There's this thing called a social security card that does the same thing, all without any biometrics. The fact is that employers who depend on illegals are glad they are illegals so they can pay them below minimum wage. There is virtually no penalty on the employers side for not following existing laws.
So the truth is that they just want biometrics on everyone in the country. That's the real purpose here.
Interesting, since it takes me a literally a half second to successfully authenticate to Google. Can you load Excel in less than a half second even with the pre-loader enabled?
"If you are going to discount any preloading of Excel then surely you would have to also turn off the "Stay signed in" checkbox for Google and clear the browser cache so all the javascript files have to be downloaded."
I'll tell you what, if you're willing to have to sign out of Windows and login before starting Excel, you have a deal. We can go on like this forever but the truth is that anyone on any decent PC running any non-shitty browser can load up Google Spreadsheet in less than 5 seconds. You can do much better than that with a snappy connection and computer. So there's no point in arguing that there's a performance issue with bringing up their spreadsheet app. If you want to say it's lacking features over Excel, then I would certainly agree with that but performance isn't really a problem here.
Yeah because your start menu preloads most of it. Kill that and then start an office app and you'll get a fair comparison. For reference, I can startup a large spreadsheet in Google Docs in 3 seconds. Beat that with your moderately old PC and MSoft Excel.
Really? What functionality does Outlook provide that makes it more functional than what Google offers? I'd also like to know what's so great about Thunderbird. It's been while since I used it but I was not even remotely impressed by it.
Leaving the company to find one with actual foresight is unethical? Interesting. These companies are doing themselves a disservice. Sticking with IE 6 long term is an extremely bad business decision. It's one thing if they have a plan to migrate off at a specific time in the future but to put it off without a specific plan to address the issue shows extremely poor business savvy. In fact, I would argue it's simply incompetent.
In any event, if you live in a right to work state you could easily argue that leaving a company for any reason whatsoever is perfectly ethical.
Please site a reference proving your claim that 90% of the time it's a bluff. Sounds like you just pulled this number out of your ass. The fact that you were modded up so much is sad.
"For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away."
SS is NOT an entitlement. You pay for it. As for robing the rich to pay for the poor, wrong again. The burden of SS sits squarely on the middle class since any earnings over 106k are not subject to SS taxation.
"So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish?" You're talking about the era of robber barons and absolutely abysmal working conditions in factories (including child labor). Most people in the US industrial revolution were really just indentured servants to their bosses.
"the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)" I might agree with you but the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class (as a percentage of income -- not gross). Once again, it's on the backs of the middle class. I don't know where people got this idea that the rich are getting fucked and carryng an undue burden but it's all a bunch of horseshit. The rich of today pay less in taxes than they ever have in the last 100 years while also having massive influence in Congress. Quite simply, it's a damn good time to be rich in the US.
"The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery." There's obviously a balance required here. Too much in either direction is simply impractical. Unfortunately, in today's environment partisanship prevents any meaningful discussion or practical solutions. Either way, the US is hardly a nanny state and I can assure you that the rich have plenty of motivation to make money in this country. As for the poor, most Repubs treat all poor as the same and it's a crying shame. Consequently, they are all demonized as being a bunch of lazy fucks. The truth is that poor people are poor for a wide variety of reasons. Only a small portion are poor because they simply don't give a shit and are unmotivated. Even in those cases you can probably chalk it up to either depression, drug abuse, or a lack of opportunity in the area they live (or some combination thereof). This is stuff that's hard to understand for people who never had to deal with that kind of environment or upbringing.
That said, I'm not for just continual handouts. I would prefer the government get good at transforming these people into productive workers regardless of how they got into the situation they are in. The only exception to this is for the mentally or physically disabled.
Oh, are you saying they didn't move to Dubai to dodge taxes after we gave them their highest profits ever? I just want to be sure I'm tossing out facts rather than little "bromides".
"Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC)." Actually, that's incorrect. Although I will agree with you that its coffers are barren "by design".:)
"So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security."
I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either. You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return. The ONLY reason people buy them is that they are safe -- never for their return.
"Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords." I wasn't trying to hit you with "partisan buzzwords". Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.
"But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so."
I use to believe as you do. Truely. In a perfect world, that's how it should go but unfortunately most people are too fucking stupid to take proper care of themselves or their finances. Without SS, you would have shitloads of old homeless people all over the fucking place (like we did in the 30's) and people live to a very old age these days so it would be even worse. People don't like to see homeless all over their neighborhoods. SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.
Listen dipshit, I'm from LA so providing Max Boot as a liberal LA time source shows how fucking stupid you are. Maybe you should research who you are sourcing so you don't look like such a fucking idiot.
"the sources I do not agree with are all conservative", yet you provide almost exclusively conservative sources to back your argument. Try studying logic and then come back for more.
"but believe what you want" Did I say that I didn't believe the Clinton Administration gave no-bids to Haliburton? Please show in my post where I did that.
ROFL...2.2 billion? are you fucking kidding me? That's chicken feed compared to what they got under Bush. Oh, and thanks for all the helpful references from conservative sources. Very unbiased, I'm sure.
Anyway, why don't you post some articles about how they moved their headquarters to Dubai after fucking the country over with all the taxpayer money they waste?
Ffs, they are paying pennies on the dollar for the taxes that ANYONE else would be paying. Cry me a fucking river. They'll get my sympathy when the government offers me the same deal.
Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash. But they do, so it can't. I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok. Anyway, the system exists because people were going to overthrow the government if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once. Sound like a familiar scenario?
Why should they bother with the hassle of getting an exemption? More importantly, how does the fact that they do not have an exemption make them part of some government propaganda machine?
Oh, and Chrome runs on Linux and OS-X. Not sure where you get the notion that it's Windows only.
The only thing that doesn't hold water here is your argument.
Apparently you're too stupid to read the article YOU linked. They are not permitted to allow countries like Syria and Iran to download their apps to comply with US law. Given that they're a US based company, what the fuck do you expect them to do?
You need to work a lot harder than that to prove propaganda.
Medicare is 30x more efficient than private insurance.
You can always find an exception to everything...so fucking what? Do you think your anecdotes mean anything to me? I think most people in the US (even the liberals) feel that most things should be in the hands of private entities; however, when said private entities fail to provide what is expected for something as important as health care, then you can expect people are going to want some major fucking changes. Everything is a reaction to everything else. Communism only exists because the working people of the 1800s were treated like complete dogshit by their employers. Without those conditions Marx and Engels probably would have never created it or at the very least, it would have gotten nowhere. Regulations exist because either a) people took undue advantage of the freedom that no regulation provided, or b) some company or special interest group paid to get their way in Congress.
"What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse."
I'll tell you why. It's because the EPA is no longer in the business of protecting citizens. They are in the business of protecting corporations and whatever whims the government may have at the time. For another example of their carefree regard concerning public safety just look at 9/11 where they declared the area safe in spite of all the dangerous particulate matter in the air and now rescuers who didn't have proper protective gear are having serious health issues (while being simultaneously told to go fuck themselves when it comes to covering their health care costs). The EPA is a joke. I don't see any point to their existence if they won't do their job. They are a waste of taxpayer money.
"Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?"
Yes, If you had read your astrology reading in the paper that day, you would have known to be weary of such things. Why do you think they put those things in there??
Slashdot Mirror
So I shouldn't send him an email telling him that he can shove this fascist crap up his ass?
There's this thing called a social security card that does the same thing, all without any biometrics. The fact is that employers who depend on illegals are glad they are illegals so they can pay them below minimum wage. There is virtually no penalty on the employers side for not following existing laws.
So the truth is that they just want biometrics on everyone in the country. That's the real purpose here.
Interesting, since it takes me a literally a half second to successfully authenticate to Google. Can you load Excel in less than a half second even with the pre-loader enabled?
"If you are going to discount any preloading of Excel then surely you would have to also turn off the "Stay signed in" checkbox for Google and clear the browser cache so all the javascript files have to be downloaded."
I'll tell you what, if you're willing to have to sign out of Windows and login before starting Excel, you have a deal. We can go on like this forever but the truth is that anyone on any decent PC running any non-shitty browser can load up Google Spreadsheet in less than 5 seconds. You can do much better than that with a snappy connection and computer. So there's no point in arguing that there's a performance issue with bringing up their spreadsheet app. If you want to say it's lacking features over Excel, then I would certainly agree with that but performance isn't really a problem here.
Actually, no I don't. The browser is the operating system. So unless you want to count how long it takes to boot windows...
Yeah because your start menu preloads most of it. Kill that and then start an office app and you'll get a fair comparison. For reference, I can startup a large spreadsheet in Google Docs in 3 seconds. Beat that with your moderately old PC and MSoft Excel.
Really? What functionality does Outlook provide that makes it more functional than what Google offers? I'd also like to know what's so great about Thunderbird. It's been while since I used it but I was not even remotely impressed by it.
Leaving the company to find one with actual foresight is unethical? Interesting. These companies are doing themselves a disservice. Sticking with IE 6 long term is an extremely bad business decision. It's one thing if they have a plan to migrate off at a specific time in the future but to put it off without a specific plan to address the issue shows extremely poor business savvy. In fact, I would argue it's simply incompetent.
In any event, if you live in a right to work state you could easily argue that leaving a company for any reason whatsoever is perfectly ethical.
I would suggest finding a new job. Call it professional ethics.
Please site a reference proving your claim that 90% of the time it's a bluff. Sounds like you just pulled this number out of your ass. The fact that you were modded up so much is sad.
Please show me in his post where he says that damages should only count for the original download. You seem to be putting words in his mouth.
"For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away."
SS is NOT an entitlement. You pay for it. As for robing the rich to pay for the poor, wrong again. The burden of SS sits squarely on the middle class since any earnings over 106k are not subject to SS taxation.
"So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish?"
You're talking about the era of robber barons and absolutely abysmal working conditions in factories (including child labor). Most people in the US industrial revolution were really just indentured servants to their bosses.
"the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)"
I might agree with you but the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class (as a percentage of income -- not gross). Once again, it's on the backs of the middle class. I don't know where people got this idea that the rich are getting fucked and carryng an undue burden but it's all a bunch of horseshit. The rich of today pay less in taxes than they ever have in the last 100 years while also having massive influence in Congress. Quite simply, it's a damn good time to be rich in the US.
"The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery."
There's obviously a balance required here. Too much in either direction is simply impractical. Unfortunately, in today's environment partisanship prevents any meaningful discussion or practical solutions. Either way, the US is hardly a nanny state and I can assure you that the rich have plenty of motivation to make money in this country. As for the poor, most Repubs treat all poor as the same and it's a crying shame. Consequently, they are all demonized as being a bunch of lazy fucks. The truth is that poor people are poor for a wide variety of reasons. Only a small portion are poor because they simply don't give a shit and are unmotivated. Even in those cases you can probably chalk it up to either depression, drug abuse, or a lack of opportunity in the area they live (or some combination thereof). This is stuff that's hard to understand for people who never had to deal with that kind of environment or upbringing.
That said, I'm not for just continual handouts. I would prefer the government get good at transforming these people into productive workers regardless of how they got into the situation they are in. The only exception to this is for the mentally or physically disabled.
Oh, are you saying they didn't move to Dubai to dodge taxes after we gave them their highest profits ever? I just want to be sure I'm tossing out facts rather than little "bromides".
"Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC)." :)
Actually, that's incorrect. Although I will agree with you that its coffers are barren "by design".
"So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security."
I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either. You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return. The ONLY reason people buy them is that they are safe -- never for their return.
"Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords."
I wasn't trying to hit you with "partisan buzzwords". Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.
"But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so."
I use to believe as you do. Truely. In a perfect world, that's how it should go but unfortunately most people are too fucking stupid to take proper care of themselves or their finances. Without SS, you would have shitloads of old homeless people all over the fucking place (like we did in the 30's) and people live to a very old age these days so it would be even worse. People don't like to see homeless all over their neighborhoods. SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.
Listen dipshit, I'm from LA so providing Max Boot as a liberal LA time source shows how fucking stupid you are. Maybe you should research who you are sourcing so you don't look like such a fucking idiot.
"the sources I do not agree with are all conservative", yet you provide almost exclusively conservative sources to back your argument. Try studying logic and then come back for more.
"but believe what you want"
Did I say that I didn't believe the Clinton Administration gave no-bids to Haliburton? Please show in my post where I did that.
ROFL...2.2 billion? are you fucking kidding me? That's chicken feed compared to what they got under Bush. Oh, and thanks for all the helpful references from conservative sources. Very unbiased, I'm sure.
Anyway, why don't you post some articles about how they moved their headquarters to Dubai after fucking the country over with all the taxpayer money they waste?
Ffs, they are paying pennies on the dollar for the taxes that ANYONE else would be paying. Cry me a fucking river. They'll get my sympathy when the government offers me the same deal.
Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash. But they do, so it can't. I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok. Anyway, the system exists because people were going to overthrow the government if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once. Sound like a familiar scenario?
Why should they bother with the hassle of getting an exemption? More importantly, how does the fact that they do not have an exemption make them part of some government propaganda machine?
Oh, and Chrome runs on Linux and OS-X. Not sure where you get the notion that it's Windows only.
The only thing that doesn't hold water here is your argument.
Apparently you're too stupid to read the article YOU linked. They are not permitted to allow countries like Syria and Iran to download their apps to comply with US law. Given that they're a US based company, what the fuck do you expect them to do?
You need to work a lot harder than that to prove propaganda.
rofl...that was some seriously weak shit.
Please show me how with google books that I can get unrestricted access to books under copyright. Oh, no you can't!
Medicare is 30x more efficient than private insurance.
You can always find an exception to everything...so fucking what? Do you think your anecdotes mean anything to me? I think most people in the US (even the liberals) feel that most things should be in the hands of private entities; however, when said private entities fail to provide what is expected for something as important as health care, then you can expect people are going to want some major fucking changes. Everything is a reaction to everything else. Communism only exists because the working people of the 1800s were treated like complete dogshit by their employers. Without those conditions Marx and Engels probably would have never created it or at the very least, it would have gotten nowhere. Regulations exist because either a) people took undue advantage of the freedom that no regulation provided, or b) some company or special interest group paid to get their way in Congress.
Unfortunately for your argument, there are facts that completely contradict it. Please read this article for an appropriate attitude adjustment: http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/articles.details/articleID/1434.htm
Oh, and that's from a 2009 fee schedule study -- not ancient history.
So, in the end, Medicare pays as well as the insurance companies do while being 30 times more efficient.
"What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse."
I'll tell you why. It's because the EPA is no longer in the business of protecting citizens. They are in the business of protecting corporations and whatever whims the government may have at the time. For another example of their carefree regard concerning public safety just look at 9/11 where they declared the area safe in spite of all the dangerous particulate matter in the air and now rescuers who didn't have proper protective gear are having serious health issues (while being simultaneously told to go fuck themselves when it comes to covering their health care costs). The EPA is a joke. I don't see any point to their existence if they won't do their job. They are a waste of taxpayer money.
"Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?"
Yes, If you had read your astrology reading in the paper that day, you would have known to be weary of such things. Why do you think they put those things in there??