It depends if the tourist doesn’t mind slumming it in a small room, eating at convenience stores, taking the bus and not doing any nightlife but I’d rather watch my money go further outside Japan
Personally speaking, most of my tourism in any country has involved slumming it in small rooms. I'm too stingy to enjoy spending more than about $100 a night on accommodation, and often shoot for far less than that. And the fact is that in many cities (and towns) around the world, $100 doesn't get you very much. Having visited Japan many times in the past, though, I'll say I never needed to subsist on convenience store food. Considering how cheap it is to eat at basic restaurants, that sounds suspiciously like turning up in a country with insufficient funds. People who come here on a vagrant's budget, or expect to pay Thailand/Indonesia prices, are obviously going to be sorely disappointed. They're also severely deluded.
The internet provides more than enough opportunities for people to do some preparation before they come - if you think it's expensive now, you should have seen it thirty years ago. Or forty - when everywhere else in Asia, including some places that have now nearly caught up with Japan prices - were very inexpensive.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Cash grab much?
No, not much, as long as they keep it where it is. It's 2000 yen for every 100,000 yen spent on accommodation, a negligible amount for the tourist. And seeing as tourists do put an extra strain on things, it's not actually unreasonable. For much of the year, Kutchan is little more than a small agricultural town, main crop potatoes. Raising a bit of revenue directly from tourists isn't unreasonable. Ploughing the roads alone is an enormous cost throughout the winter, and there are plenty of other things that tourists need done for them.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I did more than a dozen times.
Oh, back to that, are you.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Way to get rid of humans.. Robots are replacing labor force for quite some time now, but this is the next level.
Next level of what? From the description, it sounds like a McNugget-heating machine. "Robot" is just branding, as a way to get a completely unremarkable device a bit of attention.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
What happened to her lawyer again?
He was obliterated by Michael Cohen, who won a $20 million damages claim against Stormy Daniels.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I think liberals don’t know otherwise they wouldn’t get too, too overconfident....but this is thr typical liberal mindset.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Sure he can make things up. That’s what liberals said about Michael Cohen prior to his starting to work with mueller. liar who can’t be trusted.
It's not a question of just making things up though, is it.
He could for example admit to things he'd previously denied, and provide information on how to verify that. Example: the Steele dossier said that in August 2016 Cohen met a highly placed Kremlin figure in Prague. Trump and Cohen went into a frenzy about that, and Cohen said he has never visited Prague in his life, unconvincingly posting a picture on Twitter of the front cover of one of his passports. If he now, in an attempt to cooperate, admits to it, he's not actually making something up, but telling Mueller that is likely already 3/4 known to Mueller. It's certainly sufficiently well known that it's been exhaustively discussed in the media for well over a year. But it's Cohen who could indicate dates of travel, where he stayed, what name he used, and other information that could check out.
Prague is just an example, but if that turns out to be true, it becomes a lever for other things. It's considered hugely important, so if the denial collapses, the overall case concerning coordination with Russia strengthens.
The story of Trump and his associates since the early stages of the campaign for the presidency is denial of every piece of potentially damaging information reported in the media, big or small. The reason such information emerged in the first place was because it had partial or total basis in truth (Russia meeting in Trump Tower a prime example). And because these people are out-and-out liars so there's a lot of damaging information to dig up. This has been shown time and time again.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Big difference between fructose, corn syrup and HFCS. Is Reuters avoiding this because of corporate ties? Hmmm.....
Nice bit of lazy insinuation, but the answer is simpler.
The BMJ itself used the term "fructose" rather than "high-fructose corn syrup". (It also uses the term "sweetened drinks" rather than "soda", but Reuters unwisely chose to interpret that specifically as soda, managing to demonstrate in a few short paragraphs both why it's better in the journalistic field to adhere to correct terminology that was supplied to them, and why it's worse to deviate from it.)
As fructose doesn't by definition have to be high-fructose corn syrup, Reuters and the BMJ were quite correct in their use of the term. HFCS is restricted by quota in Europe, and the B in BMJ indicates a European connection; I'll let you work out the rest.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So, its a Law, companies will be fined for not following it right?
As a rule, companies that cheat employees only get fined if they are actually challenged, and if the person making the challenge wins. They're not really being monitored to ensure that they follow the law.
In many cases - unpaid wages for example - they don't actually get fined or punished, but are required to restore (or partially restore) what they've withheld. That means the odds are hugely in favour of companies in general, and in favour of unscrupulous companies (as many who have worked in eikaiwa know) in particular. Quite a sweet deal: filch what you like, but if someone calls you on it, the worst is that you might have to return it. And in doing so, you can have a few shots at trying to fudge the result (delaying tactics etc.), with, again, the worst outcome being that you actually do have to cough up.
The law provides individuals with a measure of protection, but it's only a measure. How much time would you spend chasing down 300,000 yen owed you by your company? How much money would you spend on it? How much stress would you endure? If you challenge a company, you're often on your own. Puts you at a bit of a disadvantage.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Too many national holidays in Japan. On top of them, we have holidays of New Years Days in Jan., Golden Week in May, Obon Holidays in Aug. and Year End Holidays in Dec. Who says Japanese work too many days?
Just about everybody. Too many hours as well.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
...after Rudy Giulliani
Outing the client to a flummoxed interviewer on national television is clearly breaking some fundamental rules of lawyering. That alone could destroy a practice or get a lawyer disbarred.
But Cohen very unwisely launched what a superficially straightforward breach of contract lawsuit against a porn star. A canny lawyer would never have gone that route with that NDA. In the process, and by massively raising his visibility he wrecked his legal career, and is looking at jail time, which if the prosecutors prevail will be either long or longer. He may additionally play a crucial role in destroying the presidency of Donald Trump.
Now that's lawyering!
6 ( +6 / -0 )
oh that would be Michael Cohen, the convicted liar. Anyone else have any evidence that despite being convicted for lying that this thing he says is true.
Maybe that'll help, probably it won't. Worth a try, given the dwindling options.
You people have had quite a journey. At the beginning of the year, it was all about suing Stormy Daniels for $20 million for breaking a nondisclosure agreement. Sounds like Cohen was still very much your guy back then.
That quickly went knockers-up, and predictably led to Trump and Cohen abandoning the $20 million claim and requesting to have the NDA rescinded. Cohen meanwhile went from wronged lawyer to criminal suspect, in one blow destroying his (admittedly murky) legal career and making himself look like America's most inept lawyer.
The narrative shifted to "the death of attorney-client privilege", with Trump still the victim. Then Cohen flips and starts cooperating, and he's a scumbag and a liar.
Still think the real issue is "who cares if Donald Trump cheated on his wife in 2005"? Keep asking that question, it'll take your mind of where the investigation's going and what gets put before a judge.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
I know the medications, doses, and diagnosis.
Of what. Again, too general to have any meaning.
I didn't know oatmeal was such a threat to someone's worldview that they would rather children suffer instead.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
"Rex Tillerson, didn’t have the mental capacity needed. He was dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough."
We'll have the Oh My brigade along soon to line up behind this. So let's revisit what Trump said about Tillerson in December 2017:
"The media has been speculating that I fired Rex Tillerson or that he would be leaving soon - FAKE NEWS! He's not leaving and while we disagree on certain subjects, (I call the final shots) we work well together and America is highly respected again!"
They lined up behind that one too. It must be exhausting for those within the personality cult to marshal scarce intellectual resources on wildly competing ideas: 14 months in office - couldn't get rid of fast enough - not resigning - fake news - Mike is doing a great job, I am very proud of him - dumb as a rock, lazy as hell.
They lapped it all up, and farted it out here, just like the rest of Trump's toxic filth.
10 ( +10 / -0 )
Doctors don't know how to manage something dietary in nature. They don't receive dietary training. Ask them. They're good for diseases, as that's their training
Too general to mean anything.
This is important for those that are at wits end. Since this doesn't concern you it isn't your business
If you have private business to conduct, take it to a private space. There's no reason why this public space has to be a one-way bulletin board for you to promote antiscientific drivel.
I'm sharing what works, is that ok? No doubt you will have further complaints
You went much further than that. Saying that people in a company being on medication is "unnecessary" is not sharing what works, it's baseless opinionizing by someone wholly ignorant of reality. You can't possibly judge what their medical needs are individually, let alone en masse. You don't know what their medical history is, you don't have the tests and data at your disposal, you don't have the medical knowledge to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment.
You could hardly be at a greater disadvantage for deciding who should and who shouldn't be on medication. Not knowing what you're talking about is not a qualification, it's a character flaw.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
He will? That’s news to me.
No one expects you to know everything.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
What do do you mean, people like me? I don’t read that children’s rubbish.
You wear it so well though.
If I had impeccable literary taste, I wouldn't be able to stop hugging myself.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Ah I see I missed that. Add Oatmeal to my food list in the first post.
With or without oatmeal, the first post simply outlines a faddy diet - and a vegan one by the look of it - that supposedly cures ADHD.
Now you might be tempted to backtrack and say you never mentioned a cure, but by post 3, you sound excessively confident: "for the kids very easy. Normal steel cut oatmeal with nothing added, for the zinc magnesium Flaxseed meal or walnuts for the omega 3s. Add it as is with soy milk and cinnamon and it's quick. Pills or oatmeal, that is the question"
I was tempted to asked WTF about the steel-cut thing, and is this supposed to be a contributor to ADHD, but I'm hesitant to open the door to further raving.
I understand from your writing that science is something to be disregarded as an irritating inconvenience, and would be better replaced by enthusiastic gushing.
What a reader can take away from your posts is the following:
You imagine that you know better than doctors. ("In one company half the staff were on medication. It's scary. And unnecessary.") No examination of the patient, no medical degree, no medical experience, no knowledge of anatomy, pathology, or pharmacology. Just "medication unnecessary".
For conditions that have been extensively studied for half a century or more, you prefer to ignore all the data, all the work, and all the progress. ("How sad is it that we reach for the pills rather than study the problem?")
You think an immensely challenging issue can be boiled down to a completely phony dichotomy: "Pills or oatmeal, that is the question".You believe that a condition which specialists say is complicated even to treat is actually easy to cure. (There's nothing new about that, it's called quackery.)
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Pills or oatmeal, that is the question
On the contrary, that's just a way of irrelevantly shoehorning the word "oatmeal" into a topic, on the assumption that people will be too witless to notice that it's suddenly appeared there.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
But what happens if that fish leads to someone other than the President, let’s say a few Democrats or someone other than the President, you’d still be equally as satisfied with the results of the investigation, right?
Put it this way, professor.
It ain't us that's yapping about a witch hunt, or trying to smear Robert Mueller, or talking about presidential pardons being dished out to Trump's friends, family and himself.
What Mueller finds, he finds, and what he prosecutes, he prosecutes. If that involves taking down a Democrat, any Democrat, then fine. All he has to do is provide the evidence.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Posted in: She realises it's seen as something unnecessary and extravagant, but she isn't making any excuses. They have a different lifestyle and she doesn't expect other people to understand. See in context
It's a trade-off. Other people don't expect her to understand what finds its way into her food.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
How do you calculate 2024 to 12 months? Boy liberals are really bad at math.
It's going to be somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible for Trump to transform the manure of his approval ratings into the gold of a second election victory.
Halfway through his term, he has only managed a peak approval of 45%, which is dismal compared to all predecessors. And it is lower than the average of any presidents going back to FDR. You read that right - even the low-scoring Carter's average is better than Trump's best.
And Trump's average approval rating, which covers only for half a presidential term and includes that all-important honeymoon period right after coming into office, is an excruciatingly bad 39%. No one's broken below 40 before, or even come close to it, and that's after 4 or 8 years for the country to get sick of them. For comparison's sake, Carter had 45.5. Obama, who you're always losing your sh*t over, had 47.9. Looks like that personality cult you're signed up to has limited appeal.
This isn't an aberration, and Trump's approval figures are not going to improve. He's monumentally incompetent at his job, and worse than hopeless at concealing the fact.
He gets low approval for that, and he's not going to suddenly discover competence, nor is it going to discover him.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Get with the Trump program, or suffer the consequences.
The only person with the Trump program, which he makes up as he goes along, is Trump.
China is well aware that Trump has a few hundred days left on the clock. They're not so impatient that they can't wait that out, and they're not so stupid that they imagine Trump is America and America is Trump.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Lying to law enforcement is not illegal. I can walk up to a cop and tell him I’m the best basketball player in the world. He knows I’m lying, but what crime can he charge me with?
It's a magnificent example - well done, very instructive - though it doesn't actually prove or even demonstrate that lying to law enforcement authorities isn't illegal.
And as people have been tried and convicting of lying to law enforcement, reality does not agree with you on this.
Law doesn't start and stop with "a cop".
1 ( +1 / -0 )
No, I mean, the Earth has survived billions of years, so I’m not buying this doom and gloom hype
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Even the Treasury dept of the UK has predicted that economically the UK would suffer under May’s proposals.-definitely a bad deal!
The UK doesn't have a Treasury Department. You must be confusing it with the United States, which does.
Is this the report you're referring to, or something else?
Because in a BBC report, here:
there are a few important points about the report. I'll use direct quotes.
1. "The UK will be poorer economically under any form of Brexit, compared with staying in the EU."
2. "Official figures say the UK economy could be up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years under Theresa May's Brexit plan, compared with staying in the EU. But a no-deal Brexit could deliver a 9.3% hit, the new estimates say."
3. "Confusingly the 83-page document does not forecast the impact of the prime minister's current deal. Instead it looks at the potential impact of the proposals agreed by the Cabinet at Chequers in July, which is the basis of the current proposal."
This is quite different from your no doubt intentionally selective interpretation.
The report is on the consequences of Brexit, so the prediction of the UK being worse off under May's plan (which in actual fact wasn't directly analysed anyway) is not a vindication of other Brexit plans or outcomes. Particularly so as they looked at some of those and each of them was even worse than the Chequers proposals, which are the closest thing to May's plan. Unsurprisingly, a hard Brexit is by some distance the worst of all.
Nonetheless, the handling of Brexit by the Conservative party has been an unqualified disaster. They oversaw the referendum (badly), triggered Article 50, which started the clock, and have spent the whole negotiation period squabbling among themselves. There's no aspect of this that counts as a legacy of a different government or ruling party, the project has been Conservative from beginning to end. That said, the other parties have nothing at all to be proud of either.
The reason you're voicing concerns about a bad deal is that there's no such thing as a good deal. It's Brexit, and it will cause a lot of damage to Britain in any form.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
To took a piss off bus drive to give the pilot up. I would like to know why the bus driver gave him up. Like this bus driver has given up other piss pilots ? I doubt it. He would not have a job if he did. I bet the Bus driver still hold a wartime grudge.
You're out of your mind.
The bus driver "gave him up" - not the correct term, but anyway - because he spotted a serious violation. He not only did what was right, but what was his duty. If you have a problem with this, blame the pilot who was so clattered he couldn't stand normally or even fake sobriety.
By the way, when an aircraft crashes, and loss of life is involved, it takes a psychological toll on the (professional) people who were connected to the flight, even marginally. A driver who spotted a drunk pilot but said nothing when he could have intervened would have to deal with that for the rest of his life.
It's not about the war.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
I'd say Cohen knows his boss better than Manafort does, having worked for him more closely and for a much longer duration, and is thus taking the better bet.
True enough. Additionally, it would never be a good idea to bet on receiving a pardon at an unspecified point in the future from a short-fused, obese 72-year-old with disastrous eating habits.
2 ( +2 / -0 )