So what you're saying is you handed over your information to these hacks to prove you weren't a criminal, rather than being presumed innocent from the start. And you consider having to prove you're not a criminal a good thing?
Actual, Pre is a side benefit from Global Entry. GE lets you bypass immigration by using a bio scanner as well as use a special customs lane. Years ago they had it for free from US - Canada; which was great during tourist season or when cruise ships docked..
And the safety issue isn't just from 400 lb dromes, it's from the smallest quad copter's that weigh mere ounces. If one of these gets ingested by, say, my helicopter's turbine engine, you'll now have a several thousand pound plummeting helicopter to contend with. I for one am not willing to take that safety risk with drones, whose only claim to fame is cheapness.
Very good point. I was thinking about drones flying below 400' where big (relative to drones) iron isn't flying.The issue is many people doing the crying about "evil government wanting to control information..." don't appreciate the very real safety concerns; especially in highly populated areas where such drones would be likely to be used simply because that is where news happens.
What the FAA needs to do is to codify the current AMA regulations as actual federal aviation regulations (FARs), which the FAA can do by publishing a "notice of proposed rulemaking" (NPRM) on which the general public can comment before regulations become effective. I personally think that drone-based journalism (and all other commercial drone operations) is incompatible with aviation safety, because drone pilots cannot comply with the FAA rules for air-traffic separation, which uses a "see and avoid" doctrine.
snip
Drones are an attractive idea to journalists, because they see them as a cheap means for covering and reporting reporting events. Certainly a lot cheaper than owning and operating a commercial human-piloted helicopter. But most journalists just don't get the safety issues. Until they do, they have no business trying to operate drones.
All very good points. The only issue I have with FAA making AMA rules law is once that happens the AMA either can no longer change it's rules easily since the law would still be the overriding requirement; nor can the FAA simply say follow AMA rules since that would put the actual rule making out of their hands. It seems technology is quickly overcoming what is a common sense way to let hobbyist fly without undue legal burdens and ensure airspace safety.
Another issue with news orbs using drones is that drones are really cheap compared with other ways of getting aerial photographs film. You'd wind up with more drones competing for airspace as they get the "best" shot; and as you rightly point out see and be seen is not really doable when flying a drone. A couple of 400lb objects deciding to make an uncontrolled descent into the ground at the same time would pose a significant danger to anyone in their path and that is what the issue is, not some government official trying to control the news.
Figured that,
I am a big believer in owning tools that work for you, not what someone thinks is right for you.
I have a colleague who has an iphone and I have an android. He told me he couldn't connect his iPhone to his work computer to transfer large files back and forth. I just assume it is not possible. We're not allowed to install itunes at work. When I plugged my android to my computer, it shows up as a drive on windows.
There are a number of third party solutions, although I wish Apple let is show up as a drive for access to stored files.
When I showed him the file manager on my android, he couldn't keep his mouth closed as if he saw the most sexy woman on the planet.
But I'm not sure this serves Google any better than dropping Android entirely and partnering with Apple.
The advantage for Google is they are partnering with a hardware oriented company. Google brings the software and infrastructure to the table and the two can leverage their individual strengths to build the total system. Unlike Apple which does both hw and sw, each has complementary strengths and are not dealing with a partner that may decide to go it alone later without a significant investment in capabilities.
Isn't it the single-vendor bake-in that led them to do Android in the first place?
True, they worried about Apple entering the search market if the iPhone became the predominant smartphone; and giving Android away was a tactic to get as many device manufacturers as possible to use it. Sort of like MS, they didn't care who succeeded as long as their OS was on it. Once a dominant player emerges, Google can strike a deal that benefits both, even if it is at the expense of other manufacturers..
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined
By the same metric: 1) Windows Server is absolutely killing Linux in the server market
2) IIS is absolutely trouncing Apache in the web server market
3) Visual Studio is the only winner in IDEs etc.
4) ???
5) Profit
If you chose profit as your measure then what you say could be true; but that was not my point. There are a number of ways to measure success in a market and which you use depends on your strategy. A small, but highly profitable, share may be better than a huge, but low margin, share. You really can't say one or the other is winning except in context of how they choose to compete. If you assume market share is what matters to Apache, you could argue it is losing since it's market share is down from a peak of 70% to just above 50% earlier this year, but then you are looking at how it competes in the market place. Similarly, if Windows Server profitability is down you could argue it is losing; but comparing Apache and Windows Server in ways they don't chose to compete is not valid.
I've noticed one news site that only allows log in via "verified" Facebook accounts, if you really care about topics like privacy, security, then you would close your Facebook account.
Why? Attila T. Hun has always liked a bit of notoriety and FB just expands its reach.
Google's best bet is to cut a deal with Samsung and forget about the rest of the android manufacturers. Samsung already has locked up the Android market; anything that can tighten that hold is good for Google and Samsung if they form a partnership. Since key parts of the handset OS are licensed under ASL, not GPL, Google can focus on developing a Samsung specific advanced version of Android that need not be made broadly available, Samsung on the hardware end, and both on creating a content delivery eco system unique to their offerings. Essentially, they become very Apple-like in how they approach the marketplace.
Actually, IBM just went off into the weeds with the PS/2 and it's proprietary slots while the rest of the industry set the standards. It's still not really fully standardized. That's why there isn't *THE* network driver and *THE* video driver etc. The big difference is that now the hardware vendors are expected to provide drivers and load the vanilla OS. They are free to add as much shovelware as they like on top of it but not to customize the underlying system.
My point, though, is that the phone market resembles the early stage PC market; you have a proprietary OS (iOS) that has a solid market share and a fragmented standard OS (Android) that has one standard emerging as the defacto implementation. You also had other proprietary OS's come and go (Palm/Nokia just as Radio Shack/Commodore/Atari did in PCs) when they failed to garner enough share to survive. The battle in phones right now is Apple vs Samsung; it just happens that Samsung chose Android just as IBM chose MS-DOS. The hardware set the standard implementation.
The biggest difference is phones have a much shorter turnover time than PCs. Today's unobtainable model is tomorrow's "free with plan" special. That makes teh eco system so much more important to lock in users to a specific manufacturer. IMHO Apple has done this better than others, and is really a content delivery company that happens to sell hardware to deliver that content. Once Apple figures out how to gain access to the pipe into the home, without having to rely on a cable company supplying bandwidth they can control, you'll see Apple really unlocking the TV market, but with content delivery not hardware as the key.
Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder. Apple clearly provides enough value for their customers to be willing to pay Apple's price.
Ah, but what kind of value? It's not necessarily limited to the technical quality of the device, regardless of what your opinion of that is, because Apple has cachet as a luxury brand that Android largely lacks. Indeed, there are plenty of Apple users who pay more for their luxury branded cases than Android users pay for their phones. For example, the English luxury goods maker Burberry offers a leather iPad case that costs well over $300 just for the case. The Apple product, complete with high end accoutrements, is exclusive in ways that the $50 pay-as-you-go Android phone is not. That has value to some people. They want to be seen with their Apple product, not the el-cheapo Android special.
You have hit on why differentiation is a marketing strategist's holy grail; the ability to charge more for a product with similar traits by convincing people it has superior value.
"To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other."
Agreed, but I would argue that this has already been weighed and decided, in favor of privacy, in the case of your personal effects. I'm simply saying that I feel the same argument should apply to your personal effects which happen to be in the possession of others. IF, that is, those others had agreed to keep them private.
Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement here. The issue I see is do we treat tangible personal effects such as a letter, a journal, etc. differently from those which exist primarily electronically and as a result can be in many different locations at once; some of which may be third party locations that are not parties to the original privacy agreement. I would argue they should be treated the same with the same protections, but clearly there are those who argue otherwise.
In addition, since the argument for lesser privacy is often "we're stopping evil, you're not in favor of evil triumphing ARE YOU?" the rational counter argument gets lost in the emotional one; despite Ben franklin's admonition.
"There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure... Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. "
You make a good point. But it still seems to me to be an end-run around the warrant requirement, voluntary or not. What right does someone else have to disclose a private deal you made?
The argument tends to go: once you have made a deal with someone else, you have waived any "reasonable expectation of privacy". BUT, I disagree with that basic concept. If you have agreed to keep it private, you have waived nothing. In my opinion, therefore, "voluntarily" giving it to the authorities violates my privacy rights in exactly the same way a warrantless search would.
This DOES presume, however, that it was something you had agreed to keep private.
You make a good argument for maintain privacy when there is an explicit agreement to do so.
To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other.
There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure.
I guess there is no such thing as a subpoena, written by an lawyer, or clerk of the court.....
A subpoena is a court order to appear or deliver documents; and a judge needs to approve it and thus agree there is a good reason for the requested material. So while it is not technically a warrant it is still subject to judicial review and decision. You can also contest a subpoena prior to providing the requested documents or appearing.
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined
Which provides evidence on how overpriced Apple products are, and how many idiots will pay far too much to get nothing extra in return.
Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder. Apple clearly provides enough value for their customers to be willing to pay Apple's price. If they didn't find more value in Apple's offerings than its competitors Apple wouldn't be in the position it us today. It also shows that Apple is probably much better at managing supply chain cost to maintain profit margins.
But I think you're both missing the point I was making. If I have a private business deal with someone else, and it requires a probable-cause warrant to get information about it from ME, why should it take any lower standard of evidence to get it from someone else? Where is the justification for that?
Completely aside from the 5th Amendment, it appears to me to be a rather blatant attempt to get around the "probable cause" requirement.
There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure. The prosecution can ask you to turn over information, if you refuse, they get a warrant. Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. Now, we can question what is a minimal standard for "probable cause" and does the fact you used a particular email service constitute probable cause that you may have sent incriminating emails and thus warrant a judge issuing a warrant; but that is different argument.
Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it.
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined; with Samsung a close second in terms of profitability. It's really just a two horse race with Apple vs. Samsung; so in that sense as long as Samsung maintains a consistent UI and feature set the "too many choices" argument is not relevant. It's shaping up a lot like the PC market did - Apple has it's own proprietary offering; the PC has MS-DOS but each implementation is customized often to the point of a lack of compatibility until IBM essentially set a hardware standard that allowed the emergence of a standard OS implementation. The biggest difference, other than the much greater difficulty difficulty in making Samsung clones like the old IBM clones, is Google didn't chose to make money on the OS like MS; it remains to be seen if that will ultimately was a good choice.
When they ask for your phone number instead of the card use (321) 123-4567. There are several hundred (if not more) people around the country using that number. Works almost everywhere, if it doesn't work at some chain fill out a card. I've noticed QFC and Radio Shack will occasionally remove it, so I just fill out another form with the same number and a different name and it starts working again for another year or two.
As an added benefit, it's amusing as all hell to see how many cashiers think that's my actual phone number.
Plus, filling out new cards allows you to complete the top 10 worst presidents lists, interspersed with famous dictators and serial killers. Somewhere someone is getting a good laugh, I hope, as they cull the list.
Considering the 172 is a high wing plane it is a bit more challenging to flare than say a Cherokee; as a novice getting in down with no loss of life and no serious damage is pretty amazing. As the saying goes, any damn fool can takeoff; it takes skill to land afterward.
Now, how this applies to, say, air traffic controllers, but not worthless-ass congresspeople and their equally-worthless staffers is beyond me.
Unfortunately, a recently enacted amendment to the Constitution states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.[
As a result, an amendment that became law over outrage at Congress regularly giving itself raises result in them (though not their staffers) being assured of getting paid no matter what they do short of being thrown out during their term.
My dad had an expression about this sort of thing: In one ear, out the other. Thanks dad.
You're welcome.
Even though you're now long gone, your combination of stubbornness and jadedness continues to help me survive even the stupidest internet pundit...
Sorry for the delay in responding after so many years. We just got internet access here and it costs $10 per day so I won't be using it to often. I wonder if it is free in the other place.
Most upscale hotel customers are business travelers and their corporate employer is picking up the tab. They don't even look at the bill. If they do it is to make sure the correct euphemism is used for the porn bill. So in some sense they get everything free.
Internet Access Fee seems to be the correct euphemism.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is you handed over your information to these hacks to prove you weren't a criminal, rather than being presumed innocent from the start. And you consider having to prove you're not a criminal a good thing?
Actual, Pre is a side benefit from Global Entry. GE lets you bypass immigration by using a bio scanner as well as use a special customs lane. Years ago they had it for free from US - Canada; which was great during tourist season or when cruise ships docked..
And the safety issue isn't just from 400 lb dromes, it's from the smallest quad copter's that weigh mere ounces. If one of these gets ingested by, say, my helicopter's turbine engine, you'll now have a several thousand pound plummeting helicopter to contend with. I for one am not willing to take that safety risk with drones, whose only claim to fame is cheapness.
Very good point. I was thinking about drones flying below 400' where big (relative to drones) iron isn't flying.The issue is many people doing the crying about "evil government wanting to control information..." don't appreciate the very real safety concerns; especially in highly populated areas where such drones would be likely to be used simply because that is where news happens.
snip
What the FAA needs to do is to codify the current AMA regulations as actual federal aviation regulations (FARs), which the FAA can do by publishing a "notice of proposed rulemaking" (NPRM) on which the general public can comment before regulations become effective. I personally think that drone-based journalism (and all other commercial drone operations) is incompatible with aviation safety, because drone pilots cannot comply with the FAA rules for air-traffic separation, which uses a "see and avoid" doctrine.
snip
Drones are an attractive idea to journalists, because they see them as a cheap means for covering and reporting reporting events. Certainly a lot cheaper than owning and operating a commercial human-piloted helicopter. But most journalists just don't get the safety issues. Until they do, they have no business trying to operate drones.
All very good points. The only issue I have with FAA making AMA rules law is once that happens the AMA either can no longer change it's rules easily since the law would still be the overriding requirement; nor can the FAA simply say follow AMA rules since that would put the actual rule making out of their hands. It seems technology is quickly overcoming what is a common sense way to let hobbyist fly without undue legal burdens and ensure airspace safety.
Another issue with news orbs using drones is that drones are really cheap compared with other ways of getting aerial photographs film. You'd wind up with more drones competing for airspace as they get the "best" shot; and as you rightly point out see and be seen is not really doable when flying a drone. A couple of 400lb objects deciding to make an uncontrolled descent into the ground at the same time would pose a significant danger to anyone in their path and that is what the issue is, not some government official trying to control the news.
You may now by now I'm not a idevice user.
Figured that, I am a big believer in owning tools that work for you, not what someone thinks is right for you.
I have a colleague who has an iphone and I have an android. He told me he couldn't connect his iPhone to his work computer to transfer large files back and forth. I just assume it is not possible. We're not allowed to install itunes at work. When I plugged my android to my computer, it shows up as a drive on windows.
There are a number of third party solutions, although I wish Apple let is show up as a drive for access to stored files.
When I showed him the file manager on my android, he couldn't keep his mouth closed as if he saw the most sexy woman on the planet.
That is an all together different issue.
That is a very interesting concept.
But I'm not sure this serves Google any better than dropping Android entirely and partnering with Apple.
The advantage for Google is they are partnering with a hardware oriented company. Google brings the software and infrastructure to the table and the two can leverage their individual strengths to build the total system. Unlike Apple which does both hw and sw, each has complementary strengths and are not dealing with a partner that may decide to go it alone later without a significant investment in capabilities.
Isn't it the single-vendor bake-in that led them to do Android in the first place?
True, they worried about Apple entering the search market if the iPhone became the predominant smartphone; and giving Android away was a tactic to get as many device manufacturers as possible to use it. Sort of like MS, they didn't care who succeeded as long as their OS was on it. Once a dominant player emerges, Google can strike a deal that benefits both, even if it is at the expense of other manufacturers..
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined
By the same metric: 1) Windows Server is absolutely killing Linux in the server market 2) IIS is absolutely trouncing Apache in the web server market 3) Visual Studio is the only winner in IDEs etc. 4) ??? 5) Profit
If you chose profit as your measure then what you say could be true; but that was not my point. There are a number of ways to measure success in a market and which you use depends on your strategy. A small, but highly profitable, share may be better than a huge, but low margin, share. You really can't say one or the other is winning except in context of how they choose to compete. If you assume market share is what matters to Apache, you could argue it is losing since it's market share is down from a peak of 70% to just above 50% earlier this year, but then you are looking at how it competes in the market place. Similarly, if Windows Server profitability is down you could argue it is losing; but comparing Apache and Windows Server in ways they don't chose to compete is not valid.
I've noticed one news site that only allows log in via "verified" Facebook accounts, if you really care about topics like privacy, security, then you would close your Facebook account.
Why? Attila T. Hun has always liked a bit of notoriety and FB just expands its reach.
Google's best bet is to cut a deal with Samsung and forget about the rest of the android manufacturers. Samsung already has locked up the Android market; anything that can tighten that hold is good for Google and Samsung if they form a partnership. Since key parts of the handset OS are licensed under ASL, not GPL, Google can focus on developing a Samsung specific advanced version of Android that need not be made broadly available, Samsung on the hardware end, and both on creating a content delivery eco system unique to their offerings. Essentially, they become very Apple-like in how they approach the marketplace.
How about a file manager and be able to plug your idevice into computer to transfer files without the much "loved" itunes?
How about not having to plug in your iPhone and wirelessly transfer files without iTunes? The only thing I use iTunes for is backing up my iPhone.
Actually, IBM just went off into the weeds with the PS/2 and it's proprietary slots while the rest of the industry set the standards. It's still not really fully standardized. That's why there isn't *THE* network driver and *THE* video driver etc. The big difference is that now the hardware vendors are expected to provide drivers and load the vanilla OS. They are free to add as much shovelware as they like on top of it but not to customize the underlying system.
My point, though, is that the phone market resembles the early stage PC market; you have a proprietary OS (iOS) that has a solid market share and a fragmented standard OS (Android) that has one standard emerging as the defacto implementation. You also had other proprietary OS's come and go (Palm/Nokia just as Radio Shack/Commodore/Atari did in PCs) when they failed to garner enough share to survive. The battle in phones right now is Apple vs Samsung; it just happens that Samsung chose Android just as IBM chose MS-DOS. The hardware set the standard implementation.
The biggest difference is phones have a much shorter turnover time than PCs. Today's unobtainable model is tomorrow's "free with plan" special. That makes teh eco system so much more important to lock in users to a specific manufacturer. IMHO Apple has done this better than others, and is really a content delivery company that happens to sell hardware to deliver that content. Once Apple figures out how to gain access to the pipe into the home, without having to rely on a cable company supplying bandwidth they can control, you'll see Apple really unlocking the TV market, but with content delivery not hardware as the key.
Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder. Apple clearly provides enough value for their customers to be willing to pay Apple's price.
Ah, but what kind of value? It's not necessarily limited to the technical quality of the device, regardless of what your opinion of that is, because Apple has cachet as a luxury brand that Android largely lacks. Indeed, there are plenty of Apple users who pay more for their luxury branded cases than Android users pay for their phones. For example, the English luxury goods maker Burberry offers a leather iPad case that costs well over $300 just for the case. The Apple product, complete with high end accoutrements, is exclusive in ways that the $50 pay-as-you-go Android phone is not. That has value to some people. They want to be seen with their Apple product, not the el-cheapo Android special.
You have hit on why differentiation is a marketing strategist's holy grail; the ability to charge more for a product with similar traits by convincing people it has superior value.
"To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other."
Agreed, but I would argue that this has already been weighed and decided, in favor of privacy, in the case of your personal effects. I'm simply saying that I feel the same argument should apply to your personal effects which happen to be in the possession of others. IF, that is, those others had agreed to keep them private.
Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement here. The issue I see is do we treat tangible personal effects such as a letter, a journal, etc. differently from those which exist primarily electronically and as a result can be in many different locations at once; some of which may be third party locations that are not parties to the original privacy agreement. I would argue they should be treated the same with the same protections, but clearly there are those who argue otherwise.
In addition, since the argument for lesser privacy is often "we're stopping evil, you're not in favor of evil triumphing ARE YOU?" the rational counter argument gets lost in the emotional one; despite Ben franklin's admonition.
"There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure... Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. "
You make a good point. But it still seems to me to be an end-run around the warrant requirement, voluntary or not. What right does someone else have to disclose a private deal you made? The argument tends to go: once you have made a deal with someone else, you have waived any "reasonable expectation of privacy". BUT, I disagree with that basic concept. If you have agreed to keep it private, you have waived nothing. In my opinion, therefore, "voluntarily" giving it to the authorities violates my privacy rights in exactly the same way a warrantless search would. This DOES presume, however, that it was something you had agreed to keep private.
You make a good argument for maintain privacy when there is an explicit agreement to do so.
To me, the question is at what point does an individual's right to a fair trial or the public's interest trump such an agreement; and how should courts treat private information while still allowing it's use in court proceedings. It's a tough line to draw since you are weighing each set of rights against the other.
There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure.
I guess there is no such thing as a subpoena, written by an lawyer, or clerk of the court.....
A subpoena is a court order to appear or deliver documents; and a judge needs to approve it and thus agree there is a good reason for the requested material. So while it is not technically a warrant it is still subject to judicial review and decision. You can also contest a subpoena prior to providing the requested documents or appearing.
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined
Which provides evidence on how overpriced Apple products are, and how many idiots will pay far too much to get nothing extra in return.
Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder. Apple clearly provides enough value for their customers to be willing to pay Apple's price. If they didn't find more value in Apple's offerings than its competitors Apple wouldn't be in the position it us today. It also shows that Apple is probably much better at managing supply chain cost to maintain profit margins.
But I think you're both missing the point I was making. If I have a private business deal with someone else, and it requires a probable-cause warrant to get information about it from ME, why should it take any lower standard of evidence to get it from someone else? Where is the justification for that?
Completely aside from the 5th Amendment, it appears to me to be a rather blatant attempt to get around the "probable cause" requirement.
There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure. The prosecution can ask you to turn over information, if you refuse, they get a warrant. Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. Now, we can question what is a minimal standard for "probable cause" and does the fact you used a particular email service constitute probable cause that you may have sent incriminating emails and thus warrant a judge issuing a warrant; but that is different argument.
Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it.
Yet Apple's profit was greater than the other's combined; with Samsung a close second in terms of profitability. It's really just a two horse race with Apple vs. Samsung; so in that sense as long as Samsung maintains a consistent UI and feature set the "too many choices" argument is not relevant. It's shaping up a lot like the PC market did - Apple has it's own proprietary offering; the PC has MS-DOS but each implementation is customized often to the point of a lack of compatibility until IBM essentially set a hardware standard that allowed the emergence of a standard OS implementation. The biggest difference, other than the much greater difficulty difficulty in making Samsung clones like the old IBM clones, is Google didn't chose to make money on the OS like MS; it remains to be seen if that will ultimately was a good choice.
When they ask for your phone number instead of the card use (321) 123-4567. There are several hundred (if not more) people around the country using that number. Works almost everywhere, if it doesn't work at some chain fill out a card. I've noticed QFC and Radio Shack will occasionally remove it, so I just fill out another form with the same number and a different name and it starts working again for another year or two.
As an added benefit, it's amusing as all hell to see how many cashiers think that's my actual phone number.
Plus, filling out new cards allows you to complete the top 10 worst presidents lists, interspersed with famous dictators and serial killers. Somewhere someone is getting a good laugh, I hope, as they cull the list.
and please don't call me Shirley.
Huh?
I mean, is the landing "flare" really that hard?
Considering the 172 is a high wing plane it is a bit more challenging to flare than say a Cherokee; as a novice getting in down with no loss of life and no serious damage is pretty amazing. As the saying goes, any damn fool can takeoff; it takes skill to land afterward.
but which ones are 52 through 57?
BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Yukon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act
Now, how this applies to, say, air traffic controllers, but not worthless-ass congresspeople and their equally-worthless staffers is beyond me.
Unfortunately, a recently enacted amendment to the Constitution states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.[
As a result, an amendment that became law over outrage at Congress regularly giving itself raises result in them (though not their staffers) being assured of getting paid no matter what they do short of being thrown out during their term.
My dad had an expression about this sort of thing: In one ear, out the other. Thanks dad.
You're welcome.
Even though you're now long gone, your combination of stubbornness and jadedness continues to help me survive even the stupidest internet pundit...
Sorry for the delay in responding after so many years. We just got internet access here and it costs $10 per day so I won't be using it to often. I wonder if it is free in the other place.
Most upscale hotel customers are business travelers and their corporate employer is picking up the tab. They don't even look at the bill. If they do it is to make sure the correct euphemism is used for the porn bill. So in some sense they get everything free.
Internet Access Fee seems to be the correct euphemism.