However cities changed. We used to have jobs downtown and people lived in suburbs and there was good mass transit options to get from there to downtown. Now the good jobs that pay a decent salary out out at the suburbs, and not necessarily the suburb you are in but the one 30 miles away or more, and the mass transit is not set up to handle that sort of commute.
Yup, and that's why one of my coworkers bitched every day about his awful commute from San Francisco to San Jose, because his wife was the one who made the most money. But he still did the commute, he wasn't just going to quit and stay at home because you don't just give up that extra $160K/year because the commute is long.
Ha, I can't afford that. Commuting isn't as bad now as it used to be since the company moved closer to me (thus forstalling my leaving and looking for something closer). But generally the high paying jobs are not in places with affordable housing, especially in high tech. Rent across the street from where I work is more than double my mortgage. Buying it out of the question as the costs have gone up faster than the value of what I own, and at the age I am I'm not going to start a new mortgage unless it's someplace for retirement.
Your advice is find if you're just a general purpose manage for a retail big box store in a podunk town. But then hope you don't get laid off when there's an economic downturn since there won't be replacement jobs. It's not as common now for new employers to pay relocation costs as it used to be either. If you're a high tech worker, you can't just work anywhere, the companies are not evenly spread around the country so that you can live wherever you want.
Such laws require much political cooperation and so are very slow to come into existence. But congress DOES enact such legislation. The trouble is that the telecommunication industry and market have changed much faster than congress can keep up. The previous congressionaal FCC legislation on this issue was when the internet was relatively new and the mobile phone sector was small. The bill is very long (well, not long for a bill but long for an average citizen to read, parse, and understand), and covers all sorts of minutiae that seem outdated.
This used to work well for telephone service, because telephone service changed very slowly over the decades.
And Obama appointed him because he was required to have a political mix on the committee and could not have only Democrats.
Of course, part of the problem comes from appointing industry insiders, and it's a problem that's been around for a long time and is hard to resolve. Part of the cause here is that if you want experts in a certain area then those experts are inevitably industry insiders. Ie, if you want knowledgeable banking regulators then your pool of candidates are going to be bankers, which leads to the inevitable state that bankers are policing themselves. This is why we have so much "regulatory capture" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).
We've never in the past needed legislation for every minutiae of regulation. It was assumed that the legislation was there to enable the regulatory bodies or to provide guidelines and that the regulatory bodies would then faithfully and honestly conduct the business that they had been set up to do. History did not prepare us for the possibility of a slash-and-burn administration intent upon the destruction of all regulations, since this had never been the stated goal of any political party.
Yes he won. What is surprising to me is that despite holding views that are not mainstream Republican views and which are different from traditional Republican values, the mainstream Republicans are backing up. This is a NEW Republican party.
This is what is weird to me. Is a political party unable to coherently state what their core values are and have those values last for longer than an election cycle? Will every new election mean we must rewrite what a party stands for? Because the Republican party of this year has little resemblance to the Republican party of 4 years ago.
Trump acts like a damn dictator, and his followers kowtow because they're worried about losing elections. He has bad trade policies that are going to hurt the economy, and an isolationist standpoint that has been discredited since the twenties. Anyone who was ever a fan of Reagan should be against Trump, as they are opposites.
Well, Democrats haven't had a utter loony in office in a very long time, and Democrats haven't had to hold their nose while being asked to kiss their president's ass. Somehow the very same Republicans who publicly criticized Trump before he was elected managed to turn around and kowtow to him. Trump publicly insulted Ted Cruz's wife, and yet Cruz still turned around and praised Trump after the election.
Seriously, I miss the Republican Party, because what we have today no longer resembles it.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican, and yet I am still able to recognize foul play by either party. And Kemp is engaged in foul play here, as part of a state with a long history in disenfranchising voters.
As secretary of state, he ethically and morally should recuse himself if he's running for office. Wasn't it the Republican party that used to be all for morals?
You don't understand the rules. Dirty tricks are ok if your side is doing them, they're only wrong if the other side uses them. Being a hypocrite is a prerequisite for becoming a politician (and how I wish this was only a joke).
I was watching a movie once in a theater, and the Blue Angels hit a sonic boom before they got over the ocean and the whole place shook, and the screen itself was also rocking back and forth after they passed. They tend to get in trouble for this sort of thing, there are strict rules about sonic booms. But you know how it is about fighter jocks and rules.
What's wrong with that. There is a lot more hours of sunlight in the summer than in the winter. It's a balance between those who hate it being dark in the morning an dthose who hate it dark in the evening. It is impossible to please everyone here so it's better to err on the side of common sense.
But if they had said "if we go on DST permanently, it would be even darker in the morning when you go vote" it might have swayed some people... The snag is that this was campaigned on being about changing the time, and the effects of being on DST permanently weren't mentioned.
We did try DST year round during the Nixon administration, and it didn't last long because everyone hated it.
And yet, the text of the proposition is clear that about either changing dates of DST or going DST all year round, it does not mention abandoning DST. Whoever wrote the proposition was clearly biased towards keeping DST. But with or without the proposition the legislature can still request the feds to let them leave DST altogether.
The proposition really serves no practical purpose. But it could send the wrong signal that permanent DST is preferred even though most voters merely wanted to get off of the twice-a-year clock change.
Some states are already not on DST. However there are no states or areas in the US that are on DST year round, that's just dumb.
Note that the arguments FOR the proposition were all about getting rid of the time change twice a year, they never said why PDT was preferrable to PST. The legislature of every state already has the power to appeal to the the feds to change time zone borders or how they deal with DST, no proposition is necessary for that. (and by the "feds" this means the Department of Transportation of all things:-)
So, it's Mountain Standard Time year round, same as Arizona which doesn't use DST.
It puts two issues together - the time change issue and the issue of DST or no DST. As well as allowing the legislature to change the time of DST start and end. That's the ultimate problem with California propositions - they're not written by a committee who has sat down and thought things through, they're often written by a disgruntled person with a gripe who's able to raise money to get it on the ballot. Many of these propositions when passed are quickly struck down by the courts because they violate the California constitution, or they conflict with other laws, etc. This one seriously feels like a bunch of drunks in a bar hashed things out on the back of a napkin.
No, the headline is sort of wrong. The oficial summary includes "Permits the Legislature by two-thirds vote to make future changes to California’s daylight saving time period, including for its year-round application, if changes are consistent with federal law." So it could mean that the legislature could change DST to happen on different dates as well.
And I voted against it I think. Permanent DST is stupid, where as permanent abandonment of DST is smarter. I agree that the change in time twice a year is dumb, but permanently being off by an hour and effectively being in a different time zone altogether is dumber. I think it's confusing to people who just want to get rid of the twice a year time change but who don't realize that DST is not the "standard" time.
Overall this proposition will have zero effect because states can't change these rules unilaterally. However, currently states are allowed to choose to not have DST at all, which applies to most of Arizona, and California probably doesn't even need a proposition for that. Hopefully the legislators are smart enough not to push forward with this.
This is the wrong sort of thinking in my view. Remember in the past that it was considered normal to be able to repair a device for a decade or two. A new appliance could easily last 25 years or more. And these new phones sometimes cost more than appliances, so why not assume that they will last. Where I work we sell devices that we expect to work for 20 years; it's sometimes a pain but we put up with it because we'd lose customers otherwise.
The modern attitude of embracing intentionally fast obsolescence is bizarre. Fashion and conspicuous consumption is getting out of hand here. These old products are most definitely not being recycled either, it is unsustainable to keep this millenial obsession of always having new products.
My older phones stopped working for various reasons. None were ever dropped, no chips, no cracked screens, etc. But I know plenty of people still walking around with and iPhone 4 or older. Sometimes I think people spent so much on the phones that they really don't want to give it up, or they don't have the budget to upgrade, so I do see some badly cracked and spiderwebbed screens.
I saw a report once that the number of iPhones damaged would increase after the latest model was announced, possibly a subconscious desire to not keep a firm grip on the old model so as to get an excuse to upgrade...
It makes sense for the *consumer* to make these expensive products last as long as possible. Don't trust the manufacturers' advice because they're only trying to extract more money from you.
Slashdot Mirror
However cities changed. We used to have jobs downtown and people lived in suburbs and there was good mass transit options to get from there to downtown. Now the good jobs that pay a decent salary out out at the suburbs, and not necessarily the suburb you are in but the one 30 miles away or more, and the mass transit is not set up to handle that sort of commute.
Yup, and that's why one of my coworkers bitched every day about his awful commute from San Francisco to San Jose, because his wife was the one who made the most money. But he still did the commute, he wasn't just going to quit and stay at home because you don't just give up that extra $160K/year because the commute is long.
Ha, I can't afford that. Commuting isn't as bad now as it used to be since the company moved closer to me (thus forstalling my leaving and looking for something closer). But generally the high paying jobs are not in places with affordable housing, especially in high tech. Rent across the street from where I work is more than double my mortgage. Buying it out of the question as the costs have gone up faster than the value of what I own, and at the age I am I'm not going to start a new mortgage unless it's someplace for retirement.
Your advice is find if you're just a general purpose manage for a retail big box store in a podunk town. But then hope you don't get laid off when there's an economic downturn since there won't be replacement jobs. It's not as common now for new employers to pay relocation costs as it used to be either. If you're a high tech worker, you can't just work anywhere, the companies are not evenly spread around the country so that you can live wherever you want.
There is something worse than Skype for Business?
Such laws require much political cooperation and so are very slow to come into existence. But congress DOES enact such legislation. The trouble is that the telecommunication industry and market have changed much faster than congress can keep up. The previous congressionaal FCC legislation on this issue was when the internet was relatively new and the mobile phone sector was small. The bill is very long (well, not long for a bill but long for an average citizen to read, parse, and understand), and covers all sorts of minutiae that seem outdated.
This used to work well for telephone service, because telephone service changed very slowly over the decades.
And Obama appointed him because he was required to have a political mix on the committee and could not have only Democrats.
Of course, part of the problem comes from appointing industry insiders, and it's a problem that's been around for a long time and is hard to resolve. Part of the cause here is that if you want experts in a certain area then those experts are inevitably industry insiders. Ie, if you want knowledgeable banking regulators then your pool of candidates are going to be bankers, which leads to the inevitable state that bankers are policing themselves. This is why we have so much "regulatory capture" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).
We've never in the past needed legislation for every minutiae of regulation. It was assumed that the legislation was there to enable the regulatory bodies or to provide guidelines and that the regulatory bodies would then faithfully and honestly conduct the business that they had been set up to do. History did not prepare us for the possibility of a slash-and-burn administration intent upon the destruction of all regulations, since this had never been the stated goal of any political party.
Anyone who can pass as normal may be a loony but wont' be an "utter" loony.
Yes he won. What is surprising to me is that despite holding views that are not mainstream Republican views and which are different from traditional Republican values, the mainstream Republicans are backing up. This is a NEW Republican party.
This is what is weird to me. Is a political party unable to coherently state what their core values are and have those values last for longer than an election cycle? Will every new election mean we must rewrite what a party stands for? Because the Republican party of this year has little resemblance to the Republican party of 4 years ago.
Trump acts like a damn dictator, and his followers kowtow because they're worried about losing elections. He has bad trade policies that are going to hurt the economy, and an isolationist standpoint that has been discredited since the twenties. Anyone who was ever a fan of Reagan should be against Trump, as they are opposites.
Well, Democrats haven't had a utter loony in office in a very long time, and Democrats haven't had to hold their nose while being asked to kiss their president's ass. Somehow the very same Republicans who publicly criticized Trump before he was elected managed to turn around and kowtow to him. Trump publicly insulted Ted Cruz's wife, and yet Cruz still turned around and praised Trump after the election.
Seriously, I miss the Republican Party, because what we have today no longer resembles it.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican, and yet I am still able to recognize foul play by either party. And Kemp is engaged in foul play here, as part of a state with a long history in disenfranchising voters.
As secretary of state, he ethically and morally should recuse himself if he's running for office. Wasn't it the Republican party that used to be all for morals?
You don't understand the rules. Dirty tricks are ok if your side is doing them, they're only wrong if the other side uses them. Being a hypocrite is a prerequisite for becoming a politician (and how I wish this was only a joke).
And for California, it fits quite well and is balanced in GMT-8 and Pacific Standard Time. Going permanently to DST throws it off by an hour.
I was watching a movie once in a theater, and the Blue Angels hit a sonic boom before they got over the ocean and the whole place shook, and the screen itself was also rocking back and forth after they passed. They tend to get in trouble for this sort of thing, there are strict rules about sonic booms. But you know how it is about fighter jocks and rules.
No, he said "cow" shit.
What's wrong with that. There is a lot more hours of sunlight in the summer than in the winter. It's a balance between those who hate it being dark in the morning an dthose who hate it dark in the evening. It is impossible to please everyone here so it's better to err on the side of common sense.
But if they had said "if we go on DST permanently, it would be even darker in the morning when you go vote" it might have swayed some people... The snag is that this was campaigned on being about changing the time, and the effects of being on DST permanently weren't mentioned.
We did try DST year round during the Nixon administration, and it didn't last long because everyone hated it.
And yet, the text of the proposition is clear that about either changing dates of DST or going DST all year round, it does not mention abandoning DST. Whoever wrote the proposition was clearly biased towards keeping DST. But with or without the proposition the legislature can still request the feds to let them leave DST altogether.
The proposition really serves no practical purpose. But it could send the wrong signal that permanent DST is preferred even though most voters merely wanted to get off of the twice-a-year clock change.
Some states are already not on DST. However there are no states or areas in the US that are on DST year round, that's just dumb.
Note that the arguments FOR the proposition were all about getting rid of the time change twice a year, they never said why PDT was preferrable to PST. The legislature of every state already has the power to appeal to the the feds to change time zone borders or how they deal with DST, no proposition is necessary for that. (and by the "feds" this means the Department of Transportation of all things :-)
So, it's Mountain Standard Time year round, same as Arizona which doesn't use DST.
It puts two issues together - the time change issue and the issue of DST or no DST. As well as allowing the legislature to change the time of DST start and end. That's the ultimate problem with California propositions - they're not written by a committee who has sat down and thought things through, they're often written by a disgruntled person with a gripe who's able to raise money to get it on the ballot. Many of these propositions when passed are quickly struck down by the courts because they violate the California constitution, or they conflict with other laws, etc. This one seriously feels like a bunch of drunks in a bar hashed things out on the back of a napkin.
No, the headline is sort of wrong. The oficial summary includes "Permits the Legislature by two-thirds vote to make future changes to California’s daylight saving time period, including for its year-round application, if changes are consistent with federal law." So it could mean that the legislature could change DST to happen on different dates as well.
And I voted against it I think. Permanent DST is stupid, where as permanent abandonment of DST is smarter. I agree that the change in time twice a year is dumb, but permanently being off by an hour and effectively being in a different time zone altogether is dumber. I think it's confusing to people who just want to get rid of the twice a year time change but who don't realize that DST is not the "standard" time.
Overall this proposition will have zero effect because states can't change these rules unilaterally. However, currently states are allowed to choose to not have DST at all, which applies to most of Arizona, and California probably doesn't even need a proposition for that. Hopefully the legislators are smart enough not to push forward with this.
This is the wrong sort of thinking in my view. Remember in the past that it was considered normal to be able to repair a device for a decade or two. A new appliance could easily last 25 years or more. And these new phones sometimes cost more than appliances, so why not assume that they will last. Where I work we sell devices that we expect to work for 20 years; it's sometimes a pain but we put up with it because we'd lose customers otherwise.
The modern attitude of embracing intentionally fast obsolescence is bizarre. Fashion and conspicuous consumption is getting out of hand here. These old products are most definitely not being recycled either, it is unsustainable to keep this millenial obsession of always having new products.
My older phones stopped working for various reasons. None were ever dropped, no chips, no cracked screens, etc. But I know plenty of people still walking around with and iPhone 4 or older. Sometimes I think people spent so much on the phones that they really don't want to give it up, or they don't have the budget to upgrade, so I do see some badly cracked and spiderwebbed screens.
I saw a report once that the number of iPhones damaged would increase after the latest model was announced, possibly a subconscious desire to not keep a firm grip on the old model so as to get an excuse to upgrade...
It makes sense for the *consumer* to make these expensive products last as long as possible. Don't trust the manufacturers' advice because they're only trying to extract more money from you.