Wait a minute here. You start your rant basically saying "there's not enough regulation; we need protection!", and end it with "They're assaulting us with onerous regulation!"
Look at your cost of living for the last 30 years. Find the trend. Extend that out the next fifty. Now go and find investments for your $2M that pay enough in interest and/or dividends to cover it.
Can't find it? You need more money in the bank.
Found it? Go ahead and retire.
Don't touch the principal; leave that to your kids so they can be considered "old money" when they grow up.
Extend overtime rules to exempt employees. That'll fix things in a damn hurry.
Should've been done a long time ago, really. I can't speak for other careers, but many IT folk, like the poster above you, work more than 40 hours a week. They're on call 24x7, they work long hours, etc.; there are many places where this is required. Translation: IT workers are being exploited. That they agreed to it does not make it right or ethical -- and those extra hours are hours that some other unemployed individual could be working, thus creating more jobs (that in reality should already exist, but companies don't really care all that much about their slave^Wcheap labor).
Glad I found a sane place to work that doesn't screw its employees.
Not sure why you posted anonymously though. Nothing illegal about what you said, and probably exactly what everyone would do bar alterations to exempt status.
Why do we really need to work 40 hours a week? If the job market gets too tight, then shorten hours worked and hire more people, adjusting everything accordingly. Then far more people get at least some benefit when the market is down, instead of the lucky ones getting all the benefit.
I could see UBI working in a society where the amount of money in the economy is directly tied to available resources. There would be nothing wrong with guaranteeing that your citizens can never go hungry.
Our economy, however, is not directly tied to available resources; we use a fiat currency. That's a whole other kettle of fish. It could be done, but... it would not be simple or easy.
All of which says nothing about the reporter supposedly covering it, who was apparently tarred with the same brush. Was she in there turning valves, too?
I'll admit I missed the second debate, but in the first one, Clinton's ability to "discuss economic and foreign policy in cogent terms" consisted mostly of "see my website".
Color me unimpressed; we'll see if this week's debate is any better.
I'm not talking about Trump here; I'm talking about Hillary. This is not a conspiracy; this is politicians playing dirty politics. I'm not a Trump supporter either, btw. I feel that both major parties (and their respective candidates) jumped the shark long ago.
I mean, really? THIS is the best we can do for Presidential candidates?
Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.
To use your police analogy, sure, maybe Russia can benefit -- and that gives us motive. In police terms, that's enough to possibly get a search warrant (a bit thin, really), but not to arrest you or throw you in jail, let alone convict you of a criminal offense.
Right now it's going something like this:
Hillary: "Hey, Joe Bob can benefit from stealing my car, he must've done it!" Me: "But where's your proof that Joe Bob actually stole your car?" Hillary: "Joe Bob did it!" Me: "Where was Joe Bob on the day your car was stolen?" Hillary: "Joe Bob!" Newspapers: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!" Citizens: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
Meanwhile, Joe Bob is a few thousand miles away vacationing in Hawaii, where he's been this whole time, and Hillary's car is actually in her neighbor's garage, and they're letting people come look at it. They moved it there because she forgot to lock it, and they don't like her, so they want the public to see the deplorable state she's kept it in.
And to the other poster on this, yeah, this is not a partisan issue. This is a "someone is trying to put us on a collision course with Russia" issue. If they're going to do that, they damn well need to provide evidence that Russia is the bad actor here. Motive is not even remotely close to evidence. I've not seen anything that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to the claim.
That someone can, or might want to does not in any way mean that they did.
Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.
We're talking about an act of war against a nuclear state that can actually attack us on our home soil if they so choose. If an American citizen doesn't want to see at least some evidence of WHY we're committing an act of war against that state, then they're an idiot.
And "The government said so" is not the same as proof. That's like saying "My favorite politician is honest!".
Don't know what Santa Monica is building, but "IoT infrastructure" is very different from "consumer IoT". We're not talking about Mom's baby camera here; we're talking about FedEx's truck tracking devices and the like. Businesses don't tend to be quite so careless.
No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.
You have exactly as much evidence of that as Hillary's campaign has of Russian involvement: none.
My original point stands.
As to "The president doesn't have the power" and "People in every agency would be reporting it", I would really like to live in the dream world you live in. I actually do doubt that Obama is doing anything other than talking; he doesn't have to. But rest assured, if for some reason he wanted to, he most certain does have that power, and nobody would say a word until many years later when they thought they could get away with it.
Is Obama using official resources to tilt the election? Not unless you consider his speeches to be "official resources," in my opinion (I do think it's inappropriate for a sitting President to campaign for or against a candidate, mind you, but that's just my personal opinion, and a far cry from 'abuse of official resources'). Is Russia using it's resources to tilt the election? Nowhere but in Hillary's wishful thinking most likely. Everyone seems to forget that there are plenty of hackers and script kiddies right here in the US with an axe to grind against Clinton for whatever reason, perceived or actual.
Want me to believe foreign entities are involved?
Show me something more substantial than a YouTube clip of Hillary Clinton saying "The Russians did it!".
In this case illegal or not is not the primary issue. Democracy works to the extent it does because the playing field is nearly level. If one side has far more power to dig up dirt on the other side that is a perversion of the process.
Hillary has the actual sitting President of the United States working for her campaign at this point. He's making speeches and so forth. He is the head of our government, and has at his disposal the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Suddenly, even with those "Russian" hacks, the field seems like it's tilted at about an eighty degree angle. Two guesses which side has the better position.
IOW, that was a terrible argument if you think supposed "Russian" involvement is somehow making the field less fair.
That said, in case you couldn't "tell", I still haven't seen even a shred of evidence that the Russians are involved. All I hear is Hillary screaming it at the top of her lungs. Funnily enough, at the beginning of this cycle, I was deeply concerned about Trump's lack of diplomacy and what it would do for foreign relations. I never expected to be terrified of Hillary reaching office for the very same reason, albeit on a far more immediate and concrete level.
Some of the younger folk around here are probably too young to remember the cold war. I remember the tail end of it, and that was bad enough. I'd really rather not go back to that, especially with an opposing Russian government that seems far less stable and far more aggressive. I doubt it would be so cold this time.
Let's face it: both candidates suck, and Hillary will probably have us at war with Russia halfway through her first term.
What we should be doing is having a meaningful conversation about the alternative candidates, and convincing everyone to vote for neither of the current major party candidates. If nothing else, we as citizens should be sending a loud and clear message that the behavior of the major parties -- BOTH of them -- is unacceptable to the American people. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.
Hey... are write-ins still allowed? Maybe Bernie or Ted can still win!
The people in SF and surrounding areas don't want their property values to drop because they're deeply in debt for those properties. Your implied desire is kinda a Robin Hood solution, really, except that in SF that's actually the middle class, not the rich.
I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of where in IT the unemployment is rising. Is it developers? administrators? shiny dev-ops types? Help desk employees?
Given my own employer's attempts to hire, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the ones having difficulty (for now at least) are the ones that never really had the chops to ever be senior level IT people to begin with. They got into it because the money was there and faked their way through without using the opportunity to get educated in the field. If you ask them something simple about the platform they work on, they won't be able to give you even the vaguest of answers without googling (if you're lucky). If someone doesn't tell 'em how to do it, they don't know how to do it, and will never figure it out.
Look around your place of employment; if it's of any appreciable size, I'll bet you've got one. At least one. The technology has stabilized enough that those folks are soon going to be off to their next career; chair warmers aren't needed anymore.
And I'm kinda happy about that; they tend to give the rest of us a bad name. I do hope they find meaningful work somewhere, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute here. You start your rant basically saying "there's not enough regulation; we need protection!", and end it with "They're assaulting us with onerous regulation!"
What on earth do you actually want?
This is pretty simple, really.
Look at your cost of living for the last 30 years. Find the trend. Extend that out the next fifty. Now go and find investments for your $2M that pay enough in interest and/or dividends to cover it.
Can't find it? You need more money in the bank.
Found it? Go ahead and retire.
Don't touch the principal; leave that to your kids so they can be considered "old money" when they grow up.
Simple.
Next up, people across the internet band together to defend the honor and dignity of a real person!
WIll. Never. Happen.
#pragma never
Extend overtime rules to exempt employees. That'll fix things in a damn hurry.
Should've been done a long time ago, really. I can't speak for other careers, but many IT folk, like the poster above you, work more than 40 hours a week. They're on call 24x7, they work long hours, etc.; there are many places where this is required. Translation: IT workers are being exploited. That they agreed to it does not make it right or ethical -- and those extra hours are hours that some other unemployed individual could be working, thus creating more jobs (that in reality should already exist, but companies don't really care all that much about their slave^Wcheap labor).
Glad I found a sane place to work that doesn't screw its employees.
Not sure why you posted anonymously though. Nothing illegal about what you said, and probably exactly what everyone would do bar alterations to exempt status.
No, he was right.
It's going to be streamed instead.
This solution is often overlooked.
Why do we really need to work 40 hours a week? If the job market gets too tight, then shorten hours worked and hire more people, adjusting everything accordingly. Then far more people get at least some benefit when the market is down, instead of the lucky ones getting all the benefit.
I could see UBI working in a society where the amount of money in the economy is directly tied to available resources. There would be nothing wrong with guaranteeing that your citizens can never go hungry.
Our economy, however, is not directly tied to available resources; we use a fiat currency. That's a whole other kettle of fish. It could be done, but... it would not be simple or easy.
All of which says nothing about the reporter supposedly covering it, who was apparently tarred with the same brush. Was she in there turning valves, too?
I'll admit I missed the second debate, but in the first one, Clinton's ability to "discuss economic and foreign policy in cogent terms" consisted mostly of "see my website".
Color me unimpressed; we'll see if this week's debate is any better.
As for Trump... Yeah, can't really dispute that.
I'm not talking about Trump here; I'm talking about Hillary. This is not a conspiracy; this is politicians playing dirty politics. I'm not a Trump supporter either, btw. I feel that both major parties (and their respective candidates) jumped the shark long ago.
I mean, really? THIS is the best we can do for Presidential candidates?
Or you could it more simply: 24 hour required hold after you buy.
No cost at all to the actual investor, and no more HFT.
Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.
To use your police analogy, sure, maybe Russia can benefit -- and that gives us motive. In police terms, that's enough to possibly get a search warrant (a bit thin, really), but not to arrest you or throw you in jail, let alone convict you of a criminal offense.
Right now it's going something like this:
Hillary: "Hey, Joe Bob can benefit from stealing my car, he must've done it!"
Me: "But where's your proof that Joe Bob actually stole your car?"
Hillary: "Joe Bob did it!"
Me: "Where was Joe Bob on the day your car was stolen?"
Hillary: "Joe Bob!"
Newspapers: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
Citizens: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
Meanwhile, Joe Bob is a few thousand miles away vacationing in Hawaii, where he's been this whole time, and Hillary's car is actually in her neighbor's garage, and they're letting people come look at it. They moved it there because she forgot to lock it, and they don't like her, so they want the public to see the deplorable state she's kept it in.
And to the other poster on this, yeah, this is not a partisan issue. This is a "someone is trying to put us on a collision course with Russia" issue. If they're going to do that, they damn well need to provide evidence that Russia is the bad actor here. Motive is not even remotely close to evidence. I've not seen anything that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to the claim.
That someone can, or might want to does not in any way mean that they did.
Not just you.
Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.
We're talking about an act of war against a nuclear state that can actually attack us on our home soil if they so choose. If an American citizen doesn't want to see at least some evidence of WHY we're committing an act of war against that state, then they're an idiot.
And "The government said so" is not the same as proof. That's like saying "My favorite politician is honest!".
You're going to be waiting a long time. The name may change, but networked devices have been here for a long time, and they're not going anywhere.
Someone in marketing just made a new buzzword, that's all.
Don't know what Santa Monica is building, but "IoT infrastructure" is very different from "consumer IoT". We're not talking about Mom's baby camera here; we're talking about FedEx's truck tracking devices and the like. Businesses don't tend to be quite so careless.
I hope.
No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.
You have exactly as much evidence of that as Hillary's campaign has of Russian involvement: none.
My original point stands.
As to "The president doesn't have the power" and "People in every agency would be reporting it", I would really like to live in the dream world you live in. I actually do doubt that Obama is doing anything other than talking; he doesn't have to. But rest assured, if for some reason he wanted to, he most certain does have that power, and nobody would say a word until many years later when they thought they could get away with it.
Is Obama using official resources to tilt the election? Not unless you consider his speeches to be "official resources," in my opinion (I do think it's inappropriate for a sitting President to campaign for or against a candidate, mind you, but that's just my personal opinion, and a far cry from 'abuse of official resources'). Is Russia using it's resources to tilt the election? Nowhere but in Hillary's wishful thinking most likely. Everyone seems to forget that there are plenty of hackers and script kiddies right here in the US with an axe to grind against Clinton for whatever reason, perceived or actual.
Want me to believe foreign entities are involved?
Show me something more substantial than a YouTube clip of Hillary Clinton saying "The Russians did it!".
Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...
Yes, let's.
In this case illegal or not is not the primary issue. Democracy works to the extent it does because the playing field is nearly level. If one side has far more power to dig up dirt on the other side that is a perversion of the process.
Hillary has the actual sitting President of the United States working for her campaign at this point. He's making speeches and so forth. He is the head of our government, and has at his disposal the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Suddenly, even with those "Russian" hacks, the field seems like it's tilted at about an eighty degree angle. Two guesses which side has the better position.
IOW, that was a terrible argument if you think supposed "Russian" involvement is somehow making the field less fair.
That said, in case you couldn't "tell", I still haven't seen even a shred of evidence that the Russians are involved. All I hear is Hillary screaming it at the top of her lungs. Funnily enough, at the beginning of this cycle, I was deeply concerned about Trump's lack of diplomacy and what it would do for foreign relations. I never expected to be terrified of Hillary reaching office for the very same reason, albeit on a far more immediate and concrete level.
Some of the younger folk around here are probably too young to remember the cold war. I remember the tail end of it, and that was bad enough. I'd really rather not go back to that, especially with an opposing Russian government that seems far less stable and far more aggressive. I doubt it would be so cold this time.
Let's face it: both candidates suck, and Hillary will probably have us at war with Russia halfway through her first term.
What we should be doing is having a meaningful conversation about the alternative candidates, and convincing everyone to vote for neither of the current major party candidates. If nothing else, we as citizens should be sending a loud and clear message that the behavior of the major parties -- BOTH of them -- is unacceptable to the American people. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.
Hey... are write-ins still allowed? Maybe Bernie or Ted can still win!
If Russia did it, then the Russians are the ONLY people doing any investigative anything.
Everything on the news is just mud slinging, on both sides. This is embarrassing.
I know. :)
The people in SF and surrounding areas don't want their property values to drop because they're deeply in debt for those properties. Your implied desire is kinda a Robin Hood solution, really, except that in SF that's actually the middle class, not the rich.
If you're lucky.
... Proposition Z proposes building a new island in the middle of the Bay to make room for more housing.
And nobody noticed.
If only I had some mod points... spot on.
I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of where in IT the unemployment is rising. Is it developers? administrators? shiny dev-ops types? Help desk employees?
Given my own employer's attempts to hire, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the ones having difficulty (for now at least) are the ones that never really had the chops to ever be senior level IT people to begin with. They got into it because the money was there and faked their way through without using the opportunity to get educated in the field. If you ask them something simple about the platform they work on, they won't be able to give you even the vaguest of answers without googling (if you're lucky). If someone doesn't tell 'em how to do it, they don't know how to do it, and will never figure it out.
Look around your place of employment; if it's of any appreciable size, I'll bet you've got one. At least one. The technology has stabilized enough that those folks are soon going to be off to their next career; chair warmers aren't needed anymore.
And I'm kinda happy about that; they tend to give the rest of us a bad name. I do hope they find meaningful work somewhere, though.
We still need them as customers. :)