They'll succeed: they're going to successfully repeal the medical devices tax, and then cheer about what a huge accomplishment this is (and to be fair, it's a good idea, the tax is stupid). Then they'll move on to something different and forget about Obamacare.
Technically, you're supposed to pay the tax based on your residence, not the location of the merchant. Most merchants don't bother (and aren't required to) because it'd be a logistical nightmare, but try buying a car sometime: the dealer charges tax based on where you live, even if it's out-of-state.
In your case, you're probably supposed to pay that 1.86% difference in the "use tax" portion of your state taxes.
Hmm, this sounds a lot like the complaint that women make less in the field. One thing about professional fields like this, though, is that negotiations are a big part of the final pay; some people are able to negotiate better salaries than others, and it's been said many times that women aren't as aggressive in salary negotiations as men. The same could be true of blacks unfortunately. Or they could be the type of people who don't change jobs much (once they get in a place, they don't want to leave because they value security higher): people like that always get terrible salaries, because the only way to get a serious raise in IT or engineering is to quit and get a new job. I wonder if any of these things are factors here. Of course, racism could certainly play a part here: if Jamal has a hard time getting an interview because of his name, once he finally finds a place that'll hire him, he may very well be inclined to take whatever their first salary offer is, and then never leave.
Society has these problems, so why wouldn't tech fields?
Because tech fields are composed of different types of people who go into construction and commercial fishing. Hint: education is a big factor.
I completely agree that you can't expect tech to hire more blacks than are available in the labor supply.
Ok, then what exactly are you complaining about? If they can't hire more blacks than are available, then why are you complaining that they aren't hiring more blacks than are available in the labor supply?
But we're still human, still tribal, and still subject to the same social forces as the rest of society.
What social forces? If there's no qualified blacks to hire, then how do "social forces" have anything to do with it?
This thing with the black names sounds like BS to me. Was this study confined to tech jobs, or was it all jobs? If it wasn't confined to tech jobs, then it's irrelevant.
I have no doubt that in many industries, having a "black" name will make it harder to get an interview. But that doesn't mean it's true in all industries, particularly the tech industry. There certainly isn't much trouble with people with "Indian" names (like Swapnil, Ravishankar, etc.) getting interviews, and lots of companies are desperate to hire anyone who's qualified.
I do agree that racism still lingers and affects minorities in a lot of facets of life; for instance, in dealing with cops, black people have had to learn very different tactics than white people because doing otherwise gets them shot dead.
However, for this, I think they're being ridiculous. If you want to know where there's no IT pros of any particular group, it's simple: go to the schools that churn out these pros, and look at who's in the classes. Do you see many black students there? If the answer is no, then there's your answer: there aren't any black IT pros because there aren't any black people going to school for it. Same with women.
Now if you want to investigate why women or black people or hispanic people aren't going to school for tech degrees, you'll need to do a serious sociological study, which you can probably get a PhD for. But this isn't something you can blame anyone in the industry for. People in the industry have no control over who goes to school for tech-related degrees; they can only hire people who are qualified, and the pool of qualified applicants is limited to people who have the proper educational background and degrees.
Um, yes, what's your point? I never said the US was worse than any place else, I just pointed out that it wasn't all that free 1910 as some people believe, it was only free for a certain privileged portion of society.
In addition to that, it wasn't even all that free for white males, depending on where you went. All that stuff in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) didn't even apply until the 1900s sometime. Before that, it was considered as applying only to the Federal government: the Federal government could not pass laws restricting freedom of speech, religion, etc. and force the States to follow them. However, individual States could, and did, have all kinds of anti-freedom laws, official religions, etc. All these people who like to open- or concealed-carry firearms today? Back in the "Old West", there was no such right: any time someone entered a town, they had to surrender their guns to the local sheriff, and could only get them back when they left town.
Yeah, but I'd think that on an island, the insects wouldn't be nearly as bad as in a mainland swamp. Isn't there usually more wind on islands? Bugs don't do well with wind.
1) Cable companies: since they own the last-mile connections to peoples' homes, they basically have a monopoly on high-speed internet service. Unless you want to use your cellphone for all your internet connectivity, or perhaps you happen to have an alternative like FIOS (which probably isn't any better or cheaper than cable internet), you can't walk away from them.
2) Banks. If people walk away from them, the government will deem them "too big to fail" and give them all the money they ask for.
Steve Ballmer wasn't taken very seriously by various Slashdot users, and he ended up getting sacked by the MS board. He also made all kinds of dumb decisions during his tenure (which is why he was sacked, the latest dumb decision being Metro).
CEOs aren't brilliant geniuses, not usually anyway. They're just in the right place at the right time and don't screw up too horribly while they're there, like most successful people.
The Keys are a chain of islands with a very different culture from the rest of Florida. They even called themselves the "Conch Republic" at one point during a political stunt.
I imagine the weather in Key West is rather different than much of Florida, being a Caribbean island, whereas much of mainland Florida is swamps.
So don't let your experiences in Key West give you the wrong idea about the place where this company is setting up shop (Fort Lauderdale I believe).
You should just get a divorce and move. No marriage is worth that kind of misery. It sounds like your kids are already grown up and moved out anyway, so it's not like you have to worry about custody disputes.
There's a lot of better states to move than Florida; two of them are directly north of California.
California is an excellent place to be an employee: 1) there's tons of companies there, so if one job doesn't work out, just walk across the street and get a new one. 2) non-compete clauses are unenforceable in California, so employers can't prevent you from working within your industry if you leave that company. The same isn't true in most other states.
There's a reason (or really, many reasons) why Silicon Valley is so successful, and why no one has been able to copy that success though many have tried (like "Silicon Alley" in NYC--what a joke). Many foolish places keep trying to pitch themselves as "the next Silicon Valley", but for most of them it's a pathetic joke because they don't make the changes actually needed to make such a place successful.
Florida is a terrible place to try to set this up for reasons others have stated here: it's a Red State (remember, you're trying to attract hip and well-educated 20- and 30-somethings who are generally non-religious, and a GOP stronghold is not attractive to them), it's full of old people and crazy people, the politics are insane, the weather is terrible (remember, we're talking about people living in the Bay Area, which has excellent mild weather), and of course, it's not already a tech hub unlike places like Boston, Seattle, or RTP, so if this job doesn't work out, they'll have to move back to California. The whole idea is just dumb.
Yep. Eventually the boss has to find a new job because the company (or at least that division/workgroup) doesn't survive with bad employees in the face of competition (which the good employees went to work for).
Yep, the open-borders advocates never think about that one. The Native Americans didn't enforce their borders very well (not that they had the firepower to do so anyway), and now where are they? Same goes for the Australian Aboriginees. Both are second-class citizens in their own ancestral lands.
It's called a JOB for a reason. It is work...you get paid for it, and nothing else.
If you want feelings time, and camaraderie, or ego stroking, go to a therapist or a bar with friends.
Or, you can quit the job and go to a job that cares a little more about their employees' feelings and happiness.
If there's no shortage of available workers for this job, then your employers with your attitude are probably OK; they can kick out people who need more hand-holding and find people who fit in well. However, if there is a shortage of quality workers for this job, and it's not just some brain-dead no-thinking job that any monkey could do, then employers with your attitude will quickly find, unless they're paying top dollar salaries, that they can't keep good employees around, and without employees, they can't produce any product and will quickly go under.
Liberals bash Arizona for various things, but the voting system there is far more progressive than what we have here in blue-state New Jersey, where there's no mail-in ballots, and there's electronic machines with no paper ballots.
or have a sufficiently small delta-t to still have a majority of their "work day" overlap).
So here you think it's OK for businesses to not keep the exact same hours, but elsewhere you think the government should force businesses to keep the same hours. Which is it?
A three hour offset still leaves five hours of overlap. Of course, this only leaves 2/3 as much time to do business compared against businesses in the same time zone with the same work hours. Why is that claim utterly stupid?
Because you're arguing that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours, when we already have a situation where they don't because the continental USA spans 4 times zones. So which is it? Is it OK for businesses to not keep the same hours, or not?
I'm not sure where you got that. Does increased communication latency necessarily prevent large amounts of trade?
The basis of your whole argument is that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours for increased efficiency, but apparently US companies have no trouble trading with China which has very different business hours.
Your claim that "a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international" seems to imply that domestic business to business sales are insignificant
No, it doesn't imply that at all, it implies the opposite. B2B sales are a large part of the economy. They're just not always in the same timezone. Somehow that doesn't seem to be a problem, but for some reason you claim it is. Are you saying you don't think businesses on the east coast do business with companies on the west coast? That claim is utterly stupid.
Your claim that "Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones" seems misleading. Maintaining 24-hour staff incurs greater costs than simply maintaining a single shift operating within standard business hours.
Companies within the US seem, unlike you, to be smart enough to realize that there's overlapping working hours between the timezones, and that they can do all the communication they need during those overlapping hours. In addition, companies (unlike you again) understand there's this thing called "email" which allows communications at all hours, without both(/all) parties needing to be participating at the same time.
Transactions between businesses without overlapping shifts take longer than those between those with overlapping shifts
So, you're saying that there's very little trade between the US and China? Maybe you need to seek psychological help since you seem to have a poor grasp of reality. Are you seriously suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to keep Chinese hours?
No, I don't admit anything of the sort. I just explained to you above why your assumption is fallacious: businesses DO NOT keep the same hours, and legislation will never change that. Businesses in China are not going to keep the same hours as businesses in the US, and a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international. Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones, so why do you insist that businesses need to keep the same hours?
Slashdot Mirror
They'll succeed: they're going to successfully repeal the medical devices tax, and then cheer about what a huge accomplishment this is (and to be fair, it's a good idea, the tax is stupid). Then they'll move on to something different and forget about Obamacare.
What security features, and are they present in PostgreSQL?
I'm not sure why everyone automatically goes to MySQL as the only choice for open-source RDBMSes, when Postgres seems to be superior in every way.
Technically, you're supposed to pay the tax based on your residence, not the location of the merchant. Most merchants don't bother (and aren't required to) because it'd be a logistical nightmare, but try buying a car sometime: the dealer charges tax based on where you live, even if it's out-of-state.
In your case, you're probably supposed to pay that 1.86% difference in the "use tax" portion of your state taxes.
Hmm, this sounds a lot like the complaint that women make less in the field. One thing about professional fields like this, though, is that negotiations are a big part of the final pay; some people are able to negotiate better salaries than others, and it's been said many times that women aren't as aggressive in salary negotiations as men. The same could be true of blacks unfortunately. Or they could be the type of people who don't change jobs much (once they get in a place, they don't want to leave because they value security higher): people like that always get terrible salaries, because the only way to get a serious raise in IT or engineering is to quit and get a new job. I wonder if any of these things are factors here. Of course, racism could certainly play a part here: if Jamal has a hard time getting an interview because of his name, once he finally finds a place that'll hire him, he may very well be inclined to take whatever their first salary offer is, and then never leave.
Society has these problems, so why wouldn't tech fields?
Because tech fields are composed of different types of people who go into construction and commercial fishing. Hint: education is a big factor.
I completely agree that you can't expect tech to hire more blacks than are available in the labor supply.
Ok, then what exactly are you complaining about? If they can't hire more blacks than are available, then why are you complaining that they aren't hiring more blacks than are available in the labor supply?
But we're still human, still tribal, and still subject to the same social forces as the rest of society.
What social forces? If there's no qualified blacks to hire, then how do "social forces" have anything to do with it?
This thing with the black names sounds like BS to me. Was this study confined to tech jobs, or was it all jobs? If it wasn't confined to tech jobs, then it's irrelevant.
I have no doubt that in many industries, having a "black" name will make it harder to get an interview. But that doesn't mean it's true in all industries, particularly the tech industry. There certainly isn't much trouble with people with "Indian" names (like Swapnil, Ravishankar, etc.) getting interviews, and lots of companies are desperate to hire anyone who's qualified.
I do agree that racism still lingers and affects minorities in a lot of facets of life; for instance, in dealing with cops, black people have had to learn very different tactics than white people because doing otherwise gets them shot dead.
However, for this, I think they're being ridiculous. If you want to know where there's no IT pros of any particular group, it's simple: go to the schools that churn out these pros, and look at who's in the classes. Do you see many black students there? If the answer is no, then there's your answer: there aren't any black IT pros because there aren't any black people going to school for it. Same with women.
Now if you want to investigate why women or black people or hispanic people aren't going to school for tech degrees, you'll need to do a serious sociological study, which you can probably get a PhD for. But this isn't something you can blame anyone in the industry for. People in the industry have no control over who goes to school for tech-related degrees; they can only hire people who are qualified, and the pool of qualified applicants is limited to people who have the proper educational background and degrees.
Um, yes, what's your point? I never said the US was worse than any place else, I just pointed out that it wasn't all that free 1910 as some people believe, it was only free for a certain privileged portion of society.
In addition to that, it wasn't even all that free for white males, depending on where you went. All that stuff in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) didn't even apply until the 1900s sometime. Before that, it was considered as applying only to the Federal government: the Federal government could not pass laws restricting freedom of speech, religion, etc. and force the States to follow them. However, individual States could, and did, have all kinds of anti-freedom laws, official religions, etc. All these people who like to open- or concealed-carry firearms today? Back in the "Old West", there was no such right: any time someone entered a town, they had to surrender their guns to the local sheriff, and could only get them back when they left town.
You could argue that the last time the US was "free" was prior to about 1910.
Yes, before 1910, if you were a white male (and not Irish or some other undesirable immigrant), then you indeed had a lot of freedom.
If you were black or female, forget it. Women coudn't even vote then.
cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness.
You need to move out of the South and stop hanging around conservatives.
Yeah, but I'd think that on an island, the insects wouldn't be nearly as bad as in a mainland swamp. Isn't there usually more wind on islands? Bugs don't do well with wind.
Nope, not everything.
1) Cable companies: since they own the last-mile connections to peoples' homes, they basically have a monopoly on high-speed internet service. Unless you want to use your cellphone for all your internet connectivity, or perhaps you happen to have an alternative like FIOS (which probably isn't any better or cheaper than cable internet), you can't walk away from them.
2) Banks. If people walk away from them, the government will deem them "too big to fail" and give them all the money they ask for.
Steve Ballmer wasn't taken very seriously by various Slashdot users, and he ended up getting sacked by the MS board. He also made all kinds of dumb decisions during his tenure (which is why he was sacked, the latest dumb decision being Metro).
CEOs aren't brilliant geniuses, not usually anyway. They're just in the right place at the right time and don't screw up too horribly while they're there, like most successful people.
The Keys are a chain of islands with a very different culture from the rest of Florida. They even called themselves the "Conch Republic" at one point during a political stunt.
I imagine the weather in Key West is rather different than much of Florida, being a Caribbean island, whereas much of mainland Florida is swamps.
So don't let your experiences in Key West give you the wrong idea about the place where this company is setting up shop (Fort Lauderdale I believe).
You should just get a divorce and move. No marriage is worth that kind of misery. It sounds like your kids are already grown up and moved out anyway, so it's not like you have to worry about custody disputes.
The breed of crazy that will shoot you dead for walking home at night from a convenience store.
There's a lot of better states to move than Florida; two of them are directly north of California.
California is an excellent place to be an employee:
1) there's tons of companies there, so if one job doesn't work out, just walk across the street and get a new one.
2) non-compete clauses are unenforceable in California, so employers can't prevent you from working within your industry if you leave that company. The same isn't true in most other states.
There's a reason (or really, many reasons) why Silicon Valley is so successful, and why no one has been able to copy that success though many have tried (like "Silicon Alley" in NYC--what a joke). Many foolish places keep trying to pitch themselves as "the next Silicon Valley", but for most of them it's a pathetic joke because they don't make the changes actually needed to make such a place successful.
Florida is a terrible place to try to set this up for reasons others have stated here: it's a Red State (remember, you're trying to attract hip and well-educated 20- and 30-somethings who are generally non-religious, and a GOP stronghold is not attractive to them), it's full of old people and crazy people, the politics are insane, the weather is terrible (remember, we're talking about people living in the Bay Area, which has excellent mild weather), and of course, it's not already a tech hub unlike places like Boston, Seattle, or RTP, so if this job doesn't work out, they'll have to move back to California. The whole idea is just dumb.
But if you don't care about any of that and like cheap seafood and good ol' boy values, then maybe Florida is the state for you!
Well with the rise of Brogrammer culture, it seems like the under-30 men should fit in just great in Florida and its good ol' boy values.
Yep. Eventually the boss has to find a new job because the company (or at least that division/workgroup) doesn't survive with bad employees in the face of competition (which the good employees went to work for).
Yep, the open-borders advocates never think about that one. The Native Americans didn't enforce their borders very well (not that they had the firepower to do so anyway), and now where are they? Same goes for the Australian Aboriginees. Both are second-class citizens in their own ancestral lands.
It's called a JOB for a reason. It is work...you get paid for it, and nothing else.
If you want feelings time, and camaraderie, or ego stroking, go to a therapist or a bar with friends.
Or, you can quit the job and go to a job that cares a little more about their employees' feelings and happiness.
If there's no shortage of available workers for this job, then your employers with your attitude are probably OK; they can kick out people who need more hand-holding and find people who fit in well. However, if there is a shortage of quality workers for this job, and it's not just some brain-dead no-thinking job that any monkey could do, then employers with your attitude will quickly find, unless they're paying top dollar salaries, that they can't keep good employees around, and without employees, they can't produce any product and will quickly go under.
Or Arizona.
Liberals bash Arizona for various things, but the voting system there is far more progressive than what we have here in blue-state New Jersey, where there's no mail-in ballots, and there's electronic machines with no paper ballots.
or have a sufficiently small delta-t to still have a majority of their "work day" overlap).
So here you think it's OK for businesses to not keep the exact same hours, but elsewhere you think the government should force businesses to keep the same hours. Which is it?
A three hour offset still leaves five hours of overlap. Of course, this only leaves 2/3 as much time to do business compared against businesses in the same time zone with the same work hours. Why is that claim utterly stupid?
Because you're arguing that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours, when we already have a situation where they don't because the continental USA spans 4 times zones. So which is it? Is it OK for businesses to not keep the same hours, or not?
I'm not sure where you got that. Does increased communication latency necessarily prevent large amounts of trade?
The basis of your whole argument is that the government needs to force everyone to keep the same business hours for increased efficiency, but apparently US companies have no trouble trading with China which has very different business hours.
Your claim that "a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international" seems to imply that domestic business to business sales are insignificant
No, it doesn't imply that at all, it implies the opposite. B2B sales are a large part of the economy. They're just not always in the same timezone. Somehow that doesn't seem to be a problem, but for some reason you claim it is. Are you saying you don't think businesses on the east coast do business with companies on the west coast? That claim is utterly stupid.
Your claim that "Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones" seems misleading. Maintaining 24-hour staff incurs greater costs than simply maintaining a single shift operating within standard business hours.
Companies within the US seem, unlike you, to be smart enough to realize that there's overlapping working hours between the timezones, and that they can do all the communication they need during those overlapping hours. In addition, companies (unlike you again) understand there's this thing called "email" which allows communications at all hours, without both(/all) parties needing to be participating at the same time.
Transactions between businesses without overlapping shifts take longer than those between those with overlapping shifts
So, you're saying that there's very little trade between the US and China? Maybe you need to seek psychological help since you seem to have a poor grasp of reality. Are you seriously suggesting that we need to have the government force us all to keep Chinese hours?
No, I don't admit anything of the sort. I just explained to you above why your assumption is fallacious: businesses DO NOT keep the same hours, and legislation will never change that. Businesses in China are not going to keep the same hours as businesses in the US, and a huge amount of trade between businesses these days is either interstate or international. Businesses seem to work just fine buying and selling stuff over long distances across time zones, so why do you insist that businesses need to keep the same hours?