For me, checking accuracy of prices has suffered greatly from self-checkout. With a cashier I watch every single item as it's scanned and if it doesn't look right to me I can question it.
With self-checkout I just go as fast as I can occasionally glancing up if an item should be on sale. It's very poor spot-checking. Often I find myself scanning my receipt as I walk out trying to figure out how I spent that much. And it's almost always because I bought one or two more expensive items that I don't usually purchase.
Don't be a troll. You know exactly what he means and you even admit as much.
YES, he means private sales. and don't fool yourself. There are people who act as unlicensed dealers and they often operate at or around gun shows.
Those aren't gun-owners who just happen to want to sell a gun from their own private collection. Some of them are doing it for profit and acting outside the law. You can whine all you want when people call it a "gun show loophole", but it is a way around background checks and if you think that's not one avenue for felons to get guns you are horribly naive.
Being a member of the NRA would not further a case in court. There's no reason for police to pursue or publicize that angle and many people in law enforcement would also have political reasons for not wanting to publicize the NRA membership of accused criminals anyway.
Being a member of the NRA is NOT a crime. The media also generally don't report a person's political affiliations, religious beliefs or their SAT scores unless they're actually relevant to the story.
Can you imagine?
Lester J Drug-dealer was arrested at a motel in Omaha last night on cocaine and weapons charges. He was a Democrat but had been unable to vote in the last 3 elections due to his felony convictions and he attended First Episcopal Church, but only on Easter and Christmas. His SAT scores are unknown at this time but they are thought to be below average. It is also unknown whether or not he was a member of the NRA.
Remind me... how many people have NRA members killed over the last year?
How would we even know? It's not like the NRA's membership roles are public and they certainly going to make an announcement after a mass shooting that someone like Stephen Paddock was in fact a Lifetime Member.
I'm not saying he was, but IF he was we would probably never know unless he plastered his pickup truck with NRA stickers and even then we wouldn't really know.
Either they're tweaking their algorithms or both you and I are right on the edge of having our comments default to either 2 or 3. I had at least one post start out as 3 but now I too am back to defaulting to 2.
Were they held on to beyond the end of day processing? I could see that potentially being a crime but I have no expectation of the order in which my checks are processed as long as they all do get processed. Even if it takes more than a day for funds to clear the process should at least be started.
Having insufficient funds and bouncing checks must suck. I know because I worked for a deadbeat once and had 2 of my paychecks bounce. That was back before direct deposit was common and the person who cut the checks urged me to cash them as soon as I got them - like right that minute, not a few hours later when I was driving past my bank on the way home from work.
You can't really blame the bank if you actually wrote checks you didn't have funds to cover. As far as I know, when I give someone a check I'm supposed to make sure I have enough money to cover it.
I can sympathize with people who have cash flow problems - maybe a bill is due the same day their paycheck gets deposited. Which will get to the bank first and which will the bank process first?
Do deposits get processed first? It seems that would be best for whoever holds an account with them, but I have no idea what policies they have or even if that might be regulated by law. I'm fortunate to never have been in that situation but when bill-paying time comes around I make sure I transfer enough funds to cover them at least a day before those bills get paid.
That way it doesn't matter if they process deposits first or what order they process the payments in.
I actually think things should be processed in the order received, but I have no experience in the banking industry. I don't understand why that should be difficult today. Even if it is hard or there are other valid reasons for not doing so I can't understand why any bank big enough to have more than one location wouldn't have a policy written as to how to handle such things.
--
When I still had a Capitol One Visa card I was convinced they were purposely slow in processing payments so that they would be late. I can't prove that or be 100% sure, but it certainly would be to their benefit. None of the other people I wrote checks to and sent via USPS had that problem, not even other credit cards.
So I dropped Capitol One. I'll never get those late fees and the interest back, but they'll never get another cent from me either. It is possible their mail carriers were slow, but blaming the postal service is BS 99% of the time.
So for years when they ran their "What's in your wallet" ad campaign I just laughed to myself and said "Not Capitol One!"
According to a former co-worker/software developer who used to work for a bank they would process checks from largest to smallest which of course would have the effect of bouncing as many checks as possible should a customer have insufficient funds to cover all of them.
And yet I am reluctant to criticize your post for fear of losing Karma, but here goes anyway.
For one thing, if I'm not mistaken, YouTube did not censor CountDankula. It was his own government that did that. YT is fine with teaching your dog Nazi salutes.
I would agree 100% with you if you were arguing that UK or EU laws go way too far in restricting free speech but you're arguing that YT censored that video when they didn't.
But there are other examples where arguably YT and others have been "unfair" and have censored videos, often ones which are merely politically incorrect rather than outright racist or promoting violence, what about them?
I say, they can find their own platform to host their material. These are private businesses refusing their right to refuse service to those who they don't want on their platform even if their reasons seem "unfair" to you.
They owe no particular user anything.
Fox News has removed some of my comments. Sites like Breitbart and RT are even more aggressive about removing comments that don't agree with their agenda.
And let's not ignore the outright lies against sites like YT. I've seen multiple people (or at least multiple accounts) whine that YT removed all the gun videos. That simply is NOT true. I don't doubt that they removed some and that maybe they were heavy-handed in doing so but it's certainly not a violation of free speech.
Whether they're doing this out of some kind of SJW political correctness or because they are simply bowing to the pressure of advertisers who don't want to be associated with the likes of Richard Spencer doesn't really matter. It's their platform.
And how can you make a living on YT, but not be popular enough to host your own website? Maybe instead of complaining that YT denied them a soapbox on their property they should be grateful that YT allowed them any soapbox in the first place even if they eventually were kicked off. Without YT, they would never had made a penny off their views.
If you want to talk about free speech, why not criticize Trump who once called for the FCC to fine a commentator on Fox News for criticizing him.
You probably are aware that the FCC doesn't regulate content on cable news networks, but Trump not only appears unaware of that he goes even further and says his critics should not even be allowed on TV. And then we elected him President.
That is much more disturbing than Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos or Richard Spencer.
Pizza Hut won the initial round claiming Papa John's didn't prove their claim that their ingredients made their pizza better, but Papa John's appealed and prevailed in the long run.
The "better-best" argument also had a lasting impression on advertising.
You've seen commercials where a company claims to have the "best" thingamajig. "Best" can be used without having to back up your statement. However, when you use "better," you "better" have proof to substantiate your claim, or risk getting into another heated lawsuit.
Now, almost 20 years after the lawsuits began, Papa John's adamantly denies Pizza Hut's false advertising charges. The company's lawyers maintain the statements made in the ad campaign aren't false but were merely statements of personal taste.
Lawyers for Pizza Hut said Papa John's ads violated federal law. They claimed, even without evidence, that customers relied on the "better ingredients, better pizza" slogan on which to base their pizza-buying decision; thus, Papa John's ad campaign is deceptive in their eyes.
I am opposed to wildlife conservation. I arrived at this opinion for three reasons.
First was I watched a pro-conservation video on TED called "Life lessons from big cats" which had some of the most miserably fucked up wildlife footage I had ever seen.
How does that turn you AGAINST conservation?
I just watched it and while the half-dozen or so lions trying to bring down an elephant was brutal despite the elephant surviving I have to question what kind of nature videos you've been watching. We all know carnivores eat meat and those who are predators, like cats, kill to survive. This was explained to me as a young child watching nature videos.
But then you start off reasonably with your second point until you come to the conclusion that allowing them to become extinct is more compassionate than providing a natural habitat for them to thrive and eventually die in even if that natural death is brutal.
Many humans suffer greatly both in life and while they're dying. Would it be more compassionate to just end human suffering once and for all at the expense of continuing as a species?
Would it be better for them to try to talk like an American trying to sound like an Australian?
I've never noticed them trying to fake an American accent. Some are easy to understand and some are completely incomprehensible, nor can they understand what I'm saying.
I was just going to bring up Campbell's Soup which is 2.5 servings per can - (I just ran downstairs to confirm they STILL are).
I'm more concerned with sodium than calories though. There are 410 mg per serving of their "Healthy Request" version of their tomato soup. That's over a gram in each can but 410 mg doesn't sound that bad. Personally I've always considered their soups to be 1 serving per can but calling them 2 servings would make sense to me..
Sodium is my biggest complaint in most packaged foods. Healthy Choice recently changed their recipes when they redid their packaging and I stopped buying most of them because they taste like crap to me now and leave a bad after-taste.
If people want that much salt on their vegetables, why not just let them use a salt-shaker? Are there people with freezers and microwaves but no salt shakers?
- or is their salt shaker an outlaw they've been searching for since the '70s?
You make some good points, but I don't often see anyone putting anything in the trunk of a car and then driving away in a different car.
I wouldn't accost someone I saw doing that, but I would think it was suspicious. Until now.
If this works for Amazon and some of their customers, more power to them. I'm probably missing the market where people have multiple cars so even if they're away from home there's always that 3rd (or 4th) car sitting in the driveway. And that 3rd car that hardly ever gets driven might just be the one they don't care much about and maybe even hope gets stolen.
Or maybe a garage.
I think that's a much better idea, actually. My garage is not that secure, but it's better than leaving something at my front door for anyone to see and grab. It's also probably at least as secure as my trunk.
No doubt I would be neglecting the huge market of people who don't have garages.
Given that others are suggesting that you get some sort of lock-box on your front porch maybe you should consider buying a junker with a good solid trunk that you can park somewhere close just so you can receive deliveries.
When they ask me what my address is I simply tell them "Blue 2004 Chevy Impala parked somewhere around the vicinity of [insert address here], license plate [?????]"
And then I'd have to explain that you can't open it with an app but there is a key hidden under the driver's side rear wheel well.
What's easier and cheaper? Buying an old 2004 Impala that doesn't even have an engine or installing a really nice lock box on your front porch?
And it just occurred to me that buying an old beater like the '04 Impala would be simpler than installing a lock box since my neighborhood has an HOA, but they still don't own the streets. (Would I really buy a car just to receive Amazon packages?)
Slashdot Mirror
No sense in going to a store that will likely be having me stock the shelves as I browse next.
This is a brilliant idea. In fact if you have certification with a pallet jack or fork lift you can get a 10% discount for each trailer you unload.
For me, checking accuracy of prices has suffered greatly from self-checkout. With a cashier I watch every single item as it's scanned and if it doesn't look right to me I can question it.
With self-checkout I just go as fast as I can occasionally glancing up if an item should be on sale. It's very poor spot-checking. Often I find myself scanning my receipt as I walk out trying to figure out how I spent that much. And it's almost always because I bought one or two more expensive items that I don't usually purchase.
Everyone else was already dumb?
Don't be a troll. You know exactly what he means and you even admit as much.
YES, he means private sales. and don't fool yourself. There are people who act as unlicensed dealers and they often operate at or around gun shows.
Those aren't gun-owners who just happen to want to sell a gun from their own private collection. Some of them are doing it for profit and acting outside the law. You can whine all you want when people call it a "gun show loophole", but it is a way around background checks and if you think that's not one avenue for felons to get guns you are horribly naive.
Being a member of the NRA would not further a case in court. There's no reason for police to pursue or publicize that angle and many people in law enforcement would also have political reasons for not wanting to publicize the NRA membership of accused criminals anyway.
Being a member of the NRA is NOT a crime. The media also generally don't report a person's political affiliations, religious beliefs or their SAT scores unless they're actually relevant to the story.
Can you imagine?
Lester J Drug-dealer was arrested at a motel in Omaha last night on cocaine and weapons charges. He was a Democrat but had been unable to vote in the last 3 elections due to his felony convictions and he attended First Episcopal Church, but only on Easter and Christmas. His SAT scores are unknown at this time but they are thought to be below average. It is also unknown whether or not he was a member of the NRA.
and they certainly aren't going to make an announcement after a mass shooting that someone like Stephen Paddock was in fact a Lifetime Member.
FTFM - hopefully everyone understood what I meant. Preview is my friend. I should not ignore it.
Remind me... how many people have NRA members killed over the last year?
How would we even know? It's not like the NRA's membership roles are public and they certainly going to make an announcement after a mass shooting that someone like Stephen Paddock was in fact a Lifetime Member.
I'm not saying he was, but IF he was we would probably never know unless he plastered his pickup truck with NRA stickers and even then we wouldn't really know.
Either they're tweaking their algorithms or both you and I are right on the edge of having our comments default to either 2 or 3. I had at least one post start out as 3 but now I too am back to defaulting to 2.
What bank was that? Name and shame them.
Were they held on to beyond the end of day processing? I could see that potentially being a crime but I have no expectation of the order in which my checks are processed as long as they all do get processed. Even if it takes more than a day for funds to clear the process should at least be started.
Having insufficient funds and bouncing checks must suck. I know because I worked for a deadbeat once and had 2 of my paychecks bounce. That was back before direct deposit was common and the person who cut the checks urged me to cash them as soon as I got them - like right that minute, not a few hours later when I was driving past my bank on the way home from work.
You can't really blame the bank if you actually wrote checks you didn't have funds to cover. As far as I know, when I give someone a check I'm supposed to make sure I have enough money to cover it.
I can sympathize with people who have cash flow problems - maybe a bill is due the same day their paycheck gets deposited. Which will get to the bank first and which will the bank process first?
Do deposits get processed first? It seems that would be best for whoever holds an account with them, but I have no idea what policies they have or even if that might be regulated by law. I'm fortunate to never have been in that situation but when bill-paying time comes around I make sure I transfer enough funds to cover them at least a day before those bills get paid.
That way it doesn't matter if they process deposits first or what order they process the payments in.
I actually think things should be processed in the order received, but I have no experience in the banking industry. I don't understand why that should be difficult today. Even if it is hard or there are other valid reasons for not doing so I can't understand why any bank big enough to have more than one location wouldn't have a policy written as to how to handle such things.
--
When I still had a Capitol One Visa card I was convinced they were purposely slow in processing payments so that they would be late. I can't prove that or be 100% sure, but it certainly would be to their benefit. None of the other people I wrote checks to and sent via USPS had that problem, not even other credit cards.
So I dropped Capitol One. I'll never get those late fees and the interest back, but they'll never get another cent from me either. It is possible their mail carriers were slow, but blaming the postal service is BS 99% of the time.
So for years when they ran their "What's in your wallet" ad campaign I just laughed to myself and said "Not Capitol One!"
According to a former co-worker/software developer who used to work for a bank they would process checks from largest to smallest which of course would have the effect of bouncing as many checks as possible should a customer have insufficient funds to cover all of them.
That puts a damper on my initial feeling of schadenfreude upon seeing Comcast outage.
Yes, I hate Comcast, but it's their business customers that are being hurt here.
Ahh, Vermont where there are only 3 months of the year with an average high above 70 F (21 C).
But it's in the mountains of Vermont, so I suspect your temps might be even lower.
I don't need AC where I live either and it's slightly hotter. I sure do like it though.
But try living in Houston or Phoenix without AC.
And yet I am reluctant to criticize your post for fear of losing Karma, but here goes anyway.
For one thing, if I'm not mistaken, YouTube did not censor CountDankula. It was his own government that did that. YT is fine with teaching your dog Nazi salutes.
In fact, it's still up on YT:
M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi
I would agree 100% with you if you were arguing that UK or EU laws go way too far in restricting free speech but you're arguing that YT censored that video when they didn't.
But there are other examples where arguably YT and others have been "unfair" and have censored videos, often ones which are merely politically incorrect rather than outright racist or promoting violence, what about them?
I say, they can find their own platform to host their material. These are private businesses refusing their right to refuse service to those who they don't want on their platform even if their reasons seem "unfair" to you.
They owe no particular user anything.
Fox News has removed some of my comments. Sites like Breitbart and RT are even more aggressive about removing comments that don't agree with their agenda.
And let's not ignore the outright lies against sites like YT. I've seen multiple people (or at least multiple accounts) whine that YT removed all the gun videos. That simply is NOT true. I don't doubt that they removed some and that maybe they were heavy-handed in doing so but it's certainly not a violation of free speech.
Whether they're doing this out of some kind of SJW political correctness or because they are simply bowing to the pressure of advertisers who don't want to be associated with the likes of Richard Spencer doesn't really matter. It's their platform.
And how can you make a living on YT, but not be popular enough to host your own website? Maybe instead of complaining that YT denied them a soapbox on their property they should be grateful that YT allowed them any soapbox in the first place even if they eventually were kicked off. Without YT, they would never had made a penny off their views.
If you want to talk about free speech, why not criticize Trump who once called for the FCC to fine a commentator on Fox News for criticizing him.
Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!
You probably are aware that the FCC doesn't regulate content on cable news networks, but Trump not only appears unaware of that he goes even further and says his critics should not even be allowed on TV. And then we elected him President.
That is much more disturbing than Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos or Richard Spencer.
I hate roaches. They might convince me if the roach milk isn't "cruelty free".
Sounds like Jordan Peterson should read Lysistrata
Basically the women were sick of the men always waging war so they refused to have sex until they stopped the violence.
Centipede was a far superior game, but that's just my opinion.
Pizza Hut won the initial round claiming Papa John's didn't prove their claim that their ingredients made their pizza better, but Papa John's appealed and prevailed in the long run.
The Battle Between Papa John's and Pizza Hut
The "better-best" argument also had a lasting impression on advertising.
You've seen commercials where a company claims to have the "best" thingamajig. "Best" can be used without having to back up your statement. However, when you use "better," you "better" have proof to substantiate your claim, or risk getting into another heated lawsuit.
Now, almost 20 years after the lawsuits began, Papa John's adamantly denies Pizza Hut's false advertising charges. The company's lawyers maintain the statements made in the ad campaign aren't false but were merely statements of personal taste.
Lawyers for Pizza Hut said Papa John's ads violated federal law. They claimed, even without evidence, that customers relied on the "better ingredients, better pizza" slogan on which to base their pizza-buying decision; thus, Papa John's ad campaign is deceptive in their eyes.
And I thought it was Parker Brothers, but I guess I haven't been keeping up.
In 1991, Hasbro acquired Parker Bros. and thus Monopoly.
I don't think I've played Monopoly since the early '80s anyway.
I am opposed to wildlife conservation. I arrived at this opinion for three reasons.
First was I watched a pro-conservation video on TED called "Life lessons from big cats" which had some of the most miserably fucked up wildlife footage I had ever seen.
How does that turn you AGAINST conservation?
I just watched it and while the half-dozen or so lions trying to bring down an elephant was brutal despite the elephant surviving I have to question what kind of nature videos you've been watching. We all know carnivores eat meat and those who are predators, like cats, kill to survive. This was explained to me as a young child watching nature videos.
Life Lessons From Big Cats
But then you start off reasonably with your second point until you come to the conclusion that allowing them to become extinct is more compassionate than providing a natural habitat for them to thrive and eventually die in even if that natural death is brutal.
Many humans suffer greatly both in life and while they're dying. Would it be more compassionate to just end human suffering once and for all at the expense of continuing as a species?
Would it be better for them to try to talk like an American trying to sound like an Australian?
I've never noticed them trying to fake an American accent. Some are easy to understand and some are completely incomprehensible, nor can they understand what I'm saying.
Indeed. I checked a few others.
Google and Bing added one correctly.,
Yahoo, Lycos, DuckDuckGo and Ask couldn't add the one.
And I didn't realize AltaVista just redirects to Yahoo now.
Baidu came up with a bunch of Chinese characters that are all Greek to me, but I can see 42 appear a few places.
Yandex can't add one either.
Starring Frank Sinatra & Kim Novak
A strung-out junkie deals with a demoralizing drug addiction while his crippled wife and card sharks pull him down.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...
I was just going to bring up Campbell's Soup which is 2.5 servings per can - (I just ran downstairs to confirm they STILL are).
I'm more concerned with sodium than calories though. There are 410 mg per serving of their "Healthy Request" version of their tomato soup. That's over a gram in each can but 410 mg doesn't sound that bad. Personally I've always considered their soups to be 1 serving per can but calling them 2 servings would make sense to me..
Sodium is my biggest complaint in most packaged foods. Healthy Choice recently changed their recipes when they redid their packaging and I stopped buying most of them because they taste like crap to me now and leave a bad after-taste.
If people want that much salt on their vegetables, why not just let them use a salt-shaker? Are there people with freezers and microwaves but no salt shakers?
- or is their salt shaker an outlaw they've been searching for since the '70s?
You make some good points, but I don't often see anyone putting anything in the trunk of a car and then driving away in a different car.
I wouldn't accost someone I saw doing that, but I would think it was suspicious. Until now.
If this works for Amazon and some of their customers, more power to them. I'm probably missing the market where people have multiple cars so even if they're away from home there's always that 3rd (or 4th) car sitting in the driveway. And that 3rd car that hardly ever gets driven might just be the one they don't care much about and maybe even hope gets stolen.
Or maybe a garage.
I think that's a much better idea, actually. My garage is not that secure, but it's better than leaving something at my front door for anyone to see and grab. It's also probably at least as secure as my trunk.
No doubt I would be neglecting the huge market of people who don't have garages.
(I'm car free now)
Given that others are suggesting that you get some sort of lock-box on your front porch maybe you should consider buying a junker with a good solid trunk that you can park somewhere close just so you can receive deliveries.
When they ask me what my address is I simply tell them "Blue 2004 Chevy Impala parked somewhere around the vicinity of [insert address here], license plate [?????]"
And then I'd have to explain that you can't open it with an app but there is a key hidden under the driver's side rear wheel well.
What's easier and cheaper? Buying an old 2004 Impala that doesn't even have an engine or installing a really nice lock box on your front porch?
And it just occurred to me that buying an old beater like the '04 Impala would be simpler than installing a lock box since my neighborhood has an HOA, but they still don't own the streets. (Would I really buy a car just to receive Amazon packages?)