"It's quite simple. The likes of Comcast being unable to throttle Netflix/etc directly, opts to put an artificial cap on it's users... then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap... like any kind of On Demand streaming via an X1 console. Sure, that traffic doesn't cross the public internet, but uses the exact same DOCSIS tech in your cable modem which is capped."
Usenet used to do this. They'd have a local cache of news groups so you didn't have thousands of users crossing the peering connection in to the "expensive" part of pushing data. So they pull the data once INSIDE their network and then make the groups available to their customers via a local usenet server.
I'm unsure if the "cap" portion is determined by the modem or further up the network, but it should be do-able to provide exclusions for data caps for certain local (in network) services -- including, say, a netflix cache server or something similar.
" I think that the origins of what we currently think of as representative democratic government originates in the UK in the Middle Ages"
"With modern communications technologies it is entirely practical for our government to allow us, as citizens, to participate at a much greater level than we do today"
There is a reason our (United States) government was *NOT* set up like the UK. Our founders found the build of parliamentary forms of government wildly unstable -- and a new "government" could and demonstrably DID enact law based on the passions of the moment. Such laws ended up contributing to the Revolution and much of the tyranny we excoriated. Read the bill of rights -- much it was because of war crimes committed by the Crown against the colonies.
The Senate was *NOT* supposed to be elected by the people -- they were supposed to be appointed by respective states to represent the states interests. The 17th amendment changed that -- and while I understand the reason why, it had unintended consequences on our republic. And we *ARE* more a republic than a democracy -- or at least were were originally designed to be so. Senators were to be allowed to serve without the need to round support (campaign) and no be influenced by the passions of the population to any great degree.
The House of representatives was to directly represent the people and were democratically elected. While the Senate was designed to have more POWER than the house -- the house was granted the purse strings on funding to balance that. With some effort, the House can reign in the Senate.
The President was never meant to be directly elected by the people, but by the states. Each state has a democratic election for the President. Well, not REALLY, they are voting for whom their state will support -- and that support is weighted to match the number of representatives they have in Congress (a fairly close match to population, but not perfect). That's why it doesn't MATTER if you get 1 more vote or 2 million more votes for president in a given state -- you get the ENTIRE states weight in electors. Again, this was by design. The fear was that we would have an executive who would represent the interests of the larger/richer states at the time (Virginia, in 1787, was a prime example) and ignore the smaller, less populous states. This would force some type of compromise in getting an executive in office and force them to not ignore parts of the nation.
There's a great story (probably apocryphal -- but pretty demonstrative of the thought at the time) where Jefferson, when returning from France after the Constitution was adopted sat with Washington having tea. Jefferson asked "Why two houses, why a Senate? Why not just one, representing all the people?" And Washington asked "Why do you pour your tea in your saucer?" Jefferson responded: "To let it cool so I do not get burned". Washington answered: "And that's why we have the Senate -- to let new law cool and be tempered by time and thought".
The fact is, our country was founded based on trying to "FIX" those shortfalls in the various governments of the world at the time. They were more afraid of democracy than of monarchy. It was their genius when they put power in the hands of the people to FIX problems that may occur if any one part of our government became too powerful -- by voting in people to cut the purse strings and starve it off the vine of our nation.
" It's not acceptable to kill innocent people, even by mistake. I guarantee this situation will happen again and we should do what is in our power to prevent it."
You can't base punishment based on time-travel evidence. Hindsight is 20-20. This is why he wasn't charged, 'dude'.
"But keep in mind, nobody else shot the man. There were other cops."
Yes -- and the video was reviewed from each body-cam. Many of the officers had a different vantage point and didn't shoot because it wasn't clear what he was doing -- maybe pulling up his pants. The one officer who shot, along with a few other officers at a different location (and confirmed by their body cam footage), it APPEARED he was pulling and aiming a gun.
"The guy who took the shot also has some implication, and a mitigating circumstance. There should be a criminal investigation into him and maybe he gets off on the circumstance. But even if innocent he absolutely should not be allowed to have a job where he points guns at people anymore without a truly extraordinary reason, since he's proven to be incapable of doing it without accidentally killing innocents."
Did you see the video? The cop did his job. The guy at the door, on camera, LOOKED like he was pointing something (possibly a gun) after being instructed to walk forward towards an obvious police presence.
Did you listen to the asshole's 911 call pretending to be in the house holding his family hostage and getting ready to kill them? After killing his Dad? That's the information the police had. No question it was a horrific tragedy, but the cops are no more responsible than a bus driver who hits and kills a pedestrian who was pushed out on the road by some OTHER asshole who thought it would be FUNNY.
"ah yes, much better to to lock them up so they can make a living wage of up to $0.95/hr as a prison laborer, where they can be the victim of physical and mental trauma at the hands of correctional officers. Surely, hiding the problem out of sight is the best solution."
How about learning to read. Leaving them out to slowly die while spreading disease and victimizing there communities is better?
And where did I say "hiding them out of sight"??? We have a thing in CA called "drug court" It allowed an addict to opt for treatment and monitoring fur the duration of their sentence to avoid prison and the conviction on their record. It was far more successful than letting the wonder the streets like zombies. It was eviscerated by prop 47 (who's going to opt for drug court when it's a misdemeanor at worst and with AB109 pushing "low risk" felons in to local jails, drug addicts end up back on the streets before even the paper work is finished by an arresting officer. Further, if they are prosecuted and actually show up (only a misdemeanor if they don't) and get the typical 6 month sentence -- again, because of AB109 they are literally dropped back on the streets.
This isn't good for the addict and it's not good for the community. Take off what ever blinders you are wearing and think about pragmatic solutions.
"For your second point; homeless people don't tend to travel far from where they live."
California is different. We are one state -- with 25% of the entire countries homeless population. Yes, we're a large population state -- but still at 10% of the entire country, our homeless numbers are 2.5x what they should be per capita.
We have many MANY "homeless" on our streets from all over the country. They're shipped out here for crappy "sober homes" that drain whatever insurance they might have then they are out on the streets here.
The biggest part of the problem is that all solutions try to tackle the issue as an economic problem. Most of the homeless literally living on the streets are addicts or mentally ill. Los Angeles, for example, plays "whack-a-mole" on encampment cleanup with LAPD and HOPE who go out there and try to offer services. They are generally refused. Why? Because shelters dont allow drug use.
And here's the thing about drug use -- drug dealers don't work pro-bono. They want to be paid. And by the time an addict has run through every social safety net (moving back in with mom/dad, sleeping in sisters spare room, a friends sofa) they have no where to go. Services that the get like EBT cards are drained and the money used for drugs. Locally, heroin can run about $4-$8 a dose -- but a modestly far along addict would need so many doeses that the cost would be around $80+ per day. that's $30k per year. Where do you think they get the money? The "smack" faerie?
Addition had a direct link to local crime.
You are spot on about addicts not moving away from either drugs or resources to get drugs.
We were stupid to effectively decriminalize drugs and petty theft (which killed off drug court as an option for addicts to avoid jail/prison time and the conviction record). It was far more effective than the "free range" approach we've taken to addicts over the last 5 years. What we SHOULD have done is put more funds in to post release follow up and support and support while incarcerated for those who couldn't stay clean on drug court programs. Would have slowly drained the prisons of drug users, too.
It's no kindness to leave them on the streets to slowly kill themselves, spread disease and victimize their communities.
"I'm not sure if providing end-user support gets harder with the age of the IT worker, but it definitely gets harder with the age of the end user."
Because of my physical location within our company I end up doing more than just managing a few servers and apps I've written -- anything from the occasional field job to crawling under desks. I like the mix.
I just don't see what the issue is with older users that other people seem to have. About the only thing I've needed to do is to calm their anxiety about "I don't know anything about computers" panic they have when something goes wrong and I need to walk them through something. I can usually do that in under 1-2 mins max. After that, as long as I'm clear in my directions and avoid technical terminology they're great to work with.
"Yeah, look on the back of that blueish green box (cisco router). See that black wire coming out from it at one end? Different from the other wires? That's the power cable. Yeah. It's got a clip thingy on it. Pinch that and pull out the black plug. Are all the lights out? They are? Awesome. Count to 5, now plug it back in." waits about two mins "Is the VPN light back on the blueish green box? It is? Awesome!".
The down side of this is that the tier 1 help desk folks tend to direct these folks to me because I can usually turn them around faster than other guys in my group. Every now and then I need to yelp about that...
"or 3 on a soft drink, or 10 on a meal from any of these chain restaurants"
Because they're stupid. If I find myself out in the field and hungry where I haven't made plans already (no boxed lunch or anything) I hit McD or Carls Jr. for a "hold me over" meal.
"Agricultural workers are exempted from minimum wage laws."
That's not entirely true, is it? They are not exempt from federal minimum wage laws. Further, they do not generally pay for their housing or transportation on seasonal contracts.
A minimum wage hike at the federal level would have an effect on ag products cost.
I remember watching Tron: Legacy and the "young-ified" Jeff Bridges looked creepy and fake.
Then the first Ant-Man had a "young-ified" Michael Douglas. It was much better, but still looked "off"
Then the latest Ant-Man -- again, had a "young-ified" Micheal Douglas. The only "odd thing" about it was how good it looked. Knowing how he actually looks today made it difficult to look at him on-screen "young-ified". It was almost perfect.
We're talking about a short space of time for this improvement. Now imagine movies like Forrest Gump with better "high school" looking Gump -- and "college" looking Gump. One who looks more like the age their supposed to be -- and not just the actor with makeup and period clothes.
Also, it would be a good "insurance" policy for filming projects -- in case an actor dies ore becomes incapacitated during filming they can finish the "job" they signed on to.
Creating new material from dead actors? I'm very uncomfortable with. Even if we make it illegal we'll still see it. Hell, I can spend $20 for a MTG Black Lotus forgery that's nearly impossible to tell from the real thing (worth a few grand at least) from somewhere in China.
Most corp users are married to spreadsheets. They pass them around, share them, toss them up on a share point and so many hands really mess things up.
I got a reputation of being able to tease out data quickly.
How? I cheat.
vlookup is great -- but with so many hands in the cookie jar you have data types shift from row to row. You'll end up pulling out your hair trying to do any comparisons quickly.
The way I cheat is I add a row called... wait for it. ROW (each value is =row()). I then hide all but the necessary rows for the requests. Usually it's comparing values from multiple sheets and extract data.
I then suck THAT data in to microsoft access and treat it like an SQL database. Run my queries and paste it back in to the original spreadsheets using "row" as the matching key.
You've no idea how long I tried to get upper and middle management to switch to an sql database. They wont. It's not practical to create a custom database for each request I get but Access is an excellent compromise.
Up side: I make important people happy. Down side: I make important people happy == which translates in to me have multiple bosses.
"Never "buy" content from any of these online streaming services. It's all rented and always has been. And not just Apple."
That's not ENTIRELY true. I'm an audible customer. Have been for a LONG time. I stopped by subscription back in 2008 but picked it up again about 3 years ago. I had easily over 150 audio books. 3 went AWOL a few years ago. I called Amazon (who now owns audible). It was a rights issue and they couldn't provide them to me -- but they provided 3 credits (which means 3 full books) and assured me that the rights issue would be resolved and the books would "magically become available" again. And this was when I wasn't a subscriber any more.
The books did "magically" appear in my library again about a year or two later.
It's pretty trivial to convert my books to MP3 -- which I've now done so I "own" those. Yeah, it's PITA.
Moral of the story: They bent over backwards to fix the problem.
Burning trees just releases the carbon they were storing.
Cut the trees down and BUILD things with the lumber. Replant. Repeat. Hell, dig a huge hole and BURY the lumber. In a few million years it'll turn back to oil. THEN you have a decent carbon sink.
"The funny of it is, if you add up how much we pay administering the current welfare system--the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who administer things like Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, who determine what items you are allowed to buy, who determine if you qualify, who police the system--we could provide a reasonably generous UBI to everyone with nearly no administrative overhead."
Have you ever heard of an american bureaucracy that was shut down? Or were just others pasted on on TOP of what already existed?
I don't believe for a moment that there will be any net "savings" closing down -- or even down sizing the current system.
I hate the color blue! If he can't prefer the color green over blue he shouldn't be be a justice!
Because it really doesn't MATTER on topics which don't really APPLY the the supreme court. Get your congress-critters two write law well and it'll survive any decision from SCOTUS.
Yeah. The premise is great! But seeing as we're a mostly "service based" economy now, what's the consequences when we only need to hire a fraction of the people currently working *IN* services?
"So if you know nothing, have proved nothing, and just shoot away you're good to go."
I need to ask, are you stupid? Or do you just not care you are providing misleading statements?
1: What the officers knew: Someone sounding unstable called in claiming he had a gun, shot his father in the head, holding the gun on his mother and brother forcing them to stay in the closet and planning on setting the house on fire. 2: They ordered the guy to "walk this way" while waving him towards them (found out from another source). 3: Guy did a motion that any reasonable person would think appears to point something towards the officers.
What they knew was deliberately and deceptively provided by the evil "gamer" who was rightfully arrested.
If you are suggesting that our police and fire departments should send out some "verification" teams for every call then you are not only stupid, but crazy.
What we need is dramatically more severe penalties for calling 911 and lying about crimes (something that's ALREADY illegal). This guy is going to get a few years max -- when he really should go away for 20 easy.
"Im not assuming anything. I'm actually reading regarding the eye witness report and what the news reported. Think first before attacking."
Police ordered him to "walk this way". It looked like he pointed something. It appears they *DID* think before attacking.
The statement of claimed they just shot the first person they say. That is clearly an assumption not supported by the video.
Why not do a quick look-see on the accuracy of eyewitness accounts, too. I'm not saying she's wrong -- I'm saying YOU are assuming, in spite of a video which doesn't show what she describes, is exactly what happened. It's quite possible both accounts are accurate -- but from different points of view. Please note that you can clearly hear the officer give an order, but you cannot hear a "scream" before the shot as described in his other's account.
But what the video shows CLEARLY is the police did *NOT* shoot the first person they saw. They gave an order and it LOOKED like he was pointing something. They shot a perceived threat that was reported to be armed and unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the greatest Christmas movie ever!
You just need to :s/thanksgiving/christmas/g before watching...
"It's quite simple. The likes of Comcast being unable to throttle Netflix/etc directly, opts to put an artificial cap on it's users... then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap... like any kind of On Demand streaming via an X1 console. Sure, that traffic doesn't cross the public internet, but uses the exact same DOCSIS tech in your cable modem which is capped."
Usenet used to do this. They'd have a local cache of news groups so you didn't have thousands of users crossing the peering connection in to the "expensive" part of pushing data. So they pull the data once INSIDE their network and then make the groups available to their customers via a local usenet server.
I'm unsure if the "cap" portion is determined by the modem or further up the network, but it should be do-able to provide exclusions for data caps for certain local (in network) services -- including, say, a netflix cache server or something similar.
" I think that the origins of what we currently think of as representative democratic government originates in the UK in the Middle Ages"
"With modern communications technologies it is entirely practical for our government to allow us, as citizens, to participate at a much greater level than we do today"
There is a reason our (United States) government was *NOT* set up like the UK. Our founders found the build of parliamentary forms of government wildly unstable -- and a new "government" could and demonstrably DID enact law based on the passions of the moment. Such laws ended up contributing to the Revolution and much of the tyranny we excoriated. Read the bill of rights -- much it was because of war crimes committed by the Crown against the colonies.
The Senate was *NOT* supposed to be elected by the people -- they were supposed to be appointed by respective states to represent the states interests. The 17th amendment changed that -- and while I understand the reason why, it had unintended consequences on our republic. And we *ARE* more a republic than a democracy -- or at least were were originally designed to be so. Senators were to be allowed to serve without the need to round support (campaign) and no be influenced by the passions of the population to any great degree.
The House of representatives was to directly represent the people and were democratically elected. While the Senate was designed to have more POWER than the house -- the house was granted the purse strings on funding to balance that. With some effort, the House can reign in the Senate.
The President was never meant to be directly elected by the people, but by the states. Each state has a democratic election for the President. Well, not REALLY, they are voting for whom their state will support -- and that support is weighted to match the number of representatives they have in Congress (a fairly close match to population, but not perfect). That's why it doesn't MATTER if you get 1 more vote or 2 million more votes for president in a given state -- you get the ENTIRE states weight in electors. Again, this was by design. The fear was that we would have an executive who would represent the interests of the larger/richer states at the time (Virginia, in 1787, was a prime example) and ignore the smaller, less populous states. This would force some type of compromise in getting an executive in office and force them to not ignore parts of the nation.
There's a great story (probably apocryphal -- but pretty demonstrative of the thought at the time) where Jefferson, when returning from France after the Constitution was adopted sat with Washington having tea. Jefferson asked "Why two houses, why a Senate? Why not just one, representing all the people?" And Washington asked "Why do you pour your tea in your saucer?" Jefferson responded: "To let it cool so I do not get burned". Washington answered: "And that's why we have the Senate -- to let new law cool and be tempered by time and thought".
The fact is, our country was founded based on trying to "FIX" those shortfalls in the various governments of the world at the time. They were more afraid of democracy than of monarchy. It was their genius when they put power in the hands of the people to FIX problems that may occur if any one part of our government became too powerful -- by voting in people to cut the purse strings and starve it off the vine of our nation.
" It's not acceptable to kill innocent people, even by mistake. I guarantee this situation will happen again and we should do what is in our power to prevent it."
You can't base punishment based on time-travel evidence. Hindsight is 20-20. This is why he wasn't charged, 'dude'.
"But keep in mind, nobody else shot the man. There were other cops."
Yes -- and the video was reviewed from each body-cam. Many of the officers had a different vantage point and didn't shoot because it wasn't clear what he was doing -- maybe pulling up his pants. The one officer who shot, along with a few other officers at a different location (and confirmed by their body cam footage), it APPEARED he was pulling and aiming a gun.
https://www.kansas.com/news/lo...
""This shooting should not have happened," he said. "But this officer’s decision was made in the context of the false call.""
"The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun, Bennett said."
"The guy who took the shot also has some implication, and a mitigating circumstance. There should be a criminal investigation into him and maybe he gets off on the circumstance. But even if innocent he absolutely should not be allowed to have a job where he points guns at people anymore without a truly extraordinary reason, since he's proven to be incapable of doing it without accidentally killing innocents."
Did you see the video? The cop did his job. The guy at the door, on camera, LOOKED like he was pointing something (possibly a gun) after being instructed to walk forward towards an obvious police presence.
Did you listen to the asshole's 911 call pretending to be in the house holding his family hostage and getting ready to kill them? After killing his Dad? That's the information the police had. No question it was a horrific tragedy, but the cops are no more responsible than a bus driver who hits and kills a pedestrian who was pushed out on the road by some OTHER asshole who thought it would be FUNNY.
This really is ALL on the asshole.
yeah yeah... my fault for posting from my phone and not double-checking spell check. Sigh.
"ah yes, much better to to lock them up so they can make a living wage of up to $0.95/hr as a prison laborer, where they can be the victim of physical and mental trauma at the hands of correctional officers. Surely, hiding the problem out of sight is the best solution."
How about learning to read. Leaving them out to slowly die while spreading disease and victimizing there communities is better?
And where did I say "hiding them out of sight"??? We have a thing in CA called "drug court" It allowed an addict to opt for treatment and monitoring fur the duration of their sentence to avoid prison and the conviction on their record. It was far more successful than letting the wonder the streets like zombies. It was eviscerated by prop 47 (who's going to opt for drug court when it's a misdemeanor at worst and with AB109 pushing "low risk" felons in to local jails, drug addicts end up back on the streets before even the paper work is finished by an arresting officer. Further, if they are prosecuted and actually show up (only a misdemeanor if they don't) and get the typical 6 month sentence -- again, because of AB109 they are literally dropped back on the streets.
This isn't good for the addict and it's not good for the community. Take off what ever blinders you are wearing and think about pragmatic solutions.
"For your second point; homeless people don't tend to travel far from where they live."
California is different. We are one state -- with 25% of the entire countries homeless population. Yes, we're a large population state -- but still at 10% of the entire country, our homeless numbers are 2.5x what they should be per capita.
We have many MANY "homeless" on our streets from all over the country. They're shipped out here for crappy "sober homes" that drain whatever insurance they might have then they are out on the streets here.
The biggest part of the problem is that all solutions try to tackle the issue as an economic problem. Most of the homeless literally living on the streets are addicts or mentally ill. Los Angeles, for example, plays "whack-a-mole" on encampment cleanup with LAPD and HOPE who go out there and try to offer services. They are generally refused. Why? Because shelters dont allow drug use.
And here's the thing about drug use -- drug dealers don't work pro-bono. They want to be paid. And by the time an addict has run through every social safety net (moving back in with mom/dad, sleeping in sisters spare room, a friends sofa) they have no where to go. Services that the get like EBT cards are drained and the money used for drugs. Locally, heroin can run about $4-$8 a dose -- but a modestly far along addict would need so many doeses that the cost would be around $80+ per day. that's $30k per year. Where do you think they get the money? The "smack" faerie?
Addition had a direct link to local crime.
You are spot on about addicts not moving away from either drugs or resources to get drugs.
We were stupid to effectively decriminalize drugs and petty theft (which killed off drug court as an option for addicts to avoid jail/prison time and the conviction record). It was far more effective than the "free range" approach we've taken to addicts over the last 5 years. What we SHOULD have done is put more funds in to post release follow up and support and support while incarcerated for those who couldn't stay clean on drug court programs. Would have slowly drained the prisons of drug users, too.
It's no kindness to leave them on the streets to slowly kill themselves, spread disease and victimize their communities.
"I'm not sure if providing end-user support gets harder with the age of the IT worker, but it definitely gets harder with the age of the end user."
Because of my physical location within our company I end up doing more than just managing a few servers and apps I've written -- anything from the occasional field job to crawling under desks. I like the mix.
I just don't see what the issue is with older users that other people seem to have. About the only thing I've needed to do is to calm their anxiety about "I don't know anything about computers" panic they have when something goes wrong and I need to walk them through something. I can usually do that in under 1-2 mins max. After that, as long as I'm clear in my directions and avoid technical terminology they're great to work with.
"Yeah, look on the back of that blueish green box (cisco router). See that black wire coming out from it at one end? Different from the other wires? That's the power cable. Yeah. It's got a clip thingy on it. Pinch that and pull out the black plug. Are all the lights out? They are? Awesome. Count to 5, now plug it back in." waits about two mins "Is the VPN light back on the blueish green box? It is? Awesome!".
The down side of this is that the tier 1 help desk folks tend to direct these folks to me because I can usually turn them around faster than other guys in my group. Every now and then I need to yelp about that...
"or 3 on a soft drink, or 10 on a meal from any of these chain restaurants"
Because they're stupid. If I find myself out in the field and hungry where I haven't made plans already (no boxed lunch or anything) I hit McD or Carls Jr. for a "hold me over" meal.
McD - Chicken Sandwich + 1 large diet coke. Cost $2.00 + tax
Carls jr 1 or 2 sliders + large diet coke. Cost $2.00-$3.00 + tax.
Enough to fight off the hungries without totally killing you on fats/carbs the $4.00+ burgers will. And the soft drinks are $1.00 any size.
"Agricultural workers are exempted from minimum wage laws."
That's not entirely true, is it? They are not exempt from federal minimum wage laws. Further, they do not generally pay for their housing or transportation on seasonal contracts.
A minimum wage hike at the federal level would have an effect on ag products cost.
I remember watching Tron: Legacy and the "young-ified" Jeff Bridges looked creepy and fake.
Then the first Ant-Man had a "young-ified" Michael Douglas. It was much better, but still looked "off"
Then the latest Ant-Man -- again, had a "young-ified" Micheal Douglas. The only "odd thing" about it was how good it looked. Knowing how he actually looks today made it difficult to look at him on-screen "young-ified". It was almost perfect.
We're talking about a short space of time for this improvement. Now imagine movies like Forrest Gump with better "high school" looking Gump -- and "college" looking Gump. One who looks more like the age their supposed to be -- and not just the actor with makeup and period clothes.
Also, it would be a good "insurance" policy for filming projects -- in case an actor dies ore becomes incapacitated during filming they can finish the "job" they signed on to.
Creating new material from dead actors? I'm very uncomfortable with. Even if we make it illegal we'll still see it. Hell, I can spend $20 for a MTG Black Lotus forgery that's nearly impossible to tell from the real thing (worth a few grand at least) from somewhere in China.
Most corp users are married to spreadsheets. They pass them around, share them, toss them up on a share point and so many hands really mess things up.
I got a reputation of being able to tease out data quickly.
How? I cheat.
vlookup is great -- but with so many hands in the cookie jar you have data types shift from row to row. You'll end up pulling out your hair trying to do any comparisons quickly.
The way I cheat is I add a row called ... wait for it. ROW (each value is =row()). I then hide all but the necessary rows for the requests. Usually it's comparing values from multiple sheets and extract data.
I then suck THAT data in to microsoft access and treat it like an SQL database. Run my queries and paste it back in to the original spreadsheets using "row" as the matching key.
You've no idea how long I tried to get upper and middle management to switch to an sql database. They wont. It's not practical to create a custom database for each request I get but Access is an excellent compromise.
Up side: I make important people happy.
Down side: I make important people happy == which translates in to me have multiple bosses.
"Never "buy" content from any of these online streaming services. It's all rented and always has been. And not just Apple."
That's not ENTIRELY true. I'm an audible customer. Have been for a LONG time. I stopped by subscription back in 2008 but picked it up again about 3 years ago. I had easily over 150 audio books. 3 went AWOL a few years ago. I called Amazon (who now owns audible). It was a rights issue and they couldn't provide them to me -- but they provided 3 credits (which means 3 full books) and assured me that the rights issue would be resolved and the books would "magically become available" again. And this was when I wasn't a subscriber any more.
The books did "magically" appear in my library again about a year or two later.
It's pretty trivial to convert my books to MP3 -- which I've now done so I "own" those. Yeah, it's PITA.
Moral of the story: They bent over backwards to fix the problem.
Burning trees just releases the carbon they were storing.
Cut the trees down and BUILD things with the lumber. Replant. Repeat. Hell, dig a huge hole and BURY the lumber. In a few million years it'll turn back to oil. THEN you have a decent carbon sink.
"Which it does. What does it require to be done now? Fucking planning."
You must not be familiar with California. It doesn't plan.
" If the people who use the club the most don't pay their dues the club goes to ruin. "
You mean like the poor?
Just $389 each! Add $99 for the special limited edition colors of Red, Black or blue!
"The funny of it is, if you add up how much we pay administering the current welfare system--the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who administer things like Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, who determine what items you are allowed to buy, who determine if you qualify, who police the system--we could provide a reasonably generous UBI to everyone with nearly no administrative overhead."
Have you ever heard of an american bureaucracy that was shut down? Or were just others pasted on on TOP of what already existed?
I don't believe for a moment that there will be any net "savings" closing down -- or even down sizing the current system.
I hate the color blue! If he can't prefer the color green over blue he shouldn't be be a justice!
Because it really doesn't MATTER on topics which don't really APPLY the the supreme court. Get your congress-critters two write law well and it'll survive any decision from SCOTUS.
...because no problems should be addressed in the first world unless they involve clean drinking water and warlords disrupting food shipments?
That attitude is cute.
Yeah. The premise is great! But seeing as we're a mostly "service based" economy now, what's the consequences when we only need to hire a fraction of the people currently working *IN* services?
They started a campaign to FUND the future launching (if there are not manufacturing hiccups).
Come back in 2019 and the console ships and repost this.
"So if you know nothing, have proved nothing, and just shoot away you're good to go."
I need to ask, are you stupid? Or do you just not care you are providing misleading statements?
1: What the officers knew: Someone sounding unstable called in claiming he had a gun, shot his father in the head, holding the gun on his mother and brother forcing them to stay in the closet and planning on setting the house on fire.
2: They ordered the guy to "walk this way" while waving him towards them (found out from another source).
3: Guy did a motion that any reasonable person would think appears to point something towards the officers.
What they knew was deliberately and deceptively provided by the evil "gamer" who was rightfully arrested.
If you are suggesting that our police and fire departments should send out some "verification" teams for every call then you are not only stupid, but crazy.
What we need is dramatically more severe penalties for calling 911 and lying about crimes (something that's ALREADY illegal). This guy is going to get a few years max -- when he really should go away for 20 easy.
"Im not assuming anything. I'm actually reading regarding the eye witness report and what the news reported. Think first before attacking."
Police ordered him to "walk this way". It looked like he pointed something. It appears they *DID* think before attacking.
The statement of claimed they just shot the first person they say. That is clearly an assumption not supported by the video.
Why not do a quick look-see on the accuracy of eyewitness accounts, too. I'm not saying she's wrong -- I'm saying YOU are assuming, in spite of a video which doesn't show what she describes, is exactly what happened. It's quite possible both accounts are accurate -- but from different points of view. Please note that you can clearly hear the officer give an order, but you cannot hear a "scream" before the shot as described in his other's account.
But what the video shows CLEARLY is the police did *NOT* shoot the first person they saw. They gave an order and it LOOKED like he was pointing something. They shot a perceived threat that was reported to be armed and unstable.