- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
USPS is actually quite good. Try UPS:
[image]Admin
The package routing one isn't that bad.
If you work in some big office buildings, like the Empire State Building in New York and send a package via the FedEx in the building to another office in the same building, the package still gets picked up and sent to a central hub to get sorted.
Admin
Admin
Pentagon battlefield-hardened mouse, maybe?
Admin
Number one is just what happens when you use sorting hubs.
It's why my mail orders from Forbidden Planet in the UK have a note attached in the shipping field asking if I can pick up from their mail order warehouse, because it's two miles from my house. FP are sane and actually let me do this. Otherwise Royal Mail pick the package up from them, take it to the sorting centre 10 miles away, then bring it back the next day.
Admin
The Proletariat is an Unsupported global dynamic element.
Admin
adf.ly/183291/weronika
Admin
Admin
It's sing a hub-and-spoke design. It's far more efficient for both workers and employers for the former to organise a union through which to negotiate with the latter than it is to have them all carrying out individual negotiations.
Addendum (2011-06-05 08:30): s/sing/using/
Admin
Even if they exist, English isn't one of them. Offhand, I can't think of any languages where one reads from the bottom of the page towards the top. Doing it in reverse means jumping down to the end of the log and then going back to the beginning. Easier, in fact. It's just as easy to find the end of the log as it is to find the beginning. It can't be to make it easier to spot the most recent event. Why is that? Their tracking logs are written in reverse chronological order. Something else that USPS and UPS have in common.
Admin
Admin
The US doesn't have a visible left wing. Just "a right wing" & "a much more right wing".
Admin
Because I think "Package data processed by brokerage (blah blah)" just means that some data processing function occurred at the Swiss branch that would receive it...
Admin
I subscribe to American magazines and I live in Austria. At least once a year the magazines are late by two months and have an undelivered message from Australia on their cover.
Admin
Clearly Chris has never used a Clueless Mouse, and doesn't understand the value in it.
Admin
Perhaps it was really submitted by Nagesh
Admin
Tend to agree.
The iPhone is trying to complete a non-sensical word beginning. It seems reasonable to suggest a nonsensical word (which may be a previously entered reference number, or something).
Unless I missed something, the "More Choices" option gave "More choice" so there is nothing overly odd there. Sure it was only 1 entry, and sure the link for more choices took the same amount of space, but there always has to be a limit somewhere. We could go "just 1 more" forever until the list is 10 pages long.
Wells Fargo - I think the post something. It is a little odd to get an email that says your address is invalid, but perhaps as the email was received they are justified in sending it. It does say "We could not deliver a message to one of your email addresses" - unless the WTF is using the image to track whether the mails been read.
Maybe Julia's right and we will be better off with a Carbon Tax - truenergy has already calculated your saving.
The "Trusetd" website that is unaccessible is probably a direct result of the username being unidentified - a minor WTF at best - if anything, it shows security doesn't want anyone they can't identify touching anything (that is, assume no priviliges).
Admin
Rand (as someone has said), maybe Rupee probably others, Ringots, Random Currencies...
Oh, you were having a go....pray continue...
Admin
Agree limit on characters for MOUS (the Germans would have said Maus)
I think MOSE is a (slight) coincidents, and it's some sort of store code (perhaps "Mouse Or Similar Equipment"
Admin
"That's the trouble with foreigners. You can't travel anywhere abroad without meeting any." (Tony Hancock)
Admin
You also run fewer trucks. Putting a truck on every road doesn't make much sense economically (in fact the reduction of your carbon footprint of having fewer trucks - even if some packages clock up the Travel Miles is some {insert made up value here} tonnes).
Surely these things go in aeroplanes, though, and clock up Frequent Flyer miles, meaning that a package might eventually travel for free, and has full access to the airline's lounge.
Admin
This means (depending on your leanings), there is a choice to have mandatory unions or no unions. The idea of voluntary unions is flawed because there is a net benefit even if people choose not to join the union. Personally, I don't join unions (because I'm too tight to fork out fees), but I don't get upset with them when they don't go into bat for me - I'm not paying their fees. They do, however, annoy the absolute shit out of me when they cause a payrise to me to stall because they take objection to something in an agreement that doesn't even relate to me (yes, I know in all likelihood, that increase is back-paid, but the point is that their potentially putting my agreement in jeopardy, even if I agree with it).
Admin
I seem to recall hearing it got really, really cold some 20,000 years ago. Man invented hotter fire than he already knew, and that set Global Warming off...
Though I tend to agree that the debate often misses the point (ie people seem to argue whetehr GW exists or not, rather than whether we're causing/exacerbating it), I also think if it makes us pollute less it can only be a good thing. We got big fat hole in the Ozone layer that makes my summer sun a touch on the dangerous side...
Admin
Didn't we have a discussion on how to best verify email addresses a few weeks ago?
Admin
Admin
Thanks. I think you just summed up the liberal position quite well: People must be forced to do X whether they like it or not, because the government, in its wisdom, knows what is good for you. If you were smart enough to run your own life, you'd be a bureaucrat too. OF COURSE the liberal believes in freedom ... if only those common peasants were smart enough to do what the liberals tell them they should do. But these stupid people just don't know what's good for them, so we have to force them, at gunpoint if necessary, to do what we know is best: to drive the right kind of cars, use the right kind of light bulbs, get the right kind of health care, etc etc.
Real freedom is not a "naive concept" that is impossible to implement. Not the libertarian idea of freedom, anyway. Real freedom says that I respect the right of others to do what they think is best for themselves or their family or their community, even if I think they are wrong. And likewise they grant me the same freedom.
For example, in a libertarian society, if you are willing to take a job that pays only $4 an hour -- perhaps because the job is easy and pleasant and you'd rather take the low pay than a harder job that pays more, or perhaps because the alternative is no job at all, or for any number of other possible reasons -- that is purely a matter between you and the employer. But to a liberal, as he would not be willing to work for such low pay, you should not be allowed to accept such a job either. The liberal knows best how you should run your life, and if you refuse to acknowledge his greater wisdom and do as you are told, we must have laws to force you to do what we know is best.
Admin
Yes, that's the argument that's often made: "Workers must be forced to join the union because, whether they are members or not, union negotiations benefit them, and so it's not fair for people who do pay dues to support the union while those who don't pay dues get a free ride." I think that's a reasonably fair statement of the compulsory-union position, no?
The catch is: Who decides that the union benefits me and thus I should be forced to join and pay dues? Why, it's the union that makes this decision.
Suppose that some other organization made this argument. There are lots of groups that claim to benefit various groups or society as a whole. Suppose that the National Vegetarian Society said that, by pressuring restaurants to serve healthier meals, they benefit everyone. Therefore everyone should be forced to pay dues to support their valuable work. Or what if a religious group said that their prayers for the good of the nation benefit everyone, and so all should be forced to pay tithes to them. Etc etc.
If I don't want your services and don't want to pay for them, the fact that you think that I would be better off to avail myself of your services should be irrelevant in a free society. It's not up to you to decide if you offer a service that I ought to want: That should be up to me.
If you disagree, then, well, in my opinion the Republican Party's policies would obviously benefit the country. Therefore everyone should be forced to donate to support Republican candidates. Otherwise, when a Republican candidate wins and passes good policies that benefit you, why, you're just getting a free ride. That's not fair. Right?
Admin
You fail to miss the point that "real freedom" means granting people the right to do things that affect you in ways you might not foresee. For example, a can company voluntarily enter into an exclusive contract with another organization (for example, a supplier of, say, labor or other factors of production). If a company has entered into such an exclusive contract, then you are not free to supply their needs. Their freedom has imposed a cost on yours. Get it now?
"They" can't grant you the same freedom, because exercising their freedom has limited yours. No amount of whining or reality denial will change that.
On a different point, a liberal is a person who wants people to pay for the costs they impose on others. Going back to this union example, a liberal might say that a union is imposing an externality on YOU (the hypothetical libertarian), and that they should PAY YOU an amount you negotiate (so that you both face the same marginal cost). Taxation is merely the most expedient way of collecting on these costs -- so that the transaction cost of these externality-repaying negotiations is as low as possible.
Admin
Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like you're talking a million miles an hour (and in circles at that) - can't understand much of it, but for what it's worth:
Unfortunately, society already does impose things "because they're better for us". There are massive campaigns (at least in my world) against smoking, and boozing, and eating unhealthy and all sorts of things. There is some (perhaps even almost reasonable) justification that these sort of behaviours end up filling hospitals with people who essentially have self-inflicted injuries. Why should every taxpayer pay to provide hospital services for the few that smoke? Or those that binge drink? Or those that take such a cocktail of drugs they become abusive toward the paramedics or doctors saving their lives? Or those who only eat at places where food is instantly available? Or those who live off the taxes anyway (ie Social Security/Dole etc), and pump that money back into supporting their habits rather than supporting their life?
Yes, in a perfect world, we would individually be responsible for our own lot, but society simply doesn't allow that. Striking a balance between allowing people to have the freedom to do their own thing while regulating what they do sufficiently to prevent them harming other people (or even themselves) is no easy matter. In most Western countries (and possibly non-Western ones) the most effective politics seems to rely on cycles between major parties - because the parties have differing approaches, they can balance the harm done by the other (indeed, even the Vatican seems to (roughly) alternate between theologians and liturgists).
Thus, one party might be elected and spend lots of money (possibly in useful investments), and they are eventually replaced by a party who is more financially conscious, and returns the country into surplus. Then, we plebs get fed up with this tight-arsed attitude that is stopping progress, and re-elect the other mob to spend the money that's been saved. Pretty soon, we once again panic that the nation is running out of money and we elect the misers again.
Is this ideal? Probably not, but it is necessary. The whole notion of having multiple parties attempts to stop dictatorship and guarantees that the people have some (albeit impossible sometimes) course of action should the country go to the dogs...
The biggest issue with any regulation is where should the lines be drawn? "People should be free to do what they want" - so what if people want to rape and pillage. Let's redesign it: "People should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't (adversely) impact someone else" - How do we define what does and doesn't impact others (and how much regulation would stifle the freedom anyway)? etc, lots more ranting and all that...
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
re: Wells Fargo
Realistically, exploiting a "web bug" to determine whether you're reading their messages is a rather underhanded way of accomplishing something that doesn't really need to be explicitly determined. If a company sends me a bill and I pay it, I must have received it - whether I tripped their web bug or not. Same thing with monthly account statements for my bank.
For that matter, a large number of e-mail registration processes these days send a one-time message that requires a response - not through a web bug, but by clicking a link and entering a key value. (If it's not a critical site, they usually just put the key into the URL so that you only have to click the link.) If the activation process completes, the user is receiving messages.
Admin
TRWTF is that USPS seems to have trademarked "Delivery Confirmation"?!?
Admin
I've had fedex send a package from Los Angeles to San Diego by way of Chicago before.
Admin
The iPhone is suggesting that 'word', because he previously typed it in.
Admin
I can top that: I live in the West Highlands of Scotland (overlooking the islands known as the Hebrides) and once arrived at work to find that the fax machine had received a message from the US that should have been sent to the New Hebrides (in the South Pacific). By sheer luck, once the (incorrect) international dialling code had been added to the recipient's number, the rest of the number corresponded to our fax number.
I would have liked to be a fly on the wall at the office in the US as they reasoned out what the desired international dialling code was, though.
Admin
It's rot26 Welsh
Admin
The real WTF is you spouting off about a bunch of stuff you clearly didn't look at.
Admin
I don't think anyone's reading this thread anymore, but for what it's worth ...
I'm not a libertarian, but I'm sympathetic to some of their ideas.
The libertarian idea of freedom is basically that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as all parties involved voluntarily agree.
The liberal idea of freedom is something more like, I should be allowed to do whatever I like, and if others refuse to cooperate, they must be forced to go along.
If a company signs an exclusive contract with someone else, then yes, I do not have the "freedom" to sell to them. That is, I cannot force someone to do business with me against their will.
The liberal thinks of this scenario and says, "That's terrible! How can someone refuse to give me money when I want it! There should be a law to force them to buy from me."
The libertarian thinks of this scenario and says, "Well, duh. Of course if they don't want to buy from me, then that is their right. Whether that's because my product doesn't meet their quality standards, they have already committed to buy from someone else, or because they don't like the color of my hair."
Admin
And if there's one thing anyone discussing politics needs, it's to make it easier to sound right.
Admin
It seems that your idea of freedom is FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME. In other words, not confirming to anyone else's rules. Except perhaps the lyrics to mediocre 90s metal tracks.
Admin
Similarly, many (most?) account statements only require the customer to scan it and see if there's any unexpected charges. Usually there isn't so no action is taken, which is exactly the same response as if the customer never received it. How do you tell the difference?
With snail mail, typically if the letter is not returned by the postal service as undeliverable it's deemed to have been received, but really using a web bug like this (or requiring the user to log on to their account on your website and access the information) is a much more reliable system. Just like with email, there's lots of reasons a physical letter may not be returned to the sender despite never having reached the intended recipient.
All of this is, of course, dependent on Wells Fargo having a good reason to actually care if the email was received, but possibly there's regulations that require them to make reasonable efforts to confirm successful delivery. Even in the absence of government regulations, given the nature of their business I'd say it's a good thing that they actually verify their communications are reaching their customers and have a sane automatic fallback to a different method if it appears their messages are disappearing into a black hole.
Admin
Carbon footprint? really? you realize that we all exhale carbon, and plants use it to carry out photosynthesis, right? "Carbon footprint" is a global tax scam meant to make everything you do taxable with the excuse that it is relevant to anthropogenic global warming ( which, by the way, is total bullshit ). Who the hell gives a [climategate] about "carbon footprints"?
Admin
No, no, you've reversed it. It's "a left wing" & "a much more left wing".
Either way, though, the bird ain't flyin'.
Admin
That assumes that the people who are doing the negotiating are competent to do the negotiating, and doing so with the best interests of the workers. As a general rule, they aren't and don't. Unions, therefore, are only of value when the company is interested in employing workers in an oppressive or unsustainable fashion.
Oddly enough, I've seen a union that did represent its members, and the first difference between it and nigh all the others I've seen was they were optional: you could get a job at the same employer doing the same thing without being in the union (of course, you'd generally get lower pay, and the various other differences you'd expect in a non-union shop - and you'd be on the first short-list for layoffs if needed, unless you were really good. This was balanced out by the fact that, if you were really good, you could make more money out of the union than in it, and if you wanted to never work overtime - well, union members got first refusal on overtime, so long as they were qualified for the job, and union members aren't known for turning down time and a half.)
To Mikey's point - just because one location couldn't comprehend voluntary unions properly doesn't mean the concept is flawed - just that someone implemented it poorly. The one place I saw didn't have most of those issues. Yes, people who weren't in the union complained they didn't get union benefits - but they were simply told they'd need to join the union to get said benefits, and that generally shut them up quickly. There were, admittedly, issues where the union would contest pay raises and stuff for non-union members, but that mostly only happened if the non-union employee let their pay details slip.
Btw, for those who feel that unions universally represent the best interests of their members, I once worked in a union shop where the majority of the employees paid more in union dues than their wages were above minimum wage, even though working conditions were only comparable to those at competing local businesses without unions. The majority of these people would not get a raise beyond that status before they left the company for another job - partially because the union was so oppressive to its members that they couldn't bear to stick around long enough to rise through the ranks - especially since there were competing local businesses without unions. In some cases, this was because one of the union practices was to squelch the promotion of anyone who was vocally unhappy with the union - one of my coworkers had been there over 20 years and was still entry level. On the other hand, it was hard to feel sorry for him, because he worked the same effectively below minimum wage job for over 20 years without even looking for another job.
Admin
dickbutt