who is the fool who said, "Quit while you're ahead"?
The stick man at the craps table in Vegas... just before I put it all on the field. 7 in 12 chance paying out 1 to 1, better than 50% odds, and leave it to me to lose it.
LOL! and to that he says "Double up, catch up." ... as I watch my last $5 chip on the come and my wife rolls a natural against the point.
I've worked in the corporate back end of 2 banks and and a school, and have had everything from FBI background checks to a thorough review of all my places of residency since 10 years before I was born. So far no credit checks.
I guess some places feel that if a person is irresponsible enough to default on loans, then they're probably not going to be a responsible employee either. Makes a little sense, but I still find it to be a loathsome practice. Sometimes these companies overstep their boundaries. Christ, at what point does someones personal life become THEIR OWN???
Short answer: Never. Your personal life and the evidence (credit report) of it indicates who you are. A person deep in debt might be inclined to steal or embezzle. A person in debt might be bribable or encouraged to spy for money. A person with a bad habit involving expensive "services" or items might be blackmailed into doing something illegal or against his employer. Background checks for jobs involving security clearances always involve credit checks. The fact you didn't detect the credit check does not mean it didn't happen.
bank held my large "credit" against me. Said I had to much credit. WTF? Never payed a bill late, never ran a balance in anything.
That's odd. Must mean that they can't get enough money from you in interest.
My dad has awesome credit. I wish he'd tell me his secrets.
I'd ask him. I didn't ask my dad and I wish I had, but then he watched me build my credit when I was young and I am sure he would have said something if I was being an idiot about it. My first CC was a dept. store card (now inactive) and 2nd was a Visa that I still keep active.
Simple answer: Use your credit wisely. Don't run up big balances and then under-pay or pay monthly minimums. Don't spend on credit more than you could otherwise afford to pay in cash that month or in a month or two. Pay off your credit card balances first, then keep them low. Don't close unused credit accounts. Keep them locked up once they are zero-balance. Close the ones that charge annual fees but never close more than one per year, that will hurt your credit score even if you initiate the closure. If you have annual-fee cards, call the CC company and see if you can get them to make it fee-free, it never hurts to ask. If they don't have a free card, take a lower interest rate, they do want to keep you if you are paying as agreed. An inactive credit card shows "Pays as agreed" even though it is classed inactive by the CC company holding it.
If you have CC balances, pay the highest interest rate cards off first, pay twice the minimum or 1/2 the balance off until you get to zero, then lock them up and don't use them except in dire emergencies. Pay off car loans on schedule, double up if you can afford to, especially early on in the life of the loan as that will pay down the principle ahead of schedule and you will save the interest. Don't pay it off too early if their is a early payoff penalty. Pay it on schedule and bank any reserve cash after your monthly budget.
Always keep a savings, even if you can only afford to put away $50.00 a month. Don't buy that Wii or 72-inch TV if you have to give up spare cash each month. You simply can't afford not to save and luxury items are NOT a necessity of life even if the commercials tell you they are. Instant gratification won't make you truly happy if you have to remain in debt.
Keep your job, layoffs can be unavoidable but don't be a 2-year per job resumé builder. Continuous employment at one employer for 5 or 6 years is much better than 3 employers over the same period. When I see resumés of 30 year old VP's who spend two years at places and move on with all kinds of "lean" and "saved costs" and "Black-belt" and "implemented JIT" and other buzz words I see a guy who has no commitment to the company he works for who is solely interested in his own career and hasn't learned anything useful except how to polish a resumé or his bosses knob. Because at 30, he didn't "implement" anything, he participated, probably as a minor player in a commitee who steered the project and they probably fouled the whole thing up so bad they made up the numbers just so the President could claim it a success.
If in school, stay in school. Student loans may feel like an axe over your head but if you can stay in school during a job slump in your region you will be better off in the long run.
If graduating, look for a job with good long-term prospects, preferrably in a position that is a profit-making position rather than an overhead position. Being in Management may seem attractive but new hired "management" is a liability when profits are low and layoffs are coming.
Never let a lender talk you into taking on more debt than you can afford. How much can you afford? If you have to eat dog food to make the monthly mortgage, it's probably more than you can afford. That big house comes AFTER you have that cushy management job at the local chip foundary.
Your credit score does NOT depend on whether you keep a balance on a CC or whether they are making money off you on interest. They make money on each transaction so the interest you pay is gravy to them. It's also really stupid to keep a balance on a card when you can afford to pay it off.
to top it off I had to ARGUE with the bank that I didn't want to spend as much money as they wanted to give us. Why? Because I knew how much we could afford monthly & what they said we should do was WAY more then we could afford. They didn't seem to care we needed to eat & pay taxes on the house.
Just maybe that is the reason why the banking industry is in bad shape today?
Yep. They over-extended to get their commissions, got tacit or even active approval from their underwriters and now we see the results.
Note also there is no one ACLU. These particular sites are ACLU in So. California. Also note that ACLU in the second case were not party to the lawsuit but injected themselves "in defense of the community".
Even Gates, who was called racist while in office has stated that S.O. 40 was not intended to prohibit identification of UA's but to allow officers to ignore UA status of witnesses and victims while enabling notification of ICE via DHD of the UA status of arrested and charged perpetrators and to allow LAPD to keep statistics on the UA status of perpetrators.
Quote
...no? Don't ''conservatives'' also value that kind of dogged defense of civil liberties?
Sure they do but the "conservatives" generally don't go to ACLU for it. When they do, the ACLU is just as likely to decline the advocacy of the conservative position and when they do act, it's usually to file amicus or stand in defense of the "liberal" position. They choose their battles and their clients very carefully. In fact, there have been several "reverse discrimination" cases where the party went to ACLU and was refused and had to hire private counsel to receive justice.
In the above example, in ACLU opinion, day laborers are considered to be "speaking" under 1st Amendment protection when assembling outside, soliciting work and urinating and defecating out back of business establishments. Their statement that the ordinance was unconstitutional is far from the truth as the constitutionality of the ordinance was FAR from decided since it never went to trial as the city of Lake Forest repealed the ordinance rather than spend taxpayer money defending it. What ACLU fails to show is that it is their opinion that it is unconstitutional not that it is unconstitutional in fact or in law. In this particular case, the ACLU used their financial resources to thwart a municipality's ability to write ordinances for the purpose of protecting their citizens against unnecessary and undesirable loitering in public places. If the ACLU really cared about the employment of UA's they would be sponsoring employment agencies for that purpose. Instead they are facilitating the violation of T8, S1325 by encouraging the knowing hiring of UA's off the street in violation of Federal statute.
Quote
“The city’s decision to repeal this unconstitutional law is an important step, but it does not resolve our concern that day laborers in Lake Forest are unfairly targeted by police when they try to seek work,” said Preciado. “We will keep the pressure on to make sure workers’ rights are not violated.”
The fact is under federal law, UA's are not entitled to work inside the United States. They have no "workers' rights" since they are here illegally and not supposed to be residing or working here. The fact they get away with it does not make it an entitlement. The city police shouldn't be enforcing federal law, they should be assisting ICE under ICE's direction in order to apprehend and deport them.
I would also mention that my wife immigrated legally before we met and after we married she became a citizen in 1981 and I had to hire a lawyer to get INS at that time to go forward at anything faster than a snail's pace at advancing her file. I also had to stand in line at 5am in front of the federal building numerous times with everyone else who was waiting for INS. The last word in INS is NOT Service. We paid INS fees, I paid taxes, I paid legal fees to get INS to do their job. Where's my equal protection under the Constitution?
The "conservative" interpretation, not the ACLU's, is that the First Amendment protects the right to express opinions about the government in speech and in writing and to assemble for the purpose of 'redress of grievances' and should not be interpreted as freedom to loiter, seek jobs, intimidate passers-by, or other actions that would be criminal under common law.
I would also express that I consider myself to be on the "Libertarian" side of the political spectrum but I find myself increasingly conservative when I see my rights as a taxpayer eroded by manipulation of the established laws to allow favors to be extended to people who have violated the laws of their own countries to come here and violate the laws in this country. Along with Libertarianism comes Personal Responsibility to uphold the law and be responsible for yourself and your actions.
L.A. doesn't have sanctuary status... yet... but LAPD has Special Order 40 originally written by Chief Daryl Gates in 1979 which prohibits LAPD officers from "Initiate(ing) police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person."
and...
"Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code (Illegal Entry)."
This has been interpreted by various liberal organizations (ACLU among them) as being a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and in their interpretation it is a prohibition against asking.
However, as you will see in the order if you follow the link, LAPD upon arresting a person for other misdemeanors or felonies may gain knowledge of the undocumented alien status of a person and they SHALL report it to LAPD detective division who SHALL notify INS (now ICE) of the undocumented status of the arrestee.
The original intent of the order was supposed to reassure VICTIMS of crimes that they wouldn't be arrested for being undocumented when dealing with police and reporting crimes. Unfortunately, the language of the order has been misinterpreted and twisted to allow undocumented alien criminals to escape deportation.
There is a catch. Even when reported as UA's, ICE may not come get them and deport them. They end up serving their time in jail or making bail and they are back on the streets.
If ICE does come and deport them, that may not be a good thing. The UA will be deported and released in his own country and he is free to come right back, just as illegally as he did in the first place, committing more crimes here in the US as well as his own country. A virtual revolving door policy.
One would hope that if the crimes are bad enough the courts will put him away for a very long time. Then he ends up contacting his government who tries to get him deported and released. Or worse, he gets his country to get the World Court to order the state to "protect his rights" as in the case of Texas vs Jose Medellin, convicted rapist and murderer.
So we have a States Rights vs Federal Rights problem. Should Federal law prevail and we do the revolving door and/or deport convicted rapists on death row so they can repeat their offenses in their native countries or even re-enter and repeat their crimes here? Or should local/state governments be allowed to act without respect for Federal law and keep UA's in jail for their crimes and even execute them? If the latter, you have San Francisco, creating "sanctuary" for these types. If the latter, you have Texas, telling the US government and Mexico and the World Court to piss off, Medellin is going to die. The sword cuts both ways.
One would reason that a felony conviction would supercede a federal statute like T8, S1325; giving the state the right to incarcerate or execute the felon according to state law. But that's just too logical.
It's interesting that when you answer them all correctly (12/12) it scores you 97%. Apparently math isn't on PEW's quiz. Yes, you get the same questions in the same order each time. No pool.
It needs another question: Who is Speaker of the House? A. Nancy Pelosi B. Rush Limbaugh C. Dick Cheney D. Dick Durban
Correct answer: A, Nancy Pelosi first woman speaker and 2 heartbeats away from President of the United States. 8th district of California, covering 80% of San Francisco.
I have not been following the US soldier body count. I don't follow the DJIA but I follow the stocks I own. I can't tell the Serbs from the Croats and I am not in Europe.
Why am I not surprised the 18-29 group only averages 30%?
Man, that takes me back. I coveted a Cromemco when I was in college. Now I am glad I couldn't afford one at the time. Somewhere in my attic I have an Imsai front panel from the good old S-100 days. I have some nice Z80 microcomputers on STD Bus cards too. They were a lot better.
I think the intent of the file checks is to identify the files that are "not approved" for the particular server. They may be common files on other servers or mods. The approved list is not all-encompassing. It also means the player in question is using files of the same name and path of the "approved" files but they are not identical. This can be true for files in customized paks on the server or on the client. The server could have customized files and the player could be using "vanilla" files. Only by checking them can you actually know which case it is. The vanilla files should have been on the approved list for the server but sometimes things can be missed.
WAV files can be used to time respawns of powerups and give the player useful information about when a powerup is close to respawning. If he is consistently close to the powerup when it respawns this is a clue that he may be using them.
I believe the MD5 hash of the failed file on the client is logged in the server anticheat log. The system admin should be reviewing those logs, identifying the files and getting copies of those failed files and checking their MD5 hashes against the logged events. Once the file is identified this way it can be determined if it is a "cheat" in the context of that particular server or not. If the file is a cheat, it can be added to the "not-approved" list and the automation can kick the player in response, but that is an admin configuration choice for the particular server.
I should also mention that the best source for the questionable files is the player identified with them. If the player is reluctant to provide them for review, it may be wise to set the server to ban those questionable files and kick the player(s) in question.
To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing, assembles itself into complex structures and then spends the rest of eternity in decay.
This seems to be stated somewhat in the manner of a False Dilemma. We've already discovered and observed processes and laws by which matter does indeed assemble itself into complex structures. So we're left pondering the cause of the Big Bang. Even if entropy were violated, why make the leap to positing something as complex as a Creator? (A creator who by definition should be complex enough to ponder the question of its own origins?)
As Bertrand Russell said so succinctly, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
Can the universe create itself? Is then the universe not God?
The semantics here seem murky. Why not instead ask if the universe is just some kind of weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine? Why bring "God" into it by default? Are there NO other possibilities?
[1] Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 97
I brought up Einstein to illustrate the folly of setting up Hawking as the smartest guy of his time as an authority on the existence or non-existence of God. No one can "prove" god, it's folly to attempt it. Decartes was another example and the best he could do was the "I think, therefor I am." postulate. Isn't it interesting that in the mythical story of Moses on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments when he asked God his name the reply was "I am that I am."
False dilemma? I don't think so. The observable universe always runs toward increasing entropy but then again there is a lot of unobserved universe out there. As far as increasing complexity is concerned, these are processes where entropy is decreased in one locality at the expense of an increase of entropy in another. My main point was that the human brain inescapably ascribes a prime mover to every effect. The dilemma is how to escape the trap.
Bertrand Russell was a self-confessed atheist and an excellent writer.
Einstein may never have accepted a personal God but he was still confined by his childhood social programming enough to say "God doesn't play dice..." and to speak in public as a believer in some kind of God. This is what I was trying to illustrate about mankind's inability to escape from the concepts of alpha-omega and a prime mover.
Name something that doesn't have a cause? We can't escape it. We even have to say the "cause" of the universe was the big bang. The end of the universe is the big crunch. Einstein tried and failed to describe an eternal universe. But this all still leaves the question unanswered about the certainty of the fundamental nature of it.
You didn't honestly answer the two questions, but they were largely rhetorical. I wanted to see if anyone would fall into the trap of explaining a self-creating universe or a Pantheism.
A weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine? Weirdness is "the unexplained", this doesn't satisfy the requirements of the TOE whose goal it is to explain everything. To accept "weirdness" as an explanation is to cop out of the whole discussion.
No other possibilities? I never said there were no other possibilities, I only posed questions.
Einstein was Jewish and was considered the smartest man alive in his time. He regarded mathematics as the key to understanding the fundamental design of the universe. His famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the world [universe]" was his counter-argument to Max Planck's quantum mechanics. He said this even though Einstein's own photoelectric effect and photon theory of light depended on it. The quest for the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is a quest for that same kind of understanding. The theory about the Theory of Everything (TOE) is that it will be both elegant and beautiful in it's symmetry and simplicity. The idea that the universe could be explained and understood and that the laws of physics would exist without a Creator was completely foreign to their minds.
Today we know Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity are correct and Planck's Quantum Mechanics are also correct and they both apply to every place in the universe as far as we can observe. To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing, assembles itself into complex structures and then spends the rest of eternity in decay. Can the universe create itself? Is then the universe not God? The mind of man is nowhere near ready to encompass the questions, much less determine the answers.
-- they remind me a lot of the tobacco company ads encouraging people to quit (after it became obvious they were going to loose their asses in court). Spin games.
I think the tobacco companies were forced to produce or at least pay for those ads because they were ordered to do it by the courts as a result of the tobacco settlement agreements.
Quote
I have no love for my governor (Schwarzenegger) but for once he got it right when he rejected opening California up to offshore drilling and stated that we cannot drill our way out of this problem.
Yep. We allowed the big 3 to sell us what we wanted, big SUV's and spacious cars. Now Toyota has the lead in real hybrid technology because they were thinking ahead instead of about this months numbers. This is the difference between Japanese engineering and American/European engineering and marketing. They have a Zen of Design that permits them to refine a design and control that design even to the component level. GM launched a pilot program with the EV1 and pulled the plug on it even though the people who had them loved them. Now GM is fighting for its life and laying off workers and middle management (no surprise) wondering what went wrong.
Show Posts
