Things you just don't get !

[Major Tom]

A back in 45 minutes sign isn't entirely useless. If the person who posted it is good at timekeeping, it means you won't have more than 45 minutes to wait, at the worst.

I think most of us here are familiar with the concept of expecting a possible range of outcomes, with one particular worst case scenario aren't we?

 

[gromit]

And all those 60-something male actors portray guys whose girl friends are about 35 at the most. Get real!

Dick Van Dyke, who is 86 and a widower, got married on Leap Year day to his makeup artist. She's 40. I guess she can keep making him up to try to conceal some of their 46 year age difference.

 

[W2R]

Regarding spammers, when you send out literally millions of emails, you can make money even with a very low response rate.

But even a very low response rate would imply at least some finite number of people who actually respond and send money to the spammers. I don't believe it! I have never known anyone who would send money to spammers, have you?

 

[REWahoo]

I have never known anyone who would send money to spammers, have you?

No, but I'm confident there are enough intelligence-challenged individuals out there to fall for a few of what most of us wouldn't dream of clicking on. The Darwin Awards are held each year to honor some of these folks.

 

[ERD50]

And the "back in 45 minutes" is simply written by someone who doesn't think.

A back in 45 minutes sign isn't entirely useless. If the person who posted it is good at timekeeping, it means you won't have more than 45 minutes to wait, at the worst.

I think most of us here are familiar with the concept of expecting a possible range of outcomes, with one particular worst case scenario aren't we?

Yes, it has some value. But I agree with T-Al about 'not thinking'. It is just as easy to write, "Will be back by 1:00", and that conveys sooooo much more information for no more effort. If you can do more with no more effort, and don't, your brain is not engaged (ignoring the fact that they may not really want you to know when they will be back - they might be smart after all).

If you stop by at 12:55, and have to leave at 1:15, you know you can meet the person in time if they say back at 1:00. But maybe not if the 45 minutes just started. So what do you do?

Regarding spammers, when you send out literally millions of emails, you can make money even with a very low response rate.

But even a very low response rate would imply at least some finite number of people who actually respond and send money to the spammers. I don't believe it! I have never known anyone who would send money to spammers, have you?

What's not to get? This is a self limiting problem. If not enough people responded to make it worth their effort, they would not do it. The response rate is so low that it should not be surprising that we don't know anyone who responded. We probably don't know anyone who won the big jackpot in the lottery either, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And all those 60-something male actors portray guys whose girl friends are about 35 at the most. Get real!

What's not to get? We are just jealous. What would you do if you could cast the show?

-ERD50

 

[Major Tom]

Yes, it has some value. But I agree with T-Al about 'not thinking'. It is just as easy to write, "Will be back by 1:00", and that conveys sooooo much more information for no more effort. If you can do more with no more effort, and don't, your brain is not engaged (ignoring the fact that they may not really want you to know when they will be back - they might be smart after all).
-ERD50

I'm going to split hairs and say that it may take a little more effort to write a sign saying what time you will be back, as a "Back in 45 Minutes" sign can be written out once and used until it falls apart. Unless the person goes on break at the same times, he/she will either have to write out a number of different signs, or a custom sign for each individual occasion, involving more effort.

I do agree that a sign with the actual time when he/she will be back would be more useful though.

However, I'm the guy in line at the Post Office who can never figure out why people are grumbling about having to wait in line for 10-15 minutes, though I do derive quite a bit of entertainment from listening to their moaning (and predictable rants about government workers.)

 

[Nords]

Thing I just don't get - - - Spammers! Why would anybody DO that? Every day every person on the internet is barraged with a multitude of spam e-mails. Have you ever bought something from a spam e-mail? I mean SERIOUSLY. I don't think anybody is that dumb any more. And besides, the spam e-mail titles seem to be competing in the "Most Offensive Title of the Year" contest. And do you ever see ads for a professional spammer, experienced preferred? Are these jobs snapped up so fast they can't even be advertised before they are gone?
So anyway, two things I don't get are (1) spammers; and (2) why anybody would send money to a spammer, assuming that even one out of the 7 billion people now alive does.
I'd read a book entitled "Biography of a Spammer" (but not if I had to buy it from a spammer).

When you spend a couple hundred bucks to send out over seven billion spams and get a 0.0001% response rate, that's still over 7000 customers. If they spend ten bucks on your worthless product then you've just earned $70K on your $200 marketing budget.

I get the most amazing spam commentary on the blog. I could write a post a month titled "What are they thinking?!?" Text that reads as if it was translated from the original Hindi/Romanian/Polish, hundreds of gibberish characters, links made up of random letter combinations... it's fascinating.

I also get some pretty disturbing commentary from people who've decided that a military subject makes me a right-wing 2nd-amendment gun-toting ultra-conservative grammar-and-spelling-challenged hater... just like them!

 

[scrabbler1]

I don't get very many of those outright spams from parties unknown such as lottery winnings or money awaiting me from a bank account in Nigeria or the UK. Maybe a few a year and I just delete them. Although I don't get them but have seen them, I am aware of those phony emails asking for online banking info via a fake link.

The types of quasi-spam emails I get which I do something active about are those multi-forwarded emails trying to ask me to do something or others which are purely political (i.e. often anti-Obama). Because I usually know the person who sent me the email, I take the time to do some research on it, such as in factcheck or snopes (for those many urban legends). I will then hit "Reply All" and gently scold everyone about blindly forwarding all of these myths and point them to my multiple sources which expose the false and/or distorted information within them.

I figure I can at least get a few of those on the other end of my email to stop forwarding the emails and perhaps go to one of the links I include to check things out for themselves beforehand. Or, if anyone else on the other end doesn't like my scolding them, then they take me off their distribution list for future similar emails. Either way, I win to some degree.

 

[W2R]

No, but I'm confident there are enough intelligence-challenged individuals out there to fall for a few of what most of us wouldn't dream of clicking on. The Darwin Awards are held each year to honor some of these folks.

I have lived such a sheltered life... I just can't imagine someone capable enough to be permitted to handle money, who would do that.

 

[W2R]

I'd read a book entitled "Biography of a Spammer" (but not if I had to buy it from a spammer).

Oooooh!! I just searched Amazon and found a book along these lines!

Amazon.com: Inside the SPAM Cartel: By Spammer-X (0792502668603): Spammer-X, Jeffrey Posluns (Editor), Stu Sjouwerman (Foreword): Books

If it wasn't $33.42 for paperback (Kindle edition $30), I'd buy and read it. That price is completely ridiculous IMO. However, reading the free portion on Amazon I read an interesting statistic. The spammer gives an example of a spam porno e-mail the he sent, and 14% of those he sent it to clicked on the link.

 

[Nords]

Oooooh!! I just searched Amazon and found a book along these lines!
If it wasn't $33.42 for paperback (Kindle edition $30), I'd buy and read it. That price is completely ridiculous IMO. However, reading the free portion on Amazon I read an interesting statistic. The spammer gives an example of a spam porno e-mail the he sent, and 14% of those he sent it to clicked on the link.

Well, he spammed seven billion people, and seven thousand of them bought the book...

 

[Chuckanut]

When it comes to older guys and younger women, I am not jealous. Ben Franklin said the following about older women


"1. Because as they have more knowledge of the world and their minds are better stored with observations, their conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable.

2. Because when women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their influence over men, they supply the diminution of beauty by an arguement of utility. They learn to do 1000 services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing as an old woman who is not a good woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of children, which irregularly produced may be attended with much inconvenience.

4. Because the more experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an intrigue to prevent suspicion. The commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the affair should happen to be known, considerate people might be inclined to excuse an old woman who would kindly take care of a young man, form his manners by her good counsels, and prevent his ruining his health and fortune among mercenary prostitutes.

5. Because every animal that walks upright, the deficiency of the fluids that fills the muscles appears first in the highest part. The face grows lank and wrinkled, then the neck, the the breast and arms, the lower parts continuing to the last as plump as ever. So that covering all above with a basket, and regarding only what is below the girdle, it is impossible of two woman to know an old one from a young one. And as in the dark all cats are grey, the pleasure of corporal enjoyment with an old woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every knack being by practice capable of improvement.

6. Because the sin is less. The debauching a virgin may be her ruin, and make her for life unhappy.

7. Because compunction is less. The having made a young girl miserable may give you frequent bitter reflections, none of which can attend making an old woman happy.

8thly and lastly. They are so grateful."

 

[marko]

I understand it when people still say "We're the richest country in the world"....

What I don't understand is why nobody ever takes 'em up on it and says: "Newflash: no we're not! we're broke!!! Borrowed money doesn't count as 'wealth'!

 

[Major Tom]

I understand it when people still say "We're the richest country in the world"....

What I don't understand is why nobody ever takes 'em up on it and says: "Newflash: no we're not! we're broke!!! Borrowed money doesn't count as 'wealth'!

It's not quite that simple though is it? Our entire banking system depends on money being loaned to others. If there were no borrowing, our economy would grind to a halt.

Debt is not always a bad thing.

 

[marko]

It's not quite that simple though is it? Our entire banking system depends on money being loaned to others. If there were no borrowing, our economy would grind to a halt.

Debt is not always a bad thing.

I'm seldom clear in making my point!! My bad.

What I meant is that people can't say that the US is the 'richest country in the world' when WE (as a country) are $57 Trill in debt.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Marathoner]

I'd read a book entitled "Biography of a Spammer" (but not if I had to buy it from a spammer).

Not exactly a book, but you may enjoy this website: Welcome to 419Eater

People respond to the spammers and get them to do ridiculous things (like pose with funny signs.) I read a great article about this a few years back in either the New Yorker or the Atlantic. Sadly, I think more people get sucked into these types of schemes than any of us here could imagine!

 

[W2R]

Not exactly a book, but you may enjoy this website: Welcome to 419Eater

People respond to the spammers and get them to do ridiculous things (like pose with funny signs.) I read a great article about this a few years back in either the New Yorker or the Atlantic. Sadly, I think more people get sucked into these types of schemes than any of us here could imagine!

Thanks, I'll check it out! I thought the parts of the book that Amazon would allow me to read, were fascinating. I may eventually have to pony up the $30. I can afford it but it is the principle of it. To use an old expression, it is highway robbery and I want to refuse to pay that much. But I might cave in.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Thanks, I'll check it out! I thought the parts of the book that Amazon would allow me to read, were fascinating. I may eventually have to pony up the $30. I can afford it but it is the principle of it. To use an old expression, it is highway robbery and I want to refuse to pay that much. But I might cave in.

Ask your library if they can get it on interlibrary loan! Always a chance!

 

[Major Tom]

I'm seldom clear in making my point!! My bad.

What I meant is that people can't say that the US is the 'richest country in the world' when WE (as a country) are $57 Trill in debt.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I was a little too quick to jump on you too - sorry about that. I was assuming that you were applying the simple logic of "all debt is bad" to our economy.

Given that a certain level of indebtedness is necessary to keep an economy operating and productive, I'm wondering what level of debt is actually considered healthy. Is there any consensus on this, or is it the kind of thing that economists argue endlessly about, while boring their friends and significant others to death?

Oh - and just to keep in spirit with the rest of the thread, I don't get why so many people feel the need to jam ear-buds into their ears (fed invariably by iPods and iPhones) while out walking jogging, hiking, sitting on buses and trains etc, when they could be more connected to their environment and perhaps even (perish the thought) available for a greeting or even a quick chat to pass the time of day.

 

[W2R]

Ask your library if they can get it on interlibrary loan! Always a chance!

Good idea! Thanks.

 

[Alan]

I'd read a book entitled "Biography of a Spammer" (but not if I had to buy it from a spammer).

Oooooh!! I just searched Amazon and found a book along these lines!

Amazon.com: Inside the SPAM Cartel: By Spammer-X (0792502668603): Spammer-X, Jeffrey Posluns (Editor), Stu Sjouwerman (Foreword): Books

If it wasn't $33.42 for paperback (Kindle edition $30), I'd buy and read it. That price is completely ridiculous IMO. However, reading the free portion on Amazon I read an interesting statistic. The spammer gives an example of a spam porno e-mail the he sent, and 14% of those he sent it to clicked on the link.

You could try reading this for free. I think you'll find it interesting.
Famous Spammers - Listing and Biography of Famous Spammers

 

[W2R]

You could try reading this for free. I think you'll find it interesting.
Famous Spammers - Listing and Biography of Famous Spammers

Thanks! I'll check it out. For some reason, I am fascinated by these [-]jerks[/-] people.

 

[pb4uski]

I understand it when people still say "We're the richest country in the world"....

What I don't understand is why nobody ever takes 'em up on it and says: "Newflash: no we're not! we're broke!!! Borrowed money doesn't count as 'wealth'!

To say "we're broke" is foolish.

If someone had annual receipts of 100k and had 600k of debt (and substantial assets that are uncounted but probably exceed the 600k of debt) would you say that individual was "broke"? I wouldn't. The US government's annual receipts are 2.6 trillion (2011) and the national debt is 15.5 trillion (3/31/12), roughly the same 1:6 ratio.

What never gets considered is the value of all the property owned by the US government (land, highways, buildings, airports, infrastructure, etc.).

The troublesome part to me is that the outlays are too high (no LBYM) at 3.8 trillion and would be equivalent of a hypothetical individual who has receipts of 100k spending 150k a year. At that rate of living beyond their means, they would be broke if they didn't change their ways quickly (and the sooner the better).

The US is still the richest country in the world, but if we don't soon change our liberal spending ways, we won't be for much longer.

 

[Nords]

To say "we're broke" is foolish.
If someone had annual receipts of 100k and had 600k of debt (and substantial assets that are uncounted but probably exceed the 600k of debt) would you say that individual was "broke"? I wouldn't. The US government's annual receipts are 2.6 trillion (2011) and the national debt is 15.5 trillion (3/31/12), roughly the same 1:6 ratio.

Whew! Gosh, I feel better now...

 

[TromboneAl]

Watching the local news-- they just had a story about cell phone use while driving, and how it is so bad. But the reporter had the story filmed while she was driving and glancing at her cell phone. She even said "if you hold one of these you deserve to get a ticket."

I don't get how someone could be that stupid.