Since when does a bank have liability or say in how you spend your funds? At worst they have a reporting obligation for suspicious transaction patterns and since they don't deal in cash I don't see that applying here.
Simple supply and demand solves this. If it is hard to find someone willing to sell then the price is too low. If nobody wants to buy the price is too high.
You say that like there are a huge number of viable banks. ATM availability alone limits you to maybe three realistic options, WaMu/Chase/BoA. Otherwise you'll get nailed with fees for ATM usage.
"If my bank charges me a fee I don't like, I tell them and they recind the fee."
First, every bank mentioned above has a fixed number of fees they'll refund. Even if they will it takes at least an hour of my time. An hour of my time is a much higher dollar amount than any of the fees.
The people who get hit really hard by the fees aren't idiots they are poor people with low balances that are tough to manage. Before the law was changed to force banks to apply deposits before charges standard practice was to re-order transactions from highest to lowest and apply deposits last. So you could have a $55 balance, deposit $100 cash, then buy a pack of gum $2, soda from a vending machine $1, then pay your phone bill of $100. The bank would process the $100 FIRST even though it happened last, say it overdrafted you -$35, then apply the gum -$35, then apply the soda $-35 and then, even though what you actually spent is less than the $155 of cleared funds you deposited before spending any of it the fees made it more than your total balance so they'd doc you another $35 for having a negative balance. Also in many cases they will wait, having an algorithm automatically apply these charges 1-3 days later in whatever manner generates the most fees and they will simply change your online transaction record to retroactively reflect that fee. The limits by the banks means they'll refund at most two of the above charges and will not rewrite the transaction log to remove the fees that wouldn't have been charged without THOSE fees they are removing.
"critically acclaimed, and well watched by many people"
If this is the low bar you set then you probably like a lot of movies. The Fate of the Furious? The Fast and the Furious part 4 zillion is what you list as original? The first one sucked let alone the sequels.
Guardians of the Galaxy and the other comic book movies are pretty much the only good content being produced right now and that is because of good writing in the base material combined with one thing hollywood does well which is effects. Hollywood spent a generation trying to get rid of big stars and they mostly succeeded. The few names you'll pick out if you don't pay attention to all their names are mostly talent less and replaceable.
On the contrary, in the "fee based banking world" ripping you off one fee at a time is how banks make their money. Banks offer convenience, I'm not sure protecting your money is on the list of things they do anymore. Anyone you've ever written a check to can submit an electronic check using the information on it and your bank will pay it without any verification.
Agreed. Also, the death cap wouldn't trick anyone who had handled the real thing fresh. One scrap of the fingernail on that white flesh would reveal it wasn't the real thing and you'd have a pretty good idea when it was that pristine white in the first place.
Where to look is in the humidity dome in your closet. The spores are perfectly legal and outside of making sure things are nice and sterile extremely easy to cultivate.
It isn't really a fair comparison. At least 60% of those who take shrooms experience vomiting and diarrhea. Often they smoke marijuana alongside to treat the sides. Neither causes any sort of serious medical condition.
"No, the truth is more that a semi-common hallucination for pot heads to have is thinking they're dying."
I think you are talking about a situation akin to getting yourself freaked out when alone in the house after watching a scary movie. That has very little to do with marijuana and a great deal to do with a cop who ate brownies and then freaked himself out with all the nonsense propaganda the DEA spreads... Marijuana does not trigger hallucinations. Hell, mushrooms barely trigger hallucinations.
I've consulted with dispensaries growing marijuana and producing over 99% pure THC extracts... THC does not cause hallucinations. What some would call soaring or flying is actually simple dizziness combined with euphoria. The light intoxication makes it easier to see low light hallucinations like a door moving/breathing in a dim room but you won't see anything you can't manage to see as a normal combination and freaking yourself out, mind playing tricks on you, or optical effect when perfectly sober.
Even LSD which is dramatically more hallucinogenic doesn't cause real honest to god hallucinations beyond optical effects that can easily be created with lenses. Textures on the wall slightly shifting and blurring together? Sure. People who aren't real? Nope. Voices. Nope. People who tell you otherwise are busting your chops or most likely just lying about having ever taken the stuff to begin with. I used to sell LSD in high school, trust me, it isn't a quantity thing at least not within the realm of a hundred hits or so. You don't take this stuff to actually go to wonderland, you take it because of the extreme euphoria that lasts 8-12hrs and leaves your face aching from smiling so hard for that long.
I've only encountered one thing that didn't induce a completely dreamlike (stationary, eyes closed or unseeing so everything is 100% imagination) experience that triggers full on hallucinations mixed with reality. I'm not going to spread what that is but is nothing you'd take for fun.
And that is emergency intervention, someone mentioned what you do in the event of a "bad reaction" but that reaction isn't a medical issue it is more akin to the cop who ate brownies, nothing wrong whatsoever just a guy freaking out and no more a medical situation than getting your spooked when alone after watching a horror movie.
Marijuana is still going to be the winner here with almost no acute negative medical incidences whereas shrooms cause vomiting and diarrhea in at least half the people who take them.
"So 'going to the ER' is the wrong criteria in the first place. "
I think you are confusing a dangerous medical reaction with "a bad experience." You can have "a bad experience" on something literally every time you try it 10000 times in a row and it still be 100% safe.
The banks AI has a conflict of interest. The same with your stock broker. There is always some pattern of investing/trading/saving/spending that would generate more profit for them and that they could spin as being harmless or in your interest if caught.
"Robotic surgery, as it is performed today is by a human controlling the robot, i.e. the human makes the decisions."
That can be a very loose concept indeed depending on the bot/surgery. In some cases the robots are basically just remote hands. In many cases though the doctor is basically using controls just for the sake of saying it is supervised by a doctor with fully automatic steps having buttons or prompts to trigger them or abort with the end result essentially never being different than if the robot skipped the prompts and continued to the next step. In some cases, like LASIK eye surgery a human could never do what the machine does let alone control it and on good equipment the machine is making numerous adjustments to it's cutting path per second.
The bank tried to rip you, after spending far more than $10 worth of your time you finally got them to reverse the bogus charge and you call that being nice? If that doesn't tell you anything about where we set the bar with the banks I don't know what does.
BINGO. Nobody had a nationwide occupy the ER movement and if they did I somehow doubt Doctors would have had the pull to get the protesters attacked and silenced by local officials and police.
As long as banks deliberately operate using a model that utilizes fees as a significant revenue stream nobody will trust them, period. Seriously, they even reorder transactions highest to lowest so if you went into the red at any point you'd get hit with as many overdraft transactions as possible. And what is worse the people most likely to get hit by it are the people with little money and thus little buffer in their balance.
Psst, not being a Democrat doesn't make me a Republican or a member of any other party. There are still people out there who actually think for themselves to arrive at their opinions.
"Pai's effort to roll back the rules has led to a highly politicized debate. Underlying it is a complex policy decision with major implications for the future of the Web"
There is no debate here. This is an ISP cronie trying to repeal a policy shoved down government throats by the collective voices of most of the people in the country. R's whore for big business and D's sell out to tech and media companies. At best net neutrality is a wash for D's with as many policy buyers in the tech and media area willing to bribe them to do it as not.
That is what you call actual Democracy. When public support is so overwhelming that it forces the hands of politicians on the things which benefit us, which almost universally neither party supports. Net neutrality, castrating domestic wiretapping, protecting whistle blowers like Snowden, spreading military power among the states, actually enforcing parts of the constitution the limit federal power, redistricting in a way that reflects the 51-49% split between urban and rural population WITHOUT trying to lump any particular special interest or minority group together, making it illegal to accept jobs or money after leaving a public office for any entity that was under the authority of that office, including indirectly (i.e. the president can have no income source but his salary for life after office and the FCC chairman can't be paid by ISP's afterward).
"but it can pay low wages to visa workers if it wanted. This fact is at the heart of the H-1B battle."
No. This battle is not just about the wages paid the H-1B workers, it is allowing allowing there to be any H-1B workers if there are US workers who could perform the task at any price or do so with reasonable training (in high tech environments new employees generally need up to 12 months to get up to full speed).
H1B workers should not be allowed in to keep current wage levels, to reduce leverage skilled employees have in the local free market, and certainly not to replace/displace local workers. H1B workers are for when local talent does not exist. Period. The same is also true of the back door using accelerated degrees from foreign nations to get student student visas for US grad schools. US schools might be willing to sell out since these students pay max tuition and US companies having programs which then pay for/reimburse the education costs might make this feasible but it isn't in the overall interest of the United States.
"experience and knowledge is needed in low-level and middle management"
Management are the people who get in the way of the talent. Experience and knowledge is needed in the talent and nobody is talking about the junior level windows admins. Any kid with a high school diploma or GED can do that. We are talking about the resources designing and implementing and admining your networks, server farms, storage farms, programmers, and other senior technical resources. In many organizations these people are though of as management but they normally don't have direct reports. If you are smart most of your project management comes from these ranks but these are self-directing resources, their managers only exist to push the latest HIPAA module and make sure everyone knows how to enter their hours. If they start to actually get involved in the work in some way instead of just gathering the details of what will happen from the talent they'll make decisions which aren't technically sound. That will cost your organization far more than any manager would gain you cracking a whip and demanding broom pushing.
I think you mean high-level functionaries. It makes very little sense to put low paid people out of the job when you can put high paid ones out of the job.
Or in this case appropriating the power of public speech by selectively recreating the message (bill) through selectively silencing individual sites (lines). This allows them to create a false view of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the feds, not coinbase. This isn't a government request being passed on, this is coinbase itself nosing into the activities of its clients.
Since when does a bank have liability or say in how you spend your funds? At worst they have a reporting obligation for suspicious transaction patterns and since they don't deal in cash I don't see that applying here.
Exactly, a bank/exchange has no business even asking its clients how they choose to spend their funds let alone passing judgement about it.
Ohhh... you do actually comprehend and are just being a jerk. Got it.
Simple supply and demand solves this. If it is hard to find someone willing to sell then the price is too low. If nobody wants to buy the price is too high.
"Get a better bank, man."
You say that like there are a huge number of viable banks. ATM availability alone limits you to maybe three realistic options, WaMu/Chase/BoA. Otherwise you'll get nailed with fees for ATM usage.
"If my bank charges me a fee I don't like, I tell them and they recind the fee."
First, every bank mentioned above has a fixed number of fees they'll refund. Even if they will it takes at least an hour of my time. An hour of my time is a much higher dollar amount than any of the fees.
The people who get hit really hard by the fees aren't idiots they are poor people with low balances that are tough to manage. Before the law was changed to force banks to apply deposits before charges standard practice was to re-order transactions from highest to lowest and apply deposits last. So you could have a $55 balance, deposit $100 cash, then buy a pack of gum $2, soda from a vending machine $1, then pay your phone bill of $100. The bank would process the $100 FIRST even though it happened last, say it overdrafted you -$35, then apply the gum -$35, then apply the soda $-35 and then, even though what you actually spent is less than the $155 of cleared funds you deposited before spending any of it the fees made it more than your total balance so they'd doc you another $35 for having a negative balance. Also in many cases they will wait, having an algorithm automatically apply these charges 1-3 days later in whatever manner generates the most fees and they will simply change your online transaction record to retroactively reflect that fee. The limits by the banks means they'll refund at most two of the above charges and will not rewrite the transaction log to remove the fees that wouldn't have been charged without THOSE fees they are removing.
"critically acclaimed, and well watched by many people"
If this is the low bar you set then you probably like a lot of movies. The Fate of the Furious? The Fast and the Furious part 4 zillion is what you list as original? The first one sucked let alone the sequels.
Guardians of the Galaxy and the other comic book movies are pretty much the only good content being produced right now and that is because of good writing in the base material combined with one thing hollywood does well which is effects. Hollywood spent a generation trying to get rid of big stars and they mostly succeeded. The few names you'll pick out if you don't pay attention to all their names are mostly talent less and replaceable.
On the contrary, in the "fee based banking world" ripping you off one fee at a time is how banks make their money. Banks offer convenience, I'm not sure protecting your money is on the list of things they do anymore. Anyone you've ever written a check to can submit an electronic check using the information on it and your bank will pay it without any verification.
Agreed. Also, the death cap wouldn't trick anyone who had handled the real thing fresh. One scrap of the fingernail on that white flesh would reveal it wasn't the real thing and you'd have a pretty good idea when it was that pristine white in the first place.
Where to look is in the humidity dome in your closet. The spores are perfectly legal and outside of making sure things are nice and sterile extremely easy to cultivate.
It isn't really a fair comparison. At least 60% of those who take shrooms experience vomiting and diarrhea. Often they smoke marijuana alongside to treat the sides. Neither causes any sort of serious medical condition.
"No, the truth is more that a semi-common hallucination for pot heads to have is thinking they're dying."
I think you are talking about a situation akin to getting yourself freaked out when alone in the house after watching a scary movie. That has very little to do with marijuana and a great deal to do with a cop who ate brownies and then freaked himself out with all the nonsense propaganda the DEA spreads... Marijuana does not trigger hallucinations. Hell, mushrooms barely trigger hallucinations.
I've consulted with dispensaries growing marijuana and producing over 99% pure THC extracts... THC does not cause hallucinations. What some would call soaring or flying is actually simple dizziness combined with euphoria. The light intoxication makes it easier to see low light hallucinations like a door moving/breathing in a dim room but you won't see anything you can't manage to see as a normal combination and freaking yourself out, mind playing tricks on you, or optical effect when perfectly sober.
Even LSD which is dramatically more hallucinogenic doesn't cause real honest to god hallucinations beyond optical effects that can easily be created with lenses. Textures on the wall slightly shifting and blurring together? Sure. People who aren't real? Nope. Voices. Nope. People who tell you otherwise are busting your chops or most likely just lying about having ever taken the stuff to begin with. I used to sell LSD in high school, trust me, it isn't a quantity thing at least not within the realm of a hundred hits or so. You don't take this stuff to actually go to wonderland, you take it because of the extreme euphoria that lasts 8-12hrs and leaves your face aching from smiling so hard for that long.
I've only encountered one thing that didn't induce a completely dreamlike (stationary, eyes closed or unseeing so everything is 100% imagination) experience that triggers full on hallucinations mixed with reality. I'm not going to spread what that is but is nothing you'd take for fun.
And that is emergency intervention, someone mentioned what you do in the event of a "bad reaction" but that reaction isn't a medical issue it is more akin to the cop who ate brownies, nothing wrong whatsoever just a guy freaking out and no more a medical situation than getting your spooked when alone after watching a horror movie.
Marijuana is still going to be the winner here with almost no acute negative medical incidences whereas shrooms cause vomiting and diarrhea in at least half the people who take them.
"So 'going to the ER' is the wrong criteria in the first place. "
I think you are confusing a dangerous medical reaction with "a bad experience." You can have "a bad experience" on something literally every time you try it 10000 times in a row and it still be 100% safe.
The banks AI has a conflict of interest. The same with your stock broker. There is always some pattern of investing/trading/saving/spending that would generate more profit for them and that they could spin as being harmless or in your interest if caught.
"Robotic surgery, as it is performed today is by a human controlling the robot, i.e. the human makes the decisions."
That can be a very loose concept indeed depending on the bot/surgery. In some cases the robots are basically just remote hands. In many cases though the doctor is basically using controls just for the sake of saying it is supervised by a doctor with fully automatic steps having buttons or prompts to trigger them or abort with the end result essentially never being different than if the robot skipped the prompts and continued to the next step. In some cases, like LASIK eye surgery a human could never do what the machine does let alone control it and on good equipment the machine is making numerous adjustments to it's cutting path per second.
The bank tried to rip you, after spending far more than $10 worth of your time you finally got them to reverse the bogus charge and you call that being nice? If that doesn't tell you anything about where we set the bar with the banks I don't know what does.
BINGO. Nobody had a nationwide occupy the ER movement and if they did I somehow doubt Doctors would have had the pull to get the protesters attacked and silenced by local officials and police.
As long as banks deliberately operate using a model that utilizes fees as a significant revenue stream nobody will trust them, period. Seriously, they even reorder transactions highest to lowest so if you went into the red at any point you'd get hit with as many overdraft transactions as possible. And what is worse the people most likely to get hit by it are the people with little money and thus little buffer in their balance.
Psst, not being a Democrat doesn't make me a Republican or a member of any other party. There are still people out there who actually think for themselves to arrive at their opinions.
"Pai's effort to roll back the rules has led to a highly politicized debate. Underlying it is a complex policy decision with major implications for the future of the Web"
There is no debate here. This is an ISP cronie trying to repeal a policy shoved down government throats by the collective voices of most of the people in the country. R's whore for big business and D's sell out to tech and media companies. At best net neutrality is a wash for D's with as many policy buyers in the tech and media area willing to bribe them to do it as not.
That is what you call actual Democracy. When public support is so overwhelming that it forces the hands of politicians on the things which benefit us, which almost universally neither party supports. Net neutrality, castrating domestic wiretapping, protecting whistle blowers like Snowden, spreading military power among the states, actually enforcing parts of the constitution the limit federal power, redistricting in a way that reflects the 51-49% split between urban and rural population WITHOUT trying to lump any particular special interest or minority group together, making it illegal to accept jobs or money after leaving a public office for any entity that was under the authority of that office, including indirectly (i.e. the president can have no income source but his salary for life after office and the FCC chairman can't be paid by ISP's afterward).
"but it can pay low wages to visa workers if it wanted. This fact is at the heart of the H-1B battle."
No. This battle is not just about the wages paid the H-1B workers, it is allowing allowing there to be any H-1B workers if there are US workers who could perform the task at any price or do so with reasonable training (in high tech environments new employees generally need up to 12 months to get up to full speed).
H1B workers should not be allowed in to keep current wage levels, to reduce leverage skilled employees have in the local free market, and certainly not to replace/displace local workers. H1B workers are for when local talent does not exist. Period. The same is also true of the back door using accelerated degrees from foreign nations to get student student visas for US grad schools. US schools might be willing to sell out since these students pay max tuition and US companies having programs which then pay for/reimburse the education costs might make this feasible but it isn't in the overall interest of the United States.
"experience and knowledge is needed in low-level and middle management"
Management are the people who get in the way of the talent. Experience and knowledge is needed in the talent and nobody is talking about the junior level windows admins. Any kid with a high school diploma or GED can do that. We are talking about the resources designing and implementing and admining your networks, server farms, storage farms, programmers, and other senior technical resources. In many organizations these people are though of as management but they normally don't have direct reports. If you are smart most of your project management comes from these ranks but these are self-directing resources, their managers only exist to push the latest HIPAA module and make sure everyone knows how to enter their hours. If they start to actually get involved in the work in some way instead of just gathering the details of what will happen from the talent they'll make decisions which aren't technically sound. That will cost your organization far more than any manager would gain you cracking a whip and demanding broom pushing.
"Replacing a CEO earning 500x those low level people ,well now that's some real money! "
Considering what these C officers actually do in most organizations I'd think LISA could replace them successfully.
I think you mean high-level functionaries. It makes very little sense to put low paid people out of the job when you can put high paid ones out of the job.
Or in this case appropriating the power of public speech by selectively recreating the message (bill) through selectively silencing individual sites (lines). This allows them to create a false view of the internet.