HP did that. "Lifetime hardware warranty", but the first hardware replacement after the part is EOL voids the warranty, as you get the new gear, and no lifetime warranty on that. I've seen that elsewhere as well. Should be billed as "One free HW replacement (unless we fell like giving you more)" warranty.
Apollo 13 had the wrong number of burns in the wrong locations. There were known, expected, technical errors. It was a drama. These are considered fiction, even if based on real events, and quite realistic.
Obamacare doesn't set any pricing. How can it be both that costs went up under ACA and care went down under ACA? Oh, are Americans finally learning that cost of care and quality of care aren't as linked as they thought? Because for less money, you can have better care. Almost every other 1st world country has that now. The US is quite far behind, in live expectancy and quality of care, and for the highest price, for bottom of the barrel care. And no, none of that is Obama's fault. It all pre-dated him.
And why not make 2 car seats per car, built into every car, with fold-down rear car seats, embedded in the car. Not rear-facing, but that could be done, right one rear facing, left one front facing, built into the car, and folded out when needed, 10 second conversion. Easy. Nobody has done it because it's cheaper and easier to buy a car seat. If that changes, it's trivial to fix.
It's not about what's likely. It's about not lying about what's happening.
Is a deferred hire, because of increased efficiency, when nobody was fired or laid off, a "replaced person"?
No human uses those words that way, unless they are pushing an agenda. A replaced person is a human who was hired to do a job, then was fired. Theoretical job losses through shrinkage shouldn't count.
Nope. Young workers being more efficient from tools allows the business to hire fewer and do more business. This doesn't "fire" anyone, and the reduction is in the number of workers per unit work. Not in active firings of people due to automation. That still only happens in manual labor, factories and mining. Though in mining, the number of workers isn't greatly reduced, but moved to safer top-side jobs.
The fear of job loss is not borne out by layoff numbers. It simply isn't happening.
So if Roomba gets 10 janitors fired, and 100 new robotic maintenance people are hired elsewhere, we should count that as a job loss, and fear and hate technology.
Hiring 10 new lawyers next year instead of 1000 isn't "replacing" lawyers. It's reducing jobs, but "replacing people" implies that someone employed today will be fired and replaced with a robot tomorrow. That's not happening (to the scale implied).
Did you ever read Animal Farm? The douchebag that took advantage of the system was one of the least "evil" characters. And, had surprisingly little dependence on the government. Odd how so many who hate socialism can't grasp that basic idea, put forth 50+ years ago, and shown basically correct ever since.
Your failure to read doesn't contradict him. He didn't get enough blue in daytime. You got too much blue at night. The issues are unrelated, so your contradictory statements don't contradict him at all, despite your contradictory tone.
Why would you equate 'I cannot assert it exists' with 'I can definitely assert it does not exist'. Do you not understand that these are different?
I do. You obviously don't. Your words are supporting a default position of disbelief. That is asserting it does not exist, not asserting you don't have an opinion on the matter.
As to why we should disbelieve, it's simple.
Ah, so in the absence of evidence, you assert it does not exist, in direct contradiction to your earlier lies.
The source of the news is untrustworthy,
So you disbelieve Uber's position that she's not full of lies? Why do you think Uber is so full of lies?
It's not just on the source, but the actions of others. She made quite factual assertions about specific facts. If she's lying, she'll be sued to oblivion. If she's not, she (and Uber) will have documents to support claims. She made a complaint to HR on her first day. You think that's a lie. You are positively definitely asserting it does not exist. The "scientific" response is, a single observation of a single event doesn't make a rule. The generalization of her complaint to all startups is invalid. The generalizatoin of her complaint to all women or men within Uber would be invalid.
But simply disbelieving her because you find complaints of sexism to be inconvenient is scientifically invalid.
You are entitled to your opinion, but don't lie about science to justify it.
I have not observed Saturn, yet I refrain from pointing out it's lack of existence to anyone that claims it exists.
Evidence has been provided of specific incidents, no contrary evidence has been provided. So why is your default position to be to disbelieve all the provided evidence, and apparently heavily weight the non-provided exculpatory evidence?
She made s specific claim with regards to the *fact* she was harassed on her first day, and it was reported to HR her first day. If that fact-based claim is a lie, Uber should sue her. That they aren't, and haven't responded, is evidence that they don't object to her facts. Yes, silence is an admission of guilt (except in court).
In fact, Uber has made confirming statements, where they are concerned. And they have explicitly not questioned the factual claims made.
And complaints bout SJWs seem to exceed the number of SJWs. Try facts, rather than yous snowflake tantrums.
I've seen worse. Those who haven't, generally seem to have worked in more unisex environments. You didn't see it happen to women, because your environment was so toxic that no women were there.
A guy working in a company with almost all guys will likely not see the worst of the worst. That a male hasn't been sexually harassed doesn't mean that the environment isn't sexist.
I've witnessed worse behavior. Direct insults by the management to anyone who talked to the "cute girl" with unofficial "she's mine" overtones. Like shouting and threats of firing for talking to her. I manged to find this out when she ended up at the water cooler at the same time as me, and I casually asked her about her day. The manager walked past and insulted my genitalia loud enough for everyone in the building to hear, with the intention of making it clear that nobody talks to her but him. She later quit, because working there was miserable when the only person "allowed" to talk to her was an abusive jerk.
Though, I quit before her, because the environment was so toxic. No gossip needed, I was sexually harassed by the management with many witnesses.
But it does prevent remote access to that data. Sure, some Yahoo employe may still be able to dredge up something, but a hacker with the username/password for the account couldn't even log in.
A hacker with a username/password list for the site can't get to your deleted data if the account is closed. So closing the account is more secure than leaving it open and deleting everything. And deleting doesn't always work, but that's a separate issue.
Slashdot Mirror
HP did that. "Lifetime hardware warranty", but the first hardware replacement after the part is EOL voids the warranty, as you get the new gear, and no lifetime warranty on that. I've seen that elsewhere as well. Should be billed as "One free HW replacement (unless we fell like giving you more)" warranty.
Apollo 13 had the wrong number of burns in the wrong locations. There were known, expected, technical errors. It was a drama. These are considered fiction, even if based on real events, and quite realistic.
Dramatizations are considered fiction.
Obamacare doesn't set any pricing. How can it be both that costs went up under ACA and care went down under ACA? Oh, are Americans finally learning that cost of care and quality of care aren't as linked as they thought? Because for less money, you can have better care. Almost every other 1st world country has that now. The US is quite far behind, in live expectancy and quality of care, and for the highest price, for bottom of the barrel care. And no, none of that is Obama's fault. It all pre-dated him.
Self driving tow trucks for self driving cars is a trivial response to your imagined problem, should it become a real problem.
And why not make 2 car seats per car, built into every car, with fold-down rear car seats, embedded in the car. Not rear-facing, but that could be done, right one rear facing, left one front facing, built into the car, and folded out when needed, 10 second conversion. Easy. Nobody has done it because it's cheaper and easier to buy a car seat. If that changes, it's trivial to fix.
Yeah, and they didn't even list his best sci-fi role, Apolo 13. Or is that non-fiction?
It's not about what's likely. It's about not lying about what's happening.
Is a deferred hire, because of increased efficiency, when nobody was fired or laid off, a "replaced person"?
No human uses those words that way, unless they are pushing an agenda. A replaced person is a human who was hired to do a job, then was fired. Theoretical job losses through shrinkage shouldn't count.
The cats took advantage of the system. The pigs took over the system. That you can't tell the difference doesn't mean I can't.
Nope. Young workers being more efficient from tools allows the business to hire fewer and do more business. This doesn't "fire" anyone, and the reduction is in the number of workers per unit work. Not in active firings of people due to automation. That still only happens in manual labor, factories and mining. Though in mining, the number of workers isn't greatly reduced, but moved to safer top-side jobs.
The fear of job loss is not borne out by layoff numbers. It simply isn't happening.
So if Roomba gets 10 janitors fired, and 100 new robotic maintenance people are hired elsewhere, we should count that as a job loss, and fear and hate technology.
Hiring 10 new lawyers next year instead of 1000 isn't "replacing" lawyers. It's reducing jobs, but "replacing people" implies that someone employed today will be fired and replaced with a robot tomorrow. That's not happening (to the scale implied).
Did you ever read Animal Farm? The douchebag that took advantage of the system was one of the least "evil" characters. And, had surprisingly little dependence on the government. Odd how so many who hate socialism can't grasp that basic idea, put forth 50+ years ago, and shown basically correct ever since.
You hate doctors and others with edumacation. Got it.
Your failure to read doesn't contradict him. He didn't get enough blue in daytime. You got too much blue at night. The issues are unrelated, so your contradictory statements don't contradict him at all, despite your contradictory tone.
You are mistakenly assuming "tax dodge" means "illegal tax evasion". When it more likely means "improper tax avoidance".
Care to try again?
Why would you equate 'I cannot assert it exists' with 'I can definitely assert it does not exist'. Do you not understand that these are different?
I do. You obviously don't. Your words are supporting a default position of disbelief. That is asserting it does not exist, not asserting you don't have an opinion on the matter.
As to why we should disbelieve, it's simple.
Ah, so in the absence of evidence, you assert it does not exist, in direct contradiction to your earlier lies.
The source of the news is untrustworthy,
So you disbelieve Uber's position that she's not full of lies? Why do you think Uber is so full of lies?
It's not just on the source, but the actions of others. She made quite factual assertions about specific facts. If she's lying, she'll be sued to oblivion. If she's not, she (and Uber) will have documents to support claims. She made a complaint to HR on her first day. You think that's a lie. You are positively definitely asserting it does not exist. The "scientific" response is, a single observation of a single event doesn't make a rule. The generalization of her complaint to all startups is invalid. The generalizatoin of her complaint to all women or men within Uber would be invalid.
But simply disbelieving her because you find complaints of sexism to be inconvenient is scientifically invalid.
You are entitled to your opinion, but don't lie about science to justify it.
I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists
"I suffer confirmation bias, and I'm proud of it!"
I have not observed Saturn, yet I refrain from pointing out it's lack of existence to anyone that claims it exists.
Evidence has been provided of specific incidents, no contrary evidence has been provided. So why is your default position to be to disbelieve all the provided evidence, and apparently heavily weight the non-provided exculpatory evidence?
That stance is not based in science.
She made s specific claim with regards to the *fact* she was harassed on her first day, and it was reported to HR her first day. If that fact-based claim is a lie, Uber should sue her. That they aren't, and haven't responded, is evidence that they don't object to her facts. Yes, silence is an admission of guilt (except in court). In fact, Uber has made confirming statements, where they are concerned. And they have explicitly not questioned the factual claims made.
And complaints bout SJWs seem to exceed the number of SJWs. Try facts, rather than yous snowflake tantrums.
I've seen worse. Those who haven't, generally seem to have worked in more unisex environments. You didn't see it happen to women, because your environment was so toxic that no women were there.
A guy working in a company with almost all guys will likely not see the worst of the worst. That a male hasn't been sexually harassed doesn't mean that the environment isn't sexist.
I've witnessed worse behavior. Direct insults by the management to anyone who talked to the "cute girl" with unofficial "she's mine" overtones. Like shouting and threats of firing for talking to her. I manged to find this out when she ended up at the water cooler at the same time as me, and I casually asked her about her day. The manager walked past and insulted my genitalia loud enough for everyone in the building to hear, with the intention of making it clear that nobody talks to her but him. She later quit, because working there was miserable when the only person "allowed" to talk to her was an abusive jerk.
Though, I quit before her, because the environment was so toxic. No gossip needed, I was sexually harassed by the management with many witnesses.
The schedule is public. The content of the National Security briefings is always assumed Top Secret. How on Earth do you not know these basic facts?
But it does prevent remote access to that data. Sure, some Yahoo employe may still be able to dredge up something, but a hacker with the username/password for the account couldn't even log in.
A hacker with a username/password list for the site can't get to your deleted data if the account is closed. So closing the account is more secure than leaving it open and deleting everything. And deleting doesn't always work, but that's a separate issue.