Even if they never put back stringent requirements, the economic benefits of coal are declining. Times change, we shouldn't have to act like it's still the industrial revolution. Remember in the UK it was people on the left kept wanting to keep coal in order to keep jobs but the conservatives didn't want to keep it alive on life support. Now in the US it's the opposite, conservatives want to keep it in order to keep jobs even if it doesn't make economic sense. The goal of the coal industry is to make money and not to be a jobs program, and the same goes for oil industry, solar industry, wind power industry, natural gas industry, etc.
My comment was meant to be somewhat insulting as a response to an insulting post. I have met such employees who get things done. They are not too common though and become rarer as a company grows in size.
I think those who don't have direct managers do still have a lot of people running about given them orders anyway, they're being asked to attend the project meetings, and so on.
If you are absolutely invaluable then there may be two surprises. One is that you get replaced anyway because upper management is stupid. The other is that you're not as invaluable as you thought. In both cases you have to prove that you're invaluable instead of just assuming it. I thought I was invaluable to a critical project once, but they went and cancelled the project and then downsized...
This is great, if your job involves inter-site skills. But you can't split the employees up this way. If you say that half the employees from San Francisco are allowed to work from home or a remote office, and the other half are required to head down to San Jose every morning, it can be bad for morale. Now you could split it up into job types or duties. But even then there will be one or two trouble cases that you can't trust to work from home and still get stuff done, and morale doesn't stay up if you say "everyone but Jack and Jill can work from home".
I'm waiting for the employee that knows how to do the job and can do it well and on time without management. I hear this is possible, but I suspect only as an academic premise.
Many environments you can't dynamically link. Small embedded systems for instance. Library makers MUST make APIs and ABIs stable, because the difficulty of adapting to changing libraries means that projects will be slow to update to newer versions.
Reuse has to be done *right*. Most of the people with religious fervour about code reuse do not necessarily do it right. Doing it right means you must review the code and know what it does, know if it fits into your design, know how to fix it when it breaks (and it will), and so forth. Cutting and pasting is dangerous. For a larger piece of code you want long term support that is stable without a constantly changing API, but do not expect to actually get support unless you're a giant company. I see so many who waste so much time wheedling to get support when they could just fix it themselves in a tenth the time. To some people "code reuse" is a synonym for "never code", and they love it because it often turns out they don't know how to program anyway.
This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions. Maybe this is not the last straw but it's certainly a very bold one. This is in international waters no matter that they added fake islands and 9 dashes to map.
Lots of telecommunication devices with two antennas already. Maybe not phones, but that shouldn't matter. Except that to the US patent ofice it does seem to matter, or at least they're too stupid to deny these patents.
A patent has to (or should) be something new. You can't patent making a fire by rubbing two sticks together even if no one has done it yet. People who think you can patent shit like this probably sit around all day trying to figure out how to make money by doing nothing all day long, rather than actually doing real work to earn it.
Both parties are doing this. The disingenuousness is in assuming that the Republican party remained pure in all of this. And yes, is is very likely the RNC was hacked too despite protests to the contrary. If they say "we have no evidence of being hacked" then that's probably truthful, but when they say "we absolutely were not hacked!" then they're either ignorant or covering their asses.
Oh I'm not saying I want to do what you bolded, I just said it might be a smart idea. At least smart when looking at the problem only in isolation, but it's not very smart if you look at a broader perspective of society. A dictator could solve all sorts of problems with a heavy hand but that doesn't mean it's a good idea because so very many new problems would arise. Generally society accepts certain problems like undocumented workers because the cure is worse than the disease.
Instead of small parties forming a coalition after the elections, in the US you get small factions forming the coalitions during the primary elections. Ie, the "Tea Party" was acting as a kingmaker, sometimes the evangelicals, even though these are not political parties. What you don't see often though are these factions crossing the party line, they are mostly convinced that they are a core constituent of just one party. Even those party members who aren't as rigidly ideological will work with or allly with the other party but without leaving their current party.
However this does not stop the employers who want undocumented workers because they can pay less than minimum wage. Americans don't want those jobs for several reasons, one being that they pay less than minimum wage. If an employer is going to skirt the law to get an undocumented worker then that employer isn't going to suddenly toe the line and follow regulations regarding minimum wage.
And besides, most of the farm work that uses undocumented labor is not paid hourly but instead paid by the amount of work done (number of baskets of fruit picked, etc). So minimum wage doesn't figure into it.
It's really hard to pin any sort of ideology on Trump. Most people are still trying to figure him out and what he stands for. Those who voted for him as his fans (as opposed to those who only voted for a lesser of two evils) probably assume he's got a mirror image of their own political views and will be in for disappointment.
The Sparticists were socialists who wanted to follow more in the path of the Bolsheviks. In other words, they were the radical left-of-center. The point was that the Nazis had allied with pepole quite removed from themselves politically while gaining power, not that they were socialists themselves. The whole idea that you can put the Italian Fascists or German Nazis on a simplistic left vs right scale is missing the complexity of the real world.
Most people who claim a certain item is obsolete are either trying to sell you the alternative or are trying to justify their own switch to the alternative.
That is the best thing about cash - it runs out. That means if you use cash you don't find yourself accidentally spending too much money. When the cash runs out at the casino it means it's time to go back to your room. When the cash runs at at the grocery store it means it's time to go on a diet. You don't find the vans coming to repossess your furniture if you stop spending money when the cash in your wallet runs out. Cashless means it's easy to spend more money than you should, and easy to spend more money than you actually have. Using only cash means you don't succumb as easily to impulse buys.
There are precious few businesses out there that will cut you off if you seem to be spending more money than you actually have, the only safeguard is one's own self control.
The president is not exempt from emoluments clause though. But I will agree that it's a very unusual clause in the constitution and not easy to tie down what it exactly means in the modern age. The upshot is that the president, or any high official, should not profit from foreign governments. People actually pointed to this with Hillary Clinton because the charitable Clinton Foundation was accepting money from foreign governments while she was secretary of state. The president can accept personal gifts of all sorts from American citizens, and probably citizens of other countries, but not from leaders or governments of other countries. If the gifts only went to his children the clause should still apply (it's hardly a blind trust if your kids run it), and if the gifts were only in the form of favorable financial treatments it should still apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they never put back stringent requirements, the economic benefits of coal are declining. Times change, we shouldn't have to act like it's still the industrial revolution. Remember in the UK it was people on the left kept wanting to keep coal in order to keep jobs but the conservatives didn't want to keep it alive on life support. Now in the US it's the opposite, conservatives want to keep it in order to keep jobs even if it doesn't make economic sense. The goal of the coal industry is to make money and not to be a jobs program, and the same goes for oil industry, solar industry, wind power industry, natural gas industry, etc.
Ultimately the only real job of utmost importance is to keep the board happy.
My comment was meant to be somewhat insulting as a response to an insulting post. I have met such employees who get things done. They are not too common though and become rarer as a company grows in size.
I think those who don't have direct managers do still have a lot of people running about given them orders anyway, they're being asked to attend the project meetings, and so on.
Oh man, I wish my team would mellow out more. Instead I get the drama.
If you are absolutely invaluable then there may be two surprises. One is that you get replaced anyway because upper management is stupid. The other is that you're not as invaluable as you thought. In both cases you have to prove that you're invaluable instead of just assuming it. I thought I was invaluable to a critical project once, but they went and cancelled the project and then downsized...
This is great, if your job involves inter-site skills. But you can't split the employees up this way. If you say that half the employees from San Francisco are allowed to work from home or a remote office, and the other half are required to head down to San Jose every morning, it can be bad for morale. Now you could split it up into job types or duties. But even then there will be one or two trouble cases that you can't trust to work from home and still get stuff done, and morale doesn't stay up if you say "everyone but Jack and Jill can work from home".
I'm waiting for the employee that knows how to do the job and can do it well and on time without management. I hear this is possible, but I suspect only as an academic premise.
Many environments you can't dynamically link. Small embedded systems for instance. Library makers MUST make APIs and ABIs stable, because the difficulty of adapting to changing libraries means that projects will be slow to update to newer versions.
Reuse has to be done *right*. Most of the people with religious fervour about code reuse do not necessarily do it right. Doing it right means you must review the code and know what it does, know if it fits into your design, know how to fix it when it breaks (and it will), and so forth. Cutting and pasting is dangerous. For a larger piece of code you want long term support that is stable without a constantly changing API, but do not expect to actually get support unless you're a giant company. I see so many who waste so much time wheedling to get support when they could just fix it themselves in a tenth the time. To some people "code reuse" is a synonym for "never code", and they love it because it often turns out they don't know how to program anyway.
This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions. Maybe this is not the last straw but it's certainly a very bold one. This is in international waters no matter that they added fake islands and 9 dashes to map.
The entire history of Apple is a long string of taking existing ideas and claiming them as their own.
Lots of telecommunication devices with two antennas already. Maybe not phones, but that shouldn't matter. Except that to the US patent ofice it does seem to matter, or at least they're too stupid to deny these patents.
A patent has to (or should) be something new. You can't patent making a fire by rubbing two sticks together even if no one has done it yet. People who think you can patent shit like this probably sit around all day trying to figure out how to make money by doing nothing all day long, rather than actually doing real work to earn it.
Slashdot is not rolling downwards anymore. It is digging.
Both parties are doing this. The disingenuousness is in assuming that the Republican party remained pure in all of this. And yes, is is very likely the RNC was hacked too despite protests to the contrary. If they say "we have no evidence of being hacked" then that's probably truthful, but when they say "we absolutely were not hacked!" then they're either ignorant or covering their asses.
Oh I'm not saying I want to do what you bolded, I just said it might be a smart idea. At least smart when looking at the problem only in isolation, but it's not very smart if you look at a broader perspective of society. A dictator could solve all sorts of problems with a heavy hand but that doesn't mean it's a good idea because so very many new problems would arise. Generally society accepts certain problems like undocumented workers because the cure is worse than the disease.
Instead of small parties forming a coalition after the elections, in the US you get small factions forming the coalitions during the primary elections. Ie, the "Tea Party" was acting as a kingmaker, sometimes the evangelicals, even though these are not political parties. What you don't see often though are these factions crossing the party line, they are mostly convinced that they are a core constituent of just one party. Even those party members who aren't as rigidly ideological will work with or allly with the other party but without leaving their current party.
Absolutely. The employers of undocumented works know exactly what they are doing.
However this does not stop the employers who want undocumented workers because they can pay less than minimum wage. Americans don't want those jobs for several reasons, one being that they pay less than minimum wage. If an employer is going to skirt the law to get an undocumented worker then that employer isn't going to suddenly toe the line and follow regulations regarding minimum wage.
And besides, most of the farm work that uses undocumented labor is not paid hourly but instead paid by the amount of work done (number of baskets of fruit picked, etc). So minimum wage doesn't figure into it.
It's really hard to pin any sort of ideology on Trump. Most people are still trying to figure him out and what he stands for. Those who voted for him as his fans (as opposed to those who only voted for a lesser of two evils) probably assume he's got a mirror image of their own political views and will be in for disappointment.
The Sparticists were socialists who wanted to follow more in the path of the Bolsheviks. In other words, they were the radical left-of-center. The point was that the Nazis had allied with pepole quite removed from themselves politically while gaining power, not that they were socialists themselves. The whole idea that you can put the Italian Fascists or German Nazis on a simplistic left vs right scale is missing the complexity of the real world.
Most people who claim a certain item is obsolete are either trying to sell you the alternative or are trying to justify their own switch to the alternative.
That is the best thing about cash - it runs out. That means if you use cash you don't find yourself accidentally spending too much money. When the cash runs out at the casino it means it's time to go back to your room. When the cash runs at at the grocery store it means it's time to go on a diet. You don't find the vans coming to repossess your furniture if you stop spending money when the cash in your wallet runs out. Cashless means it's easy to spend more money than you should, and easy to spend more money than you actually have. Using only cash means you don't succumb as easily to impulse buys.
There are precious few businesses out there that will cut you off if you seem to be spending more money than you actually have, the only safeguard is one's own self control.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with cash. Sometimes it's ok to be a luddite when the technological alternative is stupid.
The president is not exempt from emoluments clause though. But I will agree that it's a very unusual clause in the constitution and not easy to tie down what it exactly means in the modern age. The upshot is that the president, or any high official, should not profit from foreign governments. People actually pointed to this with Hillary Clinton because the charitable Clinton Foundation was accepting money from foreign governments while she was secretary of state. The president can accept personal gifts of all sorts from American citizens, and probably citizens of other countries, but not from leaders or governments of other countries. If the gifts only went to his children the clause should still apply (it's hardly a blind trust if your kids run it), and if the gifts were only in the form of favorable financial treatments it should still apply.