Isn't that "the Google way" though? You're supposed to store all your shit in the cloud so they can index it, sell you stuff and share it with the NSA.
Of course, I'm using an iPhone 5S, so I don't have any expansion at all, but at least I have a 64GB model so it hurts a little less.
I'm guessing the answer is "no", but other than running a zombie network, could he have actually made a profit at this? Or are the EC2 instances more expensive than the compensation he got for it?
It's so funny how Microsoft has become kind of a Google wannabe. So many things Google does Microsoft just seems to try copy, even if they were doing it somewhat differently before. They've made Bing a Google search clone. Windows phone. Google Apps? Web based office.
While it's true that once in a blue moon someone will take your credit card manually (I am old enough to still remember when they were called "charge plates" and were used with carbon paper), almost always someone uses a machine with dialup or connected to the internet to validate a credit card transaction.
Nor is it necessary to validate every bit of cash you take in -- once in a while someone will take a magic pen to a $100 bill, but most of the time at least in Minnesota nobody bothers to validate cash, so it would probably be something that only banks and people who cared to have a box would have.
But it sounds a lot simpler in practice to at least *provide* a method for cryptographic verification, even if nobody uses the system, than it is to spend increasingly large amounts of money trying to just print paper in a way that nobody else can easily duplicate.
I think this is a great idea, but it sounds almost impossible to enforce.
It would be pretty simple for a lobbying entity to hire a former public official in a consulting role without having them actually do any lobbying and instead only provide information sharing with people who do lobby. Even easier to do when the lobbying entity is a law firm and the public official is a lawyer, since there's non-lobbying work that they can do.
And then there's the notion of just hiring them or placing them on a retainer so that they will go to work for you after their period is up. It's not hard to see some kind of desire to capture all the possible public officials who could work in a particular area.
They sometimes use those pens that are supposed to either leave a mark or not leave a mark if the bill isn't legitimate. I've had that done the few times I've used $100 bills.
No, it was related to the car's data bus. The same kit that includes an iPod connector (the "old" 30 pin) also includes a USB connector for using ordinary memory sticks, and that wouldn't work, either. It wasn't an Apple issue.
I've broken 100 MPH in 3 cars and on my motorcycle. When the speed limit was 55, I did Duluth to Minneapolis on my motorcycle in in 2 hours flat. My math tells me that's at least 77 MPH average. That's nothing now that the speed limit is 70, but it was kind of an accomplishment when it was 55.
But all of that is largely behind me. I like to go fast where I can, but my interest in LEO contact is less than zero. I would rather set my distance-sensing cruise control at about 4 MPH over the limit and just cruise.
IANAL and I've never even had a speeding ticket in 31 years of driving, but isn't there a reasonable expectation of general accuracy in a speedometers, and also a reasonable expectation of deviation from specific accuracy?
I don't think there is a specific requirement for me to check/verify my speedometer accuracy, there's a whole host of government regulations that require carmakers to produce vehicles to a specific standard. And as long as when I drive with the flow of traffic, I kind of have to believe my speedometer isn't grossly inaccurate.
In general practice, the police don't ticket people for going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone because there are a whole laundry list of reasons why you cannot maintain perfect speed accuracy -- the equipment isn't capable of that precision, the data displays are generally analog displays lacking that kind of precision, and environmental factors (wind, road resistance, etc) can cause speed variations, not to mention the power controls (throttle) aren't perfectly linear or setup for fine-grained control.
Now, you won't get away with doing in 80 in a 55 zone because there are all kinds of mediating factors that should make it obvious something is wrong with your car -- passing most traffic very quickly, etc.
I always try to check my speedometer calibration either via GPS (now) or via cruise control on flat terrain over a marked distance with a stopwatch. I had a motorcycle that showed a displayed speed 9-11 MPH slower than actual speed. I actually enquired about having it fixed and they told me it could not be manually adjusted, only totally replaced and even then they said it was not likely to be any more accurate.
I bought a used Volvo S80 about 4 years ago. I added the iPod connector for the stereo -- a factory option my car didn't come with.
The dealer had a real problem getting it to work -- the stereo would indicate the input was there, but when you switched to it it would work for about a minute and then stop working. The description they told me was that the car's data bus was rejecting the accessory because it wasn't authenticating.
Now, I don't know if this was an accurate assessment or not, but it took some kind of software patch specific to my car to make this work.
I'm also not sure if this is the car's CAN bus, either, or if its some private data bus within the car.
This is slightly off topic, but I think it's not just the application of computing power to medical data, but the application of computing power to control and recover a lot of costs has generally been so successful that I think it's actually cutting the "slack" out of the economy and contributing to the decline of the middle class and growing economic inequality.
They're shaving the savings off the top and putting it in their own pockets, but the economic byproducts of the savings (cheaper goods) doesn't offset the economic loss of the savings not being spent on goods and labor, like additional inventory or additional workers.
Say a business sells a widget for $10. Their cost to make the widget is $4 and because of imperfect data/processing, sales forecasts, shipping, etc are all less accurate. They have to carry inventories to meet customer needs. Inventories require workers, facilities (which need construction...), they have to buy more raw materials. So $2 is added in overhead to the $4 and the profit on the widget is only $4.
With improved data/processing, they gain efficiencies. They carry as close to zero inventory as possible. They buy less raw materials. Need fewer workers. Smaller facilities (...less construction, fewer carptenters, less building materials, less....) and so on. But the nominal cost of the widget doesn't go down, but the margin increases to $5 per widget because they save $1 in costs.
Since the price of the widget doesn't go down and at best rises slower, the consumer is only marginally benefitting, especially since the depressed employment resulting from greater operating efficiency results in lower wages, further mitigating any price declines or slowing price increases.
The $1 that was previously "lost" on administrative costs is now executive salaries, bonuses and benefits where it produces less economic impact than had it been spent on productive economic activity.
Is the data they're collecting actually useful, or is it kind of tinfoil-hat paranoid useful where they get confirmation bias patterns out of it and believe it's useful?
And if so, what makes us think they will actually stop collecting it, especially if what they have is useful to other people (FBI, CIA, military..)? The whole operation is uber top secret and after Snowden I would imagine that they are redoubling their leak containment and secrecy. Sure, they've been able to ask/strongarm some of it and they might be impeded from doing that anymore but much of the principal job is spying -- surreptitiously obtaining and decoding information meant to be secret -- won't they just figure out how to get it through other means anyway?
Who or what can actually audit what the NSA does and what data they collect anyway? It sounds like a level of intelligence clearance and top-secretness that nobody but an insider can get and it always seems that once even an "agent for change *cough*Obama*cough* gets insight into this stuff they suddenly start being advocates for intelligence, not for change,
13 years I had one choice, DSL, and it was $79/month for 768k/256k asymmetric on the ISP side and then another $20 a month on the telco side. 1 static IP.
Now I pay $72 per month and get 15/5 Mbit and get 5 static IPs. It was $69/month for the last 3 years but crept up $2/month in the last month (no explanation on the bill, just a bigger number).
It sounds like in absolute dollar terms I'm paying about the same price, but I'm getting more than 10 times the download speed and static IPs aren't getting easier to obtain, plus the numbers above aren't corrected for inflation.
I'm really surprised Comcast hasn't jacked the price up horribly -- the ONLY competition they have is CenturyLink who have done pretty much nothing to boost speeds/lay fiber/etc and the municipal wifi network which I think is likely to be not much better if not worse than LTE. Hell, half the time I stay in a hotel I end up ditching the low-rent wifi they offer for the personal hotspot off my LTE smartphone.
Plus, Comcast MUST be facing constant pressure on their network. I hear people in densely populated hipster neighborhoods gripe about slow throughput but I can never tell what that might be.
It's misleading the way the story reads, but I have read of shortages of propofol and other drugs due to limited manufacturing facilities -- demand outstrips supply, a fuckup in manufacturing requiring the output to be slowed or stopped, etc.
I also have read that there were a whole bunch of drugs from the late 1960s or 1970s that never went through a "modern" FDA approval process. They were all out of patent and widely made as cheap generics. The FDA decided these needed re-approval (despite decades of widespread generally safe use) and forced them off the market, granting whoever would do the approval for them monopoly status.
The drugs then became impossible to find and when they returned to market, the supply was constrained and suddenly they were priced like new, brand-name drugs to boot.
I'm not sure of popofol was one of these re-eval drugs or not.
The purpose of having several shooters is that you only supply live ammunition to a couple of them, the rest are firing blanks, so that the men firing the gun don't know if they are firing the killing shot.
No, in this case, the side streets are probably in as good or better shape than the main street and of no different topology than the main "through" street.
If a cyclist can't maintain the posted road speed and get passed safely by cars, they shouldn't be on the road as they are a creating a road hazard to themselves and others.
Making Bryant a bike boulevard was beyond stupid. Bryant is a relatively busy through street (IIRC, it is a former streetcar line and is a current bus route), and yes it is a common car alternative to Lyndale.
And yes, I understand the "utility" argument of riding on Lyndale or some other busy street because that's where the $widget_store is, but it makes less sense if the trip to the Lyndale business is more than 2-3 blocks. If it's 8-10 blocks, cutting a block east or west to a much less traveled, safer street makes so much more sense.
I work as a SMB consultant and we run into a fair number of small business owners really intent on managing their employees "behavior" (web browsing, emailing, occasionally down to installing and running commercial spyware).
I get why some situations (harassment of other employees, strong suspicions of financial crimes, corporate espionage, etc) may warrant this, but so often it seems like they're trying to manage behavior instead of managing the results of their employees work.
If you have an employee who is supposed to produce a given work product, wouldn't it be more effective to actually focus on the work product (quality, quantity, etc) and not on whether or not they buy stuff from Amazon during work hours?
If your employee can't produce the desired work product then you have a business-rational reason for firing them. If their work product meets the stated goals, then why do you care what else they may be doing provided it is not a detriment to the rest of the business?
At the end of the day it seems like a kind of paternalism that is focused on controlling people, not managing their work.
Cycling seems fairly safe to me if you wear a helmet and you choose your routes to avoid cars.
Here in Minneapolis I notice what I would call a lot of "aggressive" cyclists -- people who run traffic control devices (stop signs, lights, etc) and get dangerously close to traffic that might otherwise change speeds/lanes/turn/etc very quickly. From the cyclists I talk to, it almost seems like cycling is taking on a political component, too, which seems to contribute to aggressive cycling or at least an aggressive attitude.
The other thing that kind of amazes me are the people who INSIST on cycling on a busy through street (like Lyndale through South Minneapolis) instead of moving over just a block on either side and riding on a nearly empty residential street, like Garfield or Aldrich. Or the bike racing gear wearers who insist on riding on the parkway instead of the bike path 25 feet away, in spite of the fact that the parkway is a single lane and the parking cutouts along the parkway are pretty narrow -- if cars are parked in the cutouts there's precious little room to pass a cyclist.
As long as people insist on riding in traffic and people kind of a jerk about it, it doesn't surprise me that there are conflicts a cyclist will lose simply based on mass.
I had a 42" Sony LCD rear projection TV until about a year ago and there was no way that was "big enough" at 3m viewing distance. With letterboxed content (most movies), the shrinkage in vertical size was enough to make it even smaller.
I replaced it with a 70" Sharp and for about the first couple of days I was like "this may be too big.." but I'm now completely used to it and I don't think it would be a problem to go even larger in this space.
When something like this becomes available, it'd be awesome even if it was only used for watching a movie on an airplane, but I worry it would be worthless for people who have an eyeglasses prescription.
Or are you saying that the fault lies with US citizens for not taking below-minimum wage jobs payed under the table?
It kind of boils down to "Why won't blacks work?"
Racism is a canard -- I can't believe that someone who is "racist" would reject an English-speaking, native-born African American for a low/unskilled job yet be perfectly willing to hire (at some risk), an illegal immigrant who can't speak English.
What's really damning is that people may be rejecting blacks specifically because they make poor employees based on actual experience.
From a macoeconomic standpoint, there clearly is a demand for low-skilled labor, otherwise millions of illegals wouldn't be here working. While some employers may be engaging in mere economic discrimination (wanting to pay less for labor), in aggregate if there was a demand for N units of work for W units of wages, there still should be employers wanting to accept some lower level of additional employment for the same amount of wages (ie, hiring some differentially lower number of native workers for the same amount of pay, just getting a lower total amount of increased production from the reduced number of hires.
I do think that blacks are mostly rejecting work because of low pay, but the problem is they are competing with people from the third world with drastically reduced expectations ("Wow! Food and water that won't give me dysentery!"), which is one of the big reasons to reject "open migration" -- nobody, including the middle class, can compete with people willing to live lifestyles only marginally better than third world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using my 45.5 baudot teletype.
I need to download the comments to this story and do a find/replace on "Plasma" and "Plasma TV" and replace it with Betamax and see how it reads.
Yet another superior technology undone by good enough.
Isn't that "the Google way" though? You're supposed to store all your shit in the cloud so they can index it, sell you stuff and share it with the NSA.
Of course, I'm using an iPhone 5S, so I don't have any expansion at all, but at least I have a 64GB model so it hurts a little less.
I'm guessing the answer is "no", but other than running a zombie network, could he have actually made a profit at this? Or are the EC2 instances more expensive than the compensation he got for it?
It's so funny how Microsoft has become kind of a Google wannabe. So many things Google does Microsoft just seems to try copy, even if they were doing it somewhat differently before. They've made Bing a Google search clone. Windows phone. Google Apps? Web based office.
Two words: credit cards.
While it's true that once in a blue moon someone will take your credit card manually (I am old enough to still remember when they were called "charge plates" and were used with carbon paper), almost always someone uses a machine with dialup or connected to the internet to validate a credit card transaction.
Nor is it necessary to validate every bit of cash you take in -- once in a while someone will take a magic pen to a $100 bill, but most of the time at least in Minnesota nobody bothers to validate cash, so it would probably be something that only banks and people who cared to have a box would have.
But it sounds a lot simpler in practice to at least *provide* a method for cryptographic verification, even if nobody uses the system, than it is to spend increasingly large amounts of money trying to just print paper in a way that nobody else can easily duplicate.
I think this is a great idea, but it sounds almost impossible to enforce.
It would be pretty simple for a lobbying entity to hire a former public official in a consulting role without having them actually do any lobbying and instead only provide information sharing with people who do lobby. Even easier to do when the lobbying entity is a law firm and the public official is a lawyer, since there's non-lobbying work that they can do.
And then there's the notion of just hiring them or placing them on a retainer so that they will go to work for you after their period is up. It's not hard to see some kind of desire to capture all the possible public officials who could work in a particular area.
...couldn't they come up with some way to put a unique cryptographic fingerprint on the currency that would enable it to be verified as legitimate?
They sometimes use those pens that are supposed to either leave a mark or not leave a mark if the bill isn't legitimate. I've had that done the few times I've used $100 bills.
No, it was related to the car's data bus. The same kit that includes an iPod connector (the "old" 30 pin) also includes a USB connector for using ordinary memory sticks, and that wouldn't work, either. It wasn't an Apple issue.
I just don't get caught.
I've broken 100 MPH in 3 cars and on my motorcycle. When the speed limit was 55, I did Duluth to Minneapolis on my motorcycle in in 2 hours flat. My math tells me that's at least 77 MPH average. That's nothing now that the speed limit is 70, but it was kind of an accomplishment when it was 55.
But all of that is largely behind me. I like to go fast where I can, but my interest in LEO contact is less than zero. I would rather set my distance-sensing cruise control at about 4 MPH over the limit and just cruise.
IANAL and I've never even had a speeding ticket in 31 years of driving, but isn't there a reasonable expectation of general accuracy in a speedometers, and also a reasonable expectation of deviation from specific accuracy?
I don't think there is a specific requirement for me to check/verify my speedometer accuracy, there's a whole host of government regulations that require carmakers to produce vehicles to a specific standard. And as long as when I drive with the flow of traffic, I kind of have to believe my speedometer isn't grossly inaccurate.
In general practice, the police don't ticket people for going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone because there are a whole laundry list of reasons why you cannot maintain perfect speed accuracy -- the equipment isn't capable of that precision, the data displays are generally analog displays lacking that kind of precision, and environmental factors (wind, road resistance, etc) can cause speed variations, not to mention the power controls (throttle) aren't perfectly linear or setup for fine-grained control.
Now, you won't get away with doing in 80 in a 55 zone because there are all kinds of mediating factors that should make it obvious something is wrong with your car -- passing most traffic very quickly, etc.
I always try to check my speedometer calibration either via GPS (now) or via cruise control on flat terrain over a marked distance with a stopwatch. I had a motorcycle that showed a displayed speed 9-11 MPH slower than actual speed. I actually enquired about having it fixed and they told me it could not be manually adjusted, only totally replaced and even then they said it was not likely to be any more accurate.
I bought a used Volvo S80 about 4 years ago. I added the iPod connector for the stereo -- a factory option my car didn't come with.
The dealer had a real problem getting it to work -- the stereo would indicate the input was there, but when you switched to it it would work for about a minute and then stop working. The description they told me was that the car's data bus was rejecting the accessory because it wasn't authenticating.
Now, I don't know if this was an accurate assessment or not, but it took some kind of software patch specific to my car to make this work.
I'm also not sure if this is the car's CAN bus, either, or if its some private data bus within the car.
This is slightly off topic, but I think it's not just the application of computing power to medical data, but the application of computing power to control and recover a lot of costs has generally been so successful that I think it's actually cutting the "slack" out of the economy and contributing to the decline of the middle class and growing economic inequality.
They're shaving the savings off the top and putting it in their own pockets, but the economic byproducts of the savings (cheaper goods) doesn't offset the economic loss of the savings not being spent on goods and labor, like additional inventory or additional workers.
Say a business sells a widget for $10. Their cost to make the widget is $4 and because of imperfect data/processing, sales forecasts, shipping, etc are all less accurate. They have to carry inventories to meet customer needs. Inventories require workers, facilities (which need construction...), they have to buy more raw materials. So $2 is added in overhead to the $4 and the profit on the widget is only $4.
With improved data/processing, they gain efficiencies. They carry as close to zero inventory as possible. They buy less raw materials. Need fewer workers. Smaller facilities (...less construction, fewer carptenters, less building materials, less ....) and so on. But the nominal cost of the widget doesn't go down, but the margin increases to $5 per widget because they save $1 in costs.
Since the price of the widget doesn't go down and at best rises slower, the consumer is only marginally benefitting, especially since the depressed employment resulting from greater operating efficiency results in lower wages, further mitigating any price declines or slowing price increases.
The $1 that was previously "lost" on administrative costs is now executive salaries, bonuses and benefits where it produces less economic impact than had it been spent on productive economic activity.
Is the data they're collecting actually useful, or is it kind of tinfoil-hat paranoid useful where they get confirmation bias patterns out of it and believe it's useful?
And if so, what makes us think they will actually stop collecting it, especially if what they have is useful to other people (FBI, CIA, military..)? The whole operation is uber top secret and after Snowden I would imagine that they are redoubling their leak containment and secrecy. Sure, they've been able to ask/strongarm some of it and they might be impeded from doing that anymore but much of the principal job is spying -- surreptitiously obtaining and decoding information meant to be secret -- won't they just figure out how to get it through other means anyway?
Who or what can actually audit what the NSA does and what data they collect anyway? It sounds like a level of intelligence clearance and top-secretness that nobody but an insider can get and it always seems that once even an "agent for change *cough*Obama*cough* gets insight into this stuff they suddenly start being advocates for intelligence, not for change,
...13 years ago.
13 years I had one choice, DSL, and it was $79/month for 768k/256k asymmetric on the ISP side and then another $20 a month on the telco side. 1 static IP.
Now I pay $72 per month and get 15/5 Mbit and get 5 static IPs. It was $69/month for the last 3 years but crept up $2/month in the last month (no explanation on the bill, just a bigger number).
It sounds like in absolute dollar terms I'm paying about the same price, but I'm getting more than 10 times the download speed and static IPs aren't getting easier to obtain, plus the numbers above aren't corrected for inflation.
I'm really surprised Comcast hasn't jacked the price up horribly -- the ONLY competition they have is CenturyLink who have done pretty much nothing to boost speeds/lay fiber/etc and the municipal wifi network which I think is likely to be not much better if not worse than LTE. Hell, half the time I stay in a hotel I end up ditching the low-rent wifi they offer for the personal hotspot off my LTE smartphone.
Plus, Comcast MUST be facing constant pressure on their network. I hear people in densely populated hipster neighborhoods gripe about slow throughput but I can never tell what that might be.
It's misleading the way the story reads, but I have read of shortages of propofol and other drugs due to limited manufacturing facilities -- demand outstrips supply, a fuckup in manufacturing requiring the output to be slowed or stopped, etc.
I also have read that there were a whole bunch of drugs from the late 1960s or 1970s that never went through a "modern" FDA approval process. They were all out of patent and widely made as cheap generics. The FDA decided these needed re-approval (despite decades of widespread generally safe use) and forced them off the market, granting whoever would do the approval for them monopoly status.
The drugs then became impossible to find and when they returned to market, the supply was constrained and suddenly they were priced like new, brand-name drugs to boot.
I'm not sure of popofol was one of these re-eval drugs or not.
The purpose of having several shooters is that you only supply live ammunition to a couple of them, the rest are firing blanks, so that the men firing the gun don't know if they are firing the killing shot.
No, in this case, the side streets are probably in as good or better shape than the main street and of no different topology than the main "through" street.
If a cyclist can't maintain the posted road speed and get passed safely by cars, they shouldn't be on the road as they are a creating a road hazard to themselves and others.
Making Bryant a bike boulevard was beyond stupid. Bryant is a relatively busy through street (IIRC, it is a former streetcar line and is a current bus route), and yes it is a common car alternative to Lyndale.
And yes, I understand the "utility" argument of riding on Lyndale or some other busy street because that's where the $widget_store is, but it makes less sense if the trip to the Lyndale business is more than 2-3 blocks. If it's 8-10 blocks, cutting a block east or west to a much less traveled, safer street makes so much more sense.
I work as a SMB consultant and we run into a fair number of small business owners really intent on managing their employees "behavior" (web browsing, emailing, occasionally down to installing and running commercial spyware).
I get why some situations (harassment of other employees, strong suspicions of financial crimes, corporate espionage, etc) may warrant this, but so often it seems like they're trying to manage behavior instead of managing the results of their employees work.
If you have an employee who is supposed to produce a given work product, wouldn't it be more effective to actually focus on the work product (quality, quantity, etc) and not on whether or not they buy stuff from Amazon during work hours?
If your employee can't produce the desired work product then you have a business-rational reason for firing them. If their work product meets the stated goals, then why do you care what else they may be doing provided it is not a detriment to the rest of the business?
At the end of the day it seems like a kind of paternalism that is focused on controlling people, not managing their work.
Cycling seems fairly safe to me if you wear a helmet and you choose your routes to avoid cars.
Here in Minneapolis I notice what I would call a lot of "aggressive" cyclists -- people who run traffic control devices (stop signs, lights, etc) and get dangerously close to traffic that might otherwise change speeds/lanes/turn/etc very quickly. From the cyclists I talk to, it almost seems like cycling is taking on a political component, too, which seems to contribute to aggressive cycling or at least an aggressive attitude.
The other thing that kind of amazes me are the people who INSIST on cycling on a busy through street (like Lyndale through South Minneapolis) instead of moving over just a block on either side and riding on a nearly empty residential street, like Garfield or Aldrich. Or the bike racing gear wearers who insist on riding on the parkway instead of the bike path 25 feet away, in spite of the fact that the parkway is a single lane and the parking cutouts along the parkway are pretty narrow -- if cars are parked in the cutouts there's precious little room to pass a cyclist.
As long as people insist on riding in traffic and people kind of a jerk about it, it doesn't surprise me that there are conflicts a cyclist will lose simply based on mass.
I had a 42" Sony LCD rear projection TV until about a year ago and there was no way that was "big enough" at 3m viewing distance. With letterboxed content (most movies), the shrinkage in vertical size was enough to make it even smaller.
I replaced it with a 70" Sharp and for about the first couple of days I was like "this may be too big.." but I'm now completely used to it and I don't think it would be a problem to go even larger in this space.
...Or worse, with bifocals?
When something like this becomes available, it'd be awesome even if it was only used for watching a movie on an airplane, but I worry it would be worthless for people who have an eyeglasses prescription.
Or are you saying that the fault lies with US citizens for not taking below-minimum wage jobs payed under the table?
It kind of boils down to "Why won't blacks work?"
Racism is a canard -- I can't believe that someone who is "racist" would reject an English-speaking, native-born African American for a low/unskilled job yet be perfectly willing to hire (at some risk), an illegal immigrant who can't speak English.
What's really damning is that people may be rejecting blacks specifically because they make poor employees based on actual experience.
From a macoeconomic standpoint, there clearly is a demand for low-skilled labor, otherwise millions of illegals wouldn't be here working. While some employers may be engaging in mere economic discrimination (wanting to pay less for labor), in aggregate if there was a demand for N units of work for W units of wages, there still should be employers wanting to accept some lower level of additional employment for the same amount of wages (ie, hiring some differentially lower number of native workers for the same amount of pay, just getting a lower total amount of increased production from the reduced number of hires.
I do think that blacks are mostly rejecting work because of low pay, but the problem is they are competing with people from the third world with drastically reduced expectations ("Wow! Food and water that won't give me dysentery!"), which is one of the big reasons to reject "open migration" -- nobody, including the middle class, can compete with people willing to live lifestyles only marginally better than third world.
But there is also a sense that they won't work.