1,2, and 4 can be visually ascertained; the third is just a matter of a willingness to perform the actions (do you pitch and catch convincingly?). You needn't ever cross those EOE lines, see?;-)
No, they don't have the right to compel you to turn over your personal photos at their whim. They specifically are prohibitied from asking you to divulge certain things like sexual orientation and religious beliefs in interviews, or discriminating you in firing or promotion decisions.
You may not have the constitutional protections from the government regarding privacy, but you have specific legal protections which limit what companies may ask of you. Contrary to what corporations would like to think, they do not own the entire life of their employees, and they are generally restricted - by common law and court precedent if not written statute - to only that part of en employee which affects the corporation.
In at-will employment states there is more leeway on the part of an employer but the courts frown on anything that appears to be retaliatory or could be associated with any protected class.
You missed the part (that's even in TFS) about the traffic transversing the school's VPN. Still, if it's not an expulsion offense in meatspace (which is almost certainly isn't), it shouldn't be on the net.
Here's the thing - if he were to stand up in the lunchroom and say this, or - since it's a tweet - stand up in a room at the school full of his friends and say this would it be an offense punishable by expulsion? Doubtful.
It would seem that he has violated (perhaps unknowingly) the computer policy for traffic over the school's VPN. The logical punishment would be to temorpraily bar him from the network or, if this was a multiple offender, to permanently bar him from the network.
Do we nuke Iran every time they say something offensive? Of course not. We might want to, but we understand that certain responses are out of proportion to the actual act. Makes you wonder if anyone in the administration at the school even has kids.
No, he's wrong. He's making an argument which is perpendicular to the issue. The amendment makes it clear that the FCC may protect privacy by preventing employers from requiring people to disclose passwords. It has nothing to do with the rulemaking process except that it explicitly grants them the ability to make this rule. Sort of like always having to ask your mom for permission to get a dollar from her purse to get an ice cream, but since you're talking about it right now, here's a dollar so that when the ice cream truck comes around today you don't have to ask this once.
Someone in the previous story claimed that this wasn't a R-D thing, and to expect both sides to say the same thing. Bullshit. The D side proposed (effectively) a rule prohibiting it, and the R side has killed it. Plan and simple.
30 years ago I might have been in the Republican tent, today I feel like the Republicans have moved their tent so far to the right that I'm not the most conservative democrat by a pretty good margin.
In what way? This is nominally personal, even private (if marked so) information. Consider it part of your "papers." You may share your odd manifasto - or your party pics - with close friends, or only with yourself. Those are not necessarily public information.
Unless there is a formal complaint that you are exposing privileged information (which is not the case) there is no right or expectation that private work is accessible to an employer. If it is a matter of sharing confidential information, they should be able to produce proof of the breach (screen shot of the offending material, for example), since if it was made public, it is publically viewable. If it is a criminal proceeding, then the defendant my be served with a warrant or discovery notice.
This is as simple as asking if you could do it in meat space: can your current employer or prospective employer ask you - as a condition of employment - come to your house and open up your personal draw of photos and correspondence for review. Neither is allowed, primarily due to workplace regulations mentioned elsewhere in this story discussion.
That's about what it amounts to, and it's a good thing. Having someone who sees your type of ailment dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times a year re-read your symptoms is a great check to make sure that you're on track. It keeps the physicians time cost down, too, as you've identified a bunch of factors and are ready with answers when they ask.
Given the average ability of a human, it's a good idea to have someone trained in a specialty do a sanity check. I'm a professional in another field, and sometimes my clients are dead on with their intuition; other times they're so far off base as to be downright dangerous.
Agreed. For all the technology and data store that Google has, they're probably be able to barcode the tickets to your DNA. It should be a no-transfer ticket, but you can turn your ticket back in and allow them to send them to wait-listed people if you decide you can't make it. Sort of an enforced don't-be-evil requirement for attendees!
Google is collecting data on us in so many ways. The good thing is that they are in it for advertising dollars and don't care about personally tying us to our habits. Google wants to understand our connections, interactions, and preferences in a way that maximizes our value as a target market for someone else's product. When an advertiser wants to target a very tight demographic, Google wants to be able to produce the maximum number of near-perfect matches. Even more than that, they want to make sure that those ads go in front of not just the people who match, but the people who match AND act on such information.
In a way, Google is an anti-corporation in they they do take the long view of value. They're willing to give you free GV service for years, on the hunch that someone will eventually want to sell you something, and you'll be just the right person to buy it. When advertisers find out that their Google ads have a 10 or 20 or 100% better rate on the dollar because Google can find them just the right consumers, they'll keep coming back.
Voice recognition is coming of age, and it would cost an immense amount of money to collect and categorize the myriad of languages and dialects of the world. Not only does Google not have to set up satellite offices everywhere to collect data, the study participants are giving Google their time for free. Even one better - it's real, conversational speech. Google isn't getting some idealized, white room version of speech, they're getting what's actually out there in the wild.
The more Google understands, the better Google can profile you. Google won't just know what you were looking for last week, they'll be able to anticipate what you will need next week, next month, or next year. By understading and correlating buzz (little "b"), they could predict movements in people, in industries, in commodities, in governments. Those last ones start straying out of the "don't be evil" territory.
As long as Google stays corporate and focused on advertising, we're in great shape. As odd as it sounds, I think the world would be a much better place if the only ads I saw were for things I wanted or needed (then again, I don't have ED...). If Google were to get into commodities or market prediction, or involved in personal witch hunts, things could go down hill pretty quickly.
The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores
Yes and no. That's more the hard-core side of marketing, or the cynical perception of it. The simple fact is that everybody buys stuff. In the corporate world, everybody sells stuff. The goal of marketing is to influence the first group to buy the stuff of the second group. Yes, there's upselling and driven demand, but for a large number of products, businesses just want you to choose them instead of their competitor when you break out your wallet.
As you said - for discretionary spending gays are prime real estate because they are either single or DINKs - Double Income, No Kids. That means both toys and travel budgets which far exceed the typical household.
There's a certain dichotomy to targeted advertising. It's ideal for both the consumer and business in the sense that advertising costs less when you only have to pay for people who are likely to be interested in your product. Even if the per-click is 2.5x as much, if you are targeting an audience that is 1/10 the size of the general population (or smaller), its better. While there are some businesses which operate on a premium product, in general market pressures will keep costs to a typical margin over the cost of production. The vendor can lower prices if marketing costs go down - or just put that extra cash into development of the next product.
Yes, FB and other sites with lots of your data can allow advertisers to drill down to very fine detail, but in order for you to be identified you still need to give your personal information to them. This is, I suppose, a cautionary tale for only entering data into sites you trust, and not to associate your sign-ups with referral links if you're the paranoid type.
I see it as an opportunity. I happen to run an a cappella chorus, and we're always looking for new members. Only about 5% of the population has the ability to do what we do. We know the age range we want, we know most are already involved in or like certain musical groups, we have a geographic area. We'd pay more to attract certain types of people (i.e. music or music ed background). We're in the process of considering a G+/FB ad campaign for our spring membership drive, because it will allow us to target singers who fit the profile without having to place (very expensive) traditional media ads.
For the most part, advertisers don't care who you are as long as we can make you a customer. Once you're a customer we still don't care who you are, personally, but rather that you have a good time and enjoy or value the product enough to continue using it (retention). You become part of our inside pool of customers, and outside advertising means less and less. Sites like FB are used to get new customers and move you from either no brand or competing brands to our brand - because customer retention is far easier than obtaining new. Farming for other reasons (like general collection of personally identifiable information) really is a bastardization of the system.
Yeah, this was my first thought. The cost of research and development, along with all the man hours which go into these kinds of products, is staggering. In 50 years, when it becomes commonplace, though, it will still not become free.
Well, the Republican side of the aisle does not appear to have weighed in, but Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (who is a Democrat) is drafting legislation that would make it illegal.
Democrats generally invade private rights in order to make things "safer" and Republicans generally invade rights to ensure "profitability." Neither, generally, are good reasons.
Just send his re-election campaign money. Money = votes in a political landscape where advertising sways far more voters than actual positions (or even facts). The more money he has the more undecided (or unthoughtful) voters he can get to vote for his re-election.
Of course, you can't be the one to cast the ballot, but though the miracle of advertising you can have somebody who really doesn't care either way do it for you!
No, but the power supplies will have chips in them that run out every 6 months, and you'll have to get a replacement - which costs about 75% of the cost of a new machine.
Sorry, but by 14 you should be reading all by yourself. You'll be legal to drive in 2 years. Unless this is just a sample passage to illustrate a style why in the world are they "reading to children" who are this old?
I'd be hard pressed to justify EG as even mildly offensive for someone of that age. Now, if they'd read The Lost Gate - okay, maybe - there are some awkward passages for truly cloistered young teens (I decided it's a little much for my nine year old, and she can wait a couple of years).
I say we stop having story time for 14 year olds and teach them to read. I'd be pissed about this if it happened in a school my kid was in because it sounds like a waste of valuable teaching time.
There are places where cash is difficult, inefficient, or just plain near impossible to use. Online fits that last one. Unattended gas stations and grocery self-service lines would be the first. Anyplace you're buying a large amount of stuff (>$1000), or if you're away from home would be the middle case - and by that I mean having to carry around a large quantity of cash. And, of course, there's just the desire not to end up at home in the evening with a pocket full of change.
Credit cards are always faster at any automated terminal in the US - none require PINs (though that's not true of debit cards). Most are self-swipe, and can the swipe can be made anytime after the transaction has started. The only times cash is more convenient is when a terminal is unavailable, or when you are eating out. If you have the proper change, just leave the bill and tip, and head for the door.
I keep cash for small transactions (usu anything under $20, practically always under $10) since I'm usually at a local business for those transactions, and I think it's rude to ask them to eat a 30-60c swipe fee because I'm too lazy to pay in cash.
FTS: " helps explain why Sweden has less of a problem with graft than countries with a stronger cash culture"
Sen. Dole takes out ~$10,000 in cash every couple of weeks, and admits is because he doesn't want anyone knowing how or where he spends is money. He even got investigated (briefly, politely) because of suspected money laundering due to his somewhat unusual volume of withdrawals.
I'm mixed on this. I would never want cash to go away; there are some things I just don't want records of. And it's not even the "you spend $100 at a strip club" stuff - I have no desire to track, or have tracked, little shit like a candy bar or a coffee, or the $20 I give the neighbor kid to mow my lawn while I'm away. But man, I love me the convenience of credit cards.
This does matter. It's very easy t get distracted on short jobs. IF you are going to succumb, you need to either make the things small breaks (laundry, mail, whatever) that are done at logical breaks in your work, or you need to swap hours - take the two hours to mow the lawn if you're not being productive, but put a two hour work block in the evening (that evening) to make up the time.
You've been given the ultimate flex time, but that requires a very high level of dedication to make sure your work hours don't slip.
Oh, and "computer time" doesn't equal work time. Doing the home bills or working on projects which are not work count as "break" even if they may not feel like it. That includes slashdot. Sadly.
No, and neither does the FAA. They specifically state that the concern is interference to communication and navigation systems.
And yet there is inflight WiFi now, transmitting at far higher power than any portable device throughout the entire cabin. Are you going to claim that this is well characterized by testing, and yet the PED signal is not, even though you have the PED signal during use? More importantly, if communication and navigation is critical - it's critical. Whether you're at 8000 feet or 44000 feet the interference is the same. Are you going to claim that interference during the body of the flight is not safety critical? If so, where does the threshold cross and what is the criteria for setting it. The answer will be "you don't know" and "they felt that landing and takeoff were appropriate" without any actual data.
And that is where we are all calling bullshit on the FAA. Tell us what the criteria is, show us the test data, and dispense with all the arguments. My bet is that they don't have conclusive data.
Most property taxes go to fund local schools, police, fire, and local public services...
This is a common mis-conception
Actually, it's not a misconception - it's fact. Nearly all of your local tax dollars stay in your locality. Most of them pay for a portion of public schools.
If you're arguing with my usage of the term "fair" as a basis for taxation, that may be a bit more understandable. Those who have owned land for a very long time, and have had that land appreciate may have larger than typical tax bills on an illiquid asset. For the most part, though, you chose to purchase real estate fully aware of the proportional taxes which are due. On average (note, I'm not talking about the outliers or anecdotal conditions), people who have the largest real estate tax bills then to have the highest incomes, and visa versa.
you say
Outsourcing U.S. jobs would not be a reality if it directly affected the government's ability to support itself
except that it does affect them, as does all off-shore tax dodges, and yet the government does nothing about it.
Whether you like it or not, the localities provide services based on your mere existence, and how much money you make has little impact on whether you need police, fire, and schools in your town. Income tax is one of the biggest problems, as income is only one way in which people register as a user of services.
Slashdot Mirror
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. The sad part is that so many people high in the chain are like that woman.
1,2, and 4 can be visually ascertained; the third is just a matter of a willingness to perform the actions (do you pitch and catch convincingly?). You needn't ever cross those EOE lines, see? ;-)
Wasn't that featured in 9-1/2 weeks. Second best part of the movie.
No, they don't have the right to compel you to turn over your personal photos at their whim. They specifically are prohibitied from asking you to divulge certain things like sexual orientation and religious beliefs in interviews, or discriminating you in firing or promotion decisions.
You may not have the constitutional protections from the government regarding privacy, but you have specific legal protections which limit what companies may ask of you. Contrary to what corporations would like to think, they do not own the entire life of their employees, and they are generally restricted - by common law and court precedent if not written statute - to only that part of en employee which affects the corporation.
In at-will employment states there is more leeway on the part of an employer but the courts frown on anything that appears to be retaliatory or could be associated with any protected class.
You missed the part (that's even in TFS) about the traffic transversing the school's VPN. Still, if it's not an expulsion offense in meatspace (which is almost certainly isn't), it shouldn't be on the net.
Here's the thing - if he were to stand up in the lunchroom and say this, or - since it's a tweet - stand up in a room at the school full of his friends and say this would it be an offense punishable by expulsion? Doubtful.
It would seem that he has violated (perhaps unknowingly) the computer policy for traffic over the school's VPN. The logical punishment would be to temorpraily bar him from the network or, if this was a multiple offender, to permanently bar him from the network.
Do we nuke Iran every time they say something offensive? Of course not. We might want to, but we understand that certain responses are out of proportion to the actual act. Makes you wonder if anyone in the administration at the school even has kids.
No, he's wrong. He's making an argument which is perpendicular to the issue. The amendment makes it clear that the FCC may protect privacy by preventing employers from requiring people to disclose passwords. It has nothing to do with the rulemaking process except that it explicitly grants them the ability to make this rule. Sort of like always having to ask your mom for permission to get a dollar from her purse to get an ice cream, but since you're talking about it right now, here's a dollar so that when the ice cream truck comes around today you don't have to ask this once.
Someone in the previous story claimed that this wasn't a R-D thing, and to expect both sides to say the same thing. Bullshit. The D side proposed (effectively) a rule prohibiting it, and the R side has killed it. Plan and simple.
30 years ago I might have been in the Republican tent, today I feel like the Republicans have moved their tent so far to the right that I'm not the most conservative democrat by a pretty good margin.
In what way? This is nominally personal, even private (if marked so) information. Consider it part of your "papers." You may share your odd manifasto - or your party pics - with close friends, or only with yourself. Those are not necessarily public information.
Unless there is a formal complaint that you are exposing privileged information (which is not the case) there is no right or expectation that private work is accessible to an employer. If it is a matter of sharing confidential information, they should be able to produce proof of the breach (screen shot of the offending material, for example), since if it was made public, it is publically viewable. If it is a criminal proceeding, then the defendant my be served with a warrant or discovery notice.
This is as simple as asking if you could do it in meat space: can your current employer or prospective employer ask you - as a condition of employment - come to your house and open up your personal draw of photos and correspondence for review. Neither is allowed, primarily due to workplace regulations mentioned elsewhere in this story discussion.
That's about what it amounts to, and it's a good thing. Having someone who sees your type of ailment dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times a year re-read your symptoms is a great check to make sure that you're on track. It keeps the physicians time cost down, too, as you've identified a bunch of factors and are ready with answers when they ask.
Given the average ability of a human, it's a good idea to have someone trained in a specialty do a sanity check. I'm a professional in another field, and sometimes my clients are dead on with their intuition; other times they're so far off base as to be downright dangerous.
Agreed. For all the technology and data store that Google has, they're probably be able to barcode the tickets to your DNA. It should be a no-transfer ticket, but you can turn your ticket back in and allow them to send them to wait-listed people if you decide you can't make it. Sort of an enforced don't-be-evil requirement for attendees!
Google is collecting data on us in so many ways. The good thing is that they are in it for advertising dollars and don't care about personally tying us to our habits. Google wants to understand our connections, interactions, and preferences in a way that maximizes our value as a target market for someone else's product. When an advertiser wants to target a very tight demographic, Google wants to be able to produce the maximum number of near-perfect matches. Even more than that, they want to make sure that those ads go in front of not just the people who match, but the people who match AND act on such information.
In a way, Google is an anti-corporation in they they do take the long view of value. They're willing to give you free GV service for years, on the hunch that someone will eventually want to sell you something, and you'll be just the right person to buy it. When advertisers find out that their Google ads have a 10 or 20 or 100% better rate on the dollar because Google can find them just the right consumers, they'll keep coming back.
Voice recognition is coming of age, and it would cost an immense amount of money to collect and categorize the myriad of languages and dialects of the world. Not only does Google not have to set up satellite offices everywhere to collect data, the study participants are giving Google their time for free. Even one better - it's real, conversational speech. Google isn't getting some idealized, white room version of speech, they're getting what's actually out there in the wild.
The more Google understands, the better Google can profile you. Google won't just know what you were looking for last week, they'll be able to anticipate what you will need next week, next month, or next year. By understading and correlating buzz (little "b"), they could predict movements in people, in industries, in commodities, in governments. Those last ones start straying out of the "don't be evil" territory.
As long as Google stays corporate and focused on advertising, we're in great shape. As odd as it sounds, I think the world would be a much better place if the only ads I saw were for things I wanted or needed (then again, I don't have ED...). If Google were to get into commodities or market prediction, or involved in personal witch hunts, things could go down hill pretty quickly.
The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores
Yes and no. That's more the hard-core side of marketing, or the cynical perception of it. The simple fact is that everybody buys stuff. In the corporate world, everybody sells stuff. The goal of marketing is to influence the first group to buy the stuff of the second group. Yes, there's upselling and driven demand, but for a large number of products, businesses just want you to choose them instead of their competitor when you break out your wallet.
As you said - for discretionary spending gays are prime real estate because they are either single or DINKs - Double Income, No Kids. That means both toys and travel budgets which far exceed the typical household.
There's a certain dichotomy to targeted advertising. It's ideal for both the consumer and business in the sense that advertising costs less when you only have to pay for people who are likely to be interested in your product. Even if the per-click is 2.5x as much, if you are targeting an audience that is 1/10 the size of the general population (or smaller), its better. While there are some businesses which operate on a premium product, in general market pressures will keep costs to a typical margin over the cost of production. The vendor can lower prices if marketing costs go down - or just put that extra cash into development of the next product.
Yes, FB and other sites with lots of your data can allow advertisers to drill down to very fine detail, but in order for you to be identified you still need to give your personal information to them. This is, I suppose, a cautionary tale for only entering data into sites you trust, and not to associate your sign-ups with referral links if you're the paranoid type.
I see it as an opportunity. I happen to run an a cappella chorus, and we're always looking for new members. Only about 5% of the population has the ability to do what we do. We know the age range we want, we know most are already involved in or like certain musical groups, we have a geographic area. We'd pay more to attract certain types of people (i.e. music or music ed background). We're in the process of considering a G+/FB ad campaign for our spring membership drive, because it will allow us to target singers who fit the profile without having to place (very expensive) traditional media ads.
For the most part, advertisers don't care who you are as long as we can make you a customer. Once you're a customer we still don't care who you are, personally, but rather that you have a good time and enjoy or value the product enough to continue using it (retention). You become part of our inside pool of customers, and outside advertising means less and less. Sites like FB are used to get new customers and move you from either no brand or competing brands to our brand - because customer retention is far easier than obtaining new. Farming for other reasons (like general collection of personally identifiable information) really is a bastardization of the system.
Yeah, this was my first thought. The cost of research and development, along with all the man hours which go into these kinds of products, is staggering. In 50 years, when it becomes commonplace, though, it will still not become free.
Well, the Republican side of the aisle does not appear to have weighed in, but Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (who is a Democrat) is drafting legislation that would make it illegal.
Democrats generally invade private rights in order to make things "safer" and Republicans generally invade rights to ensure "profitability." Neither, generally, are good reasons.
Just send his re-election campaign money. Money = votes in a political landscape where advertising sways far more voters than actual positions (or even facts). The more money he has the more undecided (or unthoughtful) voters he can get to vote for his re-election.
Of course, you can't be the one to cast the ballot, but though the miracle of advertising you can have somebody who really doesn't care either way do it for you!
No, but the power supplies will have chips in them that run out every 6 months, and you'll have to get a replacement - which costs about 75% of the cost of a new machine.
Sorry, but by 14 you should be reading all by yourself. You'll be legal to drive in 2 years. Unless this is just a sample passage to illustrate a style why in the world are they "reading to children" who are this old?
I'd be hard pressed to justify EG as even mildly offensive for someone of that age. Now, if they'd read The Lost Gate - okay, maybe - there are some awkward passages for truly cloistered young teens (I decided it's a little much for my nine year old, and she can wait a couple of years).
I say we stop having story time for 14 year olds and teach them to read. I'd be pissed about this if it happened in a school my kid was in because it sounds like a waste of valuable teaching time.
There are places where cash is difficult, inefficient, or just plain near impossible to use. Online fits that last one. Unattended gas stations and grocery self-service lines would be the first. Anyplace you're buying a large amount of stuff (>$1000), or if you're away from home would be the middle case - and by that I mean having to carry around a large quantity of cash. And, of course, there's just the desire not to end up at home in the evening with a pocket full of change.
Credit cards are always faster at any automated terminal in the US - none require PINs (though that's not true of debit cards). Most are self-swipe, and can the swipe can be made anytime after the transaction has started. The only times cash is more convenient is when a terminal is unavailable, or when you are eating out. If you have the proper change, just leave the bill and tip, and head for the door.
I keep cash for small transactions (usu anything under $20, practically always under $10) since I'm usually at a local business for those transactions, and I think it's rude to ask them to eat a 30-60c swipe fee because I'm too lazy to pay in cash.
Not necessarily, but it does make it profitable!
...or he would be if he were dead.
FTS: " helps explain why Sweden has less of a problem with graft than countries with a stronger cash culture"
Sen. Dole takes out ~$10,000 in cash every couple of weeks, and admits is because he doesn't want anyone knowing how or where he spends is money. He even got investigated (briefly, politely) because of suspected money laundering due to his somewhat unusual volume of withdrawals.
I'm mixed on this. I would never want cash to go away; there are some things I just don't want records of. And it's not even the "you spend $100 at a strip club" stuff - I have no desire to track, or have tracked, little shit like a candy bar or a coffee, or the $20 I give the neighbor kid to mow my lawn while I'm away. But man, I love me the convenience of credit cards.
This does matter. It's very easy t get distracted on short jobs. IF you are going to succumb, you need to either make the things small breaks (laundry, mail, whatever) that are done at logical breaks in your work, or you need to swap hours - take the two hours to mow the lawn if you're not being productive, but put a two hour work block in the evening (that evening) to make up the time.
You've been given the ultimate flex time, but that requires a very high level of dedication to make sure your work hours don't slip.
Oh, and "computer time" doesn't equal work time. Doing the home bills or working on projects which are not work count as "break" even if they may not feel like it. That includes slashdot. Sadly.
But it's okay to have those g forces act on a hardback book which weighs more? Those seem allowed.
No, and neither does the FAA. They specifically state that the concern is interference to communication and navigation systems.
And yet there is inflight WiFi now, transmitting at far higher power than any portable device throughout the entire cabin. Are you going to claim that this is well characterized by testing, and yet the PED signal is not, even though you have the PED signal during use? More importantly, if communication and navigation is critical - it's critical. Whether you're at 8000 feet or 44000 feet the interference is the same. Are you going to claim that interference during the body of the flight is not safety critical? If so, where does the threshold cross and what is the criteria for setting it. The answer will be "you don't know" and "they felt that landing and takeoff were appropriate" without any actual data.
And that is where we are all calling bullshit on the FAA. Tell us what the criteria is, show us the test data, and dispense with all the arguments. My bet is that they don't have conclusive data.
Most property taxes go to fund local schools, police, fire, and local public services...
This is a common mis-conception
Actually, it's not a misconception - it's fact. Nearly all of your local tax dollars stay in your locality. Most of them pay for a portion of public schools.
If you're arguing with my usage of the term "fair" as a basis for taxation, that may be a bit more understandable. Those who have owned land for a very long time, and have had that land appreciate may have larger than typical tax bills on an illiquid asset. For the most part, though, you chose to purchase real estate fully aware of the proportional taxes which are due. On average (note, I'm not talking about the outliers or anecdotal conditions), people who have the largest real estate tax bills then to have the highest incomes, and visa versa.
you say
Outsourcing U.S. jobs would not be a reality if it directly affected the government's ability to support itself
except that it does affect them, as does all off-shore tax dodges, and yet the government does nothing about it.
Whether you like it or not, the localities provide services based on your mere existence, and how much money you make has little impact on whether you need police, fire, and schools in your town. Income tax is one of the biggest problems, as income is only one way in which people register as a user of services.