Not around me... cops park outside the bar-heavy areas and snag people all night long around here. I was the DD one year and must have seen ten cops in the process of dropping four other people off. Most were writing tickets; the rest were eagerly looking for them.
Cocoa, I think you meant. I mean, I'd love to stay home and drink hot coca in my jammies, but it's not really a jammies kind of high, know what I mean?
Yeah, done the second and working on the first. Doesn't everyone? It's the one night a year it's socially acceptable to be a raging alcoholic so long as you don't drive.
Of course many government regulations are outdated: we made them that way on purpose by providing extended comment periods and rule-making processes so that people wouldn't be blind-sided by new rules. That has its advantages and its disadvantages. And agencies like the FDA and FAA are in fact ridiculously cautious, because nobody ever counts the number of people who die when they say "no".
Example: when an FAA regulation causes more people to drive to their destination instead of flying there, it may well cause fewer deaths due to air travel while simultaneously increasing the number of people who die. The FDA makes the same mistake - nobody wants to be the person who approved a drug that later turned out to have rare but serious side effects (e.g., rapacuronium, which was killing kids). In doing so they ignore the adverse effects of the current treatments, which may often be worse than the negative effect suspected in the new compound.
I don't know that this is the case with all government agencies, and I'm willing to believe that some are nimble regulators with a too-soft touch, although there the problem really seems to be not so much that the regulations are inadequate so much as the fact that enforcement is weak to absent. It's not as though Bernie Madoff's schemes were legal.
that is time you never had to play/work with you gadgets
Wrong. I personally flew numerous times in the 80s and 90s with a musical accompaniment to takeoff and landing provided by my tape player and (later) CD player. I wore obvious, over-the-head earphones. There was no rule against electronics in any phase of flight (except for radios, but those have been banned since the 60's). Nobody ever stopped me. Had I wanted, I could absolutely have been playing games on my GameBoy.
No, the point is that government regulation is inherently biased toward being too cautious - the precautionary principle at play - and also necessarily outdated (after all, we wrote a complicated set of rules about how to make rules precisely so they wouldn't change day to day). That doesn't mean you get rid of every government regulation, but it does mean that you should keep the weaknesses of government regulation in mind when proposing them. Government regulation is an effective but clumsy way to regulate things. Sometimes things don't need to be regulated at all, and sometimes private regulation (e.g., UL listing for appliances) is distinctly superior.
Here's a hint: your nephew probably just turns the screen off for takeoff. I have been flying quite a bit lately and noticed a lot of people do just that. The flight attendants aren't going to pull it out of the seat pocket and check to make sure it's really off. And since I was on Delta, there was in-flight WiFi available on every segment.
There is very little reason to believe that passenger electronics are a problem, especially if they're in airplane mode. Back in the 80s and 90s I used to fly with my tape or CD player. I was hardly alone in listening to music during takeoff and landing. You think we know less about shielding now than 20-30 years ago?
Then airline insurers would be driving the safety monitoring, instead of the government. I swear, it's like some people think that it has to be the government or nothing. Do you think pilots are going to get on board aircraft that are unsafe?
Your local electrical code protects your house. Yet the appliances you plug into that system are almost never government-inspected. Who does it? Underwriters Laboratories.
Costco? They have, according to their 10-K for the fiscal year ending August, 2011, 92000 full-time and 72000 part-time employees. Target employs about 400k people during the Christmas rush, about 355k all year. Wal-Mart has 1.4 million employees in the US alone. (You can look up the 10-K's yourself for the other two.) Not only does it operate in a different market segment, with very different demographics, its workforce is over thrice that of Target and about ten times that of Costco. My home - a mid-sized city in the heartland, metro population about 400k, has two Targets - but seven Wal-Marts. The nearest Costco is about a three-hour drive away. Wal-Mart operates in poor, rural areas because they have figured out how to make money while serving those populations, and it's a good thing. If you ever shopped in the South before Wal-Mart, you know what I mean. I was headed out on a trip a few years back when the adapter I was using to play the iPod through my car stereo broke. It was 8 AM on a Sunday. Guess who was open, had several to choose from, and was literally right on my travel route? It wasn't Target.
People who are on welfare in the US are supposed to work. The EITC is one of those rare government programs that is actually very, very close to what economists would suggest in an ideal situation - instead of paying people to sit at home and do nothing, you supplement the meager income they are actually capable of earning but only if they actually go out and earn something. Now you're upset that someone is willing to take a chance on them? Let's be honest - if they had better opportunities, they would take them. But they don't, so they don't. Sorry, I just can't get upset that Wal-Mart is going out and giving them jobs. Does it make lots of money? Of course it does. So what? Have you ever sat and talked with someone who shopped at Wal-Mart because everywhere else was too expensive? It's the best part of a lot of people's lives. Where else are you going to get a bottle of Sriracha in Baxley, GA (picked at random, but it's in stock there as well as every other nearby store)? Take a look at the appliances and furniture they sell - yes, it's mostly cheap particle-board stuff, but it's remarkably better-made and better-looking than you would expect for the price. Target has talked about bringing design to the masses, but Wal-Mart does it too, and well.
Wal-Mart isn't generally despised by its workers. It has a long tradition of hiring from within. My wife has some cousins in rural Iowa - solid salt-of-the-earth types, farmers and ranchers and blue-collar families who in times past would have been building washing machines and bulldozers. One is the manager of his town's Wal-Mart; he started as a stock boy in high school and worked his way up the ranks. It's a solid middle-class job.
I lived one year in a ghetto apartment complex in a small cow-college town. (Why I did so is a long and boring story. Post-baccalaureate studies. I had a good reason.) Everyone else in my building of eight apartments was a college student except for the one working-class couple with a teenage son that lived next door to us. To them, shopping at Wal-Mart meant that their dollar went a lot further than otherwise. It was cheaper than any other grocery store or general goods provider. It offered a remarkably good selection. IOW: actual poor people like shopping at Wal-Mart (as People of Wal-Mart proves over and over again). They generally seem to like working there. You can't compare them to Target, because Target is an upscale Wal-Mart with correspondingly smaller market presence. You really can't compare them to Costco, because actual poor people don't buy $90 memberships to clubs that offer a small but rotating variety of stock purchased based on what's cheap at the moment and pushed out in warehouse style to people who are willing and able to buy a lot of it at once. Hell, Costco's net profits are less than their me
I'm a Synology user myself, but this is definitely the right idea. If you want an appliance, buy one. Setting up my DS412+ involved inserting the drives, plugging it into power and ethernet, and running the Synology Assistant on my computer. Dead simple. Bonus: the DS412+ is an Intel Linux machine, so if you don't want to use their (very handy) software, you can just compile and run anything you like.
Why are America's welfare rolls Wal-Mart's problem? ANY company that hires a lot of low-level workers is going to have a lot of EITC people. That's why we have an EITC: we want them to earn money. They just can't earn enough to support their existence, so we top them up.
What on earth do you mean? A toilet is literally a device meant to dispose of human waste. It is considered the "polite" word in parts of the English-speaking word, as opposed to phrases like "the shitter", but it's not a euphemism.
Homeland Security has a lot of functions, at least some of which are actually quite important. The Secret Service, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service... you can't get rid of those. The military is extraordinarily expensive and no doubt makes American presidents all too willing to use them in order to feel they are getting value for money. OTOH, I must say that I am persuaded by the argument that the US military is so blindingly far ahead of every other power on earth combined that it quells a lot of conflicts that would otherwise break out - which means more trade, which means we win. Is it worth what we pay? Maybe, maybe not. How much is it worth to be the undisputed master of the world's sea lanes?
Well, duh. Lots of people remember how valuable pre-ban stuff became the last time around and are hoping to cash in. I didn't get an AR because I think the prices have gone well past sanity. I did pick up a few high-capacity mags for guns I already own, though.
I see "Now Hiring" signs everywhere. I'm not saying it's the late 90's again, but the idea that people go from fed job to zero is ridiculous. You can always work retail.
Drop the "fuck you" attitude until you come up with your own federal budget. It's hard; the money just isn't there to do all the things people want. What would you like to cut? Across-the-board cuts happen because they are much more politically palatable than targeted cuts.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part, the UI is great. I'm not a Metro fan, at least not on the PC, but sans that I really like the WIndows 8 UI.
He's just illiterate. American and English usage here do not vary in any important way.
I go to work at 6:30 a.m. Yes, I go to bed before midnight. Usually by 10 p.m. When you get up at 5:30, you have little choice.
Not around me... cops park outside the bar-heavy areas and snag people all night long around here. I was the DD one year and must have seen ten cops in the process of dropping four other people off. Most were writing tickets; the rest were eagerly looking for them.
Cocoa, I think you meant. I mean, I'd love to stay home and drink hot coca in my jammies, but it's not really a jammies kind of high, know what I mean?
Yeah, done the second and working on the first. Doesn't everyone? It's the one night a year it's socially acceptable to be a raging alcoholic so long as you don't drive.
I am aware that UL is responsible for the Curse of the Wall-Wart.
Of course many government regulations are outdated: we made them that way on purpose by providing extended comment periods and rule-making processes so that people wouldn't be blind-sided by new rules. That has its advantages and its disadvantages. And agencies like the FDA and FAA are in fact ridiculously cautious, because nobody ever counts the number of people who die when they say "no".
Example: when an FAA regulation causes more people to drive to their destination instead of flying there, it may well cause fewer deaths due to air travel while simultaneously increasing the number of people who die. The FDA makes the same mistake - nobody wants to be the person who approved a drug that later turned out to have rare but serious side effects (e.g., rapacuronium, which was killing kids). In doing so they ignore the adverse effects of the current treatments, which may often be worse than the negative effect suspected in the new compound.
I don't know that this is the case with all government agencies, and I'm willing to believe that some are nimble regulators with a too-soft touch, although there the problem really seems to be not so much that the regulations are inadequate so much as the fact that enforcement is weak to absent. It's not as though Bernie Madoff's schemes were legal.
The thing is, you can use all those devices at 37k feet. You can't use them below 10k.
that is time you never had to play/work with you gadgets
Wrong. I personally flew numerous times in the 80s and 90s with a musical accompaniment to takeoff and landing provided by my tape player and (later) CD player. I wore obvious, over-the-head earphones. There was no rule against electronics in any phase of flight (except for radios, but those have been banned since the 60's). Nobody ever stopped me. Had I wanted, I could absolutely have been playing games on my GameBoy.
No, the point is that government regulation is inherently biased toward being too cautious - the precautionary principle at play - and also necessarily outdated (after all, we wrote a complicated set of rules about how to make rules precisely so they wouldn't change day to day). That doesn't mean you get rid of every government regulation, but it does mean that you should keep the weaknesses of government regulation in mind when proposing them. Government regulation is an effective but clumsy way to regulate things. Sometimes things don't need to be regulated at all, and sometimes private regulation (e.g., UL listing for appliances) is distinctly superior.
Here's a hint: your nephew probably just turns the screen off for takeoff. I have been flying quite a bit lately and noticed a lot of people do just that. The flight attendants aren't going to pull it out of the seat pocket and check to make sure it's really off. And since I was on Delta, there was in-flight WiFi available on every segment.
There is very little reason to believe that passenger electronics are a problem, especially if they're in airplane mode. Back in the 80s and 90s I used to fly with my tape or CD player. I was hardly alone in listening to music during takeoff and landing. You think we know less about shielding now than 20-30 years ago?
Then airline insurers would be driving the safety monitoring, instead of the government. I swear, it's like some people think that it has to be the government or nothing. Do you think pilots are going to get on board aircraft that are unsafe?
Your local electrical code protects your house. Yet the appliances you plug into that system are almost never government-inspected. Who does it? Underwriters Laboratories.
Costco? They have, according to their 10-K for the fiscal year ending August, 2011, 92000 full-time and 72000 part-time employees. Target employs about 400k people during the Christmas rush, about 355k all year. Wal-Mart has 1.4 million employees in the US alone. (You can look up the 10-K's yourself for the other two.) Not only does it operate in a different market segment, with very different demographics, its workforce is over thrice that of Target and about ten times that of Costco. My home - a mid-sized city in the heartland, metro population about 400k, has two Targets - but seven Wal-Marts. The nearest Costco is about a three-hour drive away. Wal-Mart operates in poor, rural areas because they have figured out how to make money while serving those populations, and it's a good thing. If you ever shopped in the South before Wal-Mart, you know what I mean. I was headed out on a trip a few years back when the adapter I was using to play the iPod through my car stereo broke. It was 8 AM on a Sunday. Guess who was open, had several to choose from, and was literally right on my travel route? It wasn't Target.
People who are on welfare in the US are supposed to work. The EITC is one of those rare government programs that is actually very, very close to what economists would suggest in an ideal situation - instead of paying people to sit at home and do nothing, you supplement the meager income they are actually capable of earning but only if they actually go out and earn something. Now you're upset that someone is willing to take a chance on them? Let's be honest - if they had better opportunities, they would take them. But they don't, so they don't. Sorry, I just can't get upset that Wal-Mart is going out and giving them jobs. Does it make lots of money? Of course it does. So what? Have you ever sat and talked with someone who shopped at Wal-Mart because everywhere else was too expensive? It's the best part of a lot of people's lives. Where else are you going to get a bottle of Sriracha in Baxley, GA (picked at random, but it's in stock there as well as every other nearby store)? Take a look at the appliances and furniture they sell - yes, it's mostly cheap particle-board stuff, but it's remarkably better-made and better-looking than you would expect for the price. Target has talked about bringing design to the masses, but Wal-Mart does it too, and well.
Wal-Mart isn't generally despised by its workers. It has a long tradition of hiring from within. My wife has some cousins in rural Iowa - solid salt-of-the-earth types, farmers and ranchers and blue-collar families who in times past would have been building washing machines and bulldozers. One is the manager of his town's Wal-Mart; he started as a stock boy in high school and worked his way up the ranks. It's a solid middle-class job.
I lived one year in a ghetto apartment complex in a small cow-college town. (Why I did so is a long and boring story. Post-baccalaureate studies. I had a good reason.) Everyone else in my building of eight apartments was a college student except for the one working-class couple with a teenage son that lived next door to us. To them, shopping at Wal-Mart meant that their dollar went a lot further than otherwise. It was cheaper than any other grocery store or general goods provider. It offered a remarkably good selection. IOW: actual poor people like shopping at Wal-Mart (as People of Wal-Mart proves over and over again). They generally seem to like working there. You can't compare them to Target, because Target is an upscale Wal-Mart with correspondingly smaller market presence. You really can't compare them to Costco, because actual poor people don't buy $90 memberships to clubs that offer a small but rotating variety of stock purchased based on what's cheap at the moment and pushed out in warehouse style to people who are willing and able to buy a lot of it at once. Hell, Costco's net profits are less than their me
If you don't need the rack-mount form factor, you can get a DS412+ for not much more money that has twice the RAM and a dual-core processor.
I'm a Synology user myself, but this is definitely the right idea. If you want an appliance, buy one. Setting up my DS412+ involved inserting the drives, plugging it into power and ethernet, and running the Synology Assistant on my computer. Dead simple. Bonus: the DS412+ is an Intel Linux machine, so if you don't want to use their (very handy) software, you can just compile and run anything you like.
Why are America's welfare rolls Wal-Mart's problem? ANY company that hires a lot of low-level workers is going to have a lot of EITC people. That's why we have an EITC: we want them to earn money. They just can't earn enough to support their existence, so we top them up.
No, he wants people to pay a lot more for their stuff so they don't buy as much. And for lots of people to be out of jobs.
although another euphemism I'll grant you
What on earth do you mean? A toilet is literally a device meant to dispose of human waste. It is considered the "polite" word in parts of the English-speaking word, as opposed to phrases like "the shitter", but it's not a euphemism.
Heh. Strawberries.
I thought it was orchids that needed the grow lamps?
Classic.
Homeland Security has a lot of functions, at least some of which are actually quite important. The Secret Service, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service... you can't get rid of those. The military is extraordinarily expensive and no doubt makes American presidents all too willing to use them in order to feel they are getting value for money. OTOH, I must say that I am persuaded by the argument that the US military is so blindingly far ahead of every other power on earth combined that it quells a lot of conflicts that would otherwise break out - which means more trade, which means we win. Is it worth what we pay? Maybe, maybe not. How much is it worth to be the undisputed master of the world's sea lanes?
Well, duh. Lots of people remember how valuable pre-ban stuff became the last time around and are hoping to cash in. I didn't get an AR because I think the prices have gone well past sanity. I did pick up a few high-capacity mags for guns I already own, though.
I see "Now Hiring" signs everywhere. I'm not saying it's the late 90's again, but the idea that people go from fed job to zero is ridiculous. You can always work retail.
Drop the "fuck you" attitude until you come up with your own federal budget. It's hard; the money just isn't there to do all the things people want. What would you like to cut? Across-the-board cuts happen because they are much more politically palatable than targeted cuts.