For a lot of people monogamy is secure, comfortable, and satisfies their sexual needs - particularly when the partners communicate openly about sex.
As a man, I have not yet met another married man who finds that his sexual needs are satisfied. Women just don't want it as often as men. Rather than just let the man have sex whenever he wants it, they just say no unless they also want to have sex. Despite this, it is expected of husbands not to cheat on their wives. So although makes are designed with a need to have sex probably 7 times as frequently as women, they still have to limit themselves to only having sex with one woman. Undoubtedly this has led to infidelity on a lot of men's part, not because they don't love their wives but because they are sexually frustrated. But women see this as not living them and want to get divorced when this happens.
Well, all that and there used to be safety reasons to make you turn off your phone...
Still are - there are documented instances where particular models of cellphones have interfered with navigational equipment - either causing the onboard heading indicators to indicate a few degrees off, to GPS units losing lock. With GPS being prominent in a lot of new approaches, especially RNP operations, this could be a problem.
Now, the vast majority of cellphones out there are fine - they don't interfere, but several models have proven problematic.
Don't worry too much about it though - they usually detect these issues and confirm it with the flight attendants asking everyone to turn off their electronic devices to see if their navigation equipment recovers. There are typically plenty of checks in the system - if the plane was off course, people generally know before your flight to LA ends up in Timbuktu.
Strange that they would interfere with modern commercial airline instrumentation with multiple redundant hardware, yet not cause any problems in small aircraft instrumentation, as pilots in small airplanes user cell phones all the time in the cockpit as opposed to 50 feet away.
I have 8 GB of RAM, and am using 93% of it. However, when I look at the top consumers of RAM, the top ones are ones that have no business using that much RAM. Firefox is using 1.4 GB, that is just not right. I have 25 tabs open, so I could see it using maybe 25 MB. Skype is using 186 MB, no excuse for why Skype should need more than a few MB. My Asus system configuration utility is using 523 MB, no reason for that at all. Eclipse is using 507 MB with nothing running and 5 or 6 projects open. No reason for that. Bluestacks is using 387 MB. No reason it should be using more than 20 or 30 MB. Browser Configuration Utility is using 200 MB, no reason for it to even be running. If all of these were using appropriate amounts of memory, then I could run in under 4 GB, but the writers of these software products are unable to contain their memory leaks.
By comparison, SQL Server is also running and only uses about 80 MB of memory.
Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?
Cheap? Maybe if your buying wino wine, but anything you buy at a bar is going to be $6 for a glass of beer. And it takes several of those to get drunk. I don't drink at all, partly for financial reasons, partly because alcohol tastes nasty, partly because I have alcoholics in the family and my grandmother died of kidney failure from lifelong drinking, partly because I am afraid I will get drunk and act as foolish as every drunk person I have ever seen.
No need to end it, just make it ungameable. If you can't find a local candidate at your desired salary, you have to keep upping the salary until it is 50% higher than the "industry standard' (another BS number). If you have no takers then, then you can acquire an H1b. If your company is found to be loading the job qualifications to match those of an existing H1b candidate, or putting so many qualifications on there that only a lying scum H1b placement agency would be willing to put them all on a resume then that company is not allowed to hire ANY H1bs for a period of 10 years. A second offense and they are NEVER allowed to hire H1bs again. As a plus, this will also get rid of the Indian companies that hire 100% ONLY H1bs and then hire them out as consultants which displace actual existing U.S. employees in the most gross and unethical violation of the H1b program possible.
The fundamental problem is that few US citizens are motivated to attain high levels of education, and to earn their wages / wealth by contributing to society, rather than living off subsidies doled out by the guvment.
What are you kidding? Or is this Bill Gates? This is a lie. 65.9 percent of high school graduates enroll in college for the next semester. That is almost 2/3, which is a pretty astonishingly high number. And that number is down from previous years.
The REAL problem is that there are millions of unemployed college educated workers out there who can't get a job because companies have hired H1b at lower wages to do the job instead.
The only gotcha is that the other company must be willing to sponsor taking over the H1B (which is a tiny cost compared to the wage they'll be paying you).
And also a tiny cost compared to the difference in salary they would have had to pay a local to do the job.
They drive a lot more miles. More miles means more accidents. They drive strangers around. An incident in a car with a friend is less likely to end up as a claim then an incident in a car with a stranger. Commercial insurance also sometimes covers different drivers driving different vehicles. Driving an unfamiliar car increases risk.
That being said, commercial insurance doesn't HAVE to be more expensive than a regular policy. I have commercial insurance on a truck that my property rental business owns. It is cheaper than my private insurance policy. but it is mostly about mileage. I don't put very many miles on it in a given year. Taxis drive sometimes nearly 24 hours a day when vehicles are shared among different shifts. They can put 100,000 miles on in a year. This is going to expose them to a lot more risk than your usual 15,000 miles per year family car. Also, it will be mostly city driving, which is far more risky than highway driving.
You're just pissed because someone has managed to find a way around oppressive rules and regulations.
They have not found a way around the oppressive rules and regulations. They just aren't obeying them. If I use an app to hire a hitman, I haven't found a way around all the oppressive anti-conspiracy to commit murder laws.
Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.
Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed. But now that the restriction is in place, then why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
I would think booking by phone would be a lot easier than booking by an app. You can actually talk to a person and give them details. Where I live, the bartender will happily do that for you, since you might be too use an app or make a phone call. Also where I live, taxis will deliver you home for free on an ever expanding number of nights if you are too drunk to drive. Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).
At some point, the higher insurance premiums for driving around a relic that lacks pretty much all modern safety features may not be worth the trade off.
Wells, since the higher insurance premiums for decades old cars are actually lower, I would say it is worth the trade off.
A car over 25 years old is defined as a classic when it comes to most or all insurance companies.
And someone driving around a 50-year old car isn't likely driving around some worthless piece of shit, and thus is insured and rated appropriately.
That is true. I drove a 1988 Lotus Esprit for awhile, and I had classic car insurance on it. It was $250 per year. My policy on my other cars was $250 per month.
Are you speaking from lived experience, or from what the bigmedia told you to think about the pigs?
How can I possibly NOT be speaking from experience? How can my only experience with cops possibly be from what I see on Tv (Which, BTW, TV at least lately paints cops as being far worse than criminals. Remorseless killing machines who kill people, especially minorities with wanton abandon)? If I was less than 5 years old, there might be some chance I had never encountered a cop.
But, in fact I am 45 years old, have interacted with perhaps 100 cops, and my WORST experience with a cop was one in which I was pulled over in a bad side of town due to suspicious behavior. That being, when I passed a poorly marked freeway entrance to get the heck out of where I was (late at night after a concert, and unfamiliar with the area), I backed up on an otherwise empty street, and got the heck out of there. The cop thought I saw him down at the next interchange and was trying to flee. Only an idiot or somebody extremely guilty would do back up and get on a freeway after seeing a cop, but I explained that I was nervous about the area, did not see him at all and was extremely interested in getting out of there. He gave me a warning, which was nice, because I was definitely worked up about where I was and trying to get out of there, and I was kind of short with him. I also may have had a slight odor of marijuana, although I have never smoked so much as a cigarette. I probably had enough residue on me to qualify as being arrestable, although I did not partake (never have, never will). The people sitting next to us at the concert were smoking pot.
Other interactions have included when I accidentally set the alarm on the band room at the junior high instead of turning it off when I opened the room up so that the band could practice (being entrusted by the director to do so on that occasion), multiple times when I was reporting robberies, one time when some robbers used my yard as a getaway path, one time when a person who was renting a separate suite that is part of my house died mysteriously, four or five times when I was younger I got speeding tickets, and was occasionally short with the officers, especially when I thought I WAS going the speed limit, but it was in fact artificially lower to increase revenue for the city, and some people I know are police officers, so I know them socially. All of them are good honest, and teachable people.
because management doesn't know what you do all day. they don't know what is an acceptable amount of work, and what is an excellent amount of work. they don't know how long a project should take, its easier to ask you to change then them.
Oh, well, then it sounds like we need to replace management with one that works.
At some point, the higher insurance premiums for driving around a relic that lacks pretty much all modern safety features may not be worth the trade off.
Wells, since the higher insurance premiums for decades old cars are actually lower, I would say it is worth the trade off.
That's racist. Why is it wrong for a copy to kill a minority but okay for them to kill a white male? Why do we have rioting and looting when a minority hoodlum is killed, but when a white hoodlum is killed, it is not even news? This society is racist.
Funny how all of the police officers that all of the Anonymous Cowards know are all mean bullies that won't listen to nobody nohow. Sounds like the Anonymous Cowards needs to get some better friends. All of the Police Officers I know or have interacted with have been courteous, kindly and understanding.
This is such a non-issue. Basic de-escalation techniques are well known and easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to use. It doesn't take rocket-science to know that profiling, loud order barking and throwing people down and asking questions later ISN'T the way to go. The real problem seems to be that the hiring process is letting people with personalities who shouldn't be cops become cops. This isn't a profession that should except muscles over brains people who's ego will be built upon the power of the position. We don't need muscle-bourd Eric Cartman-types yelling RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.
De-escalation techniques don't work in the face of media frenzies which encourage people to actively disrespect authority figures, to riot and rampage, and to see everything as a race issue.
flagrant disregard for life with current operational procedure
This statement and others like it on the internet and news media are irresponsible and meant to incite further violence and hatred towards the epeople who protect us from harm on a daily basis.
Each year, in the United States, there are over 50 million citations, arrests and other interactions with law enforcement, and fewer than 1,000 of those involve the death of a suspect. This is less than.002%.
Meanwhile, over 14,000 people are murdered every year by criminals, and over 1.4 million violent crimes are committed. Shouldn't we focus our anger and angst on these people?
By demonizing the police, all we ensure is that fewer people will want to have the job, and that criminals will feel safer in their pursuit of crime.
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
I would tend to agree with this, but we would have to think of how to financially support the businesses as they would be the ones having to pay for the service of feeding the hungry. However, the vast, vast majority of people who steal things are not doing it because they are hungry. They are doing it because they want stuff, or they need stuff to pawn so they can get drugs.
I notice people around companies who prevent internet access excessively use phones.
Exactly. At my previous company they blocked facebook on the laptops. I didn't do facebook anyway, but all of the entry level people who spent an hour of their day on facebook changed to spending most of their day on facebook on their phones since it takes 4 or 5 times as long to do stuff on a phone that it does on a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
For a lot of people monogamy is secure, comfortable, and satisfies their sexual needs - particularly when the partners communicate openly about sex.
As a man, I have not yet met another married man who finds that his sexual needs are satisfied. Women just don't want it as often as men. Rather than just let the man have sex whenever he wants it, they just say no unless they also want to have sex. Despite this, it is expected of husbands not to cheat on their wives. So although makes are designed with a need to have sex probably 7 times as frequently as women, they still have to limit themselves to only having sex with one woman. Undoubtedly this has led to infidelity on a lot of men's part, not because they don't love their wives but because they are sexually frustrated. But women see this as not living them and want to get divorced when this happens.
Still are - there are documented instances where particular models of cellphones have interfered with navigational equipment - either causing the onboard heading indicators to indicate a few degrees off, to GPS units losing lock. With GPS being prominent in a lot of new approaches, especially RNP operations, this could be a problem.
Now, the vast majority of cellphones out there are fine - they don't interfere, but several models have proven problematic.
Don't worry too much about it though - they usually detect these issues and confirm it with the flight attendants asking everyone to turn off their electronic devices to see if their navigation equipment recovers. There are typically plenty of checks in the system - if the plane was off course, people generally know before your flight to LA ends up in Timbuktu.
Strange that they would interfere with modern commercial airline instrumentation with multiple redundant hardware, yet not cause any problems in small aircraft instrumentation, as pilots in small airplanes user cell phones all the time in the cockpit as opposed to 50 feet away.
I have 8 GB of RAM, and am using 93% of it. However, when I look at the top consumers of RAM, the top ones are ones that have no business using that much RAM. Firefox is using 1.4 GB, that is just not right. I have 25 tabs open, so I could see it using maybe 25 MB. Skype is using 186 MB, no excuse for why Skype should need more than a few MB. My Asus system configuration utility is using 523 MB, no reason for that at all. Eclipse is using 507 MB with nothing running and 5 or 6 projects open. No reason for that. Bluestacks is using 387 MB. No reason it should be using more than 20 or 30 MB. Browser Configuration Utility is using 200 MB, no reason for it to even be running. If all of these were using appropriate amounts of memory, then I could run in under 4 GB, but the writers of these software products are unable to contain their memory leaks.
By comparison, SQL Server is also running and only uses about 80 MB of memory.
Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?
Cheap? Maybe if your buying wino wine, but anything you buy at a bar is going to be $6 for a glass of beer. And it takes several of those to get drunk. I don't drink at all, partly for financial reasons, partly because alcohol tastes nasty, partly because I have alcoholics in the family and my grandmother died of kidney failure from lifelong drinking, partly because I am afraid I will get drunk and act as foolish as every drunk person I have ever seen.
No need to end it, just make it ungameable. If you can't find a local candidate at your desired salary, you have to keep upping the salary until it is 50% higher than the "industry standard' (another BS number). If you have no takers then, then you can acquire an H1b. If your company is found to be loading the job qualifications to match those of an existing H1b candidate, or putting so many qualifications on there that only a lying scum H1b placement agency would be willing to put them all on a resume then that company is not allowed to hire ANY H1bs for a period of 10 years. A second offense and they are NEVER allowed to hire H1bs again.
As a plus, this will also get rid of the Indian companies that hire 100% ONLY H1bs and then hire them out as consultants which displace actual existing U.S. employees in the most gross and unethical violation of the H1b program possible.
Not the symptom or its manifestation.
The fundamental problem is that few US citizens are motivated to attain high levels of education, and to earn their wages / wealth by contributing to society, rather than living off subsidies doled out by the guvment.
What are you kidding? Or is this Bill Gates? This is a lie. 65.9 percent of high school graduates enroll in college for the next semester. That is almost 2/3, which is a pretty astonishingly high number. And that number is down from previous years.
The REAL problem is that there are millions of unemployed college educated workers out there who can't get a job because companies have hired H1b at lower wages to do the job instead.
The only gotcha is that the other company must be willing to sponsor taking over the H1B (which is a tiny cost compared to the wage they'll be paying you).
And also a tiny cost compared to the difference in salary they would have had to pay a local to do the job.
Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.
Why villainize the bar? It is the patron that went to the bar, ordered the drinks and drank the drinks. Make the patron pay the price.
They drive a lot more miles. More miles means more accidents. They drive strangers around. An incident in a car with a friend is less likely to end up as a claim then an incident in a car with a stranger. Commercial insurance also sometimes covers different drivers driving different vehicles. Driving an unfamiliar car increases risk.
That being said, commercial insurance doesn't HAVE to be more expensive than a regular policy. I have commercial insurance on a truck that my property rental business owns. It is cheaper than my private insurance policy. but it is mostly about mileage. I don't put very many miles on it in a given year. Taxis drive sometimes nearly 24 hours a day when vehicles are shared among different shifts. They can put 100,000 miles on in a year. This is going to expose them to a lot more risk than your usual 15,000 miles per year family car. Also, it will be mostly city driving, which is far more risky than highway driving.
You're just pissed because someone has managed to find a way around oppressive rules and regulations.
They have not found a way around the oppressive rules and regulations. They just aren't obeying them. If I use an app to hire a hitman, I haven't found a way around all the oppressive anti-conspiracy to commit murder laws.
Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.
Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed. But now that the restriction is in place, then why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
I would think booking by phone would be a lot easier than booking by an app. You can actually talk to a person and give them details. Where I live, the bartender will happily do that for you, since you might be too use an app or make a phone call. Also where I live, taxis will deliver you home for free on an ever expanding number of nights if you are too drunk to drive. Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).
More accurate headline: Drunk Driving Arrests went down, and also Uber was there...for most of that period.
At some point, the higher insurance premiums for driving around a relic that lacks pretty much all modern safety features may not be worth the trade off.
Wells, since the higher insurance premiums for decades old cars are actually lower, I would say it is worth the trade off.
A car over 25 years old is defined as a classic when it comes to most or all insurance companies.
And someone driving around a 50-year old car isn't likely driving around some worthless piece of shit, and thus is insured and rated appropriately.
That is true. I drove a 1988 Lotus Esprit for awhile, and I had classic car insurance on it. It was $250 per year. My policy on my other cars was $250 per month.
And the paid shills are checking in...
Well, I guess technically they are paid, being employees and all.
Are you speaking from lived experience, or from what the bigmedia told you to think about the pigs?
How can I possibly NOT be speaking from experience? How can my only experience with cops possibly be from what I see on Tv (Which, BTW, TV at least lately paints cops as being far worse than criminals. Remorseless killing machines who kill people, especially minorities with wanton abandon)? If I was less than 5 years old, there might be some chance I had never encountered a cop.
But, in fact I am 45 years old, have interacted with perhaps 100 cops, and my WORST experience with a cop was one in which I was pulled over in a bad side of town due to suspicious behavior. That being, when I passed a poorly marked freeway entrance to get the heck out of where I was (late at night after a concert, and unfamiliar with the area), I backed up on an otherwise empty street, and got the heck out of there. The cop thought I saw him down at the next interchange and was trying to flee. Only an idiot or somebody extremely guilty would do back up and get on a freeway after seeing a cop, but I explained that I was nervous about the area, did not see him at all and was extremely interested in getting out of there. He gave me a warning, which was nice, because I was definitely worked up about where I was and trying to get out of there, and I was kind of short with him. I also may have had a slight odor of marijuana, although I have never smoked so much as a cigarette. I probably had enough residue on me to qualify as being arrestable, although I did not partake (never have, never will). The people sitting next to us at the concert were smoking pot.
Other interactions have included when I accidentally set the alarm on the band room at the junior high instead of turning it off when I opened the room up so that the band could practice (being entrusted by the director to do so on that occasion), multiple times when I was reporting robberies, one time when some robbers used my yard as a getaway path, one time when a person who was renting a separate suite that is part of my house died mysteriously, four or five times when I was younger I got speeding tickets, and was occasionally short with the officers, especially when I thought I WAS going the speed limit, but it was in fact artificially lower to increase revenue for the city, and some people I know are police officers, so I know them socially. All of them are good honest, and teachable people.
because management doesn't know what you do all day. they don't know what is an acceptable amount of work, and what is an excellent amount of work. they don't know how long a project should take, its easier to ask you to change then them.
Oh, well, then it sounds like we need to replace management with one that works.
At some point, the higher insurance premiums for driving around a relic that lacks pretty much all modern safety features may not be worth the trade off.
Wells, since the higher insurance premiums for decades old cars are actually lower, I would say it is worth the trade off.
murder by cop of minorities
That's racist. Why is it wrong for a copy to kill a minority but okay for them to kill a white male? Why do we have rioting and looting when a minority hoodlum is killed, but when a white hoodlum is killed, it is not even news? This society is racist.
Funny how all of the police officers that all of the Anonymous Cowards know are all mean bullies that won't listen to nobody nohow. Sounds like the Anonymous Cowards needs to get some better friends. All of the Police Officers I know or have interacted with have been courteous, kindly and understanding.
This is such a non-issue. Basic de-escalation techniques are well known and easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to use. It doesn't take rocket-science to know that profiling, loud order barking and throwing people down and asking questions later ISN'T the way to go. The real problem seems to be that the hiring process is letting people with personalities who shouldn't be cops become cops. This isn't a profession that should except muscles over brains people who's ego will be built upon the power of the position. We don't need muscle-bourd Eric Cartman-types yelling RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.
De-escalation techniques don't work in the face of media frenzies which encourage people to actively disrespect authority figures, to riot and rampage, and to see everything as a race issue.
flagrant disregard for life with current operational procedure
This statement and others like it on the internet and news media are irresponsible and meant to incite further violence and hatred towards the epeople who protect us from harm on a daily basis. .002%.
Each year, in the United States, there are over 50 million citations, arrests and other interactions with law enforcement, and fewer than 1,000 of those involve the death of a suspect. This is less than
Meanwhile, over 14,000 people are murdered every year by criminals, and over 1.4 million violent crimes are committed. Shouldn't we focus our anger and angst on these people?
By demonizing the police, all we ensure is that fewer people will want to have the job, and that criminals will feel safer in their pursuit of crime.
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
I would tend to agree with this, but we would have to think of how to financially support the businesses as they would be the ones having to pay for the service of feeding the hungry. However, the vast, vast majority of people who steal things are not doing it because they are hungry. They are doing it because they want stuff, or they need stuff to pawn so they can get drugs.
I notice people around companies who prevent internet access excessively use phones.
Exactly. At my previous company they blocked facebook on the laptops. I didn't do facebook anyway, but all of the entry level people who spent an hour of their day on facebook changed to spending most of their day on facebook on their phones since it takes 4 or 5 times as long to do stuff on a phone that it does on a laptop.
Then, for your $95,000 salary, you'll be busy as living fuck--for 40 hours per week.
So they are going to raise my salary and lower my hours? Sounds good to me.