Yeah, that was the section that really jumped out to me, too. Translation:
"Something Bad happened! We must do something!"
"Here's a Something to Do! (However, it isn't in any way remotely related to the Something Bad that happened.)"
"Who cares?!? It's a Something to Do! We have to do it immediately to prevent the Something Bad!"
What I really want to know is whether the top "Monthly Price" is inclusive of all of the sleazy fees and additional costs, or if those will only be listed down below in multiple entries. Many people will only look at that top number; if it doesn't include all of the fees, then this still sucks.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is giving Americans more time to chime in with their opinion on Google’s plan to stop marking political campaign emails in Gmail as spam. The Commission has extended the deadline for the comment period until August 5, FEC Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub recently confirmed. You can email your opinion to ao@fec.gov, referring to AO 2022-14. The FEC will publicly post all comments.
I don't think we should necessarily look at it from the standpoint of which is better in an absolute sense, but which is more appropriate for the situation. They each can offer advantages and disadvantages.
I'm going to betray my geekiness here, everyone may not understand the analogy, but since we've built computers in many ways to mimic our own brains and thinking processes, I'll go with it. Consider the scheduler in a computer Operating System. There are many ways to handle scheduling, but the two big trade-offs that have to be dealt with are throughput (amount of work done) and latency (responsiveness). Increasing one will decrease the other. Neither is "better" than the other, but each is more appropriate in certain circumstances.
With our increased methods of communication, people are having to "multi-task" significantly more than they did in the past. It's true that this reduces throughput, as they lose productivity to the task switching. However, they're reducing latency (increasing their responsiveness) in responding to the different tasks.
Sometimes this is a bad thing, especially if throughput is your primary consideration. However, there are a lot of roles in our modern world where ignoring new tasks to complete an existing task is worse than responding to the new tasks. Particularly if the new tasks are small or can be handled quickly, it may be more useful from a business perspective to slightly reduce overall productivity to increase responsiveness to potentially important tasks.
Another side consideration is that some people are very good at taking a task and working on it with dedication and single-mindedness until it's complete. Other people do better when they're able to work for a while on a task, then take a break from it and work for a while on something else. Knowing which side you fall in can help you be more productive.
I signed up with eMusic a long time ago, so I'm on a plan that isn't currently available. I currently pay $11.99 for 50 tracks per month.
Per eMusic, at the end of this month I'll be transitioned to a plan where I pay $11.99 for 30 tracks per month.
I'm now paying the exact same rate and getting 40% less value for it.
Considering that I have hundreds of tracks on my "saved for future purchase" list, I'm not exactly hurting to find stuff to download. The bottom line is that I'm now getting screwed over and yes, it is bad for me. Very bad.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Christopher Cashell.
Yeah, that was the section that really jumped out to me, too. Translation:
And logic dies again.Inclusive "Monthly Price"?
What I really want to know is whether the top "Monthly Price" is inclusive of all of the sleazy fees and additional costs, or if those will only be listed down below in multiple entries. Many people will only look at that top number; if it doesn't include all of the fees, then this still sucks.
Comment period extended
The commenting period has been extended:
Both multi-tasking and single-tasking have their place.
I don't think we should necessarily look at it from the standpoint of which is better in an absolute sense, but which is more appropriate for the situation. They each can offer advantages and disadvantages.
I'm going to betray my geekiness here, everyone may not understand the analogy, but since we've built computers in many ways to mimic our own brains and thinking processes, I'll go with it. Consider the scheduler in a computer Operating System. There are many ways to handle scheduling, but the two big trade-offs that have to be dealt with are throughput (amount of work done) and latency (responsiveness). Increasing one will decrease the other. Neither is "better" than the other, but each is more appropriate in certain circumstances.
With our increased methods of communication, people are having to "multi-task" significantly more than they did in the past. It's true that this reduces throughput, as they lose productivity to the task switching. However, they're reducing latency (increasing their responsiveness) in responding to the different tasks.
Sometimes this is a bad thing, especially if throughput is your primary consideration. However, there are a lot of roles in our modern world where ignoring new tasks to complete an existing task is worse than responding to the new tasks. Particularly if the new tasks are small or can be handled quickly, it may be more useful from a business perspective to slightly reduce overall productivity to increase responsiveness to potentially important tasks.
Another side consideration is that some people are very good at taking a task and working on it with dedication and single-mindedness until it's complete. Other people do better when they're able to work for a while on a task, then take a break from it and work for a while on something else. Knowing which side you fall in can help you be more productive.
Re: Sean
I signed up with eMusic a long time ago, so I'm on a plan that isn't currently available. I currently pay $11.99 for 50 tracks per month.
Per eMusic, at the end of this month I'll be transitioned to a plan where I pay $11.99 for 30 tracks per month.
I'm now paying the exact same rate and getting 40% less value for it.
Considering that I have hundreds of tracks on my "saved for future purchase" list, I'm not exactly hurting to find stuff to download. The bottom line is that I'm now getting screwed over and yes, it is bad for me. Very bad.