That's right.. supply and demand are not impacted when the US drills. Only when OPEC decides to increase and decrease supplies.
Or...
Maybe we aren't producing enough in relation to the other countries. Oh.. they mention it in the article, but of course the headline is doesn't reflect that. More FUD from the liberal media. Since I don't see widespread environmental disasters in countries with far lower pollution guidelines than ours, I say let loose the oil companies and drill baby drill. Let's show the petty dictators in the middle east how quickly their little monopoly can dry up. Hey.. we bankrupted the USSR, why not do the same for Iran and the rest. Canada has far more natural reserves than most of the OPEC countries, let's help suck it out of the ground and create pipelines to the US so the profit margins make it more profitable to sell it in North America for less than selling it overseas. Build some new refineries in Nebraska so hurricanes don't impact prices. (crap.. they have tornadoes there... don't they...)
But what kind of reporting would one expect from a media outlet like NPR. Even though it's an AP story, MPR choose to run it and use a misleading title. The title should have read 'More US drilling and pipelines needed to impact foreign prices.
I don't classify them as dumb or lazy. Maybe they are just not as good as their competition. Just because someone works hard doesn't mean they are good at their job and deserve to be paid the same as others.
So one reason those lawyers may not be able to get a job is they just aren't as good at being a lawyer as those that have jobs. We all know people who think they are just the greatest at what they do, but their peers have a slightly different opinion. Or maybe their personalities suck. Or maybe their work habits or poor. Or maybe they just don't interview well.
Whatever the reason, there appear to be plenty of lawyers who do have good paying jobs, so it seems that the supply has outstripped the demand. If any of those lawyers would learn the art of negotiation, I'll bet they might be able to take a substantial cut in pay and find work somewhere.
Unless they really just aren't that good and should find another profession.
North Americans and Europeans are willing to pay for the true worth of the labour. If Fred is willing to do a task for $10 less than Bill, then the true worth is what Fred is asking for, not Bill.
Unions and government regulations are responsible for companies not being able to pay the true worth of labour. Greed has increased wages so high in those places that many firms have flocked to China and other countries in order to pay the true worth of labour. I'd love to get paid the same for working 35 hours a week instead of 40 and have my retirement start at 55, but that means everyone else has to pay more to subsidize me and I risk my job going where it's cheaper.
So the next time someone complains about China and India taking all the jobs, feel free to blame greedy workers, Unions and Government for sending it there.... those that felt they were worth more than they truly were sent them there.
While companies may try to exploit workers by paying low wages, employees are willing to blackmail employers to try and force wages up. Both parties are equally greedy.
Greed is what drives the entire system, I wouldn't have it any other way. China and India wages will slowly come up, which in turn will drive jobs to other countries with small economies waiting to grow.
I don't ignore their plight... I tell them to get some skills so they don't get minimum wage. It's not WalMart or McDonald's job to provide a workable wage, they sell stuff and if someone can't find any other job, then they had better find several friends to rent an apartment or move back in with mom and dad. I found it very interesting that in all of the layoffs over the last several years, the people that I know that had good skills were all finding jobs and moving around, while those with less skills were stuck, or got laid off. That's called 'competition' and 'supply and demand', and it's what helps balance the system. Minimum wage laws only serve to drive up prices, and no-skills people getting paid more than they are worth.
My wife spent a few years with two kids and a low-paying job after a divorce. Then she got some additional skills, and worked her way out of it, Never took food stamps either. It's amazing how people can make it happen through hard work and creative thoughts instead of asking the government to take care of them.
I agree 100% (except for that part where Apple is making the biggest noticeable difference). The US and many other countries started their economic fortunes using such things as child labor and poor working conditions. Out of those conditions rise better working conditions and higher wages. I get so tired of the comments about so-and-so working in poverty, when in many of these places, sustenance farming is the norm and any money received is used to make one's life better, no matter how small the amount.
Not buying Apple computers means fewer people needed, so fewer people get any chance of making their lives better. But that is one truthful commercial you won't ever see.. 'Lee Yung has a job, and no matter how crappy it is, he is better off than his neighbor who doesn't have one. And buying Apple makes it possible'.
Just as he is free to not renew, AT&T is also free to not renew.
I have no problem with a business telling a customer "you cost us too much, we don't want you as a customer anymore." At the end of his current term, drop him like a hot potato.
Sure.. this world can't continue to go on it's current course forever. And it would be wonderful if we all could join hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire, get along, and live in a purely socialistic state where we each of according to our needs, and give according to our abilities. When he works out how to get around that little human nature thing that prevents it, then maybe his ideas will have merit.
Which is why space travel is inevitable for the survival of our species. Through the ages, humans have used up the areas they live in, and some of the greatest advances were realized when a few packed up and moved to new areas. Usually, they just wiped out or enslaved the inhabitants and took over. But eventually, great civilizations rose where nomadic, stagnant tribes that had learned to live on renewable resources had flourished.
Whine if you will about the 'evils' of capitalism, but it has only been the desire to have more that has enabled us to have our current batch of high-tech toys. The United States might still be the land of horse-drawn travois if it hadn't been for the spirit of capitalism. I'm sure some romantic few will nod and dream of those days, but I like having a very possible opportunity to live into my 80s instead of having a high chance of dying a horrible death due to diarrhea as a small child.
As we reach out to the space beyond Earth, we will discover new riches which will continue to allow us to grow and prosper.
And continue to be able to purchase that new iPad simply because we want one, not because we need it.
So.. the study suggests that democracies aren't the 'best' way to select leaders, and are only slightly better than almost anything else.
And their solution was... nothing.
I'll take the best of the worst over no other solution, thank you very much.
It also suggest that people need to be smart to understand things like tax reform and the rest and then pick the best leader. That also is BS.
One of the reasons the US is a REPUBLIC is so that the average citizen DOESN'T have to be an expert on anything. My personal goal when selecting someone for office is to select someone who has the same basic principles I do about what the governments role is, and is a good leader. Their job is then to get together with the rest and figure out what is a good solution for a problem.
In theory, if they do a bad job, then in another 2 or 4 years I can put someone else in that might do a better job.
This is not much different from capitalism. I don't know how good something is until I try it. Then I decide I either think it's worth buying again or I find something else. As I get older, I start to recognize things that increase the odds I'll get something I want the first time, like discovering that ordering a french dessert in a sushi restaurant probably isn't a good idea, so I'll stick to specialties the next time. The same with leaders, I start to see qualities that I think make a good leader, and things that don't. Young people probably aren't the best at picking good leaders, but they will hopefully get better as they recognize what their leaders can and cannot do for them v/s what they promise.
I'll admit the US democratic/republic process isn't perfect. It was never meant to be.
It was meant to be resilient and prevent one person from gaining too much power. So far, I think it's done a pretty good job. It swings from one side of the aisle to the other, but it manages to hang out in the middle most of the time.
If anything, what the last two years have shown in the US congress is that when they can't decide on anything, it's probably for the best for them to NOT do anything. We may whine about their inability to fix the economy, but it seems to be doing fine the less they try to manage it. So my guess is that since they are not able to come to a solution, no good solution exists. Stalemate it is, and probably should be.
You fail to point out why several MILLION people have to pay because less than 1/10 of 1 percent of drivers every year run over their own kids because they aren't watching them-- which is what is usually the problem. Or little Johnny is riding his bike down the sidewalk and isn't paying attention and gets run over by someone backing out of a drive way, which the camera won't see either and because I'm already watching three mirrors and looking both ways for oncoming traffic and didn't see him because my neighbor won't trim their shrubs. And now I have to also watch a camera?? Give me a fucking break, this will be about as effective as 5pmh bumpers were in reducing crash costs.
Do I want safety belts?? Yes I do. I also wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle. But it's MY choice. I have no issues with safety equipment being available for me to purchase so I can decide what I want to spend MY money on. I do have an issue when the government decides they know that is best for me in everything I do.
I've been driving for over 30 years, and have yet to back up into someone. Why should I have to pay for your inability to drive???
Of course, this is from a country that now has ordered a private business to give a product away for free. That is, ordered insurance companies to cover birth control without any co-pay. Why no co-pay? Because it's so cheap to begin with ($20-$50/month). When do I get my free drugs for conditions that aren't voluntary, like my glaucoma meds that cost me over $100/month with insurance??? But get some special interest group together (like maybe people who make backup cameras and birth control pills???), and suddenly a government mandate shows up.
I'm really getting tired of the federal government deciding what is best for others, and making me pay for it. Sure, it only costs $200. Now, add on anti-lock brakes, 5mph bumpers (which don't work), and a host of other things that the government has mandated 'for your own good', and the cost of just the government mandates for a car probably easily adds another 3 or 4 thousand dollars to the price. Pretty soon those little lights on mirrors that detect someone in your blind spot will be required. Isn't it interesting that people will buy those things that want them anyway, but for some reason the government decides that people that don't want to pay for them have to have them anyway.. and somehow I end up paying more???
Enough already. I'll put up with the pollution stuff, since there is an effect on everyone. But seat belts, safety mirrors, and the rest?? If you want it.. pay for it. If a car dealer wants to offer it as standard equipment, go for it.
But the government requiring backup cameras is just going too far. If you are so stupid that you can't look behind you and make sure where your kids are, buy one. If a parent is so stupid they let their kids run around parking lots or down streets without watching them, maybe evolution does work.
The Constitution doesn't spell that out.. moron. Congress can go to war for any reason it feels like, and gave the President the right to react quickly when he needs to. If Congress wants to declare war on Mexico and take it over, they would have the legal right to do it. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and for the most part is free to do just about anything he wants to do.
Just because your definition of 'defend' doesn't agree with theirs, doesn't mean they didn't have the Constitutional authority to do it.
... despite massive deficits, the federal government still spends 50% of it's budget on things it has NO constitutional directive for, such as education, health care, welfare, and transportation. Whine about the amount of federal spending on defense (25% of the federal budget) if you want to, at least the US Constitution gives the federal government a clear mandate to do it.Even the 23% it spends on pensions would be far less if it didn't meddle in state's rights to govern their own people by using blackmail without clear guidelines. For instance, no state is compelled to follow federal education or highway guidelines. That is, they don't have to if they are willing to give up federal funding. Which they wouldn't need if the federal government wasn't taking it from each state, and holding it until state's capitulate to their demands.
I tell the powers that be what I can get done, what is slipping and let them decide. I also make it clear we don't work 60 hours weeks every week, they don't pay us enough and I'm not going to burn out. I state very clearly in projects what the EFFORT is, not the duration and only commit to timelines with the caveat that if other projects get in the way, the projects won't be done on time.
If they want us to be inefficient, that's their call, not mine. I still get a paycheck. I gave up a long time ago stressing out over the choices other people make that I have no control over. I just show up and do the job I agreed to do for the amount I agreed to get paid for it. If I don't like it, I can leave. I've had other companies call me, I know where I can go if it gets worse than the other companies already are.
If someone is working 60 hours/week every week, then they are either not good enough to get a job that doesn't require it, or don't have the cajones to tell their boss they will leave if it keeps up.
I do that by LOOKING AHEAD MYSELF! I lead a large motorcycle group, and we don't like to stop at red lights. Or get the group halfway through before the light cycles. So I look ahead and watch the lights cycle, and slow down or speed up as I need to. It doesn't work in heavy traffic in the city, but neither would this since most people won't slow down anyway. And there is no use in forcing all cars to slow down since those making right hand turns can stop and then make the turn anyway. And get out of the way of the rest.
It takes a couple of trips through an intersection to become familiar with the timing, but most cities around here use the same cycles for most of their lights. In Mesa and Tempe, Arizona, the cities there use the left turn signal before the through traffic. In Scottsdale, it's after. In Mesa, many of the lights are also set that if someone maintains the 45mph speed limit, they will hit them all green, except for lights between major intersections that work off of road switches. I don't know how many times I've maintained 45mph down a local street, catching all lights green. While some idiot proceeds to take off at the light, and get caught at every single light as I breeze through.
What drivers need to do is be more observant. That doesn't cost anything....and improves traffic safety. What city planners need to do is understand traffic patterns and set lights to cycle appropriately. And keep them that way.
They are not 'searching' using voice, they are doing voice-to-text translation, then apply that to an already existing interface. No different from what other software has been doing for decades.
What is funny about all of this is how their lack of innovation is finally catching up to them. After decades of minor improvements to someone else's ideas, other companies are doing the same thing and doing it better. And doing it so that consumers have more choices than 'black or white', and starting to whip Apple's butt because of it.
Maybe if Apple finally got off of their 'we know what the consumer wants better than they do' wagon, they might learn one thing the one thing that is driving Android sales, and that is that consumers like having choices. Given two items that technically are mostly the same, I'll usually prefer the one that offers more options and price points.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
So.. do I get money BACK when the stock market crashes??? If we also tax excess profits on oil companies, do we give them money back when they have losses?? More fiscal nonsense from the tax-and-spend crowd. The comment about not paying tax when borrowing against shares is also wrong. You have to pay the loan back, and taxes will be paid on the income or capital gains used for that. When the shares are finally sold, they will also be taxed.
This entire piece is just more class warfare, trying to find ways to levy more and more taxes instead of addressing the real problem...the US government just spends too much money on programs that do not provide adequate return on the money that is spent. For example, the Dept. of Education is a fiscal waste of money that was created by Jimmy Carter to improve US education standards, has failed miserably, and is not held accountable.
We would be better off eliminating all federal-to-state subsidies, and shift the tax burden from the feds to the states based on the subsidies each state wishes to provide (and can afford.) The Dept of Education as a research and recommendation agency I support, not as a regulation agency. Social Security (the largest provider of child support in the US government), medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps... these can all be replaced by state agencies reducing the federal government by thousands of employees. It won't increase state government roles as much because most states ALREADY run their programs under the federal blackmail that is the subsidies they receive.
It is time to get the US government out of the pension, welfare, and insurance business, and let states run their own affairs.
What's that?? Some states can't afford to run these programs without federal subsidies??? Then they will have some tough choices to make, won't they. Each state can decide whether or not to increase taxes to cover their programs, or reduce benefits.
Reduce the federal government to it's main obligations.. defense, interstate commerce and arbitration, and foreign affairs.
His philosophy speaks to why I don't buy Apple products.. lack of choices. While some lament the Android phones and it's associated plethora of choices, that is exactly why I prefer to my only choice being black or white. But I like to analyze and comprehend the impacts of different configurations. I know what I want Mr. Jobs, I need Apple to make devices I want with the options I want. And one of those options is... lots of options and price ranges. Until then, I'll continue to go elsewhere.
It's almost like people buy Apple because they don't want to have to think.. it's safe. There have been moments when Apple had true advantages in specific markets, such as graphics design. But for the most part, Apple products were perceived as easy to use and dependable and really were more about packaging existing technologies into better containers that true innovation. Jog button, mouse, GUI interfaces.. all existed before Apple added them to devices.
But Apple did it in a way that meant no thinking was required. Some called it intuitive, yet I and others have stumbled over such idiotic interface choices like using the trash can to eject. And swiping to unlock. Pinching to zoom and unzoom. And holding a button down to power off. Sure, they make sense and are easy to use once you are shown, but that didn't make them intuitive.
Then you won't mind if we leak your personal and private information about things you thought about but decided later not to do because they were either immoral, unethical, uneconomical or just said in private and you never would have followed through on them anyway.
Because from what I can tell,there is a lot of that in what he leaks. Information without context is just vomiting data. Maybe someday he can figure out what journalists do and strive to become one. Until then, he is just a glory hound to me.
Really?? You are upset because some people buy in bulk and get really big discount?? That is what you are up in arms about.
If you don't like it, go elsewhere. I pay $30/month for AT&T data and have never gone over my limit, because 90% of the time when I use the phone for something other than a phone, I am either at home or at work and use the WiFi networks. The only time I really use the data over cell phone connection is for maps and maybe some searches. Maybe a photo upload here and there.
Grow up, stop being indignant at things that you can't control, and stop thinking that anything in life is supposed to be fair. Don't move out of your mom's basement and get a place of your own until you can handle the real world.
Yeah.. that's exactly why Apple has grabbed the market share in computers and phones. Because it doesn't matter how much it costs as long as the user likes it.
Apple is successful if one defines success as making huge markups on specialty items through the control of most of the hardware, software, and media channels that are needed to use the items.
By that same token, any monopoly can be successful, and that's how Apple operates.
I'm sure the reason this phone never made it because there was no demand for it. Who wants to spend large sums of money for a dedicated computer attached to a phone that can only be used for phone tasks?? Today's smartphones really took off when games and useful apps could be downloaded to them. The costs at the time would have put the phone above $500, hardly available for just anyone as shown by the lack of mobile phones in cars at the time. And the iDrones weren't around yet, so no one was going to go out and buy it simply because it said 'Apple'.
There are many 'concept' items out there that show what companies are thinking. And most of them never show up simply because they cost too much to make for the demand that is expected.
What started out as a minor whine-fest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide whine-fest thanks to the use of social media.
There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone to determine how much is too much and then enact laws. Of course, those useful idiots forget that it also means limiting the income of athletes and movie stars and the 'good' corporations like Ben and Jerry's.
Please.. can we ignore these morons so they can go away. They had their moment in the spotlight, until 99% figured out how useless they really were.
Absolutely 100% correct. I'm a Senior Software Engineer (or some other bogus title) hired to convert old C++ code to Java/stored procedures. (It's really badly written code, it has to be converted to something...but that's a different issue.) You think when the DBA left the company that I just said 'not my job??' Instead, I told my boss that he really wasn't that good and I could take on his work in addition to my own, as long as they realize that not as much progress will be made on the software.
Why?? Because it was for the good of the small company I worked for, and there really wasn't enough work to keep a DBA active. It's all worked out well, I don't put in any more hours than before, actual DBA work is only about 20% of my time, and the company didn't have to hire another body.
I think employees should do what is right for them AND the company. This guy should either shut up and keep the code to himself, or give it to the company. Or, get the approval to take on the project and rewrite it during company time.
Oh.. and I forgot.. he's an idiot for even thinking the company owes him anything for doing something he should have already done on company time or gotten prior approval for.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right .. supply and demand are not impacted when the US drills. Only when OPEC decides to increase and decrease supplies.
...
.. they mention it in the article, but of course the headline is doesn't reflect that. More FUD from the liberal media. Since I don't see widespread environmental disasters in countries with far lower pollution guidelines than ours, I say let loose the oil companies and drill baby drill. Let's show the petty dictators in the middle east how quickly their little monopoly can dry up. Hey .. we bankrupted the USSR, why not do the same for Iran and the rest. Canada has far more natural reserves than most of the OPEC countries, let's help suck it out of the ground and create pipelines to the US so the profit margins make it more profitable to sell it in North America for less than selling it overseas. Build some new refineries in Nebraska so hurricanes don't impact prices. (crap .. they have tornadoes there ... don't they...)
Or
Maybe we aren't producing enough in relation to the other countries. Oh
But what kind of reporting would one expect from a media outlet like NPR. Even though it's an AP story, MPR choose to run it and use a misleading title. The title should have read 'More US drilling and pipelines needed to impact foreign prices.
I don't classify them as dumb or lazy. Maybe they are just not as good as their competition. Just because someone works hard doesn't mean they are good at their job and deserve to be paid the same as others.
So one reason those lawyers may not be able to get a job is they just aren't as good at being a lawyer as those that have jobs. We all know people who think they are just the greatest at what they do, but their peers have a slightly different opinion. Or maybe their personalities suck. Or maybe their work habits or poor. Or maybe they just don't interview well.
Whatever the reason, there appear to be plenty of lawyers who do have good paying jobs, so it seems that the supply has outstripped the demand. If any of those lawyers would learn the art of negotiation, I'll bet they might be able to take a substantial cut in pay and find work somewhere.
Unless they really just aren't that good and should find another profession.
North Americans and Europeans are willing to pay for the true worth of the labour. If Fred is willing to do a task for $10 less than Bill, then the true worth is what Fred is asking for, not Bill.
Unions and government regulations are responsible for companies not being able to pay the true worth of labour. Greed has increased wages so high in those places that many firms have flocked to China and other countries in order to pay the true worth of labour. I'd love to get paid the same for working 35 hours a week instead of 40 and have my retirement start at 55, but that means everyone else has to pay more to subsidize me and I risk my job going where it's cheaper.
So the next time someone complains about China and India taking all the jobs, feel free to blame greedy workers, Unions and Government for sending it there.... those that felt they were worth more than they truly were sent them there.
While companies may try to exploit workers by paying low wages, employees are willing to blackmail employers to try and force wages up. Both parties are equally greedy.
Greed is what drives the entire system, I wouldn't have it any other way. China and India wages will slowly come up, which in turn will drive jobs to other countries with small economies waiting to grow.
I don't ignore their plight ... I tell them to get some skills so they don't get minimum wage. It's not WalMart or McDonald's job to provide a workable wage, they sell stuff and if someone can't find any other job, then they had better find several friends to rent an apartment or move back in with mom and dad. I found it very interesting that in all of the layoffs over the last several years, the people that I know that had good skills were all finding jobs and moving around, while those with less skills were stuck, or got laid off. That's called 'competition' and 'supply and demand', and it's what helps balance the system. Minimum wage laws only serve to drive up prices, and no-skills people getting paid more than they are worth.
My wife spent a few years with two kids and a low-paying job after a divorce. Then she got some additional skills, and worked her way out of it, Never took food stamps either. It's amazing how people can make it happen through hard work and creative thoughts instead of asking the government to take care of them.
I agree 100% (except for that part where Apple is making the biggest noticeable difference). The US and many other countries started their economic fortunes using such things as child labor and poor working conditions. Out of those conditions rise better working conditions and higher wages. I get so tired of the comments about so-and-so working in poverty, when in many of these places, sustenance farming is the norm and any money received is used to make one's life better, no matter how small the amount. Not buying Apple computers means fewer people needed, so fewer people get any chance of making their lives better. But that is one truthful commercial you won't ever see .. 'Lee Yung has a job, and no matter how crappy it is, he is better off than his neighbor who doesn't have one. And buying Apple makes it possible'.
Half true. The most common comments after "I can't explain it" are "so it must be aliens" or "so it must be the work of a god".
Just as he is free to not renew, AT&T is also free to not renew.
I have no problem with a business telling a customer "you cost us too much, we don't want you as a customer anymore." At the end of his current term, drop him like a hot potato.
Let Verizon or Sprint deal with him....
Sure .. this world can't continue to go on it's current course forever. And it would be wonderful if we all could join hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire, get along, and live in a purely socialistic state where we each of according to our needs, and give according to our abilities. When he works out how to get around that little human nature thing that prevents it, then maybe his ideas will have merit.
Which is why space travel is inevitable for the survival of our species. Through the ages, humans have used up the areas they live in, and some of the greatest advances were realized when a few packed up and moved to new areas. Usually, they just wiped out or enslaved the inhabitants and took over. But eventually, great civilizations rose where nomadic, stagnant tribes that had learned to live on renewable resources had flourished.
Whine if you will about the 'evils' of capitalism, but it has only been the desire to have more that has enabled us to have our current batch of high-tech toys. The United States might still be the land of horse-drawn travois if it hadn't been for the spirit of capitalism. I'm sure some romantic few will nod and dream of those days, but I like having a very possible opportunity to live into my 80s instead of having a high chance of dying a horrible death due to diarrhea as a small child.
As we reach out to the space beyond Earth, we will discover new riches which will continue to allow us to grow and prosper.
And continue to be able to purchase that new iPad simply because we want one, not because we need it.
So .. the study suggests that democracies aren't the 'best' way to select leaders, and are only slightly better than almost anything else.
... nothing.
And their solution was
I'll take the best of the worst over no other solution, thank you very much.
It also suggest that people need to be smart to understand things like tax reform and the rest and then pick the best leader. That also is BS.
One of the reasons the US is a REPUBLIC is so that the average citizen DOESN'T have to be an expert on anything. My personal goal when selecting someone for office is to select someone who has the same basic principles I do about what the governments role is, and is a good leader. Their job is then to get together with the rest and figure out what is a good solution for a problem.
In theory, if they do a bad job, then in another 2 or 4 years I can put someone else in that might do a better job.
This is not much different from capitalism. I don't know how good something is until I try it. Then I decide I either think it's worth buying again or I find something else. As I get older, I start to recognize things that increase the odds I'll get something I want the first time, like discovering that ordering a french dessert in a sushi restaurant probably isn't a good idea, so I'll stick to specialties the next time. The same with leaders, I start to see qualities that I think make a good leader, and things that don't. Young people probably aren't the best at picking good leaders, but they will hopefully get better as they recognize what their leaders can and cannot do for them v/s what they promise.
I'll admit the US democratic/republic process isn't perfect. It was never meant to be.
It was meant to be resilient and prevent one person from gaining too much power. So far, I think it's done a pretty good job. It swings from one side of the aisle to the other, but it manages to hang out in the middle most of the time.
If anything, what the last two years have shown in the US congress is that when they can't decide on anything, it's probably for the best for them to NOT do anything. We may whine about their inability to fix the economy, but it seems to be doing fine the less they try to manage it. So my guess is that since they are not able to come to a solution, no good solution exists. Stalemate it is, and probably should be.
You fail to point out why several MILLION people have to pay because less than 1/10 of 1 percent of drivers every year run over their own kids because they aren't watching them-- which is what is usually the problem. Or little Johnny is riding his bike down the sidewalk and isn't paying attention and gets run over by someone backing out of a drive way, which the camera won't see either and because I'm already watching three mirrors and looking both ways for oncoming traffic and didn't see him because my neighbor won't trim their shrubs. And now I have to also watch a camera?? Give me a fucking break, this will be about as effective as 5pmh bumpers were in reducing crash costs.
Do I want safety belts?? Yes I do. I also wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle. But it's MY choice. I have no issues with safety equipment being available for me to purchase so I can decide what I want to spend MY money on. I do have an issue when the government decides they know that is best for me in everything I do.
Go spend your own fucking money....
You fail to point out why several MILLION people have to pay because less than 1/10 of 1 percent of drivers every year run over their own kids.....
Go spend your own fucking money....
I've been driving for over 30 years, and have yet to back up into someone. Why should I have to pay for your inability to drive???
.. and somehow I end up paying more???
.. pay for it. If a car dealer wants to offer it as standard equipment, go for it.
Of course, this is from a country that now has ordered a private business to give a product away for free. That is, ordered insurance companies to cover birth control without any co-pay. Why no co-pay? Because it's so cheap to begin with ($20-$50/month). When do I get my free drugs for conditions that aren't voluntary, like my glaucoma meds that cost me over $100/month with insurance??? But get some special interest group together (like maybe people who make backup cameras and birth control pills???), and suddenly a government mandate shows up.
I'm really getting tired of the federal government deciding what is best for others, and making me pay for it. Sure, it only costs $200. Now, add on anti-lock brakes, 5mph bumpers (which don't work), and a host of other things that the government has mandated 'for your own good', and the cost of just the government mandates for a car probably easily adds another 3 or 4 thousand dollars to the price. Pretty soon those little lights on mirrors that detect someone in your blind spot will be required. Isn't it interesting that people will buy those things that want them anyway, but for some reason the government decides that people that don't want to pay for them have to have them anyway
Enough already. I'll put up with the pollution stuff, since there is an effect on everyone. But seat belts, safety mirrors, and the rest?? If you want it
But the government requiring backup cameras is just going too far. If you are so stupid that you can't look behind you and make sure where your kids are, buy one. If a parent is so stupid they let their kids run around parking lots or down streets without watching them, maybe evolution does work.
The Constitution doesn't spell that out .. moron. Congress can go to war for any reason it feels like, and gave the President the right to react quickly when he needs to. If Congress wants to declare war on Mexico and take it over, they would have the legal right to do it. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and for the most part is free to do just about anything he wants to do.
Just because your definition of 'defend' doesn't agree with theirs, doesn't mean they didn't have the Constitutional authority to do it.
... despite massive deficits, the federal government still spends 50% of it's budget on things it has NO constitutional directive for, such as education, health care, welfare, and transportation. Whine about the amount of federal spending on defense (25% of the federal budget) if you want to, at least the US Constitution gives the federal government a clear mandate to do it.Even the 23% it spends on pensions would be far less if it didn't meddle in state's rights to govern their own people by using blackmail without clear guidelines. For instance, no state is compelled to follow federal education or highway guidelines. That is, they don't have to if they are willing to give up federal funding. Which they wouldn't need if the federal government wasn't taking it from each state, and holding it until state's capitulate to their demands.
Hunters did the right thing and sent the right message. Hope this lunatic anti-hunting group provides future target practice....with the same results.
I tell the powers that be what I can get done, what is slipping and let them decide. I also make it clear we don't work 60 hours weeks every week, they don't pay us enough and I'm not going to burn out. I state very clearly in projects what the EFFORT is, not the duration and only commit to timelines with the caveat that if other projects get in the way, the projects won't be done on time.
... you.
If they want us to be inefficient, that's their call, not mine. I still get a paycheck. I gave up a long time ago stressing out over the choices other people make that I have no control over. I just show up and do the job I agreed to do for the amount I agreed to get paid for it. If I don't like it, I can leave. I've had other companies call me, I know where I can go if it gets worse than the other companies already are.
If someone is working 60 hours/week every week, then they are either not good enough to get a job that doesn't require it, or don't have the cajones to tell their boss they will leave if it keeps up.
Deal with it, the only person to blame is
I do that by LOOKING AHEAD MYSELF! I lead a large motorcycle group, and we don't like to stop at red lights. Or get the group halfway through before the light cycles. So I look ahead and watch the lights cycle, and slow down or speed up as I need to. It doesn't work in heavy traffic in the city, but neither would this since most people won't slow down anyway. And there is no use in forcing all cars to slow down since those making right hand turns can stop and then make the turn anyway. And get out of the way of the rest.
It takes a couple of trips through an intersection to become familiar with the timing, but most cities around here use the same cycles for most of their lights. In Mesa and Tempe, Arizona, the cities there use the left turn signal before the through traffic. In Scottsdale, it's after. In Mesa, many of the lights are also set that if someone maintains the 45mph speed limit, they will hit them all green, except for lights between major intersections that work off of road switches. I don't know how many times I've maintained 45mph down a local street, catching all lights green. While some idiot proceeds to take off at the light, and get caught at every single light as I breeze through.
What drivers need to do is be more observant. That doesn't cost anything....and improves traffic safety. What city planners need to do is understand traffic patterns and set lights to cycle appropriately. And keep them that way.
They are not 'searching' using voice, they are doing voice-to-text translation, then apply that to an already existing interface. No different from what other software has been doing for decades.
What is funny about all of this is how their lack of innovation is finally catching up to them. After decades of minor improvements to someone else's ideas, other companies are doing the same thing and doing it better. And doing it so that consumers have more choices than 'black or white', and starting to whip Apple's butt because of it.
Maybe if Apple finally got off of their 'we know what the consumer wants better than they do' wagon, they might learn one thing the one thing that is driving Android sales, and that is that consumers like having choices. Given two items that technically are mostly the same, I'll usually prefer the one that offers more options and price points.
So .. do I get money BACK when the stock market crashes??? If we also tax excess profits on oil companies, do we give them money back when they have losses?? More fiscal nonsense from the tax-and-spend crowd. The comment about not paying tax when borrowing against shares is also wrong. You have to pay the loan back, and taxes will be paid on the income or capital gains used for that. When the shares are finally sold, they will also be taxed.
... these can all be replaced by state agencies reducing the federal government by thousands of employees. It won't increase state government roles as much because most states ALREADY run their programs under the federal blackmail that is the subsidies they receive.
.. defense, interstate commerce and arbitration, and foreign affairs.
This entire piece is just more class warfare, trying to find ways to levy more and more taxes instead of addressing the real problem...the US government just spends too much money on programs that do not provide adequate return on the money that is spent. For example, the Dept. of Education is a fiscal waste of money that was created by Jimmy Carter to improve US education standards, has failed miserably, and is not held accountable.
We would be better off eliminating all federal-to-state subsidies, and shift the tax burden from the feds to the states based on the subsidies each state wishes to provide (and can afford.) The Dept of Education as a research and recommendation agency I support, not as a regulation agency. Social Security (the largest provider of child support in the US government), medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps
It is time to get the US government out of the pension, welfare, and insurance business, and let states run their own affairs.
What's that?? Some states can't afford to run these programs without federal subsidies??? Then they will have some tough choices to make, won't they. Each state can decide whether or not to increase taxes to cover their programs, or reduce benefits.
Reduce the federal government to it's main obligations
His philosophy speaks to why I don't buy Apple products .. lack of choices. While some lament the Android phones and it's associated plethora of choices, that is exactly why I prefer to my only choice being black or white. But I like to analyze and comprehend the impacts of different configurations. I know what I want Mr. Jobs, I need Apple to make devices I want with the options I want. And one of those options is ... lots of options and price ranges. Until then, I'll continue to go elsewhere.
.. it's safe. There have been moments when Apple had true advantages in specific markets, such as graphics design. But for the most part, Apple products were perceived as easy to use and dependable and really were more about packaging existing technologies into better containers that true innovation. Jog button, mouse, GUI interfaces .. all existed before Apple added them to devices.
It's almost like people buy Apple because they don't want to have to think
But Apple did it in a way that meant no thinking was required. Some called it intuitive, yet I and others have stumbled over such idiotic interface choices like using the trash can to eject. And swiping to unlock. Pinching to zoom and unzoom. And holding a button down to power off. Sure, they make sense and are easy to use once you are shown, but that didn't make them intuitive.
Then you won't mind if we leak your personal and private information about things you thought about but decided later not to do because they were either immoral, unethical, uneconomical or just said in private and you never would have followed through on them anyway.
Because from what I can tell,there is a lot of that in what he leaks. Information without context is just vomiting data. Maybe someday he can figure out what journalists do and strive to become one. Until then, he is just a glory hound to me.
Really?? You are upset because some people buy in bulk and get really big discount?? That is what you are up in arms about.
If you don't like it, go elsewhere. I pay $30/month for AT&T data and have never gone over my limit, because 90% of the time when I use the phone for something other than a phone, I am either at home or at work and use the WiFi networks. The only time I really use the data over cell phone connection is for maps and maybe some searches. Maybe a photo upload here and there.
Grow up, stop being indignant at things that you can't control, and stop thinking that anything in life is supposed to be fair. Don't move out of your mom's basement and get a place of your own until you can handle the real world.
Yeah .. that's exactly why Apple has grabbed the market share in computers and phones. Because it doesn't matter how much it costs as long as the user likes it.
Apple is successful if one defines success as making huge markups on specialty items through the control of most of the hardware, software, and media channels that are needed to use the items.
By that same token, any monopoly can be successful, and that's how Apple operates.
I'm sure the reason this phone never made it because there was no demand for it. Who wants to spend large sums of money for a dedicated computer attached to a phone that can only be used for phone tasks?? Today's smartphones really took off when games and useful apps could be downloaded to them. The costs at the time would have put the phone above $500, hardly available for just anyone as shown by the lack of mobile phones in cars at the time. And the iDrones weren't around yet, so no one was going to go out and buy it simply because it said 'Apple'.
There are many 'concept' items out there that show what companies are thinking. And most of them never show up simply because they cost too much to make for the demand that is expected.
There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone to determine how much is too much and then enact laws. Of course, those useful idiots forget that it also means limiting the income of athletes and movie stars and the 'good' corporations like Ben and Jerry's.
.. can we ignore these morons so they can go away. They had their moment in the spotlight, until 99% figured out how useless they really were.
Please
Absolutely 100% correct. I'm a Senior Software Engineer (or some other bogus title) hired to convert old C++ code to Java/stored procedures. (It's really badly written code, it has to be converted to something...but that's a different issue.) You think when the DBA left the company that I just said 'not my job??' Instead, I told my boss that he really wasn't that good and I could take on his work in addition to my own, as long as they realize that not as much progress will be made on the software.
.. and I forgot .. he's an idiot for even thinking the company owes him anything for doing something he should have already done on company time or gotten prior approval for.
Why?? Because it was for the good of the small company I worked for, and there really wasn't enough work to keep a DBA active. It's all worked out well, I don't put in any more hours than before, actual DBA work is only about 20% of my time, and the company didn't have to hire another body.
I think employees should do what is right for them AND the company. This guy should either shut up and keep the code to himself, or give it to the company. Or, get the approval to take on the project and rewrite it during company time.
Oh