That's fine in many cases. So they know that I purchased a car or made a down payment on a house, no big deal (especially ccompared to the thousands of companies that now know and will stuff my mailbox with refinance offers almost immediately). It's only an issue if you want to hide the transaction from the government (hookers and blow).
They money you have at the bank is not stored in a vault as cash. It's invested and spread around. The bank does not hold enough cash on hand to be able to pay out every customer if they came and asked for it.
Right, the cost of doing business by credit card, paypal, smartphone, and so forth, can be much more expensive than dealing with cash and checks. The reason most merchants accept credit cards and digital transactions is because the convenience to the consumers means more sales which can outweigh the overhead costs. There are indeed some places that refuse credit cards and some that will give you a discount for using cash.
For me, I don't care if the merchants have overhead if they don't pass that along to me. As a consumer I should be looking out for myself first, and not worrying about the other parties in the transaction (ok, it's a bit selfish but that's how the system is supposed to work).
Most merchants take all the cash and checks and deposit them in a bank each night or morning. And this must continue unless they refuse customers who only have cash or checks. It would be stupid to refuse a sale merely because it's slightly inconvenient; are the profits from the transactions larger than the overhead cost of dealing with a time tested banking system or not.
"Middle ages" seems to be a common refrain amongst the technophiliacs. Just because you CAN pay with your smart phone doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's more advanced technologically but it is not necessarily better. Someone's usually making money off of those electronic transactions, so you're actually paying for the extra convenience (even with credit cards). Then there's the lack of privacy, the really shoddy security underpinnings underneath it all, and of course nobody likes hipsters saying "they just swipe my beard and it deducts the money."
Yes, but if you walk into a local bank and demand to walk out with $250,000 of your own money it will be highly unlikely that they have that much lying around.
That's bullshit. Fascists and Nazis were NOT socialists. The Nazi party had "socialist" in their name, but very many political things have a word in their title that is not true, many undemocratic countries have "Democratic" in their names. If that's the sole thing you have that makes Nazis are leftist then you need to try a lot harder, do some research instead of reiterating a new talking point from the far right.
Yes, Socialists and Communists are often similar. The USSR officially said it was a socialist state and that communism was an end goal.
When I was growing up, there was a strong anti-union push from the Republican side of things (back when Republican was fiscal conservative and pro-business) and Democrats were very much pro-worker and pro-union. The talk back then was that unions were a steeping stone to socialist ideas which was a stepping stone to socialism which was a stepping stone for the world commie takeover (and yes, some people took it this seriously). As the Republican party has evolved since then they have always kept this anti-union stance and link it to socialism.
And that is the crux of the issue. The idiots take that one word and assume Q.E.D. they must have been socialists. It was just a name of the party, they had few socialist ideas at the beginning and those ideas were most abandoned as they gained power.
Look. There's a country today called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you think they are democratic because the word "democratic" is in the name? Do you think it is a republic because it has "republic" in the name? No, it's absurdly false, North Korea is not democratic and it is not a republic. Similarly, don't make the same mistake with the Nazis and treat them like a far left political movement.
Oh no, plenty of there here in the valley, absolutely. Your local IT help desk (assuming you're not a startup), the corporate IT help desk, the people who set up the routers in your building, the ones who set up the policies and procedures the corporation has to follow, the ones who set up the computers for new employees or in the back office, and so forth. IT jobs are still big because there's so much you can't do remotely or that can't be effectively outsourced.
Is it an outright lie, because it started with truth for sure Two sies to this. There were things happening from Russia, and an investigation was started. At that point it was repeated over and over by Trump that it was made up and a witchhunt rather than being treated as a serious issue about a foreign country attempting to interfere with out election. On the other hand, it seemed on the left it was a continual hope that there would be some significant stuff found related to Trump directly rather than just campaign stuff, and that never seemed to appear.
But then again there was the much longer investigation of White Water where nothing turned up at all and yet people today are still convinced that the Clintons are the most evil people who ever walked the planet. This is just a long term problem in the country of having the politics of division where it's easier to tear down the other side rather then building up your own side.
There's a lot of tech now in Silicon Valley that are indeed replaceable cogs. Ie, engineering has vanished and been replaced with IT, IT help desks, IT support, IT infrastructure. And many of those workers just get a Microsoft certification and then wonder why cheaper workers get hired over them.
Ya, the article is dumb and is assuming unionization is related to socialism. I really think that this stuff is deriving from some talking points on the right, trying to paint anything slightly left of center as 'socialist' in an attempt to scare voters. And it seems to be working as this sort of fuzziness is terms just keeps increasing. Note all the idiots who keep repeating that Nazis were socialists, not because they learned this in a history book but because those are the talking points they're told to repeat. Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it.
Does a defective item deserve a bad review though? If the product is inherently defective then maybe yes. But often things break in shipping and are no fault of the manufacturer. I'd say service is a more important factor here. But if people are in a rush to waste time giving a review (because they're angry?) the review won't be good. I'd rather know how long the product was used before the person gave a review.
I try to avoid buying stuff online anyway, and the pointlessness of the reviews is part of the reason. If I can't hold and look at an item in person, and the online reviews are worthless, then I won't buy it online. I find better information about some products by going to the support site and see what questions are being asked.
And on Amazon, the reviews are dumb and pointless. Why would someone waste their time reviewing pencils? So many reviews like that makes me think they're just feeding some egos or treating the review system as a game.
I am surprised at how many reviews there are for "just got the product, it looks great!" They've taken no time to try out the product, see if it works, see how durable it is, they're just in a big hurry to post a review and boost their ego, social media score, etc.
Awhile back looking for a new phone I really cared about battery life. And I'd see reviews that say "has great battery life too!" and the next would say "battery life is horrible, watch out". It's absurd. The users aren't actually comparing products, except from an old product to the upgrade. A professional reviewer on the other hand typically is looking at several competing models, knows what the trends are, knows where to kick the tires, and so forth.
The whole thing of amateur reviews was falling apart from the beginning I think. Few people give a review unless they feel strongly one way or the other, and the ones who do tend to review everything as if it were a hobby. Too many also seem to think that they need to be snarky, witty, mean, or whatever. It's like they're just trying to earn points. In areas where emotions can be high, the user reviews are absolutely useless (games, movies, food). Yelp is a useless site, except that it gives map directions. Amazon reviews are nearly useless but sometimes you can find helpful instructions on fixing problems there. I see people give reviews almost immediately after getting a product, even though it's the sort of product where I want to know if it holds up for 5 to 10 years or not.
Mostly I have to cross reference from several sites, consumer reports, and ask friends and coworkers, before I know what's a good product or not and whether it's right for me.
Given that Microsoft is essentially dumping the desktop in favor of their crappy online variants (Office 365, Azure, etc). Right now having to migrate from Atlassian tools that work and are easy to use towards Microsoft tools that are mediocre at best.
Also remember that most journalists don't just dump secret documents they get wholesale without curating them. This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
Remember it was the Obama administration that did not bring charges against Assange because it was felt this would be a bad precedent for journalists who do the same thing. Then Trump, who once praised Assange, soured on him and his administration pressed charges.
And yes, Assange was controlling wikileaks from where he was, one of the things that the Ecuadorean embassy was not happy about (ie, not politics while being a refugee).
You must not understand history. The Conservative Democrats all dumped their party in protest of the Civil Rights Act and became Conservative Republicans as a part of Nixon's Southern strategy. This created the strange bedfellows between a fiscal conservative pro-business wing with the social conservative rural wing. The GOP today is *not* the Party of Lincoln since it still courts the segregationists.
Don't just rehash debunked talking points from the far right, learn something for yourself for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
"Cash" does not mean only currency, though in non-formal settings it is often a synonym. Even in American English.
That's fine in many cases. So they know that I purchased a car or made a down payment on a house, no big deal (especially ccompared to the thousands of companies that now know and will stuff my mailbox with refinance offers almost immediately). It's only an issue if you want to hide the transaction from the government (hookers and blow).
They money you have at the bank is not stored in a vault as cash. It's invested and spread around. The bank does not hold enough cash on hand to be able to pay out every customer if they came and asked for it.
Right, the cost of doing business by credit card, paypal, smartphone, and so forth, can be much more expensive than dealing with cash and checks. The reason most merchants accept credit cards and digital transactions is because the convenience to the consumers means more sales which can outweigh the overhead costs. There are indeed some places that refuse credit cards and some that will give you a discount for using cash.
For me, I don't care if the merchants have overhead if they don't pass that along to me. As a consumer I should be looking out for myself first, and not worrying about the other parties in the transaction (ok, it's a bit selfish but that's how the system is supposed to work).
Most merchants take all the cash and checks and deposit them in a bank each night or morning. And this must continue unless they refuse customers who only have cash or checks. It would be stupid to refuse a sale merely because it's slightly inconvenient; are the profits from the transactions larger than the overhead cost of dealing with a time tested banking system or not.
"Middle ages" seems to be a common refrain amongst the technophiliacs. Just because you CAN pay with your smart phone doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's more advanced technologically but it is not necessarily better. Someone's usually making money off of those electronic transactions, so you're actually paying for the extra convenience (even with credit cards). Then there's the lack of privacy, the really shoddy security underpinnings underneath it all, and of course nobody likes hipsters saying "they just swipe my beard and it deducts the money."
Yes, but if you walk into a local bank and demand to walk out with $250,000 of your own money it will be highly unlikely that they have that much lying around.
If they do put this next to the stars, the problem will solve itself within milliseconds.
That's bullshit. Fascists and Nazis were NOT socialists. The Nazi party had "socialist" in their name, but very many political things have a word in their title that is not true, many undemocratic countries have "Democratic" in their names. If that's the sole thing you have that makes Nazis are leftist then you need to try a lot harder, do some research instead of reiterating a new talking point from the far right.
Yes, Socialists and Communists are often similar. The USSR officially said it was a socialist state and that communism was an end goal.
When I was growing up, there was a strong anti-union push from the Republican side of things (back when Republican was fiscal conservative and pro-business) and Democrats were very much pro-worker and pro-union. The talk back then was that unions were a steeping stone to socialist ideas which was a stepping stone to socialism which was a stepping stone for the world commie takeover (and yes, some people took it this seriously). As the Republican party has evolved since then they have always kept this anti-union stance and link it to socialism.
And that is the crux of the issue. The idiots take that one word and assume Q.E.D. they must have been socialists. It was just a name of the party, they had few socialist ideas at the beginning and those ideas were most abandoned as they gained power.
Look. There's a country today called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you think they are democratic because the word "democratic" is in the name? Do you think it is a republic because it has "republic" in the name? No, it's absurdly false, North Korea is not democratic and it is not a republic. Similarly, don't make the same mistake with the Nazis and treat them like a far left political movement.
Oh no, plenty of there here in the valley, absolutely. Your local IT help desk (assuming you're not a startup), the corporate IT help desk, the people who set up the routers in your building, the ones who set up the policies and procedures the corporation has to follow, the ones who set up the computers for new employees or in the back office, and so forth. IT jobs are still big because there's so much you can't do remotely or that can't be effectively outsourced.
Is it an outright lie, because it started with truth for sure Two sies to this. There were things happening from Russia, and an investigation was started. At that point it was repeated over and over by Trump that it was made up and a witchhunt rather than being treated as a serious issue about a foreign country attempting to interfere with out election. On the other hand, it seemed on the left it was a continual hope that there would be some significant stuff found related to Trump directly rather than just campaign stuff, and that never seemed to appear.
But then again there was the much longer investigation of White Water where nothing turned up at all and yet people today are still convinced that the Clintons are the most evil people who ever walked the planet. This is just a long term problem in the country of having the politics of division where it's easier to tear down the other side rather then building up your own side.
There's a lot of tech now in Silicon Valley that are indeed replaceable cogs. Ie, engineering has vanished and been replaced with IT, IT help desks, IT support, IT infrastructure. And many of those workers just get a Microsoft certification and then wonder why cheaper workers get hired over them.
Well, unions are more popular elsewhere, so maybe that's why the tech sector is the oddball?
Ya, the article is dumb and is assuming unionization is related to socialism. I really think that this stuff is deriving from some talking points on the right, trying to paint anything slightly left of center as 'socialist' in an attempt to scare voters. And it seems to be working as this sort of fuzziness is terms just keeps increasing. Note all the idiots who keep repeating that Nazis were socialists, not because they learned this in a history book but because those are the talking points they're told to repeat. Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it.
Does a defective item deserve a bad review though? If the product is inherently defective then maybe yes. But often things break in shipping and are no fault of the manufacturer. I'd say service is a more important factor here. But if people are in a rush to waste time giving a review (because they're angry?) the review won't be good. I'd rather know how long the product was used before the person gave a review.
I try to avoid buying stuff online anyway, and the pointlessness of the reviews is part of the reason. If I can't hold and look at an item in person, and the online reviews are worthless, then I won't buy it online. I find better information about some products by going to the support site and see what questions are being asked.
And on Amazon, the reviews are dumb and pointless. Why would someone waste their time reviewing pencils? So many reviews like that makes me think they're just feeding some egos or treating the review system as a game.
I am surprised at how many reviews there are for "just got the product, it looks great!" They've taken no time to try out the product, see if it works, see how durable it is, they're just in a big hurry to post a review and boost their ego, social media score, etc.
Awhile back looking for a new phone I really cared about battery life. And I'd see reviews that say "has great battery life too!" and the next would say "battery life is horrible, watch out". It's absurd. The users aren't actually comparing products, except from an old product to the upgrade. A professional reviewer on the other hand typically is looking at several competing models, knows what the trends are, knows where to kick the tires, and so forth.
The whole thing of amateur reviews was falling apart from the beginning I think. Few people give a review unless they feel strongly one way or the other, and the ones who do tend to review everything as if it were a hobby. Too many also seem to think that they need to be snarky, witty, mean, or whatever. It's like they're just trying to earn points. In areas where emotions can be high, the user reviews are absolutely useless (games, movies, food). Yelp is a useless site, except that it gives map directions. Amazon reviews are nearly useless but sometimes you can find helpful instructions on fixing problems there. I see people give reviews almost immediately after getting a product, even though it's the sort of product where I want to know if it holds up for 5 to 10 years or not.
Mostly I have to cross reference from several sites, consumer reports, and ask friends and coworkers, before I know what's a good product or not and whether it's right for me.
Given that Microsoft is essentially dumping the desktop in favor of their crappy online variants (Office 365, Azure, etc). Right now having to migrate from Atlassian tools that work and are easy to use towards Microsoft tools that are mediocre at best.
Also remember that most journalists don't just dump secret documents they get wholesale without curating them. This is why a lot of people hate Assange but praise Snowden.
They soured on him the moment they got a new president in 2017.
Remember it was the Obama administration that did not bring charges against Assange because it was felt this would be a bad precedent for journalists who do the same thing. Then Trump, who once praised Assange, soured on him and his administration pressed charges.
And yes, Assange was controlling wikileaks from where he was, one of the things that the Ecuadorean embassy was not happy about (ie, not politics while being a refugee).
That was a pun by the reporters, not the embassy. I know you worship the air Assange breathes, but try to get a grip on reality.
You must not understand history. The Conservative Democrats all dumped their party in protest of the Civil Rights Act and became Conservative Republicans as a part of Nixon's Southern strategy. This created the strange bedfellows between a fiscal conservative pro-business wing with the social conservative rural wing. The GOP today is *not* the Party of Lincoln since it still courts the segregationists.
Don't just rehash debunked talking points from the far right, learn something for yourself for a change.