I paid 1.53 last week in the DC metro area. I'll fill up again sometime today and it's I think 1.65 or so. Even at the "expensive" places it's only 1.84. This is for regular 85 octane.
Care to make any specific recommendations? We watch pretty much everything with subtitles on because we speak 4 different languages in our household and watch even more on film.
It's quite easy to recognize trends in people's behavior, especially if you have data over long periods of time. It's irrelevant if you or your opinions change on a particular topic over a period of time. What matters is that they can see that change, track it, and sell it.
What I find more laughable is that the advertisers seem to send me ads based upon what my friends like. Things I've never once "liked" or anything similar. I guess the advertisers assume we're all just lemmings.
Uh, no. The sole purpose of attaching your real name is to more easily sell your data. Nefarious, yes, but in a different way. This isn't about opinion, it's about value to businesses.
Not a chance. Most meetings don't require anything remotely this complicated or expensive. This might take some market share away from things like "go to meeting" or something but polycom serves a different market for the most part, and they are well embedded. MS isn't taking any share away for a long time. Plenty of time for polycom to make up any perceived difference.
Yes, they do. You always have the option of declining a collect call. I never once received a call from my brother when he was in prison that wasn't collect. I asked him why and he wasn't able to make any other kind of call. No problem. I never realized he was also getting charged for the phone call on top of what I was paying. It makes a lot more sense now why the calls were so rare.
It seems as though you're implying someone would somehow "enforce" her acceptance of the calls. If so, that, like the previous poster said, is a very small portion of the calls being made. As previous poster said, yes it probably happens but it's far from the normal situation no matter what your experience with it is.
Or they could just require apps to allow users to turn off unwanted/unnecessary capabilities like this. Why does my GPS app need access to my mail or my songs or my photos? (These are just random examples not specific things from specific apps.) Shit like this should be required to be user configurable.
Neither was I. Counter narcotics are operated, quite often, by the military. The border patrol stuff is operated from the same locations (in some instances) as other operations and include the same operators, oftentimes. I'll give you that the police don't fall under the military but is it really any different? The military develops these things and then we just hand them out to any government agency that comes up with a bullshit justification. This should scare the shit out of every citizen in the country. Hell, in the world.
clearly they're not counting all those flying in counter narcotic operations, or those flying along the border watching for illegal border crossings. Or those flown by various police departments across the country. I guess those don't count as "spy drones".
You've picked some seriously shitty companies to work for. I've never had to wait longer than a week to receive my insurance cards and all insurance was active the day I started, with or without an insurance card.
You obviously don't work with these things. First, the actual linked article says "UAV", not "drone". Second, "drone" doesn't mean what you think it means. Drones (except possibly those that are intended to be targets for weapons combat tests) aren't actually "autonomous". And a jammer most definitely does have an impact. It may not mean the drone the stops functioning but it absolutely WILL mean that the drone leaves the area in all but a couple of instances.
And, as far as I know, after working with them for 20+ years now, there are no drones that would "kamikaze" a jammer. That's a ridiculous waste of resources. UAVs that lose radio comms resort to a return home function, or in a few cases a self destruct depending upon the situation and other airworthiness factors. None of them become bombs.
You hold yourself in high regard. (Which may or may not be valid, I have no idea.)
The problem with your statement, though, is the EVERYONE is replaceable. Disney doesn't give a damn about an individual potential hire coming from some headhunter who likely doesn't even have a direct contract with them and is just pulling from a database of posted jobs.
You're probably quite decent at your job but, no offense, you simply aren't special. No one is, when it comes to hiring for corporations.
Sex offender registries are useless in anything but small towns. If you live anywhere with a population of 100K or more people (a random number I picked to be a "large" town) you will find a ridiculous number of sex offenders all over the map. The only purpose of a sex offender registry is to extend the punishment length without making it appear "undue". It's arguably unconstitutional, and it's a petty way to enforce/extend the nanny-state attitude. If the perpetrators deserve to be continually tracked or pose a continued danger to society, they should still be in prison. Is there a mugger registry? No. How about a car theft registry? No. Why not? Those crimes have lasting impact (emotional and financial) to the victims as well.
Yes, it should. I believe his concern is that it won't. Hence the point of the "article". The government (and Snowden) have proven in the past that they don't care to adhere to the rules we as a society have put forth. No reason to think they would now.
I think "let a jury decide" is what he would consider fair, based on what is linked in the summary. His concern is that he would be given a "trial" that includes military judges or a similar tribunal that would not be made public and he wouldn't get a trial by his peers.
In that regard, I'd have to agree with his statement, it wouldn't be fair in the slightest definition of the word.
I hate when news sources that don't have a f'ing clue what they're talking about believe the trumped up shit someone else tells them and rolls with it without doing ANY fact checking.
http://www.xheli.com/56h-x5sw-wifi-white.html
Explain to me again, why are you reading slashdot?
I have no idea what you're talking about with this comment. I said no one has said Yelp shouldn't see this as pressure to up their wages. Whatever else you're referring to makes no sense whatsoever.
No one has said it's unfair except the girl who wrote the letter. She wrote a whining letter and is no continuing to whine about the consequences.
Would a better salary have been reasonable given the national average for the same work. Absolutely. Did she deserve a better salary? Possibly, I don't know. From what I can tell she was trying to make up the difference in other ways but was unwilling to actually change her lifestyle to suit her income. To me that's just poor decision making and not worth all the hype here or anywhere else, no matter how much money she was making.
People all over the world deal with their poor choices every day. She's just never had to actually deal with the consequences before, it seems. She'll learn a lesson (hopefully) and won't make the same decisions in the future. Just like we all do in our 20s.
You did read the part where she said she "ran up debt on a credit card", and lives alone, right? She's "stuck" in an apartment because she won't make a decision to leave said apartment and get a roommate or two. Those are not her employer's decisions, they are hers.
I've made bad choices in my life. I've broken leases and lost 2 months of rent doing so but, in the end, I was better off. She would be too.
Does she (and all the coworkers she mentioned) deserve a better wage? Probably. Is she going to get that by complaining about her own bad choices? Not a chance in hell.
Her own damn blog or whatever that thing is has this as her tag line (emphasis mine): "talia jane
comedy writing better at thinking about things than actually doing them"
Was she actually good at her job? She certainly penned a nice letter but I would have fired her too, most likely, and I agree that she should be making more money. She admits to living off of the food they provide for their workers as snacks, amongst other questionable things she says. How long did she spend writing that? What about all the problems she caused herself by "I put a bunch of debt on a shiny new credit card to afford the move" after she admitted "I also desperately needed to leave where I was living".
I'm all for taking risks in life. I constantly tell people to change one thing to make their lives better. In my experience that works out most of the time. When it doesn't, though, don't blame other people for your bad choices. I think, had this letter been more detail about the conditions of her work, and less about the bad choices she made (including accepting a job she was "desperate" for) she might have actually made headway. As it is, she sounds like someone with potential mental health issues (no employer wants to deal with that if they can avoid it) who also makes bad decisions and publicly announces those bad decisions because she thinks she's a writer.
And she has the gall to plead for money too! I agree, she's not a revolutionary. At least not yet.
While I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you don't have to live in SF to work in SF. I used to live in Concord, in what is now a $1630 two bedroom single bath apartment. Not the most pleasant commute in the world, but certainly a lot closer to living wages if you can handle the BART ride. Even more so if you're doing telework most of the time and only go into the office a few days a week.
This is a combination of bad wages and bad choices. Both should be fixed.
What you believe isn't necessarily what is "generally believed" anywhere in the world, USA or otherwise. I have been on 3 different continents since 9/11 and talked to literally thousands of people and not one person (who used logic in any other part of their lives) has indicated they have any belief that the US government was behind those attacks. The only people I've ever seen indicate that are "anti-establishment" types who are either seriously strung out on drugs (or were at one point) or are proponents of anarchy. I've never met a single person who presented reasonable evidence (not hearsay) to support the claim that the US government did it. The talk of jet fuel burning temperature and melting point of steel and all that other nonsense is demonstrably proven false every single time. Every single bit of "evidence" to show the government did this. Now, tell me they knew something was going to happen and failed to act and I'd believe that in a heartbeat.
It's a precedent they're trying to set. Of course they have the tools to do this themselves with a brute force attack, that's not the point. If they can force companies to provide the backdoor then they no longer need to use the appropriate channels to get the information. They'll have the ease of use that anyone at the FBI who wants access to the data can easily get that access, without drawing any unwanted scrutiny. They're trying to backdoor the process as much as the hardware/software.
Slashdot Mirror
I paid 1.53 last week in the DC metro area. I'll fill up again sometime today and it's I think 1.65 or so. Even at the "expensive" places it's only 1.84. This is for regular 85 octane.
You read correctly. Thanks.
Care to make any specific recommendations? We watch pretty much everything with subtitles on because we speak 4 different languages in our household and watch even more on film.
It's quite easy to recognize trends in people's behavior, especially if you have data over long periods of time. It's irrelevant if you or your opinions change on a particular topic over a period of time. What matters is that they can see that change, track it, and sell it.
What I find more laughable is that the advertisers seem to send me ads based upon what my friends like. Things I've never once "liked" or anything similar. I guess the advertisers assume we're all just lemmings.
Uh, no. The sole purpose of attaching your real name is to more easily sell your data. Nefarious, yes, but in a different way. This isn't about opinion, it's about value to businesses.
Not a chance. Most meetings don't require anything remotely this complicated or expensive. This might take some market share away from things like "go to meeting" or something but polycom serves a different market for the most part, and they are well embedded. MS isn't taking any share away for a long time. Plenty of time for polycom to make up any perceived difference.
Yes, they do. You always have the option of declining a collect call. I never once received a call from my brother when he was in prison that wasn't collect. I asked him why and he wasn't able to make any other kind of call. No problem. I never realized he was also getting charged for the phone call on top of what I was paying. It makes a lot more sense now why the calls were so rare.
It seems as though you're implying someone would somehow "enforce" her acceptance of the calls. If so, that, like the previous poster said, is a very small portion of the calls being made. As previous poster said, yes it probably happens but it's far from the normal situation no matter what your experience with it is.
Or they could just require apps to allow users to turn off unwanted/unnecessary capabilities like this. Why does my GPS app need access to my mail or my songs or my photos? (These are just random examples not specific things from specific apps.) Shit like this should be required to be user configurable.
Neither was I. Counter narcotics are operated, quite often, by the military. The border patrol stuff is operated from the same locations (in some instances) as other operations and include the same operators, oftentimes. I'll give you that the police don't fall under the military but is it really any different? The military develops these things and then we just hand them out to any government agency that comes up with a bullshit justification. This should scare the shit out of every citizen in the country. Hell, in the world.
clearly they're not counting all those flying in counter narcotic operations, or those flying along the border watching for illegal border crossings. Or those flown by various police departments across the country. I guess those don't count as "spy drones".
You've picked some seriously shitty companies to work for. I've never had to wait longer than a week to receive my insurance cards and all insurance was active the day I started, with or without an insurance card.
You obviously don't work with these things. First, the actual linked article says "UAV", not "drone". Second, "drone" doesn't mean what you think it means. Drones (except possibly those that are intended to be targets for weapons combat tests) aren't actually "autonomous". And a jammer most definitely does have an impact. It may not mean the drone the stops functioning but it absolutely WILL mean that the drone leaves the area in all but a couple of instances.
And, as far as I know, after working with them for 20+ years now, there are no drones that would "kamikaze" a jammer. That's a ridiculous waste of resources. UAVs that lose radio comms resort to a return home function, or in a few cases a self destruct depending upon the situation and other airworthiness factors. None of them become bombs.
You hold yourself in high regard. (Which may or may not be valid, I have no idea.)
The problem with your statement, though, is the EVERYONE is replaceable. Disney doesn't give a damn about an individual potential hire coming from some headhunter who likely doesn't even have a direct contract with them and is just pulling from a database of posted jobs.
You're probably quite decent at your job but, no offense, you simply aren't special. No one is, when it comes to hiring for corporations.
Sex offender registries are useless in anything but small towns. If you live anywhere with a population of 100K or more people (a random number I picked to be a "large" town) you will find a ridiculous number of sex offenders all over the map. The only purpose of a sex offender registry is to extend the punishment length without making it appear "undue". It's arguably unconstitutional, and it's a petty way to enforce/extend the nanny-state attitude. If the perpetrators deserve to be continually tracked or pose a continued danger to society, they should still be in prison. Is there a mugger registry? No. How about a car theft registry? No. Why not? Those crimes have lasting impact (emotional and financial) to the victims as well.
Yes, it should. I believe his concern is that it won't. Hence the point of the "article". The government (and Snowden) have proven in the past that they don't care to adhere to the rules we as a society have put forth. No reason to think they would now.
I think "let a jury decide" is what he would consider fair, based on what is linked in the summary. His concern is that he would be given a "trial" that includes military judges or a similar tribunal that would not be made public and he wouldn't get a trial by his peers.
In that regard, I'd have to agree with his statement, it wouldn't be fair in the slightest definition of the word.
I hate when news sources that don't have a f'ing clue what they're talking about believe the trumped up shit someone else tells them and rolls with it without doing ANY fact checking.
http://www.xheli.com/56h-x5sw-wifi-white.html
Explain to me again, why are you reading slashdot?
I have no idea what you're talking about with this comment. I said no one has said Yelp shouldn't see this as pressure to up their wages. Whatever else you're referring to makes no sense whatsoever.
No one has said it's unfair except the girl who wrote the letter. She wrote a whining letter and is no continuing to whine about the consequences.
Would a better salary have been reasonable given the national average for the same work. Absolutely. Did she deserve a better salary? Possibly, I don't know. From what I can tell she was trying to make up the difference in other ways but was unwilling to actually change her lifestyle to suit her income. To me that's just poor decision making and not worth all the hype here or anywhere else, no matter how much money she was making.
People all over the world deal with their poor choices every day. She's just never had to actually deal with the consequences before, it seems. She'll learn a lesson (hopefully) and won't make the same decisions in the future. Just like we all do in our 20s.
The more I see the less I care about her predicament.
You did read the part where she said she "ran up debt on a credit card", and lives alone, right? She's "stuck" in an apartment because she won't make a decision to leave said apartment and get a roommate or two. Those are not her employer's decisions, they are hers.
I've made bad choices in my life. I've broken leases and lost 2 months of rent doing so but, in the end, I was better off. She would be too.
Does she (and all the coworkers she mentioned) deserve a better wage? Probably. Is she going to get that by complaining about her own bad choices? Not a chance in hell.
Her own damn blog or whatever that thing is has this as her tag line (emphasis mine):
"talia jane
comedy writing better at thinking about things than actually doing them"
Was she actually good at her job? She certainly penned a nice letter but I would have fired her too, most likely, and I agree that she should be making more money. She admits to living off of the food they provide for their workers as snacks, amongst other questionable things she says. How long did she spend writing that? What about all the problems she caused herself by "I put a bunch of debt on a shiny new credit card to afford the move" after she admitted "I also desperately needed to leave where I was living".
I'm all for taking risks in life. I constantly tell people to change one thing to make their lives better. In my experience that works out most of the time. When it doesn't, though, don't blame other people for your bad choices. I think, had this letter been more detail about the conditions of her work, and less about the bad choices she made (including accepting a job she was "desperate" for) she might have actually made headway. As it is, she sounds like someone with potential mental health issues (no employer wants to deal with that if they can avoid it) who also makes bad decisions and publicly announces those bad decisions because she thinks she's a writer.
And she has the gall to plead for money too! I agree, she's not a revolutionary. At least not yet.
While I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you don't have to live in SF to work in SF. I used to live in Concord, in what is now a $1630 two bedroom single bath apartment. Not the most pleasant commute in the world, but certainly a lot closer to living wages if you can handle the BART ride. Even more so if you're doing telework most of the time and only go into the office a few days a week.
This is a combination of bad wages and bad choices . Both should be fixed.
What you believe isn't necessarily what is "generally believed" anywhere in the world, USA or otherwise. I have been on 3 different continents since 9/11 and talked to literally thousands of people and not one person (who used logic in any other part of their lives) has indicated they have any belief that the US government was behind those attacks. The only people I've ever seen indicate that are "anti-establishment" types who are either seriously strung out on drugs (or were at one point) or are proponents of anarchy. I've never met a single person who presented reasonable evidence (not hearsay) to support the claim that the US government did it. The talk of jet fuel burning temperature and melting point of steel and all that other nonsense is demonstrably proven false every single time. Every single bit of "evidence" to show the government did this. Now, tell me they knew something was going to happen and failed to act and I'd believe that in a heartbeat.
It's a precedent they're trying to set. Of course they have the tools to do this themselves with a brute force attack, that's not the point. If they can force companies to provide the backdoor then they no longer need to use the appropriate channels to get the information. They'll have the ease of use that anyone at the FBI who wants access to the data can easily get that access, without drawing any unwanted scrutiny. They're trying to backdoor the process as much as the hardware/software.