Slashdot Mirror

Not to muddy the waters, and perhaps a little off topic, but I've read several articles that estimate Microsoft brings in between $2 billion to $8.8 billion in license fees from harware makers using Android. These are two year old posts:

https://www.google.com/#q=micr...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/m...

And,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

The last link asserts MS makes five times as much from these fees than it does on the Windows Phone OS. There have been recent developments in settling disputes about fees paid by Samsung to Microsoft, so some of the numbers are not up to date, but one point that's clear, Android is not free to hardware makers and indirectly to hardware purchasers but do result in substantial Microsoft revenue.

Sigh...as opposed to the AGW lobby which is run by such selfless companies as Goldman Sachs while pushing cap and trade which has the rules written by the same one who cooked up credit default swaps and is the kind of scam frankly a kid could see through, meanwhile you have Rev Al setting himself up to be a carbon billionaire while driving a fleet of SUVs like a third world El Presidente and living in a McMansion with ACed basketball court while he says that YOU need to pay more, you filthy climate damaging peasant you.

Do we need to pollute less and save more? Of course, this is common sense, but we will get NO common sense approaches offered because companies like Goldman Sachs and scammers like Gore couldn't make out like highway robbery on common sense so we'll get scams like crap and trade pushed where the worst polluters get their carbon "indulgences" so pay nothing, scammers like Gore will pay themselves in carbon credits from their own company so he can have the brass balls to fly a lear jet for one and ride in a fleet of Caddie SUVs while claiming he is "carbon neutral" so who does that leave to pay these shitbags for their magic beans? Why that would be YOU, you filthy peasant who can't afford your own offshore LLC, why you are killing the planet!

My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.

Do you really think she would be so popular today, if you were even remotely right? The US is going through the early stages of the Atlas Shrugged nightmare right now. It's a country where higher education costs have tripled over a few short decades (adjusted for inflation) and this increase in cost is due solely to attempts to make college allegedly more affordable (subsidized and government guaranteed student loans). The same has happened for health care and home ownership.

It's a place where one can justify government spending by claiming that they will create one temporary job per few hundred thousand dollars spent. Where economic activity (GDP) is more important than future wealth. Where people can bitterly complain about the lack of jobs while simultaneously advocate for various policies that make it harder and more costly to employ people. Where moving enterprises to the more productive and vigorous societies of the world becomes synonymous with derogatory terms like "race to the bottom".

It's a place where various robin hood and social improvement policies have been in place for generations, yet things are getting worse and more corrupt with chilling signs of tyranny on the horizon. Where governments get creative with interpretation of laws in ways that suit them or their cronies.

Here's the thing. Rand nailed that 50 years ago: the language, the actions, the outcomes. I simply don't care if she actually had unpopular opinions on nobility or whatever. I think she should get considerable credit for calling our present society.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... must be understood to see the lunacy of the "medicine" prescribed to Greece.

How is pointing out that testosterone has a very heavy influence on how men react changing the subject - which was the claim that women act emotionally, as if men don't just as much, if not more?

One really good example:

while divorce and separation are linked to suicide risk in both sexes, divorced/separated men seem particularly vulnerable to suicidal “ideation” (thoughts and planning) and to suicide itself

That's a highly emotional response, and it's weighted more towards men than women.

Greece already has a primary surplus

Paul Krugman fiction

The adoption of the Euro hastened and deepened Greece's crisis, but was not the central cause, which was their refusal to stop spending money they didn't have to prop up their extravagant (even by European standards) welfare state.
[...]
The problem is that with declining demographics, the cradle-to-grave European welfare state is unsustainable.

First of all, "the European welfare state" does not exist. Europe consists of a number of countries with vastly different social benefits.
Proponents of capitalism are quick to blame the welfare state on the current euro zone crisis while it's actually not the states with the most elaborate social security system that exhibit the greatest difficulties. In fact, most of the countries with excellent credit ratings are European nations with relatively generous social services:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating
It's been that way for decades, even the current euro zone crisis hasn't changed that.

The article you linked states:

For decades, the wealthier countries of the northern countries — notably Germany — have offset very low fertility rates and declining domestic demand by attracting migrants from other countries, notably from eastern and southern Europe, and building highly productive export oriented economies.

The immigration in Germany is not even remotely sufficient to offset the declining birth rates. Even under the assumption that each immigrant is just as productive as a person who's born in Germany, immigration would not be able to fill the financial gap. The main difference between Germany and Greece is not immigration, it's the fact that Germany has a functioning state and tax-paying citizens.

I've been following the Greek debt crisis for at least five years, Greece's problem is that they absolutely refuse to stop spending money they don't have. Remember: Greece has never practiced real austerity (cutting deficits to match receipts) since they joined the Eurozone. Not once. (By contrast, Estonia did eliminate their deficit, and as a result started recovering from The Great Recession quicker than other EU economies.) Greece merely slowed the rate at which they were going more broke (or at least pretended to). Despite being right at the edge of complete national bankruptcy, Greece continues to insist that there will be “no wage or pension cuts” for government workers.

Greece lied about their economic situation to get into the Eurozone, lied about it before the crisis broke, lied after it broke, and continue to lie now.

Keep in mind that the past four years of bank loans from the ECB have not been to save Greece. What they were really designed to do was to keep the card game running long enough to let EU insiders and favored national banks unload Greek bonds, and to reduce their exposure to Greek default risks long enough to put European taxpayers onto the hook in the inevitable event of a Greek default. They pretended to save Greece, and Greece pretended to reform. And now here we are.

The adoption of the Euro hastened and deepened Greece's crisis, but was not the central cause, which was their refusal to stop spending money they didn't have to prop up their extravagant (even by European standards) welfare state. This modern welfare state has now become more sacred to voters than the capitalist economics that make it possible. As Mark Steyn put it, "People’s sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense."

The problem is that with declining demographics, the cradle-to-grave European welfare state is unsustainable. Greece and the rest of the PIIGS are discovering that first, but birth rates are declining all across Europe, and modern welfare states are unsustainable without a new generation to stick with the bill. Most economists believe that Greece will never be able to pay back what they've already borrowed.

Syriza was elected on a platform of ignoring basic economic reality, but they've finally run out of people willing to loan them money to spend. The risk of a Grexit is already priced into all the European markets, But leaving the Eurozone doesn't provide relief for any of the Euro-denominated debt Greece already owes, and there's no guarantee European markets would even be willing to exchange refloated drachmas for real(er) money. And since it's hard to see any sane institution buying Greek debt after a default, Greece's government would undoubtedly start printing drachmas like mad and trigger hyperinflation.

If Greece was willing to pare back its welfare state to much saner levels, they might have a chance to slowly dig their way out of the crisis. Since they refuse to, they're in for a whole lot more economic pain...

Since the UK wisely kept its own currency, disruptions from a "Brexit" would be relatively minimal. It's far more likely that will see Greece exit the Euro, because they absolutely refuse to stop spending money they don't have. (Note that despite talk of "austerity," not once since the European debt crisis started has Greek cut government outlays to match receipts.) To Greece (and to a lesser extent the other PIIGS), the welfare state benefits have become more sacred than the capitalist system underwriting them.

The problem with the modern welfare state is that eventually you run out of people to stick with the tab. It both discourages work and generates declining demographics, a dynamic that is unsustainable in the long run.

Well, Greece is starting to reach the long run. They can't afford their own welfare state, but it's become so entrenched that politicians refuse to significately pare it back even on the brink of national bankruptcy.

The UK, like Germany, has a strong enough economy to avoid this fate for quite a while, but it too will get there eventually...

And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted.

Strange how that anonymous submission you're complaining about appears in YOUR comment history.

The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.

And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...

I don't see any substantial changes here, do you?

I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem.

...in that case, rejoice!

(not holding my breath...)

Quote: "The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars. . ."

The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.

I know, there are many in this world who will try to tell you different. Most of those are either liberals trying to tar the Tea Party, or social conservatives trying to hijack it. Neither group are tea partiers. (And IMHO, Ted Cruz is no Tea Partier either. He walked away from us to do his own thing shortly after getting elected.)

OK, let's go with that, and relate it to their hatred of Obama and rabid desire to overthrow his disastrous rule of terror: "Tea Party Needs A New Issue: Federal Deficit Really, Truly Is Disappearing" http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... says Forbes magazine, of all socialist leftie rags.

But given that the USA's largest employer is using the government subsidized process

Instead of trying to alleviate this travesty with a new one — minimum wage — why not undo such subsidies? If somebody does not pay "enough" for your goods or services (including labor), people look for another buyer. And if they don't, then the pay is enough — by definition.

The government inserting itself between private parties willingly engaging in a lawful transaction is an abomination. That it is done under the pretext of fixing, what it broke in the first place, makes it worse.

This is a destruction of liberty and path to totalitarianism:

• We must help the poor!
• We must force everyone to be helping the poor.
• Now that we are helping the poor, we must control their lives to prevent them from doing "stupid" things. Depending on the kind of Statist in power, these may include:
  • no working for "too small" a wage
  • no drugs, tobacco, or alcohol
  • no sex out of wedlock
  • forced sterilizations and abortions
  • no usage of encryption to prevent monitoring your life
  • no driving "too fast"
  • forced medical treatments

All under the excuse, that we — the Collective — pay you, so you must do as we say. And, no, you can not opt-out either — our compassionate bleeding hearts would not allow you to make that stupid thing either.

As the definition of "poor" expands, the government's control of us all solidifies. Mandatory minimum wage is no different from NSA-spying and other manifestations of Collective (Glorious) trampling the rights of the Individual (cantankerous and unreasonable) — both are imposed on us "for our own good" by the people, who consider themselves our betters.

Governments worldwide that are marching to fascism want encryption banned.

Encryption is but a tiny side-show in the global march towards Collectivism — the coin, of which Fascism and Socialism are indistinguishable sides. As predicted long ago:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.

— Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

It starts with concern for the poor, that inevitably causes the government to undertake support of the downtrodden with various "War on Poverty" initiatives.

A few decades and trillion-dollars into it, there are not only millions of recipients of the dole, there are also tens of thousands of government officials involved in distributing it. The combination makes it impossible to stop the foolish undertaking — it may be reformed and rearranged, but it can not be ended.

And then comes the idea, that, if we must support the unsuccessful among us, we should try to prevent them from doing (what we consider to be) stupid things: take drugs, drive too fast, eat fat (no, not fat, sugar!). Right here on Slashdot, the idea that our self-imposed responsibility for others allows us to control their actions, is alive and well.

And then government types begin to deliberately rearrange things to be able to attach their own strings to various incentives you can not refuse. The first example of this was, probably, the imposition of federal speed-limit by mandating, that States receiving federal Federal highway funds implement them.

The most recent example here is the federal take-over of education loans, which allows the Administration to better control, what the colleges teach and what students do. Because it raises the tuition costs so much, fewer and fewer students will be able to forgo such federal aid and will be forced to accept it — with all of the strings attached to them and the colleges they attend.

Compared to these aspects of the Collective increasingly controlling the Individual's life, use of encryption is of little to no consequence. Maybe, a new Republic in Antarctica, on the Moon or Mars will take the lessons of our errors to heart — the way our Founding Fathers studied those of the Romans...

Governments worldwide that are marching to fascism want encryption banned.

Encryption is but a tiny side-show in the global march towards Collectivism — the coin, of which Fascism and Socialism are indistinguishable sides. As predicted long ago:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.

— Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

It starts with concern for the poor, that inevitably causes the government to undertake support of the downtrodden with various "War on Poverty" initiatives.

A few decades and trillion-dollars into it, there are not only millions of recipients of the dole, there are also tens of thousands of government officials involved in distributing it. The combination makes it impossible to stop the foolish undertaking — it may be reformed and rearranged, but it can not be ended.

And then comes the idea, that, if we must support the unsuccessful among us, we should try to prevent them from doing (what we consider to be) stupid things: take drugs, drive too fast, eat fat (no, not fat, sugar!). Right here on Slashdot, the idea that our self-imposed responsibility for others allows us to control their actions, is alive and well.

And then government types begin to deliberately rearrange things to be able to attach their own strings to various incentives you can not refuse. The first example of this was, probably, the imposition of federal speed-limit by mandating, that States receiving federal Federal highway funds implement them.

The most recent example here is the federal take-over of education loans, which allows the Administration to better control, what the colleges teach and what students do. Because it raises the tuition costs so much, fewer and fewer students will be able to forgo such federal aid and will be forced to accept it — with all of the strings attached to them and the colleges they attend.

Compared to these aspects of the Collective increasingly controlling the Individual's life, use of encryption is of little to no consequence. Maybe, a new Republic in Antarctica, on the Moon or Mars will take the lessons of our errors to heart — the way our Founding Fathers studied those of the Romans...

These theoretical economic arguments are very interesting.

However, they don't predict the actual empirical facts. There are European countries with minimum and average wages much higher than ours, and they don't have those problems. If a business is profitable and efficient, it can afford to pay $15 or even $30 an hour. If it's not profitable and efficient, we don't need them. Let them go out of business and be replaced by a more efficient operator who can make better use of that capital.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fr...
How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much
Frederick E. Allen
12/21/2011
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

http://www.remappingdebate.org...
A tale of two systems
By Kevin C. Brown
Remapping Debate
Dec. 21, 2011
American autoworkers are constantly told that high-wage work is an unsustainable relic in the face of a hyper-competitive, globalized marketplace. Apostles of neo-liberal economic theory — both in the public and private sectors — have stressed the message that worker adaptation is necessary to survive....
But the case of German automakers — BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen — tells a different story. Each company produces vehicles not only in Germany, but also in “transplant” factories in the U.S. The former are characterized by high wages and high union membership; the U.S. plants pay lower wages and are located in so-called “right-to-work” (anti-union) states.

(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)

They wouldn't, but a well-managed business should be profitable enough to pay its workers $15/h. If American businesses can't afford to pay their workers at least $15/h, then the American economic system is a failure. If we had a free international market in employment, workers would be leaving for higher-wage European countries.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fr...
Frederick E. Allen
12/21/2011
How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”

There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.”

Mund points out that this goes against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany.
At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.

http://www.remappingdebate.org...
A tale of two systems
By Kevin C. Brown
Remapping Debate
Dec. 21, 2011

American autoworkers are constantly told that high-wage work is an unsustainable relic in the face of a hyper-competitive, globalized marketplace. Apostles of neo-liberal economic theory — both in the public and private sectors — have stressed the message that worker adaptation is necessary to survive....

But the case of German automakers — BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen — tells a different story. Each company produces vehicles not only in Germany, but also in “transplant” factories in the U.S. The former are characterized by high wages and high union membership; the U.S. plants pay lower wages and are located in so-called “right-to-work” (anti-union) states. ... the UAW has made significant concessions on wages, especially through the creation of a permanent “Tier

pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps?

Could you please provide a source for this claim? In 2014, the Wal-Mart blog fisked a hit piece that was claiming things similar to what you just claimed, and pointed out that the average hourly wage at Wal-Mart was $12.91 per hour (and that is specifically not including highly-paid management).

http://blog.walmart.com/fact-check-the-new-york-times-the-corporate-daddy

How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/apologies-but-welfare-payments-to-employees-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/

Wal-Mart makes about 3% profit. In comparison, Apple Computer makes about 24% profit. Additionally, Wal-Mart has a more ethnically diverse set of employees than Apple Computer has. You seem to hate Wal-Mart; do you hate Apple Computer even more?

https://www.aei.org/publication/every-month-walmart-gets-one-profit-day-from-its-sales-while-apple-gets-7-5/

Also, low-income people like to shop at Wal-Mart because the low prices are a benefit. Some economists have written papers attempting to estimate the impact.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/11/walmart-destroys-jobs-yes-but-the-benefits-go-to-consumers-not-the-top/
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11809

So, to summarize: Wal-Mart pays a lot of taxes, employs a lot of people at an average hourly rate 78% over the US federal minimum wage, and benefits the poor by helping them spend less on the things they need.

I just don't understand all the Wal-Mart hate.

pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps?

Could you please provide a source for this claim? In 2014, the Wal-Mart blog fisked a hit piece that was claiming things similar to what you just claimed, and pointed out that the average hourly wage at Wal-Mart was $12.91 per hour (and that is specifically not including highly-paid management).

http://blog.walmart.com/fact-check-the-new-york-times-the-corporate-daddy

How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/apologies-but-welfare-payments-to-employees-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/

Wal-Mart makes about 3% profit. In comparison, Apple Computer makes about 24% profit. Additionally, Wal-Mart has a more ethnically diverse set of employees than Apple Computer has. You seem to hate Wal-Mart; do you hate Apple Computer even more?

https://www.aei.org/publication/every-month-walmart-gets-one-profit-day-from-its-sales-while-apple-gets-7-5/

Also, low-income people like to shop at Wal-Mart because the low prices are a benefit. Some economists have written papers attempting to estimate the impact.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/11/walmart-destroys-jobs-yes-but-the-benefits-go-to-consumers-not-the-top/
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11809

So, to summarize: Wal-Mart pays a lot of taxes, employs a lot of people at an average hourly rate 78% over the US federal minimum wage, and benefits the poor by helping them spend less on the things they need.

I just don't understand all the Wal-Mart hate.

You know, when that story aired on Fox News, some people have actually went and asked the owners of those closing restaurants whether it's due to the minimum wage. And they have only found one place where that was a factor - and even that one has, ironically, not been in the original report.

At the same time, several new restaurants have opened, or are still planning to open, in the same timeframe.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...

It sounds like AWS's Spot Instances? Except for the fixed pricing.

Yup, it's their version. Forbes compares them. The fixed price is nice on the Google side, but there's no 2-minute warning before termination on Google like you get on AWS, and AWS launched a new Spot Fleet product the same day Google announced.

Either way, you need to be doing the kind of work where you can lose VMs on short notice and keep going, but it's a very nice discount if you can.

"it is probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment." - Warren Buffett

http://www.advisorperspectives...

Both Buffett Indicator And Shiller P/E Continue To Imply Long Term Negative Market Returns; 2015 Market Valuation
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gu...

Yes, the market is looking a bit frothy. Locally here in NYC, assets such as real estate are looking pretty high...

Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.

Don't you think the public has a right to know?

Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance

.... the Obama administration doesn't seem to have much interest in extraditing him (and executing him (as the conspiracy theory goes)). A future Hillary Clinton administration, on the other hand, ....

Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance

Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.

“Clinton Cash”: Disputations

House of the Stackd Deck of Cards

So their plan is to make cheap laborers by educating children in CS

Yes, that is exactly their plan. When they started, they kept talking about how we need more programmers. This is not something hidden, it's something you didn't pay attention to.

The real question, of course, is whether Google, Microsoft, and Apple will soon have to face a serious international competitor. It's true that Baidu's incremental image recognition changes might not be a game changer. But if there's any substance to these claims about speech recognition, Baidu might be on track to produce an actual competitive advantage in ways highly relevant to consumers.

The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience. So what point the test when 1% of the human population, 20% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes are the statistics for psychopaths.

And, apparently, many (most?) CEOs are psychopaths. Which Professions Have the Most Psychopaths? (there's a list):

CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths.

Also noted here and here and ... oh just Google "ceo" "psychopath"

Yeah now it's Satya Nadella saying "if something goes wrong with your system it's just your bad karma". A cute way of saying that if your Windows box gets pwned, well what exactly where you doing/clicking on/browsing, you naughty little scamp?

Uhhhh - you're pulling emotional strings here. How about we examine the actual numbers of cops killed, nationwide?

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of...

It doesn't appear that the number of cops killed in a given year in the US has EVER EXCEEDED 300. The highest year on that chart looks like 1974, with 280.

How does that compare with other occupations? Hmmm . . . .

Have you ever expressed similar sentiments for logging personnel? Pilots? Fishermen? Truck drivers? (I'll give even odds that you are one of the millions of Americans who INTENTIONALLY CUT TRUCK DRIVERS OFF on a daily basis) How about auto mechanics? Have you ever given a thought to them? Do you think about miners, in the same way you think about cops?

There are a lot of occupations more dangerous than police work. I get so tired of the cops getting all the glory, all the sympathy - but you have none to spare for the people who keep the cogs of civilization working.

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

You may, of course, find and cite your own sources - but no credible source places police among the most dangerous professions. I, for one, have always resented the damned cops for asserting that they are in a dangerous profession. They lie, and the gullible public believes them. And NONE OF YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US WHO DO DANGEROUS WORK!!

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years... Over the course of a typical long, driving lifetime, you should have a total of three to four accidents.
from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mo...

More than 25% of all car drivers were involved in car accidents in a five year period.
from:
http://www.lawcore.com/car-acc...

So, that's 25% of drivers during a 5 year interval or 100% of drivers 3-4x during entire lifetime. 10% seems good now...

Well depending on which figure you use, the real cost is between $87 and $219 and those are IRS numbers. It's probably more.

Don't forget, it's not just gas. It's insurance, gas, taxes, wear and tear on the car. And if you're driving something like a Ferrari, I'd expect the cost to be more like $500.

Quite right. But if you are taking your family to San Francisco, the cost is still $219, while the cost of the train is now $344. That is what keeps me driving instead of taking the airlines. It is far cheaper for me to drive to any destination reachable by car if I take my family. It also takes less time by car for anything less than about 500 miles.

Well depending on which figure you use, the real cost is between $87 and $219 and those are IRS numbers. It's probably more.

Don't forget, it's not just gas. It's insurance, gas, taxes, wear and tear on the car. And if you're driving something like a Ferrari, I'd expect the cost to be more like $500.

Widespread corruption led to many records of Shor's actions being "lost" or outright deleted.

As we all know, not a smidgen of corruption was involved in the disappearance of certain e-mails at the IRS recently. And the only emails deleted by the former Secretary of State from the private server she illegally used were those about yoga routines and the like.

So, if America's public figures can lose important records without being corrupt, why are we automatically making such accusations against the little Moldova?

As far as Eastern European country bank heists go, this guy is an amateur. The way professionals do it is by first controlling the government and the media. Then you steal the money (say some 7-8 billion) by funneling them through a chain of hollow companies to offshore accounts. Finally you set one of your partners with whom you have unsettled depth as the fall guy, while you yourself use your political connection to become the head of the local equivalent of the FBI:

Bulgaria's CorpBank: A Tangled Web Of Fraud

Or just become President like Putin did

As far as Eastern European country bank heists go, this guy is an amateur. The way professionals do it is by first controlling the government and the media. Then you steal the money (say some 7-8 billion) by funneling them through a chain of hollow companies to offshore accounts. Finally you set one of your partners with whom you have unsettled depth as the fall guy, while you yourself use your political connection to become the head of the local equivalent of the FBI:

Bulgaria's CorpBank: A Tangled Web Of Fraud

What I hear from Canadian patients inspires no envy what so ever.

You should update what you hear. Canada's health care system is ranked 7 spots higher than that of the United States, even before the ACA was implemented.

Even Forbes magazine, no socialist propaganda sheet, ranks Canada's health care system higher. And Bloomberg ranks it twenty-three spots higher in terms of efficiency.

http://thepatientfactor.com/ca...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

http://www.bloomberg.com/visua...

American healthcare compares favorably with European healthcare when you take everything into account.

What aspects specifically? In the US the most common cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. That just pushes the unrecoverable costs on to other people who then have to pay even more. Insurance companies get to decide what you can be treated for, rather than doctors allocating resources by medical need. While there is some excellent care available in the US, it isn't universal so basically you either get really good but expensive care or can't afford it and get terrible care.

Here's an article with a counterpoint to your view.

That's really a stupid restriction to put on potential hires. It's akin to Google's how many golf balls fit into a school bus. It makes you sound like you know what you are doing, but you really don't.

FWIW I've worked in at least 1/2 a dozen languages since the mid 80s, so it's not personal bias.

Here's an idea. How about seeing how well they solve problems in the language your shop uses? Just ask them to write a simple program (no more than 30 minutes) on their own time relevant to what they will be doing. Your shop does heavy DB business apps? Have them right a simple input/output form that connects to whatever database you use. Do AI? Have them create a simple rules engine or something. Don't over think it. You're not a psychologist and Myers-Briggs is total horse shit. Let them do it on their own time, look at their code and give them +100 for actually giving a shit enough to comment their code.

Also, there is no fucking way to determine the abilities and drive of a developer in an interview. It simply doesn't work.

That's why people come up with all these crazy ideas. You have to make your best guess, then see how they do over a period of time with various projects. The best solution I've ever heard of takes a manager with balls. He hired 5 people for 1 position, picked the best one after a month, then let the other 4 go. Worked every time.

I never had that option, so the best question I have is ask them about their favorite project recently then judge the passion. It's pretty simple. I'll ask a few silly questions depending on the language, then boom. I have as good a gauge as anything.

Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now?

Yes I do! They avoid paying taxes using the following strategies:

-Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich
-Foreign Holdings
-Inversion
-Stock Options
-Living Trusts
-Blind Trusts
-Public Welfare
-Many, Many, More

These strategies do not even account for the many ways that they screw their workforce.

They then take the enormous pile money that they have and use it to buy politicians and
manipulate the system.

They also use the system to privatize anything that can have money squeezed out of it, such as schools, healthcare, and roads. Finally, they use the money to distort the reality of what they have done so people consider them to be "Heros", "Pillars of the Community", and such. The Nobel prize, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. That is what those "Rich Fuckers" do.

Another narcissist whose business failures are repeatedly blamed on others. (HP's market cap rose by billions on the day she was ousted.)

We need to diagnose narcissists early and send them all to Empathyless Island, where they can prey on each other instead of us.

A good article on why narcissism is bad, even in the cold, sociopathic world of capitalism.

Another narcissist whose business failures are repeatedly blamed on others. (HP's market cap rose by billions on the day she was ousted.)

We need to diagnose narcissists early and send them all to Empathyless Island, where they can prey on each other instead of us.

A good article on why narcissism is bad, even in the cold, sociopathic world of capitalism.

we need to cut the human population in half in the next 100 years (by breeding less, not killing people off)

Pretty sure the Nazis also tried forced sterilization. It did not turn out well.

Otherwise if you wanted to see an ever stronger reaction than telling people you are going to kill a group of them off, then try to say you are now telling them who they can and cannot fuck.

Or you could try a middle ground like China's "one child" policy, which leads to other disasters...

Or you know, you could try not telling people how to live their lives according to some poor rationale you've developed as to why they should obey your whims, and they in turn will be somewhat less likely to kill you.

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.

This year's deficit is about $750 billion. I think you're emboldened quote is a little out of date.

Well, I don't really think rich people should pay for it ALL. Just a lot of it.

But let's look at that math. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/mo...
the top 1% average in 2012 was $717,000 per household and there are roughly 1.2 million such households. Their income was therefore about $880 billion. Figures aren't in for last year but it's safe to say they're considerably higher.

The deficit last year was $564 billion. So yes, they could pay the deficit and have money to spare.
If you recognize that nobody's proposing that they do it without help from the moderately well-off, it starts looking not at all out of reach.

But paying the deficit wasn't even my point. If you want to nationalize health care, you do it with taxes. INSTEAD of the health-insurance premiums and all the nickel and your-whole-bank-account charges we pay now. Not in addition, INSTEAD.

Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.

This idiocy has been proposed enough times someone has already done the calculations:

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.

It's not an attempt to put Science on a short leash, it's an attempt to limit the EPA. In the USA, Republicans generally don't even pretend to like the EPA, mainly for reasons listed in this article:

One of the most startling was a rule issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that shut down 150 companies and imposed $100 million in costs to reduce a hypothetical cancer risk that was the equivalent of spending $9 trillion (yes, with a “t”) to avert a single case of cancer. Congress often has helped the EPA squander the taxpayers’ money. It has passed more than 20 environmental laws directing the government to pay the legal fees of green groups that sue the government, even when the government-subsidized plaintiffs would lose. Guaranteed money for suing the government—what a deal!

I have no idea if the claims in the article are accurate or not, I'm just pointed out that those are the reasons Republicans don't like the EPA.

Troops in Middle East:
"How many U.S. troops were stationed in and around Iraq when Baghdad fell?
The Pentagon said April 8 that some 340,000 U.S. servicemen and women were under the authority of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which covers a region stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia. GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information website, estimated that about 235,000 of these troops were engaged in the Iraq war."
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-u...

Wealth:
David Rockefeller $3 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Charles Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...
David Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Their combined wealth is 28.4 times the wealth of David Rockefeller

Your conspiracies have eaten holes in your brain, just deal with reality and you will find that you have been deluded and distracted

Troops in Middle East:
"How many U.S. troops were stationed in and around Iraq when Baghdad fell?
The Pentagon said April 8 that some 340,000 U.S. servicemen and women were under the authority of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which covers a region stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia. GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information website, estimated that about 235,000 of these troops were engaged in the Iraq war."
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-u...

Wealth:
David Rockefeller $3 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Charles Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...
David Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Their combined wealth is 28.4 times the wealth of David Rockefeller

Your conspiracies have eaten holes in your brain, just deal with reality and you will find that you have been deluded and distracted

Troops in Middle East:
"How many U.S. troops were stationed in and around Iraq when Baghdad fell?
The Pentagon said April 8 that some 340,000 U.S. servicemen and women were under the authority of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which covers a region stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia. GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information website, estimated that about 235,000 of these troops were engaged in the Iraq war."
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-u...

Wealth:
David Rockefeller $3 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Charles Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...
David Koch $42.6 Billion
http://www.forbes.com/profile/...

Their combined wealth is 28.4 times the wealth of David Rockefeller

Your conspiracies have eaten holes in your brain, just deal with reality and you will find that you have been deluded and distracted

I really do not understand the hate involved here. Let's assume that climate change is NOT happening. We still have the following facts:

1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.

2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us.

3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing. If Muslims want to kill Muslims, that sounds like their problem. There is no "right" side in a conflict like that.

For all of these reasons, we should be decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change.

So, what is the problem?

There isn't any, most reasonable people would agree with all of the above...

Then the global warming/global cooling/global climate change people go nuts and take it WAY to far. It becomes about money and power and redistribution of wealth more than the planet.

It is like the environmentalists who are AGAINST EVERYTHING!

The average person is so sick of it that he/she is just tuning them out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo...

http://save-as.org/GreenNews/N...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

And on, and on...

They are against EVERYTHING. For frack sake, they probably want us all to go live in caves, or just die... I can't find anything they are actually FOR...