Till your ISP steps in. Too many ISPs forbid this for no rational reason.
It's because blocking/forbidding it means they don't have to spend money having their IT staff help anyone running into difficulties hosting things. It's much easier for them if everyone obediently consumes.
It's also because they can -- far too few tech-oriented people consider it more important to have an ultra-fast connection than it is to be able to use it as they see fit. I feel the *minor* inconvenience of slower speeds on DSL is worth knowing my ISP lets me do what I wish (even if I don't use it much) and doesn't have a bandwidth cap, participate in the RIAA/MPAA schemes or do similar obnoxious crap. It's not like the minor extra time needed to download a Linux distro (or whatever) has a real impact on my life...
I always figured it'd be like The Truman Show -- everyone putting on a big show of being an abnormally perfect [insert identity here] when they think someone important is paying attention, then secretly saying/doing all kinds of "unacceptable" stuff whenever they think they're safe from scrutiny...forgetting that no matter how much the world focuses on someone else, the 'cameras'/Facebook are actually there recording 24/7.
Given there will probably be security cams all over the place, and they'll likely be run by a company contracted by Facebook, I would be surprised if some degree of that didn't happen. After all, in today's economy, most people *really* don't want to gain any negative attention within their company by getting caught (or having a child/spouse caught) doing something that violates their superior's moral beliefs.
A FSIC judge used that blame-the-victim security logic according to a new interview with Lavabit's ex-owner at Ars Technica, even though the judge wasn't sure if "unencrypted" is even a real word:
[Levison] continued to resist, arguing that by handing over the key, he would be compromising the security of all users. In an August 1 hearing, Judge Claude Hilton said that it was effectively Levison's fault that sites have only a single private SSL key.
"You're blaming the government for something that's overbroad, but it seems to me that your client is the one that set up the system that's designed not to protect that information, because you know that there needs to be access to calls that go back and forth to one person or another," the judge asked Levison's attorney, Jesse Binnall. "And to say you can't do that just because you've set up a system that...has to be unencrypted, if there's such a word, that doesn't seem to me to be a very persuasive argument."
[sarcasm]Yeah, nothing wrong with being so over-intrusive since it's not like the guy really tried to make it secure...[/sarcasm]
There is ZERO loyalty, you could put in 80 hour weeks and they'd fuck you over or outsource your job the second they get a chance, and no matter what you do its not good enough.....
That's the corporate world regardless of what department someone is in. It's one of the big reasons that life here in the USA has changed for the worse, as the detrimental effects of living that way eventually invade just about every other aspect of daily life. Hard to care what happens to other people/families when some part of you is persistently fatigued from overwork/stress & worried that you could easily wake up tomorrow to find yourself unemployed and fighting for anything that might pay the bills...
Or the corporate/anti-assistance & warhawk politicians here in America would've just joined forces with their less-extreme UK counterparts to bugger up the British-American government and continue "colonizing" other countries by force.
Better yet, kill the high-contrast look and make use of some other colors -- extremely light blue with black text, deep brown with white text, whatever. Extremely high contrast (black-on-white/white-on-black) is hard on the eyes & often painful, and very low contrast like medium gray-on-light gray simply makes it harder to read.
It's worse than it looks. The current CSS changed dramatically about 2 days ago, and broke the simple userstyle I'd written to widen comment areas & ditch the white background, so I tried to update it...after several hours I managed to get the colors fixed, but when it comes to placement of elements, it was so nested & convoluted that it feels like someone used Microsoft Word to create it. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it... >:-p
Only the highly conservative Americans get huffy when people from other countries point out the truth. The rest of us have been trying to drag the country out of the stone age in spite of them, but as this clusterfuck is demonstrating, it's very slow progress at best...
So it's just the elderly/disabled people in poverty that aren't getting benefits (Supplemental Security Income) on time, which would have meant deposits being made at around midnight...
Not to mention those who live on their benefits. As always, it's the little guys who get shit on.
What's worse is that it's automated, normally set up to deposit at least SSI** in advance if there's a planned non-workday -- they're doing it this way just to be flaming goatfuckers. On top of that, because the federal government is full of assjacking cuntbiters, the states are happily sitting on the small amount they contribute to SSI, rather than sending it out to help elderly/disabled recipients get by.
**Supplemental Security Income, a benefit that gives the elderly & severely disabled citizens sub-poverty-level income (max ~$10.5k/year) to survive on.
Wrong. Average people actually fare better at resisting military authority when violence isn't a primary aspect of their approach, because it allows everyone to participate in little ways all the time, rather than just the minority that lack dependents and don't mind being killed/imprisoned. (This is assuming the people aren't in a position where they know for a fact that they're all going to die anyway, of course; if they're fucked either way, *then* it can make sense to fight back.)
For some great examples of what to do and *not* to do if you want to successfully resist heavily-armed occupying forces, check out how different places resisted while occupied during WWII. Areas where non-violent resistance was the foundation of their efforts often achieved a great deal, like the French Resistance and Dutch Resistance. The places whose resistance was based on a focus upon physical violence managed to repel invaders (at an extremely heavy cost) in some cases, but otherwise only achieved temporary liberation of limited regions before being squashed, as in these examples:
"...the first organized armed uprising in then-occupied Europe which involved 32.000 people. In quick time, most of Montenegro was liberated, except major cities where Italian forces were well fortified. On 12 August—after a major Italian offensive involving 5 divisions and 30.000 armed soldiers — the uprising collapsed as units were disintegrating, poor leadership occurred as well as collaboration. Final toll of July 13 uprising in Montenegro was 735 dead, 1120 wounded and 2070 captured Italians and 72 dead and 53 wounded Montenegrins."
"Operation Anthropoid was a resistance move during World War II to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi “Protector of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia” and the chief of Nazi's final solution, by the Czech resistance in Prague. Over fifteen thousand Czechs were killed in reprisals, with the most infamous incidents being the complete destruction of the towns of Lidice and Leáky."
Keep in mind, we're talking about places and a time period when the vast majority of people were extremely physically fit, had intimate knowledge of their area/countryside from living there most of their lives, and were used to physical hardship -- they had *much* better chances of success via violent uprising than we Americans would have, and their few minor successes using that method could have been (and in other places were) achieved with a primarily non-violent approach.
FWIW, I'm not remotely pacifistic in nature, I just recognize that regardless of my impulses, history shows clearly that violence rarely wins the day when one is up against trained heavily-armed buff soldiers.
Boxer & Feinstein's adversaries are *also* NSA fans -- so the only question was whether we'd pick reps that would be largely in sync with the majority of the state's other beliefs, or reps that would push for the polar-opposite of what we want on everything else as well.
Regarding guns: there's nothing shameful in not believing that untrained, out-of-shape civilians are going to stand a snowball's chance in Hell against a gigantic heavily-armed professional military -- one that casually squashes whole nations of heavily-armed fit militants used to living in a warzone. Of course, even *that* could only happen if a group of armed people could talk about rebellion/resistance long enough to gather even a couple dozen members without armed authorities storming into their homes, shooting their dogs and either killing or imprisoning them.
The people that should be ashamed are the ones that are perfectly aware we'd be slaughtered, but encourage the belief for their own political and/or financial benefit.
It may seem harmful or scary from an adult perspective for a kid to go without seeing one parent for 24+ hours on a regular basis, but a lot of today's adults were actually raised under shared custody -- and speaking from firsthand experience that did the 24-hour approach with a sibling, it was in many ways a *good* thing.
My brother and I started shuttling between homes when we were around 4 & 9 years old (now 31 & 36): Dad had M&W nights plus alternated Friday night & weekends, Mom took us after school plus T/Th & alternating Friday & weekends. We knew we'd see the non-custodial parent within 24 hours, were kept busy being kids & following household routine, and so all we did was look forward to telling him/her any interesting news the next time we were there, just like we'd do with friends. We ended up being extremely close to both parents all through our childhood & onwards.
Something from experience to seriously consider: there are developmental stages where a kid's instincts tell them to pull away emotionally/communicatively, and what starts out as a nice way to keep in touch when you're needed can eventually turn into them feeling uncomfortably obligated to reach out to avoid hurting your feelings. When I went through that to a limited degree with my parents, making myself ignore the growing instinctive need to pull away from them for years made it harder on all of us and had a lot of unpleasant repercussions.
I think most people do it simply because smartphones have so many uses. I only talk to mine if I have no other choice, but it sits in a businesscard holder when I'm at my desk just so I can glance at it to check the time, my to-do list, and so forth.
my phone is usually on airplane mode when I enter the house and is redirected to a landline that has an Asterisk box on it... then the Asterisk box' FXO is carefully disconnected, so no calls in, no calls out:). That's the way I like to handle phones and phone calls.
I prefer this approach: my family/friends get my personal number but know to text rather than call (auditory processing disorder makes it a bitch to understand them), and everyone else gets my Google Voice number so I can get the transcribed messages via email. This way, I don't need to deal with being pestered via phone, but can have full access to all of its useful apps & functions.
"dikes" are butch lesbians. Maybe you meant dykes?
No: traditionally dyke is slang for a lesbian, and dike is the British English term for a barrier wall against water ("levee" in American English).
People mix them up often enough that they're both listed with the other term in parenthesis, though...and just to confuse the matter, dyke is used to refer to a narrow drainage ditch in Norfolk & Suffolk Broads or a low field wall in Scotland.
That's because the n-word has strong historic links to black people being beaten, lynched, enslaved, regarded subhuman & treated like animals (not allowed to drink from the same fountain, eat in the same restrooms, etc.) -- and white people that use or used the term are conveying that they figure that those abuses were at least somewhat justified.
The word "honky" is effectively just another mean word to call someone, as it only really refers to a subgroup of whites (not the race as a whole), and doesn't have the same history or suggest that we should be treated that way. All of the historically nasty terms for white people target nationalities, were made up by other whites, and stopped being genuinely offensive long ago. Even then, they just suggested that the new immigrants were genetically inferior, not that they should be treated like blacks were.
Tablet manufacturer LePan seems to have perfected that -- their connector is almost identical to Apple's 30-pin type, but the port and/or cable becomes glitchy & stops working within a year or two regardless of how well it's treated. (I thought it was just the one my mother bought until I looked online and found a *lot* of LePan owners that were furious over the same problem, many of which were saying that the company's service/warranty department either doesn't respond or is one overworked guy in France.)
Regardless of what *your* phone has, feature phones without wifi or a data plan still made up the majority of phones until 2-3 years ago, so that's nowhere near a "90s" situation. In addition to that, most adults don't store all of their pics/music/etc. solely in the cloud, and wifi file transfers can be enough of a PITA that often a cable is faster -- so the existence of data connections or wifi are somewhat irrelevant.
It has a lot to do with *how* the devices are handled as well, though. As you pointed out, if somebody lets a baby near fragile electronics, the item is likely to be broken -- and the friends/relatives I help that complain their tech items "break easily" are prone to that kind of mistake. If I suggest gently that they shouldn't (for example) leave a laptop at the edge of a table where the power cable might snag on a foot and yank it onto the floor, they insist it's not *their* fault so-and-so stepped on/tripped over the cord.
FWIW I've been extremely clumsy (diagnosed dyspraxic as a kid) my entire life: the reason my tech items last a long time is purely that I learned to overcompensate by making *sure* that everything is positioned very safely to avoid mishaps. It's extra work, but a lot nicer than having things I rely on break unexpectedly.
MAC (all-caps) - Machine Access Code, a hexadecmial address used to identify individual pieces hardware on a network Mac - marketing name for the longstanding "Macintosh" line of computers by Apple
I've used Firefox since it first came out, but it's so damned bloated with unneeded 'extras' that I only stick with it because it's the one browser that allows extensions like AdBlock Plus to block outgoing server requests, not just hide the results. I had defected over to Opera for several months, but when they decided to become a Chrome clone, I gave up on it altogether.
The opposite happened in my family: I'm in my mid-30s and hate talking on the phone as I find it hard to understand what's said, so my parents quickly learned first to rely on email & instant messaging when I was in college, then to text once they had qwerty or smart-phones. *g* I primarily text just to set up plans or get/exchange information with them, but we've always been close enough that keeping in touch seemed natural/desirable on both sides; I can't imagine either of them simply pretending that I didn't reach out.
Bartending generally *does* require intelligence and knowledge, plus strong social skills and a dash of creativity. In quiet oldschool bars, they need to be able to remember what the "regulars" have, hold a full conversation in which they discuss a wide variety of topics, give advice or generally make the individual feel better (or at least not as alone)... In clubs and nicer bars, they need to know and competently mix not only an extremely wide variety of drinks, know enough about the different flavors to creatively figure out how to make a new drink a customer describes, come up with their own creations, plus remember the regulars' favorites & think up what other drinks the individual might also like if asked. In *all* bars, they must be able to recognize and skillfully handle situations when a patron is underage, belligerent, drunk enough that serving more alcohol would be a bad idea, or otherwise too intoxicated to drive.
IOW, just because the individual isn't working with technology or at a desk doesn't mean their job lacks intellectual rigor.
As far as employment goes, "intelligent" jobs have been slowly vanishing along with the other types as technology or outsourcing take their place; it's *much* harder for even a highly gifted, motivated person to secure a job, as job scarcity means that being able to "network" up the wazoo is now a central factor instead.
It's not terribly intelligent for anyone to shrug off the socioeconomic situation of other parts of society, because each group's employment status directly impacts everyone else's. That's because the more people have a decent-enough paying job to cover necessities plus a few extras, the more money is spent on entertainment/electronics/restaurants/etc., driving a need for more skilled/gifted employees to meet the demand. In turn, the more people are struggling to find employment, the less they spend money on those unnecessary things, decreasing the demand for the skilled/gifted employees along with everyone else. (Income also directly affects the crime levels and property values/taxes in an area, controlling how much tax money is available and has to be spent on things like law enforcement rather than repaving roads or other maintenance/improvements.)
Slashdot Mirror
Till your ISP steps in. Too many ISPs forbid this for no rational reason.
It's because blocking/forbidding it means they don't have to spend money having their IT staff help anyone running into difficulties hosting things. It's much easier for them if everyone obediently consumes.
It's also because they can -- far too few tech-oriented people consider it more important to have an ultra-fast connection than it is to be able to use it as they see fit. I feel the *minor* inconvenience of slower speeds on DSL is worth knowing my ISP lets me do what I wish (even if I don't use it much) and doesn't have a bandwidth cap, participate in the RIAA/MPAA schemes or do similar obnoxious crap. It's not like the minor extra time needed to download a Linux distro (or whatever) has a real impact on my life...
I always figured it'd be like The Truman Show -- everyone putting on a big show of being an abnormally perfect [insert identity here] when they think someone important is paying attention, then secretly saying/doing all kinds of "unacceptable" stuff whenever they think they're safe from scrutiny...forgetting that no matter how much the world focuses on someone else, the 'cameras'/Facebook are actually there recording 24/7.
Given there will probably be security cams all over the place, and they'll likely be run by a company contracted by Facebook, I would be surprised if some degree of that didn't happen. After all, in today's economy, most people *really* don't want to gain any negative attention within their company by getting caught (or having a child/spouse caught) doing something that violates their superior's moral beliefs.
A FSIC judge used that blame-the-victim security logic according to a new interview with Lavabit's ex-owner at Ars Technica, even though the judge wasn't sure if "unencrypted" is even a real word:
[Levison] continued to resist, arguing that by handing over the key, he would be compromising the security of all users. In an August 1 hearing, Judge Claude Hilton said that it was effectively Levison's fault that sites have only a single private SSL key.
"You're blaming the government for something that's overbroad, but it seems to me that your client is the one that set up the system that's designed not to protect that information, because you know that there needs to be access to calls that go back and forth to one person or another," the judge asked Levison's attorney, Jesse Binnall. "And to say you can't do that just because you've set up a system that ...has to be unencrypted, if there's such a word, that doesn't seem to me to be a very persuasive argument."
[sarcasm]Yeah, nothing wrong with being so over-intrusive since it's not like the guy really tried to make it secure...[/sarcasm]
There is ZERO loyalty, you could put in 80 hour weeks and they'd fuck you over or outsource your job the second they get a chance, and no matter what you do its not good enough.....
That's the corporate world regardless of what department someone is in. It's one of the big reasons that life here in the USA has changed for the worse, as the detrimental effects of living that way eventually invade just about every other aspect of daily life. Hard to care what happens to other people/families when some part of you is persistently fatigued from overwork/stress & worried that you could easily wake up tomorrow to find yourself unemployed and fighting for anything that might pay the bills...
Or the corporate/anti-assistance & warhawk politicians here in America would've just joined forces with their less-extreme UK counterparts to bugger up the British-American government and continue "colonizing" other countries by force.
Better yet, kill the high-contrast look and make use of some other colors -- extremely light blue with black text, deep brown with white text, whatever. Extremely high contrast (black-on-white/white-on-black) is hard on the eyes & often painful, and very low contrast like medium gray-on-light gray simply makes it harder to read.
It's worse than it looks. The current CSS changed dramatically about 2 days ago, and broke the simple userstyle I'd written to widen comment areas & ditch the white background, so I tried to update it...after several hours I managed to get the colors fixed, but when it comes to placement of elements, it was so nested & convoluted that it feels like someone used Microsoft Word to create it. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it... >:-p
Only the highly conservative Americans get huffy when people from other countries point out the truth. The rest of us have been trying to drag the country out of the stone age in spite of them, but as this clusterfuck is demonstrating, it's very slow progress at best...
More than a few of us (Americans) envy you that.
So it's just the elderly/disabled people in poverty that aren't getting benefits (Supplemental Security Income) on time, which would have meant deposits being made at around midnight...
Not to mention those who live on their benefits. As always, it's the little guys who get shit on.
What's worse is that it's automated, normally set up to deposit at least SSI** in advance if there's a planned non-workday -- they're doing it this way just to be flaming goatfuckers. On top of that, because the federal government is full of assjacking cuntbiters, the states are happily sitting on the small amount they contribute to SSI, rather than sending it out to help elderly/disabled recipients get by.
**Supplemental Security Income, a benefit that gives the elderly & severely disabled citizens sub-poverty-level income (max ~$10.5k/year) to survive on.
Naming defense structures after a candy bar has to be one of the coolest things I've heard of a country ever doing.
Wrong. Average people actually fare better at resisting military authority when violence isn't a primary aspect of their approach, because it allows everyone to participate in little ways all the time, rather than just the minority that lack dependents and don't mind being killed/imprisoned. (This is assuming the people aren't in a position where they know for a fact that they're all going to die anyway, of course; if they're fucked either way, *then* it can make sense to fight back.)
For some great examples of what to do and *not* to do if you want to successfully resist heavily-armed occupying forces, check out how different places resisted while occupied during WWII. Areas where non-violent resistance was the foundation of their efforts often achieved a great deal, like the French Resistance and Dutch Resistance. The places whose resistance was based on a focus upon physical violence managed to repel invaders (at an extremely heavy cost) in some cases, but otherwise only achieved temporary liberation of limited regions before being squashed, as in these examples:
"...the first organized armed uprising in then-occupied Europe which involved 32.000 people. In quick time, most of Montenegro was liberated, except major cities where Italian forces were well fortified. On 12 August—after a major Italian offensive involving 5 divisions and 30.000 armed soldiers — the uprising collapsed as units were disintegrating, poor leadership occurred as well as collaboration. Final toll of July 13 uprising in Montenegro was 735 dead, 1120 wounded and 2070 captured Italians and 72 dead and 53 wounded Montenegrins."
"Operation Anthropoid was a resistance move during World War II to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi “Protector of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia” and the chief of Nazi's final solution, by the Czech resistance in Prague. Over fifteen thousand Czechs were killed in reprisals, with the most infamous incidents being the complete destruction of the towns of Lidice and Leáky."
Keep in mind, we're talking about places and a time period when the vast majority of people were extremely physically fit, had intimate knowledge of their area/countryside from living there most of their lives, and were used to physical hardship -- they had *much* better chances of success via violent uprising than we Americans would have, and their few minor successes using that method could have been (and in other places were) achieved with a primarily non-violent approach.
FWIW, I'm not remotely pacifistic in nature, I just recognize that regardless of my impulses, history shows clearly that violence rarely wins the day when one is up against trained heavily-armed buff soldiers.
Boxer & Feinstein's adversaries are *also* NSA fans -- so the only question was whether we'd pick reps that would be largely in sync with the majority of the state's other beliefs, or reps that would push for the polar-opposite of what we want on everything else as well.
Regarding guns: there's nothing shameful in not believing that untrained, out-of-shape civilians are going to stand a snowball's chance in Hell against a gigantic heavily-armed professional military -- one that casually squashes whole nations of heavily-armed fit militants used to living in a warzone. Of course, even *that* could only happen if a group of armed people could talk about rebellion/resistance long enough to gather even a couple dozen members without armed authorities storming into their homes, shooting their dogs and either killing or imprisoning them.
The people that should be ashamed are the ones that are perfectly aware we'd be slaughtered, but encourage the belief for their own political and/or financial benefit.
It may seem harmful or scary from an adult perspective for a kid to go without seeing one parent for 24+ hours on a regular basis, but a lot of today's adults were actually raised under shared custody -- and speaking from firsthand experience that did the 24-hour approach with a sibling, it was in many ways a *good* thing.
My brother and I started shuttling between homes when we were around 4 & 9 years old (now 31 & 36): Dad had M&W nights plus alternated Friday night & weekends, Mom took us after school plus T/Th & alternating Friday & weekends. We knew we'd see the non-custodial parent within 24 hours, were kept busy being kids & following household routine, and so all we did was look forward to telling him/her any interesting news the next time we were there, just like we'd do with friends. We ended up being extremely close to both parents all through our childhood & onwards.
Something from experience to seriously consider: there are developmental stages where a kid's instincts tell them to pull away emotionally/communicatively, and what starts out as a nice way to keep in touch when you're needed can eventually turn into them feeling uncomfortably obligated to reach out to avoid hurting your feelings. When I went through that to a limited degree with my parents, making myself ignore the growing instinctive need to pull away from them for years made it harder on all of us and had a lot of unpleasant repercussions.
I think most people do it simply because smartphones have so many uses. I only talk to mine if I have no other choice, but it sits in a businesscard holder when I'm at my desk just so I can glance at it to check the time, my to-do list, and so forth.
my phone is usually on airplane mode when I enter the house and is redirected to a landline that has an Asterisk box on it... then the Asterisk box' FXO is carefully disconnected, so no calls in, no calls out:). That's the way I like to handle phones and phone calls.
I prefer this approach: my family/friends get my personal number but know to text rather than call (auditory processing disorder makes it a bitch to understand them), and everyone else gets my Google Voice number so I can get the transcribed messages via email. This way, I don't need to deal with being pestered via phone, but can have full access to all of its useful apps & functions.
"dikes" are butch lesbians. Maybe you meant dykes?
No: traditionally dyke is slang for a lesbian, and dike is the British English term for a barrier wall against water ("levee" in American English).
People mix them up often enough that they're both listed with the other term in parenthesis, though...and just to confuse the matter, dyke is used to refer to a narrow drainage ditch in Norfolk & Suffolk Broads or a low field wall in Scotland.
That's because the n-word has strong historic links to black people being beaten, lynched, enslaved, regarded subhuman & treated like animals (not allowed to drink from the same fountain, eat in the same restrooms, etc.) -- and white people that use or used the term are conveying that they figure that those abuses were at least somewhat justified.
The word "honky" is effectively just another mean word to call someone, as it only really refers to a subgroup of whites (not the race as a whole), and doesn't have the same history or suggest that we should be treated that way. All of the historically nasty terms for white people target nationalities, were made up by other whites, and stopped being genuinely offensive long ago. Even then, they just suggested that the new immigrants were genetically inferior, not that they should be treated like blacks were.
Tablet manufacturer LePan seems to have perfected that -- their connector is almost identical to Apple's 30-pin type, but the port and/or cable becomes glitchy & stops working within a year or two regardless of how well it's treated. (I thought it was just the one my mother bought until I looked online and found a *lot* of LePan owners that were furious over the same problem, many of which were saying that the company's service/warranty department either doesn't respond or is one overworked guy in France.)
Regardless of what *your* phone has, feature phones without wifi or a data plan still made up the majority of phones until 2-3 years ago, so that's nowhere near a "90s" situation. In addition to that, most adults don't store all of their pics/music/etc. solely in the cloud, and wifi file transfers can be enough of a PITA that often a cable is faster -- so the existence of data connections or wifi are somewhat irrelevant.
It has a lot to do with *how* the devices are handled as well, though. As you pointed out, if somebody lets a baby near fragile electronics, the item is likely to be broken -- and the friends/relatives I help that complain their tech items "break easily" are prone to that kind of mistake. If I suggest gently that they shouldn't (for example) leave a laptop at the edge of a table where the power cable might snag on a foot and yank it onto the floor, they insist it's not *their* fault so-and-so stepped on/tripped over the cord.
FWIW I've been extremely clumsy (diagnosed dyspraxic as a kid) my entire life: the reason my tech items last a long time is purely that I learned to overcompensate by making *sure* that everything is positioned very safely to avoid mishaps. It's extra work, but a lot nicer than having things I rely on break unexpectedly.
MAC (all-caps) - Machine Access Code, a hexadecmial address used to identify individual pieces hardware on a network
Mac - marketing name for the longstanding "Macintosh" line of computers by Apple
I've used Firefox since it first came out, but it's so damned bloated with unneeded 'extras' that I only stick with it because it's the one browser that allows extensions like AdBlock Plus to block outgoing server requests, not just hide the results. I had defected over to Opera for several months, but when they decided to become a Chrome clone, I gave up on it altogether.
The opposite happened in my family: I'm in my mid-30s and hate talking on the phone as I find it hard to understand what's said, so my parents quickly learned first to rely on email & instant messaging when I was in college, then to text once they had qwerty or smart-phones. *g* I primarily text just to set up plans or get/exchange information with them, but we've always been close enough that keeping in touch seemed natural/desirable on both sides; I can't imagine either of them simply pretending that I didn't reach out.
Bartending generally *does* require intelligence and knowledge, plus strong social skills and a dash of creativity. In quiet oldschool bars, they need to be able to remember what the "regulars" have, hold a full conversation in which they discuss a wide variety of topics, give advice or generally make the individual feel better (or at least not as alone)... In clubs and nicer bars, they need to know and competently mix not only an extremely wide variety of drinks, know enough about the different flavors to creatively figure out how to make a new drink a customer describes, come up with their own creations, plus remember the regulars' favorites & think up what other drinks the individual might also like if asked. In *all* bars, they must be able to recognize and skillfully handle situations when a patron is underage, belligerent, drunk enough that serving more alcohol would be a bad idea, or otherwise too intoxicated to drive.
IOW, just because the individual isn't working with technology or at a desk doesn't mean their job lacks intellectual rigor.
As far as employment goes, "intelligent" jobs have been slowly vanishing along with the other types as technology or outsourcing take their place; it's *much* harder for even a highly gifted, motivated person to secure a job, as job scarcity means that being able to "network" up the wazoo is now a central factor instead.
It's not terribly intelligent for anyone to shrug off the socioeconomic situation of other parts of society, because each group's employment status directly impacts everyone else's. That's because the more people have a decent-enough paying job to cover necessities plus a few extras, the more money is spent on entertainment/electronics/restaurants/etc., driving a need for more skilled/gifted employees to meet the demand. In turn, the more people are struggling to find employment, the less they spend money on those unnecessary things, decreasing the demand for the skilled/gifted employees along with everyone else. (Income also directly affects the crime levels and property values/taxes in an area, controlling how much tax money is available and has to be spent on things like law enforcement rather than repaving roads or other maintenance/improvements.)