I had to pay someone to watch them every morning and make sure they hit the school bus. That's the burden of having kids, fortunately they make up for it in so many other ways. I didn't have to pay anyone to watch them after school though so it was only half a problem.
Which most can't afford to do. It is easier to get the kids to come home and manage themselves until after work without paid supervision.
On top of that getting up and going to work before dawn can be its own form of soul-crushing drudgery.
You asked "Why not just get up earlier?" Don't pretend that answers that you personally don't like don't count. Those are easily in the top 3 answers to that question.
It's crazy anyway. Why not just get up earlier? For decades I worked from 6 to 2:30. When I got off work I had plenty of daylight. My kids got out of school at 3:15 and I picked them up on the way home.
Why not just get up earlier? Because I can't dish off getting my kids ready for school and dropping them off at school on someone else.
You've simply made the morning routine someone else's problem and proclaimed yourself the end-of-day childcare hero.
Filled a bottle half way with lime (not the fruit, calcium carbonate used for whitewash) add added tinfoil from cigarette packs cut into thin strips. Slip a balloon over the neck. Leave it in the Sun. After about six hours we have a hydrogen filled balloon.
(Time to acknowledge my science master, Isaac Edward Sukumar. BSc, BEd. Greatest. Teacher. Ever. )
Greatest alchemist ever to get hydrogen from calcium carbonate and "tin."
Methinks you mean slaked lime (Calcium hydroxide) and aluminum foil (which, yes, is frequently called tin foil).
I really do get annoyed at people that try and use the government and legal system to force property owners into giving them below market rents. Haven't we learned that is a good way to turn decent neighborhoods into slums? In some cases rent control laws have reach such idiotic proportions that the landlord is actually paying the tenant to live in the unit since the rent doesn't cover the property taxes.
Let supply and demand function without interference in order to establish a market level price.
So using property as a hotel, when it is not zoned for hotel usage, in order to obtain higher rents is A-OK, and those people who are wanting apartment stock to be used as apartments are trying "use the government and legal system to force property owners into giving them below market rents"?
Have you ever noticed that staying in hotels, even week-to-weeks, is far more expensive than monthly rent?
Yes, that is the differential that is being complained of. And it's only "interference in the free market" in the sense that I can't move in nextdoor to you and run a hotel, a convenience store, or a grow-op that might motivate me to pay a higher price for the same property.
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.
SpaceX is even more amazing in terms of tech, getting stuff working like vertical landings that seemed like it was going to remain as science fiction, while also seeming to be very reliable tech as far as the rocket industry goes which is its own feat (even in modern times you still see rockets exploding on launch).
Tesla isn't the first... shooting rockets into LEO (*gasp* that was 61 years ago).
Nothing "generalized" about it.
Sure - changing vertically landing a rocket from 200 km into shooting rockets into LEO isn't an overgeneralization at all. Never mind that the booster is never in an orbit.
Or it might be just that he is spending money on improving things that have been done before, and you are really impressed by it. Tesla isn't the first electric car (that was *gasp* 180 years ago!) or shooting rockets into LEO (*gasp* that was 61 years ago). And I hate to break it to you: people have actually made tunnels before (I know: hard to believe!)
So by "things that have been done before," you mean way overbroad generalizations of technology, complemented by ignoring the "improv[ed] things" that apparently have not been done before?
Analogously, every word that you've typed has been used before, and English paragraphs are so old that I guess we shouldn't be impressed by anything quoted above.
We have enough politics in everyday life without yet another tv show being a thinly veiled metaphor for America's current political system.
No we don't.
"Don't make me think about what I'm doing! And I'm not going to pay any attention anyway, which is why you should ensure that this TV show caters to my will instead of the interests of those already watching..."
No...the funny part is that the party of "free enterprise" is constantly complaining that PERCEIVED_SLIGHT="they want to run their company their way".
But they totally have a right to express their customer dissatisfaction! If they're not appeased they might just stop paying for... umm, posting to reach the audience of... um, organizing on...
Godd*mn network effects of free services.
They'll build their own service, with blackjack and hookers! Like Gab... Gab is totally succeeding at grabbing desirable market- and mind-share from Twitter.
A second person says, "*hugs*" as an expression of sympathy in response. That second person is now on warning for violating community standards.
I, for one, will not be joining your purely hypothetical community. However, the real one remains A-OK.
I've considered your hyperbolic nonsense and decided that it is not persuasive. Please identify any examples that even approach the level of your example, or else restrict yourself to intellectually honest criticism.
I don't have to have access to classified information (and wouldn't tell you if I did - think about that).
Oh, I've thought about it. Not impressed.
Were there any evidence that Russians actually changed election results it would be on the news 24/7.
But it it was classified then they wouldn't have access to it or even know that it exists. Think about that.
Nevermind that the "election hacks of 2016" are not limited to Russians directly accessing and changing votes in an outcome altering manner, and have been on the news 24/7.
Funny how Russians directly accessing voter registration systems is not related to elections, but Republicans lose their shit about poor and colored people registering to vote, allegedly being bussed in from other states to vote, and everything else that doesn't involve tampering with the voting machines themselves. Seems a bit inconsistent to the rest of us.
Traditionally one uses a question mark for a question, and yes, I did.
Successfully penetrating a state election network and hacking an election aren't related.
Yes they are. For instance, both your descriptions use "election."
There's no evidence - and not even the allegation - that they changed anything.
"She did not say whether the Russian government altered any state voting registration databases or compromised actual votes, saying she is not allowed to talk publicly about classified information."
You have access to classified information? Or you merely assume that there wasn't because you desperately want there not to be? Absence of public evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sorry, Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate who didn't bother to campaign in key states.
So sorry, you denied the existence of election hacks and have been proven wrong. I never claimed that election hacks, which definitely did happen, changed the outcome of the election.
What "election hacks of 2016" are we talking about? I mean, besides the Democrats screeching about this stuff 24/7 trying to push their alternate explanation of how the worst candidate in history lost to the 2nd worst.
But I have known this for years - especially at Christmas time people drag their runny-nosed little brats onto airplanes, and due to the holidays people can't or won't cancel or postpone. I have even seen adults with runny noses going through the airports that time of year, so it isn't just the kids.
It's almost as if people will not cancel longstanding travel plans for your comfort or convenience.
I suggest that you avoid traveling at that time if it so concerns you.
There's no shortage of useful things to send up on a rocket, but we're gonna waste a launch on a dumb stunt by a rich guy.
What useful thing do you believe can usefully be placed into a trans-Mars injection orbit? So usefully, in fact, that it'd be worth equipping the payload to actually make the Mars-orbit injection portion (this won't) and have it hang around for a couple decades until we get our butts in gear in send humans to Mars? But it can't be too useful -- like a satellite -- because it has good odds of going KERBLAM on the way up.
And, by the way, who's this "we" business? Did you pay one penny, even in tax dollars, toward this specific launch? Do you own even one restricted share in SpaceX?
I'm an American, so I don't even have guaranteed health care let alone a robust social safety net, so maybe I'd be a little less bitter if I did.
So it's not the principle, it's the selfish envy. If you had "yours" (what about Egyptians?) then somehow that improves the calculus for you.
But this sort of nonsense reminds me of the pyramids, the opera houses and other excesses of the ultra wealthy.
No value in monuments and art at all, except to all the people who pay Egyptians ("the pyramids" I presume) and opera house owners to go to them...
Why should stockholders and their losses be considered of a higher priority than the losses suffered by the victims of corporate fraud? If the stockholders don't take responsibility then they deserve what they get.
They're not considered a higher priority. The stockholders take the losses of the fines associated with the corporation. The stockholders may lose their entire investment if, for example, the corporation goes bankrupt.
The stockholders' indirect liability, however, is limited to their investment so that even if the risk if loss is not well quantified the potential amount of loss is.
You want to burn the system to the ground simply because you cannot seize everything the stockholder has in the name of corporate wrongdoing? Tough. We're not returning to a time when the only things that you could invest in are physical assets and handful of small businesses that you could personally supervise (as a general partner) and we're not discarding the enormous productivity benefits that have been obtained through large-scale capital investments in the form of corporations.
No rather the fact that they, or their agents, have decided to invest in a corporation that practices fraud should mean that they are held responsible.
And the fact that you chose to have a child that committed a crime means that you should be held equally responsible. Gotcha.
I have quite a few investments and am fairly careful where I put my money and how I let my retirement fund managers invest my money.
Bullshit. Name and date them. I'll find at least one incident of wrongdoing among them, and then seize everything that you own. And you'll deserve what you get, apparently.
I'm sorry, I merely assumed that the linked material would answer the question "why." Particularly since it directly addresses casino chips, lottery tickets, and mutual funds and stocks.
If that does not suffice, the answer is "because we say so and, if you don't like it, go find another source of credit."
But technically nothing stops you from making a cash withdraw and buying bitcoins with it or buying gold and selling that to buy bitcoins or buying your groceries on credit while spending your cash on bitcoins.
Besides the initial ~3% fee on the cash advance, the different interest rate (1.5-2.0x the "credit" interest rate), and the substantially lower cash advance limit on the account? Besides the fact that now you have cash, but no way to electronically transmit that cash to a remote cryptocurrency exchange without arranging to wire the cash, deposit the cash into a bank account and wait out the funds clearance time, or mail a money order? Well, technically... quite a lot is preventing you from doing so.
What they approve is a credit limit, it shouldn't be whether I use it to buy groceries or beers at the local pub.
The fact that you can devise increasingly byzantine and expensive ways to partially overcome their limits does not mean that the limits fail to serve a function and are unjustified.
Ideally it would basically make all shareholders members of a basic partnership, they would share in all expenses and liability that the corporation previously incurred - the partners wouldn't be able to get out fast enough plus no one would be willing to buy their share of the partnership. This would be better than imprisonment IMO.
"Ideally?"
All those who purchased shares in a publicly traded corporation, even prior to any criminal act, suddenly have their limited liability investment converted into a unlimited liability investment without having committed any wrongful act themselves.
No violation of the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments there at all.
But we can all be happy that investing for retirement will suddenly place everything that you own, as well as your future wage income, at intolerable risk now that you're a potential general partner in hundreds or thousands of businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Which most can't afford to do. It is easier to get the kids to come home and manage themselves until after work without paid supervision.
On top of that getting up and going to work before dawn can be its own form of soul-crushing drudgery.
You asked "Why not just get up earlier?" Don't pretend that answers that you personally don't like don't count. Those are easily in the top 3 answers to that question.
Why not just get up earlier? Because I can't dish off getting my kids ready for school and dropping them off at school on someone else.
You've simply made the morning routine someone else's problem and proclaimed yourself the end-of-day childcare hero.
Greatest alchemist ever to get hydrogen from calcium carbonate and "tin."
Methinks you mean slaked lime (Calcium hydroxide) and aluminum foil (which, yes, is frequently called tin foil).
So using property as a hotel, when it is not zoned for hotel usage, in order to obtain higher rents is A-OK, and those people who are wanting apartment stock to be used as apartments are trying "use the government and legal system to force property owners into giving them below market rents"?
Have you ever noticed that staying in hotels, even week-to-weeks, is far more expensive than monthly rent?
Yes, that is the differential that is being complained of. And it's only "interference in the free market" in the sense that I can't move in nextdoor to you and run a hotel, a convenience store, or a grow-op that might motivate me to pay a higher price for the same property.
Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.
You can try to dress it up any way that you like, but content-based taxes are unconstitutional. This way, > that way, and especially when adding mandatory filters.
But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...
You conveniently omitted the "from" part. Columbia was a ballistic reentry and splashdown.
Insist on being cute? "From above the Kaman line, on Earth, with rocket-powered terminal deceleration."
Sure - changing vertically landing a rocket from 200 km into shooting rockets into LEO isn't an overgeneralization at all. Never mind that the booster is never in an orbit.
So by "things that have been done before," you mean way overbroad generalizations of technology, complemented by ignoring the "improv[ed] things" that apparently have not been done before?
Analogously, every word that you've typed has been used before, and English paragraphs are so old that I guess we shouldn't be impressed by anything quoted above.
No we don't.
"Don't make me think about what I'm doing! And I'm not going to pay any attention anyway, which is why you should ensure that this TV show caters to my will instead of the interests of those already watching..."
Tough.
But they totally have a right to express their customer dissatisfaction! If they're not appeased they might just stop paying for... umm, posting to reach the audience of... um, organizing on...
Godd*mn network effects of free services.
They'll build their own service, with blackjack and hookers! Like Gab... Gab is totally succeeding at grabbing desirable market- and mind-share from Twitter.
But how do you know there wasn't consent?
*dopeslap*
I, for one, will not be joining your purely hypothetical community. However, the real one remains A-OK.
I've considered your hyperbolic nonsense and decided that it is not persuasive. Please identify any examples that even approach the level of your example, or else restrict yourself to intellectually honest criticism.
Oh, I've thought about it. Not impressed.
But it it was classified then they wouldn't have access to it or even know that it exists. Think about that.
Nevermind that the "election hacks of 2016" are not limited to Russians directly accessing and changing votes in an outcome altering manner, and have been on the news 24/7.
Funny how Russians directly accessing voter registration systems is not related to elections, but Republicans lose their shit about poor and colored people registering to vote, allegedly being bussed in from other states to vote, and everything else that doesn't involve tampering with the voting machines themselves. Seems a bit inconsistent to the rest of us.
I'm not a troll, you are, first and foremost.
Traditionally one uses a question mark for a question, and yes, I did.
Yes they are. For instance, both your descriptions use "election."
"She did not say whether the Russian government altered any state voting registration databases or compromised actual votes, saying she is not allowed to talk publicly about classified information."
You have access to classified information? Or you merely assume that there wasn't because you desperately want there not to be? Absence of public evidence is not evidence of absence.
So sorry, you denied the existence of election hacks and have been proven wrong. I never claimed that election hacks, which definitely did happen, changed the outcome of the election.
Troll.
Ad hominem attacks against news outlets are not valid rebuttals.
The ones that a named DHS unit head says occurred. It's amazing how forgetful you trolls can be.
FTFY. Really, you shouldn't have picked a topic that is so easily refuted.
It's almost as if people will not cancel longstanding travel plans for your comfort or convenience.
I suggest that you avoid traveling at that time if it so concerns you.
But they do have legal jurisdiction over a U.S. company like Cloudflare. I realize that is a hard thing for the oblivious to understand.
What useful thing do you believe can usefully be placed into a trans-Mars injection orbit? So usefully, in fact, that it'd be worth equipping the payload to actually make the Mars-orbit injection portion (this won't) and have it hang around for a couple decades until we get our butts in gear in send humans to Mars? But it can't be too useful -- like a satellite -- because it has good odds of going KERBLAM on the way up.
And, by the way, who's this "we" business? Did you pay one penny, even in tax dollars, toward this specific launch? Do you own even one restricted share in SpaceX?
So it's not the principle, it's the selfish envy. If you had "yours" (what about Egyptians?) then somehow that improves the calculus for you.
No value in monuments and art at all, except to all the people who pay Egyptians ("the pyramids" I presume) and opera house owners to go to them...
They're not considered a higher priority. The stockholders take the losses of the fines associated with the corporation. The stockholders may lose their entire investment if, for example, the corporation goes bankrupt.
The stockholders' indirect liability, however, is limited to their investment so that even if the risk if loss is not well quantified the potential amount of loss is.
You want to burn the system to the ground simply because you cannot seize everything the stockholder has in the name of corporate wrongdoing? Tough. We're not returning to a time when the only things that you could invest in are physical assets and handful of small businesses that you could personally supervise (as a general partner) and we're not discarding the enormous productivity benefits that have been obtained through large-scale capital investments in the form of corporations.
And the fact that you chose to have a child that committed a crime means that you should be held equally responsible. Gotcha.
Bullshit. Name and date them. I'll find at least one incident of wrongdoing among them, and then seize everything that you own. And you'll deserve what you get, apparently.
I'm sorry, I merely assumed that the linked material would answer the question "why." Particularly since it directly addresses casino chips, lottery tickets, and mutual funds and stocks.
If that does not suffice, the answer is "because we say so and, if you don't like it, go find another source of credit."
Because until you have paid the bill, it's the bank's money on the line, and too many people are short-sighted, scam-prone, or plain untrustworthy, and ain't nobody got time for that nonsense.
If you don't want them to have a say, use a debit card.
Besides the initial ~3% fee on the cash advance, the different interest rate (1.5-2.0x the "credit" interest rate), and the substantially lower cash advance limit on the account? Besides the fact that now you have cash, but no way to electronically transmit that cash to a remote cryptocurrency exchange without arranging to wire the cash, deposit the cash into a bank account and wait out the funds clearance time, or mail a money order? Well, technically... quite a lot is preventing you from doing so.
It does matter, and it should matter.
The fact that you can devise increasingly byzantine and expensive ways to partially overcome their limits does not mean that the limits fail to serve a function and are unjustified.
"Ideally?"
All those who purchased shares in a publicly traded corporation, even prior to any criminal act, suddenly have their limited liability investment converted into a unlimited liability investment without having committed any wrongful act themselves.
No violation of the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments there at all.
But we can all be happy that investing for retirement will suddenly place everything that you own, as well as your future wage income, at intolerable risk now that you're a potential general partner in hundreds or thousands of businesses.