Hell some states are much worse than others, with laws that allow restaurants to pay wait staff $3 an hour. Yes the difference is meant to be covered by tips, but get a bad schedule or just a stingy tipping crowd (fun fact, the more someone makes the less likely they will tip drivers and waitstaff in low end restauraunts) it's not uncommon to take home an average of $4 an hour for a full work schedule.
That's illegal. The minimum wage (at least in Texas) is set. The restaurant can pay less with the expectation of tips making up the difference, but if they don't, the restaurant is required to make up the difference to get them to the "regular" minimum wage. Most don't, they just fire you if you complain (I've seen it happen).
Welcome to yet another follow on effect of forcing banks to lend money to homeowners who could not in fact afford to pay it back.
A bank lending to a bad risk is bad for the bank. A bank committing fraud to lie about the risk of the loan when re-selling it, causing a global economic meltdown was the problem. It wasn't until after the meltdown when the foreclosures spiked. When the problem started, defaults were still below "expected" range, and profitable for the banks who made the loans, just not profitable for the fraudulent securities based on them.
The "subprime" crisis was so named by the rich white bankers to blame poor blacks. They shouldn't own property anyway, just work someone else's fields. The problem was unrelated to "subprime" loans or lending, other than the foreclosure rates were *always* higher than prime lending. So when foreclosures started (first outside subprime areas), they were blamed to shift responsibility and help hide the real cause, especially in racist America.
Everyone loves to hate on the banks. But they were forced into these stupid loans.
No, they weren't. They were encouraged to lend, not forced to. A government backed loan isn't a gun to your head, just easy profit. They chose fraud, not the government or the borrowers. Had the banks not committed fraud, none of this would have happened. The stock market cooled down at the end of the tech bubble, so new securities were invented to take the place. They were just bad ones. The sole responsibility of that ponzi scheme fraud lies with the banks.
My wife grew up with a welfare queen for a mother, and has been on welfare herself. She makes in the top 20% of wage earners now, and is pretty well off.
The worst thing about the US system is the thought that someone on welfare is a "bad" person. The places with lots of welfare and fewer problems with it do a better job of having it thought of as a tool, not a brand of failure.
That your mother refused free money makes her dumb, not smart.
And if she doesn't use the condoms because she's on the pill, but managed to forget to take it a few times and ends up pregnant?
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents? Might as well just drown every child past 2 born to any mother on welfare. It'd be more humane.
And studies like this one prove you false. Women don't avoid IT because they've been in the field and find it troublesome (the people, not the work). The "trouble" starts much earlier. They don't go into IT, and stop considering it, long before they are aware of what the working environment will be. That points to something other than "sexism in the workplace" as a much larger factor.
Your irrelevant rant only masks the problem, and is counter-productive to real progress. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
Ron/Rand Paul libertarians tend to indicate they don't believe in any human rights at all, but that there is a heirarchy. You don't have any rights, as they are all trumped by the owner of the land you are on. Property rights exist, but no human rights exist. You have the right to own property, if you can not afford property, you have no rights at all. All rights are derived through property ownership/control.
That's sufficiently fascist for most people to be considered fascist, and seems consistent with the libertarian stance.
When it's encrypted end to end, that MITM won't do you much good. But when the systems assume secure dial-up lines, the information isn't very secure. There's no reason I need to know the number on the card to process is, so long as the bank agrees to pay the amount, based on the hash/communication with the cardholder.
They don't "allow" it to fly. They just fixed it with regulation, not technology. It also allows for variability. If the part is still in perfect working order as it passes your arbitrary threshold, why should someone be required to discard it and buy another to maintain your profits? Have competent repairers inspect everything, and you get a more economic solution than yours, with no loss of safety.
The "fix" is to hold the breaches responsible for every fraudulent charge and re-issued card. The stores store the numbers, often in violation of their agreements, and nobody cares. They should get sued for their negligence. When that happens some, nobody will want to store the card numbers (like they are supposed to), and breaches will net nothing more than customer names and addresses, at most.
If it's a scam, why don't people take their business elsewhere? Discover started up to combat the duopoly. AmEx isn't one of the big 2, and they charge the most of anyone. The charges are small and mostly reasonable, $0.50 + 2% per transaction is about average. Non-zero, but not economy crushing.
Lying to deprive someone of something is fraud. Lying to a law enforcement officer is often obstruction. Lying under oath is perjury. Proving a witness is lying discredits everything they say, and leads to convictions if that witness is a defendant.
That design philosophy is not allowed in aircraft. If a lockout fails, the aircraft fails unsafe. So you'd never put one in. It's less safe to enforce good maintenance through lockouts, than to allow use post-maintenance expiration.
"invite corruption"? The way it works now with most absentee systems is that you could sign your ballot and had it to your boss or union leader, and they can then vote for you and send it in. With corruption being so trivial today, but not actually happening, I'm curious why you think that would change.
So it's stupid to not have a hardware lockout on a plane? Someone fails to reset the "oil change" light, and the plane falls out of the air because the engines shut off in mid-flight. Planes are fail-safe. If a component fails, it should fail in a manner that leaves the plane operational. Adding hardware lockouts, as you suggest, violates that basic principle. I'm glad you aren't an engineer.
So you are asserting they can send a large ship to Mars, but not a communications satellite into very high earth orbit? (yes, I realize you are saying they can't send anything to Mars either, but if they could, the extra cost of the communications wouldn't be a huge portion of the budget)
Which was the point. The basics of the solution are obvious. The question becomes, what's this study actually studying? Details? Comparing and contrasting Venus's L4 to Earth's? The summary has no details, and TFA doesn't go into any more detail.
When enjoined, the insurance company is the legally responsible party (which is why it will be their lawyer in court). In any legal sense, the insurance company has accepted liability for any fault of the driver to the judge. If insurance pays out, they do not pay the insured, they pay the other party directly. Because the insurance company is directly liable, not the insured party. If the insured party was still strictly and solely liable, the insurance company would pay the insured party. They don't. They accept the legal responsibility in the eyes of the judge, and the loss in court will end up with an order for the insurance company to pay the injured party, not an order for the insured to pay, that the insurance company pays.
Put some satellites in orbit around the sun. Enough of them and you'll always be able to see at least one of them from either planet, and they can relay between each other.
"enough" being one (or more). One satellite in Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points, and you have sight around the sun. If you don't use that natural gravity saddle, you might want to use a gravity hole, such as Jupiter to put another, though to stop Jupiter from getting in the way, you'd still need to use a Lagrange point, I'd recommend L1.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem. You can even launch three, Earth L4 &L5, and Jupiter L1 to have redundant and diverse coverage. Though no idea if they were looking for something in a more stable orbit, as Lagrange points take corrections to remain in. Or if those sorts of details were the point of the study.
Because other countries will change laws to allow them, and the US will avoid them until they look and realize we have 100 times the death rate of everywhere else. Then the government will require them, and the lawsuits won't come, even when the airbags launch baby's heads out the back window.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have the money to spend on foreign aid and foreign wars either. Let's stop those first, before directly harming Americans.
Hell some states are much worse than others, with laws that allow restaurants to pay wait staff $3 an hour. Yes the difference is meant to be covered by tips, but get a bad schedule or just a stingy tipping crowd (fun fact, the more someone makes the less likely they will tip drivers and waitstaff in low end restauraunts) it's not uncommon to take home an average of $4 an hour for a full work schedule.
That's illegal. The minimum wage (at least in Texas) is set. The restaurant can pay less with the expectation of tips making up the difference, but if they don't, the restaurant is required to make up the difference to get them to the "regular" minimum wage. Most don't, they just fire you if you complain (I've seen it happen).
United Arab Emirates?
Welcome to yet another follow on effect of forcing banks to lend money to homeowners who could not in fact afford to pay it back.
A bank lending to a bad risk is bad for the bank. A bank committing fraud to lie about the risk of the loan when re-selling it, causing a global economic meltdown was the problem. It wasn't until after the meltdown when the foreclosures spiked. When the problem started, defaults were still below "expected" range, and profitable for the banks who made the loans, just not profitable for the fraudulent securities based on them.
The "subprime" crisis was so named by the rich white bankers to blame poor blacks. They shouldn't own property anyway, just work someone else's fields. The problem was unrelated to "subprime" loans or lending, other than the foreclosure rates were *always* higher than prime lending. So when foreclosures started (first outside subprime areas), they were blamed to shift responsibility and help hide the real cause, especially in racist America.
Everyone loves to hate on the banks. But they were forced into these stupid loans.
No, they weren't. They were encouraged to lend, not forced to. A government backed loan isn't a gun to your head, just easy profit. They chose fraud, not the government or the borrowers. Had the banks not committed fraud, none of this would have happened. The stock market cooled down at the end of the tech bubble, so new securities were invented to take the place. They were just bad ones. The sole responsibility of that ponzi scheme fraud lies with the banks.
My wife grew up with a welfare queen for a mother, and has been on welfare herself. She makes in the top 20% of wage earners now, and is pretty well off.
The worst thing about the US system is the thought that someone on welfare is a "bad" person. The places with lots of welfare and fewer problems with it do a better job of having it thought of as a tool, not a brand of failure.
That your mother refused free money makes her dumb, not smart.
And if she doesn't use the condoms because she's on the pill, but managed to forget to take it a few times and ends up pregnant?
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents? Might as well just drown every child past 2 born to any mother on welfare. It'd be more humane.
And studies like this one prove you false. Women don't avoid IT because they've been in the field and find it troublesome (the people, not the work). The "trouble" starts much earlier. They don't go into IT, and stop considering it, long before they are aware of what the working environment will be. That points to something other than "sexism in the workplace" as a much larger factor.
Your irrelevant rant only masks the problem, and is counter-productive to real progress. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
Ron/Rand Paul libertarians tend to indicate they don't believe in any human rights at all, but that there is a heirarchy. You don't have any rights, as they are all trumped by the owner of the land you are on. Property rights exist, but no human rights exist. You have the right to own property, if you can not afford property, you have no rights at all. All rights are derived through property ownership/control.
That's sufficiently fascist for most people to be considered fascist, and seems consistent with the libertarian stance.
When it's encrypted end to end, that MITM won't do you much good. But when the systems assume secure dial-up lines, the information isn't very secure. There's no reason I need to know the number on the card to process is, so long as the bank agrees to pay the amount, based on the hash/communication with the cardholder.
They don't "allow" it to fly. They just fixed it with regulation, not technology. It also allows for variability. If the part is still in perfect working order as it passes your arbitrary threshold, why should someone be required to discard it and buy another to maintain your profits? Have competent repairers inspect everything, and you get a more economic solution than yours, with no loss of safety.
The "fix" is to hold the breaches responsible for every fraudulent charge and re-issued card. The stores store the numbers, often in violation of their agreements, and nobody cares. They should get sued for their negligence. When that happens some, nobody will want to store the card numbers (like they are supposed to), and breaches will net nothing more than customer names and addresses, at most.
If it's a scam, why don't people take their business elsewhere? Discover started up to combat the duopoly. AmEx isn't one of the big 2, and they charge the most of anyone. The charges are small and mostly reasonable, $0.50 + 2% per transaction is about average. Non-zero, but not economy crushing.
Lying to deprive someone of something is fraud. Lying to a law enforcement officer is often obstruction. Lying under oath is perjury. Proving a witness is lying discredits everything they say, and leads to convictions if that witness is a defendant.
That design philosophy is not allowed in aircraft. If a lockout fails, the aircraft fails unsafe. So you'd never put one in. It's less safe to enforce good maintenance through lockouts, than to allow use post-maintenance expiration.
There isn't a need for it. They even say it is being discussed, but isn't mandatory.
There would never be a rescue mission. It's a one-way suicide mission.
"invite corruption"? The way it works now with most absentee systems is that you could sign your ballot and had it to your boss or union leader, and they can then vote for you and send it in. With corruption being so trivial today, but not actually happening, I'm curious why you think that would change.
So it's stupid to not have a hardware lockout on a plane? Someone fails to reset the "oil change" light, and the plane falls out of the air because the engines shut off in mid-flight. Planes are fail-safe. If a component fails, it should fail in a manner that leaves the plane operational. Adding hardware lockouts, as you suggest, violates that basic principle. I'm glad you aren't an engineer.
So you are asserting they can send a large ship to Mars, but not a communications satellite into very high earth orbit? (yes, I realize you are saying they can't send anything to Mars either, but if they could, the extra cost of the communications wouldn't be a huge portion of the budget)
You crowdsource all non-vital problems to Slashdot.
Which was the point. The basics of the solution are obvious. The question becomes, what's this study actually studying? Details? Comparing and contrasting Venus's L4 to Earth's? The summary has no details, and TFA doesn't go into any more detail.
I've not been to check. When I go on Expedia to book, the flights are always full.
When enjoined, the insurance company is the legally responsible party (which is why it will be their lawyer in court). In any legal sense, the insurance company has accepted liability for any fault of the driver to the judge. If insurance pays out, they do not pay the insured, they pay the other party directly. Because the insurance company is directly liable, not the insured party. If the insured party was still strictly and solely liable, the insurance company would pay the insured party. They don't. They accept the legal responsibility in the eyes of the judge, and the loss in court will end up with an order for the insurance company to pay the injured party, not an order for the insured to pay, that the insurance company pays.
I was thinking Jupiter's L1 for the redundant position. Should be able to see the Earth and Mars from there almost all the time.
Put some satellites in orbit around the sun. Enough of them and you'll always be able to see at least one of them from either planet, and they can relay between each other.
"enough" being one (or more). One satellite in Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points, and you have sight around the sun. If you don't use that natural gravity saddle, you might want to use a gravity hole, such as Jupiter to put another, though to stop Jupiter from getting in the way, you'd still need to use a Lagrange point, I'd recommend L1.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem. You can even launch three, Earth L4 &L5, and Jupiter L1 to have redundant and diverse coverage. Though no idea if they were looking for something in a more stable orbit, as Lagrange points take corrections to remain in. Or if those sorts of details were the point of the study.
Because other countries will change laws to allow them, and the US will avoid them until they look and realize we have 100 times the death rate of everywhere else. Then the government will require them, and the lawsuits won't come, even when the airbags launch baby's heads out the back window.