It ain't xenophobia if a group of strangers are really threatening.
It ain't xenophobia if a group of strangers are really threatening.
I, for one, welcome our incomprehensible Overlords!
Or should I say:
"I I I welcome to me to me to me overlords!"
Retailers, so far, have been extremely reluctant to share what's actually sold and more importantly, for what price, whether it's with the CC company or vendors.
If they become totally dependent upon Visa, Visa may gain leverage that outweighs that reluctance.
If you do carry a wad of cash, here's a tip from an old-timer: keep the small denominations on the outside. If you have a fat wad of cash with a $20 on the outside, if someone sees you handling it they'll think it's a wad of $20s.
Also, keeping a sacrificial wad is a good idea: all ones with a $20 on the outside. If you're mugged you throw it and run the other way.
It happens all the time that the role you play with respect to someone changes what you can do with or to them. For example by default you can have sex with anyone who is willing, but if you're their psychotherapist that's grounds for malpractice and having your licensed revoked.
You can by default gossip about people; any information that came into your hands legally is fair game for passing on. Unless you are that person's lawyer.
Saying that as an employer or prospective employer you're restricted in the ways you can poke around in an employee's private life isn't problematic in principle. The problem it presents is practical: you can only catch people if they're stupid and blab about it. In general as a hiring manager you should never discuss the reason you didn't hire a candidate with that candidate, if you don't want your justification challenged in a court of law (or even public opinions). If asked, you give the candidate a vague, non-negatable justification, e.g., "We felt there were other candidates who were a better fit."
So what a law like this does is enables foolish employers to hire foolish employees.
The failure in this case isn't science. There is no scientific question about getting to Mars with SLS and Orion. The failure here is engineering.
Cost is an integral part of engineering. Many, many unfeasible engineering projects are physically possible. The art of engineering is finding approaches to achieve goals given the resources available, counting time as a resource of course.
So what they've been doing, while technically impressive, is just bad engineering: spending resources on an approach which won't achieve the objective within the given constraints, based on the wishful thinking that people will suddenly want to spend lots more money on the project in the future.
Sometimes when you can't achieve an objective, the smart thing is to find an alternative objective that's worth doing in itself and also leaves you better positioned to work on the original objective.
This may be true, but the evidence for coffee's statistical association with liver health and plausible mechanisms of action have been well-established for years now. You can even measure the dose-related effects of coffee consumption on markers of liver function in small-scale experiments. What's unclear is the clinical significance of those effects; but any attempt to determine that is bound to run afoul of some counfounding factors, but in context those factors aren't all that likely to be significant.
Evidence has to be interpreted in the context of other evidence; evidence forms a kind of network -- specifically a Bayesian network. A priori probabilities always inform the interpretation of any study.
It has nothing to do with authority. It has everything to do with how the president uses that channel of communications.
Strangely, I have found many people who continue working for a boss that makes them unhappy.
I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".
That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.
After decades in business, I am heartily sick of put-upon managers. It's almost like bragging: despite my good-for-nothing employees, look at how I'm muddling through! And I always think, "why not hire better employees?" It's not that hard: pay a little more, choose a little more carefully, treat the good performers with respect and regularly clear out the deadwood. And yet, while I've met countless put-upon managers in my career, I can count on one hand the ones who made any kind of concerted, systematic effort to hire and retain the best people, and all of them were very successful.
The only conclusion I can make is that those armies of put-upon managers are actually more comfortable with dysfunction and mediocrity. Most bosses are their own worst enemies; which means as a group they're exactly like most other people, just in a better position to force their personal emotional drama on others.
Why would it not be a good idea for both countries to share information as to potential ongoing attacks, and even have a similar kind of hotline akin to the Red Phone to have a dedicated 24x7 contact to ask if one country was really under attack from another, as it might appear...
Sure, but that's not what was being proposed. You've rationalized the President's notion into something a lot more reasonable sounding. The president was talking about enlisting Russian aid in developing an impenetrable barrier (I laughed out loud when I heard that) to foreign election meddling. Making the Russians an equal partner to that would be be like making the Mafia a partner in your anti-organized crime effort. In fact the FBI did something very much like that in Boston with Whitey Bulger.
It's not that we Americans are innocent of meddling in other peoples' elections; but if we want to secure our own making the Russians our partner in that is just plain stupid. They are the number one meddler in their own elections. There is no mutual interest here to be secured. At least not between Americans as a whole and the Russian regime.
Because the conviction is emotional, not intellectual.
The tone is consistent, not the propositions delivered by that tone.
I don't think people were paying enough attention to details to be hoping he was lying.
Take Trump's Obamacare repeal promises. He promised he'd have a plan where everyone would have insurance, regardless of their ability to pay. There would be no cuts to Medicaid. Nobody would lose coverage. Nobody would be worse off financially. Everybody would get much better care than they do now. The government would pay for health care for the uninsured, but save money overall while at the same time being less involved with health care than it is now. Above all the plan would be simple, so simple, and ready to go shortly after he took office.
Now persons of a critical frame of mind would look at these promises and conclude that these promises would be quite challenging to keep, given that US health care spending rose faster than inflation every single year from around 1960 to 2015, and that under a private health care system with the federal government only stepping in to take the least insurable people of all -- the elderly and the poor. Yet at the same time, any attempt to address this long-developing crisis necessarily is going to have to sound ambitious in its goals. The devil is in the details.
The thing is, I don't think the details ever entered into most peoples' minds. In an age where we have unprecedented access to information, there's so much of the stuff people have become hostile to the stuff, preferring to fall back on their gut: does this guy sound sincere? Does he speak with conviction?
Donald Trump speaks with more genuine conviction than any politician of our time, excepting perhaps Bernie Sanders. There is no doubting the genuineness of Sanders' hatred for the billionaire class, or Trump's conviction that immigrants are ruining the country. Yet the sincerity of those feelings have no bearings on the wisdom of the policies that come out of those feelings. In fact sincerity has no bearing on the truthfulness of the candidate. People lie all the time about things they care about strongly; in a way a more emotionally detached candidate would likely be more reliable.
Well, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put all "windows users" into a single group, but I do go on a week long Windows jag every couple of months, just to keep up with what the rest of the world is experiencing. And every time I do I'm astonished that people still put up with it.
Leaving aside the inevitable and clunky upgrade I go through; the whole system is clunky. It's not that it's slow, exactly; that would show up in benchmarks. It's just inconsistent enough you can't really get into a good working rhythm -- and this is on a relatively recent i7 processor with 16GB of RAM doing plain old office and web stuff.
But most of all the fundamental concept of Windows is hopelessly antiquated: it wants to be the switchboard for your digital life. It wants you to use it for the things nearly everyone in the civilized world is using their phone for.
To be fair, the heavier-weight Unix desktops have this problem too. Their whole concept is just wrong: the desktop is a place for getting tasks done, not juggling your life. It's not a place where you want to be interrupted or distracted, and it's especially not something you want to spend a lot of time screwing around with. Windows makes this inherent misconception worse with its relentlessly intrusive paternalism. It's constantly trying to get your attention, to redirect you to Microsoft (or partners') services and products.
Windows (and KDE and Gnome) would be much better if they simply tried to do less; if it just managed the hardware, the screen, and interprocess communication, rather than trying to manage the user. But of course, that's the whole point for Microsoft; its a vantage point from which it can sell to nearly everyone in the world who uses a computer -- or sell those people to other vendors. Google does the same thing, but the architecture of their sales effort is so much slicker it feels less intrusive (although it gets creepy when you start to notice it).
When I set up computers for other people I usually I set them up with XFCE, and not one person has ever asked for news stories or valuable offers to pop up in their start menu, or any of the other Windows 10 bells and whistles. I myself find even XFCE overkill; I use the i3 tiling window manager, which is admittedly clunky, but it a bounded, finite, very small amount of clunkiness. Learning to deal with that modest dose of clunkiness is a small price to pay for a desktop environment that starts instantly, consumes almost no resources, including my attention.
Raze some buildings and install more/bigger roads.
Yes, it's expensive. But it's a tiny price compared to having everyone waste millions of person-hours sitting on inadequate roads. Just multiply those person-hours by any plausible dollars-per-person-hour, and you have a figure for how much it's appropriate to spend fixing this problem.
Seriously, how is this a difficult question?
We cannot command nature except by obeying her. -- Sir Francis Bacon