That's fine. You can skip that phone. But I like the idea of a stronger, lighter, thinner, and cheaper phone. I don't mind having to use USB-C to plug in my headphones.
I have an iPhone at work, but could have opted for the android. The android choices were pretty poor. If my driving decision is the headset, I'd just carry an android for both. The real difference is the SIM. Heck, I have a 2-SIM phone for the day I get tired of hauling around 2 phones and carry one with both SIMs in it. Solves the 2-phone problem pretty simply.
And the jack hole is about 1 mm larger on all sides, so 3.5mm takes 5.5mm minimum. So any of the super-thin phones drop the headphone jack because it's to thick to include and hit the marketing goals.
at least with USB-C you can physically plug in something. I hate bluetooth because it's yet another item to keep charged. And without a cord, it's much easier to forget them and leave them somewhere. The looks of it are that the owner of the phone will need to keep a [lightning|USB-C] adapter appropriate for their phone around, and you can keep using your 3.5mm headphones forever. Though anyone who uses headphones on a computer and isn't an audiophile uses USB headphones because they are easier and generally higher quality than the obsolete 3.5 analog headphones.
I tell my children this all the time. "When something is wrong in your life. Finding someone other than yourself to be "At Fault" will never benefit you. Always strive to find what you can do differently. This is where you gain power."
It is just truth. If you ever truly can find nothing you can do in your life differently to get better results, you win. You are a powerless victim. No fualt can be assigned to you. Nothing you could ever do to change things.
Feel better?
You want to treat the people like your children. Still a nanny state.
So for all the talk of a Democratic nanny state, you want a Republican one, with a "tough love" nanny. But still trying to treat everyone else as you would treat children. Change the nanny, it's still a nanny.
Funny, the Corvettes I've heard (at least the modern ones) are nearly silent. Sure, a '60s 454 with some aggressive cams will sound like an elephant farting, but an LS-1 is as quiet in a Corvette as the Cadillac.
Most driving is at near-idle. Almost all cars are automatics, and they tend to keep the revs about 2k RPM. I mentioned idle to distinguish from those who would think of the annoying cars with blow-off-valves that are 100+ dB and all that. You can hear some cars from the next town over, and since they are the ones that stand out, people will think of those and ignore the cars they can't hear.
A diesel, maybe. With the annoyingly loud valve chatter of a diesel, but a modern gasoline engine idles nearly silent, and someone in front of a car will not be able to hear the exhause. Unless accelerating, the sound from an approaching gasoline-powered car is close enough to an electric one that the pedestrian is an idiot if they are relying on sound. You would hear tire noise clearly from quite a distance, even with an electric car.
Go stand in front of a Lexus LS460 at a steady 55 mph. You'll not hear much as it approaches. Repeat with the Tesla, and let me know the dB difference. I'd expect that the sound at 100 ft would be audible from both, and within 3 dB of each other. But I don't have the time, or inclination, to test.
Yeah, and anyone hit from behind is never at fault. The simplistic generalizations are right only barely more than wrong, so much so, they aren't very useful.
When you post AC, it could have been anyone. And because you were posting AC, it was collapsed. Because of the replies pointing out your massive error, I saw the original, but your hidden AC correction was hidden.
I know many people haven't actually walked on the earth, outside of their cars or a building in decades, but I'd like to let you know that it's actually very hard to "step in front of" a moving car.
You say that, and yet I've seen it happen. Perhaps you need to get out more. Given it happened at night where someone in dark clothes was jaywalking in front of a car, one could guess that the pedestrian was drunk, or otherwise distracted (perhaps playing pokemon or something).
How long until, knowing their car's auto brake capability, people drive even faster and pay even less attention?
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
All cars are almost silent at low speeds. Someone in a car that is coasting will make roughly the same sound as an electric car, especially to a listener in front of the car.
So a pedestrian wearing all black at night who hides in the bushes and throws themselves at cars, it's till 100% the driver's fault? You live in a messed up place, wherever that is.
It likely has already been reported as such, and you were looked at, and ignored. Someone with 10k a month in two inequal deposits of varying amounts that are substantially similar looks like someone with $10k a month in income, nothing more. Drug deals and such have sporadic income and lumps of substantially equal deposits in clusters.
You were likely investigated for structuring already, and didn't even know it. You file taxes on all the income (presumably) and the source is listed and is legal, so everything should be provably legit to anyone glancing over your finances.
Tax fraud and other charges were laid, structuring was added as one of many charges, though the anti-structuring people make it sound like it was the only thing he was investigated/charged with. Guilty of 58 charges, but you make it sound like the one structuring charge was the only thing he was investigated and charged with.
He argued that his for-profit amusement park was not taxable because it belonged to God.
Nope. That's not illegal. one deposit a day of $9999 for two weeks is illegal structuring. A single "suspicious" deposit is not illegal. And it's not structuring. Structuring requires that you have more than $10k that you deliberately split to avoid hitting the $10k limit. $5k a day for two weeks, with none before and after would also likely trigger alerts for structuring, and has nothing to do with $9999.
People at the bank can't know whether it's money laundering. It's beyond their scope of business to determine whether the $1M came from a hit to execute Jonbenet Ramsey, or undelcared income from carpentry. They report the "suspicious" income to the feds, and the feds investigate. Most "investigations" are adding the transaction to a file, and a real investigation doesn't happen until the file is thick enough. Then they investigate the person, looking for actual illegal activity.
Laundering legal money is technically illegal, but almost never prosecuted (unless they "know" you are doing something illegal, but can't make it stick).
Usually drugs, sometimes trafficking. When you sell $1B in drugs and have $1B in cash, if you spend it, people will ask where you got it from (any transaction over $10k is reported to the feds). So you have to make it appear legal, and declare it as legal income, so you are "legal" with the IRS and FBI/DEA (separate rules, and either will send you to jail for your illegal income). So you take your $1B and declare it as gambling winnings, invest it, mix it with other money, extract it, and treat it like it was a gain from the other money, or any of the other laundering techniques. Then you have $1B (minus taxes) free and clear, and any audit that doesn't go back before the laundering will show it to be 100% legal (if your laundering is done right).
"[The] value [of capital] can be estimated at a point in time."
Exactly what I said. That you can't understand doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means you are dumb. Capital is measured in money, and traded for money, and so, in some cases, the terms are effectively interchangeable, especially when talking about Financial Capital.
The test was never supposed to be accurate. It was supposed to be precise. For comparisons between cars, it's great. For estimating your annual fuel usage, it's not very accurate. It's so bad that it's not the test used for fuel economy by any consumer group (other than those that simply list the government findings, often because they haven't tested everything), and not even used by other parts of the US government.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine. You can skip that phone. But I like the idea of a stronger, lighter, thinner, and cheaper phone. I don't mind having to use USB-C to plug in my headphones.
My cars both have USB inputs into the audio system. You can USB into them, and not use 3.5mm jack or bluetooth.
I have an iPhone at work, but could have opted for the android. The android choices were pretty poor. If my driving decision is the headset, I'd just carry an android for both. The real difference is the SIM. Heck, I have a 2-SIM phone for the day I get tired of hauling around 2 phones and carry one with both SIMs in it. Solves the 2-phone problem pretty simply.
Sure you can, you'll just need the right accessories.
And the jack hole is about 1 mm larger on all sides, so 3.5mm takes 5.5mm minimum. So any of the super-thin phones drop the headphone jack because it's to thick to include and hit the marketing goals.
at least with USB-C you can physically plug in something. I hate bluetooth because it's yet another item to keep charged. And without a cord, it's much easier to forget them and leave them somewhere. The looks of it are that the owner of the phone will need to keep a [lightning|USB-C] adapter appropriate for their phone around, and you can keep using your 3.5mm headphones forever. Though anyone who uses headphones on a computer and isn't an audiophile uses USB headphones because they are easier and generally higher quality than the obsolete 3.5 analog headphones.
I tell my children this all the time. "When something is wrong in your life. Finding someone other than yourself to be "At Fault" will never benefit you.
Always strive to find what you can do differently. This is where you gain power."
It is just truth. If you ever truly can find nothing you can do in your life differently to get better results, you win. You are a powerless victim. No fualt can be assigned to you. Nothing you could ever do to change things.
Feel better?
You want to treat the people like your children. Still a nanny state.
So for all the talk of a Democratic nanny state, you want a Republican one, with a "tough love" nanny. But still trying to treat everyone else as you would treat children. Change the nanny, it's still a nanny.
Funny, the Corvettes I've heard (at least the modern ones) are nearly silent. Sure, a '60s 454 with some aggressive cams will sound like an elephant farting, but an LS-1 is as quiet in a Corvette as the Cadillac.
Most driving is at near-idle. Almost all cars are automatics, and they tend to keep the revs about 2k RPM. I mentioned idle to distinguish from those who would think of the annoying cars with blow-off-valves that are 100+ dB and all that. You can hear some cars from the next town over, and since they are the ones that stand out, people will think of those and ignore the cars they can't hear.
A diesel, maybe. With the annoyingly loud valve chatter of a diesel, but a modern gasoline engine idles nearly silent, and someone in front of a car will not be able to hear the exhause. Unless accelerating, the sound from an approaching gasoline-powered car is close enough to an electric one that the pedestrian is an idiot if they are relying on sound. You would hear tire noise clearly from quite a distance, even with an electric car.
Go stand in front of a Lexus LS460 at a steady 55 mph. You'll not hear much as it approaches. Repeat with the Tesla, and let me know the dB difference. I'd expect that the sound at 100 ft would be audible from both, and within 3 dB of each other. But I don't have the time, or inclination, to test.
Yeah, and anyone hit from behind is never at fault. The simplistic generalizations are right only barely more than wrong, so much so, they aren't very useful.
When you post AC, it could have been anyone. And because you were posting AC, it was collapsed. Because of the replies pointing out your massive error, I saw the original, but your hidden AC correction was hidden.
I know many people haven't actually walked on the earth, outside of their cars or a building in decades, but I'd like to let you know that it's actually very hard to "step in front of" a moving car.
You say that, and yet I've seen it happen. Perhaps you need to get out more. Given it happened at night where someone in dark clothes was jaywalking in front of a car, one could guess that the pedestrian was drunk, or otherwise distracted (perhaps playing pokemon or something).
How long until, knowing their car's auto brake capability, people drive even faster and pay even less attention?
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
All cars are almost silent at low speeds. Someone in a car that is coasting will make roughly the same sound as an electric car, especially to a listener in front of the car.
Nope. My non-electric car is nearly as quiet. And at night, you'll see the lights long before any (normal) car is audible.
So a pedestrian wearing all black at night who hides in the bushes and throws themselves at cars, it's till 100% the driver's fault? You live in a messed up place, wherever that is.
But the Musk haters want it both ways. Autopilot killed someone and AEB didn't save anyone. Isn't that what you are arguing for?
It likely has already been reported as such, and you were looked at, and ignored. Someone with 10k a month in two inequal deposits of varying amounts that are substantially similar looks like someone with $10k a month in income, nothing more. Drug deals and such have sporadic income and lumps of substantially equal deposits in clusters.
You were likely investigated for structuring already, and didn't even know it. You file taxes on all the income (presumably) and the source is listed and is legal, so everything should be provably legit to anyone glancing over your finances.
Tax fraud and other charges were laid, structuring was added as one of many charges, though the anti-structuring people make it sound like it was the only thing he was investigated/charged with. Guilty of 58 charges, but you make it sound like the one structuring charge was the only thing he was investigated and charged with.
He argued that his for-profit amusement park was not taxable because it belonged to God.
Yes. It's more like a form of civil forfeiture. 3 Felonies a Day, and all that.
Nope. That's not illegal. one deposit a day of $9999 for two weeks is illegal structuring. A single "suspicious" deposit is not illegal. And it's not structuring. Structuring requires that you have more than $10k that you deliberately split to avoid hitting the $10k limit. $5k a day for two weeks, with none before and after would also likely trigger alerts for structuring, and has nothing to do with $9999.
People at the bank can't know whether it's money laundering. It's beyond their scope of business to determine whether the $1M came from a hit to execute Jonbenet Ramsey, or undelcared income from carpentry. They report the "suspicious" income to the feds, and the feds investigate. Most "investigations" are adding the transaction to a file, and a real investigation doesn't happen until the file is thick enough. Then they investigate the person, looking for actual illegal activity.
Laundering legal money is technically illegal, but almost never prosecuted (unless they "know" you are doing something illegal, but can't make it stick).
Usually drugs, sometimes trafficking. When you sell $1B in drugs and have $1B in cash, if you spend it, people will ask where you got it from (any transaction over $10k is reported to the feds). So you have to make it appear legal, and declare it as legal income, so you are "legal" with the IRS and FBI/DEA (separate rules, and either will send you to jail for your illegal income). So you take your $1B and declare it as gambling winnings, invest it, mix it with other money, extract it, and treat it like it was a gain from the other money, or any of the other laundering techniques. Then you have $1B (minus taxes) free and clear, and any audit that doesn't go back before the laundering will show it to be 100% legal (if your laundering is done right).
"[The] value [of capital] can be estimated at a point in time."
Exactly what I said. That you can't understand doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means you are dumb. Capital is measured in money, and traded for money, and so, in some cases, the terms are effectively interchangeable, especially when talking about Financial Capital.
The test was never supposed to be accurate. It was supposed to be precise. For comparisons between cars, it's great. For estimating your annual fuel usage, it's not very accurate. It's so bad that it's not the test used for fuel economy by any consumer group (other than those that simply list the government findings, often because they haven't tested everything), and not even used by other parts of the US government.