Alot of homeless people aren't actually homeless. They chose that lifestyle. It's a job for them. I used to walk to work and I'd see them show up at 8 am and then go home at 4 pm. I actually saw one at the end of his shift cleaning up pull out his cell phone to tell his buddies he'd meet them at the club that night. There's tons of programs to help homeless people. Many homeless people don't want the help because it is easier to just sit on a corner and yell at people for not giving you money.
I give money to people I see that are in genuine dire straights. People who actually need help. Or if the sign makes me laugh I might give something. But professional day after day "homeless"? Not so much.
I too have thought about limiting maximum number of hours worked but the problem is that many people in the lower income brackets already have to work two sometimes even three jobs to make ends meet. The lower hours will not change unemployment unless the individual has a salary style income that still gets overtime benefits. Hourly employees would just end up having to find more jobs.
Just to put it out there as a possibility, they may be taking this step as a necessity and not because they necessarily think Snapchat is primarily to blame. As the girl's a teenager she probably doesn't have much money and since the accident left the husband permanently brain damaged he's probably lost work and might need special care that the wife can't possibly afford to give. They are probably hoping Snapchat might have the finances needed to support them. In other words it might be impossible due to reality to hold the girl fully responsible. I don't know if this is just, but I can understand why they would take this step for reasons other than greed.
As someone who actually *does* have a fruit stand vendor set up in front of his house every day let me tell you it is kindof awesome. His fruit is actually fresher than the grocery stores' quite frequently and his price point is comparable and I don't have to go nearly as far to get good fruit. Not to mention that his variety is actually better. He also recognizes me and will wish me a good day every day. I'd be sad if someone chased him away.
Typically a service can only foist terms like this when they become a majority consumption engine. Like Apple foisting terms on people who want to publish via their platform. I've never heard of IFTTT before this. I really doubt they are in a market leader position to foist unfair terms on providers who had no prior relationship with them (just because their content was available through IFTTT scraping doesn't mean there is a relationship.)
It's not unreasonable try and set up a service that provides value to content providers and charges the content providers for that service, this is kindof like how cable tv works. Unfortunately for IFTTT it isn't generally how the internet works. Most aggregators don't try to charge their content providers for showing their content. If IFTTT provides large additional value over general browsing then yeah maybe they can overturn these tables, but they need to prove that they provide the level of value that they are claiming and they need to prove their value is worth the cost. The cost they are thrusting onto "partners" is REALLY high. Like significant portion of revenue high. And I don't see anything where they are attempting to prove that they are worth that cost. Also they are kindof badmouthing people who don't agree to these agreements by saying that "partner" is breaking the integration when "partner" had no part prior in the integration. Those last two points will probably drive them out of business because people don't like dealing with dicks. (The content ownership claim is really brazen. Like Dr. Evil is looking at them a little askance.)
I'd like to politely disagree with the black-on-black violence being a much bigger problem than police shootings. Even if it is larger and more widespread, police violence inherently undermines society since it means the people who are supposed to protect normal citizens from violence are not safe to engage with. It is extremely difficult to really deal with black on black violence as long as the people who are supposed to be the most empowered to stop violence are not safe to engage with because they themselves are prone to violence.
Actually some of those obnoxious ads are not worth the cost of development. People *think* this thing should work so they do it. They don't base their decisions on stats often. You might be surprised how many decision makers make their decisions totally based on how they think it should work.
New York City cabs actually do have an app. At least I see it advertised all the time in cabs; I don't remember the name. But I also see the ad about how "Real New Yorkers" always chose yellow cabs. So competing and slander?
I think those are numbers for just 2015. You don't get a new H1B visa every year. So they got all of those visas plus all the ones from 2014, 2013, 2012... I don't think Tata has any non H1B employees for example.
The interesting part of this is that in order to get information like that you need be able to track someone pretty thoroughly. Would you be ok with a company monitoring your browsing habits like that? Such that they know if you bought something already.
I apologize for being harsh. It is just the core thing about this that bothers me is that neither side seems to care much about freedom of speech or expression. One side comes across as they want to ban sexy time games and the other side comes across as wanting to ban content that doesn't appeal to them. Personally I have found enjoyment from games catering to either audience or both.
Why? While we're at banning genres or things you don't like are there any books, plays, movies, or other speech you don't want people to make anymore? Just because something doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made. I don't get that argument. From either side. Sexy time games and walking simulators both have equal right to exist and the world is better for the diversity.
Felines accompanying their human companions have gone on to prey on the local wildlife, and they have been blamed for the global extinction of 33 species.
Cats don't just replace the local predators. They are better at killing than most other small predators. And they are also sadistic bastards who will torture prey before they kill them. They may not bring down moose, but everything smaller than them is just a toy to be killed.
I have two cats. The male is definitely a murderer. Nothing smaller than him can come into the apartment without being killed. And as I bought him to be a mouse catcher, I'm pretty much OK with this. But I wouldn't let him outside.
I actually kindof do hope a lot of people would quit and demand would increase at fast food places since that would force them to pay better than minimum wage.
Maybe it isn't targeted to the average person? Since the average person isn't likely to have the computer capable of running the thing in the first place.
Could you list some policies of his that you support? Some ideals he professes that you like or is it really just "He isn't a politician"? If your only reason for supporting him is because he isn't them, that is not thinking. That is not putting in more thought to the decision and making an informed decision. I haven't heard any policies that he's supported that don't sound super villainy, illogical, or an abandonment of values America was founded on. I may be just misinformed, but I hope you have better reason for supporting him than "He isn't a politician"
I think Slashdot rails against him now not because he's a shitty politician but because he is a shitty person.
You are aware that for the first time in history there are 3 major hurricanes in the Pacific at the same time? I mean I guess it could be coincidence... but to me it sounds like "more" and "intense" hurricanes...
http://www.motherjones.com/blu...
A predator drone can be equipped with no lethal ordinance. In that case the predator would be legal for police use according to this law. But you still wouldn't take it out with a super soaker.
How something is equipped is not the sole determining factor of how large the device is or how high it can fly.
I was once pulled over for having an expired driver's license for a state that I was not a resident of. I wasn't speeding. I didn't have a broken taillight. They had no other reason to pull me over and were mighty confused when I showed I had a license for the state that I was a resident of. I've also had a cop car completely circle my car and then drive on. It's really nerve wracking when that happens because you suddenly think you broke a law even when you know you didn't. If you give cops full surveillance with no limit. They will look for and find a crime even if you believe you are completely innocent because they are massively incentivized to screw you over. They have no incentive however to protect you. Investigating a crime is a pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Alot of homeless people aren't actually homeless. They chose that lifestyle. It's a job for them. I used to walk to work and I'd see them show up at 8 am and then go home at 4 pm. I actually saw one at the end of his shift cleaning up pull out his cell phone to tell his buddies he'd meet them at the club that night. There's tons of programs to help homeless people. Many homeless people don't want the help because it is easier to just sit on a corner and yell at people for not giving you money.
I give money to people I see that are in genuine dire straights. People who actually need help. Or if the sign makes me laugh I might give something. But professional day after day "homeless"? Not so much.
http://www.mypersonalfinancejo... They actually pull down a decent income for providing no benefit to society.
I too have thought about limiting maximum number of hours worked but the problem is that many people in the lower income brackets already have to work two sometimes even three jobs to make ends meet. The lower hours will not change unemployment unless the individual has a salary style income that still gets overtime benefits. Hourly employees would just end up having to find more jobs.
Just to put it out there as a possibility, they may be taking this step as a necessity and not because they necessarily think Snapchat is primarily to blame. As the girl's a teenager she probably doesn't have much money and since the accident left the husband permanently brain damaged he's probably lost work and might need special care that the wife can't possibly afford to give. They are probably hoping Snapchat might have the finances needed to support them. In other words it might be impossible due to reality to hold the girl fully responsible. I don't know if this is just, but I can understand why they would take this step for reasons other than greed.
As someone who actually *does* have a fruit stand vendor set up in front of his house every day let me tell you it is kindof awesome. His fruit is actually fresher than the grocery stores' quite frequently and his price point is comparable and I don't have to go nearly as far to get good fruit. Not to mention that his variety is actually better. He also recognizes me and will wish me a good day every day. I'd be sad if someone chased him away.
Typically a service can only foist terms like this when they become a majority consumption engine. Like Apple foisting terms on people who want to publish via their platform. I've never heard of IFTTT before this. I really doubt they are in a market leader position to foist unfair terms on providers who had no prior relationship with them (just because their content was available through IFTTT scraping doesn't mean there is a relationship.)
It's not unreasonable try and set up a service that provides value to content providers and charges the content providers for that service, this is kindof like how cable tv works. Unfortunately for IFTTT it isn't generally how the internet works. Most aggregators don't try to charge their content providers for showing their content. If IFTTT provides large additional value over general browsing then yeah maybe they can overturn these tables, but they need to prove that they provide the level of value that they are claiming and they need to prove their value is worth the cost. The cost they are thrusting onto "partners" is REALLY high. Like significant portion of revenue high. And I don't see anything where they are attempting to prove that they are worth that cost. Also they are kindof badmouthing people who don't agree to these agreements by saying that "partner" is breaking the integration when "partner" had no part prior in the integration. Those last two points will probably drive them out of business because people don't like dealing with dicks. (The content ownership claim is really brazen. Like Dr. Evil is looking at them a little askance.)
I'd like to politely disagree with the black-on-black violence being a much bigger problem than police shootings. Even if it is larger and more widespread, police violence inherently undermines society since it means the people who are supposed to protect normal citizens from violence are not safe to engage with. It is extremely difficult to really deal with black on black violence as long as the people who are supposed to be the most empowered to stop violence are not safe to engage with because they themselves are prone to violence.
Good luck finding a towing company that would tow cop cars if you aren't a cop.
Actually some of those obnoxious ads are not worth the cost of development. People *think* this thing should work so they do it. They don't base their decisions on stats often. You might be surprised how many decision makers make their decisions totally based on how they think it should work.
One could make the argument that he's implying the American public is the enemy that the government is at war with.
I don't get why this makes self driving taxis impossible. It's a law about fingerprinting drivers not cars.
New York City cabs actually do have an app. At least I see it advertised all the time in cabs; I don't remember the name. But I also see the ad about how "Real New Yorkers" always chose yellow cabs. So competing and slander?
I think those are numbers for just 2015. You don't get a new H1B visa every year. So they got all of those visas plus all the ones from 2014, 2013, 2012... I don't think Tata has any non H1B employees for example.
The interesting part of this is that in order to get information like that you need be able to track someone pretty thoroughly. Would you be ok with a company monitoring your browsing habits like that? Such that they know if you bought something already.
I apologize for being harsh. It is just the core thing about this that bothers me is that neither side seems to care much about freedom of speech or expression. One side comes across as they want to ban sexy time games and the other side comes across as wanting to ban content that doesn't appeal to them. Personally I have found enjoyment from games catering to either audience or both.
Why? While we're at banning genres or things you don't like are there any books, plays, movies, or other speech you don't want people to make anymore? Just because something doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made. I don't get that argument. From either side. Sexy time games and walking simulators both have equal right to exist and the world is better for the diversity.
Felines accompanying their human companions have gone on to prey on the local wildlife, and they have been blamed for the global extinction of 33 species.
Cats don't just replace the local predators. They are better at killing than most other small predators. And they are also sadistic bastards who will torture prey before they kill them. They may not bring down moose, but everything smaller than them is just a toy to be killed.
I have two cats. The male is definitely a murderer. Nothing smaller than him can come into the apartment without being killed. And as I bought him to be a mouse catcher, I'm pretty much OK with this. But I wouldn't let him outside.
I actually kindof do hope a lot of people would quit and demand would increase at fast food places since that would force them to pay better than minimum wage.
But mongoDB is webscale
Maybe it isn't targeted to the average person? Since the average person isn't likely to have the computer capable of running the thing in the first place.
Could you list some policies of his that you support? Some ideals he professes that you like or is it really just "He isn't a politician"? If your only reason for supporting him is because he isn't them, that is not thinking. That is not putting in more thought to the decision and making an informed decision. I haven't heard any policies that he's supported that don't sound super villainy, illogical, or an abandonment of values America was founded on. I may be just misinformed, but I hope you have better reason for supporting him than "He isn't a politician"
I think Slashdot rails against him now not because he's a shitty politician but because he is a shitty person.
I'd be surprised if greater than 30 games on a system was target audience. I don't think the average 360 owner has more than that.
You are aware that for the first time in history there are 3 major hurricanes in the Pacific at the same time? I mean I guess it could be coincidence... but to me it sounds like "more" and "intense" hurricanes... http://www.motherjones.com/blu...
A predator drone can be equipped with no lethal ordinance. In that case the predator would be legal for police use according to this law. But you still wouldn't take it out with a super soaker. How something is equipped is not the sole determining factor of how large the device is or how high it can fly.
I was once pulled over for having an expired driver's license for a state that I was not a resident of. I wasn't speeding. I didn't have a broken taillight. They had no other reason to pull me over and were mighty confused when I showed I had a license for the state that I was a resident of. I've also had a cop car completely circle my car and then drive on. It's really nerve wracking when that happens because you suddenly think you broke a law even when you know you didn't. If you give cops full surveillance with no limit. They will look for and find a crime even if you believe you are completely innocent because they are massively incentivized to screw you over. They have no incentive however to protect you. Investigating a crime is a pain.