> On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states
I would have died laughing if autocorrect had made that "one of the most preposterous states".
Seriously I'm glad you like where you live. I like where I live.
If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there.
If you like California, of course you wouldn't want me to come there are ruin it for you. That's cool. I got the F out of California.
I wouldn't want you to bring your California crap to Texas. We prefer different things.
We're both fortunate that we live in a country that has federalism - each state can do what they want, with the federal afederation) government only doing the things that need to be done at that level, like national defense. You do you, and I'll do me.
> 5th largest economy
I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. I'd rather have money to do what needs to be done. I'm not sure I'd be bragging about my state being a BIG pile of crap. California's economy, like Mexico's, is big - okay and... ?
I'm sure California has some great things to brag about. Being economically similar to India can't be the best thing, can it? Maybe it is. Maybe "we're like India, big economy" is the best thing that can be said about California.
Let's play a game. Somebody posts a news story and the rest of us try to guess whether it comes from the Onion or from California.
That could be a very challenging game.
Okay, okay - I know someone reading this probably *likes* California, and doesn't think California politics is ridiculous. That's cool. Thanks to Article 1 of the Constitution, the rest of us aren't allowed to tell you how to live. California can have whatever laws you all want. Just in case anyone forgets to read Article 1, the framers repeated it in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So don't worry. Even though I think you guys are a parody of yourselves, I'm not going to try to stop you, I can't stop you. You can tax blinking if you want to.
When some completely new idea comes along, it makes sense to ask all kinds of "what if?" questions.
Spam is not new. Well over 90% of emails sent are spam. The reason you receive only a small fraction of the spam os because the provider blocks it. Nothing new about this, we know how this works, how this turns out.
Does Comcast, or any ISP on the entire planet, block all of your email as "unwanted" unless you pay more for a premium service?
Would YOU sign up with a wireless carrier that charged extra for receiving text messages? Would anyone?
Seriously, carriers have been blocking spam messages since at least 1992. We pretty much know how this turns out. The only thing that's new is that we've replaced the carrier's cord with radio waves.
Most applications spend most of their time in standard libraries, or should. (Some silly developers implement sort themselves, repeatedly).
If popular libraries used parallel programming, applications would get most of the benefit for free. Sorting is a good example because it's expensive, but like many expensive operations it's already implemented in the library.
A huge percentage of code is now run behind a web server, as a web service / microservice / whatever, or some other type of server. The developers write code that Apache or IIS or MS-SQL calls, with the server handling requests. If the API for these types of modules assumed that each request is independent, disallowing modules / scripts reaching outside of the concurrency-safe context without a special global_ call, that could go a long way.
Again I'm not saying that IIS or SQL Server would make it *impossible* to effect global state, but doing so would be a special call, with the normal API being thread safe.
True, over 90% of millionaires made less than $100k - they invested over time, and earned returns on their returns on their returns. The time factor in investment is huge - investing early makes a HUGE difference.
That said, it's also easy to lose track of the real purpose and pursue money, so if you're working hard now and foregoing spending in order to retire at age 45, remember that's your goal. Don't be working 60 hours a week when you're 50 in order to get more money, after you already have $2 million.
We're talking about people will a software engineering degree. Their income will be about three times what's needed to pay the rent, put food on the table, etc.
> If you don't have enough to to pay the rent, provide for your family, and retire, what kind of life do you have...
That's not the people we're talking about. At least, not in terms of income - you said "have" rather than "earn". If you have a software engineering degree and consistently don't have enough money to pay the rent, you probably have a spend problem, not a salary problem. The phrase is "put food on the table", not "tip the waitress who put food on the table". If you're a software engineer and don't have enough money to eat, there's a good chance you should check out the inside of a grocery store and forget where your favorite restaurant is.
> you work for MONEY, and if you are bitching about not having any, then that should make your first priority coming out of school. > Get out, make as much $$ as you can
You're confusing the ends with the means. Money is something I use to take care of my family. My family is the purpose. I work to put gas in my jetski, because riding the jetski is fun. A pile of money, of itself, doesn't make your life better or more fulfilling.
If you give up your family life in exchange for more money, you're doing it backwards. You're sacrificing the goal to get the method.
As I said before, if you're reading this from the US, you're probably already in the top 2% highest-earning people in the world. You already make enough money. You might spend too much, but you earn more than 98% of people do - the money part is already taken care of. If you're totally sacrificing quality of life trying to get just a little more money, you're really missing out.
> Jobs aren't meant to be fun....otherwise it wouldn't be called work...
Imagine if your job WAS fun. Imagine getting pumped up by your work, doing something that gets you kinda excited. I've discovered that when I do something I'm excited about, I also do a better job than when I'm just punching the clock. If you pick three things that you enjoy, somebody has a job that combines two of your three favorite things. Somebody like technology and they like naked women - okay, I made good money doing tech for the porn industry. Now I do work that's even more fun.
> otherwise it wouldn't be called work...
If you look up "work" in the dictionary, it doesn't mean "unpleasant". Here's the dictionary definition of "work": -- Work (noun) activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result. --
The definition of work is being active for a purpose. A purpose, by the way, also happens to be what makes an activity fulfilling. If you spend 9-5 doing something that seems to be without purpose, you may not be working at all. You're doing something, but it doesn't meet the definition of work. Work is defined as activity with a purpose.
I could make 50% more by switching jobs to one that has crappy work-life balance and is unpleasant. Or I could stay at my current job where I work from home instead of sitting in traffic, while doing exactly what I most love to do - mentoring programmers in security.
If you're reading this from the US, you're probably already in the top 2% highest-earning people in the world. Most Americans in IT are already 2%ers. You're already rich, no matter what Nancy Pelosi tells you. Getting a tiny bit richer isn't going to change your life much.
* Rich in terms of income. If you spend your money on Starbucks instead of slowly building wealth, that's na different kind of rich that has nothing to do with your job.
I've also had several Super Micro and have been very happy. Especially given the pricing.
Unlike HP etc, Super Micro only makes servers. They don't make laptops and mp3 players and crap for Best Buy. Everything they do is designed for the data center.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had ratings as high or higher than NBC and CBS news. Particularly among the 18-49 age group. So they are / were watching. How much efect does constant exposure to propaganda have? We don't know exactly, but we do know that companies and politicians spend billions on advertising because it works.
Multiple surveys showed that a significant percentage of people thought Sarah Palin said things that were actually said by Tina Fey. In a photo line-up, people were more likely to choose Fey than the real Palin.
I don't think you've thought this through. Unless of course you're a neo-Nazi.
There was a question about the policy of the South African government. I quoted the actual written policy of the government, the exact words of their announcement. What I quoted was, by definition, their announced policy, because it was their actual words. So my post is the very definition of truth.
Your assertion is that truth is Nazism, that truth and Nazism are the same thing. You assert Nazism == truth.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
So "news" these days, to most people, means Facebook or a comedian.
I find it interesting, and scary, to compare various news sources on the same day. You'll get a COMPLETELY different view of the world depending on which news source(s) you choose. Ever wonder why the heck the guy you're arguing with is so F-ing stupid, why he can't see things that are obvious to you? He's living in an entirely different world, that's why.
Every day CNN's front page has a story about a bad cop, or a cop who royally screwed up. It may be an update about something a bad cop did a year ago. These stories are mostly true. Also every day Fox has a story about a cop beimg hero, doing something generous or brave. These stories are pretty much true as well. Readers get a 180 degree completely opposite opinion of cops, depending on which stories their news source covers.
Same on any other topic. MSNBC will run a stories every day with a particular slant on the topic, the Washington Times will run some will the opposite slant - all true(ish). The Daily Show will do jokes that sound like news stories, slanted far enough to become fiction.
The other guy can't see your point of view because the news of the world in his world is the opposite of what you see every day. That's why he's being ridiculous - and you're being just as ridiculous, if you're like 95% of people.
They offered employees up to 60 weeks of pay (more than a year) to *not* work for a shitty company and go get a different job instead, perhaps after taking a 9-month paid vacation. That sounds pretty great to me!
I wish my company would give me a bonus equal to a year of pay to get me to leave and go work for Raytheon or somebody else. I'd darn sure take that!
I'd probably take a 2-month break to vacation and do some things around the house, then get a job and chunk 10 months pay into savings. That savings would be my "fuck you money". If the boss turns out to be an ass at the new job, I can comfortably say "fuck you" and take another two-month vacation before looking for where I want to work next.
It was removed in the Trump deal except for one special case. Every so often Mexico makes efforts to nationality their oil industry, with the government taking refineries and other infrastructure from the private companies that built them. If Mexico wants to take American-owned oil facilities, the companies can get reimbursed under the chapter 11 process. It's been removed except for oil facilities in Mexico only.
Whichever source of news / comedian told you the exact opposite, I'd be suspicious of them now. Apparently they are either hard to understand, or pulling your leg.
> I personally could make an E-Bay competitor in a month, it would cost a lot, but I also doubt I would steal many of eBay's current customers. 20 years ago, I could get VC money if I showed I could set up infrastructure to do so
Creating similar functionality is easy. I did that 20 years ago. No VC would be interested in my dinky little eBay clone. Infrastructure isn't special either. You can very easily find people who know how to set up servers and such. You just have to ask a few load balancing questions in the interview to sort out the ones who know how to scale.
What eBay has that is valuable is customers. If you have a million customers and that number is increasing every month, that's what gets investors interested.
The article left out an obvious likely difference between this generation and people 20 years older. It actually sounds like the author may not see it because they themselves are affected. That's the entrepreneural spirit. The article basically listed excuses for why millennials can't start businesses. (Basically because they don't have much money). News flash - a large percentage of immigrants start businesses, and they don't show up with an $200,000 in their pocket. Immigrants very often come to America with nothing but a dream, a hope for the future and a burning desire for a better life. It's that dream coupled with drive to do something to achieve your dreams that characterizes and entrepreneur.
In fact, having money, having cushy job, will *discourage* people from striking out on their own. If you're well-paid by employer and have great benefits, why leave that? It's most often when people are laid off or unable to get a job that they start their own thing.
> Nobody, and I mean nobody filters spam at the network level
ROTFL. In actual fact, any network that doesn't drop connections from certain types of spam outfits, instead transiting it to their peers, will find that their peers drop THEM.
It's fine, not everybody *needs* to know the difference between a packet, a frame, and a flow. If it's not your job to know carrier networking, someone don't look silly for not knowing how this stuff works. One only looks silly when they *pretend* to know, while obviously not having a clue.
How exactly do you think traffic gets to the mail server?
The reality is, if we didn't block traffic from bad guys, you wouldn't be able to use this site right now. That's because the bad guys try to send a LOT of traffic. In the case of email, the bad guys try to send roughly twenty times as much as all the good guys put together.
So you have to have "it's okay to block traffic from bad guys". Which does lewve open the theoretical possibility that Comcast could definitely that Netflix is a bad guy.
Ugh, I typed "wasn't a bill" when I meant "was a bill".
That draft died pretty quick when it was pointed out that, among other things, it would take down the Congressional email system. 90% of the email traffic is spam and if it were all allowed through, most email servers would crash under the load.
"An ISP shall carry all traffic in a manner that does not discriminate based on its source or destination."
There wasn't actually a network neutrality bill that said pretty much that. No blocking the world's biggest spammers, you have to accept their mail. It's illegal to do anything about a DOS attack against you, you have to accept all the traffi from the Russian botnet.
Unfortunately it way, way more complicated than that. Whenever I point out the obvious consequences of the "simple NN laws" that people with no understanding of carrier networking propose, very often the reply is something like: "Well now you're just being silly - that's now what I meant. You know what I mean." Unfortunately "you know what I mean" doesn't quite work as a law. It DOES sound silly when I point out the effects of such simplistic rules, because the simplistic rules ARE silly.
I'm totally with you on the *spirit* of what you want with NN. We're in agreement on that. Where we defer is I happen to have enough experience and knowledge regarding large networks to look at the text of a proposed law and have pretty good idea of how it would need to be implemented in router configuration, and what the effects would be.
I stated that while Democrats *could* do some useful and good things, they won't because they are too consumed with hating Trump. That's all they can talk about or focus on. They can't focus on anything positive because they can't get their minds on anything but hating Trump.
Your response was a bunch of "I hate Trump". Even when the criticism is "y'all can't say anything other than hating Trump", STILL the only thing that can come out of your mouth is "I hate Trump". Even when that's obviously the absolute worst possible thing to say, because it would prove the point that it's all you can talk about, STILL you can't keep yourself from doing it.
One business that has always been profitable is telling people that changing there attitude will change their situation. Currently, TED talks are a popular platform for this. "If you see everything as an opportunity, it becomes an opportunity!" Some people believe that and there will always be people who believe that because believing the trope is much easier than the alternative - facing and solving hard problems.
It's believable for two reasons. It's so attractive - we WANT t believe that all these hard problems can be solved just by changing our attitude. Also, it's inverse is true, making it an attractive fallacy of the inverse. It's true that if we have a defeatist, hopeless, victim attitude, we won't solve our problems.* We'll whine about them, we'll blame others, and we won't solve anything.*
Of course does NOT mean that the right attitude magically solves our problems. A "can do" attitude, fortitude, looking for the opportunities we can leverage, determination is a *prerequisite* to finding solutions. It's not the solution. It's what you have to do *before* you find the solutions, and *after* you frankly acknowledge the problem.
* If this truth that an attitude of victimhood and blaming others doesn't solve any problems reminds you of a certain political party, that's not my fault. They chose that approach.
Remember in all of American history, only two Presidents have been impeached. It's not something that normally happens. A president has to be a special kind of crooked to get impeached, or especially hated. "Impeach him" isn't the normal case.
Pelosi wasn't all about impeaching Bush because that would be absolutely nuts. There wasn't ever even any claim that Bush had possibly done anything remotely resembling an impeachable offense. (Aside from, perhaps, fringe nutjobs who call anyone who isn't part of their kook a "traitor").
The Democrats *hate* Trump in a way they didn't hate Bush 43, or Bush 41, or even Reagan. I get it, he's not a likeable guy. But if you're running Congress you have the power and responsiblity to do something more than "I hate that guy". A lot of Democrats are making a lot of noise about impeachment (though none can state any grounds, any "high crime" committed). This isn't 2009, or any other time. I don't think the Democrat leadership will treat Trump like they have any Republican because he's not any Republican, they f*cking hate him. (I'm talking about Democrat House reps here, not ACs who hated Bush while not even knowing the name of his VP).
> She says she wants to do the same thing now
Which may cost her the Speakership, either not getting it this time, or lose it a year in. Sleeping with the enemy won't play well with today's Democrats. Moderates would like a Speaker to get things done, but moderates don't elect the Speaker, Democrats do - including self-described socialists and those who wear the SJW label proudly.
> Trump is kind of a liberal anyway, so he might be willing to go along with it.
Right. He's certainly not a traditional conservative. Traditional Republican leadership dislikes him too, but mostly stayed quiet after the election as he rubber-stamped their bills without reading them. He's not a conservative or liberal, he's a pragmatist and egoist. He'd be glad to make deals with Pelosi - he LOVES making deals.
> (This is all my opinion, of course).
Same. It would be best for the country if you end up being right. I don't think the Democrats have the wisdom or self-control to make that happen.
The text of the much-ballyhooed Arizona bill (that passed) is:
[The tax office may] "develop, adopt and use a payment system that enables the immediate remittance and collection of tax in real time at the point of sale, including payments of additional amounts after audit."
Their was discussion that this immediate payment system could allow one to pay their 800 DOLLARS of taxes though MasterCard, Visa, CoinDesk Discover, PayPal...
It's still 800 DOLLARS of taxes you have to pay, whether you pay through PayPal or CoinDesk. There wasn't even ever any discussion of anyone getting a tax bill for.03 BTC.
Slashdot Mirror
> On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states
I would have died laughing if autocorrect had made that "one of the most preposterous states".
Seriously I'm glad you like where you live.
I like where I live.
If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there.
If you like California, of course you wouldn't want me to come there are ruin it for you. That's cool. I got the F out of California.
I wouldn't want you to bring your California crap to Texas. We prefer different things.
We're both fortunate that we live in a country that has federalism - each state can do what they want, with the federal afederation) government only doing the things that need to be done at that level, like national defense. You do you, and I'll do me.
> 5th largest economy
I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. I'd rather have money to do what needs to be done. I'm not sure I'd be bragging about my state being a BIG pile of crap. California's economy, like Mexico's, is big - okay and ... ?
I'm sure California has some great things to brag about. Being economically similar to India can't be the best thing, can it? Maybe it is. Maybe "we're like India, big economy" is the best thing that can be said about California.
Let's play a game. Somebody posts a news story and the rest of us try to guess whether it comes from the Onion or from California.
That could be a very challenging game.
Okay, okay - I know someone reading this probably *likes* California, and doesn't think California politics is ridiculous. That's cool. Thanks to Article 1 of the Constitution, the rest of us aren't allowed to tell you how to live. California can have whatever laws you all want. Just in case anyone forgets to read Article 1, the framers repeated it in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So don't worry. Even though I think you guys are a parody of yourselves, I'm not going to try to stop you, I can't stop you. You can tax blinking if you want to.
When some completely new idea comes along, it makes sense to ask all kinds of "what if?" questions.
Spam is not new. Well over 90% of emails sent are spam. The reason you receive only a small fraction of the spam os because the provider blocks it. Nothing new about this, we know how this works, how this turns out.
Does Comcast, or any ISP on the entire planet, block all of your email as "unwanted" unless you pay more for a premium service?
Would YOU sign up with a wireless carrier that charged extra for receiving text messages? Would anyone?
Seriously, carriers have been blocking spam messages since at least 1992. We pretty much know how this turns out. The only thing that's new is that we've replaced the carrier's cord with radio waves.
Most applications spend most of their time in standard libraries, or should. (Some silly developers implement sort themselves, repeatedly).
If popular libraries used parallel programming, applications would get most of the benefit for free. Sorting is a good example because it's expensive, but like many expensive operations it's already implemented in the library.
A huge percentage of code is now run behind a web server, as a web service / microservice / whatever, or some other type of server. The developers write code that Apache or IIS or MS-SQL calls, with the server handling requests. If the API for these types of modules assumed that each request is independent, disallowing modules / scripts reaching outside of the concurrency-safe context without a special global_ call, that could go a long way.
Again I'm not saying that IIS or SQL Server would make it *impossible* to effect global state, but doing so would be a special call, with the normal API being thread safe.
True, over 90% of millionaires made less than $100k - they invested over time, and earned returns on their returns on their returns. The time factor in investment is huge - investing early makes a HUGE difference.
That said, it's also easy to lose track of the real purpose and pursue money, so if you're working hard now and foregoing spending in order to retire at age 45, remember that's your goal. Don't be working 60 hours a week when you're 50 in order to get more money, after you already have $2 million.
We're talking about people will a software engineering degree. Their income will be about three times what's needed to pay the rent, put food on the table, etc.
> If you don't have enough to to pay the rent, provide for your family, and retire, what kind of life do you have...
That's not the people we're talking about. At least, not in terms of income - you said "have" rather than "earn". If you have a software engineering degree and consistently don't have enough money to pay the rent, you probably have a spend problem, not a salary problem. The phrase is "put food on the table", not "tip the waitress who put food on the table". If you're a software engineer and don't have enough money to eat, there's a good chance you should check out the inside of a grocery store and forget where your favorite restaurant is.
> you work for MONEY, and if you are bitching about not having any, then that should make your first priority coming out of school.
> Get out, make as much $$ as you can
You're confusing the ends with the means. Money is something I use to take care of my family. My family is the purpose. I work to put gas in my jetski, because riding the jetski is fun. A pile of money, of itself, doesn't make your life better or more fulfilling.
If you give up your family life in exchange for more money, you're doing it backwards. You're sacrificing the goal to get the method.
As I said before, if you're reading this from the US, you're probably already in the top 2% highest-earning people in the world. You already make enough money. You might spend too much, but you earn more than 98% of people do - the money part is already taken care of. If you're totally sacrificing quality of life trying to get just a little more money, you're really missing out.
> Jobs aren't meant to be fun....otherwise it wouldn't be called work...
Imagine if your job WAS fun. Imagine getting pumped up by your work, doing something that gets you kinda excited. I've discovered that when I do something I'm excited about, I also do a better job than when I'm just punching the clock. If you pick three things that you enjoy, somebody has a job that combines two of your three favorite things. Somebody like technology and they like naked women - okay, I made good money doing tech for the porn industry. Now I do work that's even more fun.
> otherwise it wouldn't be called work...
If you look up "work" in the dictionary, it doesn't mean "unpleasant". Here's the dictionary definition of "work":
--
Work (noun)
activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
--
The definition of work is being active for a purpose.
A purpose, by the way, also happens to be what makes an activity fulfilling. If you spend 9-5 doing something that seems to be without purpose, you may not be working at all. You're doing something, but it doesn't meet the definition of work. Work is defined as activity with a purpose.
I could make 50% more by switching jobs to one that has crappy work-life balance and is unpleasant.
Or I could stay at my current job where I work from home instead of sitting in traffic, while doing exactly what I most love to do - mentoring programmers in security.
If you're reading this from the US, you're probably already in the top 2% highest-earning people in the world. Most Americans in IT are already 2%ers. You're already rich, no matter what Nancy Pelosi tells you. Getting a tiny bit richer isn't going to change your life much.
* Rich in terms of income. If you spend your money on Starbucks instead of slowly building wealth, that's na different kind of rich that has nothing to do with your job.
I've also had several Super Micro and have been very happy. Especially given the pricing.
Unlike HP etc, Super Micro only makes servers. They don't make laptops and mp3 players and crap for Best Buy. Everything they do is designed for the data center.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had ratings as high or higher than NBC and CBS news. Particularly among the 18-49 age group. So they are / were watching. How much efect does constant exposure to propaganda have? We don't know exactly, but we do know that companies and politicians spend billions on advertising because it works.
Multiple surveys showed that a significant percentage of people thought Sarah Palin said things that were actually said by Tina Fey. In a photo line-up, people were more likely to choose Fey than the real Palin.
I don't think you've thought this through. Unless of course you're a neo-Nazi.
There was a question about the policy of the South African government. I quoted the actual written policy of the government, the exact words of their announcement. What I quoted was, by definition, their announced policy, because it was their actual words. So my post is the very definition of truth.
Your assertion is that truth is Nazism, that truth and Nazism are the same thing.
You assert Nazism == truth.
I'm not sure that's a wise thing to say.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
So "news" these days, to most people, means Facebook or a comedian.
I find it interesting, and scary, to compare various news sources on the same day. You'll get a COMPLETELY different view of the world depending on which news source(s) you choose. Ever wonder why the heck the guy you're arguing with is so F-ing stupid, why he can't see things that are obvious to you? He's living in an entirely different world, that's why.
Every day CNN's front page has a story about a bad cop, or a cop who royally screwed up. It may be an update about something a bad cop did a year ago. These stories are mostly true. Also every day Fox has a story about a cop beimg hero, doing something generous or brave. These stories are pretty much true as well. Readers get a 180 degree completely opposite opinion of cops, depending on which stories their news source covers.
Same on any other topic. MSNBC will run a stories every day with a particular slant on the topic, the Washington Times will run some will the opposite slant - all true(ish). The Daily Show will do jokes that sound like news stories, slanted far enough to become fiction.
The other guy can't see your point of view because the news of the world in his world is the opposite of what you see every day. That's why he's being ridiculous - and you're being just as ridiculous, if you're like 95% of people.
They offered employees up to 60 weeks of pay (more than a year) to *not* work for a shitty company and go get a different job instead, perhaps after taking a 9-month paid vacation. That sounds pretty great to me!
I wish my company would give me a bonus equal to a year of pay to get me to leave and go work for Raytheon or somebody else. I'd darn sure take that!
I'd probably take a 2-month break to vacation and do some things around the house, then get a job and chunk 10 months pay into savings. That savings would be my "fuck you money". If the boss turns out to be an ass at the new job, I can comfortably say "fuck you" and take another two-month vacation before looking for where I want to work next.
It seems like you got a little confused there, or whoever told you was confused. That provision was *removed*. It was in NAFTA 1.0, now it's gone.
Canada wanted keep it, which is weird because:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...
It was removed in the Trump deal except for one special case. Every so often Mexico makes efforts to nationality their oil industry, with the government taking refineries and other infrastructure from the private companies that built them. If Mexico wants to take American-owned oil facilities, the companies can get reimbursed under the chapter 11 process. It's been removed except for oil facilities in Mexico only.
Whichever source of news / comedian told you the exact opposite, I'd be suspicious of them now. Apparently they are either hard to understand, or pulling your leg.
> I personally could make an E-Bay competitor in a month, it would cost a lot, but I also doubt I would steal many of eBay's current customers. 20 years ago, I could get VC money if I showed I could set up infrastructure to do so
Creating similar functionality is easy. I did that 20 years ago.
No VC would be interested in my dinky little eBay clone. Infrastructure isn't special either. You can very easily find people who know how to set up servers and such. You just have to ask a few load balancing questions in the interview to sort out the ones who know how to scale.
What eBay has that is valuable is customers. If you have a million customers and that number is increasing every month, that's what gets investors interested.
The article left out an obvious likely difference between this generation and people 20 years older. It actually sounds like the author may not see it because they themselves are affected. That's the entrepreneural spirit. The article basically listed excuses for why millennials can't start businesses. (Basically because they don't have much money). News flash - a large percentage of immigrants start businesses, and they don't show up with an $200,000 in their pocket. Immigrants very often come to America with nothing but a dream, a hope for the future and a burning desire for a better life. It's that dream coupled with drive to do something to achieve your dreams that characterizes and entrepreneur.
In fact, having money, having cushy job, will *discourage* people from striking out on their own. If you're well-paid by employer and have great benefits, why leave that? It's most often when people are laid off or unable to get a job that they start their own thing.
The raided his house in 2002.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/...
I've have revenue officers knock on my door regarding a company I used to work for.
> Nobody, and I mean nobody filters spam at the network level
ROTFL. In actual fact, any network that doesn't drop connections from certain types of spam outfits, instead transiting it to their peers, will find that their peers drop THEM.
It's fine, not everybody *needs* to know the difference between a packet, a frame, and a flow. If it's not your job to know carrier networking, someone don't look silly for not knowing how this stuff works. One only looks silly when they *pretend* to know, while obviously not having a clue.
How exactly do you think traffic gets to the mail server?
The reality is, if we didn't block traffic from bad guys, you wouldn't be able to use this site right now. That's because the bad guys try to send a LOT of traffic. In the case of email, the bad guys try to send roughly twenty times as much as all the good guys put together.
So you have to have "it's okay to block traffic from bad guys".
Which does lewve open the theoretical possibility that Comcast could definitely that Netflix is a bad guy.
Ugh, I typed "wasn't a bill" when I meant "was a bill".
That draft died pretty quick when it was pointed out that, among other things, it would take down the Congressional email system. 90% of the email traffic is spam and if it were all allowed through, most email servers would crash under the load.
Wouldn't it be cool if it were as simple as:
"An ISP shall carry all traffic in a manner that does not discriminate based on its source or destination."
There wasn't actually a network neutrality bill that said pretty much that. No blocking the world's biggest spammers, you have to accept their mail. It's illegal to do anything about a DOS attack against you, you have to accept all the traffi from the Russian botnet.
Unfortunately it way, way more complicated than that.
Whenever I point out the obvious consequences of the "simple NN laws" that people with no understanding of carrier networking propose, very often the reply is something like:
"Well now you're just being silly - that's now what I meant. You know what I mean." Unfortunately "you know what I mean" doesn't quite work as a law. It DOES sound silly when I point out the effects of such simplistic rules, because the simplistic rules ARE silly.
I'm totally with you on the *spirit* of what you want with NN. We're in agreement on that. Where we defer is I happen to have enough experience and knowledge regarding large networks to look at the text of a proposed law and have pretty good idea of how it would need to be implemented in router configuration, and what the effects would be.
I stated that while Democrats *could* do some useful and good things, they won't because they are too consumed with hating Trump. That's all they can talk about or focus on. They can't focus on anything positive because they can't get their minds on anything but hating Trump.
Your response was a bunch of "I hate Trump". Even when the criticism is "y'all can't say anything other than hating Trump", STILL the only thing that can come out of your mouth is "I hate Trump". Even when that's obviously the absolute worst possible thing to say, because it would prove the point that it's all you can talk about, STILL you can't keep yourself from doing it.
One business that has always been profitable is telling people that changing there attitude will change their situation. Currently, TED talks are a popular platform for this. "If you see everything as an opportunity, it becomes an opportunity!" Some people believe that and there will always be people who believe that because believing the trope is much easier than the alternative - facing and solving hard problems.
It's believable for two reasons. It's so attractive - we WANT t believe that all these hard problems can be solved just by changing our attitude. Also, it's inverse is true, making it an attractive fallacy of the inverse. It's true that if we have a defeatist, hopeless, victim attitude, we won't solve our problems.* We'll whine about them, we'll blame others, and we won't solve anything.*
Of course does NOT mean that the right attitude magically solves our problems. A "can do" attitude, fortitude, looking for the opportunities we can leverage, determination is a *prerequisite* to finding solutions. It's not the solution. It's what you have to do *before* you find the solutions, and *after* you frankly acknowledge the problem.
* If this truth that an attitude of victimhood and blaming others doesn't solve any problems reminds you of a certain political party, that's not my fault. They chose that approach.
Remember in all of American history, only two Presidents have been impeached. It's not something that normally happens. A president has to be a special kind of crooked to get impeached, or especially hated. "Impeach him" isn't the normal case.
Pelosi wasn't all about impeaching Bush because that would be absolutely nuts. There wasn't ever even any claim that Bush had possibly done anything remotely resembling an impeachable offense. (Aside from, perhaps, fringe nutjobs who call anyone who isn't part of their kook a "traitor").
The Democrats *hate* Trump in a way they didn't hate Bush 43, or Bush 41, or even Reagan. I get it, he's not a likeable guy. But if you're running Congress you have the power and responsiblity to do something more than "I hate that guy". A lot of Democrats are making a lot of noise about impeachment (though none can state any grounds, any "high crime" committed). This isn't 2009, or any other time. I don't think the Democrat leadership will treat Trump like they have any Republican because he's not any Republican, they f*cking hate him. (I'm talking about Democrat House reps here, not ACs who hated Bush while not even knowing the name of his VP).
> She says she wants to do the same thing now
Which may cost her the Speakership, either not getting it this time, or lose it a year in. Sleeping with the enemy won't play well with today's Democrats. Moderates would like a Speaker to get things done, but moderates don't elect the Speaker, Democrats do - including self-described socialists and those who wear the SJW label proudly.
> Trump is kind of a liberal anyway, so he might be willing to go along with it.
Right. He's certainly not a traditional conservative. Traditional Republican leadership dislikes him too, but mostly stayed quiet after the election as he rubber-stamped their bills without reading them. He's not a conservative or liberal, he's a pragmatist and egoist. He'd be glad to make deals with Pelosi - he LOVES making deals.
> (This is all my opinion, of course).
Same. It would be best for the country if you end up being right. I don't think the Democrats have the wisdom or self-control to make that happen.
The text of the much-ballyhooed Arizona bill (that passed) is:
[The tax office may] "develop, adopt and use a payment system that enables the immediate remittance and collection of tax in real time at the point of sale, including payments of additional amounts after audit."
Their was discussion that this immediate payment system could allow one to pay their 800 DOLLARS of taxes though MasterCard, Visa, CoinDesk Discover, PayPal ...
It's still 800 DOLLARS of taxes you have to pay, whether you pay through PayPal or CoinDesk. There wasn't even ever any discussion of anyone getting a tax bill for .03 BTC.