> If you're 35 and only qualified for Min Wage jobs, that is probably on you.
What part of that 100% true sentiment did you not understand in your comment about single moms who are unqualified for anything but minimum wage jobs and who chose to reproduce themselves despite not having the financial means to support the child(ren)?
It takes two to tango: the father is just as culpable here. They chose to have kids as well. But when they skip out, they leave the baby with the mom, since we have the expectation, often enforced by the court system, that the mother raises a child, not the father.
I've seen this before when a larger/non-regional publication (like Slashdot, or a national news website) takes a more regional story (this is from the LA Times, and people there are at least as likely to think when they hear 'Venice' the neighborhood they live in as they are a city in Italy). The regional assumptions and understandings are lost, and it's really the job of the editor to add additional context to the story summary if it goes to a wider audience. I'm not even sure if the editor knew that the Venice referred to here was Venice Beach.
Also, I might be getting curmudgeonly in my older age, but just taking someone's quote and turning that into the story title seems like bad form. Click-baity and non-journalistic.
I drive a low sports car. One day, when a friend was riding with me, a guy on a road bike was in the middle of the road riding at a moderate speed - but well under the speed limit. There was a bike lane that he was supposed to be riding in, but even when I honked at him he refused to pull over. So my friend said to pull up beside him when the oncoming traffic cleared and to hold my speed. I thought he was going to yell at him, but instead when I pulled up beside him my friend gently squeezed the bikers ass which completely freaked him out, causing him to loose his balance and wipe out pretty bad. Needless to say as soon as I checked the car behind me didn't hit him I sped off.
So your friend committed assault, the result being bodily harm? Pretty classy response.
But it's the same thing. I got the impression that the GP is implying that the CC company knows that the card and the owner are not in the same place. But really, they just suspect they're not in the same place, because all they can tell is if the card is moving around. Of course they'll be tracking where the card is used.
At least it would have dealt with the source of the problem -- Saudi Arabia and its combination of crazy religious zealotry and free money from oil.
Regime change/revolution/decay of government didn't have that affect when we overthrew the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya turned out pretty badly, and Egypt hasn't been in a great state either.
Window border, scroll bars, single tab wasting space, address bar row, bookmarks bar. Lots of wasted screen space. And then the video playing site would waste more space with its own UI. Plus, no always-on-top option.
These are options that used to be available with window managers under Linux. I remember doing this in gnome 1 with just a keystroke to remove all decorations and border, another keystroke to toggle always-on-top. Then with Gnome 2 (and even worse with Gnome 3) the gnome team went with a "options confuse people. Let's get rid of them all."
I still don't have something as easily customizeable and usable as ye olde Gnome 1. Now everyone wants to take all the bad ideas (mostly just those) from Microsoft's and Apple's offerings and make something even less usable.
Every story has two sides, but not every side is equally true. And it's almost never the case that "X this, but Y said that, the truth is somewhere in between."
Worker selfishness is NOT a good thing. [...] Society cannot function if everyone is selfish and does not do things in the interest of the greater good.
I find this is often the sort of thing said by those who don't want to pay workers what their labor is worth. "I have a grand idea/plan, and everyone has to sacrifice a bit to see this plan through."
Pensions were a horrible horrible idea. They were short-term thinking. What ends up happening is pensions became crushing debt because companies didn't fund them ahead of time, then they would go out of business and all that debt would vanish, leaving the pensioners with nothing. All funds like this should get paid out when the worker works his hours, and it shouldn't be a company fund either.
Almost anything a President can enter into unilaterally...can be undone by a President, unilaterally.
And, because we're taking advantage of that, soon nobody will trust an American president with any commitment beyond his presidency.
Well the Congress has the power to create laws. The President does not -- he enforces the laws. The details of enforcement are left to the presidency, but for instance, President Obama can say "Well, we're not going to deport these particular illegal immigrants... yet." Which is why DACA is called "deferred action" -- there's no path to citizenship, which would be in Congress's domain. Congress's DREAM Act that has been kicking around since Durbin and Hatch introduced it in 2001 and does have paths to citizenship if certain requirements are met; one reason why I have my doubts that it would pass anytime in the next decade.
I'm betting that the real reason is that Obama negotiated the treaty; I don't really understand the USA internals -- nor should I, as a foreigner -- but can a President really get out of treaties without the Congress consent?
Almost anything a President can enter into unilaterally (an 'agreement' like this, the DACA deal, executive actions in general) can be undone by a President, unilaterally.
If you move from one house in California to another - even if they are identical houses on identical lots located right next door to one another - your property taxes can go up by 10x or 20x. It has to do with the fact that under Prop 13 the valuation of the house for property tax purposes never goes up until it changes hands. There are properties in California that haven't been re-valued since 1978 (some of these properties will NEVER get re-valued, since they are owned by corporations that can't die, at least with human owners the situation eventually corrects itself).
Yes, your property taxes paid might go up 10x-20x depending on the tax rate where you move, but that isn't a "penalty" imposed by the state, it's just that you're paying the natural area rate for property taxes that you weren't paying before. Prop 13 keeps the property taxes artificially low, basically locking you in (with a minor increase every year) the difference growing the longer you own the home so that rising taxes can't price you out of the home that you own. The entire purpose is to allow homeowners to afford their property taxes. But the benefit, the super-low rates, are property-specific. A new person moves in, and they don't inherit the old rate. They get to pay market rates. Otherwise, property rates would almost never rise at all, and the whole system collapses. You're not paying an additional penalty for moving, it's that you're no longer being grandfathered for a super-low rate.
As I understand it, the accounting bullshit was put in footnotes, and thus "disclosed". But all the investment banks were making so much cash of Enron their analysts were told (or hinted at) not to rock the boat.
Arthur Anderson was one of the big five accounting firms, and colluded with Enron to cook the books and shredded documents when Enron came under audit. They were one of the largest multinationals when the Enron scandal broke, and they surrendered their CPA licenses a year later. Their conviction was reversed, but the company had already shed workers and sold off parts of itself to other companies.
It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.
And at the close of the markets on Monday, it's at $302. I guess it hasn't "tumbled" after all. It has been volatile, as Musk said it would be.
If he keeps pissing off the stockholders then it's possible the board might want to find a different CEO that's more stable.
Remember how that went for Apple
It didn't go well, but I think an argument could be made that they were justified in firing Jobs. Apple had been losing its position and had not found a successor to the incredibly popular Apple II. The Macintosh was not selling well, the Apple III was a flop, and the Lisa had been a money-losing proposition as well. Sculley had been CEO for two years when he was asked by shareholders to curb Jobs's penchant for expensive development flops, Sculley found Jobs was organizing an internal coup. The board of directors agreed with Sculley (-especially- in the early 1980s, Jobs was difficult to work for and get along with) and Steve was out.
Getting fired by Apple was probably the best thing that'd ever happened to him.
2) Show how much of his personal wealth is invested, i.e. how much he is risking by following up on his own advice. Is he just investing a little on the side, or can he actually pretty much bankrupt himself if he is wrong? That'll show you how much he actually believes what he is saying...and whether he is trying to actively decieve people or not.
Not every risk is the same for the same person, though. Everything with the stock market involves a certain level of risk, even if some of the flashier personalities tote a "sure thing." But one person's tolerance for risk can be higher than another's. A 30-something person who has the majority of his earnings ahead of him in life can accept higher risk/rewards stocks (or even just a "more stocks, fewer bonds" investment strategy) than someone who is closer to retirement. An investment adviser in his 60s can make recommendations to that guy in his 30s that he himself won't take, because if the risk doesn't work out, then the person in his 60s is in a more precarious position.
Every adviser I've ever had has talked about how people have a more aggressive strategy when they're young, a strat that trends more conservative as they get older -- lower risk, lower returns, but less of a chance of taking a big hit that will never be paid back.
If you don't want their money, then you don't have to ask for it. If you DO want their money, then having them invest it means their resources ARE valuable, and yeah, they get to charge a fee as a condition.
Where in the Constitution is it stated that the union of states is permanent?
I guess we can quibble about this, but I would consider the absence of any Constitutional procedure to allow a state to leave as meaning that a state cannot leave, otherwise it would have language about who would need to be able to approve such a move.
Texas vs White may have come out long ago, but current Supreme Court justices have talked about the case and its importance as precedent. The late Justice Scalia is probably the one most people know about, since he was the one who was outspoken on the subject.
Also, California could probably garner support for a secession amendment via threatening to split into many blue states
Haha, I hadn't considered that before! "Let us leave, or you'll have to deal with even more of us!" That would give CA a few more Senators and another governor, but it wouldn't change the House makeup at all. But the state splitting initiatives I've seen before would involve the creation of at least one red state, like the State of Jefferson.
Respectfully, your lucky experience does not negate mine and I'm truly happy you've enjoyed the beauty that is Santa Barbara! I've driven the 101 several times from the Bay Area to Buena Park/SD and have spent the bulk of it sitting in LA parking lots.
Granted, LA is pretty horrible. But I don't think LA is that representative of California as a whole.
The situation for property tax is made worse in California by proposition 13, which shifts a disproportionate amount of taxes onto individuals and away from long established businesses - in addition to blatantly violating the right to travel and hence a right protected by the 9th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.
What do you mean, prop 13 violates the "right to travel?" That a state low limiting the increase of local property taxes could run afoul of the 9th Amendment is a truly huge leap of legal logic an order of magnitude greater than any generous interpretation of the Commerce Clause that I've ever heard of.
Slashdot Mirror
My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it.
We thank you for your sacrifice though, it's rare to be so informative with just a summary.
I'm not the OP, but:
> If you're 35 and only qualified for Min Wage jobs, that is probably on you.
What part of that 100% true sentiment did you not understand in your comment about single moms who are unqualified for anything but minimum wage jobs and who chose to reproduce themselves despite not having the financial means to support the child(ren)?
It takes two to tango: the father is just as culpable here. They chose to have kids as well. But when they skip out, they leave the baby with the mom, since we have the expectation, often enforced by the court system, that the mother raises a child, not the father.
I've seen this before when a larger/non-regional publication (like Slashdot, or a national news website) takes a more regional story (this is from the LA Times, and people there are at least as likely to think when they hear 'Venice' the neighborhood they live in as they are a city in Italy). The regional assumptions and understandings are lost, and it's really the job of the editor to add additional context to the story summary if it goes to a wider audience. I'm not even sure if the editor knew that the Venice referred to here was Venice Beach.
Also, I might be getting curmudgeonly in my older age, but just taking someone's quote and turning that into the story title seems like bad form. Click-baity and non-journalistic.
I drive a low sports car. One day, when a friend was riding with me, a guy on a road bike was in the middle of the road riding at a moderate speed - but well under the speed limit. There was a bike lane that he was supposed to be riding in, but even when I honked at him he refused to pull over. So my friend said to pull up beside him when the oncoming traffic cleared and to hold my speed. I thought he was going to yell at him, but instead when I pulled up beside him my friend gently squeezed the bikers ass which completely freaked him out, causing him to loose his balance and wipe out pretty bad. Needless to say as soon as I checked the car behind me didn't hit him I sped off.
So your friend committed assault, the result being bodily harm? Pretty classy response.
You do the opposite of what he said.
But it's the same thing. I got the impression that the GP is implying that the CC company knows that the card and the owner are not in the same place. But really, they just suspect they're not in the same place, because all they can tell is if the card is moving around. Of course they'll be tracking where the card is used.
At least it would have dealt with the source of the problem -- Saudi Arabia and its combination of crazy religious zealotry and free money from oil.
Regime change/revolution/decay of government didn't have that affect when we overthrew the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya turned out pretty badly, and Egypt hasn't been in a great state either.
Window border, scroll bars, single tab wasting space, address bar row, bookmarks bar. Lots of wasted screen space. And then the video playing site would waste more space with its own UI. Plus, no always-on-top option.
These are options that used to be available with window managers under Linux. I remember doing this in gnome 1 with just a keystroke to remove all decorations and border, another keystroke to toggle always-on-top. Then with Gnome 2 (and even worse with Gnome 3) the gnome team went with a "options confuse people. Let's get rid of them all."
I still don't have something as easily customizeable and usable as ye olde Gnome 1. Now everyone wants to take all the bad ideas (mostly just those) from Microsoft's and Apple's offerings and make something even less usable.
The White Helmets have been proven to being ISIS members. The White Helmets have been proven to be paid for by MI6.
Dude, you forgot your 9/11 truther tagline you usually include.
Not every story has two sides.
Every story has two sides, but not every side is equally true.
And it's almost never the case that "X this, but Y said that, the truth is somewhere in between."
Worker selfishness is NOT a good thing. [...] Society cannot function if everyone is selfish and does not do things in the interest of the greater good.
I find this is often the sort of thing said by those who don't want to pay workers what their labor is worth.
"I have a grand idea/plan, and everyone has to sacrifice a bit to see this plan through."
Pensions were a horrible horrible idea. They were short-term thinking. What ends up happening is pensions became crushing debt because companies didn't fund them ahead of time, then they would go out of business and all that debt would vanish, leaving the pensioners with nothing. All funds like this should get paid out when the worker works his hours, and it shouldn't be a company fund either.
Almost anything a President can enter into unilaterally...can be undone by a President, unilaterally.
And, because we're taking advantage of that, soon nobody will trust an American president with any commitment beyond his presidency.
Well the Congress has the power to create laws. The President does not -- he enforces the laws. The details of enforcement are left to the presidency, but for instance, President Obama can say "Well, we're not going to deport these particular illegal immigrants... yet." Which is why DACA is called "deferred action" -- there's no path to citizenship, which would be in Congress's domain. Congress's DREAM Act that has been kicking around since Durbin and Hatch introduced it in 2001 and does have paths to citizenship if certain requirements are met; one reason why I have my doubts that it would pass anytime in the next decade.
I'm betting that the real reason is that Obama negotiated the treaty; I don't really understand the USA internals -- nor should I, as a foreigner -- but can a President really get out of treaties without the Congress consent?
Almost anything a President can enter into unilaterally (an 'agreement' like this, the DACA deal, executive actions in general) can be undone by a President, unilaterally.
Jim Cramer is usually on the wrong side of reality, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's in favor of Musk's ill-advised antics.
He's a bit of a clown. I don't even mean that to be insulting, it's just the on-air persona type that he's tried to craft.
a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term
Why not?
Because tablet interfaces/feels SUCK when you can't keep your eyes on the tablet.
If you move from one house in California to another - even if they are identical houses on identical lots located right next door to one another - your property taxes can go up by 10x or 20x. It has to do with the fact that under Prop 13 the valuation of the house for property tax purposes never goes up until it changes hands. There are properties in California that haven't been re-valued since 1978 (some of these properties will NEVER get re-valued, since they are owned by corporations that can't die, at least with human owners the situation eventually corrects itself).
Yes, your property taxes paid might go up 10x-20x depending on the tax rate where you move, but that isn't a "penalty" imposed by the state, it's just that you're paying the natural area rate for property taxes that you weren't paying before. Prop 13 keeps the property taxes artificially low, basically locking you in (with a minor increase every year) the difference growing the longer you own the home so that rising taxes can't price you out of the home that you own. The entire purpose is to allow homeowners to afford their property taxes. But the benefit, the super-low rates, are property-specific. A new person moves in, and they don't inherit the old rate. They get to pay market rates. Otherwise, property rates would almost never rise at all, and the whole system collapses. You're not paying an additional penalty for moving, it's that you're no longer being grandfathered for a super-low rate.
As I understand it, the accounting bullshit was put in footnotes, and thus "disclosed". But all the investment banks were making so much cash of Enron their analysts were told (or hinted at) not to rock the boat.
Arthur Anderson was one of the big five accounting firms, and colluded with Enron to cook the books and shredded documents when Enron came under audit. They were one of the largest multinationals when the Enron scandal broke, and they surrendered their CPA licenses a year later. Their conviction was reversed, but the company had already shed workers and sold off parts of itself to other companies.
It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.
And at the close of the markets on Monday, it's at $302. I guess it hasn't "tumbled" after all. It has been volatile, as Musk said it would be.
If he keeps pissing off the stockholders then it's possible the board might want to find a different CEO that's more stable.
Remember how that went for Apple
It didn't go well, but I think an argument could be made that they were justified in firing Jobs. Apple had been losing its position and had not found a successor to the incredibly popular Apple II. The Macintosh was not selling well, the Apple III was a flop, and the Lisa had been a money-losing proposition as well. Sculley had been CEO for two years when he was asked by shareholders to curb Jobs's penchant for expensive development flops, Sculley found Jobs was organizing an internal coup. The board of directors agreed with Sculley (-especially- in the early 1980s, Jobs was difficult to work for and get along with) and Steve was out.
Getting fired by Apple was probably the best thing that'd ever happened to him.
2) Show how much of his personal wealth is invested, i.e. how much he is risking by following up on his own advice. Is he just investing a little on the side, or can he actually pretty much bankrupt himself if he is wrong? That'll show you how much he actually believes what he is saying...and whether he is trying to actively decieve people or not.
Not every risk is the same for the same person, though. Everything with the stock market involves a certain level of risk, even if some of the flashier personalities tote a "sure thing." But one person's tolerance for risk can be higher than another's. A 30-something person who has the majority of his earnings ahead of him in life can accept higher risk/rewards stocks (or even just a "more stocks, fewer bonds" investment strategy) than someone who is closer to retirement. An investment adviser in his 60s can make recommendations to that guy in his 30s that he himself won't take, because if the risk doesn't work out, then the person in his 60s is in a more precarious position.
Every adviser I've ever had has talked about how people have a more aggressive strategy when they're young, a strat that trends more conservative as they get older -- lower risk, lower returns, but less of a chance of taking a big hit that will never be paid back.
"Invest"
You mean leach and don't work one fucking bit
If you don't want their money, then you don't have to ask for it.
If you DO want their money, then having them invest it means their resources ARE valuable, and yeah, they get to charge a fee as a condition.
Where in the Constitution is it stated that the union of states is permanent?
I guess we can quibble about this, but I would consider the absence of any Constitutional procedure to allow a state to leave as meaning that a state cannot leave, otherwise it would have language about who would need to be able to approve such a move.
Texas vs White may have come out long ago, but current Supreme Court justices have talked about the case and its importance as precedent. The late Justice Scalia is probably the one most people know about, since he was the one who was outspoken on the subject.
Also, California could probably garner support for a secession amendment via threatening to split into many blue states
Haha, I hadn't considered that before! "Let us leave, or you'll have to deal with even more of us!" That would give CA a few more Senators and another governor, but it wouldn't change the House makeup at all. But the state splitting initiatives I've seen before would involve the creation of at least one red state, like the State of Jefferson.
Respectfully, your lucky experience does not negate mine and I'm truly happy you've enjoyed the beauty that is Santa Barbara! I've driven the 101 several times from the Bay Area to Buena Park/SD and have spent the bulk of it sitting in LA parking lots.
Granted, LA is pretty horrible. But I don't think LA is that representative of California as a whole.
Amazon isn't a Silicon Valley company, they're up in Seattle. Of course, like any good conglomerate, they have physical spaces just about everywhere..
The situation for property tax is made worse in California by proposition 13, which shifts a disproportionate amount of taxes onto individuals and away from long established businesses - in addition to blatantly violating the right to travel and hence a right protected by the 9th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.
What do you mean, prop 13 violates the "right to travel?" That a state low limiting the increase of local property taxes could run afoul of the 9th Amendment is a truly huge leap of legal logic an order of magnitude greater than any generous interpretation of the Commerce Clause that I've ever heard of.