Our voicemail server is a 486. I'm not joking. When it breaks it will be replaced by a voicemail card in the phone closet, but until then, let it work as long as it will work I guess.
OMG!! Look at these targeted ads! Judging by the ad, it would seem that they have determined by my calling habits that I like to..... make phone calls?
worthless junk is a far better phrase that is suited for Magic Jack
Someone help me out here, I must be missing something. I paid MagicJack like $30 I think almost a year ago, and have had almost flawless home phone service, including vm/free long distance/etc, the whole time with no issue.
What exactly would constitute valuable junk, or whatever the opposite of "worthless junk" is?
No; at least not in the way you are using the words.
Racism is believing that race is the primary determinant for certain human factors/whatever and that some races are superior to others.
Insurance Underwriting doesn't say who is superior to who, nor do they give a rosy rat's rear end. They compare millions of records of data, and price their products accordingly. They don't charge more for being asian because over the course of a millions accidents, asians are no more likely than any other race to have one. However, if the data suggested that they were, then it would not be racism to charge them higher premiums.
As an aside, you can get off on a technicality by using the word "discriminatory", since that basically just means "the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"
Well it's no different when you do it based on age
It is if the data says it is. It's all about what the data says.
That's prejudging me
Again, no it isn't. The prices they charge you have *NOTHING* to do with how likely *YOU* are to have an accident. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with how many accidents *100,000 people with similar characteristics to you* have had an accident.
I fully expect the republicans to screw it up thistime too.
Slow down there esse. You mean to tell me with a Democrat President, and Democrat Majorities in *both* houses of congress, that it's the republicans fault it gets screwed up?
Try Again
FTA:
Democrats, while reaffirming their commitment to major changes, reacted cautiously, mindful that Obama is asking them to stake their political fortunes in the fall elections.
The real problem here is the congressmen are afraid of being unemployed like >10% of their constituents.
Insurance companies (at least auto/property) are regulated by their respective states. They are considered financial institutions, sort of like banks and yet not like them at all.
There are basically 3 ways they can change their rates, depending on the state board of insurance where they do business.
1)Change your rates, whenever you want, we don't care, just file them with us so we know what they are.
2)File your rates with us, and if we don't smack you down within X days, feel free to implement them.
3)File your requested changes with us, and we will let you know whether they are acceptable or not. You must continue to charge existing rates until you hear back from us.
Most states are either #2 or #3. They are already under the thumb of the state to a degree and operating as the state has explicitly given them permission to operate, so no need for bribery.
Now, I suppose it could still happen for law changes, but again, the "government" has to approve everything they do anyway.
I was going to use my mod points today, but can't pass this up. Having worked previously at an insurance company I can give you a little info here.
Insurance companies are not (automatically) discriminating against you based on age simply because you are charged a higher premium due to your age.
The first step is insurance companies generally create many virtual "buckets", if you will, and assign to each of those buckets the various combinations of age/gender/driving history/other stuff/etc that you could have.
For example, possibilities for age might be 15,16,17,18,19-20,21-24,25-34,35-54,55-64,65-74,75-89,90+;That gives you 12 possibilities. 2 possibilities for gender. Pulling a number out of my butt lets say there are 14 possible points on driving record (by insurance guidelines, not DMV guidelines, they may be different) so thats 15 combinations there. Then maybe boolean for whether or not you have had a dui. So thats 12x2x15x2, or 720 possible "buckets".
This is obviously oversimplified because I don't care enough to do it right or actually post underwriting guidelines. But what type of care you drive would also be part of the combo, along with other things.
The buckets are then assigned premium based on the risk factor. Viola.
Disclaimer: some of this may be out of order, they may assign the premium cost to the risk factor up front and then assign that number to the combination, blah blah blah, again I don't care about getting it 100% right, because>>
2nd Disclaimer: I was the network technician, not an underwriter.
Oh and as I said, they are not automatically discriminating against you, due to the above. However, it is possible, though highly unlikely due to the regulations they face from their state, that they could discriminate against you based on age grossly and above the above allowable calculations.
but someone in the case has to raise that evidence
As a disclaimer I'm in disagreement with the major portion of what you've said in these other posts, specifically with regards to other NYCL posts, but I'll avoid the he said / she said for this thread and admit the above is actually a good point regarding the case and a slight though significant error in my analogy.
The distribution was proven by the defendant saying, "Hi, I'm Andrew Tenenbaum. I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I distributed these songs." The end.
I, groslyunderpaid, just murdered you. You are now dead. I committed the crime of murder. Don't bother debating whether or not I know what that means. Ignore the fact that you can even read this reply; it proves nothing. Trust me sir, you are dead, I killed you. Someone lock me up! And ignore this nutjob when he starts refuting his demise by actively engaging in further posts. You must find me guilty on the sole basis of my confession, regardless of any evidence or perceived evidence that refutes said confession. And while in jail I also expect a tremendous pay raise, as my login name is also clearly a confession that you are not paying me enough, and therefor since I confessed it, it must be true and accurate.
f the copies destroyed the market by satisfying the potentially willing buyers and removing them from that market, the copying has destroyed something of value. In the case, the goods cannot be sold.
For the record, that would be something like vandalism, not theft.
Assuming you aren't trying to be funny, what you are looking for is going to be (usually) C:\Documents and Settings\username
It is somewhat similar to a/home directory. I won't define "somewhat" at this juncture, but suffice it to say that directory will (again, usually) contain everything on the desktop, the "my documents" folder, IE favorites, and some application settings, among other things.
Oh, and that structure is only good for win2k and winxp. And maybe win2k3. The alternative shortcut is %userprofile%
I'm 6-1, 230 pounds. Is that fat? If I was only 180, would that be fat? How about 250? 350? 500? 800?
I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can distance it out a bit and make some definitive marks. At 6-1, Let's say anything under 140 is too skinny, and anything over 300 is fat. Those 2 numbers could probably legitimately slide closer together, but they are true where they are.
It's not that difficult of a concept. $24 is a joke. Just as silly would be anything over, idk, let's just say $3000. In all reality, those numbers should slide toward each other, but I think anyone with an IQ over 100 should be able to see that anything over 3 grand is retarded.
The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?
Probably because it's not a law, at least not in my state(MD).
Assuming something exists based on the fact that the circumstances that would give rise to are known to exist is not at all the same as assuming something exists when there's no evidence to support its existence.
Then again, Knowing something exists based on the fact that the circumstances that would give rise to it are known to exist is not at all the same as saying the evidence points to it. You don't know jack crap.
We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe
Hold your flaimbait and troll buttons, I'm genuinely curious.
I've always wondered when people say this, doesn't science actually disprove this? Don't get me wrong, I have ADD and to say I wasn't paying attention in science would be a gross understatement, but isn't there something about the speed of light and all that that basically says we surmise that millions of years ago, there were trillions of stars, and the light is just now reaching us? (or something like that...) Which would mean there is no way to see stars that still exists now? I mean, I'm sure there are other tests and such voodoo you can do besides simply looking, but the statement just seems a little off.
Not only that, but how can you know there are trillions and trillions of stars? Unless of course that was hyperbole. I mean, have you counted them? Can anyone even count that high? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "we theorize..." or "we believe..." or something to leave a window open that you could either:
a) be just plain wrong
b) be misguided in a calculation, etc, and figure it out and correct it 10 years down the road (like eggs are bad for you, no they're not, yes they are)
c) some other thing that is escaping my limited attention span
I mean, when you try to poke fun of the creationist crowd for saying "We KNOW God created the world 6000 years ago", you don't do yourself any favors by saying "We know that X does/did/is/was Y" and then 5-10 years down the road, or even 50-100, coming back and saying "Well actually we didn't realize that Q has an effect on X and X actually does/did/is/was Z"...
Slashdot Mirror
No. The value of their currency is reduced. Nothing was stolen. It’s just worth less than it was before.
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share. 3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery
I've pretty sure you just said value/worth was stolen.
Care to try again?
Our voicemail server is a 486. I'm not joking. When it breaks it will be replaced by a voicemail card in the phone closet, but until then, let it work as long as it will work I guess.
OMG!! Look at these targeted ads! Judging by the ad, it would seem that they have determined by my calling habits that I like to ..... make phone calls?
My Remote Desktop
PS No jokes about my cluttered and edited desktop, or choice of OS.
worthless junk is a far better phrase that is suited for Magic Jack
Someone help me out here, I must be missing something. I paid MagicJack like $30 I think almost a year ago, and have had almost flawless home phone service, including vm/free long distance/etc, the whole time with no issue.
What exactly would constitute valuable junk, or whatever the opposite of "worthless junk" is?
hahaha, nice. I wonder if there would have been a better one to use there. Drum, perhaps? Badum, Ching.
Isn't that discriminatory/prejudicial? YES.
No; at least not in the way you are using the words.
Racism is believing that race is the primary determinant for certain human factors/whatever and that some races are superior to others.
Insurance Underwriting doesn't say who is superior to who, nor do they give a rosy rat's rear end. They compare millions of records of data, and price their products accordingly. They don't charge more for being asian because over the course of a millions accidents, asians are no more likely than any other race to have one. However, if the data suggested that they were, then it would not be racism to charge them higher premiums.
As an aside, you can get off on a technicality by using the word "discriminatory", since that basically just means "the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"
Well it's no different when you do it based on age
It is if the data says it is. It's all about what the data says.
That's prejudging me
Again, no it isn't. The prices they charge you have *NOTHING* to do with how likely *YOU* are to have an accident. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with how many accidents *100,000 people with similar characteristics to you* have had an accident.
I fully expect the republicans to screw it up thistime too.
Slow down there esse. You mean to tell me with a Democrat President, and Democrat Majorities in *both* houses of congress, that it's the republicans fault it gets screwed up? Try Again
FTA:
Democrats, while reaffirming their commitment to major changes, reacted cautiously, mindful that Obama is asking them to stake their political fortunes in the fall elections.
The real problem here is the congressmen are afraid of being unemployed like >10% of their constituents.
Insurance companies (at least auto/property) are regulated by their respective states. They are considered financial institutions, sort of like banks and yet not like them at all.
There are basically 3 ways they can change their rates, depending on the state board of insurance where they do business.
1)Change your rates, whenever you want, we don't care, just file them with us so we know what they are.
2)File your rates with us, and if we don't smack you down within X days, feel free to implement them.
3)File your requested changes with us, and we will let you know whether they are acceptable or not. You must continue to charge existing rates until you hear back from us.
Most states are either #2 or #3. They are already under the thumb of the state to a degree and operating as the state has explicitly given them permission to operate, so no need for bribery.
Now, I suppose it could still happen for law changes, but again, the "government" has to approve everything they do anyway.
I was going to use my mod points today, but can't pass this up. Having worked previously at an insurance company I can give you a little info here.
Insurance companies are not (automatically) discriminating against you based on age simply because you are charged a higher premium due to your age.
The first step is insurance companies generally create many virtual "buckets", if you will, and assign to each of those buckets the various combinations of age/gender/driving history/other stuff/etc that you could have.
For example, possibilities for age might be 15,16,17,18,19-20,21-24,25-34,35-54,55-64,65-74,75-89,90+;That gives you 12 possibilities. 2 possibilities for gender. Pulling a number out of my butt lets say there are 14 possible points on driving record (by insurance guidelines, not DMV guidelines, they may be different) so thats 15 combinations there. Then maybe boolean for whether or not you have had a dui. So thats 12x2x15x2, or 720 possible "buckets".
This is obviously oversimplified because I don't care enough to do it right or actually post underwriting guidelines. But what type of care you drive would also be part of the combo, along with other things.
Each bucket is assigned a "risk factor" based on comprehensive data that the company has on past losses for others in the same buckets, and likely based on data that they have purchased from 3rd parties that keep centralized info from many insurance companies.
The buckets are then assigned premium based on the risk factor. Viola.
Disclaimer: some of this may be out of order, they may assign the premium cost to the risk factor up front and then assign that number to the combination, blah blah blah, again I don't care about getting it 100% right, because>>
2nd Disclaimer: I was the network technician, not an underwriter.
Oh and as I said, they are not automatically discriminating against you, due to the above. However, it is possible, though highly unlikely due to the regulations they face from their state, that they could discriminate against you based on age grossly and above the above allowable calculations.
but someone in the case has to raise that evidence
As a disclaimer I'm in disagreement with the major portion of what you've said in these other posts, specifically with regards to other NYCL posts, but I'll avoid the he said / she said for this thread and admit the above is actually a good point regarding the case and a slight though significant error in my analogy.
The distribution was proven by the defendant saying, "Hi, I'm Andrew Tenenbaum. I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I distributed these songs." The end.
I, groslyunderpaid, just murdered you. You are now dead. I committed the crime of murder. Don't bother debating whether or not I know what that means. Ignore the fact that you can even read this reply; it proves nothing. Trust me sir, you are dead, I killed you. Someone lock me up! And ignore this nutjob when he starts refuting his demise by actively engaging in further posts. You must find me guilty on the sole basis of my confession, regardless of any evidence or perceived evidence that refutes said confession. And while in jail I also expect a tremendous pay raise, as my login name is also clearly a confession that you are not paying me enough, and therefor since I confessed it, it must be true and accurate.
Otherwise his loss is not total.
Trust me buddy, *his* loss is total. Guaranteed.
f the copies destroyed the market by satisfying the potentially willing buyers and removing them from that market, the copying has destroyed something of value. In the case, the goods cannot be sold.
For the record, that would be something like vandalism, not theft.
for the love of pete, mod the man up
Assuming you aren't trying to be funny, what you are looking for is going to be (usually) C:\Documents and Settings\username
/home directory. I won't define "somewhat" at this juncture, but suffice it to say that directory will (again, usually) contain everything on the desktop, the "my documents" folder, IE favorites, and some application settings, among other things.
It is somewhat similar to a
Oh, and that structure is only good for win2k and winxp. And maybe win2k3. The alternative shortcut is %userprofile%
On vista/7/win2k8, I think it's C:\Users\username
20cm is less than 8 inches. Who do you know who has an 8 inch arm? Forearm maybe, but not arm...
I'm 6-1, 230 pounds. Is that fat? If I was only 180, would that be fat? How about 250? 350? 500? 800?
I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can distance it out a bit and make some definitive marks. At 6-1, Let's say anything under 140 is too skinny, and anything over 300 is fat. Those 2 numbers could probably legitimately slide closer together, but they are true where they are.
It's not that difficult of a concept. $24 is a joke. Just as silly would be anything over, idk, let's just say $3000. In all reality, those numbers should slide toward each other, but I think anyone with an IQ over 100 should be able to see that anything over 3 grand is retarded.
I file my federal returns at hrblock.com every year for free.
No, I just wish I paid less taxes.
FTFY
Because their salary is $1 and they want to spend some money?
If my salary was $1 and I had over a billion in stocks you best believe I'd be cashing some of it out....
Except they will be selling the shares over the coarse of 5 years...
The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?
Probably because it's not a law, at least not in my state(MD).
Check before you rant
no, but then again, I attended her funeral when I was 3 so I don't reckon there would be much room for skepticism.
Assuming something exists based on the fact that the circumstances that would give rise to are known to exist is not at all the same as assuming something exists when there's no evidence to support its existence.
Then again, Knowing something exists based on the fact that the circumstances that would give rise to it are known to exist is not at all the same as saying the evidence points to it. You don't know jack crap.
And if you don't believe me, ask stephen hawking >> Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
We know that there are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe
Hold your flaimbait and troll buttons, I'm genuinely curious.
I've always wondered when people say this, doesn't science actually disprove this? Don't get me wrong, I have ADD and to say I wasn't paying attention in science would be a gross understatement, but isn't there something about the speed of light and all that that basically says we surmise that millions of years ago, there were trillions of stars, and the light is just now reaching us? (or something like that...) Which would mean there is no way to see stars that still exists now? I mean, I'm sure there are other tests and such voodoo you can do besides simply looking, but the statement just seems a little off.
Not only that, but how can you know there are trillions and trillions of stars? Unless of course that was hyperbole. I mean, have you counted them? Can anyone even count that high? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "we theorize..." or "we believe..." or something to leave a window open that you could either:
a) be just plain wrong
b) be misguided in a calculation, etc, and figure it out and correct it 10 years down the road (like eggs are bad for you, no they're not, yes they are)
c) some other thing that is escaping my limited attention span
I mean, when you try to poke fun of the creationist crowd for saying "We KNOW God created the world 6000 years ago", you don't do yourself any favors by saying "We know that X does/did/is/was Y" and then 5-10 years down the road, or even 50-100, coming back and saying "Well actually we didn't realize that Q has an effect on X and X actually does/did/is/was Z"...