a, I think, 7 minute continuous fight scene. No cuts. That's right, no cuts, no camera angle changes, no wires.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Oh oh, and while we're at it, let's switch to metric! And implement a Parliament to tear down the party duopoly.

Oh wait.. I keep forgetting. In America we hate using logic and critical thinking to solve problems. It's all about emotions and first judgments.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Profile for Chris Houser

  • Member Since 2013/02/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 16
  • Replies Posted 14
  • Likes Received 10