noting a person's audio history may contain files like LGBT podcasts or Muslim call-to-prayer recordings.
Why do people who, if you asked them, would say that things like the above shouldn't be stigmatized, then go out of their way to stigmatize them with an implication that content in those categories should be subject to some sort of special expectation of privacy?
Because they aren't.
Its servicing more as a warning, as we continue a slide towards fascism, these will be the first on the "first they came for" lists.
Its not that Muslims or LGBTI need special rights for privacy, its that we all need the right to privacy regardless of if you're listening to mass produced pop or prayer recordings. Muslims, etc... are used as examples because they'll be the first to suffer when rights are revoked.
Since Waze allows me to select routes based on real time traffic data and also share my ETA and current position with my wife/friends, I am a horrible person since I'm "using" my smartphone while driving.
Actually you're not. All studies have differentiated using a phone as a navigational device and using a phone as a phone.
When we say phone use in cars, we specifically mean using it for calling/messaging/facebook etc.
I'm ardently against using a phone whilst driving, I dont even like hands free but I also use my phone for navigation if I'm going somewhere I'm unfamiliar. I prefer Google Maps over Waze as Waze doesn't give you lane directions. I have a Kenu Airframe that sits on the vent above the stereo ando not on my windscreen, my phone sits there and just does nav, I rarely ever touch it until I'm at my destination.
Using a phone for navigation is different to using it for communication. When you use it for navigation, your brain is focusing on the act of driving and the phone is an ancillary part of that. When you're using it for communication your brain is focusing on communicating at the detriment of any other task you're doing at the time.
Plus, and I'm going to be called nasty things for saying this, but traffic accidents do not appear to be "way up", like they would be if smart phones were causing a ton of new accidents.
I'll do it.
You're a fucking idiot who is using an incredibly stupid strawman that is so obviously wrong that it physically hurts me if I try to think like the kind of brain that could create it.
Collisions due to mobile phone usage have increased. Collisions and more importantly deaths, have decreased due to other factors. The fact Drink Driving is decreasing is the biggest factor. Also the fact that cars are made safer and able to protect occupants and pedestrians better.
If you bothered to look up collisions by cause, you'll find that mobile phone use is quickly supplanting DUI as the main cause of collisions. However we all know you wont because you dont want to have to change your ways. Well tough titties princess, stop being a moron and pay attention to the road.
Your argument reminds me of my tiger repelling rock. Of course you can see there are no tigers or signs of tigers in the vicinity.... but is that due to my rock... or the fact that there are no fucking wild tigers in Colombia?
People also know the risks of fucking with the radio, looking at maps, yelling at kids, driving while sleepy, or drinking and driving. Guess what?
If you're comparing the risk of using a map or changing the radio station with using a phone, drink driving or driving whilst fatigued... you don't have a clue what the risks actually are.
there are degrees of risk, we acept certain levels of risk because it bad results are small and infrequent enough or the risk can be mitigated to that point. Using a map or changing the radio stations (note, steering wheel controls are considered a safety feature) are risks that are negligible because you dont spend 20 minutes fucking with a radio and looking at a paper map practically ensures you're paying attention to what you're doing.
DUI and using a phone are risks that are not negligible, they are risks that cannot be mitigated beyond simply not doing them and they are risks that produce very severe results. I think phones are worse than drink driving now because we've managed to get it into peoples heads that they're impaired when drunk but people still think that they're not impaired when using their phones whilst driving. The're stupid to think this, I'm not sorry for saying it and I wont sugar coat it, phone and drive then you're a bloody idiot.
I had a rather nice Honda Integra, last of the proper K20's. It was written off by some stupid tart who was on the phone in her Hyundai Getz because she didn't see that every other car had stopped because of traffic. Went into the back of me at 40 KPH.
Using a phone whilst driving doesn't just delay your reactions like fatigue or drunkenness, it removes them completely as your attention is solely on the phone (Humans don't multi-task, we task switch like hyperthreading and we're not very good at it). Like the silly tart who went into the back of my Honda, you will simply not notice the hazards when you're staring right at them. Your brain wont even register my brake lights, it wont tell your slovenly hoof to move to the stop pedal, the first you'll know about it is when you're eating your phone thanks to your airbag. If it was just you, I wouldn't mind if you lunched on Takata's finest products all day, however your stupidity affects me because my car is now a wreck because you don't have the discipline to pay attention to the most dangerous activity you will probably ever undertake in your life... driving.
Beyond this, I'm probably going to punch someone sitting at a green light because they're too busy staring at their phone (we can tell you're doing it, your crotch really isn't that interesting. Its easy for a decent driver to tell if someone is driving on their phone. You depart your lane, dont notice when traffic has sped up (or slowed down, as detailed above). It is slightly different the way a drink driver acts, a drink driver will attempt to correct their actions (I.E. swerving in and out of their lane) a Moron On the Phone (MOP) will keep departing their lane until they either hit something or get the horn from a driver who is paying attention.
We need a zero tolerance attitude for phone users. Take their licenses and take their cars if they keep doing it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it and you should have it taken away.
Its easy to tell who has no idea how to fight on the internet.
If you stand and fight against an opponent who can easily flatten you, you're going to get flattened. If you run away, you survive to fight a fight you can win.
Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this shit pretty early on in his treatise.
The greatest military defeats of WWII came from leaders who refused to allow a retreat. Running away isn't cowardice, it's smart. It gives you time and resources. Winning is about picking your battles, sometimes this means that you surrender the battles that dont count or cant be won at that time so you have the ability to win the ones that count or come back when the odds are in your favour.
If Hitler had allowed his troops to fall back to the Polish/Russian border the Nazis still would have been beaten, but the Russians would have expended so many more troops and resources that eastern Europe might not have suffered 50 years of communism.
As someone who knows enough Krav to reliably beat most untrained opponents, I'll still back away from a fight if I can because:
1) Even though I'll probably win, I'll still get hurt. Hell, I get hurt enough just training.
2) I don't feel the need to win dick measuring contests.
Exceptions to all of these.
1) Credit aggregators can change 21% interest debt to 6% interest debt. That is a better move than defaulting or bankruptcy in many cases.
GP was not talking about debt consolidation, he was talking about the kind of people who get another credit card to pay off their current credit debt. The problem with these kinds of people is that they've convinced themselves that they've beaten the system and can keep getting easy credit forever to avoid interest. This usually doesn't last long and they dont go to a debt consolidator until it's too late.
With debt consolidation, you aren't borrowing more, you're restructuring your existing debts. So the GP's adage remains true. Besides, if you need debt consolidation, you've already floated yourself down shit creak sans paddle, you've just reached a point where you've admitted it. You've also agreed to screw your credit history/rating so even getting a phone plan is difficult at that point.
2) Food and rent for housing are unavoidable fixed costs and you need both to live, regardless if you have cash now to pay for them.
If these costs are exceeding your earnings, you need to reduce them. Very few developed countries have people who are truly in a position where they cant reduce costs. If they are, most developed nations have assistance programmes, both government and non governmental.
However, most people on struggle street are not there because they live in a society that has priced them out of living. Hell no, they have no money and few assets but a lot of debt. You'll find that they have a nice car, with nice monthly payments. The latest iPotato on contract, a big screen TV interest free and seemingly are able to go out on the weekends. But when it comes to rent and food... they'll cry poor. Utter bollocks, they are in their bad position because of their terrible choices. They could have bought an oldish Corolla outright and saved $500 a month, they could have gotten a cheaper phone on PAYG, they could have got the telly paid with the cash they saved on that Corolla and going out also wouldn't be a burden. But fuck no, they want it all now and it's always someone elses fault when they cant pay the rent.
3) Only people who have never been poor utter such classist nonsense.
Now you demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about what the OP said.
Its not classist at all. I doubt you even know the meaning of that word because people of all classes can build up savings. It doesn't matter if you're an upper middle class Frenchman or the daughter of a Thai farmer, and I've seen plenty of the latter apply themselves and build up enough money by working to build a small house in Issan by the age of 35 (they do start working in their teens though).
What the GP said is that you should put money away from every paycheque and it is possible for someone on minimum wage to do just that. It isn't classist to say that you should save to be financially secure, that is your entitlement complex talking.
And yes, I was from in the poorest part of Adelaide (Elizebeth). There are foods I refuse to eat because they have a mental association with abysmal poverty in my mind. Not that I look down on those who like to eat egg on toast... but when that was all your family could afford to put on the table, you'd develop an aversion to them too. I applied myself and got out of the ghetto, now I live in a nice part of England and am currently on holiday in Colombia. Because I remember what it was like, I'll never look down on anyone, especially anyone working for an honest Peso. I certainly dont use bollocks terms like classist to defend an entitlement complex.
tax returns on the side for friends since I like seeing what people make, I've noticed it's more about throwing money away on stupid stuff rather than lack of money that's the problem. At my company, all of the developers make $140k or more a year, and they constantly whine about having no money. No one in the office goes out to lunch any longer because they can't afford to eat. Working through lunch is depressing. You should get out of the office and talk to people. My office mate just wasted $12k on an expensive stove, and he doesn't even cook. My boss spent $130k on a BMW and has since asked to borrow money since he's about $100 short each month. He makes over $200k!
Just because someone earns a lot does not mean they're good with money. The proliferation of easy credit in the good times exacerbates this. When there are blips in the market, the system of easy credit falls apart like it did during the GFC/Credit Crunch. Thats why we need more controls on how much credit can be handed out and for what. Borrowing more than, say 10 or 15% of your income on an unsecured loan should be treated with a lot of scrutiny. We also need to stop putting everything on credit.
However these measures will turn our society upside down as people will no longer be able to live outside their means. On the plus side, getting rid of the middlemen in most transactions will lower prices. On the other hand, if we don't change the way we treat credit, we'll have another crash that'll make people jealous of the good times of the GFC.
Don't delude yourself in to thinking the poor are poor because they don't work hard. They certainly work a lot harder, for a lot longer, than I do. I'll bet the same is true for you.
The original quip was a man referring to himself over time, "When I was young, I had no money and all the time, now I am old I have money, but no time".
It was co-opted by those who like to demonise the poor... Who do work a hell of a lot harder if you've ever seen working conditions in many developing countries.
Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.
OK, next time you go to the "BBC" make sure it's followed by the suffix.co.uk because judging by what you're saying, you're being directed to a fake news site instead of the genuine BBC... because nothing like you described actually was written.
Maybe if the Model 3 turns out to be a lemon, things will change with regards to the stock, but as I said, part of the job description for an investor is to take risks and people seem to think that there will be a reward at the end of the day.
I doubt the Model 3 will be a flop, it wont do as well as expected due to competition, but it wont flop either.
The problem is, the technology isn't quite there... and the infrastructure is nowhere near there. there are only 680 locations with fast chargers in the UK, even then you're looking at an hour per charge from less than empty. Take note, only 188 of the 1004 chargers (across 680 locations) are Tesla's supercharger stations, most of them are slower chargers that take over twice as long.
So an EV is fine for someone who pootles about town and keeps the car plugged in for 14 hours a day at home, but for the motorist doing 8000 miles a year, running out of charge is a real risk and will remain a real risk until cars can be charged much faster, in more locations and batteries and motors become much more efficient.
So I doubt the majority of cars on roads in the next decade will be fully electric. We're looking at hybrids and petrols for a long time yet. When that sinks in, Tesla's value will fall to a more accurate representation of what the company is worth. I'm not saying Tesla will fail, but I am saying its over-valued and that will be corrected in time.
However credit cards need to be treated like the sugar of personal finances. Its OK to have a little, but using it every chance you get is very bad for you.
Credit cards are useful for deposits (I.E. hotel or rental car) and for building a credit history to make other forms of credit easier to get (everything from a phone contract to home loan), however depending on one for day to day purchases is foolhardy and reckless. It only takes one unforeseen event to turn that into thousands of quid/bucks of bad debt.
Being familiar with the financial services industry, this is hardly a shock to me. Those addled to credit cards always balk when I ask "Who is paying for your bonuses/rewards/cashback" and then act with utter denial when I say "You are". They refuse to believe that banks (and other FS institutions) simply dont give things out for free, because there is no overt fee, they think no fee exists.
Well let me screw your tiny little minds.
Long ago, banks figured out fees turned customers off. So they took the fees off the card user and put them onto the merchants who accept the cards. Then some bright spark came up with the idea of adding in rewards to get you to use your credit card more. Because of this, merchants are at a competitive disadvantage if they dont accept credit cards and a financial disadvantage if they do, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
So here's how it works.
1. Bank encourages you to use your card.
2. Bank charges merchant to accept card (or the merchant doesn't get paid).
3. Merchant has to take it sans lube and raises prices to compensate.
4. Bank passes on a pittance of what they took from the merchant back to the user.
5. Card user thinks they're winning because they never saw steps 2 and 3.
Your average rewards programme sees up to 3% returned to the user, usually less than half a percent. Meanwhile they're taking 3-6% from the merchant, the more "reward" you get, the more you're paying for it via price increases. Visa and Mastercard take up to 3 or 4%, premium cards like AMEX and higher end Visa/Mastercards take 5 or 6%
Its a negative feedback loop, however some will defend it to the death because they dont see its coming out of their pockets. I almost have to admire the Machiavellian brilliance of getting people to defend being ripped off.
"Points" cards are the golden goose of this rip-off system as points dont have to have any real monetary value, redemption values can be arbitrarily changed and they can be expired.
Now here in the UK, the EU imposed a maximum limit that banks can charge merchants... so rewards programmes are hard to come by over here, however it means we're only paying 1-2% extra for credit card purchases.
The train leaves exactly on time and arrives exactly on time pretty much every trip (and by "on time" I mean actually on time,
OOOOHHHH KAY.
You had me up to here.
You've clearly never taken trains in Europe. Their on time performance makes the Airline industry look good (which actually isn't bad over here). I live in the UK and always give myself at least 30 mins padding on any rail journey. Even though London is a mere 45 mins away, getting on the tube increases that time by at least half an hour. You'd best hope there are no leaves on the track or a signal failure somewhere near Blackpool or you London based train will be delayed.
Compared to the US, air travel is actually quite well organised and easy to take. With regional airports and automatic or web check in, I can rock up at a regional airport like Southampton with less than an hour to spare. Beats taking a train and the tube to get to the Eurostar at St Pancras, then getting on an Intercity in Brussels to get to Amsterdam. Sure the train is more comfortable but its more hassle and takes considerably longer than flying SOU-AMS.
OK, I'm being a bit harsh on trains, but they aren't the magic bullet people think they are. They're great if you've got a line that goes direct, however changing trains is a right PITA. if you're going to be spending more than 2.5 hours extra on the train, it's faster to fly in Europe.
I'm flying out of Heathrow tomorrow. I'm giving it plenty of time but honestly, I think I'm going to spend most of it sitting at a pub airside having a few pints. I expect I'm going to spend more time on ze M3 getting there than going through Heathrow security.
Not a huge fan of Obama either, but i can't really picturing him *caring* what some random person on twitter had to say about his policies.
Of all the faeces that was publicly thrown at him by the likes of Fox News, Brietbart and other extreme right organisations that had easy to find owners... What did Obama do...
Nothing. By ignoring them he made them look like idiots. By going after a twitter troll (and this guy seems as much of a troll as Trump is a successful businessman with his 7 chapter 11's) Trump has given him an air of legitimacy.
The things Trump is doing seems very much like the actions of a 3rd world dictator (nepotism, media controls) than a democratically elected leader
Ironically, on my last trip to Italy, the only person who ripped us off is a taxi driver.
Welcome to Italy.
I've always found it hilarious when Americans complain about their taxi drivers, all they demonstrate is that they've never been to places like Phuket, Italy or the Philippines where taxi drivers are actually criminals. I can get in a taxi in LA, Vegas, NYC, Washington DC and not have to worry, getting a taxi in Phuket requires difficult negotiations before hand, then hanging on for dear life during the ride. Fail to negotiate and you'll end up paying 4-10 times what the trip should cost.
There are few things more unstable than an Italian taxi driver stuck behind 2 priests in a Skoda.
Emission standards (I personally dislike those rules) are for everyone, except VW - "the competitors will spends lots of money developing better engines like idiots, while we can just cheat the test".
I largely agree with what you've said about Uber, however, VW didn't cheat because their competitors had better small diesel engines, they cheated because they wanted to sell their diesels cheaper. They did this by removing the Selective Catalyst Reduction system (the thing that requires AdBlue) which reduced costs. The problem VW had is that NOX and other emissions (not CO2 though) go through the roof without SCR so in order to pass the test, they cheated.
So your point still stands, VW bent the rules and wanted to be let off after being caught, but it just happened slightly differently to the way you described.
What is different about Uber compared to a regular taxi?
1. You arrange the ride (phonecall to a taxi company or by using an Uber app).
2. The car comes, you get in, get driven to your destination, pay for the service.
The only difference is, you pay Uber who pays the driver rather than paying the driver directly. If anything, doesn't that make Uber the drivers employer?
I don't know what dingy backwater you live in, but in places where people wear shoes, taxis are inspected and regulated.
And yet, in my neck of the woods, it's rare to get in a cab that doesn't have a check engine light on. And this isn't a dingy backwater.
I'm afraid that statement contradicts itself.
If all taxi's have a check engine light on, you live in a dingy backwater. It might be a highly populated backwater, but it's still a backwater.
Even developing nations can manage taxis properly. Bangkok ensures that all taxi's meet a minimum standard of safety and sets fares. Sure, Thai taxi drivers are unsafe, but that's the driver, not the vehicle.
Compare that to the Philippines where taxi/trike drivers operate without effective regulations. Locals don't refer to them as a Mafia because they're highly competitive entrepreneurs with a focus on customer service and a strong business ethic and would certainly never enforce their turf with violence.
The case is likely to bubble up to the EU Justice Court.
Where they will get banned across all of Europe.
If they dont go broke in the process. The EU takes a while to come to a decision.
In the UK, Uber is legal... they still cant make money even though they've got less overheads than minicabs and hackney carriages... let alone London's Black Cabs.
Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.
The question is, where do you stop?
As soon as an opponent realises that you'll only hit military targets, they'll move all their military assets into civilian areas.
When that happens, Trump really has two options.
1. Back down and look weak (this will only happen if the other Republicans force it).
2. Target civilians and become the bad guy.
What I think Trump is going for is Shock and Awe without actually understanding that in the real world, Shock and Awe does not work. It doesn't scare people into submission, it makes them more resolute. Assad now has his great Satan in the west, Trump has handed Assad a huge propaganda tool on a platter. This is why Obama never got involved, this strike will be used as a rallying cry for the Syrians and a chance for Assad to cement power.
What Trump should do is call Assad and the Rebels to the negotiating table, saying "This is what we can do, but we'll only do it if we have to". This will be the only way the US wont lose face completely. Sure the republicans will hate him for it but it is really the only option where the US doesn't lose.
Also, 50 cruise missiles for 1 airfield... A bit of overkill there... do you think he was compensating for something.
They are more like a boyfriend who is really good looking but kind of an asshole when you really get to know him.
Apple is more like the woman who conforms perfectly to the Vougue/Cosmo image of feminine beauty (stupidly thin and coated in make up), but has an eating disorder and a full cavalcade of mental and anger control issues.
Google is the cute clued in girl who tells her friends everything about you, including that mole you have just above your arse.
Microsoft is the ugly girl, but is so desperate she'll let anyone do anything to her.
Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.
Well start your own then.
If you dont like Twitter, dont use them. Even by the most European of Euro standards, Twitter is still a private organisation, not a public utility and not subject to carrier regulations.
Realistically, I'd be more concerned that the government is trying to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone who is merely making fun of the government. We're not talking about threats or attacks, we're talking about parody here.
Slashdot Mirror
noting a person's audio history may contain files like LGBT podcasts or Muslim call-to-prayer recordings.
Why do people who, if you asked them, would say that things like the above shouldn't be stigmatized, then go out of their way to stigmatize them with an implication that content in those categories should be subject to some sort of special expectation of privacy?
Because they aren't.
Its servicing more as a warning, as we continue a slide towards fascism, these will be the first on the "first they came for" lists.
Its not that Muslims or LGBTI need special rights for privacy, its that we all need the right to privacy regardless of if you're listening to mass produced pop or prayer recordings. Muslims, etc... are used as examples because they'll be the first to suffer when rights are revoked.
Since Waze allows me to select routes based on real time traffic data and also share my ETA and current position with my wife/friends, I am a horrible person since I'm "using" my smartphone while driving.
Actually you're not. All studies have differentiated using a phone as a navigational device and using a phone as a phone.
When we say phone use in cars, we specifically mean using it for calling/messaging/facebook etc.
I'm ardently against using a phone whilst driving, I dont even like hands free but I also use my phone for navigation if I'm going somewhere I'm unfamiliar. I prefer Google Maps over Waze as Waze doesn't give you lane directions. I have a Kenu Airframe that sits on the vent above the stereo ando not on my windscreen, my phone sits there and just does nav, I rarely ever touch it until I'm at my destination.
Using a phone for navigation is different to using it for communication. When you use it for navigation, your brain is focusing on the act of driving and the phone is an ancillary part of that. When you're using it for communication your brain is focusing on communicating at the detriment of any other task you're doing at the time.
Plus, and I'm going to be called nasty things for saying this, but traffic accidents do not appear to be "way up", like they would be if smart phones were causing a ton of new accidents.
I'll do it.
You're a fucking idiot who is using an incredibly stupid strawman that is so obviously wrong that it physically hurts me if I try to think like the kind of brain that could create it.
Collisions due to mobile phone usage have increased. Collisions and more importantly deaths, have decreased due to other factors. The fact Drink Driving is decreasing is the biggest factor. Also the fact that cars are made safer and able to protect occupants and pedestrians better.
If you bothered to look up collisions by cause, you'll find that mobile phone use is quickly supplanting DUI as the main cause of collisions. However we all know you wont because you dont want to have to change your ways. Well tough titties princess, stop being a moron and pay attention to the road.
Your argument reminds me of my tiger repelling rock. Of course you can see there are no tigers or signs of tigers in the vicinity.... but is that due to my rock... or the fact that there are no fucking wild tigers in Colombia?
People also know the risks of fucking with the radio, looking at maps, yelling at kids, driving while sleepy, or drinking and driving. Guess what?
If you're comparing the risk of using a map or changing the radio station with using a phone, drink driving or driving whilst fatigued... you don't have a clue what the risks actually are.
there are degrees of risk, we acept certain levels of risk because it bad results are small and infrequent enough or the risk can be mitigated to that point. Using a map or changing the radio stations (note, steering wheel controls are considered a safety feature) are risks that are negligible because you dont spend 20 minutes fucking with a radio and looking at a paper map practically ensures you're paying attention to what you're doing.
DUI and using a phone are risks that are not negligible, they are risks that cannot be mitigated beyond simply not doing them and they are risks that produce very severe results. I think phones are worse than drink driving now because we've managed to get it into peoples heads that they're impaired when drunk but people still think that they're not impaired when using their phones whilst driving. The're stupid to think this, I'm not sorry for saying it and I wont sugar coat it, phone and drive then you're a bloody idiot.
I had a rather nice Honda Integra, last of the proper K20's. It was written off by some stupid tart who was on the phone in her Hyundai Getz because she didn't see that every other car had stopped because of traffic. Went into the back of me at 40 KPH.
Using a phone whilst driving doesn't just delay your reactions like fatigue or drunkenness, it removes them completely as your attention is solely on the phone (Humans don't multi-task, we task switch like hyperthreading and we're not very good at it). Like the silly tart who went into the back of my Honda, you will simply not notice the hazards when you're staring right at them. Your brain wont even register my brake lights, it wont tell your slovenly hoof to move to the stop pedal, the first you'll know about it is when you're eating your phone thanks to your airbag. If it was just you, I wouldn't mind if you lunched on Takata's finest products all day, however your stupidity affects me because my car is now a wreck because you don't have the discipline to pay attention to the most dangerous activity you will probably ever undertake in your life... driving.
Beyond this, I'm probably going to punch someone sitting at a green light because they're too busy staring at their phone (we can tell you're doing it, your crotch really isn't that interesting. Its easy for a decent driver to tell if someone is driving on their phone. You depart your lane, dont notice when traffic has sped up (or slowed down, as detailed above). It is slightly different the way a drink driver acts, a drink driver will attempt to correct their actions (I.E. swerving in and out of their lane) a Moron On the Phone (MOP) will keep departing their lane until they either hit something or get the horn from a driver who is paying attention.
We need a zero tolerance attitude for phone users. Take their licenses and take their cars if they keep doing it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it and you should have it taken away.
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
Its easy to tell who has no idea how to fight on the internet.
If you stand and fight against an opponent who can easily flatten you, you're going to get flattened. If you run away, you survive to fight a fight you can win.
Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this shit pretty early on in his treatise.
The greatest military defeats of WWII came from leaders who refused to allow a retreat. Running away isn't cowardice, it's smart. It gives you time and resources. Winning is about picking your battles, sometimes this means that you surrender the battles that dont count or cant be won at that time so you have the ability to win the ones that count or come back when the odds are in your favour.
If Hitler had allowed his troops to fall back to the Polish/Russian border the Nazis still would have been beaten, but the Russians would have expended so many more troops and resources that eastern Europe might not have suffered 50 years of communism.
As someone who knows enough Krav to reliably beat most untrained opponents, I'll still back away from a fight if I can because:
1) Even though I'll probably win, I'll still get hurt. Hell, I get hurt enough just training.
2) I don't feel the need to win dick measuring contests.
Exceptions to all of these. 1) Credit aggregators can change 21% interest debt to 6% interest debt. That is a better move than defaulting or bankruptcy in many cases.
GP was not talking about debt consolidation, he was talking about the kind of people who get another credit card to pay off their current credit debt. The problem with these kinds of people is that they've convinced themselves that they've beaten the system and can keep getting easy credit forever to avoid interest. This usually doesn't last long and they dont go to a debt consolidator until it's too late.
With debt consolidation, you aren't borrowing more, you're restructuring your existing debts. So the GP's adage remains true. Besides, if you need debt consolidation, you've already floated yourself down shit creak sans paddle, you've just reached a point where you've admitted it. You've also agreed to screw your credit history/rating so even getting a phone plan is difficult at that point.
2) Food and rent for housing are unavoidable fixed costs and you need both to live, regardless if you have cash now to pay for them.
If these costs are exceeding your earnings, you need to reduce them. Very few developed countries have people who are truly in a position where they cant reduce costs. If they are, most developed nations have assistance programmes, both government and non governmental.
However, most people on struggle street are not there because they live in a society that has priced them out of living. Hell no, they have no money and few assets but a lot of debt. You'll find that they have a nice car, with nice monthly payments. The latest iPotato on contract, a big screen TV interest free and seemingly are able to go out on the weekends. But when it comes to rent and food... they'll cry poor. Utter bollocks, they are in their bad position because of their terrible choices. They could have bought an oldish Corolla outright and saved $500 a month, they could have gotten a cheaper phone on PAYG, they could have got the telly paid with the cash they saved on that Corolla and going out also wouldn't be a burden. But fuck no, they want it all now and it's always someone elses fault when they cant pay the rent.
3) Only people who have never been poor utter such classist nonsense.
Now you demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about what the OP said.
Its not classist at all. I doubt you even know the meaning of that word because people of all classes can build up savings. It doesn't matter if you're an upper middle class Frenchman or the daughter of a Thai farmer, and I've seen plenty of the latter apply themselves and build up enough money by working to build a small house in Issan by the age of 35 (they do start working in their teens though).
What the GP said is that you should put money away from every paycheque and it is possible for someone on minimum wage to do just that. It isn't classist to say that you should save to be financially secure, that is your entitlement complex talking.
And yes, I was from in the poorest part of Adelaide (Elizebeth). There are foods I refuse to eat because they have a mental association with abysmal poverty in my mind. Not that I look down on those who like to eat egg on toast... but when that was all your family could afford to put on the table, you'd develop an aversion to them too. I applied myself and got out of the ghetto, now I live in a nice part of England and am currently on holiday in Colombia. Because I remember what it was like, I'll never look down on anyone, especially anyone working for an honest Peso. I certainly dont use bollocks terms like classist to defend an entitlement complex.
tax returns on the side for friends since I like seeing what people make, I've noticed it's more about throwing money away on stupid stuff rather than lack of money that's the problem. At my company, all of the developers make $140k or more a year, and they constantly whine about having no money. No one in the office goes out to lunch any longer because they can't afford to eat. Working through lunch is depressing. You should get out of the office and talk to people. My office mate just wasted $12k on an expensive stove, and he doesn't even cook. My boss spent $130k on a BMW and has since asked to borrow money since he's about $100 short each month. He makes over $200k!
Just because someone earns a lot does not mean they're good with money. The proliferation of easy credit in the good times exacerbates this. When there are blips in the market, the system of easy credit falls apart like it did during the GFC/Credit Crunch. Thats why we need more controls on how much credit can be handed out and for what. Borrowing more than, say 10 or 15% of your income on an unsecured loan should be treated with a lot of scrutiny. We also need to stop putting everything on credit.
However these measures will turn our society upside down as people will no longer be able to live outside their means. On the plus side, getting rid of the middlemen in most transactions will lower prices. On the other hand, if we don't change the way we treat credit, we'll have another crash that'll make people jealous of the good times of the GFC.
Hey, he's tired from day of sleeping all day...
Damn straight, if he doesn't get at least 8 naps he doesn't have the energy for the main snooze.
Don't delude yourself in to thinking the poor are poor because they don't work hard. They certainly work a lot harder, for a lot longer, than I do. I'll bet the same is true for you.
The original quip was a man referring to himself over time, "When I was young, I had no money and all the time, now I am old I have money, but no time".
It was co-opted by those who like to demonise the poor... Who do work a hell of a lot harder if you've ever seen working conditions in many developing countries.
I'm reasonably sure H1B is not an Australian thing. But anyway.
In Australia its called a Visa Subclass 457 or just "457" for short.
Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.
OK, next time you go to the "BBC" make sure it's followed by the suffix .co.uk because judging by what you're saying, you're being directed to a fake news site instead of the genuine BBC... because nothing like you described actually was written.
Maybe if the Model 3 turns out to be a lemon, things will change with regards to the stock, but as I said, part of the job description for an investor is to take risks and people seem to think that there will be a reward at the end of the day.
I doubt the Model 3 will be a flop, it wont do as well as expected due to competition, but it wont flop either.
The problem is, the technology isn't quite there... and the infrastructure is nowhere near there. there are only 680 locations with fast chargers in the UK, even then you're looking at an hour per charge from less than empty. Take note, only 188 of the 1004 chargers (across 680 locations) are Tesla's supercharger stations, most of them are slower chargers that take over twice as long.
So an EV is fine for someone who pootles about town and keeps the car plugged in for 14 hours a day at home, but for the motorist doing 8000 miles a year, running out of charge is a real risk and will remain a real risk until cars can be charged much faster, in more locations and batteries and motors become much more efficient.
So I doubt the majority of cars on roads in the next decade will be fully electric. We're looking at hybrids and petrols for a long time yet. When that sinks in, Tesla's value will fall to a more accurate representation of what the company is worth. I'm not saying Tesla will fail, but I am saying its over-valued and that will be corrected in time.
I probably should state that I'm not anti-credit.
Yes I have a credit card.
However credit cards need to be treated like the sugar of personal finances. Its OK to have a little, but using it every chance you get is very bad for you.
Credit cards are useful for deposits (I.E. hotel or rental car) and for building a credit history to make other forms of credit easier to get (everything from a phone contract to home loan), however depending on one for day to day purchases is foolhardy and reckless. It only takes one unforeseen event to turn that into thousands of quid/bucks of bad debt.
Risking a downmod but...
Being familiar with the financial services industry, this is hardly a shock to me. Those addled to credit cards always balk when I ask "Who is paying for your bonuses/rewards/cashback" and then act with utter denial when I say "You are". They refuse to believe that banks (and other FS institutions) simply dont give things out for free, because there is no overt fee, they think no fee exists.
Well let me screw your tiny little minds.
Long ago, banks figured out fees turned customers off. So they took the fees off the card user and put them onto the merchants who accept the cards. Then some bright spark came up with the idea of adding in rewards to get you to use your credit card more. Because of this, merchants are at a competitive disadvantage if they dont accept credit cards and a financial disadvantage if they do, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
So here's how it works.
1. Bank encourages you to use your card.
2. Bank charges merchant to accept card (or the merchant doesn't get paid).
3. Merchant has to take it sans lube and raises prices to compensate.
4. Bank passes on a pittance of what they took from the merchant back to the user.
5. Card user thinks they're winning because they never saw steps 2 and 3.
Your average rewards programme sees up to 3% returned to the user, usually less than half a percent. Meanwhile they're taking 3-6% from the merchant, the more "reward" you get, the more you're paying for it via price increases. Visa and Mastercard take up to 3 or 4%, premium cards like AMEX and higher end Visa/Mastercards take 5 or 6%
Its a negative feedback loop, however some will defend it to the death because they dont see its coming out of their pockets. I almost have to admire the Machiavellian brilliance of getting people to defend being ripped off.
"Points" cards are the golden goose of this rip-off system as points dont have to have any real monetary value, redemption values can be arbitrarily changed and they can be expired.
Now here in the UK, the EU imposed a maximum limit that banks can charge merchants... so rewards programmes are hard to come by over here, however it means we're only paying 1-2% extra for credit card purchases.
The train leaves exactly on time and arrives exactly on time pretty much every trip (and by "on time" I mean actually on time,
OOOOHHHH KAY.
You had me up to here.
You've clearly never taken trains in Europe. Their on time performance makes the Airline industry look good (which actually isn't bad over here). I live in the UK and always give myself at least 30 mins padding on any rail journey. Even though London is a mere 45 mins away, getting on the tube increases that time by at least half an hour. You'd best hope there are no leaves on the track or a signal failure somewhere near Blackpool or you London based train will be delayed.
Compared to the US, air travel is actually quite well organised and easy to take. With regional airports and automatic or web check in, I can rock up at a regional airport like Southampton with less than an hour to spare. Beats taking a train and the tube to get to the Eurostar at St Pancras, then getting on an Intercity in Brussels to get to Amsterdam. Sure the train is more comfortable but its more hassle and takes considerably longer than flying SOU-AMS.
OK, I'm being a bit harsh on trains, but they aren't the magic bullet people think they are. They're great if you've got a line that goes direct, however changing trains is a right PITA. if you're going to be spending more than 2.5 hours extra on the train, it's faster to fly in Europe.
I'm flying out of Heathrow tomorrow. I'm giving it plenty of time but honestly, I think I'm going to spend most of it sitting at a pub airside having a few pints. I expect I'm going to spend more time on ze M3 getting there than going through Heathrow security.
Not a huge fan of Obama either, but i can't really picturing him *caring* what some random person on twitter had to say about his policies.
Of all the faeces that was publicly thrown at him by the likes of Fox News, Brietbart and other extreme right organisations that had easy to find owners... What did Obama do...
Nothing. By ignoring them he made them look like idiots. By going after a twitter troll (and this guy seems as much of a troll as Trump is a successful businessman with his 7 chapter 11's) Trump has given him an air of legitimacy.
The things Trump is doing seems very much like the actions of a 3rd world dictator (nepotism, media controls) than a democratically elected leader
Ironically, on my last trip to Italy, the only person who ripped us off is a taxi driver.
Welcome to Italy.
I've always found it hilarious when Americans complain about their taxi drivers, all they demonstrate is that they've never been to places like Phuket, Italy or the Philippines where taxi drivers are actually criminals. I can get in a taxi in LA, Vegas, NYC, Washington DC and not have to worry, getting a taxi in Phuket requires difficult negotiations before hand, then hanging on for dear life during the ride. Fail to negotiate and you'll end up paying 4-10 times what the trip should cost.
There are few things more unstable than an Italian taxi driver stuck behind 2 priests in a Skoda.
Emission standards (I personally dislike those rules) are for everyone, except VW - "the competitors will spends lots of money developing better engines like idiots, while we can just cheat the test".
I largely agree with what you've said about Uber, however, VW didn't cheat because their competitors had better small diesel engines, they cheated because they wanted to sell their diesels cheaper. They did this by removing the Selective Catalyst Reduction system (the thing that requires AdBlue) which reduced costs. The problem VW had is that NOX and other emissions (not CO2 though) go through the roof without SCR so in order to pass the test, they cheated.
So your point still stands, VW bent the rules and wanted to be let off after being caught, but it just happened slightly differently to the way you described.
What is different about Uber compared to a regular taxi?
1. You arrange the ride (phonecall to a taxi company or by using an Uber app).
2. The car comes, you get in, get driven to your destination, pay for the service.
The only difference is, you pay Uber who pays the driver rather than paying the driver directly. If anything, doesn't that make Uber the drivers employer?
I don't know what dingy backwater you live in, but in places where people wear shoes, taxis are inspected and regulated.
And yet, in my neck of the woods, it's rare to get in a cab that doesn't have a check engine light on. And this isn't a dingy backwater.
I'm afraid that statement contradicts itself.
If all taxi's have a check engine light on, you live in a dingy backwater. It might be a highly populated backwater, but it's still a backwater.
Even developing nations can manage taxis properly. Bangkok ensures that all taxi's meet a minimum standard of safety and sets fares. Sure, Thai taxi drivers are unsafe, but that's the driver, not the vehicle.
Compare that to the Philippines where taxi/trike drivers operate without effective regulations. Locals don't refer to them as a Mafia because they're highly competitive entrepreneurs with a focus on customer service and a strong business ethic and would certainly never enforce their turf with violence.
The case is likely to bubble up to the EU Justice Court.
Where they will get banned across all of Europe.
If they dont go broke in the process. The EU takes a while to come to a decision.
In the UK, Uber is legal... they still cant make money even though they've got less overheads than minicabs and hackney carriages... let alone London's Black Cabs.
Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.
The question is, where do you stop?
As soon as an opponent realises that you'll only hit military targets, they'll move all their military assets into civilian areas.
When that happens, Trump really has two options.
1. Back down and look weak (this will only happen if the other Republicans force it).
2. Target civilians and become the bad guy.
What I think Trump is going for is Shock and Awe without actually understanding that in the real world, Shock and Awe does not work. It doesn't scare people into submission, it makes them more resolute. Assad now has his great Satan in the west, Trump has handed Assad a huge propaganda tool on a platter. This is why Obama never got involved, this strike will be used as a rallying cry for the Syrians and a chance for Assad to cement power.
What Trump should do is call Assad and the Rebels to the negotiating table, saying "This is what we can do, but we'll only do it if we have to". This will be the only way the US wont lose face completely. Sure the republicans will hate him for it but it is really the only option where the US doesn't lose.
Also, 50 cruise missiles for 1 airfield... A bit of overkill there... do you think he was compensating for something.
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149.
So Apple admits its a design flaw... And Apple users still have to pay to have it fixed.
Man, you guys have been whipped.
They are more like a boyfriend who is really good looking but kind of an asshole when you really get to know him.
Apple is more like the woman who conforms perfectly to the Vougue/Cosmo image of feminine beauty (stupidly thin and coated in make up), but has an eating disorder and a full cavalcade of mental and anger control issues.
Google is the cute clued in girl who tells her friends everything about you, including that mole you have just above your arse.
Microsoft is the ugly girl, but is so desperate she'll let anyone do anything to her.
Huckabee has said that it is treason to go against your government.
King George III called, he'd like to have a word with his subject, Mr Huckabee about the subject.
Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.
Well start your own then.
If you dont like Twitter, dont use them. Even by the most European of Euro standards, Twitter is still a private organisation, not a public utility and not subject to carrier regulations.
Realistically, I'd be more concerned that the government is trying to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone who is merely making fun of the government. We're not talking about threats or attacks, we're talking about parody here.