I have worked at a number of SMBs some of doing well today some are gone. You a dead right about the customer thing. You have to have customers. To some extent you have to let those one or two fact customers tell you who you are.
This is a dangerous game however you need the revenue but you can't let them turn you into something that isn't appealing to the broader market or you will only ever have them as a customer, until you don't and than you are doomed. The game must be played and the tight rope must be walked. This is true for basically any SMB that isn't about selling cupcakes to passers by on the street.
There is a wide gulf between successful and facebook.
If an investor puts say 500,000 into a startup, lets assume for simplicity its just an idea and there is no current capitalization and the company grows to having a market cap of 10 million or so, said investor has done pretty well.
That is the sort of thing that happens probably fairly often but you don't hear about it, because 10M cap companies rarely get a lot of press. Yet almost any one would be pretty happy to sell 10M worth of shares in something they only paid 500,000 for.
There is also the matter of investment. A song you are not enjoying that might might be preferable to listen to for the sake of variety. Its only ~3-4min after all of your time, which as you say is often not even dedicated time.
A movie on the other hand running ~2hrs amounts to 8-10% of your waking day. Even if you are using a movie as 'background' it still consumes much more of your attention than the radio. The bar is simply higher for movies for those reasons.
Nothing? Not run the story, because it was never a story!
I mean seriously "some guy on the internet made a video from some 20+ year old footage of the president and out logo" Its NOT news. They tried to turn it into another "OMG the sky is falling, the Trump backers are doing violence to everyone..." because the simple fact is that most of the "violence" that happened during and after the election fell into two categories, hoaxes, and acts actually committed by left leaning presumably Hillary supporting people and groups.
CNN made a story about nothing because they thought they could advance their cause of damaging the President. They are plenty aware the frenzied mob they have created will destroy his life, and figured they could silence him while they were at using his stuff to fan their flames.
They ONLY reason this is a thing is because CNN decided it was going to be, so its very much on them. So when they basically threaten to then dox this guy, its nothing short of abusive. CNN is terrible network run by terrible people its not even #FakeNews, its just garbage. CNN is no better than the Inquirer
I often use the incognito mode to login to my stuff on other peoples computers. So that I know some cookie won't be left behind and it won't log them out if they use the same site and have a persistent session they likely want to retain. I realize this still isnt very safe for me or them but these are people like my father and my fiance, I would mostly trust with my accounts anyway.
Recently I wanted to show dad something on netflix I could not remember the title too, so I thought i'd just look at my recently watched list. Tried to do it in incognito mode, (so as not to log him out) and fail!
I don't see why, separating each passenger 'compartment' with a woven nylon straps, like what your folding lawn chairs use, secured to floor and ceiling would probably do the job without taking much space at all. Its elastic enough to prevent injury if you are rattled around inside it during turbulence or forced back against it during take off / landing, but stiff enough to keep people from banging into each other to hard.
Not saying it would be pleasant but it would probably work and provide adequate safety.
My first reaction is I don't think I really care. Electricity isn't a *need* people got by without it for a long long time. I spend lots of time camping etc and I know you can live just fine with a little alcohol stove to cook on and washing clothes in a bucket. So I think the answer is *I* don't care, I don't owe it to my neighbors to subsidize their electricity.
That said most of society won't agree with me here. I will loose at the ballot box to a crowd of people that think everyone should have access to electricity. So looking at the economics its not good for the lower classes for things to move in this direction.
First installation is a big capital investment, which is hard to do for someone who does not have savings or access to cheap credit. CapEx is a problem for the poor in a way expenses are not.
Next its a complex system that will need maintenance from time to time, once again this becomes a CapEx rather than an expense. You see those stupid payday lone places running commercials about broken water heaters and cars all the time. If you have some savings and can afford to drop $1000 repairing or upgrading your generating plant when it becomes necessary this isn't a problem but if you are the type where $1000 is your entire bank account, paying $UTILITY $50 a month is a better proposition probably, so you don't get suddenly left without power because something broke you can't afford to fix this month.
In many ways this is vary much a parallel to what we are seeing in other markets. Higher technology and better automation means capital outlays become preferable to things like salary expense, or a computer controlled miniature solar generating and storage facility maybe with a gas generator for backup becomes preferable utilities expenses, if you can afford the upfront costs. This leaves those who can't afford the upfront costs with an increasingly limited set of choices however.
I used to to think that, too. Most people I know consider me to be a pretty good cook. I cook almost all my meals at home. I love my induction range, which has a resistance heat 'burner' for use with cookware that won't heat otherwise.
I would NEVER go back to gas. Gas frankly sucks compared to induction and its really not much better than modern electric burners with flat surfaces rather than the old calrods; unless all you care about is how fast you can boil water. Induction and electric give you hotspot free cooking, with superior temperature control unless you buy some cheap ass $400 homebuilder grade shitty range. Oh and lets not forget the way way way easier cleanup.
Eventually the professionals will probably get with the program too.
Some of the first home solar systems were for heat, retro-fitted to hot water heat systems. Pretty trivial really, small pump, some insulated shallow boxes on the roof with dark pain inside, and thick glass plate on with a small air gap before another glass plate on one face. Sun heats the water, you pump the water around the interior of the building.
People are not that stupid though. For the most part they do chase lower prices. If that were not the case WallMart would not be what it is and we would not have massive trade deficits with China. People would be 'happy' to pay more for American goods.
As long as the market is competitive, prices will always tend to hover around the actual cost of goods sold. There are exceptions, some goods have inelastic demand. You will pay whatever your cancer pills cost as long as you are able. I can charge any amount that would completely bankrupt you. There are goods where demand fluctuates. I can't sell nearly as much electricity in the winter as in the summer when everyone runs A/C compressors all day. I still have to maintain the generating and distribution capacity though year round. So I might price units a bit higher than their costs at certain times of year to cover the higher overhead (unused capital equipment) other times of year; because my competitors will have to do something similar too.
Its when the market isn't competitive you have problems.
So because it would politically incorrect to you know not let the militants into the country in the first place they will just abolish basic freedoms instead.
Because the Southern USA is only a hot bed of racism as portrayed on TV written and directed by mostly leftist West Coasters (highly skewed demographically white and Latino) and Lilly white New England types.
The truth is that in the south blacks and whites have been living side by side in the post civil rights movement era now for 50 years. Mostly we all get along great. People have lots of inter-racial friendships and share each others schools, churches, and neighborhoods amicably. Yes some slang terms that once had much more negative connotations are still used and sure the stars and bars flies here and there but mostly its a southern pride symbol now and the people flying it are as likely to downing beers with someone of the opposite skin pigmentation on a Saturday afternoon as not. I am not saying there isn't still plenty of racism but not nearly as much as would appear to someone not part of deep south culture.
On the other hand outside of fairly integrated major metro areas, I think there is lots more of the vicious sort of oppressive closeted racism throughout the American North, Pacific Northwest and New England. They still see people as 'other' and smile at them during the interview while trashing their application later.
That is a gross and unfair characterization of what he said. He said it was okay that it was done to him. He was not advocating at all the age of consent rules for others were wrong and has even stated as much. Frankly it makes sense to me, a guy like Milo does not want to be a victim so while you and I know he was a victim of sexual abuse, like so many people who become homosexuals are, his version of the story is of course that he wanted it and was capable of wanting it. Its coping mechanism! You and I would probably have some issues too if we'd been raped as preteens.
Deciding who can say what based on what race or ethnic group they are a member of is the height of racism IMHO. If we are all the same we should be free to playfully mock one another. When you claim otherwise you are headed down the path of victim hierarchy BS.
Blacks comedians make fun of whites all the time Chris Rock has called white people "cracker" and its not a problem for anyone who does not have their SJW baton shoved so far up their ass its coming out their nose. On the other hand if you did it the other way round you'd be branded a racist by many. Clearly Chris Rock is not a racist who hates white people, how to do I know? At no point listening to any of his bits (which I enjoy) or interviews with him or reading reports of anything he has done have I felt his intention was to case me pain or belittle me for being white. He is just having fun.
The test for racism really needs to include intent, when the intent of an action is to oppress, belittle, cause pain, or exclude; an act may be racist if it is otherwise racially motivated as well. Where that intent does not exists, it might be insensitive and maybe the affected person has a right ask someone not to do that but its unfair to brand that person a racist. What we have today is just a recipe for keeping everyone upset with each other all the time, and thus preserving racism.
I would challenge your interpretation. Jesus was saying that the OT was not wrong, but that HE was the realization of the prophecies and that his life and eventual sacrifice was to meet the objectives of Gods laws. Jesus does not change the fact that we need to obey God but his life changes virtually everything about how we obey God.
The OT is still useful in enhancing our understanding. Even later prophets like Timothy explicitly say so. As a Christian though you must look at the OT thru a NT lens.
That probably isn't true. You are more likely to be fatally injured drunk walking than driving.
Provided you are going to still enable people to drink to excess (IE not return to prohibition type policies ), further restrictions and inducements against drunk driving likely cost lives. There is a typing point drunk drivers are obviously vary dangerous but their numbers are sufficiently reduced at this point the amount of harm they are causing is less than that of walkers. Who when intoxicated do things like step into traffic in front of sober drivers, fall off stuff, etc.
Society also likes to err on the side of responsibility for ones own actions (well it used, than Obama got elected), so we actually adopt a policy that puts drinkers at greater risk because it reduces the risks to people who are otherwise minding their own business. If something goes wrong, when you drive drunk chances are you kill someone; when you walk drunk chances are you get killed. Its not so cut and dry as policy maker though.
You can pass more drunk driving restrictions, it will reduce deaths among bystanders but kill more people in net. The ethics of drunk driving are simple, if you do it your a terrible person full stop. As a policy maker however additional drunk driving prohibitions mean more blood on your hands. You could do nothing and fewer citizens would die. Is your responsibility to minimize harm, or to provide maximum protection to the innocent?
I think there is an argument to be made that since getting rid of the TSA is politically impossible, and since its already a violation of rights and an indignity. It might be worth simply making it actually effective!
We don't need the TSA. The trade off between their invasive nature, the economic costs imposed by what they do direct in terms of screening activities, and indirect in terms of missed flights and long waits at airports, isn't a good one. I'd say shit can the entire thing and go back to the basic screening we had before.
However, the political will do that does not exist. Nobody (in power) will ever propose it because if it got done and than something happened they would be hounded from office. So given we are going to have to put up with this kind of BS, I actually would like to see some real security! Having already lost my freedom over my own vocal complaints and activity at the ballot box, now I say well at least give me the promised safety than.
So I would like the see the TSA strictly limit what can be taken on commercial passenger aircraft and what materials are allowed inside the secure area of airports. The should watch: http://www.terminalcornucopia....
and actually remove this stuff (well maybe not magazines and newspapers). No exceptions should not be made for liquids like baby milk etc without the passenger proving its save by consuming a portion. Various medical equipment that can be weaponized should be ban. If that means some people can't travel by commercial air, to frigging bad. They should have thought of that at the ballot box sooner.
Maybe when mainstream life styles are effected, "what do you mean I can board with my smart phone" and "granny can't come visit this Christmas because her oxygen cylinder isnt allowed" people will finally say alright lets end the madness and go back to how things were. In the meantime we can at least have safer air travel.
I suspect one of the problems drug dealers face they guys actually selling to the public anyway is the same every other business has: customers.
The same reason your still does a lot of business over e-mail, plain old telephone, easily tampered paper letters, that they probably should not is simple. Its because a significant number of the clients insist on doing business that way, can't be arsed to learn anything more secure, and practically start shouting 'lalalalala' if you try to educate them as to why they should.
Even if your dealer/pusher could use a secure app, or some kind of actually strong cipher code over plain SMS etc, Little Johny Methhead and Bobby Dopefiend won't be able to figure that out. They will go someplace else where they can get their fix without a 'computer lesson'.
ethyl-alcohol has a large therapeutic dosage range, so can be used for a number of things with a high safety margin, by untrained persons.
1) Disinfecting wounds 2) As disinfecting oral rinse 3) general mild short term pain relief 4) a temporary mood elevator 5) a temporary (poorly performing) sleep aide 6) sterilization of tools like tweezers before use
I think its more fair to say it does not benefit chronic conditions.
easy to convince them to take on that cost in the face of budget constraints to the point that many school districts no longer even offer buses
Seriously, anyone who has ever been a to a school board budget meeting in their local community know busing is almost always the FIRST thing to be suggested for cuts. why? Because most people who serve on school boards are cynical bastards and know the easiest way get more money and its always more money, the per pupil costs never go down, is to inconvenience the parents. Nothing could do that better than killing student transportation. God for bid we don't have 10 librarians assistants per school no...or another computer lab teachers never let students actually use.
Yes I think your points are lost on a lot of people, even the leakers.
I not a big fan of leakers, unless like Snowden they can go a long way to demonstrating they tried very hard to work within the system first. Leaks of this type can be highly damaging to intelligence efforts and yet remain almost useless to the public. That Russia or any other sometimes or always hostile power might try and tamper with electronic voting: DUH!
What I actually would find interesting is the the methods used to analyze and gather the intel. That is only way I as a citizen can make any decisions as to if those methods are justifiable/legal, if the quality of the report is worth anything or if as Putin says any child can make traffic appear behind an IP in any country they way. Other state actors probably have big pieces of the puzzle, they know for example if they really were involved or not. A leak like this for them is enough to assess if their methods and resources might be compromised and likely enough to give them some insights as to what specific ones.
So the damage is done and is real. On the other-hand as far as I am concerned not privy to all kinds of other context, all i have here is some speculation by analyst who could be completely terrible at his job. So please if you going to actually leak something for heavens sake leak the real evidence! There are plenty of experts who will be able to verify it and reach the same conclusions if they are valid as the agencies can. Nobody trusts the agencies, if you expect people to do anything give us hard facts.
Bullshit, most of the rest of world signed on because it was good for them. Many of the signatories promised to do virtually nothing.
If I can get you to promise to fight with one hand tied behind your back while I am allowed to do whatever I want, why the hell would I NOT agree to that!
It was worse than that even the green development funds, would have been American tax payers pay to give money to places like the DPRK to do 'something' while the 90% of the dollars they take are used to line the pockets of the politically well connected.
Slashdot Mirror
I have worked at a number of SMBs some of doing well today some are gone. You a dead right about the customer thing. You have to have customers. To some extent you have to let those one or two fact customers tell you who you are.
This is a dangerous game however you need the revenue but you can't let them turn you into something that isn't appealing to the broader market or you will only ever have them as a customer, until you don't and than you are doomed. The game must be played and the tight rope must be walked. This is true for basically any SMB that isn't about selling cupcakes to passers by on the street.
There is a wide gulf between successful and facebook.
If an investor puts say 500,000 into a startup, lets assume for simplicity its just an idea and there is no current capitalization and the company grows to having a market cap of 10 million or so, said investor has done pretty well.
That is the sort of thing that happens probably fairly often but you don't hear about it, because 10M cap companies rarely get a lot of press. Yet almost any one would be pretty happy to sell 10M worth of shares in something they only paid 500,000 for.
Or you know just place a net over the prison so drones can't land/drop stuff into the yard.
Correct prisoners should not be able to buy a better experience. They should NOT be permitted any outgoing calls except to their legal representation.
There is also the matter of investment. A song you are not enjoying that might might be preferable to listen to for the sake of variety. Its only ~3-4min after all of your time, which as you say is often not even dedicated time.
A movie on the other hand running ~2hrs amounts to 8-10% of your waking day. Even if you are using a movie as 'background' it still consumes much more of your attention than the radio. The bar is simply higher for movies for those reasons.
Nothing? Not run the story, because it was never a story!
I mean seriously "some guy on the internet made a video from some 20+ year old footage of the president and out logo" Its NOT news. They tried to turn it into another "OMG the sky is falling, the Trump backers are doing violence to everyone..." because the simple fact is that most of the "violence" that happened during and after the election fell into two categories, hoaxes, and acts actually committed by left leaning presumably Hillary supporting people and groups.
CNN made a story about nothing because they thought they could advance their cause of damaging the President. They are plenty aware the frenzied mob they have created will destroy his life, and figured they could silence him while they were at using his stuff to fan their flames.
They ONLY reason this is a thing is because CNN decided it was going to be, so its very much on them. So when they basically threaten to then dox this guy, its nothing short of abusive. CNN is terrible network run by terrible people its not even #FakeNews, its just garbage. CNN is no better than the Inquirer
netflix.
I often use the incognito mode to login to my stuff on other peoples computers. So that I know some cookie won't be left behind and it won't log them out if they use the same site and have a persistent session they likely want to retain. I realize this still isnt very safe for me or them but these are people like my father and my fiance, I would mostly trust with my accounts anyway.
Recently I wanted to show dad something on netflix I could not remember the title too, so I thought i'd just look at my recently watched list. Tried to do it in incognito mode, (so as not to log him out) and fail!
I don't see why, separating each passenger 'compartment' with a woven nylon straps, like what your folding lawn chairs use, secured to floor and ceiling would probably do the job without taking much space at all. Its elastic enough to prevent injury if you are rattled around inside it during turbulence or forced back against it during take off / landing, but stiff enough to keep people from banging into each other to hard.
Not saying it would be pleasant but it would probably work and provide adequate safety.
My first reaction is I don't think I really care. Electricity isn't a *need* people got by without it for a long long time. I spend lots of time camping etc and I know you can live just fine with a little alcohol stove to cook on and washing clothes in a bucket. So I think the answer is *I* don't care, I don't owe it to my neighbors to subsidize their electricity.
That said most of society won't agree with me here. I will loose at the ballot box to a crowd of people that think everyone should have access to electricity. So looking at the economics its not good for the lower classes for things to move in this direction.
First installation is a big capital investment, which is hard to do for someone who does not have savings or access to cheap credit. CapEx is a problem for the poor in a way expenses are not.
Next its a complex system that will need maintenance from time to time, once again this becomes a CapEx rather than an expense. You see those stupid payday lone places running commercials about broken water heaters and cars all the time. If you have some savings and can afford to drop $1000 repairing or upgrading your generating plant when it becomes necessary this isn't a problem but if you are the type where $1000 is your entire bank account, paying $UTILITY $50 a month is a better proposition probably, so you don't get suddenly left without power because something broke you can't afford to fix this month.
In many ways this is vary much a parallel to what we are seeing in other markets. Higher technology and better automation means capital outlays become preferable to things like salary expense, or a computer controlled miniature solar generating and storage facility maybe with a gas generator for backup becomes preferable utilities expenses, if you can afford the upfront costs. This leaves those who can't afford the upfront costs with an increasingly limited set of choices however.
I used to to think that, too. Most people I know consider me to be a pretty good cook. I cook almost all my meals at home. I love my induction range, which has a resistance heat 'burner' for use with cookware that won't heat otherwise.
I would NEVER go back to gas. Gas frankly sucks compared to induction and its really not much better than modern electric burners with flat surfaces rather than the old calrods; unless all you care about is how fast you can boil water. Induction and electric give you hotspot free cooking, with superior temperature control unless you buy some cheap ass $400 homebuilder grade shitty range. Oh and lets not forget the way way way easier cleanup.
Eventually the professionals will probably get with the program too.
solar is possible but not trivial
Some of the first home solar systems were for heat, retro-fitted to hot water heat systems. Pretty trivial really, small pump, some insulated shallow boxes on the roof with dark pain inside, and thick glass plate on with a small air gap before another glass plate on one face. Sun heats the water, you pump the water around the interior of the building.
People are not that stupid though. For the most part they do chase lower prices. If that were not the case WallMart would not be what it is and we would not have massive trade deficits with China. People would be 'happy' to pay more for American goods.
As long as the market is competitive, prices will always tend to hover around the actual cost of goods sold. There are exceptions, some goods have inelastic demand. You will pay whatever your cancer pills cost as long as you are able. I can charge any amount that would completely bankrupt you. There are goods where demand fluctuates. I can't sell nearly as much electricity in the winter as in the summer when everyone runs A/C compressors all day. I still have to maintain the generating and distribution capacity though year round. So I might price units a bit higher than their costs at certain times of year to cover the higher overhead (unused capital equipment) other times of year; because my competitors will have to do something similar too.
Its when the market isn't competitive you have problems.
So because it would politically incorrect to you know not let the militants into the country in the first place they will just abolish basic freedoms instead.
Pathetic.
Because the Southern USA is only a hot bed of racism as portrayed on TV written and directed by mostly leftist West Coasters (highly skewed demographically white and Latino) and Lilly white New England types.
The truth is that in the south blacks and whites have been living side by side in the post civil rights movement era now for 50 years. Mostly we all get along great. People have lots of inter-racial friendships and share each others schools, churches, and neighborhoods amicably. Yes some slang terms that once had much more negative connotations are still used and sure the stars and bars flies here and there but mostly its a southern pride symbol now and the people flying it are as likely to downing beers with someone of the opposite skin pigmentation on a Saturday afternoon as not. I am not saying there isn't still plenty of racism but not nearly as much as would appear to someone not part of deep south culture.
On the other hand outside of fairly integrated major metro areas, I think there is lots more of the vicious sort of oppressive closeted racism throughout the American North, Pacific Northwest and New England. They still see people as 'other' and smile at them during the interview while trashing their application later.
Ugh,
That is a gross and unfair characterization of what he said. He said it was okay that it was done to him. He was not advocating at all the age of consent rules for others were wrong and has even stated as much. Frankly it makes sense to me, a guy like Milo does not want to be a victim so while you and I know he was a victim of sexual abuse, like so many people who become homosexuals are, his version of the story is of course that he wanted it and was capable of wanting it. Its coping mechanism! You and I would probably have some issues too if we'd been raped as preteens.
Deciding who can say what based on what race or ethnic group they are a member of is the height of racism IMHO. If we are all the same we should be free to playfully mock one another. When you claim otherwise you are headed down the path of victim hierarchy BS.
Blacks comedians make fun of whites all the time Chris Rock has called white people "cracker" and its not a problem for anyone who does not have their SJW baton shoved so far up their ass its coming out their nose. On the other hand if you did it the other way round you'd be branded a racist by many. Clearly Chris Rock is not a racist who hates white people, how to do I know? At no point listening to any of his bits (which I enjoy) or interviews with him or reading reports of anything he has done have I felt his intention was to case me pain or belittle me for being white. He is just having fun.
The test for racism really needs to include intent, when the intent of an action is to oppress, belittle, cause pain, or exclude; an act may be racist if it is otherwise racially motivated as well. Where that intent does not exists, it might be insensitive and maybe the affected person has a right ask someone not to do that but its unfair to brand that person a racist. What we have today is just a recipe for keeping everyone upset with each other all the time, and thus preserving racism.
Read Matthew 5 and 8.
I would challenge your interpretation. Jesus was saying that the OT was not wrong, but that HE was the realization of the prophecies and that his life and eventual sacrifice was to meet the objectives of Gods laws. Jesus does not change the fact that we need to obey God but his life changes virtually everything about how we obey God.
The OT is still useful in enhancing our understanding. Even later prophets like Timothy explicitly say so. As a Christian though you must look at the OT thru a NT lens.
That probably isn't true. You are more likely to be fatally injured drunk walking than driving.
Provided you are going to still enable people to drink to excess (IE not return to prohibition type policies ), further restrictions and inducements against drunk driving likely cost lives. There is a typing point drunk drivers are obviously vary dangerous but their numbers are sufficiently reduced at this point the amount of harm they are causing is less than that of walkers. Who when intoxicated do things like step into traffic in front of sober drivers, fall off stuff, etc.
Society also likes to err on the side of responsibility for ones own actions (well it used, than Obama got elected), so we actually adopt a policy that puts drinkers at greater risk because it reduces the risks to people who are otherwise minding their own business. If something goes wrong, when you drive drunk chances are you kill someone; when you walk drunk chances are you get killed. Its not so cut and dry as policy maker though.
You can pass more drunk driving restrictions, it will reduce deaths among bystanders but kill more people in net. The ethics of drunk driving are simple, if you do it your a terrible person full stop. As a policy maker however additional drunk driving prohibitions mean more blood on your hands. You could do nothing and fewer citizens would die. Is your responsibility to minimize harm, or to provide maximum protection to the innocent?
I think there is an argument to be made that since getting rid of the TSA is politically impossible, and since its already a violation of rights and an indignity. It might be worth simply making it actually effective!
Right,
We don't need the TSA. The trade off between their invasive nature, the economic costs imposed by what they do direct in terms of screening activities, and indirect in terms of missed flights and long waits at airports, isn't a good one. I'd say shit can the entire thing and go back to the basic screening we had before.
However, the political will do that does not exist. Nobody (in power) will ever propose it because if it got done and than something happened they would be hounded from office. So given we are going to have to put up with this kind of BS, I actually would like to see some real security! Having already lost my freedom over my own vocal complaints and activity at the ballot box, now I say well at least give me the promised safety than.
So I would like the see the TSA strictly limit what can be taken on commercial passenger aircraft and what materials are allowed inside the secure area of airports. The should watch: http://www.terminalcornucopia....
and actually remove this stuff (well maybe not magazines and newspapers). No exceptions should not be made for liquids like baby milk etc without the passenger proving its save by consuming a portion. Various medical equipment that can be weaponized should be ban. If that means some people can't travel by commercial air, to frigging bad. They should have thought of that at the ballot box sooner.
Maybe when mainstream life styles are effected, "what do you mean I can board with my smart phone" and "granny can't come visit this Christmas because her oxygen cylinder isnt allowed" people will finally say alright lets end the madness and go back to how things were. In the meantime we can at least have safer air travel.
I suspect one of the problems drug dealers face they guys actually selling to the public anyway is the same every other business has: customers.
The same reason your still does a lot of business over e-mail, plain old telephone, easily tampered paper letters, that they probably should not is simple. Its because a significant number of the clients insist on doing business that way, can't be arsed to learn anything more secure, and practically start shouting 'lalalalala' if you try to educate them as to why they should.
Even if your dealer/pusher could use a secure app, or some kind of actually strong cipher code over plain SMS etc, Little Johny Methhead and Bobby Dopefiend won't be able to figure that out. They will go someplace else where they can get their fix without a 'computer lesson'.
false,
ethyl-alcohol has a large therapeutic dosage range, so can be used for a number of things with a high safety margin, by untrained persons.
1) Disinfecting wounds
2) As disinfecting oral rinse
3) general mild short term pain relief
4) a temporary mood elevator
5) a temporary (poorly performing) sleep aide
6) sterilization of tools like tweezers before use
I think its more fair to say it does not benefit chronic conditions.
easy to convince them to take on that cost in the face of budget constraints to the point that many school districts no longer even offer buses
Seriously, anyone who has ever been a to a school board budget meeting in their local community know busing is almost always the FIRST thing to be suggested for cuts. why? Because most people who serve on school boards are cynical bastards and know the easiest way get more money and its always more money, the per pupil costs never go down, is to inconvenience the parents. Nothing could do that better than killing student transportation. God for bid we don't have 10 librarians assistants per school no...or another computer lab teachers never let students actually use.
Yes I think your points are lost on a lot of people, even the leakers.
I not a big fan of leakers, unless like Snowden they can go a long way to demonstrating they tried very hard to work within the system first. Leaks of this type can be highly damaging to intelligence efforts and yet remain almost useless to the public. That Russia or any other sometimes or always hostile power might try and tamper with electronic voting: DUH!
What I actually would find interesting is the the methods used to analyze and gather the intel. That is only way I as a citizen can make any decisions as to if those methods are justifiable/legal, if the quality of the report is worth anything or if as Putin says any child can make traffic appear behind an IP in any country they way. Other state actors probably have big pieces of the puzzle, they know for example if they really were involved or not. A leak like this for them is enough to assess if their methods and resources might be compromised and likely enough to give them some insights as to what specific ones.
So the damage is done and is real. On the other-hand as far as I am concerned not privy to all kinds of other context, all i have here is some speculation by analyst who could be completely terrible at his job. So please if you going to actually leak something for heavens sake leak the real evidence! There are plenty of experts who will be able to verify it and reach the same conclusions if they are valid as the agencies can. Nobody trusts the agencies, if you expect people to do anything give us hard facts.
Bullshit, most of the rest of world signed on because it was good for them. Many of the signatories promised to do virtually nothing.
If I can get you to promise to fight with one hand tied behind your back while I am allowed to do whatever I want, why the hell would I NOT agree to that!
It was worse than that even the green development funds, would have been American tax payers pay to give money to places like the DPRK to do 'something' while the 90% of the dollars they take are used to line the pockets of the politically well connected.
Seriously FUCK THAT