I'm not aware of the politics in this, are they saying the systemd people are rude, or that they just refuse to make their code compatible?
Also with regard to systemd, I really do like distros that have it in my virtual machines because I can do a full reboot in seconds, whereas other distros take much longer. This is just flat out awesome for reducing lost time during maintenance when something doesn't go as planned.
Is there a particular reason we can't have something like that AND comply with the "do one thing and do it well" rule? I'm not familiar enough with the low level stuff.
Actually PBS asserts copyright on everything it owns, and they make a LOT of money off of DVD and streaming licenses. Don't assume that nonprofit means that its owners don't make a profit.
I personally use Windows EFS on my entire c:\user\myname folder, and that whole folder is backed up to a zero knowledge storage provider. I do this for my desktop and laptop.
Unless you save documents outside of that folder (which by default, 99% of all applications store it somewhere in that folder) then it's not likely to be retrievable.
AFAIK, Windows EFS uses AES-256 as a block cipher, with RSA-2048 or ECC-256 for key escrow (you can do up to RSA-16,384, or ECC-512.) AFAIK not even the NSA is able to crack either of those. The weakest link would be your password, with shorter passwords being easy to break (complexity, i.e. mix of case, special characters, numbers, isn't anywhere near as important as length) so use one that's 15 characters or longer.
How affected have you been by serial killers? The chance of you dieing in a car accident is hugely larger than you getting killed by a serial killer.
I'm sure it is.
But hey, sure, spend money on fixing a non-existing/-affecting problem that gets you in the news instead of fixing real issues.
It's a lot better than spending even more money to not only take the effort to amend the constitution, but assuming it even passes, you're looking at drug war costs times 10 just to round up everybody's firearms, only instead of being able to ignore the violence because it's in Mexico, it's going to be here instead.
I honestly am starting to think this whole thing is mostly being false flagged by the professional victims.
For example, from what I gather, this had nothing at all to do with GamerGate until Brianna Wu started bitching about it after it was announced. But that's not surprising, considering that Brianna Wu has been caught red handed and on multiple occasions creating sockpuppet accounts to harass herself with, and then blaming it on GamerGate supporters. Though that's not even the worst part, the worst part is that Brianna made a big media shit about how she was forced to leave home over the threats, meanwhile, while she was away from home, she started posting video blogs to youtube that had the same kind of background and architectural features as always, suggesting that the whole thing was made up. And then of course there's evidence to suggest that her and Anita Sarkeesian argue among themselves about who is being harassed the most.
MS office is only really feature complete on the Windows desktop client. Even the mac version is missing features (though you gotta be a hardcore word/excel user to miss those features.)
Only there isn't any evidence to suggest that it does work elsewhere. There are many countries besides the US with even more liberal freedom for arms, yet the number of crimes involving them isn't anywhere near as high.
Besides that, serial killers in particular uncommonly use any type of firearm, as they tend to prefer means of execution that are up close and personal. The US also has the highest number of serial killers, with England (where even cooking knives are restricted) being in second place.
Regardless of whether or not somebody is a mass shooter or a serial killer (these are NOT the same, by the way) they already have to have a mindset that they absolutely hate the people that they are targeting, much in the same as serial rapists have to absolutely hate women (i.e. a regular person isn't normally capable of being a rapist.)
It would definitely help if we could figure out why people are more inclined to be like this in the US, and take steps to reverse that, rather than spending a crapload of energy trying to do something that's not only impractical, but not likely to solve any problems..
I think I'm going to go against the grain here because what Google is planning is exactly what people have been asking for recently. And you know what? I agree, at least, in the context of the US anyways.
As many are aware, the US has quite a higher number of serial killers than most countries, in addition to mass murderers. Lots of people are suggesting that revoking the second amendment is the solution, but not only is that going to be a wasted effort (you wouldn't even be able to get a portion of congress to be on board, and even then, an act of congress just isn't enough) but it likely won't solve any problems.
That said, it would be wise if we could better understand what motivates most people to do this when they do it, and address it from that angle. I think this would go a long way towards that end.
I'm not particularly rich, but my employer offered health care plan is going to cover my kidney transplant operation at 100% (no deductible payment required, regardless of whether or not I've used it already.)
I feel bad for Chinese people, because the condition that caused what I have (IgA Nephropathy) is by far more common there, and due to a cultural quirk (the belief that the body needs to be buried whole,) practically nobody actually donates organs. The only option there is to pay a donor under the table, which with or without coverage you're looking at easily six figures worth of expense.
So at least in China, you really do indeed need to be rich, and you will pay out of pocket. And what's worse, is that your donor barely gets enough money to buy crappy Apple products.
That doesn't answer anything. It would make sense if the driver wasn't feature complete (i.e. support for x, y, and z is missing) however it doesn't explain why the performance is bad, unless the code optimization is just non-existent.
it doesn't mean they didn't fully intend to pay and could before that layoff, heart attack, natural disaster, etc.
That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is they need to have a solid plan for paying back what they borrowed before they even borrowed it. In the case of credit cards, it's simple: Pay it back as you go. The only way somebody would be unable to do that is, quite simply, if they're spending more than they earn, also called living beyond your means.
If they weren't living beyond their means, then the disaster scenario wouldn't be a problem.
Something I don't understand (I'm no a kernel developer) is why, given that AMD released the complete register reference for the cards, can't the open source driver compete with the proprietary one?
As for people who actually DO owe a debt, many of them took it on in good faith but then unforeseen circumstances left them unable to pay. Harassing them won't make the money appear.
Many is a relative term; I doubt it's a lot. How many advertisements (usually scams) do you see where people advertise "get out of debt" services? There's quite a lot of them, and it usually involves credit card debt (because that's the only debt they can manage, assuming it is legitimate.) The proper way to handle a credit card is to already have the cash available before you make the purchase, NOT just assuming that your next few paychecks will take care of it. Three reasons:
1) Interest will kill you 2) You build good credit for a future necessary home loan (and yes, in spite of popular myth, not paying interest does yield good credit; I did exactly this to get an 820 credit score) 3) You directly profit from usage rewards (in my case, 1.5% cash back on all purchases.)
Well normally when I'm not working I just rely on savings to get by. However in that particular case, I took room and board as a roommate for $300 a month (which is easy to find in any area that is at or below the average national cost of living.) My unemployment check was enough to cover that, and it lasted about a year. I also had food stamps and AHCCCS at the time. And yes, I was able to completely (and easily) feed myself off of the amount provided by food stamps (I can only guess that people who can't live in a high cost area.)
Not long after that (while I did have an income, albeit small) my college pell grant (which basically anybody with a shit income can qualify for, unless you've had a history of failing classes) actually paid more than the cost of tuition and books, and I got to keep the overflow money as cash. Though I somewhat cheated the system by often pirating the textbooks, which I don't feel guilty about considering how much they cost, and even when I did buy the books, I would often be able to sell them for almost what they cost (namely, buying used on amazon and exchanging it back for a gift card for almost the same amount as the purchase price.)
That depends on the car. Any NEW car is certainly a luxury item (personally I've always had nice cars and never once have I owned a new one.)
A few months ago I personally sold my 2003 Buick Regal for about $2,000. Really nice car but I wanted more, so I bought a used 2013 Toyota Camry with all possible options and 40,000 miles for $10,000 cash. See the difference? Both are cars, both run great, but one looks nicer and accelerates faster.
While I understand how overbearing debt collectors can be (I once had one bugging me for a medical expense that I didn't even know I had for anesthesia, which was just a portion of the bill that nobody bothered to tell me that I owed until it was already in collections,) and I've also been financially poor (i.e. having only $200 to my name at one point while also having no job) I personally am unable to fathom how so many people can borrow so heavily without taking the time to consider how they might eventually pay this money back.
Even in the worst of financial situations, there are alternatives to borrowing (i.e. welfare.) Though from what I've seen, most people who borrow large amounts are counting their eggs before they hatch, and buying luxury items with money that they don't even have, and then when the shit hits the fan they wonder why everybody is giving them such a hard time.
Anyways if your friend is really that bad, tell her to do the right thing and file for chapter 7, (and yes I think bankruptcy is the right thing in such a situation, even though I've never done it) and learn from that and don't ever go into debt again that way the debt collectors stay away.
So far everywhere I've used the chip in my new EMV card, I first handed it to the cashier and they tried to swipe, and it denied it saying I had to use the chip, which every single time has been facing downward and towards me, somewhat out of view of anybody (or anything) besides myself.
Everywhere I've done this, this has been the case at any rate, which includes every walmart, every restaurant, etc. I don't know if that's the standard, but it wouldn't surprise me if the terms of the merchant agreement required it.
Besides, I really *really* doubt somebody would bother with using a camera. The odds of you getting all of the relevant info (which includes the CVV number on the back) is unlikely, and would probably take more time and money to set up than it's worth. Especially when you consider that the only cases where they do an actual investigation on credit card fraud, they look for a bunch of customers that have happened to shop at the same place, and then begin investigating that establishment.
Even if they did get your credit card information, what will it cost you? Oh that's right, the inconvenience of being without your credit card for a week while they send you a new one, because your bank (like most banks) offers zero fraud liability (unless you have truly shitty credit.)
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Unless the government (or an otherwise governing body) is setting rules as far as how much you will produce and how much you will sell it for, then you have a free market economy. That describes practically every transaction that occurs in the US.
Government owns parts of the means of production on all levels, local, city, state, and federal. City owned production of water, State owned medical services and insurance, Federally owned and directed highway system, etc..
Actually in most cases this is government entities purchasing from the private sector. For example, the government doesn't actually build highways, they pay contractors to do it.
But yeah, I'll grant you that in some cases the government does own the means of production here, but it's a very tiny portion of the economy.
Facts contradict your belief. For example, about 40% of our national spending is done by the government, so that part isn't "pure free market"
Umm...I don't think you understand what the government not owning the means of production actually means. Let me help a bit: The government spending you're talking about is mostly from the government purchasing from the private sector. Let's take the military for example; they spend a lot of money buying aircraft from Boeing. The F-35 for example is the government giving a lot of money to contractors and their subcontractors.
Health insurance, health care, auto insurance, and home insurance are also highly regulated, and people are not permitted to engage in free market transactions.
Ok, please re-read what a free market is. A free market means the prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand. The government doesn't set prices on any of these. Here, I'll even give you a wikipedia reference:
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Both businesses and landlord face strong restrictions on who they can and cannot do business with.
You're talking about EEO type laws, and no, the government isn't setting prices. Let me quote again:
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Our banking and financial system is highly regulated, with many forms of financial transactions simply being illegal, and borrowing and lending tightly regulated and controlled.
The government isn't setting prices....I don't know if I'm getting through to you yet...
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Also, do not confuse people who pretend to be socialists with actual socialists. Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, and neither are most of the other people who call themselves "socialist" in the US or Europe. People who pretend to be "socialists" in US politics are really just lobbying groups like any other, wanting to take away money from some people and give it to themselves and their friends.
I don't think I did? And I think Bernie Sanders is insane because he advocates a 90% tax rate, just after a 75% tax rate proved to be a disaster for France.
The reason they can make things affordable to poor people is because they're creating poor people.
Walmart creates poor people how? Let me guess, because they sell things at a low price? Or because they pay their employees minimum wage?
Guess what? Everybody retailer does that, and has done that since before walmart even existed. Not only that, but wealth isn't defined by income or money. Wealth is defined by the material goods you own. When material goods become cheaper, then more people can have them, thus society as a whole gets wealthier.
Don't believe me? Well take a look at a few things you take for granted today: In the early days of refrigeration, only wealthy people had them. Now everybody does. In the early days of automobiles, only wealthy people had them, and they were crap compared to what poor people can buy today. Same can be said of big screen TVs, car phones (in fact, what we have no is infinitely better than a car phone), personal computers, microwave ovens, etc.
These are the things that make up wealth, and every single thing I mentioned today is affordable by the poor, (and indeed, it's common for the poor to own all of the above) which is thanks to companies like walmart whose goal is to make them more affordable.
Oh but let me guess, you're defining poor by how much their income is, right? Of course you are, because you said poverty, which is a government defined term based entirely on income and ignores wealth. Guess what though? That goalpost has been moving up and up for a long time, and you could live in a mansion and own a nice sports car and have a massive savings but make zero per year, and the government labels you as living in poverty, which qualifies you for medicaid in spite of your assets.
Also I'll have to say, if you think that just because there's health and safety standards in place that everyone follows them equally go spend one day on any manufacturing floor for any company.
I don't need to, I've spent a long time in one.
All these standards and regulations basically entail is "once a year or so we'll come by your workplace and ask the quality people if they're following procedures." ISO 9001 is the biggest joke I've ever seen. It's about as hard as an open book test that you have 2 months to prepare for.
Uh, no, it's more often than that. I did routine IT work at a meat plant for example and they wouldn't so much as let me walk through the warehouse without a hair and beard net (and of course, carrying any kind of food and water through it was also absolutely forbidden.) Every single day they sprayed all of the walls with highly pressurized soapy water, which was the challenge because we had networking gear and computers on said walls.
Why did they go through such extremes? Because every few months there would be a surprise USDA inspection.
Actually walmart's safety standards are a notch above the typical health food store in that they won't carry organic alfalfa sprouts due to the high incidence of e.coli contamination. Meanwhile places like whole foods carry them anyways; in fact whole foods prominently offers a full page of suggestions on what to make with them.
And at the same time, whole foods maintains a "ban list" of ingredients not allowed to be sold in their stores, only these ingredients are not proven to be harmful. For example, they ban glutamates. The reason for that is because some people claim to be allergic to them, but no allergy claim has ever been empirically proven. However whole foods happily carries foods that are known to be such strong allergens that even a trace amount can outright kill some people; specifically, peanuts.
Why? Because whole foods is snake oil, just like their homeopathic medicine aisle.
That said, I don't get why there's all of this love for a company that actively rips you off (whole foods) and all kinds of animosity towards one that is only guilty of making things too affordable for the poor (walmart.)
You have to be biased against walmart to feel that way. It's just like any other supermarket. Maybe whole foods makes you feel better because they give you the impression that what you're eating there is healthier (spoiler: It's not. I've worked for a major food distributor and we sold them the same stuff we sold walmart when they ordered the same category of items.) The only difference is whole foods refuses to carry certain foods citing health concerns (though there's no actual scientific basis behind their ban list) and they charge you about four times as much. But if paying four times as much makes people feel better, then to each his own I say.
Anyways, two major reasons I don't buy from walmart most of the time:
- Amazon usually has better prices and the selection is much bigger. - Walmart rather annoyingly doesn't honor their own website's prices in store. If you want their online price, you have to buy it online and then wait a few hours to pick it up in store.
That said, I could see myself springing for Walmart instead of Amazon if they did something like this:
- Greatly expand product selection - Day after or second day after delivery of your item to the local store - No "prime" style subscription required (I only use mine for the free shipping and nothing else, I have never really liked prime video or any of the other services.)
I think the most annoying thing about communists is they have these grand ideas that they think everybody will just magically adopt once they see it. Except even when people do see it and do adopt it, they always realize just how crappy it actually is. A perfect example of this is groups like the Icarians that eventually just disbanded once they realized that not everybody puts the same commitment into their work, and thus rewarding different people differently is not only justified, but necessary. However since communism offers no means of that (remember, equality is basically forced) then the more productive people eventually get fed up with it and want to leave.
With groups like the Icarians, leaving is easy. However in the case of a nation, when talented people leave, the country falls into chaos, so they need to build Berlin walls, and pretend that it's to keep bad people out, when in reality it's to keep good people from escaping.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of the politics in this, are they saying the systemd people are rude, or that they just refuse to make their code compatible?
Also with regard to systemd, I really do like distros that have it in my virtual machines because I can do a full reboot in seconds, whereas other distros take much longer. This is just flat out awesome for reducing lost time during maintenance when something doesn't go as planned.
Is there a particular reason we can't have something like that AND comply with the "do one thing and do it well" rule? I'm not familiar enough with the low level stuff.
Actually PBS asserts copyright on everything it owns, and they make a LOT of money off of DVD and streaming licenses. Don't assume that nonprofit means that its owners don't make a profit.
I personally use Windows EFS on my entire c:\user\myname folder, and that whole folder is backed up to a zero knowledge storage provider. I do this for my desktop and laptop.
Unless you save documents outside of that folder (which by default, 99% of all applications store it somewhere in that folder) then it's not likely to be retrievable.
AFAIK, Windows EFS uses AES-256 as a block cipher, with RSA-2048 or ECC-256 for key escrow (you can do up to RSA-16,384, or ECC-512.) AFAIK not even the NSA is able to crack either of those. The weakest link would be your password, with shorter passwords being easy to break (complexity, i.e. mix of case, special characters, numbers, isn't anywhere near as important as length) so use one that's 15 characters or longer.
How affected have you been by serial killers? The chance of you dieing in a car accident is hugely larger than you getting killed by a serial killer.
I'm sure it is.
But hey, sure, spend money on fixing a non-existing/-affecting problem that gets you in the news instead of fixing real issues.
It's a lot better than spending even more money to not only take the effort to amend the constitution, but assuming it even passes, you're looking at drug war costs times 10 just to round up everybody's firearms, only instead of being able to ignore the violence because it's in Mexico, it's going to be here instead.
I honestly am starting to think this whole thing is mostly being false flagged by the professional victims.
For example, from what I gather, this had nothing at all to do with GamerGate until Brianna Wu started bitching about it after it was announced. But that's not surprising, considering that Brianna Wu has been caught red handed and on multiple occasions creating sockpuppet accounts to harass herself with, and then blaming it on GamerGate supporters. Though that's not even the worst part, the worst part is that Brianna made a big media shit about how she was forced to leave home over the threats, meanwhile, while she was away from home, she started posting video blogs to youtube that had the same kind of background and architectural features as always, suggesting that the whole thing was made up. And then of course there's evidence to suggest that her and Anita Sarkeesian argue among themselves about who is being harassed the most.
There's a wiki that has gathered evidence to prove all of this too: https://lolcow.wiki/wiki/Brian...
MS office is only really feature complete on the Windows desktop client. Even the mac version is missing features (though you gotta be a hardcore word/excel user to miss those features.)
Only there isn't any evidence to suggest that it does work elsewhere. There are many countries besides the US with even more liberal freedom for arms, yet the number of crimes involving them isn't anywhere near as high.
Besides that, serial killers in particular uncommonly use any type of firearm, as they tend to prefer means of execution that are up close and personal. The US also has the highest number of serial killers, with England (where even cooking knives are restricted) being in second place.
Regardless of whether or not somebody is a mass shooter or a serial killer (these are NOT the same, by the way) they already have to have a mindset that they absolutely hate the people that they are targeting, much in the same as serial rapists have to absolutely hate women (i.e. a regular person isn't normally capable of being a rapist.)
It would definitely help if we could figure out why people are more inclined to be like this in the US, and take steps to reverse that, rather than spending a crapload of energy trying to do something that's not only impractical, but not likely to solve any problems..
I think I'm going to go against the grain here because what Google is planning is exactly what people have been asking for recently. And you know what? I agree, at least, in the context of the US anyways.
As many are aware, the US has quite a higher number of serial killers than most countries, in addition to mass murderers. Lots of people are suggesting that revoking the second amendment is the solution, but not only is that going to be a wasted effort (you wouldn't even be able to get a portion of congress to be on board, and even then, an act of congress just isn't enough) but it likely won't solve any problems.
That said, it would be wise if we could better understand what motivates most people to do this when they do it, and address it from that angle. I think this would go a long way towards that end.
Well they didn't need to mock them anyways. It's already been done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not particularly rich, but my employer offered health care plan is going to cover my kidney transplant operation at 100% (no deductible payment required, regardless of whether or not I've used it already.)
I feel bad for Chinese people, because the condition that caused what I have (IgA Nephropathy) is by far more common there, and due to a cultural quirk (the belief that the body needs to be buried whole,) practically nobody actually donates organs. The only option there is to pay a donor under the table, which with or without coverage you're looking at easily six figures worth of expense.
So at least in China, you really do indeed need to be rich, and you will pay out of pocket. And what's worse, is that your donor barely gets enough money to buy crappy Apple products.
That doesn't answer anything. It would make sense if the driver wasn't feature complete (i.e. support for x, y, and z is missing) however it doesn't explain why the performance is bad, unless the code optimization is just non-existent.
it doesn't mean they didn't fully intend to pay and could before that layoff, heart attack, natural disaster, etc.
That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is they need to have a solid plan for paying back what they borrowed before they even borrowed it. In the case of credit cards, it's simple: Pay it back as you go. The only way somebody would be unable to do that is, quite simply, if they're spending more than they earn, also called living beyond your means.
If they weren't living beyond their means, then the disaster scenario wouldn't be a problem.
Something I don't understand (I'm no a kernel developer) is why, given that AMD released the complete register reference for the cards, can't the open source driver compete with the proprietary one?
As for people who actually DO owe a debt, many of them took it on in good faith but then unforeseen circumstances left them unable to pay. Harassing them won't make the money appear.
Many is a relative term; I doubt it's a lot. How many advertisements (usually scams) do you see where people advertise "get out of debt" services? There's quite a lot of them, and it usually involves credit card debt (because that's the only debt they can manage, assuming it is legitimate.) The proper way to handle a credit card is to already have the cash available before you make the purchase, NOT just assuming that your next few paychecks will take care of it. Three reasons:
1) Interest will kill you
2) You build good credit for a future necessary home loan (and yes, in spite of popular myth, not paying interest does yield good credit; I did exactly this to get an 820 credit score)
3) You directly profit from usage rewards (in my case, 1.5% cash back on all purchases.)
Well normally when I'm not working I just rely on savings to get by. However in that particular case, I took room and board as a roommate for $300 a month (which is easy to find in any area that is at or below the average national cost of living.) My unemployment check was enough to cover that, and it lasted about a year. I also had food stamps and AHCCCS at the time. And yes, I was able to completely (and easily) feed myself off of the amount provided by food stamps (I can only guess that people who can't live in a high cost area.)
Not long after that (while I did have an income, albeit small) my college pell grant (which basically anybody with a shit income can qualify for, unless you've had a history of failing classes) actually paid more than the cost of tuition and books, and I got to keep the overflow money as cash. Though I somewhat cheated the system by often pirating the textbooks, which I don't feel guilty about considering how much they cost, and even when I did buy the books, I would often be able to sell them for almost what they cost (namely, buying used on amazon and exchanging it back for a gift card for almost the same amount as the purchase price.)
That depends on the car. Any NEW car is certainly a luxury item (personally I've always had nice cars and never once have I owned a new one.)
A few months ago I personally sold my 2003 Buick Regal for about $2,000. Really nice car but I wanted more, so I bought a used 2013 Toyota Camry with all possible options and 40,000 miles for $10,000 cash. See the difference? Both are cars, both run great, but one looks nicer and accelerates faster.
While I understand how overbearing debt collectors can be (I once had one bugging me for a medical expense that I didn't even know I had for anesthesia, which was just a portion of the bill that nobody bothered to tell me that I owed until it was already in collections,) and I've also been financially poor (i.e. having only $200 to my name at one point while also having no job) I personally am unable to fathom how so many people can borrow so heavily without taking the time to consider how they might eventually pay this money back.
Even in the worst of financial situations, there are alternatives to borrowing (i.e. welfare.) Though from what I've seen, most people who borrow large amounts are counting their eggs before they hatch, and buying luxury items with money that they don't even have, and then when the shit hits the fan they wonder why everybody is giving them such a hard time.
Anyways if your friend is really that bad, tell her to do the right thing and file for chapter 7, (and yes I think bankruptcy is the right thing in such a situation, even though I've never done it) and learn from that and don't ever go into debt again that way the debt collectors stay away.
So far everywhere I've used the chip in my new EMV card, I first handed it to the cashier and they tried to swipe, and it denied it saying I had to use the chip, which every single time has been facing downward and towards me, somewhat out of view of anybody (or anything) besides myself.
Everywhere I've done this, this has been the case at any rate, which includes every walmart, every restaurant, etc. I don't know if that's the standard, but it wouldn't surprise me if the terms of the merchant agreement required it.
Besides, I really *really* doubt somebody would bother with using a camera. The odds of you getting all of the relevant info (which includes the CVV number on the back) is unlikely, and would probably take more time and money to set up than it's worth. Especially when you consider that the only cases where they do an actual investigation on credit card fraud, they look for a bunch of customers that have happened to shop at the same place, and then begin investigating that establishment.
Even if they did get your credit card information, what will it cost you? Oh that's right, the inconvenience of being without your credit card for a week while they send you a new one, because your bank (like most banks) offers zero fraud liability (unless you have truly shitty credit.)
I'm sorry but you don't seem to have an education. Here, let me help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Unless the government (or an otherwise governing body) is setting rules as far as how much you will produce and how much you will sell it for, then you have a free market economy. That describes practically every transaction that occurs in the US.
Government owns parts of the means of production on all levels, local, city, state, and federal. City owned production of water, State owned medical services and insurance, Federally owned and directed highway system, etc..
Actually in most cases this is government entities purchasing from the private sector. For example, the government doesn't actually build highways, they pay contractors to do it.
But yeah, I'll grant you that in some cases the government does own the means of production here, but it's a very tiny portion of the economy.
Facts contradict your belief. For example, about 40% of our national spending is done by the government, so that part isn't "pure free market"
Umm...I don't think you understand what the government not owning the means of production actually means. Let me help a bit: The government spending you're talking about is mostly from the government purchasing from the private sector. Let's take the military for example; they spend a lot of money buying aircraft from Boeing. The F-35 for example is the government giving a lot of money to contractors and their subcontractors.
Health insurance, health care, auto insurance, and home insurance are also highly regulated, and people are not permitted to engage in free market transactions.
Ok, please re-read what a free market is. A free market means the prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand. The government doesn't set prices on any of these. Here, I'll even give you a wikipedia reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Both businesses and landlord face strong restrictions on who they can and cannot do business with.
You're talking about EEO type laws, and no, the government isn't setting prices. Let me quote again:
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Our banking and financial system is highly regulated, with many forms of financial transactions simply being illegal, and borrowing and lending tightly regulated and controlled.
The government isn't setting prices....I don't know if I'm getting through to you yet...
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing
Also, do not confuse people who pretend to be socialists with actual socialists. Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, and neither are most of the other people who call themselves "socialist" in the US or Europe. People who pretend to be "socialists" in US politics are really just lobbying groups like any other, wanting to take away money from some people and give it to themselves and their friends.
I don't think I did? And I think Bernie Sanders is insane because he advocates a 90% tax rate, just after a 75% tax rate proved to be a disaster for France.
The reason they can make things affordable to poor people is because they're creating poor people.
Walmart creates poor people how? Let me guess, because they sell things at a low price? Or because they pay their employees minimum wage?
Guess what? Everybody retailer does that, and has done that since before walmart even existed. Not only that, but wealth isn't defined by income or money. Wealth is defined by the material goods you own. When material goods become cheaper, then more people can have them, thus society as a whole gets wealthier.
Don't believe me? Well take a look at a few things you take for granted today: In the early days of refrigeration, only wealthy people had them. Now everybody does. In the early days of automobiles, only wealthy people had them, and they were crap compared to what poor people can buy today. Same can be said of big screen TVs, car phones (in fact, what we have no is infinitely better than a car phone), personal computers, microwave ovens, etc.
These are the things that make up wealth, and every single thing I mentioned today is affordable by the poor, (and indeed, it's common for the poor to own all of the above) which is thanks to companies like walmart whose goal is to make them more affordable.
Oh but let me guess, you're defining poor by how much their income is, right? Of course you are, because you said poverty, which is a government defined term based entirely on income and ignores wealth. Guess what though? That goalpost has been moving up and up for a long time, and you could live in a mansion and own a nice sports car and have a massive savings but make zero per year, and the government labels you as living in poverty, which qualifies you for medicaid in spite of your assets.
Also I'll have to say, if you think that just because there's health and safety standards in place that everyone follows them equally go spend one day on any manufacturing floor for any company.
I don't need to, I've spent a long time in one.
All these standards and regulations basically entail is "once a year or so we'll come by your workplace and ask the quality people if they're following procedures." ISO 9001 is the biggest joke I've ever seen. It's about as hard as an open book test that you have 2 months to prepare for.
Uh, no, it's more often than that. I did routine IT work at a meat plant for example and they wouldn't so much as let me walk through the warehouse without a hair and beard net (and of course, carrying any kind of food and water through it was also absolutely forbidden.) Every single day they sprayed all of the walls with highly pressurized soapy water, which was the challenge because we had networking gear and computers on said walls.
Why did they go through such extremes? Because every few months there would be a surprise USDA inspection.
Actually walmart's safety standards are a notch above the typical health food store in that they won't carry organic alfalfa sprouts due to the high incidence of e.coli contamination. Meanwhile places like whole foods carry them anyways; in fact whole foods prominently offers a full page of suggestions on what to make with them.
And indeed, it is walmart who is correct here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
And at the same time, whole foods maintains a "ban list" of ingredients not allowed to be sold in their stores, only these ingredients are not proven to be harmful. For example, they ban glutamates. The reason for that is because some people claim to be allergic to them, but no allergy claim has ever been empirically proven. However whole foods happily carries foods that are known to be such strong allergens that even a trace amount can outright kill some people; specifically, peanuts.
Why? Because whole foods is snake oil, just like their homeopathic medicine aisle.
That said, I don't get why there's all of this love for a company that actively rips you off (whole foods) and all kinds of animosity towards one that is only guilty of making things too affordable for the poor (walmart.)
You have to be biased against walmart to feel that way. It's just like any other supermarket. Maybe whole foods makes you feel better because they give you the impression that what you're eating there is healthier (spoiler: It's not. I've worked for a major food distributor and we sold them the same stuff we sold walmart when they ordered the same category of items.) The only difference is whole foods refuses to carry certain foods citing health concerns (though there's no actual scientific basis behind their ban list) and they charge you about four times as much. But if paying four times as much makes people feel better, then to each his own I say.
Anyways, two major reasons I don't buy from walmart most of the time:
- Amazon usually has better prices and the selection is much bigger.
- Walmart rather annoyingly doesn't honor their own website's prices in store. If you want their online price, you have to buy it online and then wait a few hours to pick it up in store.
That said, I could see myself springing for Walmart instead of Amazon if they did something like this:
- Greatly expand product selection
- Day after or second day after delivery of your item to the local store
- No "prime" style subscription required (I only use mine for the free shipping and nothing else, I have never really liked prime video or any of the other services.)
I think the most annoying thing about communists is they have these grand ideas that they think everybody will just magically adopt once they see it. Except even when people do see it and do adopt it, they always realize just how crappy it actually is. A perfect example of this is groups like the Icarians that eventually just disbanded once they realized that not everybody puts the same commitment into their work, and thus rewarding different people differently is not only justified, but necessary. However since communism offers no means of that (remember, equality is basically forced) then the more productive people eventually get fed up with it and want to leave.
With groups like the Icarians, leaving is easy. However in the case of a nation, when talented people leave, the country falls into chaos, so they need to build Berlin walls, and pretend that it's to keep bad people out, when in reality it's to keep good people from escaping.