For large employers, there's also the meta-skill of showing some amount of self-discipline and aptitude for following rules and navigating bureaucracies.
They could introduce some classes whose subject is "navigating bureaucracies",
"meeting requirements", etc.
With hands-on project work, and learn by doing used extensively....
If anything this just sounds like incentive to take more than just a laptop and run. If I'm gonna steal I might as well just bring a moving truck with me.
Sounds like a good way of getting caught.
Because big moving trucks are low profile, easy to get away in without being spotted, and easily obtained by thieves without generating a paper trail?
Also, the stuff is useless at resale if large numbers of devices have to be sold together, and the buyer won't
get the PIN codes required to disjoin/release individual units from the rightful owner's house network domain or introduce/join new devices, and also if enough of the devices are GPS and tracking-enabled.
If most travelers stop taking their trips through "bad neighborhoods";
e.g. almost everyone starts avoiding so called bad neighborhoods, even the criminals,
it's possible this will create more traffic and therefore more crime for so called "good neighborhoods"
Which as a result, become "less good". Also, if the pedestrian travelers who need GPS to
navigate the city are seen as the ideal target/mark (they don't know the lay of the land),
then that means criminals have incentive to pick new stomping grounds.
As they do so... more "good neighborhoods" turn into bad neighborhoods...
so use of the device could be self-limiting.
Before you know it, all neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods, due to routing many of the ideal/
vulnerable "targets" for crime through them.
I really hate that statement, because your question implies that we have some sort of duty to give other people money in exchange for goods. Point of fact: we don't.
What we have is a legal requirement to not choose who we buy our goods from based on race
or minority status of the owner/employees.
We have no duty or requirement whatsoever to enter a high-crime area to do business.
There are plenty of ways for neighborhoods to achieve "economic input".
Mostly by attracting wealthy individuals, entrepeneurs, who start online businesses or companies that don't
just do local business.
Neighborhoods that have high crime rates or other issues are likely to attract none of these.
Their best bet to do business is for people in the neighborhood to frequently leave their neighborhood
to participate in business.
Neighborhoods in the US are not like self-sufficient city states where you need a passport to enter/exit.
If the neighborhood is 'bad', you get your ass on a bus, get a job in another neighborhood, and commute.
Yes, they are selling you a Seagate Constellation 1TB drive for waaaay more than what you would pay on NewEgg. But they burn in their drives before shipping them to you.
Maybe they do burn them in. But it doesn't really cost $1200 to burn-in an $80 SATA drive.
What it is, is that they have "hidden" a portion of the storage array cost in the price of individual disk drives.
Similar to the way that Oracle and other products hide part of their application cost in the price of adding additional CPUs to your server (you have to pay more, for the software license key to activate usage of more CPUs).
This way they can sell an array at lower price, and claim "competitive" price per TB (after 80% discount).
But then, once you've bought the array, you get to pay a much higher price, thus making up the discount for your initial purpose...
Think of it this way... after a 80% discount, the drives are only about 300$, which is kind of a "fair" markup for a pre-tested burned in drive of trustworthy provenance specified by the subsystem manufacturer down to the hardware/chip revision and firmware levels.... yeah, it's true EMC/NetApp don't provide you just "any" hard drive; they provide you a hard drive proven to work with their array, and reasonably shown to work properly, be stable, do what it's supposed to, etc, etc.
That's worth paying 400% of the price, perhaps. But $1200 for a physical unit that costs $80... is a bit outlandish.
And obviously a result of hiding other costs in the consumables for revenue.
The whole give away the razors, sell the blades at exorbitant prices, strategy.
The seek time improvement over the 5400rpm is modest and linear
That didn't make any sense. 5400RPM and 7200RPM drives have identical seek time. Seek time is governed by form factor, areal density, is proportional to the length of the access arm, and is independent of rotation speed (the longer the access arm, the greater the seek time). Random access time to read or write a sector is related to the sum of seek time and rotational delay.
The rotational delay of a 7200RPM drive is 16ms.
For a 5400RPM drive it is 22ms.
In both cases, the seek time is approximately 4ms.
Or: a 7200RPM drive can perform approximately 50 random IOPS per second, and a 5400RPM drive can only perform 38.
Meaning that the 7200RPM drive is 25% faster.
Meaning it will perform the required work and get to an idle state 25% faster.
Random I/O is critical for many important user activities, and effects the user's perception of the performance of the entire machine -- loading programs and booting are in particular dependant on random IO performance.
If the computer performs its tasks faster, that means user gets the work done faster, and get the computer idle and back to sleep faster.
The power consumption of the 2.5" laptop hard drive is miniscule, whether 7200RPM or 5400RPM is normally
400 mA or less, and much less when the drive spins down for power saving.
Once you consider the power draw required for monitor, CPU, and motherboard -- it's not worth it in
most cases to utilize a slower hard drive, if random I/O critical activities such as booting take much longer;
the power saving from switching from a 7200RPM to a 5400RPM drive is not enough to cover the increased
power consumption (from other components) that results from utilizing a slower hard drive.
if you're already setting up something that's connected to your network, why do we need to establish the additional power-line network?
Because a greater number of communication paths available, with an appropriately designed selection mechanism, results in greater reliability.
Both powerline networks and wireless networks are each subject to certain kinds of interference and range limitations.
Plugging a number of devices in with a physical network cable is quite reliable by comparison;
however, a lot of houses are likely to have devices that are out of reach of where you've bothered to run
network cabling; or it would be too much a hassle to bring cabling to all that equipment.
To have a useful inter-device communications network, you need to be able to communicate with those devices too;
not everyone will be able to justify an extra network drop for the coffee pot, another network drop for the oven,
another network drop for the fridge, TV, toaster, thermostat.
So... for the few places you do have wired network drops; you're best off if they count -- that is, you're best off if every device that has a physical drop connects to all of your types of networks and acts as a P2P node, or "repeater", to improve
connectivity for all devices.
Reliable connectivity also reduces the chance of false negatives prohibiting password recovery.
Or the chance your remote "turn coffee pot on" command is never received, so you don't get your coffee.
Put another chip in the wall outlet, that will communicate with a charger device using BPL, Data over Powerline, short range communications, RFID, or bluetooth; e.g. a "Password recovery" agent installed in a device somewhere else in the home plugged into another wall outlet, or built in to the outlet itself.
wireless AP, linksys box, NAS, TVs, other home appliances would be good candidates to form a BPL-enabled self-organizing P2P network for facilitation of password recovery and theft prevention.
Some of the devices could incorporate a GPS location reading. If the device's location has changed significantly, then it is less familiar.
When the user logs into their computer, and authenticates, there will be a program they run on their computer to cause the power unit to "learn" which will scan the BPL or bluetooth for other devices.
Require the presence of other "familiar" home devices, for the password recovery procedure to be initiated.
This could also help if the charger got damaged or lost... just plug a new one in, enter the "House PIN #", and have it build the same shared secret key
based on the identities of the familiar devices surrounding it that have an agreed upon shared key.
Also, high theft-risk non-mobile devices could enter an auto-lockdown mode, if powered on and no "familiar devices" are around.
That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.
Apparently the Doll maker was including apples in the packaging, with
Steve Jobs wearing his de-facto trademark Apple attire.
There's a portion of Steve Jobs' image that Apple most certainly owns
If someone accidentally starts a fire and burns their house down as a result of trying to destroy a fake macbook
following PayPal's instructions, but they cause an explosion when they hit the LiON battery,
do you think there's a chance of the home insurance company suing PayPal?
How would you feel if your bank only honored 93% of your deposits?
You mean if someone writes you a check $X to pay for Y; you give them Y at the point of sale, and deposit the check successfully.
But a few days later, you receive a letter from your bank that the buyer's bank said there were no funds to cover the check, so your bank takes the money back out of your account, and an extra $15 fee taken out of your account,
because you deposited what turned out to be a NSF check?
Until someone invents a time machine, yes the law of supply and demand is pretty strict about the idea that old things can't simply appear in sufficient quantity to offset a high price due to scarcity.
I think it's obvious... the PayPal folks who ordered destruction of the antiques may have their own collection of antique violins... and they could then know that the more real ones get destroyed, the greater the value theirs will be.
Getting antique violins destroyed at no personal cost to them or their company makes the antiques they own more valuable, because after the destructions, there are fewer of them to be bought/sold.
Depending on the bank, they can suck your account negative, and then the bank sues you.
You can use a bank that will allow only a transfer in, but not a transfer out on the account ID/routing number that you provide to PayPal.
It doesn't solve the problem though -- if PayPal can't get the refund money, PayPal can say you owe that money to PayPal, report it as a delinquent account to credit reporting agencies, but worst -- freeze/hold your account, so that you can't make any more sales.
You can't use PayPal and win, unless you are prepared to switch to something else at a moment's notice.
Why not just use the other thing in the first place then, if you don't need PayPal?
The fact PayPal decided to tell the buyer to destroy the item, does not force them to destroy it.
It does not relieve the buyer of their obligation under the contract to buy.
They are still obligated to pay -- and since they destroyed the item, there is no way they can return it for
a refund now.
So not only did they break their contract, they took actions that caused irreparable harm to the seller.
Destroying the item may also constitute destruction of evidence, which can result in further penalties in court.
I would strongly encourage the seller to avail themselves of this legal recourse,
and also look at action against Paypal for tortuous interference, w.r.t. the buyer's obligation to pay
for the product they have purchased or return the item....
Just because you're not still together doesn't mean you're not still friends. I still talk to some ex-girlfriends quite regularly, and I'd count them as friends, even close friends.
A former girlfriend isn't really an "EX". You aren't married to a girlfriend...
EX means a former wife or husband.
The concept of "EX" is you had a committed relationship with someone, that fell apart.
Girlfriend/boyfriend isn't a committed relationship.
So yes, if you break up with a gf/bf, then you can still be friends with them reasonably.
You get a divorce with a spouse, it is much different, generally means there was cheating
involved or something serious; friendship after a spoiled commitment is not normal.
Anyways, if they are friends on FB, you don't have to be allowing them to see/comment/like your
FB posts.
If you're re-married and your new spouse would be jealous, then you have a commitment to NOT
be friends with your EX in real life, to not be friends on Facebook, or to not allow your EX to comment/see/like
your posts, whatever is necessary to make your spouse comfortable.
As married person, you have an agreement to respect each other's wishes above any outsider.
Also, facebook just looks bad sometimes, even when you haven't done anything wrong. I have an ex that likes all my posts. I haven't spoken to her in a year, but if I were married I can imagine that still creating some tension.
Why do you have your EX as a friend?
If they're a friend of a friend, add them to your block list, or adjust privacy settings in a fine-taylored way so the EX has no ability to "Like" your posts.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?
Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?
I suspect a lot of divorces ended due to cheating; and driving to a cheap Hotel to meet with someone...
And yes... the car is an enabling technology, but it doesn't cause the behavior that leads to divorces;
it's just a channel enabling communication (including destructive communication).
I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.
These days Google has implemented spam filtering, so the periodic e-mails with numbers
in them probably wind up in/dev/null
Come to think of it... I think any e-mail to google winds up in/dev/null, after
being answered by an automated system that basically tells you "Little Ant, why don't you try
go posting in the forums, or something"
This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site.
It's a great argument against using cloud computing
You never know when your service provider want to do a "makeover" of the visual interface,
ruining your productivity.
Compared to the horrible changes happening to Gmail, the so called "new look", the search interface bastardization and
"makeover" to make the UI more complicated and harder to use are just benign.
It doesn't even make sense. "Cookies" and user preferences were invented in the 1990s.
Why the hell are users still getting forced to switch to new UIs, when the simple capability has
long existed to provide users a choice, and even the possibility of user-specific custom UIs?
To go a step further, around here a broken leg doesn't usually qualify you for a handicapped permit around here, either. It's something that will heal on its own, usually within a couple of months, and usually without any intervention beyond immobilization.
Well, that sounds screwed up; the temporariness of the condition doesn't mean you aren't disabled, or shouldn't have the parking pass for the same reason.
I know someone who had a broken leg, and they got a temporary 2 month pass to be hung from their mirror.
So I think the bit about "folks with broken legs cannot get one" is not quite right.
That is undoubtedly true. So, in your world, all we should care about are the meaningless numbers made up regarding fine values, rather than what actually matters to public safety?
I'm not saying that's all you should care about.
But until you go to your legislator and get the law changed, you shouldn't think badly about the officers' choice; they're just doing their job as an agent of the law, and a cog in the machine, and doing it correctly.
The higher fine amounts / higher penalty amounts tell officers which laws are more important than others.
Obviously if it was more important to not have vehicles in the no stopping zone than to have vehicles temporarily parked in handicapped, the law would apply a higher fine to the former.
If the law is mistaken, it should be a simple matter to take your complaint to your local legislators and get the law fixed, to allow temporary parking in a handicap spot, with an attended vehicle, or decrease the penalty relative to the penalty for stopping in no stopping/hazard zones.
Oh... you say you'd move your car for a handicap person, but by the time you could do so, it could have been too late, and you could have already inconvenienced them.
Also, your comment/excuse to the officer might be the same type of excuse than an inconsiderate person (who wouldn't move) would use.
"I'll just be here for 5 more minutes. I will move for the handicap person when I am done... they can just go around a few times"
Or are you suggesting that a line be drawn - along the whole road - a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, i.e. one and a half widths from the kerb?
I am suggesting the white line indicating the edge of the travel lane by the store front be drawn a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, with concrete periodic pylons in between some parking slots.
A car trying to use the walk area as a travel lane, would incur some serious damage.
Anyways, when converting handicap spots into parallel would be done in a parking lot, and bicycle traffic is rare in such places.
I also question the wisdom of requiring that manual wheelchair using drivers now lift their wheelchair in and out into traffic.
Who said anything about lifting a wheelchair in or out of traffic?
As long as the road is wide enough, with the white line for the left travel lane drawn far enough from the curb,
there is plenty of space between the unloading area, and any traffic.
people can park pretty close to the front and rear of your car, so you may have to roll for quite a distance to get out of the road even if you don't get hit disembarking.
Not if the blue box around the parking spot is drawn with sufficient length and height.
If a car parks too close to front or back to fit a wheelchair, then they will be illegally parked,
and therefore get a ticket or get towed off....
Slashdot Mirror
The 1% that makes bad neighbourhoods bad. e.g. the folks who hang out in the park [...] all night drinking and smoking
What 1%, the "Occupy" movement "protestors"?
For large employers, there's also the meta-skill of showing some amount of self-discipline and aptitude for following rules and navigating bureaucracies.
They could introduce some classes whose subject is "navigating bureaucracies", "meeting requirements", etc.
With hands-on project work, and learn by doing used extensively....
If anything this just sounds like incentive to take more than just a laptop and run. If I'm gonna steal I might as well just bring a moving truck with me.
Sounds like a good way of getting caught. Because big moving trucks are low profile, easy to get away in without being spotted, and easily obtained by thieves without generating a paper trail?
Also, the stuff is useless at resale if large numbers of devices have to be sold together, and the buyer won't get the PIN codes required to disjoin/release individual units from the rightful owner's house network domain or introduce/join new devices, and also if enough of the devices are GPS and tracking-enabled.
If most travelers stop taking their trips through "bad neighborhoods"; e.g. almost everyone starts avoiding so called bad neighborhoods, even the criminals, it's possible this will create more traffic and therefore more crime for so called "good neighborhoods"
Which as a result, become "less good". Also, if the pedestrian travelers who need GPS to navigate the city are seen as the ideal target/mark (they don't know the lay of the land), then that means criminals have incentive to pick new stomping grounds.
As they do so... more "good neighborhoods" turn into bad neighborhoods... so use of the device could be self-limiting. Before you know it, all neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods, due to routing many of the ideal/ vulnerable "targets" for crime through them.
I really hate that statement, because your question implies that we have some sort of duty to give other people money in exchange for goods. Point of fact: we don't.
What we have is a legal requirement to not choose who we buy our goods from based on race or minority status of the owner/employees.
We have no duty or requirement whatsoever to enter a high-crime area to do business.
There are plenty of ways for neighborhoods to achieve "economic input".
Mostly by attracting wealthy individuals, entrepeneurs, who start online businesses or companies that don't just do local business.
Neighborhoods that have high crime rates or other issues are likely to attract none of these. Their best bet to do business is for people in the neighborhood to frequently leave their neighborhood to participate in business.
Neighborhoods in the US are not like self-sufficient city states where you need a passport to enter/exit. If the neighborhood is 'bad', you get your ass on a bus, get a job in another neighborhood, and commute.
Yes, they are selling you a Seagate Constellation 1TB drive for waaaay more than what you would pay on NewEgg. But they burn in their drives before shipping them to you.
Maybe they do burn them in. But it doesn't really cost $1200 to burn-in an $80 SATA drive.
What it is, is that they have "hidden" a portion of the storage array cost in the price of individual disk drives. Similar to the way that Oracle and other products hide part of their application cost in the price of adding additional CPUs to your server (you have to pay more, for the software license key to activate usage of more CPUs).
This way they can sell an array at lower price, and claim "competitive" price per TB (after 80% discount). But then, once you've bought the array, you get to pay a much higher price, thus making up the discount for your initial purpose...
Think of it this way... after a 80% discount, the drives are only about 300$, which is kind of a "fair" markup for a pre-tested burned in drive of trustworthy provenance specified by the subsystem manufacturer down to the hardware/chip revision and firmware levels.... yeah, it's true EMC/NetApp don't provide you just "any" hard drive; they provide you a hard drive proven to work with their array, and reasonably shown to work properly, be stable, do what it's supposed to, etc, etc.
That's worth paying 400% of the price, perhaps. But $1200 for a physical unit that costs $80... is a bit outlandish. And obviously a result of hiding other costs in the consumables for revenue. The whole give away the razors, sell the blades at exorbitant prices, strategy.
The seek time improvement over the 5400rpm is modest and linear
That didn't make any sense. 5400RPM and 7200RPM drives have identical seek time. Seek time is governed by form factor, areal density, is proportional to the length of the access arm, and is independent of rotation speed (the longer the access arm, the greater the seek time).
Random access time to read or write a sector is related to the sum of seek time and rotational delay.
The rotational delay of a 7200RPM drive is 16ms.
For a 5400RPM drive it is 22ms.
In both cases, the seek time is approximately 4ms.
Or: a 7200RPM drive can perform approximately 50 random IOPS per second, and a 5400RPM drive can only perform 38.
Meaning that the 7200RPM drive is 25% faster. Meaning it will perform the required work and get to an idle state 25% faster.
Random I/O is critical for many important user activities, and effects the user's perception of the performance of the entire machine -- loading programs and booting are in particular dependant on random IO performance.
If the computer performs its tasks faster, that means user gets the work done faster, and get the computer idle and back to sleep faster.
The power consumption of the 2.5" laptop hard drive is miniscule, whether 7200RPM or 5400RPM is normally 400 mA or less, and much less when the drive spins down for power saving.
Once you consider the power draw required for monitor, CPU, and motherboard -- it's not worth it in most cases to utilize a slower hard drive, if random I/O critical activities such as booting take much longer; the power saving from switching from a 7200RPM to a 5400RPM drive is not enough to cover the increased power consumption (from other components) that results from utilizing a slower hard drive.
Way ahead of you. I'll go in and buy doggy treats and condoms. Datamine THIS!
Way ahead of you, I linger in front of the doggie treats, then go find the condoms, and linger in that area.
I go towards the exit, move my cell phone to a RF proof bag or shut it off.
Then I go to the porn section, grab something, go to the register and check out, paying cash for it.
Then I go back to where I blocked out /disabled my cell phone, re-enable/re-activate it,
and leave.
So there... the tracking will suggest that I got doggie treats and condoms and left.
if you're already setting up something that's connected to your network, why do we need to establish the additional power-line network?
Because a greater number of communication paths available, with an appropriately designed selection mechanism, results in greater reliability.
Both powerline networks and wireless networks are each subject to certain kinds of interference and range limitations.
Plugging a number of devices in with a physical network cable is quite reliable by comparison; however, a lot of houses are likely to have devices that are out of reach of where you've bothered to run network cabling; or it would be too much a hassle to bring cabling to all that equipment.
To have a useful inter-device communications network, you need to be able to communicate with those devices too; not everyone will be able to justify an extra network drop for the coffee pot, another network drop for the oven, another network drop for the fridge, TV, toaster, thermostat.
So... for the few places you do have wired network drops; you're best off if they count -- that is, you're best off if every device that has a physical drop connects to all of your types of networks and acts as a P2P node, or "repeater", to improve connectivity for all devices.
Reliable connectivity also reduces the chance of false negatives prohibiting password recovery.
Or the chance your remote "turn coffee pot on" command is never received, so you don't get your coffee.
Put another chip in the wall outlet, that will communicate with a charger device using BPL, Data over Powerline, short range communications, RFID, or bluetooth; e.g. a "Password recovery" agent installed in a device somewhere else in the home plugged into another wall outlet, or built in to the outlet itself. wireless AP, linksys box, NAS, TVs, other home appliances would be good candidates to form a BPL-enabled self-organizing P2P network for facilitation of password recovery and theft prevention.
Some of the devices could incorporate a GPS location reading. If the device's location has changed significantly, then it is less familiar.
When the user logs into their computer, and authenticates, there will be a program they run on their computer to cause the power unit to "learn" which will scan the BPL or bluetooth for other devices.
Require the presence of other "familiar" home devices, for the password recovery procedure to be initiated.
This could also help if the charger got damaged or lost... just plug a new one in, enter the "House PIN #", and have it build the same shared secret key based on the identities of the familiar devices surrounding it that have an agreed upon shared key.
Also, high theft-risk non-mobile devices could enter an auto-lockdown mode, if powered on and no "familiar devices" are around.
That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.
Apparently the Doll maker was including apples in the packaging, with Steve Jobs wearing his de-facto trademark Apple attire.
There's a portion of Steve Jobs' image that Apple most certainly owns
If someone accidentally starts a fire and burns their house down as a result of trying to destroy a fake macbook following PayPal's instructions, but they cause an explosion when they hit the LiON battery, do you think there's a chance of the home insurance company suing PayPal?
How would you feel if your bank only honored 93% of your deposits?
You mean if someone writes you a check $X to pay for Y; you give them Y at the point of sale, and deposit the check successfully. But a few days later, you receive a letter from your bank that the buyer's bank said there were no funds to cover the check, so your bank takes the money back out of your account, and an extra $15 fee taken out of your account, because you deposited what turned out to be a NSF check?
Until someone invents a time machine, yes the law of supply and demand is pretty strict about the idea that old things can't simply appear in sufficient quantity to offset a high price due to scarcity.
I think it's obvious... the PayPal folks who ordered destruction of the antiques may have their own collection of antique violins... and they could then know that the more real ones get destroyed, the greater the value theirs will be.
Getting antique violins destroyed at no personal cost to them or their company makes the antiques they own more valuable, because after the destructions, there are fewer of them to be bought/sold.
Depending on the bank, they can suck your account negative, and then the bank sues you.
You can use a bank that will allow only a transfer in, but not a transfer out on the account ID/routing number that you provide to PayPal.
It doesn't solve the problem though -- if PayPal can't get the refund money, PayPal can say you owe that money to PayPal, report it as a delinquent account to credit reporting agencies, but worst -- freeze/hold your account, so that you can't make any more sales.
You can't use PayPal and win, unless you are prepared to switch to something else at a moment's notice. Why not just use the other thing in the first place then, if you don't need PayPal?
The fact PayPal decided to tell the buyer to destroy the item, does not force them to destroy it. It does not relieve the buyer of their obligation under the contract to buy.
They are still obligated to pay -- and since they destroyed the item, there is no way they can return it for a refund now.
So not only did they break their contract, they took actions that caused irreparable harm to the seller.
Destroying the item may also constitute destruction of evidence, which can result in further penalties in court.
I would strongly encourage the seller to avail themselves of this legal recourse, and also look at action against Paypal for tortuous interference, w.r.t. the buyer's obligation to pay for the product they have purchased or return the item....
Just because you're not still together doesn't mean you're not still friends. I still talk to some ex-girlfriends quite regularly, and I'd count them as friends, even close friends.
A former girlfriend isn't really an "EX". You aren't married to a girlfriend...
EX means a former wife or husband. The concept of "EX" is you had a committed relationship with someone, that fell apart.
Girlfriend/boyfriend isn't a committed relationship. So yes, if you break up with a gf/bf, then you can still be friends with them reasonably.
You get a divorce with a spouse, it is much different, generally means there was cheating involved or something serious; friendship after a spoiled commitment is not normal.
Anyways, if they are friends on FB, you don't have to be allowing them to see/comment/like your FB posts.
If you're re-married and your new spouse would be jealous, then you have a commitment to NOT be friends with your EX in real life, to not be friends on Facebook, or to not allow your EX to comment/see/like your posts, whatever is necessary to make your spouse comfortable.
As married person, you have an agreement to respect each other's wishes above any outsider.
Also, facebook just looks bad sometimes, even when you haven't done anything wrong. I have an ex that likes all my posts. I haven't spoken to her in a year, but if I were married I can imagine that still creating some tension.
Why do you have your EX as a friend?
If they're a friend of a friend, add them to your block list, or adjust privacy settings in a fine-taylored way so the EX has no ability to "Like" your posts.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! How many times can the same story be recycled over the course of two years?
Before Facebook was created... was there analysis done to see if Telephones, The postal service, Credit cards/ATMs,Cars, Prostitution, Hotels and Mobile phones were factors in divorces?
I suspect a lot of divorces ended due to cheating; and driving to a cheap Hotel to meet with someone...
And yes... the car is an enabling technology, but it doesn't cause the behavior that leads to divorces; it's just a channel enabling communication (including destructive communication).
I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.
These days Google has implemented spam filtering, so the periodic e-mails with numbers in them probably wind up in /dev/null
Come to think of it... I think any e-mail to google winds up in /dev/null, after
being answered by an automated system that basically tells you "Little Ant, why don't you try
go posting in the forums, or something"
This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site.
It's a great argument against using cloud computing
You never know when your service provider want to do a "makeover" of the visual interface, ruining your productivity.
Compared to the horrible changes happening to Gmail, the so called "new look", the search interface bastardization and "makeover" to make the UI more complicated and harder to use are just benign.
It doesn't even make sense. "Cookies" and user preferences were invented in the 1990s. Why the hell are users still getting forced to switch to new UIs, when the simple capability has long existed to provide users a choice, and even the possibility of user-specific custom UIs?
To go a step further, around here a broken leg doesn't usually qualify you for a handicapped permit around here, either. It's something that will heal on its own, usually within a couple of months, and usually without any intervention beyond immobilization.
Well, that sounds screwed up; the temporariness of the condition doesn't mean you aren't disabled, or shouldn't have the parking pass for the same reason.
I know someone who had a broken leg, and they got a temporary 2 month pass to be hung from their mirror. So I think the bit about "folks with broken legs cannot get one" is not quite right.
That is undoubtedly true. So, in your world, all we should care about are the meaningless numbers made up regarding fine values, rather than what actually matters to public safety?
I'm not saying that's all you should care about.
But until you go to your legislator and get the law changed, you shouldn't think badly about the officers' choice; they're just doing their job as an agent of the law, and a cog in the machine, and doing it correctly.
The higher fine amounts / higher penalty amounts tell officers which laws are more important than others. Obviously if it was more important to not have vehicles in the no stopping zone than to have vehicles temporarily parked in handicapped, the law would apply a higher fine to the former.
If the law is mistaken, it should be a simple matter to take your complaint to your local legislators and get the law fixed, to allow temporary parking in a handicap spot, with an attended vehicle, or decrease the penalty relative to the penalty for stopping in no stopping/hazard zones.
Oh... you say you'd move your car for a handicap person, but by the time you could do so, it could have been too late, and you could have already inconvenienced them.
Also, your comment/excuse to the officer might be the same type of excuse than an inconsiderate person (who wouldn't move) would use. "I'll just be here for 5 more minutes. I will move for the handicap person when I am done... they can just go around a few times"
Or are you suggesting that a line be drawn - along the whole road - a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, i.e. one and a half widths from the kerb?
I am suggesting the white line indicating the edge of the travel lane by the store front be drawn a few feet out from the line of parked vehicles, with concrete periodic pylons in between some parking slots. A car trying to use the walk area as a travel lane, would incur some serious damage.
Anyways, when converting handicap spots into parallel would be done in a parking lot, and bicycle traffic is rare in such places.
I also question the wisdom of requiring that manual wheelchair using drivers now lift their wheelchair in and out into traffic.
Who said anything about lifting a wheelchair in or out of traffic?
As long as the road is wide enough, with the white line for the left travel lane drawn far enough from the curb, there is plenty of space between the unloading area, and any traffic.
people can park pretty close to the front and rear of your car, so you may have to roll for quite a distance to get out of the road even if you don't get hit disembarking.
Not if the blue box around the parking spot is drawn with sufficient length and height.
If a car parks too close to front or back to fit a wheelchair, then they will be illegally parked, and therefore get a ticket or get towed off....