Uhmm... sure. If you consider doing stuff that won't actually amount to anything cool. I'd call it something more like self-delusion, personally.
I'm not saying that finding alien life is going to be forever impossible, I'm only saying that we just don't have the refined enough or advanced enough technology to have even an honest glimmer of hope in achieving it right now. Even the most powerful radio signals that we can send are indiscernible from the background noise of the galaxy itself long before the signal even reaches the nearest star.
Probably because NASA may actually have a clue as to just how big the scale of interstellar distances really is, and knows that it's technologically futile to even bother trying with the technology that we have so far.
Not replying at all wouldn't have cost him any time at all. He made a deliberate choice to misrepresent himself as somebody who worked for Zynga the moment he replied to one of those emails when he had already confirmed they were not actually intended for him. The fact that Zynga did not correct the issue no more gave him permission for him to misrepresent himself as a Zynga employee than a tax rebate in your favor that does not get corrected even after you tell them about it entitles you to spend that extra money.
Being a dick and laughing at somebody else who might not happen to know as much as you simply because of their ignorance is... well... just that: being a dick.
I never suggested I would disagree with specific examples where it doesn't appear to apply, but much more often than not, the name of something in anything other than its original language bears much more than just a passing resemblance to its pronunciation in the original, and when significant variations do exist, they are often still more a consequence of different phonetic structures between two languages than simply a new name assigned to it (your example of Sweden illustrates this, and is a fair Anglicization of how they pronounce the name of their own country). The name we have for places like Germany is an example of something else entirely... and shouldn't be taken to be the general rule when translating names (in fact, Germany is technically not a translation at all, but a unique word derived from a word that the ancient Romans used for them which, if I remember correctly, meant something similar to "neighbor". The word would come to refer to the name of their country amongst the Romans long before it became common knowledge that they called their own homeland something else entirely).
Google "checkless account". They exist, even in the USA... and are becoming increasingly popular as the popularity of actually writing cheques diminishes.
When translating it to english, why not just spell it like it sounds, or as close as we can get to it, instead of calling it something that sounds completely different?
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are all Roman dieties... the mythology mixup is only happening because they are using a greek name for one of the moons. If one wants consistency, it'd be a far more straightforward change to just pick a new roman name for the moon than it would be to rename every planet in the solar system.
Not all kinds of accounts have a minimum balance requirement. Also, chequing accounts are not the only type of bank account. There is no reason that people with even a terrible credit rating cannot get a basic chequeless account which they can freely deposit to and withdraw from.
As for making somebody pay a fee to get paid, they'd have to do that anyways at any cheque cashing institution anyways, which is where they'd have to go without a bank account.
Or are you proposing that employees should always be paid in cash?
If you are poor, then you probably shouldn't bother with a car. A monthly bus pass will cost, perhaps $80 to $100... which is going to be far less than a taxi, and is probably even less than what you'd be spending on gasoline and insurance.
Also... don't be late with payments, and then you don't get hit with late fees or disconnection issues.
If you're waiting until you get paid to pay this months bills, you are already doing it wrong. The money you use to pay this month's bills needs to come from your previous paycheque, not your next one. That means you need to keep a monthly float, and you can figure out exactly how much that is by adding up all the essential expenses, which should include minimum payments on any debt. Do *NOT* let any bills go late or try to justify not paying one bill by suggesting to yourself that you will try to just double another bill next month simply because they won't just immediately disconnect you being only one month late. If you don't have enough money to pay all your monthly bills payments in one month, then picking and choosing which ones to pay this month and hoping to play catch-up next month just isn't going to work anyways... you either need to lower your expenses or find a better paying job. Again, however, if you are counting on your next paycheque to cover the bills you are facing right now, then you are already doing it wrong.
Didn't the article mention something about employers were refusing to pay the employees by check or direct deposit? Seems to me that it'd apply even if one did have a mortgage.
For small numbers of "many", perhaps.... while the nationwide number of people with bad credit may not be a tiny number, it's not anywhere near a majority. Besides... you'd be talking about people who've committed enough cheque fraud to actually have a criminal record, and maybe even served time.
Also, every bank that I know of has a "chequeless" type of account... which often even has lower fees (and sometimes even better interest) associated with it. Even people with extremely piss porr credit should be able to get such an account.
Couldn't people just go to their bank, and take out all the money from their payroll card in one transaction and then immediately it all into their bank account?
I could test my theory after this weekend and see if any of the ones I know from work would have shown any interest in taking a serious stab at this kind of problem, but the image is too blurry to be useful. I can still recognize the symbols that are there, like integration and summation, but the actual values and limits associated with them are illegible.
Typos in the problem aside, most engineers I know wouldn't have either the inclination or ability solve that kind of problem. The reactions to it would vary from x "I forgot that shit as soon as I graduated".to a full blown "wtf".
And between both my wifes job and my own, we actually know actually quite a lot of engineers.
That is clearly a problem for mathematicians, not engineers.
The only way the phrase "still, beating hearts" makes any sense at all is if you take away the comma, so it refers to "still beating hearts", or rather, hearts that are still beating.
Of course, that doesn't make sense in context that he used the expression because unless one is some sort voodoo master from the Temple of Doom, you're not going to have a heart that's still beating once it has been removed from a body.
But then again, he might not have ever intended to be taken so seriously.
I'd argue that people flipping out over feeling like their privacy is being violated is nothing like people flipping out because they think that there is a chance that they might actually cease to be alive.
And besides... privacy is an illusion. In public, it really only exists because most people would rather pay attention to things that actually concern them than be bothered with other people.
To answer your initial question: the person to whom I responded mentioned the phone conversation that a woman was having.
If people want to be left alone, they should go where there aren't any other people, instead of hanging out where other people have a legitimate right to be.
Privacy is something that we are only afforded by whatever level of indifference people who might be around us may have in our affairs.
We have absolutely *ZERO* control over what other people might be thinking or wanting to do.
If you want privacy... go someplace private... resorting to physical violence to try to settle what is an entirely nonviolent situation is... well... stupid.
A person having a private conversation in a public place is only afforded privacy by whatever level of indifference about the conversation may exist in those surrounding them. That's something over which one will have absolute;y zero control.
If you want to have a private conversation, have your private conversation someplace where you can have some legal say in who else is allowed to be near you.
Not remotely the same. Guns cause life-threatening physical harm. Unwanted videos might damage one's reputation, but they do not pose any threat to a person's right to continue to be alive.
Slashdot Mirror
You know that those higher civilization levels are from science fiction, right?
Uhmm... sure. If you consider doing stuff that won't actually amount to anything cool. I'd call it something more like self-delusion, personally.
I'm not saying that finding alien life is going to be forever impossible, I'm only saying that we just don't have the refined enough or advanced enough technology to have even an honest glimmer of hope in achieving it right now. Even the most powerful radio signals that we can send are indiscernible from the background noise of the galaxy itself long before the signal even reaches the nearest star.
Probably because NASA may actually have a clue as to just how big the scale of interstellar distances really is, and knows that it's technologically futile to even bother trying with the technology that we have so far.
Not replying at all wouldn't have cost him any time at all. He made a deliberate choice to misrepresent himself as somebody who worked for Zynga the moment he replied to one of those emails when he had already confirmed they were not actually intended for him. The fact that Zynga did not correct the issue no more gave him permission for him to misrepresent himself as a Zynga employee than a tax rebate in your favor that does not get corrected even after you tell them about it entitles you to spend that extra money.
Being a dick and laughing at somebody else who might not happen to know as much as you simply because of their ignorance is... well... just that: being a dick.
I never suggested I would disagree with specific examples where it doesn't appear to apply, but much more often than not, the name of something in anything other than its original language bears much more than just a passing resemblance to its pronunciation in the original, and when significant variations do exist, they are often still more a consequence of different phonetic structures between two languages than simply a new name assigned to it (your example of Sweden illustrates this, and is a fair Anglicization of how they pronounce the name of their own country). The name we have for places like Germany is an example of something else entirely... and shouldn't be taken to be the general rule when translating names (in fact, Germany is technically not a translation at all, but a unique word derived from a word that the ancient Romans used for them which, if I remember correctly, meant something similar to "neighbor". The word would come to refer to the name of their country amongst the Romans long before it became common knowledge that they called their own homeland something else entirely).
Google "checkless account". They exist, even in the USA... and are becoming increasingly popular as the popularity of actually writing cheques diminishes.
When translating it to english, why not just spell it like it sounds, or as close as we can get to it, instead of calling it something that sounds completely different?
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are all Roman dieties... the mythology mixup is only happening because they are using a greek name for one of the moons. If one wants consistency, it'd be a far more straightforward change to just pick a new roman name for the moon than it would be to rename every planet in the solar system.
Not all kinds of accounts have a minimum balance requirement. Also, chequing accounts are not the only type of bank account. There is no reason that people with even a terrible credit rating cannot get a basic chequeless account which they can freely deposit to and withdraw from.
As for making somebody pay a fee to get paid, they'd have to do that anyways at any cheque cashing institution anyways, which is where they'd have to go without a bank account.
Or are you proposing that employees should always be paid in cash?
ATM cash withdrawals and in-person bank withdrawals do not impact that limit, however.
If you are poor, then you probably shouldn't bother with a car. A monthly bus pass will cost, perhaps $80 to $100... which is going to be far less than a taxi, and is probably even less than what you'd be spending on gasoline and insurance.
Also... don't be late with payments, and then you don't get hit with late fees or disconnection issues.
If you're waiting until you get paid to pay this months bills, you are already doing it wrong. The money you use to pay this month's bills needs to come from your previous paycheque, not your next one. That means you need to keep a monthly float, and you can figure out exactly how much that is by adding up all the essential expenses, which should include minimum payments on any debt. Do *NOT* let any bills go late or try to justify not paying one bill by suggesting to yourself that you will try to just double another bill next month simply because they won't just immediately disconnect you being only one month late. If you don't have enough money to pay all your monthly bills payments in one month, then picking and choosing which ones to pay this month and hoping to play catch-up next month just isn't going to work anyways... you either need to lower your expenses or find a better paying job. Again, however, if you are counting on your next paycheque to cover the bills you are facing right now, then you are already doing it wrong.
Why do you need a checking account? Wouldn't a savings account be adequate?
Didn't the article mention something about employers were refusing to pay the employees by check or direct deposit? Seems to me that it'd apply even if one did have a mortgage.
For small numbers of "many", perhaps.... while the nationwide number of people with bad credit may not be a tiny number, it's not anywhere near a majority. Besides... you'd be talking about people who've committed enough cheque fraud to actually have a criminal record, and maybe even served time.
Also, every bank that I know of has a "chequeless" type of account... which often even has lower fees (and sometimes even better interest) associated with it. Even people with extremely piss porr credit should be able to get such an account.
Couldn't people just go to their bank, and take out all the money from their payroll card in one transaction and then immediately it all into their bank account?
Based on some of the prices you are citing, I'm going to assume that you haven't actually been to a movie since roughly the turn of the century.
I could test my theory after this weekend and see if any of the ones I know from work would have shown any interest in taking a serious stab at this kind of problem, but the image is too blurry to be useful. I can still recognize the symbols that are there, like integration and summation, but the actual values and limits associated with them are illegible.
[nt]
Typos in the problem aside, most engineers I know wouldn't have either the inclination or ability solve that kind of problem. The reactions to it would vary from x "I forgot that shit as soon as I graduated".to a full blown "wtf".
And between both my wifes job and my own, we actually know actually quite a lot of engineers.
That is clearly a problem for mathematicians, not engineers.
That's what I wondered too, actually....
The only way the phrase "still, beating hearts" makes any sense at all is if you take away the comma, so it refers to "still beating hearts", or rather, hearts that are still beating.
Of course, that doesn't make sense in context that he used the expression because unless one is some sort voodoo master from the Temple of Doom, you're not going to have a heart that's still beating once it has been removed from a body.
But then again, he might not have ever intended to be taken so seriously.
I'd argue that people flipping out over feeling like their privacy is being violated is nothing like people flipping out because they think that there is a chance that they might actually cease to be alive.
And besides... privacy is an illusion. In public, it really only exists because most people would rather pay attention to things that actually concern them than be bothered with other people.
If people want to be left alone, they should go where there aren't any other people, instead of hanging out where other people have a legitimate right to be.
Privacy is something that we are only afforded by whatever level of indifference people who might be around us may have in our affairs.
We have absolutely *ZERO* control over what other people might be thinking or wanting to do.
If you want privacy... go someplace private... resorting to physical violence to try to settle what is an entirely nonviolent situation is... well... stupid.
A person having a private conversation in a public place is only afforded privacy by whatever level of indifference about the conversation may exist in those surrounding them. That's something over which one will have absolute;y zero control.
If you want to have a private conversation, have your private conversation someplace where you can have some legal say in who else is allowed to be near you.
Not remotely the same. Guns cause life-threatening physical harm. Unwanted videos might damage one's reputation, but they do not pose any threat to a person's right to continue to be alive.