They won’t because there is an old sewer main that runs underneath and according to the town is prohibitively expensive to reconcile all of that with the bridge lowering.
The rail line won’t increase the height anymore because then it will cause a hump in the train tracks there.
It isn’t going to be one or the other (if they don’t offer a 401k, then you can use IRAs), unless you just make a bad choice. An employer can contribute to a 401k and also provide a pension (mine used to but I’ve been around long enough that I get both the pension and 401k with matching) but if I had a choice, I could pick a pension for example but also put money into an IRA for retirement that would normally go to a 401k.
If you absolutely had to pick one, it isn’t going to be the same answer for everyone. Amounts, what you’re able to contribute, matching, risks and tax situations are going to vary from person to person and their employer.
As far as controlling your money, some 401k’s allow some extra control, some don’t but most have a middle ground except for their company stock which you can usually directly buy. If you’re 401k allows general different ‘markets’ and/or ‘lifecycle’ buckets (they get more conservative on investment risk the closer you get to your retirement age) is, at the end of the day, all controlled by a broker and they are making the actual decision as to what to invest and how. Some plans may allow you to invest into individual stocks through the 401k’s brokerage though.
At the end of the day though, if all you had was a pension offered which you aren’t going to be contributing your income to, then you should invest in some sort of retirement plan yourself, be it an IRA, money market, bonds, CDs or whatever.
They can spend as much time as they want with the patient. The insurance simply caps how much is billable.
Yeah good point. I’m definitely guilty of looking at it through an NA centric lens on my post. Thanks for the perspective.
I doubt this happened because of busses that’d leave or parents wondering where the hell their kids are while they are waiting.
I doubt a private school would put up with a consistent disruptive student or with a teacher losing control of a class so bad that they keep everyone behind while also having to deal with angry paying parents.
It’s possible but I doubt it’d happen more than once with that teacher.
Well unless you live in New Zealand this specific case doesn’t affect you.
However, it doesn’t mean that you must have a schedule. Uber could choose to do that but what it does mean is that in New Zealand you could gain the same worker protections of that country, including benefits, pay, paid time off, etc. as applicable to the country’s laws, if the ruling expanded to everyone in that country instead of the 4 people that sued.
THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE ARMS!
Confirmed, VeggieTales is anti-2A.
It wasn’t a server failure. Someone rm -rf on the root of the server. The server did what it was told.
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that’s up to the court.
Then you have your starter meat and can start the age old tradition of passing it down from generation to generation so that they can keep making You Steaks forever.
“My great-great grandpa/ma sure is delicious!”
United only instituted a family seating policy last year so that people with kids under 12 could freely pick seats next to each other.
So I don’t get all this. Everything I buy tickets, I choose my seats unless I fly southwest. And even they are going to move to assigned seats.
At least when my kids were young, you’d have to pay extra to pick a seat, at least if you purchased through Expedia or Travelocity.
And if so, do they not seat everyone in your reservation together?
You know how you print your boarding pass and it has your seats? When my kids were young on multiple trips via United, AA and Delta, the boarding pass would not have a seat assignment and we’d have to go the gate agent at every gate, even on the same airline if it was not a direct flight and get our seats assigned last minute. So no, we weren’t always seated together. On one flight, none of us were in the same row with anyone in our family.
Since we were scraping by back then we always booked months in advance for cheaper tickets. I thought originally it was a fluke with just United but after the next trip, I had learned to pay extra and pick seats ahead of time.
Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.
I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said
It was not designed for security but coincidentally blah blah
But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?
Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall.
I never even implied the opposite.
To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade.
Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.
I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.
So, really, you were “correcting” me for you and your specific setup at the very beginning because your router’s firewall has a deny rule for all inbound connections because I must have been confusing what a NAT and what a firewall is because I must have been talking about your specific configuration on your specific devices.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
Are you saying that everyone’s router’s firewall drops all packets from connections that originate from outside of their network?
Because, as I said:
layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated.
The NAT doesn’t have to operate at layer 7 to be effective for this because
coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.
The point is that the SPI firewalls are not protecting against the majority of the attacks we’ve seen for decades now from botnets and other arbitrary sources of attacks, except, perhaps targeted DDoSing which isn’t the big problems for most home networks. They must worry about having their OS’ and software exploited and owned in the background, which doesn’t get much of an assist from a router’s firewall.
Obviously, this is however true for the NAT since the NAT are going to drop connections originating from outside the network attempting to communicate with that software to exploit it
barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.
They are not layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated. No citation needed unless you believe they are layer 7 firewalls or using something like Snort.
Added some clarification in my first sentence so it makes a bit of sense.
The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.
No the word I’m looking for is the NAT. It was not designed for security but coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.
Consumer router firewalls are generally trash, certainly aren’t layer 7 firewalls protecting from all the SMB, printer, AD, etc etc vulnerabilities and definitely are not doing the heavy lifting.
By and large automated attacks are not thwarted by the firewall but by the one-way NAT.
You’d better hope that you can NAT ipv6 because if you aren’t behind a CGNAT and then your LAN is completely exposed without a NAT you’re very likely going to have devices exploited.
NATs on people’s boundary has been doing pretty much all of the heavy lifting for everyone’s security at home.
Doubtful either will do anything but maybe make a report that might be ready if they are murdered. Cops will say there is nothing they can do because nobody is hurt. I’d bet a field agent would never call you back or show up.