It's typically not a simple decision, but there has to be some reason for people to pay their utility bills, and some reason not to wildly overconsume. There's often help for people in financial trouble, and it's illegal around here to shut off certain utilities in the winter, but there has to be some requirement for payment. We could pay utility bills out of tax money, but having people pay for very approximately what they use means that they aren't going to be utterly careless with power or water or whatever, and that they aren't going to run some scheme to get something they want from an utterly inefficient use of a utility.
Heat pumps can be a lot more efficient than resistance heating, depending on the outside temperature. When it gets really cold, heat pumps become less efficient.
As long as no LEO uses this card accidentally, or deliberately, and only LEOs get the card ever, I suppose that might work. Fortunately, in the US, all law enforcement agencies are honorable, incorruptible, mistake-proof, and never lose any important object or leak any important information.
The IRS has been saying for a long time that they'll mail something on paper to you if they have business with you, and people still fall for the scams. I don't think public education works here. It will get to the people who'd figure this out anyway, and not the the people who'd be scammed.
As a mostly law-abiding citizen of the US, if you asked me whether my mother is proud to have brought up a criminal, I'd probably say something much like that. Your screening method is going to register a very large number of false positives.
I doubt race has anything to do with this. TFA is trying to excuse the scam callers because they're poor. I'd bet that a good number of Indians are stupid, and I'd bet that substituting any nationality. Going after the callers is like going after a drug ring by busting the guys on street corners, except that the guys on the street corners actually have something of value to the higher-ups.
If someone can run exploit.exe or any tools for remote access, the person should better know what Windows is and what he/she is doing..
To most people out there, running exploit.exe or whatever is a magic incantation that you type exactly into the machine in the hope of getting a particular result. It's much less messy than digging up an old grimoire but otherwise pretty similar.
Cloud storage means somebody with better sysadmins than I am has an off-site copy of my stuff that I can access. The copy can go away, but for reasons unrelated to the destruction of any of my stuff. On the other hand, a device in my physical possession is probably in my house, which means that any disaster that destroys my house will destroy both the live copies and the backups.
Windows Vista was the OS that made it a pain to have to run an application in administrator mode, and people complained loud and long about UAC (which, as far as I can tell, was badly implemented). However, it did get applications written to run as the user. Nowadays, that seems to be the norm.
Vista was released over ten years ago, so I don't think it's fair to criticize Windows security on that basis.
I tried running all incoming data through my brain, but the electrodes always hurt, and it was a real bitch avoiding data corruption. Then I decided on a firewall as first line of defense with my brain in reserve.
You're claiming that certain things are inherent to people, and I'm pointing out that, for most of our evolutionary life, we didn't do those things much if at all.
Coming back to the origin of this thread, if a VC were to ask me for a blowjob in return for funding (I should be so lucky), I might laugh, I might take him up on his offer, or I might slap him in the face and walk out. Six months later, I would barely remember or care no matter which choice I made. That's typically male behavior.
You would remember if the VC denied funding specifically because you didn't blow him. I'd guess that most straight men would be unhappy about feeling forced into giving a blow job, and so if you're part of the majority you would remember and resent the blow job. It's never happened to me, and I've never observed it, despite working in a male-dominated profession all my life. I've had the occasional "suck my dick" response in private life, but that was obviously never even intended as an invitation, just ordinary rudeness.
I wouldn't gang up on him with a bunch of other "victims" months or years later and turn this into a public shaming; that's a typically female behavior (cooperation, conflict-avoidance, non-aggression), and it's ineffective in changing male behavior, in addition to being unprofessional and harmful to the business.
What else are they to do? One entrepeneur saying things about one venture capitalist is going to be scoffed at at best. It is necessary to amass other witnesses. That's cooperation in reaching a goal, forcing conflict at the right time, and aggression, and that's standard practice in an army. Armies are not organized and trained on the lines of typical female behavior that isn't also typical male behavior.
A venture capitalist is entrusted with a lot of other people's money to invest, and so asking for any special personal treatment before handing out money is unprofessional to begin with. It's also difficult to find VCs who do that without complaints from the people getting the inappropriate requests, and the business environment tends to suppress complaints. Unfortunately, I don't know of any more professional way to deal with this unprofessional behavior. Harmful to what business? If the VC business is investing in companies for reasons other than that they look like good prospects, that's harmful to the VC business, and it's good to get it stopped. Push hard enough at such unprofessional behavior, and it will have an effect. MADD made drunk driving a lot less socially acceptable, to give an example.
I'm just fine working with women who will turn on me if I ask for sex from a position of power, because I'm not going to do that.
This denial itself is not very important. What's important is international perception. Post 9/11, people were being denied routine entry to the US more than before (at least in international perception - haven't checked the statistics. Trump's travel ban extended that. The Supreme Court stayed the part of the travel ban that affects people who have strong ties to the US, which suggests that the EO would deny entry to people who would routinely come on business. The EO was intended to take effect immediately, and people who boarded aircraft to the US before the EO landed and were turned away. The perception here is that, if a person is legally going to the US, that person might be part of a class of people that is barred entry at any time.
And here comes another one of those stories, further suggesting that the US is not open to business.
You say "given up sovereignty". I live in the state of Minnesota. It was carved out of territory directly controlled by the Federal government, then formed into a territory, and finally given statehood. There never was an independent state of Minnesota to relinquish sovereignty (there were sovereign tribes inside the modern borders, but those were conquered, and there was no transfer of sovereignty). It was granted certain powers when becoming a state.
Impressive leap to that conclusion. I'm saying that we should prefer a situation where better jobs open up rather than worse ones. As it happens, I work for a living.
They also impose requirements on drivers and decide on the prices. When I sell through eBay, I describe the item and set the price (the minimum price or the buy-it-now price or both), and eBay does not (last I sold anything) handle the money.
I did oversimplify. Regulations that cause one-time costs do not normally shift the supply curves, and handicapped accommodations tend to be one-time costs. If regulations drive too many businesses to close (which is an empirical question), that can shift the supply curves.
In general, though, "passing the cost on to the consumer" is a PR move by the price setters.
Your source doesn't give sources, and lists raw statistics like they were the final word. The time I tried digging into sources, they seemed to indicate a more complicated situation. I'd like to see studies with a few more things controlled for.
If I give another couple thousand to the Federal government, it will have no noticeable effect on the Federal budget. If I get my tax bracket to do that, it will have an effect.
Slashdot Mirror
It's typically not a simple decision, but there has to be some reason for people to pay their utility bills, and some reason not to wildly overconsume. There's often help for people in financial trouble, and it's illegal around here to shut off certain utilities in the winter, but there has to be some requirement for payment. We could pay utility bills out of tax money, but having people pay for very approximately what they use means that they aren't going to be utterly careless with power or water or whatever, and that they aren't going to run some scheme to get something they want from an utterly inefficient use of a utility.
Heat pumps can be a lot more efficient than resistance heating, depending on the outside temperature. When it gets really cold, heat pumps become less efficient.
Facebook does provide a useful service. FB enables me to keep track of a large number of dispersed family and friends with minimum effort.
As long as no LEO uses this card accidentally, or deliberately, and only LEOs get the card ever, I suppose that might work. Fortunately, in the US, all law enforcement agencies are honorable, incorruptible, mistake-proof, and never lose any important object or leak any important information.
The IRS has been saying for a long time that they'll mail something on paper to you if they have business with you, and people still fall for the scams. I don't think public education works here. It will get to the people who'd figure this out anyway, and not the the people who'd be scammed.
It's been a long time since I've talked to Rachel. She sounded cute.
As a mostly law-abiding citizen of the US, if you asked me whether my mother is proud to have brought up a criminal, I'd probably say something much like that. Your screening method is going to register a very large number of false positives.
I doubt race has anything to do with this. TFA is trying to excuse the scam callers because they're poor. I'd bet that a good number of Indians are stupid, and I'd bet that substituting any nationality. Going after the callers is like going after a drug ring by busting the guys on street corners, except that the guys on the street corners actually have something of value to the higher-ups.
To most people out there, running exploit.exe or whatever is a magic incantation that you type exactly into the machine in the hope of getting a particular result. It's much less messy than digging up an old grimoire but otherwise pretty similar.
Cloud storage means somebody with better sysadmins than I am has an off-site copy of my stuff that I can access. The copy can go away, but for reasons unrelated to the destruction of any of my stuff. On the other hand, a device in my physical possession is probably in my house, which means that any disaster that destroys my house will destroy both the live copies and the backups.
Windows Vista was the OS that made it a pain to have to run an application in administrator mode, and people complained loud and long about UAC (which, as far as I can tell, was badly implemented). However, it did get applications written to run as the user. Nowadays, that seems to be the norm.
Vista was released over ten years ago, so I don't think it's fair to criticize Windows security on that basis.
I tried running all incoming data through my brain, but the electrodes always hurt, and it was a real bitch avoiding data corruption. Then I decided on a firewall as first line of defense with my brain in reserve.
Kaspersky apparently didn't detect the 2005 Sony rootkit, and I find it hard to believe that was accidental.
I'm fairly sure there's US retail software that spies on everyone, foreign or not.
No, it's more like referring to black-and-white stripes as normal to hoofed mammals, and you're pointing at a zebra and saying "Hey!".
You're claiming that certain things are inherent to people, and I'm pointing out that, for most of our evolutionary life, we didn't do those things much if at all.
You would remember if the VC denied funding specifically because you didn't blow him. I'd guess that most straight men would be unhappy about feeling forced into giving a blow job, and so if you're part of the majority you would remember and resent the blow job. It's never happened to me, and I've never observed it, despite working in a male-dominated profession all my life. I've had the occasional "suck my dick" response in private life, but that was obviously never even intended as an invitation, just ordinary rudeness.
What else are they to do? One entrepeneur saying things about one venture capitalist is going to be scoffed at at best. It is necessary to amass other witnesses. That's cooperation in reaching a goal, forcing conflict at the right time, and aggression, and that's standard practice in an army. Armies are not organized and trained on the lines of typical female behavior that isn't also typical male behavior.
A venture capitalist is entrusted with a lot of other people's money to invest, and so asking for any special personal treatment before handing out money is unprofessional to begin with. It's also difficult to find VCs who do that without complaints from the people getting the inappropriate requests, and the business environment tends to suppress complaints. Unfortunately, I don't know of any more professional way to deal with this unprofessional behavior. Harmful to what business? If the VC business is investing in companies for reasons other than that they look like good prospects, that's harmful to the VC business, and it's good to get it stopped. Push hard enough at such unprofessional behavior, and it will have an effect. MADD made drunk driving a lot less socially acceptable, to give an example.
I'm just fine working with women who will turn on me if I ask for sex from a position of power, because I'm not going to do that.
This denial itself is not very important. What's important is international perception. Post 9/11, people were being denied routine entry to the US more than before (at least in international perception - haven't checked the statistics. Trump's travel ban extended that. The Supreme Court stayed the part of the travel ban that affects people who have strong ties to the US, which suggests that the EO would deny entry to people who would routinely come on business. The EO was intended to take effect immediately, and people who boarded aircraft to the US before the EO landed and were turned away. The perception here is that, if a person is legally going to the US, that person might be part of a class of people that is barred entry at any time.
And here comes another one of those stories, further suggesting that the US is not open to business.
It's something I'm worried about. A perception that people can't rely on being able to travel to the US for routine business would be very harmful.
You say "given up sovereignty". I live in the state of Minnesota. It was carved out of territory directly controlled by the Federal government, then formed into a territory, and finally given statehood. There never was an independent state of Minnesota to relinquish sovereignty (there were sovereign tribes inside the modern borders, but those were conquered, and there was no transfer of sovereignty). It was granted certain powers when becoming a state.
Another more practical way to think is also that larger states feel less empowered with the EC, and that makes the union less strong.
While I favor proportional distribution of electors, that doesn't change the fact that a guy in Wyoming has a lot more voting power than I do.
Impressive leap to that conclusion. I'm saying that we should prefer a situation where better jobs open up rather than worse ones. As it happens, I work for a living.
They also impose requirements on drivers and decide on the prices. When I sell through eBay, I describe the item and set the price (the minimum price or the buy-it-now price or both), and eBay does not (last I sold anything) handle the money.
I did oversimplify. Regulations that cause one-time costs do not normally shift the supply curves, and handicapped accommodations tend to be one-time costs. If regulations drive too many businesses to close (which is an empirical question), that can shift the supply curves.
In general, though, "passing the cost on to the consumer" is a PR move by the price setters.
Your source doesn't give sources, and lists raw statistics like they were the final word. The time I tried digging into sources, they seemed to indicate a more complicated situation. I'd like to see studies with a few more things controlled for.
If I give another couple thousand to the Federal government, it will have no noticeable effect on the Federal budget. If I get my tax bracket to do that, it will have an effect.
Not the ones I personally have interacted with. They have a good deal of funding.