What I'd like to know is how seniority gives the old guard such a sense of entitlement.
Spending time is a position gives the developer perspective. That 'senior' developer should have a better understanding of the business. They should have various personal relationships throughout the business and built a level of trust. And has proven their loyalty, meaning they are likely to make decisions based on business needs rather than what will give them an advantage in their next interview. None of these are valued by most companies, although they should be because even a weaker coder with these skills will be a better team member. These are the people who can see what a project is supposed to accomplish and can stop a it from heading down an expensive dead end because coders write code and everyone else sells widgets and nobody talks to anyone. The most elegant code is useless if it doesn't help the business make money.
Having said that, anyone looking for a career writing code should be changing jobs every two or three years. Staying at one company means that your only real, verifiable experience will be limited to the technologies utilized by that company. And that's just a recipe for having to tell a prospective employer that you are 'familiar with' a technology rather than "I've been using it for two years" when your current employer tells you that the economy is bad and they're going to have to make some cuts. While you're being 'comfortable' in your job, management is considering ERPs or off-shoring if the $$$ are right.
How it worked out for the Native Americans: free land, free American citizenship, free education, affirmative action.
And all they were asked to do is give up their entire heritage and culture, then conform to the rules of a foreign society. At least that is what they were offered after being the victims of genocide. Yep, that's a hell of deal they got.
BTW, they already had 'free' land, American citizenship, they educated their own, and had no need for affirmative action. They were content with their lifestyle.
$25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.
How dangerous is it going to be when there is another guard 100 feet in either direction? Apparently an Army PFC makes about $42k a year, on average. So you put them 200 feet apart and have $8k to buy them a gun, radio, and a chair with an umbrella.
Who is going to keep the dust off the receivers? The users?
From having access points installed in a dusty warehouse ceiling, I found that the dust tends to collect on the top, with the bottom staying relatively clean. So the access points would be fine. Incorporate the transceiver in the top edge of a laptop's display and it would stay relatively clean.
As for the users, they tend to dust themselves. I suppose if they were government workers there might be a problem.
A drawback though is that the duty cycle has to be near 100%, otherwise the room lighting would dim. That has to cut into bandwidth.
Use non-visible light spectrum and adjust your regular lights so that they doesn't bleed into the non-visible range. Just because it's included in the light fixture doesn't mean it has to provide your lighting.
i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall.
This is exactly why it's being researched, it doesn't work through drywall. Looking at the available wireless networks on my system right now, there are 10. And I live in your average American suburb. Ten years ago when I set up mine, it was the only one. What will there be in ten more years. But most are like mine, there is no need for anyone to access them outside the walls of their home. For the most part, there is no need to access mine outside two rooms of my home, my office and living room. And yet I broadcast to the neighborhood taking up bandwidth on one of three non overlapping channels.
There are two ways to increase overall throughput, limit access point range or add spectrum. Consider it's use in apartment buildings. Every apartment would have the same, non-shared, wireless capacity.
AT&T's 3G in most places is slightly faster than dialup.
My Verizon 'broadband' is slower than dialup. I seriously considered dragging out my old Courier. After 4 months of working flawlessly, suddenly I could no longer expect even simple web pages to load during the daytime. I called customer support and was told "we'll look into it", which turned into "a new tower will be available in 30 days", which turned into 60 days, which turned into the end of the year. I ended up borrowing a Sprint card and using my laptop because I was afraid everyone was going to think I turned into a vampire, answering all my e-mail at 3am. I need to switch back to my phone and see if it's fixed, but they've already stated that it "works well enough, and we aren't going to let you out of your contract". I laugh when they pitch their LTE. It'll work as long as the Verizon gods favor you.
Your account was there, but the characters were not. But having said that, I quit playing in the spring of 2008 because I didn't have time (or money) for an MMO. When I came back for F2P, my accounts were still there (beta and release) with all of my characters on the production servers. I have since picked up copies of Moria ($10 ea) for both and upgraded to 5 char slots; with 5 bags, no gold cap, and mounts on all my characters. I also burnt off about 30k destiny points that I never bothered to use when I was a subscriber.
For instance. if cops were really interested in keeping drunk drivers off the roads, why don't they just breathalyze everyone that gets into their car after leaving a bar (as in sitting in the bar parking lot) BEFORE they drive off. Maybe even issue occasionally "warnings" rather than saddle them with a conviction that will haunt them the rest of their lives. They don't because bar owner pays a mighty hefty fee for a liqueur license and doesn't want a cop sitting in his parking lot scaring off customers. I've always been amazed at how bar parking lots always seem to be "no cop zones".
There aren't enough police officers to cover the parking lots of every bar or restaurant that sells alcohol. And if you can't cover every one, then you get sued for targeting specific establishments. It doesn't even matter if statistics show a large number of intoxicated drivers are coming from a given location.
Here's an example. The local metro area crosses state lines. The professional football team is located in State A, but has a large attendance from State B. One year the City in State A where the stadium is located set up a DUI checkpoint on the interstate that State B's residents use to access the stadium. Lots of drunk drivers (from both states) were arrested. State B complained, loudly, that it's residents were being targeted by the DUI checkpoint. It never happened again.
You can't win "hearts and minds" at the same time you're dehumanizing "the enemy", especially not in a civil war or anti-insurgency.
You are confusing soldiers with policemen. I suppose that's excusable, since our leadership has been making the same mistake for decades. Combat troops kill people, that is their job. You don't send an Apache to 'win hearts and minds'.
Clouds sound great on paper, but not always in practice. Maybe for file-only servers, it could work, but not applications.
Private clouds don't even sound good on paper for the federal government. The primary reason for outsourcing is that you don't have the expertise to build the system yourself economically. They're great for smaller businesses that can't afford the dedicated computing power they need. Combined, the US federal government has the largest IT operations in the world. Meaning they can afford to hire the skills needed and buy equipment in volume. All outsourcing does it add a middleman profit margin and management structure. With a $1.5 trillion deficit and nearly $14 trillion debt, the government should be looking at the most cost efficient plan. The government should be doing less outsourcing, not more. The government doesn't even get the tax advantage of moving assets to expenses via leasing. So what works for a company like Sprint is pointless for the US government.
In the video about helicopter shooting the most unpleasant aspect to me was the attitude of soldiers.
You make soldiers that are good killers by teaching them to dehumanize the enemy. It may be distasteful to the general public, but failing to do so results in troops that can't carry out offensives or end up with psychological problems. Hindsight is 20/20, and you can't truthfully evaluate their statements without the context of someone trying to kill you.
While removable media is a security problem, banning them is just a bandaid for the real problem. Why isn't access to secret documents audited? And if it is, why didn't anyone notice access to hundreds of thousands of documents that had to be well beyond any job based need or even his ability to read them all. Why does the system allow information to be copied from the datastore? Shouldn't a 'problem with authority figures' from someone with a secret clearance be serious enough to get you demoted trigger a psych evaluation critical enough to find an individual willing to betray his country?
I understand the desire to get information distributed to as many people as possible, but there still should be some compartmentalization. From what I have read (in the media) regarding the embassy cables, to a large degree they seem to consist mostly of gossip. They've gone from one extreme to the other, necessary intelligence will be lost in the noise. Rather than open access to frank evaluations of foreign leaders by embassy staff, Army PFCs should have access to profiles that have been compiled by experts who have access to the source data.
I don't know if US vehicles have different headlights than ones in the UK, but on a normal unlit road here, you need your main beams on if you want to go more than about 30mph. Dipped headlights do not give you much forward illumination at all, they're more to let others see you than anything else.
I don't know if there is a difference either, but on my pickup daylight running lights are so others can see you in the daytime. Lowbeams are required after sunset and (in my State) any time you need your wipers. Lowbeams (dipped) are more than sufficient to drive on an unlit interstate at 70+ mph. Highbeam use should be an exception; poor weather conditions, winding country road, etc. Highbeams wouldn't be near the problem if people would learn to turn them off when overtaking or meeting oncoming traffic. But these are the same people who want to use highbeams in fog and snow, so you can rule out common sense.
I'm stating that responsibility for others is, by definition, not "personal responsibility." And any device that protects others is not about "personal responsibility."
Would you agree that the consequences of an action you freely chose are your personal responsibility? If so, then short of rape or incest, being a parent conveys responsibilities to you that belong to no one else. Those would be personal responsibilities. Having made the choice to have children, it is your (the parents) responsibility and no one elses to provide a safe environment for that child. If you cannot or will not do that, then it is your responsibility (and no one elses) to turn that child over to a guardian that will accept those responsibilities for you. I will accept that as a society we need to pay for institutions that will accept responsibility for children whose parents are incapable of being responsible. I do not accept that I need to child proof my vehicle because people do not want to perform the simplest duties of being a parent.
And I'd say that choosing to use tools that improve your ability to execute responsibility is actually a responsible choice.
And here is the whole issue, there isn't a choice. Federal regulations will require backup cameras on all new cars manufactured, forcing everyone to pay extra regardless of whether we want/need them. And we've come full circle, back to my original comment. They are running a 'think of the children' campaign so that opponents, such as myself, will be attacked as heartless child killers, just as you did, for pointing out that if we were really 'thinking of the children', the parents would be responsible and not let their kids put themselves in those circumstances in the first place.
And BTW, you were so outraged by my use of 'personal' in relation to responsibilities, you attacked before I even used the word.
But instead we limit the H1-B quota to 65000 a year, and offer 50000 visas a year through a lottery program.
That's simple to get around. Enroll them in a US university and get them a student visa. A 'graduate' can work in the US for 29 months without a work visa. All you need to do is have a university that 're-certifies' them and issues a diploma. Just one more degree paper mill.
You are demanding personal responsibility. But the victim isn't the driver. So the "personal responsibility" would fall on the 3 year old in the driveway.
Do you not understand that a 3 year old should not be unattended in the driveway in the first place? A child playing in the driveway, near a street, any place accessible by strangers, is no less dangerous than leaving a toddler unsupervised around a pool.
As an adult parent, it is your "personal" responsibility to keep your children safe, in this case by knowing where they are. Depending on a camera in a car to point out that they're about to get run over is an abdication of that responsibility.
Yes. because good visibility might allow the children of people you don't like to grow up, and we can't have that.
You caught me. It's my plan for retroactive birth control for unsuitable parents..
Really though, in 30 years I've never backed over anything, children or otherwise. Why should I pay for a 'safety' device that is aimed squarely at people who can't keep track of their children. I mean, I already pay thousands of dollars a year for their kid's education (65+% of my property tax is for schools), how about educating them not to play behind cars. I'm not saying they can't buy this option for their own car. I'm simply saying that in my years of driving it hasn't been necessary. And to my knowledge none of my family or friends have needed this device.
I know it's a lot to ask, but how about some personal responsibility before you force ~200 million Americans to pay extra for their cars. BTW, in states with safety inspections you are also required to keep ALL factory supplied safety devices operational. That means that not only will several hundred dollars be added to the price of the car, but could also add expensive repairs later.
In many passenger cars, that will still not let you see a child who is very close to the car.
That's what all this is about, its a 'think of the children' campaign. Too many parents not realizing their children were playing in the driveway and they backed over them with their SUV. Of course the problem wasn't that they didn't know where their children were, it's that horrible blind-spot that car manufacturers have allowed.
Most of the times I read about these accidents, the cyclist is caught under the front of the truck, and I can't help but wonder why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
Some trucks do have smaller windows in the lower part of the passenger door. There would be no point in using larger ones because they would be blocked by the passenger seat. And if there was a passenger, even the small one would be unusable. The convex mirrors mounted up near the front bumper are more useful. But at some point the cyclist needs to take responsibility for being aware of the situation.
Just like this whole rear-view camera issue. The cameras are cool, but if people would just step up and be responsible parents, most of the need would go away. And take 2 seconds and walk behind your car before you get in.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere with no street lights. I use high beams at night, make sure they're clean and well aligned, and can see quite well with them.
I live in the middle of nowhere, and regularly drive on the interstate where there is no light other than your headlights and the moon. And I rarely use my high beams. Other than poor weather (rain) and idiots behind me with HIDs, I probably wouldn't use them at all. Under normal conditions without some idiot blinding you, your regular headlights allow your eyes to adjust and see movement outside their beam. Something that is very useful when the deer population is overly active.
Amazon pays property taxes on the warehouses it owns/leases.
Well, until you get into things like tax abatements, TIFs (tax increment funding), CIDs (community improvement districts) and other incentives given by local and state governments to entice businesses to locate facilities in their regions.
Here's an example; a small local community instituted a 1% sales tax on a shopping center that was being built that included a Walmart. The the tax was to pay for all the infrastructure costs surrounding the development and the Walmart parking lot. It's estimated that ALL of the city sales taxes for Walmart will take 23 years to repay the debt, but there is no guarantee that Walmart will stay that long. (two local Walmarts closed/relocated in less than 20 years) When Walmart was a year late in opening, the city had to pull money from their general fund to make the bond payment that was supposed to be paid by the sales tax revenue. This resulted in street repairs that had to be delayed for years. And this is the only Walmart I've ever seen with an entirely concrete parking lot. I suppose the city can use it for a farmer's market or something after Walmart leaves. Thus far none of the supporting businesses that Walmart was going to attract to the center have opened, 2 years later.
If a business of significant size has a choice in locating facilities, and they usually do, they won't be paying property taxes or any other local 'fees' for decades. Just look at the incentives Microsoft and Google get for their data centers. Facilities that have a very small number of employees related to the size of the facility.
Amazon pays fuel taxes for the trucks it uses to cart that stuff around.
Doubtful. More likely FedEx, UPS, and the truckload carriers pay the fuel costs.
Amazon pays the employer portion of payroll taxes (state worker's compensation, employer-paid portions of state income taxes, and a host of other crazy employer-paid taxes and fees you would not believe)
Employers pay a matching amount on FICA taxes, at a federal level. Employee's pay the full amount of any income or earnings taxes. Since companies are chartered in other, tax friendly, locations, they don't pay income taxes to local governments. Example, until recently Garmin was headquartered in Olathe KS but was incorporated in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. (they have recently reincorporated in Switzerland)
I'll give you Worker's Compensation, but more and more often state and local taxes are being waved for companies that 'create jobs' in a region. All the tax burdens are being transferred to the employees.
In 10 years of running (let's say 7000 miles/year) you will have to change the seals, otherwise you will have lots of exhaust gases in the oil and lots of burnt oil.
What are these seals you expect to change? Are they near the muffler bearing or blinker fluid? Or do you mean the rings? First, you always have some combustion gases leak past the rings, that is the reason for the PCV. Second, you have two types of rings; you have compression rings to maintain compression and oil rings to wipe the oil from the cylinders on the down stroke. Failure of the oil rings results in excessive oil burning. But regardless, a maintained modern engine with 70,000 miles is unlikely to need rings replaced, regardless of whether it happened over 1 year or 10. A properly maintained engine should easily reach 100,000 miles on the factory rings, and it's not uncommon for them to see 200,000. My vehicle is approaching 120,000 and uses no oil between changes. It has been changed every 5,000 to 7,000 miles since new. A quick way to ruin a set of rings, run without an air cleaner.
As for a 10 year old car NEEDing parts replaced, I can't think of any part off the top of my head that is changed on a time interval. Oil is the only engine maintenance that should be done relative to time, as opposed to miles driven. 6 months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes first, is a good oil change interval.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd like to know is how seniority gives the old guard such a sense of entitlement.
Spending time is a position gives the developer perspective. That 'senior' developer should have a better understanding of the business. They should have various personal relationships throughout the business and built a level of trust. And has proven their loyalty, meaning they are likely to make decisions based on business needs rather than what will give them an advantage in their next interview. None of these are valued by most companies, although they should be because even a weaker coder with these skills will be a better team member. These are the people who can see what a project is supposed to accomplish and can stop a it from heading down an expensive dead end because coders write code and everyone else sells widgets and nobody talks to anyone. The most elegant code is useless if it doesn't help the business make money.
Having said that, anyone looking for a career writing code should be changing jobs every two or three years. Staying at one company means that your only real, verifiable experience will be limited to the technologies utilized by that company. And that's just a recipe for having to tell a prospective employer that you are 'familiar with' a technology rather than "I've been using it for two years" when your current employer tells you that the economy is bad and they're going to have to make some cuts. While you're being 'comfortable' in your job, management is considering ERPs or off-shoring if the $$$ are right.
Damn, moon.com is already taken!
Obviously this is a good opportunity for a new TLD cash grab.
LunaMining.moon
It seemed a little high to me too, but the Internet never lies....
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Army+Pfc
Apparently the Army expects to you search for Private First Class rather than PFC.
How it worked out for the Native Americans: free land, free American citizenship, free education, affirmative action.
And all they were asked to do is give up their entire heritage and culture, then conform to the rules of a foreign society. At least that is what they were offered after being the victims of genocide. Yep, that's a hell of deal they got.
BTW, they already had 'free' land, American citizenship, they educated their own, and had no need for affirmative action. They were content with their lifestyle.
$25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.
How dangerous is it going to be when there is another guard 100 feet in either direction? Apparently an Army PFC makes about $42k a year, on average. So you put them 200 feet apart and have $8k to buy them a gun, radio, and a chair with an umbrella.
Who is going to keep the dust off the receivers? The users?
From having access points installed in a dusty warehouse ceiling, I found that the dust tends to collect on the top, with the bottom staying relatively clean. So the access points would be fine. Incorporate the transceiver in the top edge of a laptop's display and it would stay relatively clean.
As for the users, they tend to dust themselves. I suppose if they were government workers there might be a problem.
A drawback though is that the duty cycle has to be near 100%, otherwise the room lighting would dim. That has to cut into bandwidth.
Use non-visible light spectrum and adjust your regular lights so that they doesn't bleed into the non-visible range. Just because it's included in the light fixture doesn't mean it has to provide your lighting.
i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall.
This is exactly why it's being researched, it doesn't work through drywall. Looking at the available wireless networks on my system right now, there are 10. And I live in your average American suburb. Ten years ago when I set up mine, it was the only one. What will there be in ten more years. But most are like mine, there is no need for anyone to access them outside the walls of their home. For the most part, there is no need to access mine outside two rooms of my home, my office and living room. And yet I broadcast to the neighborhood taking up bandwidth on one of three non overlapping channels.
There are two ways to increase overall throughput, limit access point range or add spectrum. Consider it's use in apartment buildings. Every apartment would have the same, non-shared, wireless capacity.
AT&T's 3G in most places is slightly faster than dialup.
My Verizon 'broadband' is slower than dialup. I seriously considered dragging out my old Courier. After 4 months of working flawlessly, suddenly I could no longer expect even simple web pages to load during the daytime. I called customer support and was told "we'll look into it", which turned into "a new tower will be available in 30 days", which turned into 60 days, which turned into the end of the year. I ended up borrowing a Sprint card and using my laptop because I was afraid everyone was going to think I turned into a vampire, answering all my e-mail at 3am. I need to switch back to my phone and see if it's fixed, but they've already stated that it "works well enough, and we aren't going to let you out of your contract". I laugh when they pitch their LTE. It'll work as long as the Verizon gods favor you.
Your account was there, but the characters were not. But having said that, I quit playing in the spring of 2008 because I didn't have time (or money) for an MMO. When I came back for F2P, my accounts were still there (beta and release) with all of my characters on the production servers. I have since picked up copies of Moria ($10 ea) for both and upgraded to 5 char slots; with 5 bags, no gold cap, and mounts on all my characters. I also burnt off about 30k destiny points that I never bothered to use when I was a subscriber.
For instance. if cops were really interested in keeping drunk drivers off the roads, why don't they just breathalyze everyone that gets into their car after leaving a bar (as in sitting in the bar parking lot) BEFORE they drive off. Maybe even issue occasionally "warnings" rather than saddle them with a conviction that will haunt them the rest of their lives. They don't because bar owner pays a mighty hefty fee for a liqueur license and doesn't want a cop sitting in his parking lot scaring off customers. I've always been amazed at how bar parking lots always seem to be "no cop zones".
There aren't enough police officers to cover the parking lots of every bar or restaurant that sells alcohol. And if you can't cover every one, then you get sued for targeting specific establishments. It doesn't even matter if statistics show a large number of intoxicated drivers are coming from a given location.
Here's an example. The local metro area crosses state lines. The professional football team is located in State A, but has a large attendance from State B. One year the City in State A where the stadium is located set up a DUI checkpoint on the interstate that State B's residents use to access the stadium. Lots of drunk drivers (from both states) were arrested. State B complained, loudly, that it's residents were being targeted by the DUI checkpoint. It never happened again.
You can't win "hearts and minds" at the same time you're dehumanizing "the enemy", especially not in a civil war or anti-insurgency.
You are confusing soldiers with policemen. I suppose that's excusable, since our leadership has been making the same mistake for decades. Combat troops kill people, that is their job. You don't send an Apache to 'win hearts and minds'.
Clouds sound great on paper, but not always in practice. Maybe for file-only servers, it could work, but not applications.
Private clouds don't even sound good on paper for the federal government. The primary reason for outsourcing is that you don't have the expertise to build the system yourself economically. They're great for smaller businesses that can't afford the dedicated computing power they need. Combined, the US federal government has the largest IT operations in the world. Meaning they can afford to hire the skills needed and buy equipment in volume. All outsourcing does it add a middleman profit margin and management structure. With a $1.5 trillion deficit and nearly $14 trillion debt, the government should be looking at the most cost efficient plan. The government should be doing less outsourcing, not more. The government doesn't even get the tax advantage of moving assets to expenses via leasing. So what works for a company like Sprint is pointless for the US government.
In the video about helicopter shooting the most unpleasant aspect to me was the attitude of soldiers.
You make soldiers that are good killers by teaching them to dehumanize the enemy. It may be distasteful to the general public, but failing to do so results in troops that can't carry out offensives or end up with psychological problems. Hindsight is 20/20, and you can't truthfully evaluate their statements without the context of someone trying to kill you.
While removable media is a security problem, banning them is just a bandaid for the real problem. Why isn't access to secret documents audited? And if it is, why didn't anyone notice access to hundreds of thousands of documents that had to be well beyond any job based need or even his ability to read them all. Why does the system allow information to be copied from the datastore? Shouldn't a 'problem with authority figures' from someone with a secret clearance be serious enough to get you demoted trigger a psych evaluation critical enough to find an individual willing to betray his country?
I understand the desire to get information distributed to as many people as possible, but there still should be some compartmentalization. From what I have read (in the media) regarding the embassy cables, to a large degree they seem to consist mostly of gossip. They've gone from one extreme to the other, necessary intelligence will be lost in the noise. Rather than open access to frank evaluations of foreign leaders by embassy staff, Army PFCs should have access to profiles that have been compiled by experts who have access to the source data.
I don't know if US vehicles have different headlights than ones in the UK, but on a normal unlit road here, you need your main beams on if you want to go more than about 30mph. Dipped headlights do not give you much forward illumination at all, they're more to let others see you than anything else.
I don't know if there is a difference either, but on my pickup daylight running lights are so others can see you in the daytime. Lowbeams are required after sunset and (in my State) any time you need your wipers. Lowbeams (dipped) are more than sufficient to drive on an unlit interstate at 70+ mph. Highbeam use should be an exception; poor weather conditions, winding country road, etc. Highbeams wouldn't be near the problem if people would learn to turn them off when overtaking or meeting oncoming traffic. But these are the same people who want to use highbeams in fog and snow, so you can rule out common sense.
I'm stating that responsibility for others is, by definition, not "personal responsibility." And any device that protects others is not about "personal responsibility."
Would you agree that the consequences of an action you freely chose are your personal responsibility? If so, then short of rape or incest, being a parent conveys responsibilities to you that belong to no one else. Those would be personal responsibilities. Having made the choice to have children, it is your (the parents) responsibility and no one elses to provide a safe environment for that child. If you cannot or will not do that, then it is your responsibility (and no one elses) to turn that child over to a guardian that will accept those responsibilities for you. I will accept that as a society we need to pay for institutions that will accept responsibility for children whose parents are incapable of being responsible. I do not accept that I need to child proof my vehicle because people do not want to perform the simplest duties of being a parent.
And I'd say that choosing to use tools that improve your ability to execute responsibility is actually a responsible choice.
And here is the whole issue, there isn't a choice. Federal regulations will require backup cameras on all new cars manufactured, forcing everyone to pay extra regardless of whether we want/need them. And we've come full circle, back to my original comment. They are running a 'think of the children' campaign so that opponents, such as myself, will be attacked as heartless child killers, just as you did, for pointing out that if we were really 'thinking of the children', the parents would be responsible and not let their kids put themselves in those circumstances in the first place.
And BTW, you were so outraged by my use of 'personal' in relation to responsibilities, you attacked before I even used the word.
But instead we limit the H1-B quota to 65000 a year, and offer 50000 visas a year through a lottery program.
That's simple to get around. Enroll them in a US university and get them a student visa. A 'graduate' can work in the US for 29 months without a work visa. All you need to do is have a university that 're-certifies' them and issues a diploma. Just one more degree paper mill.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/dhs-extends-time-foreign-students-can-stay-in-us-087
You are demanding personal responsibility. But the victim isn't the driver. So the "personal responsibility" would fall on the 3 year old in the driveway.
Do you not understand that a 3 year old should not be unattended in the driveway in the first place? A child playing in the driveway, near a street, any place accessible by strangers, is no less dangerous than leaving a toddler unsupervised around a pool.
As an adult parent, it is your "personal" responsibility to keep your children safe, in this case by knowing where they are. Depending on a camera in a car to point out that they're about to get run over is an abdication of that responsibility.
Yes. because good visibility might allow the children of people you don't like to grow up, and we can't have that.
You caught me. It's my plan for retroactive birth control for unsuitable parents..
Really though, in 30 years I've never backed over anything, children or otherwise. Why should I pay for a 'safety' device that is aimed squarely at people who can't keep track of their children. I mean, I already pay thousands of dollars a year for their kid's education (65+% of my property tax is for schools), how about educating them not to play behind cars. I'm not saying they can't buy this option for their own car. I'm simply saying that in my years of driving it hasn't been necessary. And to my knowledge none of my family or friends have needed this device.
I know it's a lot to ask, but how about some personal responsibility before you force ~200 million Americans to pay extra for their cars. BTW, in states with safety inspections you are also required to keep ALL factory supplied safety devices operational. That means that not only will several hundred dollars be added to the price of the car, but could also add expensive repairs later.
In many passenger cars, that will still not let you see a child who is very close to the car.
That's what all this is about, its a 'think of the children' campaign. Too many parents not realizing their children were playing in the driveway and they backed over them with their SUV. Of course the problem wasn't that they didn't know where their children were, it's that horrible blind-spot that car manufacturers have allowed.
Most of the times I read about these accidents, the cyclist is caught under the front of the truck, and I can't help but wonder why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
Some trucks do have smaller windows in the lower part of the passenger door. There would be no point in using larger ones because they would be blocked by the passenger seat. And if there was a passenger, even the small one would be unusable. The convex mirrors mounted up near the front bumper are more useful. But at some point the cyclist needs to take responsibility for being aware of the situation.
Just like this whole rear-view camera issue. The cameras are cool, but if people would just step up and be responsible parents, most of the need would go away. And take 2 seconds and walk behind your car before you get in.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere with no street lights. I use high beams at night, make sure they're clean and well aligned, and can see quite well with them.
I live in the middle of nowhere, and regularly drive on the interstate where there is no light other than your headlights and the moon. And I rarely use my high beams. Other than poor weather (rain) and idiots behind me with HIDs, I probably wouldn't use them at all. Under normal conditions without some idiot blinding you, your regular headlights allow your eyes to adjust and see movement outside their beam. Something that is very useful when the deer population is overly active.
Amazon pays property taxes on the warehouses it owns/leases.
Well, until you get into things like tax abatements, TIFs (tax increment funding), CIDs (community improvement districts) and other incentives given by local and state governments to entice businesses to locate facilities in their regions.
Here's an example; a small local community instituted a 1% sales tax on a shopping center that was being built that included a Walmart. The the tax was to pay for all the infrastructure costs surrounding the development and the Walmart parking lot. It's estimated that ALL of the city sales taxes for Walmart will take 23 years to repay the debt, but there is no guarantee that Walmart will stay that long. (two local Walmarts closed/relocated in less than 20 years) When Walmart was a year late in opening, the city had to pull money from their general fund to make the bond payment that was supposed to be paid by the sales tax revenue. This resulted in street repairs that had to be delayed for years. And this is the only Walmart I've ever seen with an entirely concrete parking lot. I suppose the city can use it for a farmer's market or something after Walmart leaves. Thus far none of the supporting businesses that Walmart was going to attract to the center have opened, 2 years later.
If a business of significant size has a choice in locating facilities, and they usually do, they won't be paying property taxes or any other local 'fees' for decades. Just look at the incentives Microsoft and Google get for their data centers. Facilities that have a very small number of employees related to the size of the facility.
Amazon pays fuel taxes for the trucks it uses to cart that stuff around.
Doubtful. More likely FedEx, UPS, and the truckload carriers pay the fuel costs.
Amazon pays the employer portion of payroll taxes (state worker's compensation, employer-paid portions of state income taxes, and a host of other crazy employer-paid taxes and fees you would not believe)
Employers pay a matching amount on FICA taxes, at a federal level. Employee's pay the full amount of any income or earnings taxes. Since companies are chartered in other, tax friendly, locations, they don't pay income taxes to local governments. Example, until recently Garmin was headquartered in Olathe KS but was incorporated in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. (they have recently reincorporated in Switzerland)
I'll give you Worker's Compensation, but more and more often state and local taxes are being waved for companies that 'create jobs' in a region. All the tax burdens are being transferred to the employees.
In 10 years of running (let's say 7000 miles/year) you will have to change the seals, otherwise you will have lots of exhaust gases in the oil and lots of burnt oil.
What are these seals you expect to change? Are they near the muffler bearing or blinker fluid? Or do you mean the rings? First, you always have some combustion gases leak past the rings, that is the reason for the PCV. Second, you have two types of rings; you have compression rings to maintain compression and oil rings to wipe the oil from the cylinders on the down stroke. Failure of the oil rings results in excessive oil burning. But regardless, a maintained modern engine with 70,000 miles is unlikely to need rings replaced, regardless of whether it happened over 1 year or 10. A properly maintained engine should easily reach 100,000 miles on the factory rings, and it's not uncommon for them to see 200,000. My vehicle is approaching 120,000 and uses no oil between changes. It has been changed every 5,000 to 7,000 miles since new. A quick way to ruin a set of rings, run without an air cleaner.
As for a 10 year old car NEEDing parts replaced, I can't think of any part off the top of my head that is changed on a time interval. Oil is the only engine maintenance that should be done relative to time, as opposed to miles driven. 6 months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes first, is a good oil change interval.