Have you actually shot a gun before? The reason you aim for the chest is because that is the largest area of mass. Shooting at moving legs are not as easy as the movies make it look.
And the press thoroughly rejected that "initiative" every step of the way (minus a brief time when Hillary's camp leveled that charge against Obama.) Not even close to the same thing that is being discussed in this topic.
Yeah - I doubt they even have enough data on anyone to ask for more information than the above. Short of questions like "What where you doing on Jan 12 2002". Heck, even that they might not have.
From my memory of every time I visited someone's myspace page back in the day, it was 1) wait for site to load 2) mute the 4-10 songs that the myspace user set to autoplayed 3) wait for whatever 3rd party skin the myspace user decided to use loaded 4) hit the force close button because my browser just locked up.
If you are using linux as your desktop (versus server), chances are systemd is more than good enough and probably better than what logs you get with windows home edition.
Bush tried that and was destroyed. For his 8 years, we heard just one side of a story.
I agree that it would be nice to have something in the middle as far as approaches go. That said, after watching our side say and do nothing (except sell each other out), it is a welcome change.
The people that hate him were going to hate him no matter what. He has successfully allowed the media to portray themselves for the partisan hacks they are which helps ensure that the people that like or tolerate Trump know not to listen to the mainstream press.
We now have nothing but large echo chambers for all involved from the mainstream media but with the increasing non mainstream media, it is at least more possible to get more information outside your echo chamber without having to jump into their echo chamber.
The problem is that the media have done this to themselves by showing their bias for way too long. They have done everything they could do to destroy any credibility they had.
We had 8 years of softball press where we would listen to them laugh and clap with the president and his staff (when he wasn't straight out hiring them.) Now we have the extreme opposite. Their hatred towards the new president oozes from the angles of the stories they take and news titles they use and even the news tickers running at the bottom of the TV. If Trump had followed Bush, the obviousness of the bias stemming from their hate would not be as evident, but coming off the past 8 years of reporting, it's impossible to miss.
Additionally, there are so many new online outlets for news, that we do still have a free press. Just the tradition newspaper and TV press no longer have the influence they use to have.
The problem is that it's very hard to recruit people to a cause that doesn't affect them in a tangible way. Sure, companies are selling data about you and sure, they know everything you purchase and where and when you purchase it. But none of that has any impact on people's day-to-day lives where you can point to it and say, there, there is the problem.
This is true. Additionally, it is very useful for this data to be stored somewhere (particularly for people like me who has no organization skills.) There are many times I have to look up a purchase from a few years ago to know what parts to buy.
Also, we have generations now growing up on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc, that routinely share personal information that we would had been embarrassed to even tell our friends or priests before. Trying to get them to understand that privacy is important is a difficult sell. Really, the only ones that seem to care are the ones in relationships that need to use snapchat or some other tool to hide their betrayals.
Basically, privacy is only important if the lack of it can cost you something. And since the bar is getting lower and lower on what is acceptable and decent, more and more is being shared.
If it's like here in the US, they get around the fee by having an outside vendor take the credit card payment and charging you to use that vendor for the convenience.
My city public utilty is like that along with several bills I pay online.
Is that even close those? USPS vs FedEx vs UPS have ways of increasing / decreasing costs/service. They can charge more and hire more people to offer quicker turnarounds or hire less and charge less but offer slower turnarounds. How would companies be able to make changes to service plans if they are all using the same lines and have the same capacity?
I hear this idea allot. How would this open private competition? Wouldn't every ISP have the exact network capacity, same up time, same cost, etc?
I am probably missing something here, but this seems to me like the city running the creation and maintenance of the roads and streets and saying that we just created a huge business competition opportunity for driveway companies.
They aren't even trying "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." They aren't even pretending he said any of this. They are straight up mind reading now.
But the thing is, you can do a good job at a non-skilled job and get raises and make more money. But it is a non-skilled job and you really are not in a position to demand - especially knowing that the how payroll budget just blew up with the minimum wage spike.
Maybe it's been a while since you worked a non-skilled job and are just a bit out of touch with how that works.
This is basically what Ford did in his production plant back when the Model T was the craze. He paid an insanely high wage, which led to very few sick days and near perfect retention, because people would have rather killed themselves than losing a job that paid about twice of what they could otherwise earn. This in turn led to very high productivity because people knew what they were doing, which also led to much higher product quality and very low waste.
Higher wages will make people move to the area if possible, and they will also want to keep their jobs. And people with money spend it, and spend it locally which in turn drives the economy.
Cool - but this isn't what is happening here. Here, employers are being forced to pay their employees more.
Just curious, is there a study on people that were making $16 an hour before the hike? Did they get a similar raise or did they just lose buying power?
I know when minium wage went from 515-7.25, it hurt my wife's buying power. She was at $7 an hour (which was ok back then) and then got bumped to $7.25 along with everyone else that was making minuim wage (even though she had been at the company for a few years and had several raises.)
>The problem is that California exists in a capitalist economic system. Electricity providers obtain contracts to generate X amount of power (and other contractual conditions) for a length of time, and gets paid Y. California mandates solar power subsidization, in that solar power generators that put their excess power to the grid get paid for it.
The problem is that the government is mandating and subsidizing this stuff (as you wrote.) Hard to call that much government control over production/distribution "a capitalist economic system."
It's a damn shame that Europeans thank people for choices taken from them. Unless Europe is extremely far gone and forcing you to buy the WSJ then I don't see why this would make you happy.
(The partisan in me does get it, though. Although I rarely watch MSNBC, I will be happy if it ever goes off the air.)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you actually shot a gun before? The reason you aim for the chest is because that is the largest area of mass. Shooting at moving legs are not as easy as the movies make it look.
I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying this is a good thing.
I only know what you wrote about that situation but am curious: is the cop excepted in this situation to put down his gun and pull out a knife?
And that seems like a strange to you? Would you prefer a 1:1 ration (cops don't shoot unless their partner is killed first?)
This is dumb,. Why do you need to identify someones face on the spot by a computer?
So this doesn't happen again
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
And the press thoroughly rejected that "initiative" every step of the way (minus a brief time when Hillary's camp leveled that charge against Obama.) Not even close to the same thing that is being discussed in this topic.
Yeah - I doubt they even have enough data on anyone to ask for more information than the above. Short of questions like "What where you doing on Jan 12 2002". Heck, even that they might not have.
From my memory of every time I visited someone's myspace page back in the day, it was 1) wait for site to load 2) mute the 4-10 songs that the myspace user set to autoplayed 3) wait for whatever 3rd party skin the myspace user decided to use loaded 4) hit the force close button because my browser just locked up.
If you are using linux as your desktop (versus server), chances are systemd is more than good enough and probably better than what logs you get with windows home edition.
Bush tried that and was destroyed. For his 8 years, we heard just one side of a story.
I agree that it would be nice to have something in the middle as far as approaches go. That said, after watching our side say and do nothing (except sell each other out), it is a welcome change.
The people that hate him were going to hate him no matter what. He has successfully allowed the media to portray themselves for the partisan hacks they are which helps ensure that the people that like or tolerate Trump know not to listen to the mainstream press.
We now have nothing but large echo chambers for all involved from the mainstream media but with the increasing non mainstream media, it is at least more possible to get more information outside your echo chamber without having to jump into their echo chamber.
The problem is that the media have done this to themselves by showing their bias for way too long. They have done everything they could do to destroy any credibility they had.
We had 8 years of softball press where we would listen to them laugh and clap with the president and his staff (when he wasn't straight out hiring them.) Now we have the extreme opposite. Their hatred towards the new president oozes from the angles of the stories they take and news titles they use and even the news tickers running at the bottom of the TV. If Trump had followed Bush, the obviousness of the bias stemming from their hate would not be as evident, but coming off the past 8 years of reporting, it's impossible to miss.
Additionally, there are so many new online outlets for news, that we do still have a free press. Just the tradition newspaper and TV press no longer have the influence they use to have.
The problem is that it's very hard to recruit people to a cause that doesn't affect them in a tangible way. Sure, companies are selling data about you and sure, they know everything you purchase and where and when you purchase it. But none of that has any impact on people's day-to-day lives where you can point to it and say, there, there is the problem.
This is true. Additionally, it is very useful for this data to be stored somewhere (particularly for people like me who has no organization skills.) There are many times I have to look up a purchase from a few years ago to know what parts to buy.
Also, we have generations now growing up on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc, that routinely share personal information that we would had been embarrassed to even tell our friends or priests before. Trying to get them to understand that privacy is important is a difficult sell. Really, the only ones that seem to care are the ones in relationships that need to use snapchat or some other tool to hide their betrayals.
Basically, privacy is only important if the lack of it can cost you something. And since the bar is getting lower and lower on what is acceptable and decent, more and more is being shared.
If it's like here in the US, they get around the fee by having an outside vendor take the credit card payment and charging you to use that vendor for the convenience.
My city public utilty is like that along with several bills I pay online.
That's because you aren't living in an area where people bring their penny jar and then want to verify each coupon accounted for on their purchases
There is but the company from the article bought it. ;)
Somewhat in the same vein, I'd be worried about NOT having any cash, should I get mugged by someone that can and is willing to cause harm.
So basically, school lunch bully rules?
Is that even close those? USPS vs FedEx vs UPS have ways of increasing / decreasing costs/service. They can charge more and hire more people to offer quicker turnarounds or hire less and charge less but offer slower turnarounds. How would companies be able to make changes to service plans if they are all using the same lines and have the same capacity?
I hear this idea allot. How would this open private competition? Wouldn't every ISP have the exact network capacity, same up time, same cost, etc?
I am probably missing something here, but this seems to me like the city running the creation and maintenance of the roads and streets and saying that we just created a huge business competition opportunity for driveway companies.
Really? Is him not taking phone calls from average Joe Citizen on his POTUS cell phone a violation of free speech as well?
They aren't even trying "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." They aren't even pretending he said any of this. They are straight up mind reading now.
Some (most) jobs give raises every year if you do your job well and don't quit. It doesn't mean you are that much more skilled than someone else.
I am really confused here. Have you never worked a minuimn wage job before?
The problem is a salesperson needs to do at least 2 things
1) Sale the product
2) Prove the sale would not have happened without them
And this does not even address the quotas and goals that companies set (then change if the goal is obtained.)
But the thing is, you can do a good job at a non-skilled job and get raises and make more money. But it is a non-skilled job and you really are not in a position to demand - especially knowing that the how payroll budget just blew up with the minimum wage spike.
Maybe it's been a while since you worked a non-skilled job and are just a bit out of touch with how that works.
This is basically what Ford did in his production plant back when the Model T was the craze. He paid an insanely high wage, which led to very few sick days and near perfect retention, because people would have rather killed themselves than losing a job that paid about twice of what they could otherwise earn. This in turn led to very high productivity because people knew what they were doing, which also led to much higher product quality and very low waste.
Higher wages will make people move to the area if possible, and they will also want to keep their jobs. And people with money spend it, and spend it locally which in turn drives the economy.
Cool - but this isn't what is happening here. Here, employers are being forced to pay their employees more.
Just curious, is there a study on people that were making $16 an hour before the hike? Did they get a similar raise or did they just lose buying power?
I know when minium wage went from 515-7.25, it hurt my wife's buying power. She was at $7 an hour (which was ok back then) and then got bumped to $7.25 along with everyone else that was making minuim wage (even though she had been at the company for a few years and had several raises.)
>The problem is that California exists in a capitalist economic system. Electricity providers obtain contracts to generate X amount of power (and other contractual conditions) for a length of time, and gets paid Y. California mandates solar power subsidization, in that solar power generators that put their excess power to the grid get paid for it.
The problem is that the government is mandating and subsidizing this stuff (as you wrote.) Hard to call that much government control over production/distribution "a capitalist economic system."
On behalf of Europe: Thank you.
It's a damn shame that Europeans thank people for choices taken from them. Unless Europe is extremely far gone and forcing you to buy the WSJ then I don't see why this would make you happy.
(The partisan in me does get it, though. Although I rarely watch MSNBC, I will be happy if it ever goes off the air.)