Or do u let everyone in to your house regardless of who they are, where they come from or what they've done?
I do let people into my house without the kind of background check being suggested under the guise of "extreme vetting". I have invited neighbors (considered foreigners in this analogy) into my home for a barbecue after a few brief discussions when I moved into my current home. The social cost of considering everyone who isn't part of my immediate family as a threat to my home would be very high, just as the cost to America of assuming all immigrants are a significant threat would be high.
Sorry but no the "concept" isn't the same. One is about taking rights away (locking up an innocent US citizen), the other is simply not executing on something that isn't a right to begin with.
The concept of a presumption of innocence is the same in both. The concept of not putting undue burden on those you have little reason to suspect of criminal activity is the same. How we treat citizens vs non-citizens is simply a matter of law, but the concept is the same. More crimes are committed, including murder, because we have a very high burden of guilt in our country. Just as more open borders will increase crimes committed by immigrants. The question in both cases is what is the cost of lowering our presumption of innocence in either our justice system or immigration system.
Increased border vetting costs money, money which could be spent on more efficient law enforcement. Or on safety net programs which reduce the incentive for criminal activity. The cost of limiting immigration is very high, while the rate of terrorist activity among immigrants is very low. The single event of 9/11 accounts for 98.6% of all American deaths from foreign terrorists since 1975. Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have killed roughly one American per year. You are over 10x more likely to die from choking on food than from terrorists, so do you also advocate an all liquid diet?
Gifts can simply be food or wine or something like that. Most sensible adults give those type of gifts when giving to other adults.
This is why my wife and I are happy not giving each other gifts for events in the traditional sense. I may never buy her a piece of jewelry or clothing during our entire marriage, unless we are both shopping together. But we do get tickets to theater or sporting events near birthdays and anniversaries as a present to ourselves. This makes holidays and other special events far less stressful.
That's what every real estate, product or service seller is thinking -- how do I extract all the money my customer has? And it's called gouging. This is why the working class is always working; their increased income is absorbed by increases in product prices.
It is basic supply and demand, not price gouging. Price gouging nearly always refers to essentials such as food or medicine during emergencies. Charging the maximum people will pay for a concert, which is entertainment with nearly infinite alternatives, is just basic economics.
Why not just sell the tickets at the market clearing price?
I know you won't believe this, but artists aren't all rich assholes who only want other rich assholes to see their performances.
They can donate as many tickets as they like. A simple free auction would handle this real quick if it was the real reason they are keeping prices artificially low. You must think these artists are monumentally stupid if they think low ticket prices help out consumers and not just scalpers.
The only reason scalpers can make money is the ticket brokers like the service they provide (mitigating risk, media buzz from immediately selling out, etc) There are numerous ways the ticket brokers could cut out all the scalpers if they wanted. Raising prices, auction, non-transferable tickets, and many others. The ticket brokers like scalpers, and this is the only reason they exist.
A CEO of a financial services firm should know what encryption at rest is as well as he knows what a balance sheet is. I work in the financial services and I've had many meetings where we discussed what personal identifiers and other data that needs to be encrypted at rest. It is often the first thing they ask about when we are moving an existing system to a cloud based vendor. At two companies where I was either heavily involved or in charge of moving data to a new system, I have only had a handful of incompetent managers ask me what encryption at rest meant.
Every competent member of management at a company which values their customers should know basic security concepts like encryption at rest.
I am a PhD. I have no assistants because the university won’t pay for that. I have three hundred students this semester, and I have to grade all their work myself. I also do all my own research because there are no co-authored papers in my field. I do have a tweed jacket and elbow patches. The coeds are not worth the effort of leering. I get paid $40K/year.
Why?
300 students enrolled in a 3 credit hour class for 2 semesters per year at an average university brings in $1 million per year. You get 4% of that. That is like a $200 per hour contractor only pocketing $8 per hour.
There is no reason to hate Javascript unless you come from C++/Java "inherit everything and override everything" classes.
I never said I hated it, just that I would have guessed it was the most hated. Although it isn't my favorite language I really like JavaScript.
Want to see how stupid JQuery people are? Ask them to do something simple without using JQuery. So many times I see a 300KB library loaded to do one thing that could be done with two lines of normal Javascript.
Most senior level front end developers I know nearly refuse to write boilerplate JavaScript because of browser compatibility concerns. Using a library where someone else deals with those issues is generally favorable, even if it means needing to load an 82 KB library for a single function call. The time it takes a developer to decide if those 82 KB are necessary is nearly always more valuable than a few dozen kilobyte download which gets cached.
It is surprising to me that enough developers have used Perl for it to be the most hated language. I would have guessed JavaScript, or maybe VB (#4 & #2 most hated).
for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios
The horror genre is not immune to the studios' problems, there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year. The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office. If Get Out or It were bad movies, they would have done bad at the box office regardless of being horror movies.
If you're against people asking questions then you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
No one is against people asking questions. We are against people ignoring the science which disputes the concerns raised by those questions and people asking irrelevant questions. Let's look at every single modded -1 comment I found without going too deep into each comment hierarchy. Where are the suppressed insightful comments you are concerned about?
1. Let's bury that one. It contradicts climate change "science"... 2. Just tax the volcanoes. More taxes solve all problems, according to leftists. 3. Lets pretend science is wrong. By using science that looks elsewhere for more causes and insists it will be buried (despite hearing about it) by science you want to pretend is wrong. 4. Why fingerpoint when you can BLAMESTORM? Democrats and their "scientist" (as if) accomplices are scrambling to figure out a way to blame this on "anthropogenic global warming". 5. You know what else erupts? MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds! 6. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the ice melting. You can't blame anyone else and we can now kill them all. ae911truth dot org 7. Climate Racism! The guy who wrote this paper is a climate racist! He is trying to mansplain away climate change caused by the sexist men of the rape culture. He is just trying to smut-shame volcanoes for his own sexual assault and rape of mother earth.
I'd like to see how an automated car handles exiting a grass parking lot after a concert or sporting event. If the car isn't willing to stick it's nose into harms way or quickly move to a different line, it will end up the very last to leave.
This is the main thing that makes me hesitant about early self driving cars. I would like a car to handle rush hour traffic, but I don't want it to take an extra 10 minutes because it doesn't recognize it is in the slow lane.
your aguements about benefits is mute since they are being taken away from Republican legislatures and match the private sector.
And when they are taken away that is something to be upset about, but overall teacher benefits are still far better than the private sector. Tens of thousands of dollars a year better in most cases. Some localities already painfully underpay teachers, but that is not the norm across the country.
I still like engineering they start at 70K a year, perhaps starting at 50k a year and maxing out at 90K would attract good talent. You balk at that?
This is a goal which I do support, but will be very hard to attain. Engineers get paid more primarily because it is far harder to train engineers than teachers (at least based on our current demands on the training for each career). And professions are generally paid based on supply and demand, not on their worth to society. If we raised the bar on teacher education to a level where obtaining an education degree was as difficult as obtaining an engineering degree, you would have to see higher pay or we couldn't attract enough teachers. But until we do that, it is hard to make a case for teacher pay that rivals engineer pay.
I hope we can eventually get there, but it is a big catch 22 problem right now.
This depends on the state, school, and the point in a teacher's career. Salaries at the end of a teaching career can be ok, but they are often laughable to start out. I taught for one year, as a high school science teacher. My base salary was $26k.
I certainly agree that many localities pay teachers very poorly, as I mentioned in my post. $26k is laughable for any first year teacher. There are no places in America where the standard of living costs are low enough for that salary to be respectable. While those areas may maintain some good teachers because of an extreme love for the profession, they will get what they pay for as their children enter the workforce woefully unprepared for our modern economy.
You and others like you are the problem. You endorse payment of crap wages and get exactly your money's worth. They lost control of the classrooms because they don't get respect and adequate pay is part of that.
GP is right.
Those who continuously say teachers are paid crap wages are the problem, because you push people away from a very lucrative career. While teachers will never reach the $200k+ salaries that around 5% of college graduates could eventually make in the private sector, teachers overall are very well paid. Every state is different (and some states do pay teachers crap wages) but on average teachers make about $56k per year. They also get a pension which would take about $5-10k per year in pre-tax income above what a private company would contribute to a 401k. They work about 10% more hours per working week than most professionals, but work 20% less weeks per year. They also get health benefits which are far more generous than nearly any private company plans.
To compare teacher pay to corporate pay, average teacher pay is closer to $70-75k per year when factoring in their benefits. Average bachelor degree salary is $60k and average masters degree salary is $78k. Figures for average teacher pay and average professional pay vary widely, so take these figures with a grain of salt, but it is obvious to see that teachers make a very competitive wage.
So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.
Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers. Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.
You missed the part where US emissions are going down and coal plants are closing because they cannot shift their production towards other less regarding customers. You bring up a possible outcome that is worth investigating, but after even a few minutes of investigation you can easily find your scenario is not happening.
What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same. What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population. The US continue to be one of the worst.
Yes, coal plants do get shut down. US utilities have plans to close 40 coal power plants over the next four years. These plants are primarily shut down because of competition with natural gas and renewal energy. So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue. That causes power plants to be shut down.
US residential electricity sales have been going down since 2010 in both total figures and per capita figures. This is both because of energy efficiency improvements and cheaper forms of energy production. US carbon emissions are going down because of these trends.
Did you just seriously equate a child, something literally made of yourself, to an iPhone? I think you might want to take a step back and examine your life a little.
I never equated a child to an iPhone. I did point out how both do require you to invest time, money, and effort into something, which is true.
Do you also think that if someone compares their house expenses to their car expenses they are saying they can drive their house?
This is the biggest problem with any cloudy service...you're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to switch to a new cloudy service.
This is a problem with anything of value.
Want a family? You're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to start a new family. Want a successful career? You're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to start up a new career in a new field. Want enterprise quality software on your own local servers? You're committing to spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to keep it running and/or committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to move to a different architecture.
If you want nice things, it takes a continuing commitment to invest in those nice things.
What's going to happen is the consumer will get screwed and if they want to use Google for services, Amazon for retail and Apple for entertainment they will have to buy three different devices.
How is that much different than anything else? If I want a large car which can haul around 7-8 family members, a high performance convertible, and an electric commuter car, I need three vehicles. If I cannot afford three cars, or the garage space to put them, then I have to compromise. Some of our digital products will be no different.
I wasn't around during the turn of the last century, but judging from various literature of the period a lot of people back then had some pretty harebrained ideas too. Steam power and electricity and intricate brass gears were going to somehow give us miraculous stuff like time travel.
At the turn of the last century the hair brained ideas were about selling pet food and groceries online. You do know the last century was the 1900's, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Or do u let everyone in to your house regardless of who they are, where they come from or what they've done?
I do let people into my house without the kind of background check being suggested under the guise of "extreme vetting". I have invited neighbors (considered foreigners in this analogy) into my home for a barbecue after a few brief discussions when I moved into my current home. The social cost of considering everyone who isn't part of my immediate family as a threat to my home would be very high, just as the cost to America of assuming all immigrants are a significant threat would be high.
Sorry but no the "concept" isn't the same. One is about taking rights away (locking up an innocent US citizen), the other is simply not executing on something that isn't a right to begin with.
The concept of a presumption of innocence is the same in both. The concept of not putting undue burden on those you have little reason to suspect of criminal activity is the same. How we treat citizens vs non-citizens is simply a matter of law, but the concept is the same. More crimes are committed, including murder, because we have a very high burden of guilt in our country. Just as more open borders will increase crimes committed by immigrants. The question in both cases is what is the cost of lowering our presumption of innocence in either our justice system or immigration system.
Increased border vetting costs money, money which could be spent on more efficient law enforcement. Or on safety net programs which reduce the incentive for criminal activity. The cost of limiting immigration is very high, while the rate of terrorist activity among immigrants is very low. The single event of 9/11 accounts for 98.6% of all American deaths from foreign terrorists since 1975. Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have killed roughly one American per year. You are over 10x more likely to die from choking on food than from terrorists, so do you also advocate an all liquid diet?
The law is different, but the concept is the same. This concept is what caused us to create the laws we have.
As a choice between letting in a terrorist in the name of "accuracy" or kicking out an innocent, we need to kick out the innocent.
Do you have the same opinion of our judicial system? How do you feel about the following statement which is in the same spirit as yours:
As a choice between letting a criminal go free in the name of "accuracy" or jailing an innocent, we need to jail the innocent.
Gifts can simply be food or wine or something like that. Most sensible adults give those type of gifts when giving to other adults.
This is why my wife and I are happy not giving each other gifts for events in the traditional sense. I may never buy her a piece of jewelry or clothing during our entire marriage, unless we are both shopping together. But we do get tickets to theater or sporting events near birthdays and anniversaries as a present to ourselves. This makes holidays and other special events far less stressful.
That's what every real estate, product or service seller is thinking -- how do I extract all the money my customer has? And it's called gouging. This is why the working class is always working; their increased income is absorbed by increases in product prices.
It is basic supply and demand, not price gouging. Price gouging nearly always refers to essentials such as food or medicine during emergencies. Charging the maximum people will pay for a concert, which is entertainment with nearly infinite alternatives, is just basic economics.
Why not just sell the tickets at the market clearing price?
I know you won't believe this, but artists aren't all rich assholes who only want other rich assholes to see their performances.
They can donate as many tickets as they like. A simple free auction would handle this real quick if it was the real reason they are keeping prices artificially low. You must think these artists are monumentally stupid if they think low ticket prices help out consumers and not just scalpers.
The only reason scalpers can make money is the ticket brokers like the service they provide (mitigating risk, media buzz from immediately selling out, etc) There are numerous ways the ticket brokers could cut out all the scalpers if they wanted. Raising prices, auction, non-transferable tickets, and many others. The ticket brokers like scalpers, and this is the only reason they exist.
A CEO of a financial services firm should know what encryption at rest is as well as he knows what a balance sheet is. I work in the financial services and I've had many meetings where we discussed what personal identifiers and other data that needs to be encrypted at rest. It is often the first thing they ask about when we are moving an existing system to a cloud based vendor. At two companies where I was either heavily involved or in charge of moving data to a new system, I have only had a handful of incompetent managers ask me what encryption at rest meant.
Every competent member of management at a company which values their customers should know basic security concepts like encryption at rest.
I am a PhD. I have no assistants because the university won’t pay for that. I have three hundred students this semester, and I have to grade all their work myself. I also do all my own research because there are no co-authored papers in my field. I do have a tweed jacket and elbow patches. The coeds are not worth the effort of leering. I get paid $40K/year.
Why?
300 students enrolled in a 3 credit hour class for 2 semesters per year at an average university brings in $1 million per year. You get 4% of that. That is like a $200 per hour contractor only pocketing $8 per hour.
Quit and get a job managing a McDonald's.
There is no reason to hate Javascript unless you come from C++/Java "inherit everything and override everything" classes.
I never said I hated it, just that I would have guessed it was the most hated. Although it isn't my favorite language I really like JavaScript.
Want to see how stupid JQuery people are? Ask them to do something simple without using JQuery. So many times I see a 300KB library loaded to do one thing that could be done with two lines of normal Javascript.
Most senior level front end developers I know nearly refuse to write boilerplate JavaScript because of browser compatibility concerns. Using a library where someone else deals with those issues is generally favorable, even if it means needing to load an 82 KB library for a single function call. The time it takes a developer to decide if those 82 KB are necessary is nearly always more valuable than a few dozen kilobyte download which gets cached.
It is surprising to me that enough developers have used Perl for it to be the most hated language. I would have guessed JavaScript, or maybe VB (#4 & #2 most hated).
for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios
The horror genre is not immune to the studios' problems, there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year. The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office. If Get Out or It were bad movies, they would have done bad at the box office regardless of being horror movies.
If you're against people asking questions then you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
No one is against people asking questions. We are against people ignoring the science which disputes the concerns raised by those questions and people asking irrelevant questions. Let's look at every single modded -1 comment I found without going too deep into each comment hierarchy. Where are the suppressed insightful comments you are concerned about?
1. Let's bury that one. It contradicts climate change "science"...
2. Just tax the volcanoes. More taxes solve all problems, according to leftists.
3. Lets pretend science is wrong. By using science that looks elsewhere for more causes and insists it will be buried (despite hearing about it) by science you want to pretend is wrong.
4. Why fingerpoint when you can BLAMESTORM? Democrats and their "scientist" (as if) accomplices are scrambling to figure out a way to blame this on "anthropogenic global warming".
5. You know what else erupts? MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!
6. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the ice melting. You can't blame anyone else and we can now kill them all. ae911truth dot org
7. Climate Racism! The guy who wrote this paper is a climate racist! He is trying to mansplain away climate change caused by the sexist men of the rape culture. He is just trying to smut-shame volcanoes for his own sexual assault and rape of mother earth.
I'd like to see how an automated car handles exiting a grass parking lot after a concert or sporting event. If the car isn't willing to stick it's nose into harms way or quickly move to a different line, it will end up the very last to leave.
This is the main thing that makes me hesitant about early self driving cars. I would like a car to handle rush hour traffic, but I don't want it to take an extra 10 minutes because it doesn't recognize it is in the slow lane.
your aguements about benefits is mute since they are being taken away from Republican legislatures and match the private sector.
And when they are taken away that is something to be upset about, but overall teacher benefits are still far better than the private sector. Tens of thousands of dollars a year better in most cases. Some localities already painfully underpay teachers, but that is not the norm across the country.
I still like engineering they start at 70K a year, perhaps starting at 50k a year and maxing out at 90K would attract good talent. You balk at that?
This is a goal which I do support, but will be very hard to attain. Engineers get paid more primarily because it is far harder to train engineers than teachers (at least based on our current demands on the training for each career). And professions are generally paid based on supply and demand, not on their worth to society. If we raised the bar on teacher education to a level where obtaining an education degree was as difficult as obtaining an engineering degree, you would have to see higher pay or we couldn't attract enough teachers. But until we do that, it is hard to make a case for teacher pay that rivals engineer pay.
I hope we can eventually get there, but it is a big catch 22 problem right now.
This depends on the state, school, and the point in a teacher's career. Salaries at the end of a teaching career can be ok, but they are often laughable to start out. I taught for one year, as a high school science teacher. My base salary was $26k.
I certainly agree that many localities pay teachers very poorly, as I mentioned in my post. $26k is laughable for any first year teacher. There are no places in America where the standard of living costs are low enough for that salary to be respectable. While those areas may maintain some good teachers because of an extreme love for the profession, they will get what they pay for as their children enter the workforce woefully unprepared for our modern economy.
Teachers are paid ok.
You and others like you are the problem. You endorse payment of crap wages and get exactly your money's worth. They lost control of the classrooms because they don't get respect and adequate pay is part of that.
GP is right.
Those who continuously say teachers are paid crap wages are the problem, because you push people away from a very lucrative career. While teachers will never reach the $200k+ salaries that around 5% of college graduates could eventually make in the private sector, teachers overall are very well paid. Every state is different (and some states do pay teachers crap wages) but on average teachers make about $56k per year. They also get a pension which would take about $5-10k per year in pre-tax income above what a private company would contribute to a 401k. They work about 10% more hours per working week than most professionals, but work 20% less weeks per year. They also get health benefits which are far more generous than nearly any private company plans.
To compare teacher pay to corporate pay, average teacher pay is closer to $70-75k per year when factoring in their benefits. Average bachelor degree salary is $60k and average masters degree salary is $78k. Figures for average teacher pay and average professional pay vary widely, so take these figures with a grain of salt, but it is obvious to see that teachers make a very competitive wage.
So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.
Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers.
Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.
You missed the part where US emissions are going down and coal plants are closing because they cannot shift their production towards other less regarding customers. You bring up a possible outcome that is worth investigating, but after even a few minutes of investigation you can easily find your scenario is not happening.
Obese patients have also been told they must lose weight in order to have non-urgent surgery.
Seems like this will remove the entire point of liposuction surgery. Or at least make those clinics move outside of Hertfordshire.
What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same. What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population. The US continue to be one of the worst.
Yes, coal plants do get shut down. US utilities have plans to close 40 coal power plants over the next four years. These plants are primarily shut down because of competition with natural gas and renewal energy. So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue. That causes power plants to be shut down.
US residential electricity sales have been going down since 2010 in both total figures and per capita figures. This is both because of energy efficiency improvements and cheaper forms of energy production. US carbon emissions are going down because of these trends.
and you need different driver's licenses, and different roads..and oh wait no.
But you do need different insurance plans, different license plates, different titles, etc.
AI assistants also have many things which can be shared between them, such as your Spotify account.
Did you just seriously equate a child, something literally made of yourself, to an iPhone? I think you might want to take a step back and examine your life a little.
I never equated a child to an iPhone. I did point out how both do require you to invest time, money, and effort into something, which is true.
Do you also think that if someone compares their house expenses to their car expenses they are saying they can drive their house?
This is the biggest problem with any cloudy service...you're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to switch to a new cloudy service.
This is a problem with anything of value.
Want a family? You're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to start a new family.
Want a successful career? You're committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to start up a new career in a new field.
Want enterprise quality software on your own local servers? You're committing to spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to keep it running and/or committing to continuing with it unless you spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to move to a different architecture.
If you want nice things, it takes a continuing commitment to invest in those nice things.
What's going to happen is the consumer will get screwed and if they want to use Google for services, Amazon for retail and Apple for entertainment they will have to buy three different devices.
How is that much different than anything else? If I want a large car which can haul around 7-8 family members, a high performance convertible, and an electric commuter car, I need three vehicles. If I cannot afford three cars, or the garage space to put them, then I have to compromise. Some of our digital products will be no different.
I wasn't around during the turn of the last century, but judging from various literature of the period a lot of people back then had some pretty harebrained ideas too. Steam power and electricity and intricate brass gears were going to somehow give us miraculous stuff like time travel.
At the turn of the last century the hair brained ideas were about selling pet food and groceries online. You do know the last century was the 1900's, right?