Computer neophytes are the reason that the IT department exists in the first place. IT's sole role is support. I don't care if it's a $200 netbook or a $200,000 iSeries financial server, computers are a means, not an end. All of us in IT have a job because we facilitate that means for people that don't know how to do it themselves, regardless of the reason why they don't know how.
If the IT department for Munich either failed to train users how to use their equipment (like how to find a simple GUI text editor like Mousepad) or failed to install such software it's not the users' faults that they're upset. I use vi, but I don't expect Bärbel to get escape-shift-colon-w-filename-enter to save her file, or to understand the differences between CR-LF and UNIX-style file structures.
I also wonder how good of a job they did keeping the users' workstations up-to-date. That's a huge problem in IT even on systems that were designed from the outset for it.
I'd like to see in-service figures and remaining projected lifespan figures. We could be seeing a lull in orders simply because enough lifespan remains on existing aircraft that there's no need currently to buy more planes at the moment. There's no reason to order new planes when the current planes are profitably serving the airlines if there's still a possibility of further techncial revision that could make waiting until it's time even more profitable.
Compare it to cars, as I did this math recently. We're considering a new sedan for my wife. We found a '95 Buick Roadmaster with around 28,000 miles on it for $8700, contrasted with a new Chrysler 300, at about $35,000. It will take more than 120,000 miles at twice the fuel economy to break-even, and given that the Buick is actually easier to work on and simpler it will probably have a lower total cost of ownership.
If the existing aircraft have many hours and takeoff/landing cycles left in their lifespan it doesn't make sense to replace them. From a customer perspective it might be nice to have fancy interiors, but it's not uncommon to refurbish interiors to more modern specifications in the first-class cabins where the high-dollar passengers will pay for the luxuries too.
That depends on how one goes about reaching the front door. There is a right to approach the inhabited structure on a property to knock to speak with the occupants. That right allows in-plain-sight observations to be legally admissable without a warrant if it is visible from the public road in the front of the house or if it is an in-plain-sight observation made in the accepted pathway to the front door of the house from the street.
so, if you back your car in to the carport, only have a rear plate, and don't have any kind of doorbell at the door from the house to the carport you might be able to claim that you have a right to privacy and that an officer, walking into your carport to knock at that particular door was in the wrong if there was a perfectly usable front-door with a bell or knocker. Even that could fall into question though, as it could be argued that any door to a living space accessed from the front yard qualifies as a valid front door for law enforcement to use to approach to talk to you.
Yeah, even if the actual published numbers are real accounts and not catfish accounts to help draw more men in (which would put the women-members at 15%) the odds that most men using the service actually had an affair as a result of the service are pretty small. On the other hand, a married person that takes the steps in-advance and at personal cost to open themselves up to infidelity very well could mean they've already been unfaithful or are looking for such partners through other avenues too.
I don't think it's wrong to care bout the hypocrisy of people like Mr. Duggar, especially when such individuals attempt to change the law to criminalize behavior in the name of views that they themselves espouse but personally won't even try to live-up to. Make no mistake, this is not a case of someone struggling with infidelity because of temptation around him, this someone that has gone out of his way to pay in-advance for the chance to be unfaithful, and actively maintained the accounts established in early 2013 while accepting an executive position about four months later with an organization whose goals are completely contrary to his actions.
If someone not only takes but advocates a strong position in the culture wars and then themselves violates that view, they deserve to be ridiculed for it. The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
We apologise for the fault in the censored search results. Those responsible have been sacked.
We apologise again for the fault in the censored search results. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
The directors of the firm hired to continue the censored search results after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked. The censored search results have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.
I'm in the same boat, our tax rates would go up with what I think our country needs. Having driven a couple of routes regularly where bridges have subsequently collapsed I'm very worried about our large-scale infrastructure.
in Amazon Women on the Moon, video pirates attack the cargo ship MCA/Universal, full of movies... I was amused as we were watching the film on Laserdisc and when they encountered Laserdiscs one of the pirates rebutted, "bah! they're not compatible with my system!"
Water has a much higher heat capacity than air does. Water is also a much more effective growth-medium than air is. The environmental effects of heat on air do exist, but they aren't as substantial as they are for water.
question... What if I own a copy of the movie that I'm streaming? Like, I can produce the disc and the jacket and those little "Proof of Purchase" cutouts located inside of the jacket?
I don't think that would really work. Population is the independent variable. We do not place controls on the size of the population; there are no quotas on conception/birth and humans aren't generally culled to intentionally reduce numbers. It makes more sense to look at how to productively employ everyone, even if that employment comes through the public-sector, so that the people being paid by the government are at least themselves contributing something.
Everyone may be born innocent, but immediately everyone starts using resources, we're all in this rat-race right from the start. We do not have the option of withdrawing unless we're judged to have had something so bad happen to us that we are entitled to support (ie, injury leading to disability coverage) or unless we've accumulated the resources needed to drop-out.
I fully agree with social safety-nets, when someone stumbles it should be possible to avoid falling completely destitute and it should be possible to climb back up. I don't agree that it needs to come with zero cost though, if time and effort is considered a cost to the individual.
I cited the 91% number because it really was the US tax rate for the top bracket post-WWII. Obviously until one made enough money to be in that bracket it didn't matter, plus there have always been ways to claim that one should pay less, but on-paper it was the rate for particular circumstances.
As to your question about the class of people who manipulate the system being those who've stopped contributing, they might be. There's a difference between a rich person that is working hard to continue his company's success and a rich person that lives a life of leisure because his investments continue to pay him without requiring him to do much. In many ways these distinctions parallel the difference between "new money" rich and "old money" rich, and why there's so much interest in "death tax" that would most strongly impact the estates of the wealthiest people.
One of the biggest problems is when those that become company officers manage to write themselves excellent deals while holding a lot of stock. Companies do not have enough separation between the executive officers and the stockholders, so as powerful stockholders they can pay themselves as executives too much and can create the "golden parachute" clauses that give them excessive compensation when they leave, and they can receive performance pay when there was no actual company performance.
Being hassle-free now doesn't guarantee that it'll be hassle-free later. I've seen cartridges for LaserJet 4000 through 4250 range have problems in part because they're being refilled too many times as those were very popular business workgroup printers. Initially they might have been fine, but after several refurbs they're leaving marks on the paper.
Far-in-advance purchases, airline hasn't decided 100% to have the flight yet. Prices are a little higher because early demand can dictate whether or not the flight even occurs or not. If the supply (ie, the flight) is not guaranteed, then the burden falls on demand.
Once enough tickets are booked to make the flight likely, the airline now wants to sell as many seats as possible, so prices drop as supply now outstrips demand. The airline knows about how much per-seat it costs to fly the plane both occuppied and empty, so it's in their interest to sell seats even sometimes at a loss if it is less of a loss than flying without passengers, and based on past performance they can attempt to balance that number.
As the plane approaches capacity the airlines start adjusting the nature of supply and demand. They know that last-minute passengers are unlikely to purchase expensive first-class seats regardless of a lack of availablity of coach seats, so if the first-class cabin is empty or mostly empty they'll upgrade frequent flyers so that their less-expensive coach seats can now be priced at a high but not impossibly-high price for last-minute fares.
When you fly the same route a lot, you learn how that route is priced throughout the year and how the various flights on that route fill. We've found the most common flight we use about six times a year makes sense to book 8 to 6 weeks out from flying, depending on what holidays are around then and if there are any other large-travel days like the start or end of college.
Because it's a lot easier to put redlines on a paper print? We mark-up floorplans and other prints all of the time, and it's a lot easier in-the-field to do that on paper than it is to open an application on a computer or tablet and make the changes with a subpar UI.
Somehow I wonder if this isn't meant for the new-cartridge buyer sourcing from the normal, authorized supply-chain as much as it is to screw with the refill companies and those that use cheaper refilled toner cartridges. If a retail customer of refurbished supplies suddenly finds a 20-30% "failure" they might stop buying refills.
That said, I have mixed feelings on refills. We've tried them off and on and had a lot of situations with bad product that breaks the printer; when there are probably 2000 printers in the organization it's a lot of work to repair broken printers that are packed to the gills with spilled or escaped toner form bad refill cartridges. On the other hand if the cartridges cost 50% less than new, it's still cheaper to deal with repairing the bad printers than it is to buy the new cartridges, so long as the supplies versus service budgets are adjusted to accurately reflect the situation, but users are angry and technicians aren't exactly pleased either when avoidable problems cause downtime and require service, so it seems to be a mixed-bag at best.
It is kind of annoying how a fairly durable part (ie the cartridge) is considered a consumable. The bigger copiers still use bottled toner, it would be nice if the commercial office printers did too.
That's a good part of why I support progressive income taxes, those who've profited substantially from society should be obligated to support that society. I'm not advocating for a 91% tax either, but I do not think that it's unfair for the rich to pay higher taxes when they're the ones that can afford to do so.
I think back to high school and one of the things omitted from the curriculum that really should be there is a practical approach to how income taxes work. Lots of people have no idea how tax brackets work, and as a consequence some people have unnecessary sympathy for those whose incomes fall into higher brackets not realizing that only a very small portion of that income is actually taxed at a high rate, and that the rich earner is probably not, as a percentage, paying a whole lot more tax than a middle-incom earner, and if they're making money off of investments it could be even less.
I've throught about the concept of a base stipend since it's a trope in a lot of science fiction. The biggest concern in dystopian applications is that it compels people to stop contributing because they simply don't need to contribute to earn something. I think it makes sense to treat able people on a stipend as employees; put them to work so they're providing something in exchange for their income. If the money is being spent anyway it makes sense to derive some community benefit from it, and if that's working on public spaces then everyone can derive something out of it.
How is it ironic? I don't have to go out and subsistence-farm 40 acres to feed my family or go hunting for game that may or may not be there to keep hunger at bay. Just about everything we've done has been to reduce the difficulties in living and to afford ourselves more free-time.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer neophytes are the reason that the IT department exists in the first place. IT's sole role is support. I don't care if it's a $200 netbook or a $200,000 iSeries financial server, computers are a means, not an end. All of us in IT have a job because we facilitate that means for people that don't know how to do it themselves, regardless of the reason why they don't know how.
If the IT department for Munich either failed to train users how to use their equipment (like how to find a simple GUI text editor like Mousepad) or failed to install such software it's not the users' faults that they're upset. I use vi, but I don't expect Bärbel to get escape-shift-colon-w-filename-enter to save her file, or to understand the differences between CR-LF and UNIX-style file structures.
I also wonder how good of a job they did keeping the users' workstations up-to-date. That's a huge problem in IT even on systems that were designed from the outset for it.
I'd like to see in-service figures and remaining projected lifespan figures. We could be seeing a lull in orders simply because enough lifespan remains on existing aircraft that there's no need currently to buy more planes at the moment. There's no reason to order new planes when the current planes are profitably serving the airlines if there's still a possibility of further techncial revision that could make waiting until it's time even more profitable.
Compare it to cars, as I did this math recently. We're considering a new sedan for my wife. We found a '95 Buick Roadmaster with around 28,000 miles on it for $8700, contrasted with a new Chrysler 300, at about $35,000. It will take more than 120,000 miles at twice the fuel economy to break-even, and given that the Buick is actually easier to work on and simpler it will probably have a lower total cost of ownership.
If the existing aircraft have many hours and takeoff/landing cycles left in their lifespan it doesn't make sense to replace them. From a customer perspective it might be nice to have fancy interiors, but it's not uncommon to refurbish interiors to more modern specifications in the first-class cabins where the high-dollar passengers will pay for the luxuries too.
That depends on how one goes about reaching the front door. There is a right to approach the inhabited structure on a property to knock to speak with the occupants. That right allows in-plain-sight observations to be legally admissable without a warrant if it is visible from the public road in the front of the house or if it is an in-plain-sight observation made in the accepted pathway to the front door of the house from the street.
so, if you back your car in to the carport, only have a rear plate, and don't have any kind of doorbell at the door from the house to the carport you might be able to claim that you have a right to privacy and that an officer, walking into your carport to knock at that particular door was in the wrong if there was a perfectly usable front-door with a bell or knocker. Even that could fall into question though, as it could be argued that any door to a living space accessed from the front yard qualifies as a valid front door for law enforcement to use to approach to talk to you.
If the trucks would discard all data as they scan that doesn't match an on-board stolen vehicle database I might agree with you.
Yeah, even if the actual published numbers are real accounts and not catfish accounts to help draw more men in (which would put the women-members at 15%) the odds that most men using the service actually had an affair as a result of the service are pretty small. On the other hand, a married person that takes the steps in-advance and at personal cost to open themselves up to infidelity very well could mean they've already been unfaithful or are looking for such partners through other avenues too.
I don't think it's wrong to care bout the hypocrisy of people like Mr. Duggar, especially when such individuals attempt to change the law to criminalize behavior in the name of views that they themselves espouse but personally won't even try to live-up to. Make no mistake, this is not a case of someone struggling with infidelity because of temptation around him, this someone that has gone out of his way to pay in-advance for the chance to be unfaithful, and actively maintained the accounts established in early 2013 while accepting an executive position about four months later with an organization whose goals are completely contrary to his actions.
If someone not only takes but advocates a strong position in the culture wars and then themselves violates that view, they deserve to be ridiculed for it. The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
We apologise for the fault in the censored search results. Those responsible have been sacked.
We apologise again for the fault in the censored search results. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
The directors of the firm hired to continue the censored search results after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked. The censored search results have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.
I'm in the same boat, our tax rates would go up with what I think our country needs. Having driven a couple of routes regularly where bridges have subsequently collapsed I'm very worried about our large-scale infrastructure.
in Amazon Women on the Moon, video pirates attack the cargo ship MCA/Universal, full of movies... I was amused as we were watching the film on Laserdisc and when they encountered Laserdiscs one of the pirates rebutted, "bah! they're not compatible with my system!"
So, what's clownish about identifying something that's been shown to be a problem in the past?
Water has a much higher heat capacity than air does. Water is also a much more effective growth-medium than air is. The environmental effects of heat on air do exist, but they aren't as substantial as they are for water.
Exactly how is Hooperfly different from Brundlefly? And what happens when you run both of them through the telepod?
Do you realize that twenty years ago they could put you on an involuntary 72-hour hold at your local psychiatric hospital for dialogue like that?
...so the flier's configuration is limited only by your imagination.
WELCOME to ZOMbocom...
They could have simply enforced the part of the copyright law that says obscenity can't be copyrighted.
Are you saying that Adam Sandler movies wouldn't be copyrighted then?
question... What if I own a copy of the movie that I'm streaming? Like, I can produce the disc and the jacket and those little "Proof of Purchase" cutouts located inside of the jacket?
I don't think that would really work. Population is the independent variable. We do not place controls on the size of the population; there are no quotas on conception/birth and humans aren't generally culled to intentionally reduce numbers. It makes more sense to look at how to productively employ everyone, even if that employment comes through the public-sector, so that the people being paid by the government are at least themselves contributing something.
Everyone may be born innocent, but immediately everyone starts using resources, we're all in this rat-race right from the start. We do not have the option of withdrawing unless we're judged to have had something so bad happen to us that we are entitled to support (ie, injury leading to disability coverage) or unless we've accumulated the resources needed to drop-out.
I fully agree with social safety-nets, when someone stumbles it should be possible to avoid falling completely destitute and it should be possible to climb back up. I don't agree that it needs to come with zero cost though, if time and effort is considered a cost to the individual.
I cited the 91% number because it really was the US tax rate for the top bracket post-WWII. Obviously until one made enough money to be in that bracket it didn't matter, plus there have always been ways to claim that one should pay less, but on-paper it was the rate for particular circumstances.
As to your question about the class of people who manipulate the system being those who've stopped contributing, they might be. There's a difference between a rich person that is working hard to continue his company's success and a rich person that lives a life of leisure because his investments continue to pay him without requiring him to do much. In many ways these distinctions parallel the difference between "new money" rich and "old money" rich, and why there's so much interest in "death tax" that would most strongly impact the estates of the wealthiest people.
One of the biggest problems is when those that become company officers manage to write themselves excellent deals while holding a lot of stock. Companies do not have enough separation between the executive officers and the stockholders, so as powerful stockholders they can pay themselves as executives too much and can create the "golden parachute" clauses that give them excessive compensation when they leave, and they can receive performance pay when there was no actual company performance.
Being hassle-free now doesn't guarantee that it'll be hassle-free later. I've seen cartridges for LaserJet 4000 through 4250 range have problems in part because they're being refilled too many times as those were very popular business workgroup printers. Initially they might have been fine, but after several refurbs they're leaving marks on the paper.
Yep. Pricing for airlines seems to be a follows:
Far-in-advance purchases, airline hasn't decided 100% to have the flight yet. Prices are a little higher because early demand can dictate whether or not the flight even occurs or not. If the supply (ie, the flight) is not guaranteed, then the burden falls on demand.
Once enough tickets are booked to make the flight likely, the airline now wants to sell as many seats as possible, so prices drop as supply now outstrips demand. The airline knows about how much per-seat it costs to fly the plane both occuppied and empty, so it's in their interest to sell seats even sometimes at a loss if it is less of a loss than flying without passengers, and based on past performance they can attempt to balance that number.
As the plane approaches capacity the airlines start adjusting the nature of supply and demand. They know that last-minute passengers are unlikely to purchase expensive first-class seats regardless of a lack of availablity of coach seats, so if the first-class cabin is empty or mostly empty they'll upgrade frequent flyers so that their less-expensive coach seats can now be priced at a high but not impossibly-high price for last-minute fares.
When you fly the same route a lot, you learn how that route is priced throughout the year and how the various flights on that route fill. We've found the most common flight we use about six times a year makes sense to book 8 to 6 weeks out from flying, depending on what holidays are around then and if there are any other large-travel days like the start or end of college.
Because it's a lot easier to put redlines on a paper print? We mark-up floorplans and other prints all of the time, and it's a lot easier in-the-field to do that on paper than it is to open an application on a computer or tablet and make the changes with a subpar UI.
Somehow I wonder if this isn't meant for the new-cartridge buyer sourcing from the normal, authorized supply-chain as much as it is to screw with the refill companies and those that use cheaper refilled toner cartridges. If a retail customer of refurbished supplies suddenly finds a 20-30% "failure" they might stop buying refills.
That said, I have mixed feelings on refills. We've tried them off and on and had a lot of situations with bad product that breaks the printer; when there are probably 2000 printers in the organization it's a lot of work to repair broken printers that are packed to the gills with spilled or escaped toner form bad refill cartridges. On the other hand if the cartridges cost 50% less than new, it's still cheaper to deal with repairing the bad printers than it is to buy the new cartridges, so long as the supplies versus service budgets are adjusted to accurately reflect the situation, but users are angry and technicians aren't exactly pleased either when avoidable problems cause downtime and require service, so it seems to be a mixed-bag at best.
It is kind of annoying how a fairly durable part (ie the cartridge) is considered a consumable. The bigger copiers still use bottled toner, it would be nice if the commercial office printers did too.
Trust me, with my experience with modern Xerox products, they already get too many 30 day vacations.
That's a good part of why I support progressive income taxes, those who've profited substantially from society should be obligated to support that society. I'm not advocating for a 91% tax either, but I do not think that it's unfair for the rich to pay higher taxes when they're the ones that can afford to do so.
I think back to high school and one of the things omitted from the curriculum that really should be there is a practical approach to how income taxes work. Lots of people have no idea how tax brackets work, and as a consequence some people have unnecessary sympathy for those whose incomes fall into higher brackets not realizing that only a very small portion of that income is actually taxed at a high rate, and that the rich earner is probably not, as a percentage, paying a whole lot more tax than a middle-incom earner, and if they're making money off of investments it could be even less.
I've throught about the concept of a base stipend since it's a trope in a lot of science fiction. The biggest concern in dystopian applications is that it compels people to stop contributing because they simply don't need to contribute to earn something. I think it makes sense to treat able people on a stipend as employees; put them to work so they're providing something in exchange for their income. If the money is being spent anyway it makes sense to derive some community benefit from it, and if that's working on public spaces then everyone can derive something out of it.
I attempted to understand what you posted but unfortunately developed a segmentation fault...
How is it ironic? I don't have to go out and subsistence-farm 40 acres to feed my family or go hunting for game that may or may not be there to keep hunger at bay. Just about everything we've done has been to reduce the difficulties in living and to afford ourselves more free-time.