ntsplnkv3

Yes. All this doom and gloom is confusing to me.

If a job is as easy to outsource as so many on here are saying, it is already being done or has been done.

It's been done in my industry. The low level grunt work and basic administration is all outsourced. Has been for decades.

> Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being advertised?

Yes, subliminal advertising is a real thing, and other techniques desperately try to hide the fact that it's an ad. Not sure about this case, it's definitely an interesting one.

> By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.

I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.

What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.

The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.

I guarantee you United wishes they did.

See, for some reason people will go to lengths to somehow absolve corporations of their responsibility in this country. It's really sad.

Sure, there may be issues that can't be planned for, and you can't hire for every case and solve every issue. But that is still not this customer's fault, and he was punished for it, arbitrarily. Frankly I don't care how difficult it is for United to prevent this from happening again-it is their responsibility, it should not be the responsibility of their customers.

> Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.

Then reserve 4 seats on every flight for possible situations that arise. It's not my problem that United loses money this way. It's theirs.

They should've done a number of things before resorting to forcing people off. They should've increased the value far more before this occurred.

And on top of all that, there is no transparency at all on how they kick people off. And they have the audacity to talk nonchalantly about this man who had obligations refused to get off so he needed to be bloodied when they could've done so much more.

Sorry, it's not this man's fault someone got sick and a flight crew needs to be in Louisville. Hire more people or save 4 seats on every plane in the future. We shouldn't be responsible for a company's mistakes.

> Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements.

Gee, I wonder if they could, I don't know, hire more people so that these situations don't happen as often? Heaven forbid they lose a little bit of profit a year...

You simply delay the other flight. You don't force someone off of a flight they've already boarded.

You need to be strict about it.

It's amazing how many "emergencies" aren't emergencies. If I have plans I have plans. If there are loads of "emergencies" then that is the result of poor planning and management. Lots of managers I have worked with back off when I decline.

Having said that, not everyone is in a position to be strict about it. It needs to be put into law or hashed out during the hiring process.

I definitely think it's more socially acceptable. It's just another annoying gender stereotype.

But to me the problem is companies working employees too long. Salary before meant putting in your 9-5 and leaving early on Fridays. Now if I don't put in 12 hours a day I look bad. If I do I look average.

Isn't it more likely that younger, fresh out of school employees have less leverage and it's easier to get more hours for less pay out of them?

Isn't the most obvious reason cost?

> while trying to balance a career with raising a family.

As if men don't have this problem...

Don't have to go through that hassle with Amazon.

They really nailed it: a big roadblock to people shopping online was returns. It's easier to return something to amazon than it is to a local department store now. A few clicks, print label, take to UPS store.

It took a familiar UI and improved it. It added features in an intuitive way. And many of the features of windows 10 could've easily been added to 7.

> Windows 10 has a 5 second boot up time

Man, I wish. My 10 system never boots up that fast. Meanwhile my Windows 7 desktop takes 15 seconds to boot up on SSD. Those 10 seconds just aren't that much of a feature for me-especially since my laptop/desktop are typically in sleep mode anyway.

> most all annoyances anyone has online can be configured away,

Yes, because we should have to do work to eliminate baked in ads and processes that share my information with who knows who.

Also, you can't even intuitively FIND settings. The Control Panel has some settings the Settings app doesn't have and vice versa. It's a mess. Why can't they all be in one place? Mac? one place.

I can't even get Windows 10 to update. Instead I have to constantly kill a rogue update process that decimates resources because I can't get a basic update to download and install properly.

> going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses you of being an asshole who is trying to break the rules while,

I don't doubt discrimination exists, and if this has been your personal experience, I'm sorry.

It just seems foreign to me that someone would actually do this for a private role.

If you don't match the skill set the algorithm will filter you out before anyone even knows you exist. If you get by it clearly the reviewer saw something they liked anyway.

What recruiter is going to berate someone and call them an asshole for applying to a job they aren't qualified for? And if that was the case, I'd view it as a dodged bullet.

To me it's just pointless. Have all of the settings in the settings app now so I don't have to go to two places to change them. The problem with settings was that it didn't include everything I wanted/needed to change.

As far as search goes, my Windows 7 machine finds most settings too.

> You'd probably do better if you spent more time in learn mode instead of in angry mode.

And you'd probably do better if you weren't condescending towards other people's experiences and preferences.

You say the Settings app is great, yet it's not great enough to replace the control panel? Redundant settings abound between the two?

There are many reasons to want to disable Cortana-not just turn it off, because it doesn't actually turn it off.

Windows 8 was worse than Windows 10 which is worse than 7. I should have specified-to me Windows 8 and 10 are both poor, both much worse than 7. To be honest, I had an EASIER time with Windows 8 (company provided laptop) than Windows 10.

Windows 7 was the pinnacle windows experience for me and it has gotten worse ever since.

I think the gap has increased even more with Windows 10.

> Did you ever hear of a man losing his job, or getting ill, then shortly after his wife leaving? It's quite common.

Okay well how exactly "common" is it?

> but there's a truth behind women preferring men with money, power or strength, or a combination of all.

And men prefer attractive women...so what?

The majority of these men are uneducated and unemployed. The article states many are HIGH SCHOOL drop outs.

I'm a male. and I can tell you right now that I probably would not marry a female high school drop out.

The problem to me is not the women. it's that boys are being left behind in school and more work needs to be done to educate and re-purpose males from unskilled drones to skilled or white collar workers.

Agreed.

I can't believe how much worse Windows 10 is than 7. And all the good features of 10 could easily be integrated with the 7 UI.

It's very frustrating that there isn't another player in this space. I don't mind fooling around with linux but sometimes you just want to buy a laptop and go without all the extra crap and most of the consumer space won't go through that anyway.

I'm a huge fan of Windows 7. The UI is simple, everyone is familiar with it, it's relatively stable, but most importantly, basic tasks are so much easier to deal with. In my opinion, it is the best Windows OS made.

Unfortunately Windows 8 and 10 are just not great OSs, in my opinion. A major theme on these threads is "Apple is trying to force mobile onto desktop computers." yet I see Windows doing it just as much, and not nearly as smooth, as Apple. Cortana, weird metro UI layout, terrible settings, confusing maintenance, updates never work, slow response times, etc.

I gave up on Windows 10 when I got my father a new laptop and had to troubleshoot my sister's. The OS is a mess. Finding basic things is so difficult. Just give me a control panel. Now we have "Settings" too, which is just a mess. Windows Update never works properly. It constantly needs a troubleshooter to run and start and stop the services again.

My dad didn't want to log in with an email to his laptop. So I disabled it (which was difficult to find, so I had to google it.) Now it's suddenly back, and he's complaining about it. There's no way he manually did it purposefully.

Trying to disable things like Cortana never works right. The huge debacle of info being sent to microsoft and needing heavy workarounds to actually prevent it from occurring. And then being force fed apps with advertisements built into the OS...come on.

Apple simply needs to improve their hardware at their price point and 90% of these threads wouldn't be made. The OS needs some additional features and improvements, but the experience is just so much better than Win10 and 8 for me.

My current build uses Windows 7 and whenever it is officially unsupported I will move on from Windows completely.