If you are not careful, banks will rob you using late fees
Only if you are late paying your bills. Or is avoiding that what you meant by being careful?
While being robbed may be a one time occurrence, credit cards are death by many cuts when you go shopping at restaurants and shopping centers.
Lately, what I've taken to doing to avoid that is to, whenever I want to use my CC, I check my current bank balance on my bank's website with my smartphone. If I have enough, I pay for it with the CC (unless they have direct payment, in which case I can just pay using my bank card and pin), and then immediately log back into my bank's website and make a payment on it exactly equal to what I just put on the card before I'm even out the door. If I don't have enough right then and there, then I don't buy it... just as if I didn't have the cash either.
Plus, of course, cash doesn't really work at all for things like shopping online.
Speaking hypothetically.... if something were to happen to every single one of the people that was in the line (I realize how grossly improbable this is... that's why I'm saying hypothetically)... what *would* happen? Would they also then have to hold a new federal election out of schedule?
Constitutionally speaking, is there any eventuality at all for something such as this?
I never used the word "inconceivable", you did. I said it was impractical, because in reality, nearly any investigation would generally only reveal that the most obvious reason why person A didn't get the job: because they hired person Z, is actually all there is to it.
To suggest otherwise would obligate any employer to be required to hire any and all applicants that represented any kind of visible minority, because of the allegation that any refusal to hire them must always be on account of their race.
The EU might be pretty different from NA, but I don't think it's *THAT* different.
And if the employer denies both of them, which is likely, if there are many other applicants, what have you proven?
And how do you go about proving that the employer checked the person's social media account, when they deny it and no record exists of the employer having done it?
Of course... because browsing histories are so impossible to obscure or delete.
And even if they weren't... if businesses felt that their browsing histories would be subject to scrutiny, they would use non-business computers to do browsing that they didn't want anyone else to know about.
As to "who searched" it's an auditable event and it's usually something brought on when they deny someone a position.
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that.... considering that many jobs can have dozens or sometimes even hundreds of applicants, doing that for every single person that didn't get the job is prohibitively expensive, especially when it is unlikely to reveal anything fruitful in the first place. When one doesn't get a job they applied for, the most obvious reason is probably the real one: they decided to hire somebody else.
Would I *LIKE* to be...? No... but at the same time, I'm aware that my decisions and actions can have consequences down the line, not all of which I will necessarily foresee or intend. However unfairly I might be discriminated against over something in the past that somebody might find offensive today, it's still my own responsibility to live with it. I am not *entitled* to forgiveness by those I may have happened to offend, no matter how insignificant I might think the matter to be. It is my responsibility only to be the best person that I know how to be with the choices and opportunities that *are* available to me in the here and the now, and not sweat about the choices that aren't... even if they are being withheld for unfair reasons.
And just how the heck do they expect to enforce this? I mean, short of the employer directly *asking* the employee if they have a such-and-such social media account, how would anyone other than the person who did the search know about it?
If I am reading code out loud, I read == as "double equals", -> from C as "arrow", ++ and -- as plusplus and minusminus, respectively, and when reading javascript, === as "triple equals". I read the period when used as a separator from an object and its members as "dot", but when it is in a decimal number, I read it as "point".
I read "&&" and "||" as "logical and" and "logical or", respectively, the boolean "&" and "|" as simply "and" and "or", and the & operator for taking the address of a variable as "ampersand".
When reading code silently, I don't think I associate real words to anything I am reading.. The smallest unit that I generally internally think of in code is a whole line at once, and often I think in terms of entire functions, as long they are small enough to fit on single screen without scrolling (a practice I try to adhere to, personally... as I find it results in more readable and comprehensible code).
The average newspaper is barely written at a high school level.
Specifically, the average newspaper is written at a grade 7 reading level.
Reading is a recent technological development
Perhaps... but only in about the same sense that you would say that human beings are a recent development as well. Reading is well over 5000 years old, and has origins in numeracy which itself is over 10000 years old.
For what it's worth, I read the same way... I too have been told it is unusual, particularly considering the fact that when I first learned to read, I was taught to use phonics principles, and sound a word out based on how it was spelled.
But unless that translates to a lower risk of having it in the first place, I'm not sure that l'd be happy with just a lower chance of death by it, because the way I see it is that I'm going to die eventually anyway, and simply surviving a stroke doesn't mean you will have any real quality of life afterward
No. There is clear order of succession that is followed for presidency between elections when the president is unable to perform his or her duties for any reason, and that is what would be followed.
And Skype did the same thing with Skype-to-Skype calls IIRC.
But y'know, it's not like they don't plaster their service with ads already... why interfere with basic communication?
If ICQ had done something like this back when it was being the big deal that it was, I doubt that instant messengers ever would have become popular at all - they would have been seen as just another avenue for unwanted spam.
Like, in the middle of while you were talking to somebody, you suddenly needed to listen to 15 to 30 second advertisement trying to sell you on getting new auto insurance or buying coca-cola?
... the overall level (as in percentage of income) of tax that you pay, then they wouldn't keep needing to come up with shit like this...
People who earn more money are supposed to be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those at lower income levels. I would suggest that while tax deductions can (and should) alter the amount that one may owe in terms of dollars, but the deductions should *not* alter the percentage that they owe.... ie, if before any deductions your annual tax works out to be X% of your total taxable income, then after any deductions have been applied, the annual tax on your taxable income is still X%. The deductions still mean that you pay less overall tax, of course, but they don't get to shelter you from the different overall rates of taxation based on your gross income.
I agree that there are good reasons to host your own cloud, but why would Microsoft expect people to pay for it? To use a metaphor, it
seems that instead of selling fish to people and profiting from that, MS is now giving people their own license to freely fish as much as they want or at least have the ability to do.
To the best of my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, Azure is a cloud storage service that you pay for as you use.... this makes sense when you are using somebody else's resources (Microsoft's), but are we supposed to pay Microsoft now to use our own servers instead?
Then again, maybe it does make sense... but strikes me as so self-evidently pointless as to defy any sense of reason why Microsoft would expect people to pay for it.
there is no need to have the keys be 3/4 of an inch thick other than to give you carpel tunnel syndrome as you cock your wrist up trying to get on top of the keys.
That's only issue if you did not try to rest the base of your palms on the bottom of the keyboard while typing.
Like playing a piano, to prevent injury, it is best to not rest your hands upon anything, keeping your hands always raised fully above the keys. This is just part of good keyboarding posture, and you should *NEVER* need to flex their wrist back while typing. If you find that you are, then you are doing it incorrectly, and are only setting yourself up for a world of eventual pain if you persist in doing it that way. Good posture can feel more tiring when you are not used to it, but it's well worth the effort of building up your endurance
... then I'm going to want to have a clear rubber covering on it that can to protect it from things like accidental spills, even while using it (my roommate back in the day always referred to the one I had at the time as a keyboard condom). Back then, there were just the two styles of keyboard, either XT or extended XT style, and you could get a cover for either one. If something spills on it, you just wipe it with a damp cloth and you're done, or if it gets really bad you peel it off and wash it As far as I know they don't make those anymore because there's too many styles of keyboards now.
Not necessarily... they *could* have been collecting bids from multiple sources and then given all parties a chance to increase their based on the highest offer so far, doing only one round of that before accepting the highest bid.
Not that I think that's what actually happened in this case, however. I think Whole Foods' counteroffer comes solely from the knowledge that Amazon has deep pockets, and they are being, to put it bluntly, greedy. I expect if Amazon seriously thought there was seriously another offer on the table, they probably would not have threatened to walk away if the offer of $42 is not accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the OP here, but actually, yes.... yes I do.
Although if you are wondering, I live in Canada... and direct payment cards are a pretty big thing up here.
Only if you are late paying your bills. Or is avoiding that what you meant by being careful?
Lately, what I've taken to doing to avoid that is to, whenever I want to use my CC, I check my current bank balance on my bank's website with my smartphone. If I have enough, I pay for it with the CC (unless they have direct payment, in which case I can just pay using my bank card and pin), and then immediately log back into my bank's website and make a payment on it exactly equal to what I just put on the card before I'm even out the door. If I don't have enough right then and there, then I don't buy it... just as if I didn't have the cash either.
Plus, of course, cash doesn't really work at all for things like shopping online.
Speaking hypothetically.... if something were to happen to every single one of the people that was in the line (I realize how grossly improbable this is... that's why I'm saying hypothetically)... what *would* happen? Would they also then have to hold a new federal election out of schedule?
Constitutionally speaking, is there any eventuality at all for something such as this?
Right... but that's further assuming that there's even any evidence that the employer did it.
Because you know, cookies and browsing histories are just soo hard to delete. Heck, who is to say they even used a company computer?
I never used the word "inconceivable", you did. I said it was impractical, because in reality, nearly any investigation would generally only reveal that the most obvious reason why person A didn't get the job: because they hired person Z, is actually all there is to it.
To suggest otherwise would obligate any employer to be required to hire any and all applicants that represented any kind of visible minority, because of the allegation that any refusal to hire them must always be on account of their race.
The EU might be pretty different from NA, but I don't think it's *THAT* different.
And if the employer denies both of them, which is likely, if there are many other applicants, what have you proven?
And how do you go about proving that the employer checked the person's social media account, when they deny it and no record exists of the employer having done it?
Of course... because browsing histories are so impossible to obscure or delete.
And even if they weren't... if businesses felt that their browsing histories would be subject to scrutiny, they would use non-business computers to do browsing that they didn't want anyone else to know about.
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that.... considering that many jobs can have dozens or sometimes even hundreds of applicants, doing that for every single person that didn't get the job is prohibitively expensive, especially when it is unlikely to reveal anything fruitful in the first place. When one doesn't get a job they applied for, the most obvious reason is probably the real one: they decided to hire somebody else.
"they'll have to find some other reason to not give people the job"
And that reason would be that they picked somebody else. Done.
Would I *LIKE* to be...? No... but at the same time, I'm aware that my decisions and actions can have consequences down the line, not all of which I will necessarily foresee or intend. However unfairly I might be discriminated against over something in the past that somebody might find offensive today, it's still my own responsibility to live with it. I am not *entitled* to forgiveness by those I may have happened to offend, no matter how insignificant I might think the matter to be. It is my responsibility only to be the best person that I know how to be with the choices and opportunities that *are* available to me in the here and the now, and not sweat about the choices that aren't... even if they are being withheld for unfair reasons.
And just how the heck do they expect to enforce this? I mean, short of the employer directly *asking* the employee if they have a such-and-such social media account, how would anyone other than the person who did the search know about it?
.... the color black is found to be darker than most others.
If I am reading code out loud, I read == as "double equals", -> from C as "arrow", ++ and -- as plusplus and minusminus, respectively, and when reading javascript, === as "triple equals". I read the period when used as a separator from an object and its members as "dot", but when it is in a decimal number, I read it as "point". I read "&&" and "||" as "logical and" and "logical or", respectively, the boolean "&" and "|" as simply "and" and "or", and the & operator for taking the address of a variable as "ampersand".
When reading code silently, I don't think I associate real words to anything I am reading.. The smallest unit that I generally internally think of in code is a whole line at once, and often I think in terms of entire functions, as long they are small enough to fit on single screen without scrolling (a practice I try to adhere to, personally... as I find it results in more readable and comprehensible code).
Specifically, the average newspaper is written at a grade 7 reading level.
Perhaps... but only in about the same sense that you would say that human beings are a recent development as well. Reading is well over 5000 years old, and has origins in numeracy which itself is over 10000 years old.
For what it's worth, I read the same way... I too have been told it is unusual, particularly considering the fact that when I first learned to read, I was taught to use phonics principles, and sound a word out based on how it was spelled.
But unless that translates to a lower risk of having it in the first place, I'm not sure that l'd be happy with just a lower chance of death by it, because the way I see it is that I'm going to die eventually anyway, and simply surviving a stroke doesn't mean you will have any real quality of life afterward
No. There is clear order of succession that is followed for presidency between elections when the president is unable to perform his or her duties for any reason, and that is what would be followed.
Okay... bad example.
And Skype did the same thing with Skype-to-Skype calls IIRC.
But y'know, it's not like they don't plaster their service with ads already... why interfere with basic communication?
If ICQ had done something like this back when it was being the big deal that it was, I doubt that instant messengers ever would have become popular at all - they would have been seen as just another avenue for unwanted spam.
Like, in the middle of while you were talking to somebody, you suddenly needed to listen to 15 to 30 second advertisement trying to sell you on getting new auto insurance or buying coca-cola?
This poses no less of a problem.
People who earn more money are supposed to be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those at lower income levels. I would suggest that while tax deductions can (and should) alter the amount that one may owe in terms of dollars, but the deductions should *not* alter the percentage that they owe.... ie, if before any deductions your annual tax works out to be X% of your total taxable income, then after any deductions have been applied, the annual tax on your taxable income is still X%. The deductions still mean that you pay less overall tax, of course, but they don't get to shelter you from the different overall rates of taxation based on your gross income.
I agree that there are good reasons to host your own cloud, but why would Microsoft expect people to pay for it? To use a metaphor, it seems that instead of selling fish to people and profiting from that, MS is now giving people their own license to freely fish as much as they want or at least have the ability to do.
To the best of my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, Azure is a cloud storage service that you pay for as you use.... this makes sense when you are using somebody else's resources (Microsoft's), but are we supposed to pay Microsoft now to use our own servers instead?
Then again, maybe it does make sense... but strikes me as so self-evidently pointless as to defy any sense of reason why Microsoft would expect people to pay for it.
That's only issue if you did not try to rest the base of your palms on the bottom of the keyboard while typing. Like playing a piano, to prevent injury, it is best to not rest your hands upon anything, keeping your hands always raised fully above the keys. This is just part of good keyboarding posture, and you should *NEVER* need to flex their wrist back while typing. If you find that you are, then you are doing it incorrectly, and are only setting yourself up for a world of eventual pain if you persist in doing it that way. Good posture can feel more tiring when you are not used to it, but it's well worth the effort of building up your endurance
... then I'm going to want to have a clear rubber covering on it that can to protect it from things like accidental spills, even while using it (my roommate back in the day always referred to the one I had at the time as a keyboard condom). Back then, there were just the two styles of keyboard, either XT or extended XT style, and you could get a cover for either one. If something spills on it, you just wipe it with a damp cloth and you're done, or if it gets really bad you peel it off and wash it As far as I know they don't make those anymore because there's too many styles of keyboards now.
Not necessarily... they *could* have been collecting bids from multiple sources and then given all parties a chance to increase their based on the highest offer so far, doing only one round of that before accepting the highest bid.
Not that I think that's what actually happened in this case, however. I think Whole Foods' counteroffer comes solely from the knowledge that Amazon has deep pockets, and they are being, to put it bluntly, greedy. I expect if Amazon seriously thought there was seriously another offer on the table, they probably would not have threatened to walk away if the offer of $42 is not accepted.