But Liberals != Democrats. And liberals are a small subset of people who did not vote for Trump. The problem is having only two valid parties both of which are controlled by the extremes in their party, then they get to the general election and the general public don't want the extremes. Maybe we need a centrist party so that the sane people have someone to vote for?
And if people think this is a great thing because it hides a power cable, then sheesh, get a life. We should be using advanced technology for things that are generally useful, not just to make some hipsters happy about buying something new.
What the election showed is a lot of hypocrisy on the right. The fact that the party that was excoriating Bill Clinton for his lack of character goes and starts bowing at the feet of someone with even less moral fiber, and even the evangelical wing were holding their nose and voting for him. Almost everyone in the Republican party that was bitterly opposed to Trump in the primaries suddenly changed their tune and made Trump their best friend. Trump even insulted Ted Cruz's wife but Ted still goes and campaigns for Trump. And the picture of governor Christie standing behind Trump at a rally looking like a whipped schoolchild said a whole lot. Good solid traditional Republicans are being called RINOs for not kissing Trump's ass.
Sure, the Democrats can be just as bad also, politics is inherently a sleazy field of work to get into. But the cesspool that they wade in seems deeper than it ever was in the past.
Hillary was doomed to lose from the start because the far right was bitterly opposed to her from the first day that she said she didn't like to bake brownies. This is a continuation of the whole whitewater fiasco where they failed to get an impeachment and they're continuing to follow the crusade started by Gingrich (who turned out be even sleazier than Bill). The conspiracy theories have been going strong for a couple of decades. I don't think there's anyone living that the far right base hates more than Hillary.
The trouble is that she was in a bubble (just like Trump for that matter) where she only heard positive things about herself and didn't see the huge tide against her. Never mind the whole optics of looking like she was pre-ordained to be the candidate.
If Democrats want to win, they need to put forward a moderate and centrist candidate. Ie, a Bill Clinton without the baggage. And if Republicans want to win then they have to do the same thing. Otherwise we'll have yet another election with two extreme factions all struggling to attract the sane people in the middle.
If it passes, I suspect it will still have some legal issues given how it is worded. It is essentially micromanaging decisions by the executive branch (repeal and restore regulations) rather than being new legislation that requires net neutrality. If the legislation stands it would be problematic as it will freeze the Obama era ruling as it is unless there is further legislative action, meaning that regulators could not tweak any rules in this regard even if they become out of date or have problems.
ya.... I read this, it feels weird. It isn't what it says it is and is not legislating net neutrality which is what should have been done. Instead it's a repeal of an FCC rule, it forbids adding the rule back, and it puts the earlier rule in its place. It's a cheesy way of legislating something.
I think they could have created a law that required net neutrality. That would have been a sign that the legislators for FOR something. Instead it's a dig directly at the executive and ordering that the executive take a particular action. Ie, a sign that the legislators are AGAINST the executive. So they felt that had to stick some hand slapping in the bill which is totally unnecessary to achieve the goal of net neutrality and is just low level politics.
I very much prefer legislators when they can be positive and for something, but am disappointed that today's politics is all about being negative and against something.
New Deal happened earlier, and did alleviate much of the great depression. WWII came after and accelerated the US into being an economic superpower, but the great depression was essentially over before we entered the war. There was the overlap period, where we still had the depression, we weren't in the war, but Europe was at war, so this certainly had an effect. But you cannot discount the New Deal as not helping.
Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech....
Or to some the favorite villains could be: minorities moving to my neighborhood, minorities wanting to vote, gays wanting to get married, people choosing the wrong religion, all reasons to motivate some to try and restrict rights.
One day my mother is saying how we must protect the freedom of religion and get rid of government intrusion. The next day we drive past a mosque and she says "that shouldn't be allowed". The human brain is perfectly capable of believing in to contrary ideas simultaneously. Freedom for me, but restrictions for you!
Anti vaccination has occured for as long as vaccination existed.
And it's a sad tendency of some people who are short sighted to see a group of deranged people and then automatically assume they must belong to a disliked political party. It's a vain attempt to brand Favorite Party as always wholesome and good and Hated Party as only attracting deviants and the mentally ill.
If your goal is to score points with people who have the same political stance as you, then you can continue making peurile ad hominem attacks. But if you want to actually convince someone to your point of view (or *gasp* find common ground) then you need to use intelligent arguments.
Pure capitalism will also always fail. Because pure capitalism doesn't handle the white elephant in the room that monetary forces cannot solve every problem and that pure market forces inevitably lead to monoplies, unfair competition, and barriers to market entry. But we mix in other stuff with capitalism to make it work - governments, regulation, safety nets, health care, etc.
And we have no politicians in the US advocating for Venezuelan style socialism. We do have some wanting more socialist policies similar to that in Scandinavia. The mass hysteria on the right against some prominent politicians is just silly; No one is abolishing capitalism, no one is banning hamburgers, and no one has an agenda to make your children gay. For every delusional person you can point to on the left there is also a delusional person you can point to on the right.
The New Deal was essentially a socialist policy and it pulled us out of the Great Depression when the prior solutions had been failing. Social Security and Medicare are socialist policies backed by a large majority in the US (and yes, they need some fixing).
The problem is that we've got a political system based upon divisiveness today. Everyone politician is anti something, usually anti-the-other-side. Finding common ground is considered a traitorous act. Compromise is a dirty word. But a mere thirty years ago it was still considered a good thing to reach across the aisle, and moderates were seen as the intelligent voices who made things work.
The first is held sacrosanct on both sides of the isle. Don't let the actions of a few fringe weirdos paint half the country for you. And stop worrying about the left or the right, they're both WRONG and misguided. Aim for the center instead of treating politics like a stupid football game.
They also can't legislate mathematics, which is the only way they could get this mythical secure encryption that allows in law enforcement but no one else.
Not true. They are under the authority of the department of justice, which is a part of the executive branch. Their funding comes from congress as well, they must abide by laws created by congress, and the court system has oversight for criminal cases they bring. They absolutely and positively answer to elected officials no matter what your special youtube videos tell you. Just because an authoritarian president finds that he can't order them about is not the same thing as the FBI being unanswerable to elected officials. The FBI members have taken oaths to uphold the law, not oaths to an individual office holder.
DRM is not the same as copy protection or security. Digital Rights Management means managing who, where, when, and how you can get the digital rights. Copy protection is the most minor and trivial things it does, and by all evidence not even treated very importantly. Many DRM games are pirated on the first day or even earlier, so copy protection is relatively ineffective.
What's game makers consider most important with DRM is that you, the legal consumer, shall not ever resell your game, lend it, give it away, or similar otherwise legal options. Reselling the game is the biggie here, they want you to be paying full price. For movies, DRM means never being able to see it in a different country or at a different time than you purchased it for, for books it means not being able to read it on an unapproved device, and so forth.
The pay is not directly in the hands of the hiring manager. We can make recommendations, but they can and will be overridden. I've had my annual raise and bonus allocations be changed higher up the chain of command (very much pissed me off).
I was not talking about metrics. Most supervisors can easily tell subjectively if workers are top tier or bottom tier, the metrics only exist in some places as a means of justifying those ratings. Sure, some people here are arguing against metrics, I can understand that. However in the example I gave was very much about a good worker being paid very much less than a terrible worker, trying to make the point that pay does not correlate to quality of the worker.
I was not using metrics at all here and was very much trying to avoid such things in the description. The company is not a charity who hires people just to dispose of excess case, a person is hired to do work. And this particular person was very much not pulling his own weight, and would be rated low both objectively and subjectively by management and coworkers.
How effective they are at actually getting stuff done? Not even using metrics or such, it's easy to see someone who is not actually getting work done on time versus someone who is very effective and contributing. Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned, difficulty in adding simple features or doing basic debugging; versus someone who implements lots of features and quickly resolves bug issues that are filed. Boiling down to "is the company getting its money's worth from this person?"
I've seen some really lopsided cases. The low productivity person is so bad that there's eventually a Performance Improvement Plan and later is laid off, but was actually making $50K more than the highest productivity person. The difference all came down to the pay grade given when they were initially hired. After the fact it's extremely difficult to lower someone's salary much less put them into a lower pay grade, and it's also very difficult to give someone else a large enough boost in pay to reach parity. I also once got a very big raise when I told my boss how more much the local goof off made than I did (the goof off had been recommended by the owner).
Google's plan here really only affects employees within the same pay grade. Most companies do try to even things out over time so that most employees are somewhere near the middle the pay range for their level (ie, easier to wrangle a larger raise if the employee is below the midline). So the biggest differences in pay for the same job are likely to come from being in different pay grades, not variances within that grade. And the pay grade very much depends upon what you started with when first hired, and in my experience the hiring process is where the most bias can happen since there is so much gut feeling going into it. So Google really isn't saying anything useful here, if they really did want to show that they were being fair in pay between men and women they'd show the distributions in pay across the pay grades.
Every time I use any different device or computer it complains that I logged in from an unknown device or computer. Even if I've used that computer or device many many times in the past. Facebook and Google bother don't seem to have a memory beyond 2 locations and they seem to forget about these over time if there is no activity from a location.
They both have major security holes in any case in that they want to save your password or provide a password-less login (every single damn time I go to Facebook it wants me to click the "remember me" for a password-less login).
It was in a cinema, but for a limited time, and several academy members were a bit annoyed at how short this was. Ie, it felt like a technicality to them. In addition, there were several other things that academy members complained about. I don't have all the rules so I'm not sure how many of them were skirted here or if these were just sour grapes (ie, one complaint was the large amount of money spent on promoting the movie to the academy).
I don't think Spielberg's complaints are "sour grapes". There is a valid complaint here because Roma isn't widely considered to be a theatrical movie but a television movie.
Slashdot Mirror
But Liberals != Democrats. And liberals are a small subset of people who did not vote for Trump. The problem is having only two valid parties both of which are controlled by the extremes in their party, then they get to the general election and the general public don't want the extremes. Maybe we need a centrist party so that the sane people have someone to vote for?
And if people think this is a great thing because it hides a power cable, then sheesh, get a life. We should be using advanced technology for things that are generally useful, not just to make some hipsters happy about buying something new.
What the election showed is a lot of hypocrisy on the right. The fact that the party that was excoriating Bill Clinton for his lack of character goes and starts bowing at the feet of someone with even less moral fiber, and even the evangelical wing were holding their nose and voting for him. Almost everyone in the Republican party that was bitterly opposed to Trump in the primaries suddenly changed their tune and made Trump their best friend. Trump even insulted Ted Cruz's wife but Ted still goes and campaigns for Trump. And the picture of governor Christie standing behind Trump at a rally looking like a whipped schoolchild said a whole lot. Good solid traditional Republicans are being called RINOs for not kissing Trump's ass.
Sure, the Democrats can be just as bad also, politics is inherently a sleazy field of work to get into. But the cesspool that they wade in seems deeper than it ever was in the past.
Hillary was doomed to lose from the start because the far right was bitterly opposed to her from the first day that she said she didn't like to bake brownies. This is a continuation of the whole whitewater fiasco where they failed to get an impeachment and they're continuing to follow the crusade started by Gingrich (who turned out be even sleazier than Bill). The conspiracy theories have been going strong for a couple of decades. I don't think there's anyone living that the far right base hates more than Hillary.
The trouble is that she was in a bubble (just like Trump for that matter) where she only heard positive things about herself and didn't see the huge tide against her. Never mind the whole optics of looking like she was pre-ordained to be the candidate.
If Democrats want to win, they need to put forward a moderate and centrist candidate. Ie, a Bill Clinton without the baggage. And if Republicans want to win then they have to do the same thing. Otherwise we'll have yet another election with two extreme factions all struggling to attract the sane people in the middle.
If it passes, I suspect it will still have some legal issues given how it is worded. It is essentially micromanaging decisions by the executive branch (repeal and restore regulations) rather than being new legislation that requires net neutrality. If the legislation stands it would be problematic as it will freeze the Obama era ruling as it is unless there is further legislative action, meaning that regulators could not tweak any rules in this regard even if they become out of date or have problems.
ya.... I read this, it feels weird. It isn't what it says it is and is not legislating net neutrality which is what should have been done. Instead it's a repeal of an FCC rule, it forbids adding the rule back, and it puts the earlier rule in its place. It's a cheesy way of legislating something.
I think they could have created a law that required net neutrality. That would have been a sign that the legislators for FOR something. Instead it's a dig directly at the executive and ordering that the executive take a particular action. Ie, a sign that the legislators are AGAINST the executive. So they felt that had to stick some hand slapping in the bill which is totally unnecessary to achieve the goal of net neutrality and is just low level politics.
I very much prefer legislators when they can be positive and for something, but am disappointed that today's politics is all about being negative and against something.
New Deal happened earlier, and did alleviate much of the great depression. WWII came after and accelerated the US into being an economic superpower, but the great depression was essentially over before we entered the war. There was the overlap period, where we still had the depression, we weren't in the war, but Europe was at war, so this certainly had an effect. But you cannot discount the New Deal as not helping.
Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech....
Or to some the favorite villains could be: minorities moving to my neighborhood, minorities wanting to vote, gays wanting to get married, people choosing the wrong religion, all reasons to motivate some to try and restrict rights.
One day my mother is saying how we must protect the freedom of religion and get rid of government intrusion. The next day we drive past a mosque and she says "that shouldn't be allowed". The human brain is perfectly capable of believing in to contrary ideas simultaneously. Freedom for me, but restrictions for you!
Anti vaccination has occured for as long as vaccination existed.
And it's a sad tendency of some people who are short sighted to see a group of deranged people and then automatically assume they must belong to a disliked political party. It's a vain attempt to brand Favorite Party as always wholesome and good and Hated Party as only attracting deviants and the mentally ill.
If your goal is to score points with people who have the same political stance as you, then you can continue making peurile ad hominem attacks. But if you want to actually convince someone to your point of view (or *gasp* find common ground) then you need to use intelligent arguments.
Pure capitalism will also always fail. Because pure capitalism doesn't handle the white elephant in the room that monetary forces cannot solve every problem and that pure market forces inevitably lead to monoplies, unfair competition, and barriers to market entry. But we mix in other stuff with capitalism to make it work - governments, regulation, safety nets, health care, etc.
And we have no politicians in the US advocating for Venezuelan style socialism. We do have some wanting more socialist policies similar to that in Scandinavia. The mass hysteria on the right against some prominent politicians is just silly; No one is abolishing capitalism, no one is banning hamburgers, and no one has an agenda to make your children gay. For every delusional person you can point to on the left there is also a delusional person you can point to on the right.
The New Deal was essentially a socialist policy and it pulled us out of the Great Depression when the prior solutions had been failing. Social Security and Medicare are socialist policies backed by a large majority in the US (and yes, they need some fixing).
The problem is that we've got a political system based upon divisiveness today. Everyone politician is anti something, usually anti-the-other-side. Finding common ground is considered a traitorous act. Compromise is a dirty word. But a mere thirty years ago it was still considered a good thing to reach across the aisle, and moderates were seen as the intelligent voices who made things work.
Have you paid attention? Congress is now the Big Brother reality show. So Isle might actually be the correct word here :-)
The first is held sacrosanct on both sides of the isle. Don't let the actions of a few fringe weirdos paint half the country for you. And stop worrying about the left or the right, they're both WRONG and misguided. Aim for the center instead of treating politics like a stupid football game.
They also can't legislate mathematics, which is the only way they could get this mythical secure encryption that allows in law enforcement but no one else.
Not true. They are under the authority of the department of justice, which is a part of the executive branch. Their funding comes from congress as well, they must abide by laws created by congress, and the court system has oversight for criminal cases they bring. They absolutely and positively answer to elected officials no matter what your special youtube videos tell you. Just because an authoritarian president finds that he can't order them about is not the same thing as the FBI being unanswerable to elected officials. The FBI members have taken oaths to uphold the law, not oaths to an individual office holder.
DRM is not the same as copy protection or security. Digital Rights Management means managing who, where, when, and how you can get the digital rights. Copy protection is the most minor and trivial things it does, and by all evidence not even treated very importantly. Many DRM games are pirated on the first day or even earlier, so copy protection is relatively ineffective.
What's game makers consider most important with DRM is that you, the legal consumer, shall not ever resell your game, lend it, give it away, or similar otherwise legal options. Reselling the game is the biggie here, they want you to be paying full price. For movies, DRM means never being able to see it in a different country or at a different time than you purchased it for, for books it means not being able to read it on an unapproved device, and so forth.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
The pay is not directly in the hands of the hiring manager. We can make recommendations, but they can and will be overridden. I've had my annual raise and bonus allocations be changed higher up the chain of command (very much pissed me off).
I was not talking about metrics. Most supervisors can easily tell subjectively if workers are top tier or bottom tier, the metrics only exist in some places as a means of justifying those ratings. Sure, some people here are arguing against metrics, I can understand that. However in the example I gave was very much about a good worker being paid very much less than a terrible worker, trying to make the point that pay does not correlate to quality of the worker.
I was not using metrics at all here and was very much trying to avoid such things in the description. The company is not a charity who hires people just to dispose of excess case, a person is hired to do work. And this particular person was very much not pulling his own weight, and would be rated low both objectively and subjectively by management and coworkers.
That was an awesome movie! It was only nominated for somewhat minor categories though (song, costume, adapted screenplay).
Great, go buy a Darwin car instead.
How effective they are at actually getting stuff done? Not even using metrics or such, it's easy to see someone who is not actually getting work done on time versus someone who is very effective and contributing. Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned, difficulty in adding simple features or doing basic debugging; versus someone who implements lots of features and quickly resolves bug issues that are filed. Boiling down to "is the company getting its money's worth from this person?"
I've seen some really lopsided cases. The low productivity person is so bad that there's eventually a Performance Improvement Plan and later is laid off, but was actually making $50K more than the highest productivity person. The difference all came down to the pay grade given when they were initially hired. After the fact it's extremely difficult to lower someone's salary much less put them into a lower pay grade, and it's also very difficult to give someone else a large enough boost in pay to reach parity. I also once got a very big raise when I told my boss how more much the local goof off made than I did (the goof off had been recommended by the owner).
Google's plan here really only affects employees within the same pay grade. Most companies do try to even things out over time so that most employees are somewhere near the middle the pay range for their level (ie, easier to wrangle a larger raise if the employee is below the midline). So the biggest differences in pay for the same job are likely to come from being in different pay grades, not variances within that grade. And the pay grade very much depends upon what you started with when first hired, and in my experience the hiring process is where the most bias can happen since there is so much gut feeling going into it. So Google really isn't saying anything useful here, if they really did want to show that they were being fair in pay between men and women they'd show the distributions in pay across the pay grades.
Every time I use any different device or computer it complains that I logged in from an unknown device or computer. Even if I've used that computer or device many many times in the past. Facebook and Google bother don't seem to have a memory beyond 2 locations and they seem to forget about these over time if there is no activity from a location.
They both have major security holes in any case in that they want to save your password or provide a password-less login (every single damn time I go to Facebook it wants me to click the "remember me" for a password-less login).
It was in a cinema, but for a limited time, and several academy members were a bit annoyed at how short this was. Ie, it felt like a technicality to them. In addition, there were several other things that academy members complained about. I don't have all the rules so I'm not sure how many of them were skirted here or if these were just sour grapes (ie, one complaint was the large amount of money spent on promoting the movie to the academy).
I don't think Spielberg's complaints are "sour grapes". There is a valid complaint here because Roma isn't widely considered to be a theatrical movie but a television movie.