My sister watched the supervisor run her backpack through the xray 3 times before the screener notice the pen knife in it
I was on a flight last month and forgot that I had my toilet bag in my carry on (deodorant aerosols are banned).
We get to the xray and the security monkey notices the can in the xray, grabs the bag next to mine by mistake and holds that guy up searching his bag for a non-existent item while I walk off laughing. I walked far enough away to merge into the crowd and observed the confused looks as they came up empty handed, but re-xrayed his bag a few times just in case.
Airport security is a joke and needs to be exposed as such.
The other option is to mass-pollute the data. Create an App that sends off dummy web requests from your device so that no matter who is tracking, their data is useless.
Not overkill if scaled correctly. The concept of the Phalanx could be scaled down to BB sized projectiles, enough to take out a drone but not incur too much collateral damage.
Maybe enforce the laws on the books first, else we might think this is yet another political power grab.
Er, that's the point. To enforce the law properly you need suitable counter-measure.
Did you actually read anything in the article or summary, or did you just jump at the first opportunity to be anti-establishment?
Why does anyone care about these credit scores?
I bought a house and simply use that for any personal loans for the rest of my life. No more applications, no credit scores, no fess or high interest.
Buy a new car, add it to the mortgage
Go on holiday, put it on the mortgage
Of course I budget properly and only spend what I can afford to pay back, but I haven't need needed, nor will need another loan ever again. Ever. Now I can get wasted as much as I like...
For example, in the US African Americans are on average lower income than whites,so it it is likely that average they are less able to repay debts.
Why is that? If the loan amount was the same that may be true, but there's no reason why a less wealthy person can't repay a similarly small loan, any more or less than a wealthy person with a huge loan.
Rich people go broke too.
Well the cab line was something to behold. Hundreds of early 80's Toyota crowns
The taxis are like London cabs, new cars but of a classic design.
The older boxy shape is a lot more practical than modern raked pillars that prevent ease of access.
But I don't get it. The main arguments I hear against gun control is Regulations! Communism! etc...
If you can agree the regulation of drones makes sense, how can you not see the same argument for some form of weapon regulation?
So when you say "modern western democracy" do you mean the US and Canada? Or do you mean the hand picked countries in your head that have lower gun violence?
I don't use El Salvador and Honduras, that is for sure.
Maybe we went to different schools, but where I'm from, "the west" generally refers to North Western Europe (Germany, France, Denmark, UK, Scandinavia etc), and by extension, the US, Canada, Australia and NZ. You know, the modern and advanced countries that have the highest standards of living, education and health. You know, the ones we all aim to be.
Maybe our difference in education taught us different things, but where I'm from we compare ourselves against the best and try to compete at the same level
I can only guess that the US figures are so bad that cognitive dissonance is at play, and all you come up with crazy excuses like " But El Salvador!".
Seriously, you think the US gun violence rate is quite fine because you beat El Salvador?
Why do you believe a bank manager deserves your interest payments? What amazing service does he offer to compensate for the rent you are paying him?
It's a free country. My bank offers me money for a fee, I choose to use that service or I don't. I so happen to chose it because it offers a net increase in value to my life (ie I am able to own a home now rather than save up for 30 years paying a landlord rent instead.)
If you are able to do simple maths, then the interest I pay my bank is less than the rent I would've paid a landlord over the same period. Hence my bank offers me a net savings over any alternative.
I'd much rather have the disposable income to invest in more productive ventures.
This is Economics 101. Opportunity costs etc.
If you don't understand the value of credit, even at a cost, then I can't help you.
They're also failing to realize that by running off people who want or need to drive into the city, they're going to end up choking off commerce.
Actually what is more likely to happen is that it will attract people who can adapt, and those who can't will whither away to a dark corner to moan about it.
The simple fact is that cars do not scale in large, dense cities. The only model that can work is pedestrian oriented with strong public transport options, so it makes sense to pursue this.
There are some basic facts that these nuts don't seems to understand...
Your example just sounds like poor planning. You can't magically convert a car-oriented town into a pedestrian one simply by reducing carparks and street access (as your example demonstrates). However if you design a city to be pedestrian/public transport oriented from the start, then it does work better (see plenty of examples in Europe and Asia where most people don't own cars).
I lived in Hong Kong for a short time. The underground rail was never much more than a few hundred metres away from anywhere, and trains ran every 2 minutes, 18 hours a day. I never needed, nor wanted a car, and frankly didn't like the idea of coming back to the car culture. Traffic and looking for car-parks kill me. I much prefer to just get where I need to get, on time. And in a large city only the combination of pedestrian oriented streets combined with an underground/elevated rail system can achieve this.
Now...where is the money going to come from to build and maintain these same roads for bicycles?
The same place it comes from now, taxes. Your country may be different, but where I live, car registration taxes and fuel levies go into consolidated revenue, along with everything else. Roads are paid for from this pool of money.
Maintenance is trivial because concrete can handles light loads easily. There's a reason the Roman roads are still around 2 thousand years later, they didn't let heavy trucks drive on them and ruin them.
Er did you not read the above. Both per person, and per unit of distance traveled result in the same conclusion. More Americans die on the roads than Europeans.
What I find interesting about this thread is that Americans think they are better for no other reason than "fuck yeah USA #1!!!". This is attitude seems to be common, why is that?
Eventually the cost of all taxes falls upon "all of us" meaning the least able to pay taxes, pay the most. Always.
That's not true. Generally, the rich avoid taxes through schemes, the poor avoid taxes because they have no money, so it's the middle classes that end up paying the lion's share.
Haven't countries tried this all over the globe ever since Marx put out his manifesto? If you pay the most productive workers the same as the least productive.
Who said anyone was less productive? By paying the cleaner $70k you get the most productive cleaner in the country working for you. If the incumbent ain't that guy, you replace him until you do have your guy. By offering $70k you ensure you get the best of the best applying for roles.
I never read anywhere where he said he wouldn't sack any lazy workers.
My problem with these discussions is that people on both sides talk about "spending" as if all spending is fungible. In my experience it's not. Some things are smart to spend money on, other things are stupid to spend money on;
The problem is who decides?
I agree with your premise, but yet to hear of any meaningful way to control this. As soon as you setup some committee for sensible spending, you open the door for stupid and corrupt spending. It's a self-defeating action. Spend and hope may not sound robust, but so far it seems to work out ok.
Mod up. Australia is a shining example (again) of how to survive the GFC. The govt at the time saw the crash coming so decided to sacrifice billions in stimulus to try and sure up the economy. It worked, and Australia is currently entering it's 25th year in a row without a recession.
I HATE that people expect to be raised up equally every time we try to lift the floor up a few inches for those on the bottom. It shouldnt matter what your coworker makes as long as you have enough in your bowl.
Heard an interesting whatif dinner party starter one time:
Would you prefer to earn $70k/year and everyone else earn $50k, or earn $100k/year and everyone else earn $150k?
It shouldn't make a difference, but it does.
You are probably getting caught up in exchange rate conversions which don't really apply when you live and work in the one country.
For example, the AUD to USD moved from 50c to parity within the space of two years, and is now back down to about 70c. It's not like Australians experienced a doubling (or halving) of their pay during that time.
Also don't get caught up with titles. Pay rates vary greatly depending on skills, experience and industry. An IT Manager in a small distribution firm who is relatively junior and hands-on might get $80k, while an IT Manager with strategic input in a larger financial firm could be on $200k.
Slashdot Mirror
And flying a plane is? Sure it happened once but nothing the TSA is doing changes that either.
Certainly we do want there to be some security screening,
Do we? I never get screened going on the bus or train, what is different?
My sister watched the supervisor run her backpack through the xray 3 times before the screener notice the pen knife in it
I was on a flight last month and forgot that I had my toilet bag in my carry on (deodorant aerosols are banned).
We get to the xray and the security monkey notices the can in the xray, grabs the bag next to mine by mistake and holds that guy up searching his bag for a non-existent item while I walk off laughing. I walked far enough away to merge into the crowd and observed the confused looks as they came up empty handed, but re-xrayed his bag a few times just in case.
Airport security is a joke and needs to be exposed as such.
The other option is to mass-pollute the data. Create an App that sends off dummy web requests from your device so that no matter who is tracking, their data is useless.
Not overkill if scaled correctly. The concept of the Phalanx could be scaled down to BB sized projectiles, enough to take out a drone but not incur too much collateral damage.
Maybe enforce the laws on the books first, else we might think this is yet another political power grab.
Er, that's the point. To enforce the law properly you need suitable counter-measure.
Did you actually read anything in the article or summary, or did you just jump at the first opportunity to be anti-establishment?
Why does anyone care about these credit scores?
I bought a house and simply use that for any personal loans for the rest of my life. No more applications, no credit scores, no fess or high interest.
Buy a new car, add it to the mortgage
Go on holiday, put it on the mortgage
Of course I budget properly and only spend what I can afford to pay back, but I haven't need needed, nor will need another loan ever again. Ever. Now I can get wasted as much as I like...
For example, in the US African Americans are on average lower income than whites,so it it is likely that average they are less able to repay debts.
Why is that? If the loan amount was the same that may be true, but there's no reason why a less wealthy person can't repay a similarly small loan, any more or less than a wealthy person with a huge loan.
Rich people go broke too.
Well the cab line was something to behold. Hundreds of early 80's Toyota crowns
The taxis are like London cabs, new cars but of a classic design.
The older boxy shape is a lot more practical than modern raked pillars that prevent ease of access.
But I don't get it. The main arguments I hear against gun control is Regulations! Communism! etc...
If you can agree the regulation of drones makes sense, how can you not see the same argument for some form of weapon regulation?
I can't figure out how to link it, but search the comments from Tx above yours. They posted the per km stats and they were equally poor.
So when you say "modern western democracy" do you mean the US and Canada? Or do you mean the hand picked countries in your head that have lower gun violence?
I don't use El Salvador and Honduras, that is for sure.
Maybe we went to different schools, but where I'm from, "the west" generally refers to North Western Europe (Germany, France, Denmark, UK, Scandinavia etc), and by extension, the US, Canada, Australia and NZ. You know, the modern and advanced countries that have the highest standards of living, education and health. You know, the ones we all aim to be.
Maybe our difference in education taught us different things, but where I'm from we compare ourselves against the best and try to compete at the same level
I can only guess that the US figures are so bad that cognitive dissonance is at play, and all you come up with crazy excuses like " But El Salvador!".
Seriously, you think the US gun violence rate is quite fine because you beat El Salvador?
Why do you believe a bank manager deserves your interest payments? What amazing service does he offer to compensate for the rent you are paying him?
It's a free country. My bank offers me money for a fee, I choose to use that service or I don't. I so happen to chose it because it offers a net increase in value to my life (ie I am able to own a home now rather than save up for 30 years paying a landlord rent instead.)
If you are able to do simple maths, then the interest I pay my bank is less than the rent I would've paid a landlord over the same period. Hence my bank offers me a net savings over any alternative.
I'd much rather have the disposable income to invest in more productive ventures.
This is Economics 101. Opportunity costs etc.
If you don't understand the value of credit, even at a cost, then I can't help you.
They're also failing to realize that by running off people who want or need to drive into the city, they're going to end up choking off commerce.
Actually what is more likely to happen is that it will attract people who can adapt, and those who can't will whither away to a dark corner to moan about it.
The simple fact is that cars do not scale in large, dense cities. The only model that can work is pedestrian oriented with strong public transport options, so it makes sense to pursue this.
There are some basic facts that these nuts don't seems to understand...
Your example just sounds like poor planning. You can't magically convert a car-oriented town into a pedestrian one simply by reducing carparks and street access (as your example demonstrates). However if you design a city to be pedestrian/public transport oriented from the start, then it does work better (see plenty of examples in Europe and Asia where most people don't own cars).
I lived in Hong Kong for a short time. The underground rail was never much more than a few hundred metres away from anywhere, and trains ran every 2 minutes, 18 hours a day. I never needed, nor wanted a car, and frankly didn't like the idea of coming back to the car culture. Traffic and looking for car-parks kill me. I much prefer to just get where I need to get, on time. And in a large city only the combination of pedestrian oriented streets combined with an underground/elevated rail system can achieve this.
Now...where is the money going to come from to build and maintain these same roads for bicycles?
The same place it comes from now, taxes. Your country may be different, but where I live, car registration taxes and fuel levies go into consolidated revenue, along with everything else. Roads are paid for from this pool of money.
Maintenance is trivial because concrete can handles light loads easily. There's a reason the Roman roads are still around 2 thousand years later, they didn't let heavy trucks drive on them and ruin them.
Isn't the right to drive cars written in The Constitution somewhere? Freedom to not wear helmets or seat-belts etc?
Er did you not read the above. Both per person, and per unit of distance traveled result in the same conclusion. More Americans die on the roads than Europeans.
What I find interesting about this thread is that Americans think they are better for no other reason than "fuck yeah USA #1!!!". This is attitude seems to be common, why is that?
Eventually the cost of all taxes falls upon "all of us" meaning the least able to pay taxes, pay the most. Always.
That's not true. Generally, the rich avoid taxes through schemes, the poor avoid taxes because they have no money, so it's the middle classes that end up paying the lion's share.
Haven't countries tried this all over the globe ever since Marx put out his manifesto? If you pay the most productive workers the same as the least productive.
Who said anyone was less productive? By paying the cleaner $70k you get the most productive cleaner in the country working for you. If the incumbent ain't that guy, you replace him until you do have your guy. By offering $70k you ensure you get the best of the best applying for roles.
I never read anywhere where he said he wouldn't sack any lazy workers.
My problem with these discussions is that people on both sides talk about "spending" as if all spending is fungible. In my experience it's not. Some things are smart to spend money on, other things are stupid to spend money on;
The problem is who decides?
I agree with your premise, but yet to hear of any meaningful way to control this. As soon as you setup some committee for sensible spending, you open the door for stupid and corrupt spending. It's a self-defeating action. Spend and hope may not sound robust, but so far it seems to work out ok.
Mod up. Australia is a shining example (again) of how to survive the GFC. The govt at the time saw the crash coming so decided to sacrifice billions in stimulus to try and sure up the economy. It worked, and Australia is currently entering it's 25th year in a row without a recession.
Wan't to fix the economy? We have to deal with our mountain of debt, without trying to pay it all back.
Why?
As long as your income can service the debt their is no reason to pay it off.
Zero debt is not an efficient use of resources.
I HATE that people expect to be raised up equally every time we try to lift the floor up a few inches for those on the bottom. It shouldnt matter what your coworker makes as long as you have enough in your bowl.
Heard an interesting whatif dinner party starter one time:
Would you prefer to earn $70k/year and everyone else earn $50k, or earn $100k/year and everyone else earn $150k?
It shouldn't make a difference, but it does.
You are probably getting caught up in exchange rate conversions which don't really apply when you live and work in the one country.
For example, the AUD to USD moved from 50c to parity within the space of two years, and is now back down to about 70c. It's not like Australians experienced a doubling (or halving) of their pay during that time.
Also don't get caught up with titles. Pay rates vary greatly depending on skills, experience and industry. An IT Manager in a small distribution firm who is relatively junior and hands-on might get $80k, while an IT Manager with strategic input in a larger financial firm could be on $200k.