It's true only for very small children. Once they hit about 14 years old, guns become much more dangerous than pools.
https://respecttheblankie.com/...
Removing it from certain people's inboxes would not be destruction of evidence as long as Facebook still has the records. Now it's harder to get that evidence (need a subpoena that can be fought), but just adding a visibility flag to the data does not destroy any evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm anal.
The point of cruise control is (a) ergonomic improvement so you don't have to constantly apply pressure to the gas pedal, (b) to allow the driver to spend less time looking at the speedometer and more time scanning ahead for obstacles and (c) cruise control tends to maintain speed a bit more accurately than a human driver when it's a long-distance trip. (Although human do better over shorter-distances).
Who are those customers? I'm guessing they are consumer content sippers. There's nothing wrong with catering to that market. But there's also nothing wrong with recognizing that people doing more serious work don't want touch screens. If you are actually creating things (Software, digital art, et cetera), your laptop is plugged into a docking station and you have a large non-touchscreen monitor most of the time and the touchscreen has negative value.
Why the heck is this modded to zero? Really anybody who uses their laptop for anything other than content sipping wants a clean screen. And if all you want to do is content sip you can buy a tablet. Touch screens on laptops look cool in demos and have practically zero real value.
Well it depends on what you mean by not doing anything. There are *many* things that they can do and should have done up through and including campaigning for Democrats or at least third-party candidates. What they can't do is "do anything" without making principled choices at personal cost.
Apparently the/. crowd seems to think that facts and conservative are incompatible entities. Every post that makes the same point as yours (including my own) got modded down. Modern life is hard because facts tend to emerge quite aggressively and you have to work hard to suppress them. Republicans and businesses used to be aligned. But I don't see how this can continue. Business leaders thrive on accurate information. Otherwise their companies go out of business. Unfortunately countries don't go out of business. They just become shitty places to live.
Well the alternative is to have no set of facts and then you get "alternative facts." And what happen then? You do stupid things, that's what. Just because I don't believe in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This line of logic on the right makes no sense. There are some facts that hare hard to discern. But in the vast majority of cases, we know the answers.
If it means that Republican neo-conservative disinformation gets removed, this will be a good thing. I get downmodded for saying this (that's okay, I have karma to spare), but we don't have very many credible conservative voices in this country. The current strategy on the right is to sacrifice long-term credibility to win short-term elections. (Yes it happens on the left too, but not to the same extent.) Combined with willingness to demonize various demographic groups, calling Republicans conservatives really does a disservice to ever advancing any meaningful conservative agenda.
Republicans demonize welfare recipients. Conservatives are interested in avoiding an unsustainable social safety net. Republicans demonize those who use their unemployment insurance (even though they paid the premiums). Conservatives recognize that the size of the workforce needed varies over time and want to ensure that there are reserve workers out there. Republicans want to eliminate cash benefits because they want to penalize the poor. Conservatives want to eliminate them in order to reduce diversion to illegal drugs.
Republicans want to see people of Mexican descent harassed everywhere they go just because they're Mesican. Conservatives want a supply of cheap labor.
You could go on and on with this list. There are good arguments to make for conservative positions but none of them are being put forward right now. We don't *have* conservative news. We have Republican disinformation. So yeah if that can be forced aside so that conservatives can start having a platform for reasonable arguments, this would be good for everybody.
Quality issues seems to have a new definition. There was a time when you got 50-100k miles out of a car and it was ready for the scrapyard. They were considered "good" quality. Now if you get only 250k, it's considered "bad" quality. Or even if you get 500k but maybe the breaks squeaked a little when the car was new and an interior lamp switch fell off after only 50k miles then it would be considered "bad" quality. In reality, cars are now so good that it's getting harder to sell new ones. People can just drive what they have for the foreseeable future.
Although I don't think that Musk will be putting in more of his $20B, he's got plenty of billionaire friends and lots of people see the value in Tesla. The company (and potential) certainly will survive even if they have to go through a round of bankruptcy. The *current* investors may lose their shirts, but somebody will buy the bankrupt company, raise fresh cash, and keep going. There's too much potential here to ignore.
I was with you until you said same quality as Tesla. Ford has plenty of issues, but their vehicle quality is quite good these days. The established players have really gotten their manufacturing to the point where they are within amazing tolerances. Now maybe some of the cars are boring, but they are quite well made and durable.
Huh? They paid only 6.6B for Toys'R'Us. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/1... Show me an example of a private-equity purchase of a non-struggling company. When companies are doing well, especially public companies, they tend to resist sales. You're right about things like loading up with debt and all of the problem that come with a private equity purchase. But no company ever has a private equity sale as their 'exit' strategy. It's what you do when your business isn't healthy. Now I realize that 6.6B is a lot of money but its 1/10th the market capitalization of Target. and about 1/20th that of Amazon. Leveraged buyouts are (no surprise) structured so that the PE firm makes money regardless of how well the underlying business does. Otherwise why would you purchase a struggling business?!
No you are pants on fire lying because this is something that can be Googled.
The growth in our Shipping and Packages business provided some help to the financial picture of the Postal Service as revenue increased $2.1 billion, or 11.8 percent. However, that growth was offset in our financials by the decline in mail volumes discussed above, as well as a $1.1 billion 2016 noncash change in accounting estimate and the 2016 roll-back of the exigent surcharge mandated by the Postal Regulatory Commission which further reduced revenue by $1.1 billion from what it otherwise would have been.
https://about.usps.com/news/na...
George Bush (who wasn't known for being bright) understood why this was a problem. He was once asked about what he had with him and he mentioned only a few dollars in cash and a Timex watch. Then he paused and apologized for mentioning a brand by name. Kelly Ann Conway (the white house mascot) was recently reprimanded for endorsing a product. So the current GOP president should know better but chooses not to because his supporters don't care about ethics.
Because they ship a lot from the same address. And that's half the battle.
The OP must have a low number of IQs. The *incremental* cost of delivering a package is small compared to the overhead. In this situation, it always makes sense to offer bulk discounts. And the post office offers them universally. There's no special deal for Amazon.
Letter carrying is shrinking (email) although EDDM (junk mail) and package delivery are growing. Letter carrying was never profitable. Packages and EDDM are So this seems like the post office is a pretty healthy business. This is the type of argument that might fly on Fox News but falls flat on its face when critical thinking is injected into the conversation.
Citation? I Googled for this and found nothing. And your comment isn't indicative of understanding the problem. Normally companies *accrue* for future expenses. They don't have to actually *pre-pay* them. The financial difference between the two is huge. I see no evidence that the postal pre-pay requirement has been eliminated or even that there was an actuarial change to trivially lower it.
The reason they get bought up in Bain Capital style leveraged buy-outs is because the businesses were doing poorly due to competition from Amazon. Private Equity doesn't buy businesses that are doing well!
No they gave up. But Scotland Yard spent millions of pounds doing exactly that. Well they say that they gave up at least. Maybe that was a trick to get him to come out and they are still there. But yes, he should assume that they will arrest him the minute he walks out the door.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
Slashdot Mirror
It's true only for very small children. Once they hit about 14 years old, guns become much more dangerous than pools. https://respecttheblankie.com/...
Removing it from certain people's inboxes would not be destruction of evidence as long as Facebook still has the records. Now it's harder to get that evidence (need a subpoena that can be fought), but just adding a visibility flag to the data does not destroy any evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm anal.
The point of cruise control is (a) ergonomic improvement so you don't have to constantly apply pressure to the gas pedal, (b) to allow the driver to spend less time looking at the speedometer and more time scanning ahead for obstacles and (c) cruise control tends to maintain speed a bit more accurately than a human driver when it's a long-distance trip. (Although human do better over shorter-distances).
Do you have low karma or are Tesla fanbois just modding down all of the non-believers?
If it is a class-action, there is a lead plaintiff and attorneys who stand to become very rich. They won't give up.
Who are those customers? I'm guessing they are consumer content sippers. There's nothing wrong with catering to that market. But there's also nothing wrong with recognizing that people doing more serious work don't want touch screens. If you are actually creating things (Software, digital art, et cetera), your laptop is plugged into a docking station and you have a large non-touchscreen monitor most of the time and the touchscreen has negative value.
Why the heck is this modded to zero? Really anybody who uses their laptop for anything other than content sipping wants a clean screen. And if all you want to do is content sip you can buy a tablet. Touch screens on laptops look cool in demos and have practically zero real value.
I meant I have no idea why the coffee makers would try to avoid putting the warning! They should have just folded immediately.
Well it depends on what you mean by not doing anything. There are *many* things that they can do and should have done up through and including campaigning for Democrats or at least third-party candidates. What they can't do is "do anything" without making principled choices at personal cost.
Apparently the /. crowd seems to think that facts and conservative are incompatible entities. Every post that makes the same point as yours (including my own) got modded down. Modern life is hard because facts tend to emerge quite aggressively and you have to work hard to suppress them. Republicans and businesses used to be aligned. But I don't see how this can continue. Business leaders thrive on accurate information. Otherwise their companies go out of business. Unfortunately countries don't go out of business. They just become shitty places to live.
Well the alternative is to have no set of facts and then you get "alternative facts." And what happen then? You do stupid things, that's what. Just because I don't believe in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This line of logic on the right makes no sense. There are some facts that hare hard to discern. But in the vast majority of cases, we know the answers.
Republicans demonize welfare recipients. Conservatives are interested in avoiding an unsustainable social safety net. Republicans demonize those who use their unemployment insurance (even though they paid the premiums). Conservatives recognize that the size of the workforce needed varies over time and want to ensure that there are reserve workers out there. Republicans want to eliminate cash benefits because they want to penalize the poor. Conservatives want to eliminate them in order to reduce diversion to illegal drugs.
Republicans want to see people of Mexican descent harassed everywhere they go just because they're Mesican. Conservatives want a supply of cheap labor.
You could go on and on with this list. There are good arguments to make for conservative positions but none of them are being put forward right now. We don't *have* conservative news. We have Republican disinformation. So yeah if that can be forced aside so that conservatives can start having a platform for reasonable arguments, this would be good for everybody.
Quality issues seems to have a new definition. There was a time when you got 50-100k miles out of a car and it was ready for the scrapyard. They were considered "good" quality. Now if you get only 250k, it's considered "bad" quality. Or even if you get 500k but maybe the breaks squeaked a little when the car was new and an interior lamp switch fell off after only 50k miles then it would be considered "bad" quality. In reality, cars are now so good that it's getting harder to sell new ones. People can just drive what they have for the foreseeable future.
Although I don't think that Musk will be putting in more of his $20B, he's got plenty of billionaire friends and lots of people see the value in Tesla. The company (and potential) certainly will survive even if they have to go through a round of bankruptcy. The *current* investors may lose their shirts, but somebody will buy the bankrupt company, raise fresh cash, and keep going. There's too much potential here to ignore.
In case the question wasn't rhetorical, I assume that auto-pilot would detect that it can't properly maneuver the vehicle and disengage.
I was with you until you said same quality as Tesla. Ford has plenty of issues, but their vehicle quality is quite good these days. The established players have really gotten their manufacturing to the point where they are within amazing tolerances. Now maybe some of the cars are boring, but they are quite well made and durable.
I have no idea why anybody would even litigate this. I have yet to see a single thing there that doesn't have this warning.
Huh? They paid only 6.6B for Toys'R'Us. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/1... Show me an example of a private-equity purchase of a non-struggling company. When companies are doing well, especially public companies, they tend to resist sales. You're right about things like loading up with debt and all of the problem that come with a private equity purchase. But no company ever has a private equity sale as their 'exit' strategy. It's what you do when your business isn't healthy. Now I realize that 6.6B is a lot of money but its 1/10th the market capitalization of Target. and about 1/20th that of Amazon. Leveraged buyouts are (no surprise) structured so that the PE firm makes money regardless of how well the underlying business does. Otherwise why would you purchase a struggling business?!
No you are pants on fire lying because this is something that can be Googled. The growth in our Shipping and Packages business provided some help to the financial picture of the Postal Service as revenue increased $2.1 billion, or 11.8 percent. However, that growth was offset in our financials by the decline in mail volumes discussed above, as well as a $1.1 billion 2016 noncash change in accounting estimate and the 2016 roll-back of the exigent surcharge mandated by the Postal Regulatory Commission which further reduced revenue by $1.1 billion from what it otherwise would have been. https://about.usps.com/news/na...
George Bush (who wasn't known for being bright) understood why this was a problem. He was once asked about what he had with him and he mentioned only a few dollars in cash and a Timex watch. Then he paused and apologized for mentioning a brand by name. Kelly Ann Conway (the white house mascot) was recently reprimanded for endorsing a product. So the current GOP president should know better but chooses not to because his supporters don't care about ethics.
Because they ship a lot from the same address. And that's half the battle.
The OP must have a low number of IQs. The *incremental* cost of delivering a package is small compared to the overhead. In this situation, it always makes sense to offer bulk discounts. And the post office offers them universally. There's no special deal for Amazon.
Letter carrying is shrinking (email) although EDDM (junk mail) and package delivery are growing. Letter carrying was never profitable. Packages and EDDM are So this seems like the post office is a pretty healthy business. This is the type of argument that might fly on Fox News but falls flat on its face when critical thinking is injected into the conversation.
Citation? I Googled for this and found nothing. And your comment isn't indicative of understanding the problem. Normally companies *accrue* for future expenses. They don't have to actually *pre-pay* them. The financial difference between the two is huge. I see no evidence that the postal pre-pay requirement has been eliminated or even that there was an actuarial change to trivially lower it.
The reason they get bought up in Bain Capital style leveraged buy-outs is because the businesses were doing poorly due to competition from Amazon. Private Equity doesn't buy businesses that are doing well!
No they gave up. But Scotland Yard spent millions of pounds doing exactly that. Well they say that they gave up at least. Maybe that was a trick to get him to come out and they are still there. But yes, he should assume that they will arrest him the minute he walks out the door. https://www.theguardian.com/me...