No, people involved in this now have startup experience and will be chosen as new executives over lesser people who actually have clues. At least this is how it has worked in the past, and I see no evidence that investors have gotten wiser over the years.
No, he's got it all wrong. The way it works in American and most countries is, "you deliver or I get my money back". The lawyers only come into play if you don't get the money back.
Never saw Silicon Valley. I assumed it was another fantasy by media people who don't actually know what happens in Silicon Valley. Startups here are a minority, most people have real jobs, and unlike what some major news outlets claimed we aren't sitting around in coffee shops coming up with business plans.
Some people don't know how to control high powered vehicles. Of course, it only takes a short bit of training to get used to them, which I'm sure this dork had. It basically sounds like he was drunk, rich, or drunk and rich, either way not suitable for being on the road.
Well, by "talking head" I mean something that's not a reporting of the news. Someone who spends the hour making editorials, or holding interviews with dubious guests, stuff like that. With those older reporters the shows were called "The Nightly News" or such, not "The David Brinkley Hour".
So I'd head to "Headline News" expecting to see a summary of the news of the day in short order, which is what the format used to be. Instead it would be entertainment news, an interview, the horrid Nancy Grace show, or some other specialty for that hour. Since I actually wanted the day's news I either had to follow the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen or change the channel. After changing the channel enough because of the lack of news, I just stopped going to anything related to CNN.
It is true that the infrastructure is a very large cost that historically wasn't represented in the customers' bills. However utilities will try to overinflate this. You don't want to get to the point where someone not using any electricity has as big a bill as someone hiding a pot grow farm in the basement.
You need utility regulation. In the past a utility's profits depended upon how much electricity everyone used, so no incentive to get better. Now the state PUCs can put a fixed amount on how much utilities can charge so if they can be more efficient than that then they can pocket all the profits. This then led the push to make the meters more accurate, do more frequent reading and monitoring to be sure power delivery is working correctly and efficiently, etc.
This also means that when they blow up a neighborhood or burn down half a city that the civil penalties are not passed along to the consumers. Not hypothetical situations. Of course, you got to be vigilant that they don't get cozy with the PUC and try to get exemptions.
The incandescent lightbulbs aren't banned for use. They just can't make more of them. A lot of stores still have them in stock. But they're less reliable than LEDs, take more power, don't last as long on average, and over time will cost more money.
The Supreme Court has never said that the border control can do whatever they want. The courts said that the fourth amendment still applies at the border but that what is "reasonable" for searches is necessarily expanded at the border. So yes, they can have simple searches of people without giving a reason or a warrant, however in the case of an anal search the court held that probable cause was needed based upon reasonable suspicion.
As for taking a cell phone and not returning it for 120 days, I would think that this amounts to unreasonable search and seizure. Or at the very least there's certainly enough doubt that the border control can exert this much power or that the constitution has deteriorated that much that the lawsuit should be allowed to go to court. This is more than a pat-down or opening of bags. Refusing to unlock a phone does not give probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Seems odd to me. CNN basically stopped being a news network a decade ago and instead have talking heads. I don't consider it left or right, it's pretty much bland.
They're all getting most of the basic info from the more general news agencies, like Reuters or AP, and then they put their own spin on it. They decide which parts they will report on and which parts they ignore. In Fox's case they also turn each story into an editorial.
Why does his base give a damn if CNN ratings are up or down? That's just Trump being petty and obsessed with popularity numbers like we're all supposed to be in this giant pep rally.
Hello, I am employed by amazon to handle Express order fullfillment. Let me assure you that I feel no Pressure at all to write this. My time here has been full of happy Experiences.
But the courts have put some limits on it. It said that in the border zones that there is less protection against searches, but it did not say that there is zero protection. The border agencies still have to show a reasonable cause for searching, and in this case goes through they'd have to show to the courts why there was a reasonable cause to hold on to the mobile phone for 120 days.
You are both right and wrong. If the US decides to ignore its own laws and legal foundations and instead act however the hell it wants. However should this case go before a judge and it is determined that this violated the defendants constitutional rights, the government may feel compelled to comply with the courts or else admit to the world that it is a failed state run by warlords.
In other words, the persons in power may ignore the constitution all they want in an attempt to render it irrelevant, however they would have to deal with the consequences. It seems highly unlikely in any case that all branches of the government would agree to this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they lose money on every sale but they're hoping to make it up in volume.
No, people involved in this now have startup experience and will be chosen as new executives over lesser people who actually have clues. At least this is how it has worked in the past, and I see no evidence that investors have gotten wiser over the years.
No, he's got it all wrong. The way it works in American and most countries is, "you deliver or I get my money back". The lawyers only come into play if you don't get the money back.
You get a prorated refund. What's wrong with that? What did you contract say you would get that you think you deserve more?
Throw enough clock speed and cores at it, and even Windows seems not so slow.
Amy started out as the ultimate stereotypical nerd with zero social skills. But now she's the most normal one on the show.
A wannabe critic who hasn't realized what a critic is supposed to do. It sounds like a reject from Yelp.
Never saw Silicon Valley. I assumed it was another fantasy by media people who don't actually know what happens in Silicon Valley. Startups here are a minority, most people have real jobs, and unlike what some major news outlets claimed we aren't sitting around in coffee shops coming up with business plans.
And yet, I know people who are just like those characters in real life.
Some people don't know how to control high powered vehicles. Of course, it only takes a short bit of training to get used to them, which I'm sure this dork had. It basically sounds like he was drunk, rich, or drunk and rich, either way not suitable for being on the road.
Well, by "talking head" I mean something that's not a reporting of the news. Someone who spends the hour making editorials, or holding interviews with dubious guests, stuff like that. With those older reporters the shows were called "The Nightly News" or such, not "The David Brinkley Hour".
So I'd head to "Headline News" expecting to see a summary of the news of the day in short order, which is what the format used to be. Instead it would be entertainment news, an interview, the horrid Nancy Grace show, or some other specialty for that hour. Since I actually wanted the day's news I either had to follow the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen or change the channel. After changing the channel enough because of the lack of news, I just stopped going to anything related to CNN.
A satire of science?
It is true that the infrastructure is a very large cost that historically wasn't represented in the customers' bills. However utilities will try to overinflate this. You don't want to get to the point where someone not using any electricity has as big a bill as someone hiding a pot grow farm in the basement.
Why do you put up with it? Tell your politicians to fix it. In many states, utilities have to ask permission before raising rates.
You need utility regulation. In the past a utility's profits depended upon how much electricity everyone used, so no incentive to get better. Now the state PUCs can put a fixed amount on how much utilities can charge so if they can be more efficient than that then they can pocket all the profits. This then led the push to make the meters more accurate, do more frequent reading and monitoring to be sure power delivery is working correctly and efficiently, etc. This also means that when they blow up a neighborhood or burn down half a city that the civil penalties are not passed along to the consumers. Not hypothetical situations. Of course, you got to be vigilant that they don't get cozy with the PUC and try to get exemptions.
But the nanny state won't let us go whaling anymore!
The incandescent lightbulbs aren't banned for use. They just can't make more of them. A lot of stores still have them in stock. But they're less reliable than LEDs, take more power, don't last as long on average, and over time will cost more money.
The Supreme Court has never said that the border control can do whatever they want. The courts said that the fourth amendment still applies at the border but that what is "reasonable" for searches is necessarily expanded at the border. So yes, they can have simple searches of people without giving a reason or a warrant, however in the case of an anal search the court held that probable cause was needed based upon reasonable suspicion. As for taking a cell phone and not returning it for 120 days, I would think that this amounts to unreasonable search and seizure. Or at the very least there's certainly enough doubt that the border control can exert this much power or that the constitution has deteriorated that much that the lawsuit should be allowed to go to court. This is more than a pat-down or opening of bags. Refusing to unlock a phone does not give probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Fact checking would go more smoothly if Trump just bothered to check his facts before twitting.
Seems odd to me. CNN basically stopped being a news network a decade ago and instead have talking heads. I don't consider it left or right, it's pretty much bland.
They're all getting most of the basic info from the more general news agencies, like Reuters or AP, and then they put their own spin on it. They decide which parts they will report on and which parts they ignore. In Fox's case they also turn each story into an editorial.
Why does his base give a damn if CNN ratings are up or down? That's just Trump being petty and obsessed with popularity numbers like we're all supposed to be in this giant pep rally.
Hello, I am employed by amazon to handle
Express order fullfillment.
Let me assure you that I feel no
Pressure at all to write this.
My time here has been full of happy
Experiences.
But the courts have put some limits on it. It said that in the border zones that there is less protection against searches, but it did not say that there is zero protection. The border agencies still have to show a reasonable cause for searching, and in this case goes through they'd have to show to the courts why there was a reasonable cause to hold on to the mobile phone for 120 days.
You are both right and wrong. If the US decides to ignore its own laws and legal foundations and instead act however the hell it wants. However should this case go before a judge and it is determined that this violated the defendants constitutional rights, the government may feel compelled to comply with the courts or else admit to the world that it is a failed state run by warlords.
In other words, the persons in power may ignore the constitution all they want in an attempt to render it irrelevant, however they would have to deal with the consequences. It seems highly unlikely in any case that all branches of the government would agree to this.