My kingdom for an actual merit based pay increase. I complain to management every year that the difference between the raises for people that bust ass, work many extra hours, and are damned good at their jobs versus the people who just pick their noses and post on slashdot all day is only ~0.2%. Not much of an incentive to take my finger out of my nose, but I get my job done anyway just because I care about it and want to go home feeling good about myself at the end of the day.
A newspaper (depending on the newspaper) or CNN would likely have published the story, but censored the SSNs. Otherwise their readers/viewers would have been angry with their news source for publicizing their information rather than the government for mishandling it.
Now if Ms Ostergren had censored the SSNs like the main stream media would have, I doubt that she would have been able to garner the attention that this story deserves.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation if you're assuming that they really are trying to improve gameplay through the effects of the drug. I haven't toked up in ~7 years, but I used to game stoned a lot. I was convinced that it improved my focus and can't entirely throw that assessment away now - I would get lost in the game. Maybe being stoned helped, maybe not - I never did any kind of comparison 'cuz I'd toke up before playing every single time.
Perhaps a more likely cause for smoking before playing tournament though: * A lot of games (most?) are just more fun stoned. * It's easy to game for endless hours while you're baked. * If you play for a huge amount of time, you're going to get good (baked or not). * If all of your experience with the game was spent stoned, you're going to want to be in the same state of mind while competing that you were when "practicing". * So, you smoke before a tournament and achieve the same level of success that you've experienced at home.
The divide-by-zero exception is hardly fair. How can he fix a bug that we can't even replicate? As soon as the LHC comes on-line, we can file an official bug report. Until then, let him off the hook.
The same thing happens on Slashdot, if you want the points then you better make sure your post is Pro-Linux and GPL. Trying to show that Windows may be better in some circumstances or the GPL as many flaws and in some ways it contradicts its core values will not lead to points. Thus discouraged and reducing objectivity in an open forum.
Yeah, but here it's sometimes really satisfying to be modded Troll or Flamebait. I've got some unpopular opinions here that I fly proudly and it doesn't bother me at all to smell the karma burn (I'm one of those people that think that music/movie/software piracy should remain illegal and am convinced that pirates hurt the industries - Gasp!)
It's actually kind of the same here at work. We often have crossword puzzles or word hunts that we can do in hopes of some cheesy prize. Mine get shredded - If I'm at work and wasting time, I'll be posting here or reading the news - Otherwise I'll be working. The same with the safety-awareness games and similar - Those are what get me in trouble. Just because I don't want to waste time playing safety-Pictionary doesn't mean I'm not committed to safety, it just means that I consider most of the games a waste.
Although if there was some interesting prize (not a plastic bracelet) that I could earn just by doing my job well or taking on a couple of extra tasks (beta-testing, whatever), I may be tempted.
Only 5? Hmmm... You know, I really want my employees to express themselves. If you think that 5 pieces of flair is enough just because you're getting by and doing the bare minimum, I'm a little disappointed. We really want to encourage team players.;-)
Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
Here's the calculator I was using: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm There may be better ones, but it seemed fine. I was 'drinking' 12oz Imported Beer. 6 in 2 hours hit the 0.08% for me (~180 lbs). 6 in 3 hours only landed me at 0.06%.
I got the 50 lbs mark by 'drinking' 1 beer in 0 hours, noticing that the theoretical BAC scales linearly with weight (0.02% @ 200 lbs, 0.04% @ 100 lbs), and extrapolating.
Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted.
Not even just for repeat offenders. A single DUI in NM will bar you from driving any car without an ignition interlock - no borrowing friends' cars, no company cars, rentals, nothing (at least that's my understanding). They've also blitzed the airwaves with announcements about that policy pointing out what a PITA & embarrassment it would be to deal with. That's pretty damned brutal and seems like it should be a pretty good deterrent. We'll see how well it works out, but NM's certainly starting to respond seriously to the problem (a pretty big problem in this state).
And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are.
I don't know about any studies, but I'm unsafe well before 0.08. For me, that's the equivalent of putting down a 6-pack over the course of 2 hours. Some may argue about higher tolerances in some individuals than others, but unless you want the DUI criteria to be solely the officer's assessment based on your field sobriety test, you need to set a limit. A 0.08% BAC is pretty drunk for most people and it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep the limit either there or slightly lower. Unless you weigh less than ~50 lbs, it's not enough to prevent you from going out, having a drink, and driving yourself home immediately afterward.
The law is NOW that you're officially driving drunk when your blood alcohol level is.08. In some people that's LESS THAN ONE BEER.
Um. According to the online calculators, slamming down one average 12 oz beer will put you at.08 BAC. But only if you weigh less than 50 lbs. That's approximate of course, but most people old enough to drive have left the 50 lbs mark well behind them.
Not that I disagree with your point, just checking your math.
Absolutely correct. Perhaps I should have said 'access to fabrication facilities' or 'fabrication relationships'. The point is that they have no resource issues barring them from the game, just a lot of catch-up work, stiff competition, and the good sense to lack motivation.
'Decide what you're going to do and focus on doing it well' is a good business model and, whether you're an NVIDIA fan or not, that's certainly what they're trying. And, so far, it's working out a lot better for them than a lot of the folks that have tried to stay in the graphics card arena.
"In space, without Internet access, it's pretty clear that the AV software will not be kept up to date.".. i think that's an incorrect assumption, normally, they do have internet connections, so, it could easily be kept up to date. until of course, the virus brought down their internet connection, which is no different than what could happen here.
But, with no Internet connection, the AV software doesn't really need to be kept up to date. The odds of an astronaut carrying a virus into space on a thumb drive that is so new/obscure that the current AV patch doesn't include it yet are (sorry) astronomically low - This one was first detected just over a year ago.
Or, probably a better alternative, is to forbid the astronauts from connecting private media to NASA hardware. I realize they need recreation, music, family photos, etc - But not at the cost of jeopardizing a hugely expensive mission. Then, no AV should be necessary - As long as the laptop's clean when it goes up, it stays clean.
If more companies entered the same market that would give us more choices and better prices. I say go for it Nvidia make a cpu and see how you do against Intel and AMD.
No, I do not think that would be a good thing. The up-front R&D cost for making CPUs is huge. Fabricating them ain't cheap either. Sure, NVIDIA has a lot of talent and would have a big jump on the R&D. And they have fabrication facilities that could be retuned for CPUs instead of GPUs. But I think that the end result of NVIDIA attempting to compete with Intel/AMD on the x86 CPU front would be death or serious damage to NVIDIA and we'd lose competition on the graphics card market rather than gain competition on the CPU market.
I was actually entertained... If you don't like time-wasters on Idle, how hard is it to avoid? You know, it actually wastes less of your time if you're able to refrain from clicking in, reading enough to assure yourself that you don't like it, and then posting to complain. Sure, it's a complete waste and a pointless review on a pointless book. But it's pretty easy to skip if you're not in the mood.
If Walt Disney were still alive today, should Mickey Mouse still be under copyright?
Mickey Mouse is still protected under trademark. And, thanks to the 'Copyright Term Extension Act', his cartoons will be protected under copyright until at least 2020. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse#Legal_issues
1: Entrapment is when a law enforcement official convinces you to break the law. If a drug dealer walks up to you on the street and convinces you to buy a kilo of heroin, you're going to jail buddy.
I agree entirely. I brought up entrapment as one of the differences between having a cop on the other end vice a scammer.
2: Making a habit out of something is irrelevant. In fact, a person's history of criminality is inadmissible as evidence for or against them (thanks to the Constitution, I think). It may be used in determining their punishment if convicted, but not in determining their guilt. Only evidence relating to their current trial is admissible for that. That said, records of their communications directly related to the current trial are most certainly admissible, and the police would no doubt get a warrant to obtain that obvious source of information.
I brought up making a habit out of it as a means of law enforcement obtaining a warrant. It's entirely relevant. If you are a regular fraudster, law enforcement has a much easier time getting a warrant to snoop on you than if you've never committed a crime. Did you even read my post before responding?
Pretty basic stuff here. How does something like that earn +5 Insightful??
I mean seriously, how is the $400m MEGADRAW going to affect your life compared to $10m? You'd be stupid to be holding out for such a huge amount.
That's my big deterrent. $1000 is worth 100 x $10 to me. $100k is worth 100 x $1000 to me. But I can't really say that $10M is worth 100 x $100k to me. And beyond that it drops off even faster. I'm not a big financial investor and have no need for $400M. It would be nice and I'd have fun with it, but it's not worth 400e6 x $1 in my limited scope of the world.
I'd be much more likely to play the ~$200k type drawings, but I studied statistics all the way to post grad. And, I'm a little OCD. I can't spend a buck on something like that without running the numbers and making sure that I'm getting a positive rate of return - When the Powerball got high and my wife insisted on buying tickets, I put together spreadsheets comparing the various lotteries we have access to, factored in odds of winning at various levels, and valuated the various options for tickets. [We still bought Powerball tickets - I mentioned that I'd run numbers but decided that her excitement/hope/fun was worth the difference in rational spending and never showed them to her. I'm not convinced that the Powerball has ever broken even on rate of return - Not even close once you factor in taxes and the increased possibility of a shared pot due to a swell in play for a large pot.]
For the record, I bought 1 scratcher when NM legalized the lottery - I won $1 and broke even. I consider myself a winner and won't play again.
I'm afraid that the scammers have gotten craftier than that - I understand that they're relating to the Aussies very well. The latest one that I had forwarded to me read:
"G'day mate! I were just out in me back yard throwing another dingo on the barbie and bruising up a warm lager when I happened on a smattering of GOLD! Now me and me sheila aren't exactly the rightful owners of this here parcel, but we managed to shift the yellow off onto a friendly bugger who handed over a check. All we need is a good buddy to shift the funds around, take a princely cut for 'imself, and PayPal us the balance.
Whaddaya say, mate? Are we chummy?"
[Sorry to all the real Australians out there - I'm in the US and only speak American. The only Australian that I know I learned from Crocodile Dundee, Yahoo Serious, and the Crocodile Hunter. (But I do have the good sense not to throw a dingo on my barbie).]
If you are dumb enough to fall for one of the oldest fraud methods in existence, you deserve to lose you money, but not your freedom.
Devil's advocate: Well, they did attempt to commit a crime. If punished, they earned it unless they really thought that what they were doing was somehow legal. If it was made clear to them that the deal was shady and they attempted to go through with it, what difference does it make whether the person at the other end is a scamster or an undercover cop conducting a sting?
Answer to my own question: 1) The victim was actively pursued and persuaded to take part in the illegal activity. That sounds a helluva lot like entrapment. 2) Records of the victim's communications should be inadmissible unless they make a habit out of this kind of crime and there's a warrant to snoop. As far as their attempted fraudulent financial transactions? I dunno, IANAL.
I don't know your dating status and don't care, but those sound like the words of someone who has been and will remain alone. Loss of privacy is at the very core of becoming unsingle. Read his/her emails too.
I feel sorry for you. I've been married eighteen years as of this month and I've never read my husband's email. I also never read his mail unless he tells me to go ahead and open it over the phone. I expect the same the respect for my privacy from him.
That's a great policy, but we play it a little differently. If my e-mail's up on screen, I wouldn't at all be bothered if my wife (11 years) read it. If she snooped and logged in, that might be different. One oddity is that we both use my e-mail for our online accounts (I order more). If she orders something that she doesn't want me to know about, she gives me a heads-up. I forward the receipt without ever reading it and delete my copy. Every once in a while, it's a gift for me =). Other times, I never know what it is or how much it cost us.
No biggie. I love her and I trust her. She trusts me too. She has my passwords and I trust her to use them within the (implied & mutually assumed) limits that we live in. And vice versa.
It's nice. I can't say I've never been burned, but living with somebody you trust is worth the risk of being burned as long as you make good choices.
And snooping is almost strictly detrimental. If you feel the need to snoop, you have another concern to address. I tell the truth so that I can trust. I refrain from snooping so that I can trust that others will respect my privacy. I don't steal so that I don't feel the need to protect my property. Sometimes I get burned, but it's definitely worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a merit based pay increase?
That is the best "prize".
My kingdom for an actual merit based pay increase. I complain to management every year that the difference between the raises for people that bust ass, work many extra hours, and are damned good at their jobs versus the people who just pick their noses and post on slashdot all day is only ~0.2%. Not much of an incentive to take my finger out of my nose, but I get my job done anyway just because I care about it and want to go home feeling good about myself at the end of the day.
I know, I know... GB2W.
A newspaper (depending on the newspaper) or CNN would likely have published the story, but censored the SSNs. Otherwise their readers/viewers would have been angry with their news source for publicizing their information rather than the government for mishandling it.
Now if Ms Ostergren had censored the SSNs like the main stream media would have, I doubt that she would have been able to garner the attention that this story deserves.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation if you're assuming that they really are trying to improve gameplay through the effects of the drug. I haven't toked up in ~7 years, but I used to game stoned a lot. I was convinced that it improved my focus and can't entirely throw that assessment away now - I would get lost in the game. Maybe being stoned helped, maybe not - I never did any kind of comparison 'cuz I'd toke up before playing every single time.
Perhaps a more likely cause for smoking before playing tournament though:
* A lot of games (most?) are just more fun stoned.
* It's easy to game for endless hours while you're baked.
* If you play for a huge amount of time, you're going to get good (baked or not).
* If all of your experience with the game was spent stoned, you're going to want to be in the same state of mind while competing that you were when "practicing".
* So, you smoke before a tournament and achieve the same level of success that you've experienced at home.
The Gutenberg Bible was a commercial success?
No. But only because of all the damned pirates running off copies without compensating the authors.
I used to think so too. But once I got my HDTV set up, the resolution on my back yard's just not that impressive.
The divide-by-zero exception is hardly fair. How can he fix a bug that we can't even replicate? As soon as the LHC comes on-line, we can file an official bug report. Until then, let him off the hook.
The same thing happens on Slashdot, if you want the points then you better make sure your post is Pro-Linux and GPL. Trying to show that Windows may be better in some circumstances or the GPL as many flaws and in some ways it contradicts its core values will not lead to points. Thus discouraged and reducing objectivity in an open forum.
Yeah, but here it's sometimes really satisfying to be modded Troll or Flamebait. I've got some unpopular opinions here that I fly proudly and it doesn't bother me at all to smell the karma burn (I'm one of those people that think that music/movie/software piracy should remain illegal and am convinced that pirates hurt the industries - Gasp!)
It's actually kind of the same here at work. We often have crossword puzzles or word hunts that we can do in hopes of some cheesy prize. Mine get shredded - If I'm at work and wasting time, I'll be posting here or reading the news - Otherwise I'll be working. The same with the safety-awareness games and similar - Those are what get me in trouble. Just because I don't want to waste time playing safety-Pictionary doesn't mean I'm not committed to safety, it just means that I consider most of the games a waste.
Although if there was some interesting prize (not a plastic bracelet) that I could earn just by doing my job well or taking on a couple of extra tasks (beta-testing, whatever), I may be tempted.
Only 5? Hmmm... You know, I really want my employees to express themselves. If you think that 5 pieces of flair is enough just because you're getting by and doing the bare minimum, I'm a little disappointed. We really want to encourage team players. ;-)
Here's the calculator I was using: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
There may be better ones, but it seemed fine. I was 'drinking' 12oz Imported Beer. 6 in 2 hours hit the 0.08% for me (~180 lbs). 6 in 3 hours only landed me at 0.06%.
I got the 50 lbs mark by 'drinking' 1 beer in 0 hours, noticing that the theoretical BAC scales linearly with weight (0.02% @ 200 lbs, 0.04% @ 100 lbs), and extrapolating.
In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted.
Not even just for repeat offenders. A single DUI in NM will bar you from driving any car without an ignition interlock - no borrowing friends' cars, no company cars, rentals, nothing (at least that's my understanding). They've also blitzed the airwaves with announcements about that policy pointing out what a PITA & embarrassment it would be to deal with. That's pretty damned brutal and seems like it should be a pretty good deterrent. We'll see how well it works out, but NM's certainly starting to respond seriously to the problem (a pretty big problem in this state).
And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are.
I don't know about any studies, but I'm unsafe well before 0.08. For me, that's the equivalent of putting down a 6-pack over the course of 2 hours. Some may argue about higher tolerances in some individuals than others, but unless you want the DUI criteria to be solely the officer's assessment based on your field sobriety test, you need to set a limit. A 0.08% BAC is pretty drunk for most people and it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep the limit either there or slightly lower. Unless you weigh less than ~50 lbs, it's not enough to prevent you from going out, having a drink, and driving yourself home immediately afterward.
The law is NOW that you're officially driving drunk when your blood alcohol level is .08. In some people that's LESS THAN ONE BEER.
Um. According to the online calculators, slamming down one average 12 oz beer will put you at .08 BAC. But only if you weigh less than 50 lbs. That's approximate of course, but most people old enough to drive have left the 50 lbs mark well behind them.
Not that I disagree with your point, just checking your math.
Absolutely correct. Perhaps I should have said 'access to fabrication facilities' or 'fabrication relationships'. The point is that they have no resource issues barring them from the game, just a lot of catch-up work, stiff competition, and the good sense to lack motivation.
'Decide what you're going to do and focus on doing it well' is a good business model and, whether you're an NVIDIA fan or not, that's certainly what they're trying. And, so far, it's working out a lot better for them than a lot of the folks that have tried to stay in the graphics card arena.
"In space, without Internet access, it's pretty clear that the AV software will not be kept up to date." .. i think that's an incorrect assumption, normally, they do have internet connections, so, it could easily be kept up to date. until of course, the virus brought down their internet connection, which is no different than what could happen here.
But, with no Internet connection, the AV software doesn't really need to be kept up to date. The odds of an astronaut carrying a virus into space on a thumb drive that is so new/obscure that the current AV patch doesn't include it yet are (sorry) astronomically low - This one was first detected just over a year ago.
Or, probably a better alternative, is to forbid the astronauts from connecting private media to NASA hardware. I realize they need recreation, music, family photos, etc - But not at the cost of jeopardizing a hugely expensive mission. Then, no AV should be necessary - As long as the laptop's clean when it goes up, it stays clean.
Some insight: http://xkcd.com/463/
If more companies entered the same market that would give us more choices and better prices. I say go for it Nvidia make a cpu and see how you do against Intel and AMD.
No, I do not think that would be a good thing. The up-front R&D cost for making CPUs is huge. Fabricating them ain't cheap either. Sure, NVIDIA has a lot of talent and would have a big jump on the R&D. And they have fabrication facilities that could be retuned for CPUs instead of GPUs. But I think that the end result of NVIDIA attempting to compete with Intel/AMD on the x86 CPU front would be death or serious damage to NVIDIA and we'd lose competition on the graphics card market rather than gain competition on the CPU market.
How can a title including 'The Internet's Biggest ... Hole' not be kicked off with a goatse joke?
I am in fact disappointed that we as Americans appear never to ever get it right first time! ...
We invented the modern computer and all that goes with it...
Right - Good thing that didn't need any revision after our first implementation.
D'oh!
I assumed base on the fact that this was a complete waste of time that this was Idle, but didn't actually look.
You are absolutely right. WTF is this doing anywhere but Idle!?!
I was actually entertained... If you don't like time-wasters on Idle, how hard is it to avoid? You know, it actually wastes less of your time if you're able to refrain from clicking in, reading enough to assure yourself that you don't like it, and then posting to complain. Sure, it's a complete waste and a pointless review on a pointless book. But it's pretty easy to skip if you're not in the mood.
If Walt Disney were still alive today, should Mickey Mouse still be under copyright?
Mickey Mouse is still protected under trademark. And, thanks to the 'Copyright Term Extension Act', his cartoons will be protected under copyright until at least 2020.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse#Legal_issues
1) The victim was actively pursued and persuaded to take part in the illegal activity. That sounds a helluva lot like entrapment.
It's only entrapment if it's the police doing it. If a criminal pursues you and persuades you do commit a crime, you're going to jail.
Exactly. That's why I brought up entrapment as one of the differences between having a cop on the other end instead of a scammer.
1: Entrapment is when a law enforcement official convinces you to break the law. If a drug dealer walks up to you on the street and convinces you to buy a kilo of heroin, you're going to jail buddy.
I agree entirely. I brought up entrapment as one of the differences between having a cop on the other end vice a scammer.
2: Making a habit out of something is irrelevant. In fact, a person's history of criminality is inadmissible as evidence for or against them (thanks to the Constitution, I think). It may be used in determining their punishment if convicted, but not in determining their guilt. Only evidence relating to their current trial is admissible for that. That said, records of their communications directly related to the current trial are most certainly admissible, and the police would no doubt get a warrant to obtain that obvious source of information.
I brought up making a habit out of it as a means of law enforcement obtaining a warrant. It's entirely relevant. If you are a regular fraudster, law enforcement has a much easier time getting a warrant to snoop on you than if you've never committed a crime. Did you even read my post before responding?
Pretty basic stuff here. How does something like that earn +5 Insightful??
I mean seriously, how is the $400m MEGADRAW going to affect your life compared to $10m? You'd be stupid to be holding out for such a huge amount.
That's my big deterrent. $1000 is worth 100 x $10 to me. $100k is worth 100 x $1000 to me. But I can't really say that $10M is worth 100 x $100k to me. And beyond that it drops off even faster. I'm not a big financial investor and have no need for $400M. It would be nice and I'd have fun with it, but it's not worth 400e6 x $1 in my limited scope of the world.
I'd be much more likely to play the ~$200k type drawings, but I studied statistics all the way to post grad. And, I'm a little OCD. I can't spend a buck on something like that without running the numbers and making sure that I'm getting a positive rate of return - When the Powerball got high and my wife insisted on buying tickets, I put together spreadsheets comparing the various lotteries we have access to, factored in odds of winning at various levels, and valuated the various options for tickets. [We still bought Powerball tickets - I mentioned that I'd run numbers but decided that her excitement/hope/fun was worth the difference in rational spending and never showed them to her. I'm not convinced that the Powerball has ever broken even on rate of return - Not even close once you factor in taxes and the increased possibility of a shared pot due to a swell in play for a large pot.]
For the record, I bought 1 scratcher when NM legalized the lottery - I won $1 and broke even. I consider myself a winner and won't play again.
I'm afraid that the scammers have gotten craftier than that - I understand that they're relating to the Aussies very well. The latest one that I had forwarded to me read:
" G'day mate! I were just out in me back yard throwing another dingo on the barbie and bruising up a warm lager when I happened on a smattering of GOLD! Now me and me sheila aren't exactly the rightful owners of this here parcel, but we managed to shift the yellow off onto a friendly bugger who handed over a check. All we need is a good buddy to shift the funds around, take a princely cut for 'imself, and PayPal us the balance.
Whaddaya say, mate? Are we chummy? "
[Sorry to all the real Australians out there - I'm in the US and only speak American. The only Australian that I know I learned from Crocodile Dundee, Yahoo Serious, and the Crocodile Hunter. (But I do have the good sense not to throw a dingo on my barbie).]
If you are dumb enough to fall for one of the oldest fraud methods in existence, you deserve to lose you money, but not your freedom.
Devil's advocate:
Well, they did attempt to commit a crime. If punished, they earned it unless they really thought that what they were doing was somehow legal. If it was made clear to them that the deal was shady and they attempted to go through with it, what difference does it make whether the person at the other end is a scamster or an undercover cop conducting a sting?
Answer to my own question:
1) The victim was actively pursued and persuaded to take part in the illegal activity. That sounds a helluva lot like entrapment.
2) Records of the victim's communications should be inadmissible unless they make a habit out of this kind of crime and there's a warrant to snoop. As far as their attempted fraudulent financial transactions? I dunno, IANAL.
I feel sorry for you. I've been married eighteen years as of this month and I've never read my husband's email. I also never read his mail unless he tells me to go ahead and open it over the phone. I expect the same the respect for my privacy from him.
That's a great policy, but we play it a little differently. If my e-mail's up on screen, I wouldn't at all be bothered if my wife (11 years) read it. If she snooped and logged in, that might be different. One oddity is that we both use my e-mail for our online accounts (I order more). If she orders something that she doesn't want me to know about, she gives me a heads-up. I forward the receipt without ever reading it and delete my copy. Every once in a while, it's a gift for me =). Other times, I never know what it is or how much it cost us.
No biggie. I love her and I trust her. She trusts me too. She has my passwords and I trust her to use them within the (implied & mutually assumed) limits that we live in. And vice versa.
It's nice. I can't say I've never been burned, but living with somebody you trust is worth the risk of being burned as long as you make good choices.
And snooping is almost strictly detrimental. If you feel the need to snoop, you have another concern to address. I tell the truth so that I can trust. I refrain from snooping so that I can trust that others will respect my privacy. I don't steal so that I don't feel the need to protect my property. Sometimes I get burned, but it's definitely worth it.