Step one: find a client. Find a client and work with him on your specifications. Beyond that get a sale.... If you can get a sale then you have something, otherwise you may have nothing. Good luck and prepare to he patient. It will take a few years.
They are not coveted however I had to deal with 38 people between ages 18 and 34 since 2013, 32 of them under 26. I can say categorically that there are too many issues with the younger people today that I did not expect to see. Some are coming in with serious mental problems, depressions. I had 4 people with depression, 2 of them so bad that I personally had to try and pull them out of it by coming to their houses and actually physically pulling them out of their beds and houses, I kid you not. One left after about 6 months of work and keeps living in the basement of his parents' house. The parents are not even seeing it as a problem. He dropped out of a university before I hired him, that doesn't bother me. He was a good coder actually, what bothered me was attitude that kept getting progressively worse, skipping work for longer and longer periods of time, complete insubordination. Eventually he had to go.
Why did I bother with these kids? I was going through phases of building up the business, eventually I built a few different teams all in different countries and I minimize my exposure to the Western employees to a complete bare minimum for a number of reasons.
But I can categorically state that some millennials are definitely having some serious issues that I didn't notice in previous generations, then again, maybe it was always happening and I just didn't realise it until I had to hire people.
Don't you know, picking things up and putting them down is a great field to be in for any human...
Seriously though, I wonder if a vacuum cleaner like device (what a pneumatic tube used to do) can be used for dealing with specific types of uses, how about picking fruits?
On an unrelated note I can come up for a few more things that can be automated by a 'right hand robot'...
Government is the most racially motivated system itself, for the longest time racism and discrimination was official policy, I mean in USA (and many other countries) slavery was the official policy. If you want to fight discrimination in government that's one thing, for a government to tell private individuals that they cannot discriminate is projection. Of-course people discriminate, people have discriminated, are discriminating and will discriminate.
Actually you can complement somebody for having a discriminating taste.
Of-course anti-discrimination nonsense today is also hypocritical, it forces policies upon businesses but not upon the rest of the population. A business not hiring somebody for any form of discrimination is illegal but if a person does not want to purchase from somebody due to discrimination that's not a problem.
Either nobody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody at all under all circumstances you everybody should be free to discriminate (except for the government because of its massive powers to legally destroy any person or business). But to have a system where you lose your right (yes, a *right*) to discriminate because you start a business to the point where you can be sued for this as Google may be now, that's just hypocrisy, it's also oppression based on a class of people, so it's discrimination in itself.
To force businesses and only businesses not to discriminate is discrimination by the government, businesses are only people who run them.
But what do your desires matter, a collectivist shouldn't be looking at his desires and enjoyments, he should be looking at what is the best for collective. The collective would be better off without any collectivists, if everybody was a completely anti-collectivist and individualistic the system would not provide any opportunity for any form of majority to abuse any form of minority. If you are against abuse you should jump from a plane.
I see, you think it is 'evil' what Google is doing. I think it is evil what the government is doing, attacking businesses on any of it at all.
The collectivists need to leave the productive people alone or the productive people will leave the collectivists alone.
It is insane that businesses in USA even dare to hire any of the protected classes of people. Of-course if Google didn't have any women working there they would also face lawsuits. The only way for Google in this case to avoid lawsuits would have been to hire women and clearly to overpay them. Clearly to overpay them because all these women working for Google today are being paid what they are worth to the company and what the women accepted as the pay and the US labour dep't came after Google anyway.
AFAIC it is insane to hire anybody in the USA or most of the Western world, but to hire the protected class of people is suicide. You have to be a huge company to stand against the USA government in court the way MS or IBM did, small businesses don't stand a chance.
Automation and outsourcing is the only solution to this nonsense.
If I bothered to run a pharma business nowadays, I would concentrate only on the types of diseases that are more statistically likely to hit wealthier population and then wouldn't patent anything, wouldn't disclose anything about the drug. I would set up a facility in a location that allows me to run the business as I wish without any government intervention. To get treatment the patient would have to pay for a stay at the facility, where he or she would be provided with the treatment course designed in such a way as to prevent any form of information/material leaking out of the place.
The patient would pay, get the care and go home. No patents to be violated, no government to deal with. Only patients coming and going, as long as people get healthy it would be a workable business model.
Profits are lives. Profit is the only true measure stick that separates the necessary from the unnecessary, the efficient from the wasteful, the desired from the imposed, etc.
Profit made in an actual free market economy is the only moral compass by which the market guides and distributes scarce resources, land and labour.
So 'university professors' do all the research, blah blah, with whose money and with how much money? Clearly university professors don't cost as much as drug research and development does to the private drug companies.
Get rid of FDA and other government intrusion into the health insurance and care and let people research and develop without any taxation and redistribution, it will be done, it will be done cheaply and there would be more available drugs on the market.
University professors don't have to bring an actual working and relatively safe drug to the market, that's where the costs are. University professors often work for private companies and on private budgets as well.
Your entire world view is broken because you cannot imagine that people do things for themselves and for profit and don't require oppression to achieve any of it.
The law does not deserve any respect, why shouldn't it be broken? The law stopped deserving respect once the law became compromised. The law is not based on a set of strict rules (the Constitution), instead it is open to interpretation to the benefit of those currently in power and those buying the said power.
Well, you are wrong. Manufacturing jobs left because the money of the system, within which they used to operate became obviously worthless once the government dropped the pretence of the money being backed by anything that can be produced by work as opposed to by the will of the collective.
Once the money itself is compromised that way there are 2 things to consider: why did it get to be compromised and what is the perspective once it is compromised?
The money got compromised because over time the State became fundamentally dishonest and oppressive. The politicians got used to promising everything to the masses for the votes while selling the power of oppression to the highest bidders.
The perspective is this: once the money is compromised the past behaviour that necessitate this destruction of the money itself will accelerate and will take down the rest of the economy.
Inflation is the destruction of economy, inflation that is caused by the compromised money. Once the money became compromised nothing could stop manufacturing and other real jobs from leaving, that was it.
I like greedy people who build stuff, run businesses, manufacture something, produce something, move something, do anything as long as it is needed by the people (as should be obvious from profits) and as long as the business has nothing to do with any government and does not use government to oppress others.
I am happy for the people who found a way to avoid oppression by moving their businesses somewhere far away from those who want to oppress them. You are saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people that produce but you are not saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people who want to take away from those who produce. This shows a certain... level of agenda that has nothing to do with the word or concept of greed, it has to do with the concept of entitlement to other people's productive life.
It doesn't matter who was saying what, the manufacturing jobs didn't leave because people refused to work in it, it left because of regulations and taxes. Once it started leaving the talking heads on TV started doing what they are always doing: justifying the situation and the government actions that the situation is developing under.
If gig economy collapses due to lack of interest by people taking gigs, then you would have a point. That's not what will happen, instead of that the gig economy will collapse the good old fashion way: by regulations and taxes preventing it from existing. It will be sued out of existence, we can't allow any freedom so we can't have an economy at all, we already killed off most of the real economy and all that is left is 'gig'. Kill that off, it doesn't matter. Of-course gig economy cannot plug the holes, it's like trying to use a teaspoon to empty an ocean.
how to pay people even less to perform services on their behalf without having to bow to things like "regulation"
- what does it tell you? People are turning to these 'gigs' because they have bad jobs or no jobs, it also tells you that regulation prevents new businesses from appearing, only those who are going directly against the regulations even appear (and the rest depend on ad revenue from who exactly?)
It is so difficult to start and run a profitable business today that it is a large portion of any new businesses only exist because people are gambling on them, not because they are or even can ever be profitable businesses (ergo Twitter and Uber actually). The few businesses that will succed *will* drive other, more expensive and older businesses out of the market (how Amazon is surviving but so many retailers are failing today).
The complete lack of productivity on the part of individuals and new businesses is showing us something (if you are willing to look at it directly and honestly), it is showing us a dying economy and the economy is dying because it is now regulated and taxed to death.
While you are hoping for the 'gig economy' to collapse aren't you noticing the collapse of the actual economy? The 'gig economy' is here as the last attempt of the free market to address the collapsing actual economy, the actual economy collapsing due to the actual destruction of individual liberties that this MP 'investigates' further now.
in US you can't discard them in bankruptcy. This should be ruled unconstitutional.
- ha ha ha, complete lack of understanding. What is unconstitutional is government backing private loans in the first place.
Once the government backs student loans it is basically a given that the loans will not be discharged under bankruptcy, that's because *there is no collateral that can be collected if (when) the loan goes bad*. With a house - the house is the collateral, with a car - the car is, etc. With a student loan backed by a government guarantee there is no collateral. A private bank can give out a student loan without government backing of-course, but that would be a sane system, a system where people who went to college went there for reasons that in principle would allow them to repay the loan should they require one.
As is the only purpose of a government guarantee for student loans is to push the education prices higher and higher, it does wonders for those universities and colleges and schools that are eating off of the government hand.
Aha, so you don't get the concept of voluntary, I see. Voluntary only means that nobody forces them to participate, that is all of course. Whether the trade is fully balanced is irrelevant, the one with the best pocket face wins and that is good, great actually. Still, nobody should be forced to participate or forced to give up anything by oppression of any collective.
The law of the jungle is a good basis for everything. Eat or be eaten, take as much as you can and give as little as you can, it is the only meaningful law anyway. In the free market people exchange voluntary because they expect another exchange to happen later on. Stealing somebody's stuff is great and all, but it is difficult to keep it going for too long. Of course I don't see your objection to theft, you are for the theft, as long as it is done not by a singular person but by a large enough collective. What is the difference though, theft is theft.
- it's a net loss but how would we know for sure, after all we don't have a parallel universe where the government is inconsequential to compare what the situation looks like when there is no government at all, including no NASA. NASA is not a spherical cow floating in vacuum, it is part of the overall system that finds it acceptable to steal wealth from all to do something that the collective decides it would rather do with the wealth that is stolen from those who actually produce it.
Ironically AFAIC all the major loans that are backed by government are a large part of the *reason for the destruction of the economy*. AFAIC police has to be fully private, same as military.
The list goes on, nothing at all should be public.
Slashdot Mirror
Step one: find a client. Find a client and work with him on your specifications. Beyond that get a sale.... If you can get a sale then you have something, otherwise you may have nothing. Good luck and prepare to he patient. It will take a few years.
They are not coveted however I had to deal with 38 people between ages 18 and 34 since 2013, 32 of them under 26. I can say categorically that there are too many issues with the younger people today that I did not expect to see. Some are coming in with serious mental problems, depressions. I had 4 people with depression, 2 of them so bad that I personally had to try and pull them out of it by coming to their houses and actually physically pulling them out of their beds and houses, I kid you not. One left after about 6 months of work and keeps living in the basement of his parents' house. The parents are not even seeing it as a problem. He dropped out of a university before I hired him, that doesn't bother me. He was a good coder actually, what bothered me was attitude that kept getting progressively worse, skipping work for longer and longer periods of time, complete insubordination. Eventually he had to go.
Why did I bother with these kids? I was going through phases of building up the business, eventually I built a few different teams all in different countries and I minimize my exposure to the Western employees to a complete bare minimum for a number of reasons.
But I can categorically state that some millennials are definitely having some serious issues that I didn't notice in previous generations, then again, maybe it was always happening and I just didn't realise it until I had to hire people.
Don't you know, picking things up and putting them down is a great field to be in for any human...
Seriously though, I wonder if a vacuum cleaner like device (what a pneumatic tube used to do) can be used for dealing with specific types of uses, how about picking fruits?
On an unrelated note I can come up for a few more things that can be automated by a 'right hand robot'...
Government is the most racially motivated system itself, for the longest time racism and discrimination was official policy, I mean in USA (and many other countries) slavery was the official policy. If you want to fight discrimination in government that's one thing, for a government to tell private individuals that they cannot discriminate is projection. Of-course people discriminate, people have discriminated, are discriminating and will discriminate.
Actually you can complement somebody for having a discriminating taste.
Of-course anti-discrimination nonsense today is also hypocritical, it forces policies upon businesses but not upon the rest of the population. A business not hiring somebody for any form of discrimination is illegal but if a person does not want to purchase from somebody due to discrimination that's not a problem.
Either nobody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody at all under all circumstances you everybody should be free to discriminate (except for the government because of its massive powers to legally destroy any person or business). But to have a system where you lose your right (yes, a *right*) to discriminate because you start a business to the point where you can be sued for this as Google may be now, that's just hypocrisy, it's also oppression based on a class of people, so it's discrimination in itself.
To force businesses and only businesses not to discriminate is discrimination by the government, businesses are only people who run them.
But what do your desires matter, a collectivist shouldn't be looking at his desires and enjoyments, he should be looking at what is the best for collective. The collective would be better off without any collectivists, if everybody was a completely anti-collectivist and individualistic the system would not provide any opportunity for any form of majority to abuse any form of minority. If you are against abuse you should jump from a plane.
I see, you think it is 'evil' what Google is doing. I think it is evil what the government is doing, attacking businesses on any of it at all.
The collectivists need to leave the productive people alone or the productive people will leave the collectivists alone.
It is insane that businesses in USA even dare to hire any of the protected classes of people. Of-course if Google didn't have any women working there they would also face lawsuits. The only way for Google in this case to avoid lawsuits would have been to hire women and clearly to overpay them. Clearly to overpay them because all these women working for Google today are being paid what they are worth to the company and what the women accepted as the pay and the US labour dep't came after Google anyway.
AFAIC it is insane to hire anybody in the USA or most of the Western world, but to hire the protected class of people is suicide. You have to be a huge company to stand against the USA government in court the way MS or IBM did, small businesses don't stand a chance.
Automation and outsourcing is the only solution to this nonsense.
If I bothered to run a pharma business nowadays, I would concentrate only on the types of diseases that are more statistically likely to hit wealthier population and then wouldn't patent anything, wouldn't disclose anything about the drug. I would set up a facility in a location that allows me to run the business as I wish without any government intervention. To get treatment the patient would have to pay for a stay at the facility, where he or she would be provided with the treatment course designed in such a way as to prevent any form of information/material leaking out of the place.
The patient would pay, get the care and go home. No patents to be violated, no government to deal with. Only patients coming and going, as long as people get healthy it would be a workable business model.
Profits are lives. Profit is the only true measure stick that separates the necessary from the unnecessary, the efficient from the wasteful, the desired from the imposed, etc.
Profit made in an actual free market economy is the only moral compass by which the market guides and distributes scarce resources, land and labour.
So 'university professors' do all the research, blah blah, with whose money and with how much money? Clearly university professors don't cost as much as drug research and development does to the private drug companies.
Get rid of FDA and other government intrusion into the health insurance and care and let people research and develop without any taxation and redistribution, it will be done, it will be done cheaply and there would be more available drugs on the market.
University professors don't have to bring an actual working and relatively safe drug to the market, that's where the costs are. University professors often work for private companies and on private budgets as well.
Your entire world view is broken because you cannot imagine that people do things for themselves and for profit and don't require oppression to achieve any of it.
The law does not deserve any respect, why shouldn't it be broken? The law stopped deserving respect once the law became compromised. The law is not based on a set of strict rules (the Constitution), instead it is open to interpretation to the benefit of those currently in power and those buying the said power.
The law today does not warrant respect.
Well, you are wrong. Manufacturing jobs left because the money of the system, within which they used to operate became obviously worthless once the government dropped the pretence of the money being backed by anything that can be produced by work as opposed to by the will of the collective.
Once the money itself is compromised that way there are 2 things to consider: why did it get to be compromised and what is the perspective once it is compromised?
The money got compromised because over time the State became fundamentally dishonest and oppressive. The politicians got used to promising everything to the masses for the votes while selling the power of oppression to the highest bidders.
The perspective is this: once the money is compromised the past behaviour that necessitate this destruction of the money itself will accelerate and will take down the rest of the economy.
Inflation is the destruction of economy, inflation that is caused by the compromised money. Once the money became compromised nothing could stop manufacturing and other real jobs from leaving, that was it.
I like greedy people who build stuff, run businesses, manufacture something, produce something, move something, do anything as long as it is needed by the people (as should be obvious from profits) and as long as the business has nothing to do with any government and does not use government to oppress others.
I am happy for the people who found a way to avoid oppression by moving their businesses somewhere far away from those who want to oppress them. You are saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people that produce but you are not saying "greedy fucks" while talking about people who want to take away from those who produce. This shows a certain ... level of agenda that has nothing to do with the word or concept of greed, it has to do with the concept of entitlement to other people's productive life.
It doesn't matter who was saying what, the manufacturing jobs didn't leave because people refused to work in it, it left because of regulations and taxes. Once it started leaving the talking heads on TV started doing what they are always doing: justifying the situation and the government actions that the situation is developing under.
If gig economy collapses due to lack of interest by people taking gigs, then you would have a point. That's not what will happen, instead of that the gig economy will collapse the good old fashion way: by regulations and taxes preventing it from existing. It will be sued out of existence, we can't allow any freedom so we can't have an economy at all, we already killed off most of the real economy and all that is left is 'gig'. Kill that off, it doesn't matter. Of-course gig economy cannot plug the holes, it's like trying to use a teaspoon to empty an ocean.
how to pay people even less to perform services on their behalf without having to bow to things like "regulation"
- what does it tell you? People are turning to these 'gigs' because they have bad jobs or no jobs, it also tells you that regulation prevents new businesses from appearing, only those who are going directly against the regulations even appear (and the rest depend on ad revenue from who exactly?)
It is so difficult to start and run a profitable business today that it is a large portion of any new businesses only exist because people are gambling on them, not because they are or even can ever be profitable businesses (ergo Twitter and Uber actually). The few businesses that will succed *will* drive other, more expensive and older businesses out of the market (how Amazon is surviving but so many retailers are failing today).
The complete lack of productivity on the part of individuals and new businesses is showing us something (if you are willing to look at it directly and honestly), it is showing us a dying economy and the economy is dying because it is now regulated and taxed to death.
While you are hoping for the 'gig economy' to collapse aren't you noticing the collapse of the actual economy? The 'gig economy' is here as the last attempt of the free market to address the collapsing actual economy, the actual economy collapsing due to the actual destruction of individual liberties that this MP 'investigates' further now.
This commie Opportunist bastard should be dropped out of a plane without a parachute.
Ubuntu users who were Unity skeptics didn't flock to GUbuntu, they flocked to Mint.
- 100%
reminded me of some of the comments I made on the subject of Unity being DOA for me.
Mark Cuban? :) Here is a speech of Peter Schiff in 2009 he gave to a bunch of college graduates, but this speech is only a repetition of what he was saying since about 1996.
in US you can't discard them in bankruptcy. This should be ruled unconstitutional.
- ha ha ha, complete lack of understanding. What is unconstitutional is government backing private loans in the first place.
Once the government backs student loans it is basically a given that the loans will not be discharged under bankruptcy, that's because *there is no collateral that can be collected if (when) the loan goes bad*. With a house - the house is the collateral, with a car - the car is, etc. With a student loan backed by a government guarantee there is no collateral. A private bank can give out a student loan without government backing of-course, but that would be a sane system, a system where people who went to college went there for reasons that in principle would allow them to repay the loan should they require one.
As is the only purpose of a government guarantee for student loans is to push the education prices higher and higher, it does wonders for those universities and colleges and schools that are eating off of the government hand.
This story has a fake title, it's as if it was posted by mdsolar...
An Unexpected Relationship Between Nuclear Power and Low Birth Weight
- the title.
The actual findings: shutting down of nuclear power plants is correlated with lower birth weight.
The disastrous end is the result of government preventing free market capitalism, you are the one who is blind.
Aha, so you don't get the concept of voluntary, I see. Voluntary only means that nobody forces them to participate, that is all of course. Whether the trade is fully balanced is irrelevant, the one with the best pocket face wins and that is good, great actually. Still, nobody should be forced to participate or forced to give up anything by oppression of any collective.
The law of the jungle is a good basis for everything. Eat or be eaten, take as much as you can and give as little as you can, it is the only meaningful law anyway. In the free market people exchange voluntary because they expect another exchange to happen later on. Stealing somebody's stuff is great and all, but it is difficult to keep it going for too long. Of course I don't see your objection to theft, you are for the theft, as long as it is done not by a singular person but by a large enough collective. What is the difference though, theft is theft.
it could end up as a parasite. - FTFY.
So NASA creates no net wealth?
- it's a net loss but how would we know for sure, after all we don't have a parallel universe where the government is inconsequential to compare what the situation looks like when there is no government at all, including no NASA. NASA is not a spherical cow floating in vacuum, it is part of the overall system that finds it acceptable to steal wealth from all to do something that the collective decides it would rather do with the wealth that is stolen from those who actually produce it.
Ironically AFAIC all the major loans that are backed by government are a large part of the *reason for the destruction of the economy*. AFAIC police has to be fully private, same as military.
The list goes on, nothing at all should be public.