In this case, it looks like there was a delay in calling 911 so that the in-house response went first, then reported it a "real" emergency, and 911 was called.
You, you have it backwards. Call 911 to get them rolling, then call security and let them know you've called 911. They can coordinate from there. That'll get a better response than what happened here, where security was called first.
It took about 10 minutes for a medical response on site from 911. So why is it wrong to get the ambulance rolling before alerting Security that there's one coming in? How long does it take security to get someone at the gate to point the ambulance to the right building?
Whenever I've needed 911 at work, I've always called 911 first, then alerted security. It's always been the right call, even where the policy is to do it the other way.
In most cases, employees are banned from calling 911 to reduce the chances of false alarms that would generate callouts. Find someone unconscious? Call security. If they are fine, there'll be no 911 call that could get charged to the company. So if you aren't an idiot, and can identify a real emergency from a fake one, you should always call 911 first, regardless of the company policy.
Why are you against people thinking for themselves?
The AC's assertion was that using drugs results in higher violent crime. AC implied usage increases as legalization increases. Using the AC's own assumptions, violent crime should be higher in places where legalization has hit.
Martin didn't interfere with police. He was stalked down a blind alley by an aggressive man with a gun who had indicated a desire to hunt. He defended himself when he thought himself cornered, according to the Stand your Ground laws, and was executed by Zimmerman.
So the increase in crime should correlate with places that have relaxed drug laws. I didn't see that in the results. Where are you getting your statistics from?
Ideally, power demand would be flat and constant...the same amount, all the time.
So this is the 1000 year old problem of centralization vs distribution. We can solve the problem with "better" power plants, or batteries in every home. Either one gives the same result, though not at the same cost, or with the same control.
I also don't understand molten salts. Yes, once we shut down coal baseload plants, we'll need them for baseload, but right now, peaks are the issue, and power usage peaks at peak sun (or just after), so storage isn't an issue.
But are nearly perfectly correlated, so yes, effectively the same thing. It's the winds pulling away from the center that make the pressure lower there.
They didn't show any sense. They didn't cancel it for the right reasons. They canceled it because they saw that they would lose in court, as the contract was written, the clause was indentured servitude (considered Slavery in US law). I'll gladly pay you now, in the form of a steamer journey, so long as you make yourself available for 2 years after working for me. Nope, thrown out with Slavery. I got bashed in the first article when I pointed out that the contract was slavery, thus the employee could take the money and run, because the slavery clauses were invalid. That's probably what one of the SunTrust execs realized. They are a bunch of slavers, only this time, without the wage.
Do doctors even check your ID? I've never had it happen, but I haven't gone since ACA.
Also, why is it the Conservative Nutjobs think you should have to have a Government ID to vote, move freely, and everything else, but don't want the government to keep enough information on them in a single file to verify that ID, so anyone can walk into, say, a Post Office and walk out with a free national ID?
Seems the answer to all these problems would be free Passports for all, required from age 12, and the new standard of ID for medical care, driving, and everything else.
For all their words otherwise, the Conservative Nutjobs seem to be marching us straight towards "Papers Please" in their hatred of the poor and non-residents.
Having worked at a number of ISPs and you are simply wrong. You have to have pretty bad service to spend anywhere near infrastructure plus bandwidth on your customer service.
And they aren't "trying to screw with customers" they are trying to make the service the best possible for the most number of people. And one of the easy ways to do that is to put in a DPI and set it to put bittorrent as the lowest priority. The people downloading all day long never complain. 99% of the time, they are doing something illegal, the other 1% of the time, they recognize they are using a protocol that's mostly for illegal downloads, so they put up with the slower speeds. Though the best use of a DPI is to run a rolling 30-day count of all users, and put the top 1% of all of them in the naughty bin. That's fairest for all, and works out pretty well. Those using 100% of the pipe 100% of the time and buying a residential service, and complaining on every forum they can find that the cheapest residential service they can find doesn't give listed speeds at all time are better fired. Fire your customers is a business philosophy that pushes your high-cost customers to your competition, and let them deal with them. It works well in ISPs. Save your costs, and have the complaints be about the other guys.
Again, how is that relevant? There only needs to exist one example of a real world ISP to prove that it is possible to run a network congestion free.
The claim that because someone somewhere in the world does it that it's practical in the US regulatory environment is a silly claim. If it were as easy as you claim, why can nobody name any in the US that act in that manner?
Taking the money and intentionally not delivering the advertised service is fraud!
Your Term of Service clearly lay out a "best effort" service, and that's what they deliver. That you disagree with them on the definition of Best Effort indicate you need to sue them (and lose) in court for clarification. Your poor English skills don't trump the law.
I think the issue is with the human factors, not the weapon. The weight in a Glock is concentrated and up high, so it's more prone to lateral shaking. The heavier or more distributed weight in other guns reduces this shake, letting poor shooters shoot more consistently. You could weight a Glock to see if it improves your shooting. Though, more practical would likely be improvements in your stance and grip.
Because the cryptic nature of the claims, from an undisclosed location in the Midwest, for all we know, the ISP doesn't exist, and he's lying to prove a point. If he gives the ISP, we can look at other 3rd party evaluations for verification.
Yes, I know there are places with good ISPs. The US isn't one of them. And an ISP like Google isn't a reasonable answer, as the last numbers I saw, about 1/100,000 people had access to it, and that was an exaggeration. They need to grow by about 2 orders of magnitude to be considered an option.
Having a higher capacity magazine or weapon just doesn't seem to have any real downside as near as I can tell.
Weight and grip size. Weight is a real consideration, as most cops never shoot their gun in the line of duty, so the primary use of a firearm is the implied threat, not shooting it. And weight for a long career will impact the person much more than having 10 instead of 7 shots. Have 10 17-shot magazines in the car, and 3 7 shots on you, and you'll be fine for 99.9% of encounters. As for too much being too much, I can't imagine having http://www.e-sarcoinc.com/50ro... that as the backup piece strapped to my ankle.
And no, I'm not arguing against them - I'm saying they are unnecessary in any situation you're going to face as a civilian.
That applies equally to high capacity magazines as guns themselves.
it's not like you don't have choices for something lighter, less spray and pray,
For all the gun nuts trying to get kindergarten teachers armed and such, the more shots the better. One of the goals in stopping someone isn't necessarily stopping them, but delaying them for backup. You don't need to hit them if you can put some rounds into their cover, suppressing them while the other kindergarten teachers hear the shooting and respond, flanking the shooter and getting clear shots.
You never "missed". You never "sprayed". You laid down accurate suppressive fire, pinning the aggressor until backup arrived. Did they not teach you about suppressive fire in the military? From the way you talk, if you couldn't guarantee a kill, you wouldn't shoot. In practice, one would be less hesitant with their shots, hence the need for more shots.
If you need 17 rounds, run the fuck away before hand. At least then you can pick off the zombies from a more defensible standing of your choosing.
The end scenes of Shaun of the Dead were good on this point. Sometimes you end up at a place you believed secure, and didn't leave yourself and adequate escape. Perhaps you go to flee the bar fight you mentioned, and find one of the friends of the opponent saw the fight coming and double-parked your car in, so you'd have to flee on foot while he gives chase, or stand and fight against a larger force. Depending on the situation, either might be the optimal option, but 10 more shots gives you more options, including inaccurate suppressive fire while fleeing.
I also don't like the extreme variability in weight between the gun fully loaded and when it gets near empty,
That's because the gun itself is light, which is a design feature that the Army (And others) look for. If you want, it's easy to add weight. Weighted grips or magazines do the trick.
You didn't post any facts. Unsupported statistics aren't facts. Why didn't you name your ISP, if they are so great? Are you one of the 1/100th of 1% that can get Google fiber, or something like that?
Your analysis has one key flaw. It is based on the assumption that there isn't enough bandwidth to keep latency low for everyone.
So his analysis is flawed because it's based in reality? That's quite a condemning indictment. You are wrong because, um, you are right, but that's not the way I'd like to see it.
If that's the case. No ISP runs a network like you'd like. The obvious solution is for you to build or buy an ISP and run it the way you'd like. The flood of new customers to you would make you a billionaire. Unless you are wrong, and that's why nobdody does it. The 1/10 of 1% that would care don't make enough people to justify the additional cost. A classification machine is cheap. $50k to $100k for one that'll do 40G. But buying 10G more pipes everywhere would cost more than that in interface cost alone, not even counting upstream bandwidth.
So they de-prioritize things. That's fine. The competition between ISPs is enough to have some cater to the edge cases. So long as they don't sell a "prioritized" VPN service above what anyone else can provide on their network, I would be happy with the "problems" listed in the summary. They aren't problems, and are fair and equitable.
A huge swapping ceremony. That would make the reassignments easier. Everyone gets a partner. Married couples could stay in one man one woman marriages.
I've been to a large datacenter with the generators running, and it was still quieter than the street behind me. The complaints I see most are all the power lines. New power is almost all above ground, as it's quicker and cheaper to install. And it's that which gets many of the complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, it looks like there was a delay in calling 911 so that the in-house response went first, then reported it a "real" emergency, and 911 was called.
You, you have it backwards. Call 911 to get them rolling, then call security and let them know you've called 911. They can coordinate from there. That'll get a better response than what happened here, where security was called first.
It took about 10 minutes for a medical response on site from 911. So why is it wrong to get the ambulance rolling before alerting Security that there's one coming in? How long does it take security to get someone at the gate to point the ambulance to the right building?
Whenever I've needed 911 at work, I've always called 911 first, then alerted security. It's always been the right call, even where the policy is to do it the other way.
In most cases, employees are banned from calling 911 to reduce the chances of false alarms that would generate callouts. Find someone unconscious? Call security. If they are fine, there'll be no 911 call that could get charged to the company. So if you aren't an idiot, and can identify a real emergency from a fake one, you should always call 911 first, regardless of the company policy.
Why are you against people thinking for themselves?
The AC's assertion was that using drugs results in higher violent crime. AC implied usage increases as legalization increases. Using the AC's own assumptions, violent crime should be higher in places where legalization has hit.
Martin was cornered, down the alley he lived on. When Zimmerman blocked the exit of the alley, Martin attacked the armed aggressor.
Zimmerman stalked and threatened Martin, and Martin defended himself, so Zimmerman killed him in cold blood.
Sandra Bland didn't.
Martin didn't interfere with police. He was stalked down a blind alley by an aggressive man with a gun who had indicated a desire to hunt. He defended himself when he thought himself cornered, according to the Stand your Ground laws, and was executed by Zimmerman.
So the increase in crime should correlate with places that have relaxed drug laws. I didn't see that in the results. Where are you getting your statistics from?
Ideally, power demand would be flat and constant...the same amount, all the time.
So this is the 1000 year old problem of centralization vs distribution. We can solve the problem with "better" power plants, or batteries in every home. Either one gives the same result, though not at the same cost, or with the same control.
I also don't understand molten salts. Yes, once we shut down coal baseload plants, we'll need them for baseload, but right now, peaks are the issue, and power usage peaks at peak sun (or just after), so storage isn't an issue.
But are nearly perfectly correlated, so yes, effectively the same thing. It's the winds pulling away from the center that make the pressure lower there.
They didn't show any sense. They didn't cancel it for the right reasons. They canceled it because they saw that they would lose in court, as the contract was written, the clause was indentured servitude (considered Slavery in US law). I'll gladly pay you now, in the form of a steamer journey, so long as you make yourself available for 2 years after working for me. Nope, thrown out with Slavery. I got bashed in the first article when I pointed out that the contract was slavery, thus the employee could take the money and run, because the slavery clauses were invalid. That's probably what one of the SunTrust execs realized. They are a bunch of slavers, only this time, without the wage.
Do doctors even check your ID? I've never had it happen, but I haven't gone since ACA.
Also, why is it the Conservative Nutjobs think you should have to have a Government ID to vote, move freely, and everything else, but don't want the government to keep enough information on them in a single file to verify that ID, so anyone can walk into, say, a Post Office and walk out with a free national ID?
Seems the answer to all these problems would be free Passports for all, required from age 12, and the new standard of ID for medical care, driving, and everything else.
For all their words otherwise, the Conservative Nutjobs seem to be marching us straight towards "Papers Please" in their hatred of the poor and non-residents.
Having worked at a number of ISPs and you are simply wrong. You have to have pretty bad service to spend anywhere near infrastructure plus bandwidth on your customer service.
And they aren't "trying to screw with customers" they are trying to make the service the best possible for the most number of people. And one of the easy ways to do that is to put in a DPI and set it to put bittorrent as the lowest priority. The people downloading all day long never complain. 99% of the time, they are doing something illegal, the other 1% of the time, they recognize they are using a protocol that's mostly for illegal downloads, so they put up with the slower speeds. Though the best use of a DPI is to run a rolling 30-day count of all users, and put the top 1% of all of them in the naughty bin. That's fairest for all, and works out pretty well. Those using 100% of the pipe 100% of the time and buying a residential service, and complaining on every forum they can find that the cheapest residential service they can find doesn't give listed speeds at all time are better fired. Fire your customers is a business philosophy that pushes your high-cost customers to your competition, and let them deal with them. It works well in ISPs. Save your costs, and have the complaints be about the other guys.
Again, how is that relevant? There only needs to exist one example of a real world ISP to prove that it is possible to run a network congestion free.
The claim that because someone somewhere in the world does it that it's practical in the US regulatory environment is a silly claim. If it were as easy as you claim, why can nobody name any in the US that act in that manner?
Taking the money and intentionally not delivering the advertised service is fraud!
Your Term of Service clearly lay out a "best effort" service, and that's what they deliver. That you disagree with them on the definition of Best Effort indicate you need to sue them (and lose) in court for clarification. Your poor English skills don't trump the law.
I think the issue is with the human factors, not the weapon. The weight in a Glock is concentrated and up high, so it's more prone to lateral shaking. The heavier or more distributed weight in other guns reduces this shake, letting poor shooters shoot more consistently. You could weight a Glock to see if it improves your shooting. Though, more practical would likely be improvements in your stance and grip.
How is that even relevant?
Because the cryptic nature of the claims, from an undisclosed location in the Midwest, for all we know, the ISP doesn't exist, and he's lying to prove a point. If he gives the ISP, we can look at other 3rd party evaluations for verification.
Yes, I know there are places with good ISPs. The US isn't one of them. And an ISP like Google isn't a reasonable answer, as the last numbers I saw, about 1/100,000 people had access to it, and that was an exaggeration. They need to grow by about 2 orders of magnitude to be considered an option.
Having a higher capacity magazine or weapon just doesn't seem to have any real downside as near as I can tell.
Weight and grip size. Weight is a real consideration, as most cops never shoot their gun in the line of duty, so the primary use of a firearm is the implied threat, not shooting it. And weight for a long career will impact the person much more than having 10 instead of 7 shots. Have 10 17-shot magazines in the car, and 3 7 shots on you, and you'll be fine for 99.9% of encounters. As for too much being too much, I can't imagine having http://www.e-sarcoinc.com/50ro... that as the backup piece strapped to my ankle.
Forget 7. How many defensive encounters have you had where you needed more than zero?
And no, I'm not arguing against them - I'm saying they are unnecessary in any situation you're going to face as a civilian.
That applies equally to high capacity magazines as guns themselves.
it's not like you don't have choices for something lighter, less spray and pray,
For all the gun nuts trying to get kindergarten teachers armed and such, the more shots the better. One of the goals in stopping someone isn't necessarily stopping them, but delaying them for backup. You don't need to hit them if you can put some rounds into their cover, suppressing them while the other kindergarten teachers hear the shooting and respond, flanking the shooter and getting clear shots.
You never "missed". You never "sprayed". You laid down accurate suppressive fire, pinning the aggressor until backup arrived. Did they not teach you about suppressive fire in the military? From the way you talk, if you couldn't guarantee a kill, you wouldn't shoot. In practice, one would be less hesitant with their shots, hence the need for more shots.
If you need 17 rounds, run the fuck away before hand. At least then you can pick off the zombies from a more defensible standing of your choosing.
The end scenes of Shaun of the Dead were good on this point. Sometimes you end up at a place you believed secure, and didn't leave yourself and adequate escape. Perhaps you go to flee the bar fight you mentioned, and find one of the friends of the opponent saw the fight coming and double-parked your car in, so you'd have to flee on foot while he gives chase, or stand and fight against a larger force. Depending on the situation, either might be the optimal option, but 10 more shots gives you more options, including inaccurate suppressive fire while fleeing.
I also don't like the extreme variability in weight between the gun fully loaded and when it gets near empty,
That's because the gun itself is light, which is a design feature that the Army (And others) look for. If you want, it's easy to add weight. Weighted grips or magazines do the trick.
Now what were you saying about a "fact"?
You didn't post any facts. Unsupported statistics aren't facts. Why didn't you name your ISP, if they are so great? Are you one of the 1/100th of 1% that can get Google fiber, or something like that?
Your analysis has one key flaw. It is based on the assumption that there isn't enough bandwidth to keep latency low for everyone.
So his analysis is flawed because it's based in reality? That's quite a condemning indictment. You are wrong because, um, you are right, but that's not the way I'd like to see it.
If that's the case. No ISP runs a network like you'd like. The obvious solution is for you to build or buy an ISP and run it the way you'd like. The flood of new customers to you would make you a billionaire. Unless you are wrong, and that's why nobdody does it. The 1/10 of 1% that would care don't make enough people to justify the additional cost. A classification machine is cheap. $50k to $100k for one that'll do 40G. But buying 10G more pipes everywhere would cost more than that in interface cost alone, not even counting upstream bandwidth.
So they de-prioritize things. That's fine. The competition between ISPs is enough to have some cater to the edge cases. So long as they don't sell a "prioritized" VPN service above what anyone else can provide on their network, I would be happy with the "problems" listed in the summary. They aren't problems, and are fair and equitable.
A huge swapping ceremony. That would make the reassignments easier. Everyone gets a partner. Married couples could stay in one man one woman marriages.
Everyone? Wouldn't it make more sense to just pick one gender to reassign?
I've been to a large datacenter with the generators running, and it was still quieter than the street behind me. The complaints I see most are all the power lines. New power is almost all above ground, as it's quicker and cheaper to install. And it's that which gets many of the complaints.