What is that thing, another overpriced piece of proprietary bloatware?
I'm sure this was rhetorical, but I'm going to answer anyway. WSUS is the free MS updating server service from Microsoft. It can update pretty much all Microsoft software (IE, Office, SQL, Windows, etc). It even does driver updates (only from Windows Update) if you want.
If there's a way to make it update 3rd party software, I'm not aware of it.
>The point is, there is no separate auto-updater just for IE.
If it's part of Windows, then why does it need one? The statement is FUD, pure and simple.
I saw this update come through on my update server this morning and immediately pushed it out. Desktops are already updating since I have everyone (with a few exceptions) set to install automatically.
I also have my moms computer setup to notify her whenever updates are available. I've even got her trained to call me when she sees the update notifier. It's a bit of a pain to get called at 9am and be asked "Is this ok to install?", but at least she's doing it and her machine isn't getting owned anymore.
Weekly? The default is to check every day at 3am. If it's turned on and left at the default (like most people do with FireFox), they'll be notified this morning and able to install it right away.
"Actually, if we were totally alone with no people, we could work the land we wanted, hunt what we wanted, and maintain ourselves, with no other responsibilities or consequences.. Nobody would starve in that situation. Quit trying to spread that fallacy."
If you could hunt you wouldn't starve. Humans tend to hunt in groups though. Also, totally alone, you wouldn't have the benefit of modern medicine, you wouldn't have cars or guns, you'd have a life expectancy somewhere about 30....
Good luck with that.
Yes and as the group advances, without a damn central government, so would the individual. It does not take a government to bring advancements to humanity. It takes innovation and a willingness, sometimes at the expense of oneself, to move knowledge forward. Quit bringing taxes and government into the equation. The governments one job is to enforce the laws of the land and provide national security. That's it. If you want anything else, please find another country to live in.
Well, there are two ways to look at this. One is to be a humane individual and decide that paying taxes is better than having people literally starve to death around you, as well as the fact that not only well-off people give birth to Einsteins, so providing sustenance and education to people's kids does help.
Paying taxes doesn't do this. Getting government off peoples backs and out of peoples lives does this. As taxes go down, charitable contributions go up. As taxes go down, people are better able to afford private schools which give a far better education than the public school system.
So by allowing people to keep the money they've made, they're more likely to help their fellow man when he's "down on his luck" and better able to educate their own children. Again, all of this comes without government intervention.
Do I think everything government does is good? Hell no. But your "what's mine is mine and nobody can take it from me!" attitude is immature and doesn't take into account that if you were alone in an undeveloped land you'd probably have starved by now. You have benefited greatly from our collective actions (government) and are required to give some back.
Or he'd do what he needed to do in order to survive because there'd be no one around to ask for a handout. I suppose you think it's impossible for people to hunt for food, make clothes from animal skins, and build their own shelters? And then if there's other people around, you can trade for other stuff you might need. And that's all without a big central government to get between the two.
The purpose of a democratic system is, specifically, sovereignty of the people. Certainly, established laws should be followed -- but who writes those laws, and who are they written for? In a properly functioning democratic system, the answer to both is "The People".
It's a good thing we live in a Democratic Republic then, isn't it.
What you suggest is that because of an economic cycle (this is a cycle just like any other) we write laws that allow the government to use our money (yes, it's our money) to bail out companies that should not be in business because they have failing business models.
I certainly haven't heard Toyota, Honda, or Nissan asking their governments for bailouts right now (yes, I know they got them years ago, but they aren't getting them now). Maybe if the average workers salary+benefits in Detroit wasn't so much higher than the average worker at Honda ($75/hr vs $48/hr), they wouldn't need a bailout.
The longer the government sticks their hands in this mess, the longer it's going to take to come out. The government needs to leave things alone and let companies fail, just like what happens in every economic downturn. This one's going to be especially painful since people have been overspending for so long, but it needs to happen.
Similar arguments are being used but the real reason it's so important to bail them out is national pride, pure and simple.
This. There's a lot of fear mongering that if GM and Chrysler declare Chapter 11, that employees will lose their jobs and the companies assets will be sold to foreign investors. In turn, companies like Honda and Toyota would now own the American factories. If there was ever a war, we would have to depend on foreign companies to make tanks and planes.
The reality is that if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go Chapter 11, they could reorganize and get out from under the union contracts that are killing them. This is why the President of the UAW was also in front of Congress and has been one of the most vocal proponents of the bailout. If they get the bailout, the union contracts stay in place. Without that bailout, all the crazy ass union contracts that are in place get voided because they're keeping the company from making a profit. This is yet another example of the union being willing to cut off their nose to spite their face (see also the union strike of Chrysler from a year or so ago).
Also, if they went chapter 11, even with the foreign companies buying up the assets, there's nothing to stop the government from rolling up with soldiers in wartime and saying "You will build tanks and planes for us!" It's not like the assets can be moved overseas.
Also note that Fannie and Freddie were created by the government. So while on paper they were "private" institutions, the perception was that if they were ever in danger of failing the government would bail them out. Truly private institutions would not have been able to get nearly the same low rates that Fannie and Freddie did.
So since you failed to check the minimum system requirements and then demand that it work that way and not take a salesman's word at face value, the software is at fault? Seems like you're the one at fault to me.
We paid for a web based program for our sales team. During the testing phase, I found out that not only did it not work with FireFox, it also didn't work with IE 7. We demanded that they fix it before we paid them for it, since I had already rolled IE 7 out and I wasn't about to uninstall it off 50 computers. They fixed it and now it works in both browsers. Sure it wasn't a $50k program, but I would expect something of that cost to work without problems too.
If you're spending more time on the paid for programs that have a support contract, then you need a wake up call. You paid for the support contract, so use it.
Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.
Lessons:
* government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)
* Anonymous communication matters
* Activities of governments should be transparent.
* It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters.
Oh please. Here's the real lessons learned:
1. Don't make your security question anything that can be found online or don't discuss anything about it online (hers was where she and her husband met).
2. Don't enter your real birthdate anywhere online. Again, what places really need this for an online account except "social networking" sites? Even then, anyone you know is probably going to know when your birthday is anyway.
3. Don't use your real zip code.
All of the above would have completely prevented this "hack". It's not difficult to make up a birth date and use that instead. Same goes for a zip code (12345 anyone?).
Think again.... Most people don't have the resources. I know people over 65 who work 2 jobs, 7 days a week, to pay medical bills, rent, and food.
And I know someone who worked until a brain tumor took him out at age 71. It was my father. He didn't work because he had too (he had an awesome pension from a job he had for 30 years). He worked because he wanted to do something besides home repair and sit around watching TV. He worked one job and less than 40 hours a week if I'm not mistaken.
Isn't anecdotal evidence great!
A handful of people work because they want to. Most work because they have no choice. Do you think the greeters at Wal-Mart are there because they want to? Or because they have to eat?
Or because they like having the extra cash, just like my dad did.
Ultimately, people may want to work because they either stay active or they sit and turn to mush.
The whole "check the signature" thing was suppose to be a security feature. Unless you're very good at forging signatures, you probably aren't going to be able to forge one from a stolen CC, especially if you haven't even looked at the card yet. By writing "Check ID" the cashier is suppose to look at your drivers license, check the signature on the slip to make sure it at least looks somewhat like the one on the license, check the name on the license, and then check the picture compared to the person in front of them. This is also suppose to defeat people stealing your wallet and then trying to pass your ID off as themselves.
Unfortunately, the CC companies don't seem to require a signature for purchases under $50. Most retailers will still ask you to sign the pad/slip/whatever, but places like Walgreens don't even ask for a signature for a bottle of aspirin or even a prescription. They just slide your card and hand it back.
There's places like that in California too. Most of the ones that are cash only seem to be concentrated in the Chinese populated areas of LA County. There's a few around Orange County that have minimum purchases for credit card orders too. Same concept of the below poster. $10 min and one sandwich is probably around $7.
And how does Visual Studio 2008 work with it? You're using a 3 year old application on an 18 month old OS and complaining about how it runs? That's priceless.
You're all completely retarded. It wasn't the "breakup" that drove her to this, it was one sentence. A line to the effect of "The world would be better off without you". That one line is what drove her to suicide.
She was already emotionally unstable, that much is known. The "adult" that was harassing her knew it too. She pretended to be some teenage kid and they developed a deep emotional bond over a few months. The girl actually pored out all her thoughts, feelings, and emotions over text. She thought this was a person she could trust.
The next day the "boy" hated her and essentially told her to kill herself "The world would be better off without you". The fact that she had already been battling depression, is a teenager, and had emotionally bonded with the "boy" just added to the outcome.
And you answered your own question in the last sentence. They made her throw it away BECAUSE it caused her to spend another 3 bucks (are you sure 3 is realistic, given typical "other side pricing", 5-6 bucks would be more likely) on the other side of the checkpoint.
Except that, afaik, the price for a bottle of water hasn't changed since the policy took effect. I would expect that if that was the case, the price of a bottle of water would go up.
The funny thing is that if you quickly mix the water with formula (assuming a toddler of course), they'll let you through with it. I guess they figure that even if you don't give it to the child right then, that you plan to at some point. Of course, I guess there's no reason the bottle of "formula" couldn't be something else that could be used as a bomb as well.
Same with the check your id against your ticket policy. Do you think any self respecting terrorist is not capable of obtaining a fake ID that is sufficiently good enough to fool the TSA guard and that also matches the ticket they just purchased? So why do we have the check? Because the airlines had a bad problem of grey market sales of "non-refundable" tickets. By matching ID with ticket, suddenly, Alice can't sell her ticket to Bob because she can't make the flight, because Bob will not go to the trouble to obtain a fake ID saying he is Alice. So the airlines now get to sell some number of seats on the plane twice, first to Alice, who could not go, and again to Bob, who was overbooked and got on in Alice's seat because she did not show up. Again, extra profit.
And again, I would expect the airlines to be making even more money in that case. Besides JetBlue and Southwest, only Continental has reported profits since those other policies took effect. Every other airline has reported losses quarter after quarter and has continued adding fees for just about everything.
Yeah, now try driving from LA to New York (about 3 times the distance you drove) and tell me it's not that much longer than flying. Assuming it's only you, it'll take you at least two days to drive that distance, probably closer to three.
I'll agree that shorthaul trips, like LA to Phoenix or even LA to SF are about the equivalent to flying, but driving across the country is going to take a lot longer than flying.
Yes it would have; gun nuts would have been all over it just like you are. Remember Bernie Goetz? That guy was lionized for shooting some kids on a subway for allegedly trying to rob him. Hell this guy is still giving interviews in the press almost a quarter century later.
Kids? They weren't kids. They were legal adults intent on robbing him. The only thing I question is some of the statements he made and thoughts he was having at the time of the incident. To everything else I say "Maybe you assholes shouldn't have been trying to rob someone!"
And until you posted that link, I had actually never heard of the guy.
Before I started biking to work I did...nothing. I've been the same weight since I graduated high school 15 years ago. I do pretty much the same things now that I did back then with the exception of chasing a 20 month old around now.
I don't eat a lot of junk like candy, doughnuts, candybars, or any other crap like that. I eat some, but I don't eat it all day. Other than that, I eat pretty healthy meals.
Now that I ride a bike to work I still weigh what I did before I started, I'm just in better shape (my legs are anyway).
If you're having trouble keeping weight off, check your diet and your exercise. It looks like you're already exercising a bit, so you probably need to take a closer look at what you're eating.
And if you think those challenges are easy, go ahead and try them. The speed challenges, especially gold, are extremely difficult and require pretty good reflexes.
They're essentially doing the same thing as before, they're probably just having a lot more fun now.
Since I wasn't logged in at the time, here's my post again:
As you honestly don't seem to understand the use of text messages, I'll explain why I find them useful: for communicating small amounts of information that don't require conversation, and out of respect for the other person's time.
Let's face it, most people don't want to be interrupted whenever they're doing something. You might be out shopping for groceries, visiting a friend's house, or eating a restaurant, and you probably have your phone with you in case there's an emergency and/or you need to call somebody, but you don't want somebody to call you and suddenly want to have a conversation. Heck, at least in those situations you can talk if you want to; you can't exactly answer your phone and have a conversation at all if, say, you're watching a presentation at work, or if you're already on the phone with somebody else.
Ever heard of voicemail? If I'm somewhere where I can't answer the phone and I get a call, I simply let it go to voicemail. If it's that damn important, leave a short message. If the voicemail notifier goes off, I excuse myself and check it. Otherwise, I figure I can call them back later.
If I ever get a text message asking me a simple question while I'm in the grocery store, I would probably be 1) pissed because it just cost me $0.15 and 2) pick up the phone and call the person back. Pick up your damn phone and call. I will decide if your call is important enough at that time to take. If it's not and I'm really busy, it can go to voicemail. Most people have enough sense to realize that if it's really important, they'll either leave a voicemail or they'll call back right away a second time.
When you get a text message, rather than answering your phone immediately, you can view it at your leisure, and it only takes a second of your time to read it.
Who says I have to answer my phone at all, even when a call comes in? Again, that's what voicemail is for. If I decide your call is important or I'm not doing something important, I'll answer. Otherwise, go to voicemail. And that one second is one second more than I want to not be looking at the road.
I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.
Ten seconds that you're not paying attention to what you're doing. With all the groups you mentioned, you should be able to call one person and let them know and then they can tell everyone else. Sure, it takes a little longer, but if you've got a bluetooth headset with voice dialing, at least you'll be looking at the road and not your damn phone.
YWhy even text 5 or 10 people if they're all waiting in the same place? That makes even less sense then a short, 1 min phone call to tell one person "Be there in 5 mins". If that one person can't let everyone else know, then maybe they're just retarded.
Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.
Yes, and we all know that everybody uses every piece of technology exactly the way it was always intended to be used. In short, no, it doesn't make more sense.
Refusing to believe something that millions of dollars of research from hundreds of fortune 500 companies has proven time and again isn't going to change the fact that it works.
Except that the millions of dollars of research even shows that a small percentage of people aren't going to buy the product even if they do see the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can change to Classic view and get the old user account panel too.
What is that thing, another overpriced piece of proprietary bloatware?
I'm sure this was rhetorical, but I'm going to answer anyway. WSUS is the free MS updating server service from Microsoft. It can update pretty much all Microsoft software (IE, Office, SQL, Windows, etc). It even does driver updates (only from Windows Update) if you want.
If there's a way to make it update 3rd party software, I'm not aware of it.
Not unless you're running Vista and MS changed something. I just installed it on my XP machine and had to reboot after it was finished.
>The point is, there is no separate auto-updater just for IE.
If it's part of Windows, then why does it need one? The statement is FUD, pure and simple.
I saw this update come through on my update server this morning and immediately pushed it out. Desktops are already updating since I have everyone (with a few exceptions) set to install automatically.
I also have my moms computer setup to notify her whenever updates are available. I've even got her trained to call me when she sees the update notifier. It's a bit of a pain to get called at 9am and be asked "Is this ok to install?", but at least she's doing it and her machine isn't getting owned anymore.
Weekly? The default is to check every day at 3am. If it's turned on and left at the default (like most people do with FireFox), they'll be notified this morning and able to install it right away.
"Actually, if we were totally alone with no people, we could work the land we wanted, hunt what we wanted, and maintain ourselves, with no other responsibilities or consequences.. Nobody would starve in that situation. Quit trying to spread that fallacy."
If you could hunt you wouldn't starve. Humans tend to hunt in groups though. Also, totally alone, you wouldn't have the benefit of modern medicine, you wouldn't have cars or guns, you'd have a life expectancy somewhere about 30....
Good luck with that.
Yes and as the group advances, without a damn central government, so would the individual. It does not take a government to bring advancements to humanity. It takes innovation and a willingness, sometimes at the expense of oneself, to move knowledge forward. Quit bringing taxes and government into the equation. The governments one job is to enforce the laws of the land and provide national security. That's it. If you want anything else, please find another country to live in.
Well, there are two ways to look at this. One is to be a humane individual and decide that paying taxes is better than having people literally starve to death around you, as well as the fact that not only well-off people give birth to Einsteins, so providing sustenance and education to people's kids does help.
Paying taxes doesn't do this. Getting government off peoples backs and out of peoples lives does this. As taxes go down, charitable contributions go up. As taxes go down, people are better able to afford private schools which give a far better education than the public school system.
So by allowing people to keep the money they've made, they're more likely to help their fellow man when he's "down on his luck" and better able to educate their own children. Again, all of this comes without government intervention.
Everything does not flow from the government.
Do I think everything government does is good? Hell no. But your "what's mine is mine and nobody can take it from me!" attitude is immature and doesn't take into account that if you were alone in an undeveloped land you'd probably have starved by now. You have benefited greatly from our collective actions (government) and are required to give some back.
Or he'd do what he needed to do in order to survive because there'd be no one around to ask for a handout. I suppose you think it's impossible for people to hunt for food, make clothes from animal skins, and build their own shelters? And then if there's other people around, you can trade for other stuff you might need. And that's all without a big central government to get between the two.
The purpose of a democratic system is, specifically, sovereignty of the people. Certainly, established laws should be followed -- but who writes those laws, and who are they written for? In a properly functioning democratic system, the answer to both is "The People".
It's a good thing we live in a Democratic Republic then, isn't it.
What you suggest is that because of an economic cycle (this is a cycle just like any other) we write laws that allow the government to use our money (yes, it's our money) to bail out companies that should not be in business because they have failing business models.
I certainly haven't heard Toyota, Honda, or Nissan asking their governments for bailouts right now (yes, I know they got them years ago, but they aren't getting them now). Maybe if the average workers salary+benefits in Detroit wasn't so much higher than the average worker at Honda ($75/hr vs $48/hr), they wouldn't need a bailout.
The longer the government sticks their hands in this mess, the longer it's going to take to come out. The government needs to leave things alone and let companies fail, just like what happens in every economic downturn. This one's going to be especially painful since people have been overspending for so long, but it needs to happen.
Similar arguments are being used but the real reason it's so important to bail them out is national pride, pure and simple.
This. There's a lot of fear mongering that if GM and Chrysler declare Chapter 11, that employees will lose their jobs and the companies assets will be sold to foreign investors. In turn, companies like Honda and Toyota would now own the American factories. If there was ever a war, we would have to depend on foreign companies to make tanks and planes.
The reality is that if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go Chapter 11, they could reorganize and get out from under the union contracts that are killing them. This is why the President of the UAW was also in front of Congress and has been one of the most vocal proponents of the bailout. If they get the bailout, the union contracts stay in place. Without that bailout, all the crazy ass union contracts that are in place get voided because they're keeping the company from making a profit. This is yet another example of the union being willing to cut off their nose to spite their face (see also the union strike of Chrysler from a year or so ago).
Also, if they went chapter 11, even with the foreign companies buying up the assets, there's nothing to stop the government from rolling up with soldiers in wartime and saying "You will build tanks and planes for us!" It's not like the assets can be moved overseas.
Also note that Fannie and Freddie were created by the government. So while on paper they were "private" institutions, the perception was that if they were ever in danger of failing the government would bail them out. Truly private institutions would not have been able to get nearly the same low rates that Fannie and Freddie did.
So since you failed to check the minimum system requirements and then demand that it work that way and not take a salesman's word at face value, the software is at fault? Seems like you're the one at fault to me.
We paid for a web based program for our sales team. During the testing phase, I found out that not only did it not work with FireFox, it also didn't work with IE 7. We demanded that they fix it before we paid them for it, since I had already rolled IE 7 out and I wasn't about to uninstall it off 50 computers. They fixed it and now it works in both browsers. Sure it wasn't a $50k program, but I would expect something of that cost to work without problems too.
If you're spending more time on the paid for programs that have a support contract, then you need a wake up call. You paid for the support contract, so use it.
Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.
Lessons:
* government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)
* Anonymous communication matters
* Activities of governments should be transparent.
* It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters.
Oh please. Here's the real lessons learned:
1. Don't make your security question anything that can be found online or don't discuss anything about it online (hers was where she and her husband met).
2. Don't enter your real birthdate anywhere online. Again, what places really need this for an online account except "social networking" sites? Even then, anyone you know is probably going to know when your birthday is anyway.
3. Don't use your real zip code.
All of the above would have completely prevented this "hack". It's not difficult to make up a birth date and use that instead. Same goes for a zip code (12345 anyone?).
Think again.... Most people don't have the resources. I know people over 65 who work 2 jobs, 7 days a week, to pay medical bills, rent, and food.
And I know someone who worked until a brain tumor took him out at age 71. It was my father. He didn't work because he had too (he had an awesome pension from a job he had for 30 years). He worked because he wanted to do something besides home repair and sit around watching TV. He worked one job and less than 40 hours a week if I'm not mistaken.
Isn't anecdotal evidence great!
A handful of people work because they want to. Most work because they have no choice. Do you think the greeters at Wal-Mart are there because they want to? Or because they have to eat?
Or because they like having the extra cash, just like my dad did.
Ultimately, people may want to work because they either stay active or they sit and turn to mush.
This is what you're suppose to do.
The whole "check the signature" thing was suppose to be a security feature. Unless you're very good at forging signatures, you probably aren't going to be able to forge one from a stolen CC, especially if you haven't even looked at the card yet. By writing "Check ID" the cashier is suppose to look at your drivers license, check the signature on the slip to make sure it at least looks somewhat like the one on the license, check the name on the license, and then check the picture compared to the person in front of them. This is also suppose to defeat people stealing your wallet and then trying to pass your ID off as themselves.
Unfortunately, the CC companies don't seem to require a signature for purchases under $50. Most retailers will still ask you to sign the pad/slip/whatever, but places like Walgreens don't even ask for a signature for a bottle of aspirin or even a prescription. They just slide your card and hand it back.
There's places like that in California too. Most of the ones that are cash only seem to be concentrated in the Chinese populated areas of LA County. There's a few around Orange County that have minimum purchases for credit card orders too. Same concept of the below poster. $10 min and one sandwich is probably around $7.
And how does Visual Studio 2008 work with it? You're using a 3 year old application on an 18 month old OS and complaining about how it runs? That's priceless.
You're all completely retarded. It wasn't the "breakup" that drove her to this, it was one sentence. A line to the effect of "The world would be better off without you". That one line is what drove her to suicide.
She was already emotionally unstable, that much is known. The "adult" that was harassing her knew it too. She pretended to be some teenage kid and they developed a deep emotional bond over a few months. The girl actually pored out all her thoughts, feelings, and emotions over text. She thought this was a person she could trust.
The next day the "boy" hated her and essentially told her to kill herself "The world would be better off without you". The fact that she had already been battling depression, is a teenager, and had emotionally bonded with the "boy" just added to the outcome.
And you answered your own question in the last sentence. They made her throw it away BECAUSE it caused her to spend another 3 bucks (are you sure 3 is realistic, given typical "other side pricing", 5-6 bucks would be more likely) on the other side of the checkpoint.
Except that, afaik, the price for a bottle of water hasn't changed since the policy took effect. I would expect that if that was the case, the price of a bottle of water would go up.
The funny thing is that if you quickly mix the water with formula (assuming a toddler of course), they'll let you through with it. I guess they figure that even if you don't give it to the child right then, that you plan to at some point. Of course, I guess there's no reason the bottle of "formula" couldn't be something else that could be used as a bomb as well.
Same with the check your id against your ticket policy. Do you think any self respecting terrorist is not capable of obtaining a fake ID that is sufficiently good enough to fool the TSA guard and that also matches the ticket they just purchased? So why do we have the check? Because the airlines had a bad problem of grey market sales of "non-refundable" tickets. By matching ID with ticket, suddenly, Alice can't sell her ticket to Bob because she can't make the flight, because Bob will not go to the trouble to obtain a fake ID saying he is Alice. So the airlines now get to sell some number of seats on the plane twice, first to Alice, who could not go, and again to Bob, who was overbooked and got on in Alice's seat because she did not show up. Again, extra profit.
And again, I would expect the airlines to be making even more money in that case. Besides JetBlue and Southwest, only Continental has reported profits since those other policies took effect. Every other airline has reported losses quarter after quarter and has continued adding fees for just about everything.
Yeah, now try driving from LA to New York (about 3 times the distance you drove) and tell me it's not that much longer than flying. Assuming it's only you, it'll take you at least two days to drive that distance, probably closer to three.
I'll agree that shorthaul trips, like LA to Phoenix or even LA to SF are about the equivalent to flying, but driving across the country is going to take a lot longer than flying.
Yes it would have; gun nuts would have been all over it just like you are. Remember Bernie Goetz? That guy was lionized for shooting some kids on a subway for allegedly trying to rob him. Hell this guy is still giving interviews in the press almost a quarter century later.
Kids? They weren't kids. They were legal adults intent on robbing him. The only thing I question is some of the statements he made and thoughts he was having at the time of the incident. To everything else I say "Maybe you assholes shouldn't have been trying to rob someone!"
And until you posted that link, I had actually never heard of the guy.
Before I started biking to work I did...nothing. I've been the same weight since I graduated high school 15 years ago. I do pretty much the same things now that I did back then with the exception of chasing a 20 month old around now.
I don't eat a lot of junk like candy, doughnuts, candybars, or any other crap like that. I eat some, but I don't eat it all day. Other than that, I eat pretty healthy meals.
Now that I ride a bike to work I still weigh what I did before I started, I'm just in better shape (my legs are anyway).
If you're having trouble keeping weight off, check your diet and your exercise. It looks like you're already exercising a bit, so you probably need to take a closer look at what you're eating.
Exactly. Elected officials can be held accountable by voters who can boot them out of office when they lose sight of their constituents' interests.
And it's working so well, isn't it?
People are more likely to take their money to a corporation that isn't screwing them over then they are to vote someone else in in the next election.
You don't see players making detailed hand-drawn maps of every level of Portal, complete with precise notes, just so they can solve the puzzles. Gamers today just don't have the patience for it. Even online RPGs, the last stronghold of the fanatical mappers and note-takers, have all given up and provided automatic mapping tools which even a brain-dead cat sleeping on the keyboard could use.
No, instead I see players recording how fast they can get through a level or how few steps they can take (thinking with portals) or how few portals they can use.
And if you think those challenges are easy, go ahead and try them. The speed challenges, especially gold, are extremely difficult and require pretty good reflexes.
They're essentially doing the same thing as before, they're probably just having a lot more fun now.
Since I wasn't logged in at the time, here's my post again:
As you honestly don't seem to understand the use of text messages, I'll explain why I find them useful: for communicating small amounts of information that don't require conversation, and out of respect for the other person's time.
Let's face it, most people don't want to be interrupted whenever they're doing something. You might be out shopping for groceries, visiting a friend's house, or eating a restaurant, and you probably have your phone with you in case there's an emergency and/or you need to call somebody, but you don't want somebody to call you and suddenly want to have a conversation. Heck, at least in those situations you can talk if you want to; you can't exactly answer your phone and have a conversation at all if, say, you're watching a presentation at work, or if you're already on the phone with somebody else.
Ever heard of voicemail? If I'm somewhere where I can't answer the phone and I get a call, I simply let it go to voicemail. If it's that damn important, leave a short message. If the voicemail notifier goes off, I excuse myself and check it. Otherwise, I figure I can call them back later.
If I ever get a text message asking me a simple question while I'm in the grocery store, I would probably be 1) pissed because it just cost me $0.15 and 2) pick up the phone and call the person back. Pick up your damn phone and call. I will decide if your call is important enough at that time to take. If it's not and I'm really busy, it can go to voicemail. Most people have enough sense to realize that if it's really important, they'll either leave a voicemail or they'll call back right away a second time.
When you get a text message, rather than answering your phone immediately, you can view it at your leisure, and it only takes a second of your time to read it.
Who says I have to answer my phone at all, even when a call comes in? Again, that's what voicemail is for. If I decide your call is important or I'm not doing something important, I'll answer. Otherwise, go to voicemail. And that one second is one second more than I want to not be looking at the road.
I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.
Ten seconds that you're not paying attention to what you're doing. With all the groups you mentioned, you should be able to call one person and let them know and then they can tell everyone else. Sure, it takes a little longer, but if you've got a bluetooth headset with voice dialing, at least you'll be looking at the road and not your damn phone.
YWhy even text 5 or 10 people if they're all waiting in the same place? That makes even less sense then a short, 1 min phone call to tell one person "Be there in 5 mins". If that one person can't let everyone else know, then maybe they're just retarded.
Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.
Yes, and we all know that everybody uses every piece of technology exactly the way it was always intended to be used. In short, no, it doesn't make more sense.
Refusing to believe something that millions of dollars of research from hundreds of fortune 500 companies has proven time and again isn't going to change the fact that it works.
Except that the millions of dollars of research even shows that a small percentage of people aren't going to buy the product even if they do see the ad.