"MikeC do you really mean to imply that people should be paid not by the effort that they put in, but by their personal or economic power?"
No I mean to imply people are paid on perceived value. 1 out of a 100 can be killer broker, 50 out of a 100 can be a waitress, 90 out of a 100 can be a soldier -- value/scarcity of talent is what gets you paid. Don't make it right, just makes it so. That is why a great waitress can make more than a poor one, but is limited. Doesn't mean they don't have value, doesn't mean they don't bust there ass -- means there is a limit to their percieved value to society, reduced by the amount of folks who can do what they do, even if not so well. Always someone waiting to take your spot. Just not as many are killer brokers.
In my career I've been better at what I do than 90% of the folks I've met in my profession. New much younger folks coming in push more every day and willing to work for less -- hence I have to give better ROI.
I get paid well because of what I can do ... it's not liberal or conservative, it's the value delivered. A great waitress can only add so much value to society, other professions add more to the bottom line, hence they get paid more.
Who makes more: a banker or a USMC grunt on the front line? Which one works harder?
--- which one affects more people every day?
Who makes more: a minimum wage waitress or a stockbroker? Which one works harder?
which can can add move value to our economy with a single decision?
I agree a lot of folks bust their rear for not enough money, I tip very well to a good waitress for just that reason. However I don't devalue a person just because of how someone perceives their amount of physical labor or physical risk (USMC) ... it's all about what is valued. If you don't value it fine -- are you paying their salary? If you aren't well then you don't get a vote. I think lots of folks are overpaid too. But I am not "directly" paying them so I don't get a say unless it's with my purchasing dollar or proxy vote. Wish it wasn't so, but this is the real world not the world I wish it was most of the time.
Do anyone, really "DOES ANYONE" think this will make the slightest bit of difference to what the NSA/FBI/CIA/XXX groups will collect or do? In fact I would have to argue if for some reason it sunsets, it's made illegal even, someone will manufacture a reason (one that will probably get some innocent people killed) to reinstate it or they will just ignore the law - just like they are doing now.
Further -- franchisee's don't have to comply at all:
Some of our locations are owned and operated by independent franchisees that are neither owned nor controlled by G6 Hospitality, its affiliates or subsidiaries. Each franchisee may collect Guest Information and use such information for its own purposes. G6 Hospitality does not control the use or access of such information collected by franchisees.
We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
Can you request those lists w/a FOIA req? Do they notice local officials and other leading lights who might use that hotel for shall we say extra curricular activities? Could end up with all kinds of interesting scenarios?
Want to bet when someone is going to request a copy of all those lists in conjunction with some court civil or criminal case? They are opening themselves up to all kinds of non-intended consequences here.
The obvious thing in common is the "he/she went for my gun" excuse why you beat the daylights, living tar --"life" out of the otherwise non-armed suspect.
A simple trail of logic here has determined the most dangerous thing to the officers life is all the guns they each bring to the scene of the crime. In these cases it keeps seeming the "perps" are all unarmed and if the officers didn't have guns then they would be a lot safer.
Further proof is submitted in the fact every time there is a big gun fight -- the suspects are shot dozens of times while the officers expend hundreds of rounds. If you calculate the misses by the officers it would seem they are a much bigger threat to themselves and "innocent" camera wielding bystanders than any of the criminals they are protecting us from. Remove the officers weapons and problem would be greatly reduced if not solved.
The real problem in the majority of these cases is not the police. It's the court system - our government of checks and balances has failed. The court system does not check the government or it's enforcement function, the police.
This case is one of the few where the courts have stood up and done their job. From the supreme court on down we have been failed by the system designed to protect us from this kind of tyranny. I honestly haven't the slight idea how to fix this within the confines of the system since the system itself has failed.
As a taxpayer who is not delinquent, this doesn't bother me if the municipality is making up the costs in collections. If they use collection agencies, courts, etc.. it's going to be more costly.
I admit to not liking the nanny/babysitter/fascist state much at all, but this to me is not a unacceptable use of ALPR technology. Probably more effective that the process of foreclosure, etc.
Now I will admit the caveat that the involved government agency use some kind of common sense way to collect once they've ID'd the person/car/location. Impounding a 1500$ car on a 300$ tax bill costing a working person a job that would have paid more in return to the economy is the issue. Never seen most governments do an intelligent job in this kind of situation, that worries me much more.
Let's see, authority has toys, boys w/toys want to use them. But doesn't it seem odd that the only likely result of deploying all you military toys is to intensify the violence?
Think it through, we have folks at a game store holding folks hostage w/shotguns. So we have maybe 2-3 "active shooters" .. so we deploy 20 or so officers in battle dress, 10-15 cars, trucks, vans all with sirens and flashing lights, news crews, crime scene management folks, and finally hostage negotiation (1 person?).
How can we honestly expect it get any less violent? Why not default to a bit more restrained response, 4-5 officers, no lights, no sirens, block off traffic. Couple of snipers mainly for backup?
I don't have a problem killing the bad guys - really I don't, until you consider how to ID them.
Take the normal domestic hostage situation of 1 perp and a a couple of innocent hostages. Dangerous for everyone in particular the officers. But if you have one convict with a gun and hostages, why do you need 30-40 officers, multiple SWAT teams with the coolest black "Call of Duty" arms and attitude, helicopters, etc. Let's see if we can inject some more little boy stupidity in the situation why don't we. More cops means more chance a cop get's killed and even greater chance an innocent gets caught in the cross fire.
Officers are supposed to know how to diffuse a situation, turn down the emotions, etc. This very act goes against everything they should have been taught. When has a military response ever been known to defuse a situation. True if kill all the baddies you might actually solve the issue, but that is not the most likely event by a long shot. This does not even consider the hostages in the equation. Basically this might be the least likely to be successful response so of course to government goes with it.
Cut cableTV two years ago. Went with comcast business account 50/10. Use dedicated entertainment PC hooked to 55" in LED, blu-ray, 7.1 sound...
Before we cut cable, tv was always on some cable garbage, pawn stars, parking wars, storage wars, some old movie for 20th time. Those basic fill garbage cable junk shows! -- cost of 190-200$ a month w/cable,net,phone from comcast Xfinity.
Cut cable, HD Antenna for local channels. No Netflix though(delays!), lots of use of network websites to view.
Guess What - haven't watched Pawn Stars in 2 years, no one will intentionally watch those garbage cable fillers.. amazing what they don't miss!! Bill is down to 100$ a month for the cable business account. I did keep phone due to the nature of my business. W/O phone would be under 80$ a month vs 190-200$ and I get better viewing experience, on my own time, less fill. I do have HuluPlus! but am thinking of cutting it. Even if it cost the same I wouldn't go back, the time shifting alone is worth it.
Amazing what Real Estate comparison sites can tell you...Now should there be more equal response and coverage yes, is there a double standard yes, are cops smarter in NH than MO, yes... are folks nicer in NH - maybe. Basically you gotta see that folks are scared of cops in Keene, Cops seem to react better in Keene, maybe that is the real problem here, no one died in Keene -- it's only interesting when people die.
As to stats - cops really have a reason to not overreact in Keene -- Cops in MO don't really seem to need a reason to overreact.
1. 3 murders in Keene in last 10 years... 2. 20 murders in last 10 years in Ferguson 3. White Frat boys might burn some stuff, might even rape someone but they don't shoot folks in Keene. 4. Frat boys can pay for the damage in court 5. 1 in 355 chance of being a crime victim in Keene 6. 1 in 222 chance of being a crime victim in Ferguson
You both are wrong and right ... you can block traffic within your airspace as long as you don't block other folks traffic nearby. Specifically from CISCO: ===================================================== As containment renders any standard 802.11 network completely ineffective, containment measures should taken in your airspace. Extreme caution should be taken to ensure that containment is not being performed on a legitimate network nearby and, action should only be taken as a last resort. Unauthorized containment is prosecutable by law (subject to the FCC’s Communications Act of 1934, Section 333, ‘Willful or Malicious Interference’). ===================================================
However PCI standards require you take this into account: -------------------------------------- PCI Compliance Understanding and remediating against wireless threats is also a requirement under the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), a standard required for retailers to follow when processing credit card data over WLAN networks. Examples of WIPS requirements under PCI DSS include: Section 9.1.3 Physical Security: Restrict physical access to known wireless devices. Section 10.5.4 Wireless Logs: Archive wireless access centrally using a WIPS for 1 year. Section 11.1 Quarterly Wireless Scan: Scan all sites with card dataholder environments (CDE) whether or not they have known WLAN APs in the CDE. Sampling of sites is not allowed. A WIPS is recommended for large organizations since it is not possible to manually scan or conduct a walk-around wireless security audit of all sites on a quarterly basis Section 11.4 Monitor Alerts: Enable automatic WIPS alerts to instantly notify personnel of rogue devices and unauthorized wireless connections into the CDE. Section 12.9 Eliminate Threats: Prepare an incident response plan to monitor and respond to alerts from the WIPS. Enable automatic containment mechanism on WIPS to block rogues and unauthorized wireless connections. ------------------------------------------------
So the FCC fined them 600K -- customers not seeing a dime of that in refunds for outrageous costs - am I right there.
This really doesn't suprise me though... if the service they did deliver was fast .. then 1000$ to hook up your own wireless so you could hand it out to attendees would be ok... but if it's for one client device, that is insane.
My firm has done numerous trade shows, normally we have to pay fee these days for decent internet connections (usually cable), 4-500$ for a week long show. It's all part of the space/booth fee.
Not long ago though we had to bring in our own connections - usually IDSN or if we were lucky DSL. Local telco would wire us up a circuit for the duration of the show.
If the company is running the contest to put music in "THEIR" game, they ask folks to contribute - fully voluntary, they make it clear that the vendor and runner of the contest will put the music of the winner(s) into the game, there will be no royalties, how can someone force them kill the contest?
As long as they verify the contributors are not under contract that stops them from contributing to the contest, how can some entity force them not to run it. I must be missing something here, how can an industry group have standing to do anything at all?
All I know is if the kid was tough enough to kill a dinosaur with just a gun bought locally by someone who couldn't buy a gun (we talking nerf guns here??) .... then the cops probably should be afraid. You know he was able to find and kill an extinct animal with a gun he couldn't buy ... that is what I call a DANGEROUS young man!