If you know what numbers may originate from a particular network, and thus which numbers cannot originate from that network, you can refuse to route them.
Except we don't. There's no way to know that a number that appears to be coming from outside the current network actually really belongs to the system it came from because the system that you are receiving the connection from doesn't have to be the one that originated the call. There can be any number of switches in between and there is no tracking which switches a call has gone through before the one that you are directly connecting to, nor any facility for providing such information to a downstream connection.
The consequence for which would be that my provider would have to summarily reject virtually every call coming from outside of its own network because it has no direct means to verify that the caller is actually who they might say they are (not to mention rejecting any call that might not have any such identification attached in the first place).
So reject almost all overseas calls (as well as any calls from domestic exchanges that might be on an older exchange) just because they don't verify the caller.... yup, sounds like a plan.
Move punishment to the company that provides the call.
That requires being able to identify the company. I get about 3 to 5 spam calls every day on my phone, each time from a different number, and there is *NO* way to identify that the calls are not from a legitimate number that does not happen to be on my list of contacts. My phone service provider says they have no ability to detect it either.
Please tell me what can be done about it, until such time is it is required by law that a number seen by call display is actually the real number that the call is coming from (a law that if it were enforced now would break the telephone exchange instantaneously).
Actually, their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with owning an EV *was* my entire point. If they aren't happy about it, then there is some pretty significant dissatisfaction there, even if it is not yet entirely enough to want to get rid of the electric vehicle entirely. (As I said, perhaps because of the financial implications or logistics of going to the trouble to get a different car to replace it), but more often than not enough that they may have wished they hadn't bought one in the first place.
If there are people willing and capable of working for less money then who are we to say that corporations should HAVE to pay more.
Down that road lies the effective legalization of slavery, even if you don't necessarily call it that.
They pay this much because there are abundant resources of people without skills
That's a very poor excuse to pay someone who might be working as much as they can (again, only so many hours in the day) and who has to support himself in today's society anything less than a living wage.
Working full time at Wal-mart takes up no less of a person's time than jobs with higher skill requirements, and there are only so many hours in a day to work. Why should a person who is putting in that time and working hard at Wal-mart not be entitled to being able to a fair wage that is actually enough to live on? Why should a person who may not have the skills to get a better job, have to work for wages so low that they are effectively in slavery, unable to get out simply because of the lack of more gainful employment that matches their skillset elsewhere?
Minimum wage is roughly half of what a living wage is where I live... and I would suggest that it is only an appropriate amount to pay someone who otherwise is still classified as a dependent for taxation purposes.
But yet there are still plenty of people in that situation that own EVs.
If they are genuinely happy about it, this surprises me... while I know there are plenty of people that own EV's that live in such situation, everything that I have ever read or heard about on the subject suggests that the people who have gone the EV route without a means of charging at home have quickly (within a month or two, at most) discovered the inability to charge overnight is a staggering inconvenience, and even gone so far as to regret the purchase. In practice, the only reason they might continue to drive it beyond that point is simply because of the financial considerations of having to get another car. It might work for some people, but it's not ideal... and they are not satisfied. That is my understanding of the normal EV experience by people who live in high-density areas with apartment or condo housing.
Right from the very beginning I was talking about people who live in high density housing neighorhoods, and for which charging at home is completely impossible, not only logistically, but physically.... in some cases it would be less expensive for them to own their own detached home than to obtain charging because the number of people that are willing to front the costs for the necessary electrical infrastructure upgrades in the ear to support cars they don't own yet but might buy at some point in the future is too small to justify its installation.
And just how many of those people do not have another car?
And in high density populated areas, you don't always get the luxury of having parking for multiple cars anyways. There's often designated parking for your unit, and for anything beyond that, you have to park on the street. Because you have to share the street with everyone else that wanted a second car (high density population, remember), or visitors, parking is at a premium, and certainly not something you could ever count on being able to get unless you are always willing to walk 5 or 6 blocks just to get to your car from your house.
That's Mikey's problem. If he's being paid fairly for the work he is doing in the first place, why should it reasonably matter how close to his wage someone else is making? Effective slavery for jobs that are no less essential to our culture but do not have a high skill criteria should not be the price for Mikey's insecurities.
The idea of a "livable wage" for jobs that require almost no skills is laughable.
What difference should the skill level required to do the job make?
Even jobs that require supposedly "almost no skills" can be no less demanding of a persons time and energy. If a person is willing to work hard at such a job, and presumably the job needs to be done, then why shouldn't they be entitled to a living wage doing it?
This is an issue with my condo. I'd have to get the board's permission to wire up a drop in my parking spot and hire an electrician to branch it off from the meter
Yeah, I hear ya.... and that's not even considering the logistics of stopping other people in the building from tampering with your electrical outlet and stealing your electricity for their own use when you are not home, or other similar acts of mischief.
The perceived threat:Lawmakers and DHS have publicly said the national security threat from Kaspersky products stems from Russian law. Antivirus programs and other security programs often upload files to a security firm's server in the course of analyzing them for threats. By law, Kaspersky would have to honor Russian official requests for the data.
Couldn't Kaspersky sidestep this issue by *not* uploading any content? Or is this ban in effect because they could theoretically upload, even if they don't?
That being the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should simultaneously prohibit *ALL* software written by any agency outside of the US which might have similar laws with regards to data collection, and not just single out Kaspersky labs?
The ability to charge at work does not preclude charging at home if the ability exists. What percentage of those people whom you allege are satisfied with their electric vehicle do not actually have any ability to charge at home?
I'd be honestly surprised it there's even one among them.
This is not because a small number of people live in apartments without any ability to charge an electric car at home, but because the people who don't have the ability to charge at home are unlikely to purchase an electric vehicle in the first place (except perhaps as an oversight, and then they realize this shortcoming not long after purchasing).
Fair enough, but I'm alleging it's a pretty safe bet that the inconvenience of not being able to charge a rechargeable car overnight at one's own home *always* outweighs every other benefit that electric cars might otherwise offer. I would defy you or anyone else to find any electric vehicle owner that has no ability to charge at home who might assert otherwise. Yes, it's subjective, but I'm willing to bet that this so-called subjective opinion is in unanimous agreement across the entire demographic of people that it affects... and I'd wager that the only people who might think otherwise either don't own an EV in the first place, or else don't live in an apartment where they have no ability to charge it (and in either case not part of the impacted demographic anyways).
Electric vehicles won't work for everybody (yet); but they would work for most people.
Ironically, however, they don't work for most people who live in high-density population neighborhoods, especially areas of a city which are predominantly older development apartment buildings that may not have plugs available for cars in their parking lot or common parking garage.
It makes tons of sense if you have a place to charge your car at home. Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.
Are you saying that you dismissed *every* employee that did not work at least 60 hours per week, and kept *every* employee that did?
Because if not, then hours worked was not the only criteria, although that was the only criteria you told the DoL that you used.
And if that's the case, then it follows that it may be entirely possible that hours worked was not even a criteria at all, but that you would have deliberately lied about it to the DoL knowing that it would skew the results in the direction that aligned with the deliberate discrimination.
I have to say, I'm more than a little impressed at the brass balls you must have had to do this if that's what you actually did.
No they won't and the fact that restaurants don't lose all of their utensils every day is proof of that
They don't lose all of their utensils every day because they aren't worth enough for most people to bother stealing. Upgrade the plastic to metal, and that's not going to be the case anymore.
Same thing stopping me from bringing reusable bags to the grocery store: the fact that it's not necessary because I can get what I need there without any excessive cost or inconvenience.
But that's only because it's still legal where you live... presumably, that's not going to be case for terribly much longer. Cities all over the place are adopting laws like this, and you may have to just learn to adapt.
Are you so much better than than people with disabilities that require special utensils or tools to dine and are already quite accustomed to having to bring their eating supplies with them that you will continue to expect the world around you to cater to your whims as the world around you changes?
For something like a large soft drink that takes too long to finish, the paper will start to deteriorate before you're done and you end up with pulp in your drink.
Coated paper straws can be a solution, but then you either get something that is no more compostable than plastic because of oil in the coating, and more environmentally friendly coatings tend to affect the taste of the liquid that is going through the straw.
Slashdot Mirror
Except we don't. There's no way to know that a number that appears to be coming from outside the current network actually really belongs to the system it came from because the system that you are receiving the connection from doesn't have to be the one that originated the call. There can be any number of switches in between and there is no tracking which switches a call has gone through before the one that you are directly connecting to, nor any facility for providing such information to a downstream connection.
The consequence for which would be that my provider would have to summarily reject virtually every call coming from outside of its own network because it has no direct means to verify that the caller is actually who they might say they are (not to mention rejecting any call that might not have any such identification attached in the first place).
So reject almost all overseas calls (as well as any calls from domestic exchanges that might be on an older exchange) just because they don't verify the caller.... yup, sounds like a plan.
And how do you hook one of those up to a cell phone?
Also, what do you do when the memory capacity is full and you can't add any more numbers to the block list?
At the rate I get spam calls, it would be full in less than 2 years. Every single one is from a different number.
That requires being able to identify the company. I get about 3 to 5 spam calls every day on my phone, each time from a different number, and there is *NO* way to identify that the calls are not from a legitimate number that does not happen to be on my list of contacts. My phone service provider says they have no ability to detect it either.
Please tell me what can be done about it, until such time is it is required by law that a number seen by call display is actually the real number that the call is coming from (a law that if it were enforced now would break the telephone exchange instantaneously).
Homonym proper nouns are enfuriating. &angry-face;
Actually, their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with owning an EV *was* my entire point. If they aren't happy about it, then there is some pretty significant dissatisfaction there, even if it is not yet entirely enough to want to get rid of the electric vehicle entirely. (As I said, perhaps because of the financial implications or logistics of going to the trouble to get a different car to replace it), but more often than not enough that they may have wished they hadn't bought one in the first place.
Down that road lies the effective legalization of slavery, even if you don't necessarily call it that.
That's a very poor excuse to pay someone who might be working as much as they can (again, only so many hours in the day) and who has to support himself in today's society anything less than a living wage.
Working full time at Wal-mart takes up no less of a person's time than jobs with higher skill requirements, and there are only so many hours in a day to work. Why should a person who is putting in that time and working hard at Wal-mart not be entitled to being able to a fair wage that is actually enough to live on? Why should a person who may not have the skills to get a better job, have to work for wages so low that they are effectively in slavery, unable to get out simply because of the lack of more gainful employment that matches their skillset elsewhere?
Minimum wage is roughly half of what a living wage is where I live... and I would suggest that it is only an appropriate amount to pay someone who otherwise is still classified as a dependent for taxation purposes.
If they are genuinely happy about it, this surprises me... while I know there are plenty of people that own EV's that live in such situation, everything that I have ever read or heard about on the subject suggests that the people who have gone the EV route without a means of charging at home have quickly (within a month or two, at most) discovered the inability to charge overnight is a staggering inconvenience, and even gone so far as to regret the purchase. In practice, the only reason they might continue to drive it beyond that point is simply because of the financial considerations of having to get another car. It might work for some people, but it's not ideal... and they are not satisfied. That is my understanding of the normal EV experience by people who live in high-density areas with apartment or condo housing.
Touche... but the point remains.
Right from the very beginning I was talking about people who live in high density housing neighorhoods, and for which charging at home is completely impossible, not only logistically, but physically.... in some cases it would be less expensive for them to own their own detached home than to obtain charging because the number of people that are willing to front the costs for the necessary electrical infrastructure upgrades in the ear to support cars they don't own yet but might buy at some point in the future is too small to justify its installation.
And just how many of those people do not have another car?
And in high density populated areas, you don't always get the luxury of having parking for multiple cars anyways. There's often designated parking for your unit, and for anything beyond that, you have to park on the street. Because you have to share the street with everyone else that wanted a second car (high density population, remember), or visitors, parking is at a premium, and certainly not something you could ever count on being able to get unless you are always willing to walk 5 or 6 blocks just to get to your car from your house.
That's Mikey's problem. If he's being paid fairly for the work he is doing in the first place, why should it reasonably matter how close to his wage someone else is making? Effective slavery for jobs that are no less essential to our culture but do not have a high skill criteria should not be the price for Mikey's insecurities.
What difference should the skill level required to do the job make? Even jobs that require supposedly "almost no skills" can be no less demanding of a persons time and energy. If a person is willing to work hard at such a job, and presumably the job needs to be done, then why shouldn't they be entitled to a living wage doing it?
Yeah, I hear ya.... and that's not even considering the logistics of stopping other people in the building from tampering with your electrical outlet and stealing your electricity for their own use when you are not home, or other similar acts of mischief.
FTA:
Couldn't Kaspersky sidestep this issue by *not* uploading any content? Or is this ban in effect because they could theoretically upload, even if they don't?
That being the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should simultaneously prohibit *ALL* software written by any agency outside of the US which might have similar laws with regards to data collection, and not just single out Kaspersky labs?
I'd be honestly surprised it there's even one among them.
This is not because a small number of people live in apartments without any ability to charge an electric car at home, but because the people who don't have the ability to charge at home are unlikely to purchase an electric vehicle in the first place (except perhaps as an oversight, and then they realize this shortcoming not long after purchasing).
Fair enough, but I'm alleging it's a pretty safe bet that the inconvenience of not being able to charge a rechargeable car overnight at one's own home *always* outweighs every other benefit that electric cars might otherwise offer. I would defy you or anyone else to find any electric vehicle owner that has no ability to charge at home who might assert otherwise. Yes, it's subjective, but I'm willing to bet that this so-called subjective opinion is in unanimous agreement across the entire demographic of people that it affects... and I'd wager that the only people who might think otherwise either don't own an EV in the first place, or else don't live in an apartment where they have no ability to charge it (and in either case not part of the impacted demographic anyways).
Ironically, however, they don't work for most people who live in high-density population neighborhoods, especially areas of a city which are predominantly older development apartment buildings that may not have plugs available for cars in their parking lot or common parking garage.
It makes tons of sense if you have a place to charge your car at home. Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.
Are you saying that you dismissed *every* employee that did not work at least 60 hours per week, and kept *every* employee that did?
Because if not, then hours worked was not the only criteria, although that was the only criteria you told the DoL that you used.
And if that's the case, then it follows that it may be entirely possible that hours worked was not even a criteria at all, but that you would have deliberately lied about it to the DoL knowing that it would skew the results in the direction that aligned with the deliberate discrimination.
I have to say, I'm more than a little impressed at the brass balls you must have had to do this if that's what you actually did.
They don't lose all of their utensils every day because they aren't worth enough for most people to bother stealing. Upgrade the plastic to metal, and that's not going to be the case anymore.
But that's only because it's still legal where you live... presumably, that's not going to be case for terribly much longer. Cities all over the place are adopting laws like this, and you may have to just learn to adapt.
Are you so much better than than people with disabilities that require special utensils or tools to dine and are already quite accustomed to having to bring their eating supplies with them that you will continue to expect the world around you to cater to your whims as the world around you changes?
Compostable paper straws suck (no pun intended).
For something like a large soft drink that takes too long to finish, the paper will start to deteriorate before you're done and you end up with pulp in your drink.
Coated paper straws can be a solution, but then you either get something that is no more compostable than plastic because of oil in the coating, and more environmentally friendly coatings tend to affect the taste of the liquid that is going through the straw.