The way the tech companies will get around it is to have an Opt-In checkbox that will be checked by default and buried somewhere in the EULA/TOS, so when users say that they agree to the EULA/TOS without actually having read the legalese, the companies can say that the customers agreed to have their data mined.
The tweets about transgendered people serving in the military were too well-written and coherent to be Trump. Probably it was Pence or Bannon who used the account to issue the policy.
Training? What's that? In my current bitter experience on the job market you get eliminated if you don't already have ALL the skills in the job description.
If you're talking about immersion in the company culture, that's a different thing, in which case I agree with you. Employers aren't doing themselves any favors by not making people want to stay.
Tell that to my father who has been practicing osteopathy for close to 50 years and whose practice is all but indistinguishable from that of an M.D. The only thing he does that they don't is spinal manipulation for a very limited group of complaints.
The DMV I get; in many places they can't work more than 4 days a week because they don't have the money. They're stuck in the Catch-22 of modern American conservative thinking: they're lazy because they work for the government, but they can't do their jobs better/more efficiently because they aren't allowed to have the resources to do so (taxes are a large part of the funding; the money is often shunted away for tax breaks and other spending priorities, such as education).
While it's true that Congress puts on the appearance of working a lot when it is in session, the frequent breaks they take kind of lower the average number of hours they work during the year.
Actually, yes.
Not everyone has the ability or desire to pick up and leave whenever they get tired of a job. The 80s mindset you refer to is alive and well, particularly when you have millennials all over the place who do just that--pick up and leave after a year or two because they don't have any commitments (e.g., a life outside of work or roots in their community)--and employers think the people who work for them are fungible.
I will be 50 in May. I have more than 18 years of professional experience in IT (I started late-ish--this was a career change early on in my adult life) and have shown by my background and work history that I can learn anything well enough to be able to contribute early on. But if your resume doesn't have the right keywords (and unlike even a few years ago, you seem to have to have ALL of the skills/tools/etc. listed in the job description), the algorithm that they use to filter resumes will kick you out even if you are qualified to do the job.
Tutorials and courses are one thing. You can do those until the cows come home, but unless you are a recent college graduate don't even bother to mention you have been working on getting the skills on your own time. The only thing that seems to count is actual work experience with them. Freelancing while trying to retool your skillset doesn't pay the bills.
Not to mention the fact that if one of your boxes (e.g., Spam or Trash) is empty, they now serve you video content which you can't block unless you completely block all scripts on the page, which makes it unusable.
--At least, that last part is my experience.
It's not just scientific papers. The same is true for the humanities as well. Their journal subscriptions are as expensive as (or even more so than) scientific ones.
If you're surviving on $30k, you'll make it work at $24k.
Have you tried?
If I'm making $100K, I have to pay $20K, that is 2/3 of your entire income. Expecting me to pay $23K so you only have to pay $3K is rather... selfish, crappy, and frankly stupid.
Where did the $23K come from?
At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level. I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet. A proportionally larger share of their income has to go to basic necessities such as food and housing (and yes, in our society cell phones and the internet are as much a necessity as land lines were not too long ago).
I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.
Twenty percent is a lot bigger burden for someone making only $30,000 a year (say) than it would be to someone making (say) $100,000. It's that much less money available for the person at the low end than it is for the person at the high end. And if a person is making $100,000 and has to pay $20,000 in taxes (which, IIRC, is more than they have to pay now), what makes you think they won't try to avoid it like the wealthy do?
Why not restore the rates that were in force in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? The economy was doing just fine then.
Failing that, get rid of tax havens and exemptions for unearned income over a certain amount.
How do I *keep* defending the current tax code? This is the first comment I have made on this story.
Do you know why Buffet pays less than his staff? Because of people like Reagan and you who take marginal tax rates to mean absolute tax rates.
When you talk about a marginal tax rate of 91%, it doesn't mean you are giving 91 percent of your total income to the government. It means you are giving 91% of your income *over a certain amount* to the government. If we were to follow your logic, a person making a million dollars would end up paying $910,000 in taxes (assuming for the sake of argument that the tax rate at that level is 91%). That is patently not the case.
Marginal tax rates are set up so that an increasing amount of each tax bracket is paid as tax. You don't pay a total amount of tax based on the highest bracket you belong to.
Let us assume that for the first $20,000 of income one pays zero percent tax, and that the next bracket ($20,001-$30,000) pays, say, two percent. Let us then assume that you earn $20,001 in a year. How much tax will you pay?
Two cents. That is two percent of the amount you earned over $20,000. You pay nothing on the first $20,000 of income.
Say at $30,001-$40,000 the rate goes up to four percent, and you earn $40,000. How much is your tax?
Six hundred dollars. That is 0 + 200 (for the 2% level at 20,001-30,000) + 400 (for the 4% level at 30,001-$40,000).
If you paid the 4% on *every* dollar, you would be paying $1600.00, i.e., four times as much, since the highest tax bracket gets applied to all income rather than specified amounts.
Look at a tax table sometime and you'll see what I mean.
By no means am I defending this tax code. There are too many loopholes and too much gutting of the tax brackets since the 1980s when St. Ronald of Reagan (Ayn Rand rest his soul) was the bestest president ever.
These scientists are just after more of the money they are wallowing in.
Oh sure, that's the only reason anyone ever does anything. So where's the money coming from? Do you have any evidence that scientists are rich, other than the data in your rectal database?
It also appears that you do not understand the scientific method. All knowledge is provisional. The only exception seems to be faith-based "knowledge", which is by nature untestable.
So you would not hire me, a history Ph.D. with fifteen years of programming experience, because of my degree. Experience and proven ability count for nothing, I guess, in your world, if you don't have the right papers.
Not all liberal arts majors are English majors, which is the stereotype being perpetrated here.
Finally, electronics never fail, unless you have bad capacitors. No moving parts, remember?
If that's the case, why bother replacing an electronic device, or have any repair plans at all?
Yes, if electronics were properly constructed, they would never fail. But they aren't, and they do, inevitably. Eventually the laws of physics catch up.
The perpetual-motion machine is a myth.
I've noticed this too. The cynic in me sees IT types as being treated as interchangeable drones who can be dispensed with easily if something goes wrong, ramp-up costs and the effort to replace the lost institutional knowledge be damned. By the same token, though, legacy systems don't go away, and there are certain industries where putting things in the cloud is not practical or desirable. All those WinForms desktop applications aren't going away overnight, any more than mainframe or COBOL computing have. While, yes, one could make an extremely good living contracting in these niches, there is something to be said for longevity when you understand the codebase and/or company workflows and so are able to solve problems and get the job done in a reasonable amount of time.
No, people should listen to private-sector experts, and not listen to the Government at all, or at least take what it says with a grain of salt the size of a basketball.
Sure, because the private sector is always better than the government and never does anything wrong or evil.
Man, I should know better than to read Slashdot. It brings out the troll in me too easily.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that?
Does this mean that web developers should stop using React?
The way the tech companies will get around it is to have an Opt-In checkbox that will be checked by default and buried somewhere in the EULA/TOS, so when users say that they agree to the EULA/TOS without actually having read the legalese, the companies can say that the customers agreed to have their data mined.
I believe there was documentary about this kind of thing a while ago. /snark
The tweets about transgendered people serving in the military were too well-written and coherent to be Trump. Probably it was Pence or Bannon who used the account to issue the policy.
Training? What's that? In my current bitter experience on the job market you get eliminated if you don't already have ALL the skills in the job description.
If you're talking about immersion in the company culture, that's a different thing, in which case I agree with you. Employers aren't doing themselves any favors by not making people want to stay.
Tell that to my father who has been practicing osteopathy for close to 50 years and whose practice is all but indistinguishable from that of an M.D. The only thing he does that they don't is spinal manipulation for a very limited group of complaints.
The DMV I get; in many places they can't work more than 4 days a week because they don't have the money. They're stuck in the Catch-22 of modern American conservative thinking: they're lazy because they work for the government, but they can't do their jobs better/more efficiently because they aren't allowed to have the resources to do so (taxes are a large part of the funding; the money is often shunted away for tax breaks and other spending priorities, such as education).
While it's true that Congress puts on the appearance of working a lot when it is in session, the frequent breaks they take kind of lower the average number of hours they work during the year.
Specifically, English; which is an evolving language and has been since it separated from the Latin language.
English is a Germanic language, not a Romance one.
Actually, yes. Not everyone has the ability or desire to pick up and leave whenever they get tired of a job. The 80s mindset you refer to is alive and well, particularly when you have millennials all over the place who do just that--pick up and leave after a year or two because they don't have any commitments (e.g., a life outside of work or roots in their community)--and employers think the people who work for them are fungible. I will be 50 in May. I have more than 18 years of professional experience in IT (I started late-ish--this was a career change early on in my adult life) and have shown by my background and work history that I can learn anything well enough to be able to contribute early on. But if your resume doesn't have the right keywords (and unlike even a few years ago, you seem to have to have ALL of the skills/tools/etc. listed in the job description), the algorithm that they use to filter resumes will kick you out even if you are qualified to do the job. Tutorials and courses are one thing. You can do those until the cows come home, but unless you are a recent college graduate don't even bother to mention you have been working on getting the skills on your own time. The only thing that seems to count is actual work experience with them. Freelancing while trying to retool your skillset doesn't pay the bills.
It is a legal requirement to in order to get any federal contracts.
/snark
Of course, compliance with contracts stifles innovation and costs jobs, you know.
Not to mention the fact that if one of your boxes (e.g., Spam or Trash) is empty, they now serve you video content which you can't block unless you completely block all scripts on the page, which makes it unusable. --At least, that last part is my experience.
How can such failures even get their pay checks, let alone bonuses?
(Cough*)Carly Fiorina(Cough*)
Who knew?
It's not just scientific papers. The same is true for the humanities as well. Their journal subscriptions are as expensive as (or even more so than) scientific ones.
Have you tried?
If I'm making $100K, I have to pay $20K, that is 2/3 of your entire income. Expecting me to pay $23K so you only have to pay $3K is rather... selfish, crappy, and frankly stupid.
Where did the $23K come from?
At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level. I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet. A proportionally larger share of their income has to go to basic necessities such as food and housing (and yes, in our society cell phones and the internet are as much a necessity as land lines were not too long ago).
I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.
Twenty percent is a lot bigger burden for someone making only $30,000 a year (say) than it would be to someone making (say) $100,000. It's that much less money available for the person at the low end than it is for the person at the high end. And if a person is making $100,000 and has to pay $20,000 in taxes (which, IIRC, is more than they have to pay now), what makes you think they won't try to avoid it like the wealthy do?
Why not restore the rates that were in force in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? The economy was doing just fine then.
Failing that, get rid of tax havens and exemptions for unearned income over a certain amount.
How do I *keep* defending the current tax code? This is the first comment I have made on this story. Do you know why Buffet pays less than his staff? Because of people like Reagan and you who take marginal tax rates to mean absolute tax rates. When you talk about a marginal tax rate of 91%, it doesn't mean you are giving 91 percent of your total income to the government. It means you are giving 91% of your income *over a certain amount* to the government. If we were to follow your logic, a person making a million dollars would end up paying $910,000 in taxes (assuming for the sake of argument that the tax rate at that level is 91%). That is patently not the case. Marginal tax rates are set up so that an increasing amount of each tax bracket is paid as tax. You don't pay a total amount of tax based on the highest bracket you belong to. Let us assume that for the first $20,000 of income one pays zero percent tax, and that the next bracket ($20,001-$30,000) pays, say, two percent. Let us then assume that you earn $20,001 in a year. How much tax will you pay? Two cents. That is two percent of the amount you earned over $20,000. You pay nothing on the first $20,000 of income. Say at $30,001-$40,000 the rate goes up to four percent, and you earn $40,000. How much is your tax? Six hundred dollars. That is 0 + 200 (for the 2% level at 20,001-30,000) + 400 (for the 4% level at 30,001-$40,000). If you paid the 4% on *every* dollar, you would be paying $1600.00, i.e., four times as much, since the highest tax bracket gets applied to all income rather than specified amounts. Look at a tax table sometime and you'll see what I mean. By no means am I defending this tax code. There are too many loopholes and too much gutting of the tax brackets since the 1980s when St. Ronald of Reagan (Ayn Rand rest his soul) was the bestest president ever.
Too bad Reagan purposely misrepresented what *marginal* tax rates are.
Oh sure, that's the only reason anyone ever does anything. So where's the money coming from? Do you have any evidence that scientists are rich, other than the data in your rectal database? It also appears that you do not understand the scientific method. All knowledge is provisional. The only exception seems to be faith-based "knowledge", which is by nature untestable.
So you would not hire me, a history Ph.D. with fifteen years of programming experience, because of my degree. Experience and proven ability count for nothing, I guess, in your world, if you don't have the right papers.
Not all liberal arts majors are English majors, which is the stereotype being perpetrated here.
If that's the case, why bother replacing an electronic device, or have any repair plans at all? Yes, if electronics were properly constructed, they would never fail. But they aren't, and they do, inevitably. Eventually the laws of physics catch up. The perpetual-motion machine is a myth.
I've noticed this too. The cynic in me sees IT types as being treated as interchangeable drones who can be dispensed with easily if something goes wrong, ramp-up costs and the effort to replace the lost institutional knowledge be damned. By the same token, though, legacy systems don't go away, and there are certain industries where putting things in the cloud is not practical or desirable. All those WinForms desktop applications aren't going away overnight, any more than mainframe or COBOL computing have. While, yes, one could make an extremely good living contracting in these niches, there is something to be said for longevity when you understand the codebase and/or company workflows and so are able to solve problems and get the job done in a reasonable amount of time.
Point taken. At this point, I wouldn't trust either of them.
Sure, because the private sector is always better than the government and never does anything wrong or evil. Man, I should know better than to read Slashdot. It brings out the troll in me too easily.