People buy what they want to emulate and it doesn't really matter the genre of music.
Erm, way to quote lyrics out of context.
The ACDC song I'm pretty certain were more about sex than violence. Gun being a euphemism for... Well let me direct you to Full Metal Jacked for the difference between "gun" and "rifle".
Dirty Deeds is a better example but still woefully wrong. Dirty deeds is telling the story of a hitman.
I'm sure you can keep going but in mainstream rock you wont find many examples glorifying violence in the same manner as mainstream rap. Definitely nowhere near the volume. With rock you need to go to the more obscure areas rather than listening to 25 cent or whatever talking about shooting his bitches or some such. Sex is the more common theme in rock, I think you'll find death and suicide to be more common than promoting violence in hard rock and heavy metal.
I think it is less of music making people bad as much as it is that those who are attracted to a life of crime will listen to music about a life of crime.
People who are attracted to a life of crime, will see their own justifications in the meaning of the media they watch/listen to. Or to be more accurate, someone unhinged will see teletubies as supporting their view. It's not about the lyrics as much as the listener. The listener interprets the lyrics and this interpretation is coloured by their own perceptions (I think this is what you meant) so if they are a criminal, they will see things supporting or justifying their activities.
but it's no smarter or dumber than any other genre.
Learn an instrument and get back to us.
Rap is computer generated for the most part, at best someone beats it out on a drum.
I play the guitar, if you did you'd understand that Nirvana is orders of magnitude more complex than rap and Nirvana (for those who cant play) is at the braindead simple end of guitar (in fact you cant get much easier than Nirvana). I could knock out a rap song in about 1/2 an hour. That wont even be long enough for you to perfect Smoke on the Water.
The discussion was about horsepower, not torque. Also torque is a shitty measurement of performance. A vehicle that weighs more is going to produce more torque, but not more performance. A Saab 900i puts 200nm of torque but only 90 KW of power, why, the 900i weighs a ton.
Honda's NA engines have a usable power from 1700RPM to 8000 RPM (9000 in some S2000 models), your big V8's lose power in the higher rev ranges.
Let's take, say, a 1970 challenger. With the lowliest of the low small-block 340, non T/A, did the 1/4 at 14.8 @ 96mph
LoL,
My Integra did the quarter mile in 14.7s (stock) and an S2000 can get 14 flat with a semi decent driver. BTW, that 14.7s isn't based on specifications, that's what I've done.
The 8.3L dodge viper V10? Yeah that thing did the 1/4 mile in 11.77 sec @ 123.68 mph.
Lets compare that to a proper V10.
Apple's to Apple's as you say.
A Lamborghini Gallardo LP560 does it in 11.1 at 200KPH.
Sorry if this upsets the fanboy in you, but it takes the top US cars to beat average Japanese and European sports and supercars.
I see why you keep posting as AC, you're embarrassed that you cant drive properly.
Compare Apples to Apples. Your Renault could beat them at what? A 78 Thunderbird with a 351M only had 145 HP but it still had over 275 ft/lb torque under 1800 rpm. It could pull that 4200+ pound car, a family of four and a 5000 pound trailer up a hill.
Erm, I dont have a Renault.
I drive a 2005 Honda Integra Type S. 2.0L inline 4 that puts down 200nm of torque and 160 KW (210 HP) and revs up to 8000 (redline 8100, rev limiter 8300). Towing capacity of 950 KG... but no towbar (it's a sports car). My car only weighs about 1200 KG
However, right now a 2.4 L 4cyl Toyota Econovan could out pull a thunderbird.
But really if you want to frame the argument, try to put that 78 Thunderbird around a corner. You'll manage to get that overweight and underpowered pile of scrap around it by some time next week. Your 0-100 (KPH) times aren't that impressive either.
When I worked at a dyno shop, we were accused of all sorts of mischief when a customers 1960s or 1970s "muscle" car came in and made all of 190 hp
My 2005 I4 Honda Integra beats that (160 KW = ~210 HP) in it's stock form.
Japan was producing fast and powerful cars with small engines in the 80's that were also quite efficient. This is why JDM rules the street racing scene. Even today, Nissan produce a 3.7L V6 Skyline that puts down as much power and torque as a 5L V8. Subaru do it with a flat 4 turbo (WRX STI).
the air resistance is nearly doubled at 75 from 60. Pushing air around actually takes up about 40% of a car's energy at highway speeds. Traveling faster makes the job even harder...The increase is actually exponential, meaning wind resistance rises much more steeply between 70 and 80 mph than it does between 50 and 60.
And this is why it will save a lot of fuel doing 10 KPH less than the limit...
Because then you can sit behind a lorry and use it as a wind break.
This is why turbochargers are now all the rage. You get the advantage of the lower idle consumption of the smaller engine, while still having the acceleration you need for emergencies and the better mileage at higher speeds.
What do you mean by "now"?
Turbochargers have been popular since Japan discovered you could make small engines faster by turbocharging them. This happened in the 80's.
Also turbo's drink fuel like there's no tomorrow when they're in operation. You dont save fuel by turbocharging, you reduce the size of the engine to save fuel and make up for the loss of power by turbocharging. A Golf TSI doesn't use less fuel than any other 1.4L NA vehicle and the Golf requires RON95 compared to most cars of its class that run on RON91, given this it's not really any better than buying a 1.8L Honda Civic that gets 6.8L/100 KM on RON91 (also the Civic is a better performer than the Golf with it's 9.7 sec 0-100 time). A Turbo tuned for performance will defiantly use a lot more fuel than a naturally aspirated car.
If they switched to a burn rate measurement, like L/100km (that the rest of the world uses)
The rest of the world? Here in Denmark we use km/L, a distance-per-fuel-unit measurement like the U.S. does. Afaik that's fairly common internationally.
It's the same measurement.
7L/100KM means you burn 0.07L per KM.
It's just that L per 100KM is more human readable and easier to calculate in your head when consider your fuel tank is 60L.
BTW I am able to almost reach the manufactures mileage in my car, but it means I have to drive really slow, stay of the throttle (0-100 km/h in 20s), look ahead/anticipate to avoid breaking/acceleration, drive under the max speed limit, don't drive in the city, don't drive during rush hours, make sure the car is empty (not carrying unnecessary weight). But realistically this will almost never happens.
I can maintain the rated mileage for my car, 9.4L/100 KM. What it requires is being able to shift at the peak of the power band.
The problem is that most people cant drive a manual well enough to be able to do this. OK, the problem is most people cant drive a manual. Auto slushboxes are terrible wasters of fuel, you might get some high end ones that aren't but we're talking about the average Corolla, not a Veyron here.
With fuel economy ratings, they are done in laboratory conditions (well they have to be in order to be accurate) so it's difficult to achieve them in real life due to variations in temperature, road quality, fuel quality, so on and so forth but as you pointed out the biggest variable is in driver quality.
My god! You must be a twenty-something. Or, lived in the country that made the Renault.
Let me introduce you, young sir, to the 1972 Chevy Malibu!
The country that made Renault uses sensible measurements like Kilometres and Litres.
And in the 70's if you didn't have a big car engine it was slow. Even then the big block V8's of the 70's weren't that fast, my 2005 I4 (naturally aspirated) can easily beat them. The small car started to overpower the big car in 80's when you started to get powerful turbo's out of Japan.
Most of my friends have iphones and have icloud or imessage or iwhatever its icalled... I can send free texts to them and it doesn't cost me to get texts from them... I borrowed a Nexus4 from a friend for a few weeks and I much prefer it except for the $0.20/text message I have to pay my provider or pay them an extra $7.00/month for "unlimited text messaging"....
There's no way I will convince them to all install gropeme or some equivalent free texting app.. It just isn't going to happen.
This seems to be a US centric issue.
Almost everyone I know who has an Android or Iphone has WhatsApp or Viber installed, I use it for international texting (a fraction of a cent for data vs A$0.50 for an international text, you decide) to message people I know in Thailand, UK Canada, et al.
I dont keep these apps running all the time because they are battery hogs.
What will eventually happen is that people will combine all these different protocols into one application.
The carriers I've used (Sprint and T-Mobile) charge for MMS the same as SMS. They use the data channel, of course, but they're not count as data. In fact, people even used to forward chain MMSes (jokes, pictures—I think I even saw goatse once) before data service started getting popular.
In Australia all the carriers have different charges for SMS and MMS, MMS is usually double the price.
But in Oz, sender pays so people with Iphones end up paying for SMS's sent as MMS's so it doesn't bother me. When Android sends pictures like smilies and the like, the conversion is done client-side and the message is actually just text.
If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the own priority.
Traffic is dangerous too, so it's the same there.
This, a thousand times this.
The majority of firearm deaths would to correlate with the majority of automotive deaths. Someone wasn't being safe, they were either drunk (I'd be very surprised if drink shooting wasn't a major cause of firearm injuries), reckless or careless.
The sad part is, most people dont know when they are being reckless or careless with their cars. In Australia when you're reckless or careless with a firearm they take them off you, but not with cars.
I've commented before that I track my car on a regular basis. I see so many weekend warriors who think they can race because they do 10 over in traffic or have done 200 KPH in a straight line on some isolated bit of highway ONCE. I'm not exaggerating when I say 9 out of 10 of them lose control and spin into the sand on the first bend (a hairpin on my local track, so that doesn't help). Few drivers actually know the limits of their own abilities, let alone their cars so after the "tow of shame" (the sand is meant to bog the car, so someone else has to get you out of it) a lot of the weekend warriors are never seen again, those that come back have learned some humility.
When you're driving you should be concentrating on driving, that's it, anything else can lead to an accident because your mind is not on the task at hand.
So, no, you shouldn't be pissing about sending texts, if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.
No, no, no,
You cannot possibly think of advocating personal responsibility and that people pay proper care and attention to their driving. No, no, no, this is not slash-acceptable, especially for driving, the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do throughout our lives.
Wont you think of the Chil^H^H^H^H Phone Companies.
People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.
Most people need to concentrate 100% on driving, the fact that some people think they're good enough to be able to chat away and text whilst driving is the reason we have a lot of crappy drivers.
However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.
Driving is not managed automatically.
You do need to be paying attention, you may not be committing it to memory but that does not mean you weren't paying attention.
Daydreaming on the highway is the easiest way for people to be killed.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.
Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive. If you think you're good enough, you're suffering from illusory superiority and my dash cam is full of idiots like this in near misses.
Most people lack your discipline. Credit cards cost these people money. You are part of an incredibly small minority, so try to see the big picture here.
But they dont lack his ignorance.
Since when to banks give away money for free?
A credit card is more advantageous as you have more money. I get 1% back on most purchases
To the OP, he spends $10 and gets $0.10 back. So in the OP's mind he gets $0.10 for free from the bank.
But he never thought about how the bank gets the money. As we all know, banks dont do anything for free.
In reality, he's paid $10 to the merchant, the merchant pays $1 of that to the bank and the bank has given him $0.10 of that. As a result of this, the merchants profit has been cut so he has to raise the price of that good to $11. So now the OP spends $11 on a $10 item to get $0.10, causing a net loss of $0.90.
So that 10 cents came out of the OP's pocket out of the extra money he paid the merchant, he just never saw the other 90 cents which went straight to the bank. Banks love being able to use tricks like this, entice the credit addled to use the card by offering paltry rewards and charge the merchant for accepting the credit. Cash has a cost to it, but credit has a much larger one that can be measured as a percentage of that transaction (cost of cash cant be measured that finely, it's measured as a cost of doing business as a whole).
I used to run a business, cash was definitely cheaper. I'd reconcile handling fees and account for losses on a monthly basis, I'd reconcile EFTPOS fees nightly. What it cost me for cash for a month EFTPOS did in less than a week. In Oz, if a till (cash register) does not reconcile (match the outgoing and incoming docket with the cash in the drawer), we can legally dock the cashiers wages to recoup that, so a cashier had a serious disincentive to slip a fiver under the till.
If you run an online only business, the cost of electronic transfers is something you have take into account. This is why a lot of them accept PayPal, fees are a lot less than banks.
If you insist on paying on your card for items that cost $3, dont be at all surprised when they cost $5 next week. This is what happened in Australia.
I'm a big believer in credit card surcharges because it makes the entire process transparent. Banks dont like it as they like people like you, who dont want to know how much of you purchases are profiting the banks.
Most corporate social media sites are the domain of the marketing department. Am I the only one who thinks there isn't much hacking involved?
Username -- BigCorpTwitter
Password -- password1
Plus the password would have been emailed to all and sundry because the Media unit thinks everyone needs access and the IT department will automatically protect them from anything computer.
Seriously, I had to explain to a media consultant why we couldn't "just email" a 40 MB video clip to 248 people yesterday. They are retards.
When Safeway does it, it's going to be replacing name brands with Safeway brands, and it is more or less *always* be necessary, since they are sending the vans from the distribution center
The "distribution center" is the supermarket. Employees walk the aisles and put your goods in a cart. The actual safeway distribution center isn't set up for pull and pick. And, you can specify no substitutions, in which case you just don't get things.
I can share the road with a human-powered vehicle (that's easier on the rare occasion a cyclist deigns to obey traffic signals)
Same here.
I dont mind sharing the road with other road users, even cyclists... I just wish they'd do the same.
Cyclists in Australia are so extremely militant about excising their "right" to ride on the road that they forget about anyone else's right to use the same road. The refuse to use bike paths or bike lanes that were installed expressly so they didn't interfere with traffic (or bypass it altogether) but they become very, very quite whenever someone mentions old Regulation 219 which I see cyclist in violation of at least once a day.
Cyclists are so busy exercising their "rights", they never stop to think if they are actually in the right.
I suspect the European corner shop system is less energy-efficient than a supermarket.
You haven't been to europe before have you. The US has far more corner stores (convenience stores).
South East Asia really is the poster child of corner stores, 7/11's on every corner and 3 Family Marts in between them in Thailand. You have to travel a bit to get to a large sized Tesco's. Towns in the US or Europe that are big enough to have shopping malls wont have much of one but a metric crapload of 7/11's. It's the same in most Asian countries I've been to except that the poorer countries forgo franchised 7/11's and have smaller stores or even roadside carts with even more limited selections. But this really is cultural, most SE Asian nations dont have as many cars per family as western nations so doing a big shop at a supermarket is beyond the capabilities of most and they tend not to want to wait for things.
Slashdot Mirror
EA's DRM will now stand for Darkside Rights Management
I would have thought a Stargate tie in would have been more appropriate.... At least then they could tell people about the power of Origin.
Erm, way to quote lyrics out of context.
The ACDC song I'm pretty certain were more about sex than violence. Gun being a euphemism for... Well let me direct you to Full Metal Jacked for the difference between "gun" and "rifle".
Dirty Deeds is a better example but still woefully wrong. Dirty deeds is telling the story of a hitman.
I'm sure you can keep going but in mainstream rock you wont find many examples glorifying violence in the same manner as mainstream rap. Definitely nowhere near the volume. With rock you need to go to the more obscure areas rather than listening to 25 cent or whatever talking about shooting his bitches or some such. Sex is the more common theme in rock, I think you'll find death and suicide to be more common than promoting violence in hard rock and heavy metal.
People who are attracted to a life of crime, will see their own justifications in the meaning of the media they watch/listen to. Or to be more accurate, someone unhinged will see teletubies as supporting their view. It's not about the lyrics as much as the listener. The listener interprets the lyrics and this interpretation is coloured by their own perceptions (I think this is what you meant) so if they are a criminal, they will see things supporting or justifying their activities.
Learn an instrument and get back to us.
Rap is computer generated for the most part, at best someone beats it out on a drum.
I play the guitar, if you did you'd understand that Nirvana is orders of magnitude more complex than rap and Nirvana (for those who cant play) is at the braindead simple end of guitar (in fact you cant get much easier than Nirvana). I could knock out a rap song in about 1/2 an hour. That wont even be long enough for you to perfect Smoke on the Water.
So ... you're going with the presumption of guilt?
There's a very good reason that our system doesn't work that way. Didn't you see that episode of Star Trek?
Which one... IIRC there were a few that dealt with this topic.
You've never driven a honda.
The discussion was about horsepower, not torque. Also torque is a shitty measurement of performance. A vehicle that weighs more is going to produce more torque, but not more performance. A Saab 900i puts 200nm of torque but only 90 KW of power, why, the 900i weighs a ton.
Honda's NA engines have a usable power from 1700RPM to 8000 RPM (9000 in some S2000 models), your big V8's lose power in the higher rev ranges.
Let's take, say, a 1970 challenger. With the lowliest of the low small-block 340, non T/A, did the 1/4 at 14.8 @ 96mph
LoL, My Integra did the quarter mile in 14.7s (stock) and an S2000 can get 14 flat with a semi decent driver. BTW, that 14.7s isn't based on specifications, that's what I've done.
The 8.3L dodge viper V10? Yeah that thing did the 1/4 mile in 11.77 sec @ 123.68 mph.
Lets compare that to a proper V10.
Apple's to Apple's as you say.
A Lamborghini Gallardo LP560 does it in 11.1 at 200KPH.
Sorry if this upsets the fanboy in you, but it takes the top US cars to beat average Japanese and European sports and supercars.
I see why you keep posting as AC, you're embarrassed that you cant drive properly.
Compare Apples to Apples. Your Renault could beat them at what? A 78 Thunderbird with a 351M only had 145 HP but it still had over 275 ft/lb torque under 1800 rpm. It could pull that 4200+ pound car, a family of four and a 5000 pound trailer up a hill.
Erm, I dont have a Renault.
I drive a 2005 Honda Integra Type S. 2.0L inline 4 that puts down 200nm of torque and 160 KW (210 HP) and revs up to 8000 (redline 8100, rev limiter 8300). Towing capacity of 950 KG... but no towbar (it's a sports car). My car only weighs about 1200 KG
However, right now a 2.4 L 4cyl Toyota Econovan could out pull a thunderbird.
But really if you want to frame the argument, try to put that 78 Thunderbird around a corner. You'll manage to get that overweight and underpowered pile of scrap around it by some time next week. Your 0-100 (KPH) times aren't that impressive either.
My 2005 I4 Honda Integra beats that (160 KW = ~210 HP) in it's stock form.
Japan was producing fast and powerful cars with small engines in the 80's that were also quite efficient. This is why JDM rules the street racing scene. Even today, Nissan produce a 3.7L V6 Skyline that puts down as much power and torque as a 5L V8. Subaru do it with a flat 4 turbo (WRX STI).
The link the GP used was incredibly US centric.
the air resistance is nearly doubled at 75 from 60. Pushing air around actually takes up about 40% of a car's energy at highway speeds. Traveling faster makes the job even harder...The increase is actually exponential, meaning wind resistance rises much more steeply between 70 and 80 mph than it does between 50 and 60.
And this is why it will save a lot of fuel doing 10 KPH less than the limit...
Because then you can sit behind a lorry and use it as a wind break.
This is why turbochargers are now all the rage. You get the advantage of the lower idle consumption of the smaller engine, while still having the acceleration you need for emergencies and the better mileage at higher speeds.
What do you mean by "now"?
Turbochargers have been popular since Japan discovered you could make small engines faster by turbocharging them. This happened in the 80's.
Also turbo's drink fuel like there's no tomorrow when they're in operation. You dont save fuel by turbocharging, you reduce the size of the engine to save fuel and make up for the loss of power by turbocharging. A Golf TSI doesn't use less fuel than any other 1.4L NA vehicle and the Golf requires RON95 compared to most cars of its class that run on RON91, given this it's not really any better than buying a 1.8L Honda Civic that gets 6.8L/100 KM on RON91 (also the Civic is a better performer than the Golf with it's 9.7 sec 0-100 time). A Turbo tuned for performance will defiantly use a lot more fuel than a naturally aspirated car.
The rest of the world? Here in Denmark we use km/L, a distance-per-fuel-unit measurement like the U.S. does. Afaik that's fairly common internationally.
It's the same measurement.
7L/100KM means you burn 0.07L per KM.
It's just that L per 100KM is more human readable and easier to calculate in your head when consider your fuel tank is 60L.
BTW I am able to almost reach the manufactures mileage in my car, but it means I have to drive really slow, stay of the throttle (0-100 km/h in 20s), look ahead/anticipate to avoid breaking/acceleration, drive under the max speed limit, don't drive in the city, don't drive during rush hours, make sure the car is empty (not carrying unnecessary weight). But realistically this will almost never happens.
I can maintain the rated mileage for my car, 9.4L/100 KM. What it requires is being able to shift at the peak of the power band.
The problem is that most people cant drive a manual well enough to be able to do this. OK, the problem is most people cant drive a manual. Auto slushboxes are terrible wasters of fuel, you might get some high end ones that aren't but we're talking about the average Corolla, not a Veyron here.
With fuel economy ratings, they are done in laboratory conditions (well they have to be in order to be accurate) so it's difficult to achieve them in real life due to variations in temperature, road quality, fuel quality, so on and so forth but as you pointed out the biggest variable is in driver quality.
My god! You must be a twenty-something. Or, lived in the country that made the Renault.
Let me introduce you, young sir, to the 1972 Chevy Malibu!
The country that made Renault uses sensible measurements like Kilometres and Litres.
And in the 70's if you didn't have a big car engine it was slow. Even then the big block V8's of the 70's weren't that fast, my 2005 I4 (naturally aspirated) can easily beat them. The small car started to overpower the big car in 80's when you started to get powerful turbo's out of Japan.
Most of my friends have iphones and have icloud or imessage or iwhatever its icalled ... I can send free texts to them and it doesn't cost me to get texts from them... I borrowed a Nexus4 from a friend for a few weeks and I much prefer it except for the $0.20/text message I have to pay my provider or pay them an extra $7.00/month for "unlimited text messaging"....
There's no way I will convince them to all install gropeme or some equivalent free texting app.. It just isn't going to happen.
This seems to be a US centric issue.
Almost everyone I know who has an Android or Iphone has WhatsApp or Viber installed, I use it for international texting (a fraction of a cent for data vs A$0.50 for an international text, you decide) to message people I know in Thailand, UK Canada, et al.
I dont keep these apps running all the time because they are battery hogs.
What will eventually happen is that people will combine all these different protocols into one application.
The carriers I've used (Sprint and T-Mobile) charge for MMS the same as SMS. They use the data channel, of course, but they're not count as data. In fact, people even used to forward chain MMSes (jokes, pictures—I think I even saw goatse once) before data service started getting popular.
In Australia all the carriers have different charges for SMS and MMS, MMS is usually double the price.
But in Oz, sender pays so people with Iphones end up paying for SMS's sent as MMS's so it doesn't bother me. When Android sends pictures like smilies and the like, the conversion is done client-side and the message is actually just text.
They're not free apps. You paid for them when you purchased Windows 8.
So they're also not free ads. You paid for them when you purchased Windows 8.
This, a thousand times this.
The majority of firearm deaths would to correlate with the majority of automotive deaths. Someone wasn't being safe, they were either drunk (I'd be very surprised if drink shooting wasn't a major cause of firearm injuries), reckless or careless.
The sad part is, most people dont know when they are being reckless or careless with their cars. In Australia when you're reckless or careless with a firearm they take them off you, but not with cars.
I've commented before that I track my car on a regular basis. I see so many weekend warriors who think they can race because they do 10 over in traffic or have done 200 KPH in a straight line on some isolated bit of highway ONCE. I'm not exaggerating when I say 9 out of 10 of them lose control and spin into the sand on the first bend (a hairpin on my local track, so that doesn't help). Few drivers actually know the limits of their own abilities, let alone their cars so after the "tow of shame" (the sand is meant to bog the car, so someone else has to get you out of it) a lot of the weekend warriors are never seen again, those that come back have learned some humility.
When you're driving you should be concentrating on driving, that's it, anything else can lead to an accident because your mind is not on the task at hand.
So, no, you shouldn't be pissing about sending texts, if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.
No, no, no,
You cannot possibly think of advocating personal responsibility and that people pay proper care and attention to their driving. No, no, no, this is not slash-acceptable, especially for driving, the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do throughout our lives.
Wont you think of the Chil^H^H^H^H Phone Companies.
People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.
Most people need to concentrate 100% on driving, the fact that some people think they're good enough to be able to chat away and text whilst driving is the reason we have a lot of crappy drivers.
However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.
Driving is not managed automatically.
You do need to be paying attention, you may not be committing it to memory but that does not mean you weren't paying attention.
Daydreaming on the highway is the easiest way for people to be killed.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.
Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive. If you think you're good enough, you're suffering from illusory superiority and my dash cam is full of idiots like this in near misses.
Most people lack your discipline. Credit cards cost these people money. You are part of an incredibly small minority, so try to see the big picture here.
But they dont lack his ignorance. Since when to banks give away money for free?
A credit card is more advantageous as you have more money. I get 1% back on most purchases
To the OP, he spends $10 and gets $0.10 back. So in the OP's mind he gets $0.10 for free from the bank.
But he never thought about how the bank gets the money. As we all know, banks dont do anything for free.
In reality, he's paid $10 to the merchant, the merchant pays $1 of that to the bank and the bank has given him $0.10 of that. As a result of this, the merchants profit has been cut so he has to raise the price of that good to $11. So now the OP spends $11 on a $10 item to get $0.10, causing a net loss of $0.90.
So that 10 cents came out of the OP's pocket out of the extra money he paid the merchant, he just never saw the other 90 cents which went straight to the bank. Banks love being able to use tricks like this, entice the credit addled to use the card by offering paltry rewards and charge the merchant for accepting the credit. Cash has a cost to it, but credit has a much larger one that can be measured as a percentage of that transaction (cost of cash cant be measured that finely, it's measured as a cost of doing business as a whole).
I used to run a business, cash was definitely cheaper. I'd reconcile handling fees and account for losses on a monthly basis, I'd reconcile EFTPOS fees nightly. What it cost me for cash for a month EFTPOS did in less than a week. In Oz, if a till (cash register) does not reconcile (match the outgoing and incoming docket with the cash in the drawer), we can legally dock the cashiers wages to recoup that, so a cashier had a serious disincentive to slip a fiver under the till.
If you run an online only business, the cost of electronic transfers is something you have take into account. This is why a lot of them accept PayPal, fees are a lot less than banks.
I am not here to keep a store running profitably.
Then the store is not here to help you.
If you insist on paying on your card for items that cost $3, dont be at all surprised when they cost $5 next week. This is what happened in Australia.
I'm a big believer in credit card surcharges because it makes the entire process transparent. Banks dont like it as they like people like you, who dont want to know how much of you purchases are profiting the banks.
My credit card works fine on transactions below $10.
Where exactly is the need for this?
You see, when you pay in cash the bank does not get to charge the merchant for accepting it. Thereby lowing their profit on transactions you make.
This, as I'm sure you understand cannot be allowed to continue.
Most corporate social media sites are the domain of the marketing department. Am I the only one who thinks there isn't much hacking involved?
Username -- BigCorpTwitter
Password -- password1
Plus the password would have been emailed to all and sundry because the Media unit thinks everyone needs access and the IT department will automatically protect them from anything computer.
Seriously, I had to explain to a media consultant why we couldn't "just email" a 40 MB video clip to 248 people yesterday. They are retards.
When Safeway does it, it's going to be replacing name brands with Safeway brands, and it is more or less *always* be necessary, since they are sending the vans from the distribution center
The "distribution center" is the supermarket. Employees walk the aisles and put your goods in a cart. The actual safeway distribution center isn't set up for pull and pick. And, you can specify no substitutions, in which case you just don't get things.
By employee's, you mean robots right.
I can share the road with a human-powered vehicle (that's easier on the rare occasion a cyclist deigns to obey traffic signals)
Same here.
I dont mind sharing the road with other road users, even cyclists... I just wish they'd do the same.
Cyclists in Australia are so extremely militant about excising their "right" to ride on the road that they forget about anyone else's right to use the same road. The refuse to use bike paths or bike lanes that were installed expressly so they didn't interfere with traffic (or bypass it altogether) but they become very, very quite whenever someone mentions old Regulation 219 which I see cyclist in violation of at least once a day.
Cyclists are so busy exercising their "rights", they never stop to think if they are actually in the right.
You haven't been to europe before have you. The US has far more corner stores (convenience stores).
South East Asia really is the poster child of corner stores, 7/11's on every corner and 3 Family Marts in between them in Thailand. You have to travel a bit to get to a large sized Tesco's. Towns in the US or Europe that are big enough to have shopping malls wont have much of one but a metric crapload of 7/11's. It's the same in most Asian countries I've been to except that the poorer countries forgo franchised 7/11's and have smaller stores or even roadside carts with even more limited selections. But this really is cultural, most SE Asian nations dont have as many cars per family as western nations so doing a big shop at a supermarket is beyond the capabilities of most and they tend not to want to wait for things.