Hmmm fed backed student loans are now thought to contribute to spiraling education costs.
Only by those who haven't researched the topic. Read Why Does College Cost So Much? for a good run down of the actual evidence, and student loans barely register. It basically all comes down to every labor intensive service which requires highly educated and difficult to automate practitioners, whether they be doctors or professors, has grown in cost much faster than inflation.
And how exactly do you expect our average 100 IQ worker to do that shit? That's all fine for me...I'm an electrical engineer. But what about my less gifted countrymen? What should they do?
100 IQ workers are the least of our problems. How about the approximately 34% of people who fall between 85-100? That question is essentially what led me to become more progressive in my late 20's. There is no answer for the majority of these people other than public assistance. We cannot wish ourselves back to a world where manufacturing work had enough economic value to support $30/hour jobs with good pensions. At least not tens of millions of these jobs anyway.
The answer is ensuring everyone is able to have a good quality of life regardless of their economic value (income redistribution), and that the main avenues to future economic prosperity (education) are as open and available to the working class as they are to the upper class. That is much harder to implement than it is to propose, but they are the heart of most progressive economic policies.
Have you been to the rust belt? The financial elite are doing great, yes. The middle and working class? Not so much.
I grew up in the rust belt on my dad's farm (which he rented). And then I did what the majority of people leaving the middle class have done, I moved to the upper middle class. A combination of public school funding, supportive parents, publically funded colleges, and federally backed student loans made it possible for someone who even screwed up enough to drop out of college his first time (very immature) to move up in stature in society. And far from this being a rare success story, it is what has happened to two thirds of the people who are moving out of the middle class.
What is true is that the gap between the upper classes of society and the lower classes is widening. This is a product of many factors, but mostly because the economy is doing so well and those with more resources and/or more capability are better able to take advantage of that opportunity. The widening gap at its root can be summed up with the old saying "it takes money to make money". While obviously not entirely true, overall it explains most of our country's problem with the left-behind working class.
The only thing we know nearly for certain is that the working class success stories of the last century are a thing of the past. When manufacturing and other low skill industries come back to the US, it will be because automation has reached a level where few unskilled labor is required. The working class will not be able to provide their children the same opportunity I can provide mine. That is why I made the switch to a more progressive view in my late 20's. We can still have a similar level of opportunity, but it will come from income redistribution.
Taxes and public aid, like my federally backed student loans, are how we can fix this imbalance. It won't come from bringing high paying rust belt jobs back to this country. That part of human history is over. We just need to find a way to fight against demagogues who prey on struggling citizens' broken pride and tell them what they want to hear. Especially when those leaders fight against the same progressive policies which could help them most.
For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead. Maybe try something else for a bit?
What you call rolling over and playing dead, would be more accurately called leading the world at the end of the second industrial revolution and setting the stage to lead in the next revolution. There is no economy which compares to the USA. The European Union as a whole is the closest comparison, with 71% of the US's GDP per capita (PPP). The USA is undeniably the leader of this generation's technological revolution. Anyone who looks at the last 30 years of the USA and sees a nation rolling over and playing dead needs to read a book sometime.
None of this guarantees the US will remain the world economy's leader over the next century. In fact it is nearly impossible we can lead with the same level of authority especially as Asia continues to develop. But if our nation's leaders look at the last 30 years of the USA as anything but something to replicate then we have little chance of keeping up as the world evolves.
So... do you actually believe there are 60 million (25% of the US adult population) "delusional" people who can't find jobs? If so, what does that say about the current state of America and how well these "highly educated elite" have been running things?
No, just a large enough portion to push him over the edge. And I was implicitly referring to the AC when I singled out people who cannot find jobs, there is a much larger subset of people who are generally disillusioned by the job market but are still employed who make up most of the voting bloc I was describing.
As for how the elite has been running things, no political group has any idea how to help these people, since in many cases they won't even help themselves. The worst message they can be given is that they don't have to change but some white knight will fix all of their problems are return the world to the 1960's.
You, of course, fell for the fake news. But your side was saying it, so it's true. Trump has never been anti-immigration. He realize the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Not caring what happens to millions of children of immigrants is anti-immigrant. Saying an American born Hispanic judge is not qualified to do his job is anti-immigrant. Fueling a populist narrative that immigrants are the cause of working class problems is anti-immigrant.
If you want to see the effect of politicians' rhetoric, instead of their strategically crafted phrases meant to hide their implications, just look at the politicians' voters. Trump is very proud that he was able to target voters better than Hillary, as evidenced by winning the electoral college but not the popular vote, so take a look at the voters he targeted. They carry his true message. And they create the atmosphere other nations see when they form their view of the US.
There was a time when some people, especially on the left, thought all of his success was just an accident. Or that he was simply taking advantage of a small segment of angry voters instead of helping create enough of them to win a general election. But that is certainly a stretch now. The anti-immigrant message he was sending both explicitly and implicitly was heard loud and clear. Both here and around the world.
What strikes me is that Facebook is asking the very people that believe the fake news to point out it's fake news.
While this statement is true, it is very misleading. Facebook is asking a random sampling of everyone to point out news is fake (or misleading). Sure there will be people who believe the stories clouding the survey results, but that is what clustering algorithms are for, among other techniques. The work of relatively few paid meta-moderators could be multiplied a thousand time over by easily identifying the Facebook users who are overly biased and/or unable to read news critically.
In a very short period of time Facebook would know which sites and which users are propagating this garbage, and will have an army of millions of moderators who can police the content going forward.
Anyone who thinks Facebook couldn't identify partisan BS needs to look at Congress voting records. Partisan hacks are very easy to identify in even very basic clustering techniques. It wouldn't take many paid fact checkers to identify a large number of biased Facebook users, and then even a student in his first machine learning class could cluster these with millions of other biased users. The main reason to be mad that Facebook isn't already doing this is just how easy it would be to do this well.
How many people does it take to run robot factories that makes products for the largely irrelevant unemployed people who used to work in those factories to buy?
I have a feeling companies will continue to make money targeting people on welfare.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
That is not the job of individual companies. Their job is to compete with other companies to provide goods and services. This study makes a good argument that corporate leaders should put more value on their human resources, but not for some lofty goals like improving society. It is because doing so will improve their company.
It is the job of society, aka government, to improve how corporate well being affects societal well being. Corporations simply live within the regulatory world created by society and will act accordingly.
Remember when they used to have some original ideas?
When was that? They don't invent new industries, their success has come from entering struggling or new markets with a better product. Making driverless car technology would certainly be similar.
I imagine it would have terrible battery life with that spec
Laptops like those are mobile workstations, meant to be moved from one desk to another. They are usually plugged in at all times. At least mine was when I had one. I personally would love a laptop with a desktop class processor even if it only have a half hour battery life. But I've never found one yet.
This is why Trump won: people who cannot even find a job think they are competent enough to determine which candidate is more likely to improve their opportunities. So much so that they pick the candidate whose campaign promises caused nearly all economists to refute his ideas. Even the republican establishment desired to tone down his proposed tax cuts. These citizens convince themselves the elite (aka educated) are somehow incompetent and that people who haven't been able to keep up with the modern world are somehow more capable. It is quite the delusion. But if religion teaches us one thing is that delusions are often powerful enough to affect the vast majority of people.
The job market for truly skilled older works has never been better. The past three companies I have worked for would create positions for any available skilled worker they were lucky enough to find, because an unemployed skilled IT worker is more rare than a mega-millions lottery winner. The only ones I have come across were only unemployed because of a recent move to a new area.
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.
So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.
Try not to accuse people of a bald faced lie unless you have all your facts straight. It makes the rest of your comments seem less credible.
People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay. And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years? In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
I have two daughters (9 & 26 months old), and with my $3280 in monthly child care costs I assure you I understand the economic decisions that go into paying those bills. Although in my case we are lucky that we can make a decision instead of being forced into a decision since my wife (the lower earner) still makes over $4000 take home each month.
But note I did not say non-U6 related reasons to be unemployed are never impacted by economic realities (they always are), but that they aren't a good measure of economic strength or a poor economy. The vast majority of households do not have two earners taking home $3k+ after taxes, and a few extra percentage points of growth in median income won't change that. If both parents aren't making $60k+ by the time they have children, the economic reality is one of you is probably staying home if you have multiple kids no matter how well the economy is doing.
In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.
No, 4% of people over the age of 16 are employed. This is a combination of more students getting higher level degrees, and more retired people. The labor department uses the ages of 25-54 to determine working age participation rates. These have still been declining, but at a much slower pace.
But all of that is mostly irrelevant, because anyone unemployed who isn't caught in the U6 unemployment figures are choosing to be unemployed. Not forced by a poor economy. U6 unemployment catches anyone who is unemployed for economic reasons. Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason.
Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength. U1 through U6 unemployment rates are the relevant statistics to look at.
You don't really have to be a libertarian or a conservative or a "pseudo-skeptic" (whatever the hell that is) to jump down the throat of an AGW proponent who's not an accredited climatologist.
You don't have to be an accredited climatologist to have a credible opinion on the topic. Just as long as your opinion conforms to the research of nearly all accredited climatologists. It is people who believe this consensus is wrong, and who don't have their own climatology PhD or some other similar knowledge level, who deserve to have their opinions fought and ultimately ignored.
You do bring up poorly constructed arguments held by many AGW defenders, mostly because they aren't all extremely educated on the matter. But those are all very minor infractions, as long as the overall narrative of humans needing to do far more to combat climate change is the theme of their argument. The only time these minor arguments even come up is when a climate change denier (or someone being a devil's advocate) is being pedantic.
No one was crying about the different opinions, just pointing out that the site has a broad range of opinions. Microsoft hate may be the only constant;-)
We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".
Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.
By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.
I think the issue is not whether such things should be digitized to protect them, but who pays for it. Using lottery funds is not the right source. And trying to paint it as a grand attempt at improving diversity in film is, well, silly.
Preserving our cultural history is certainly something you would expect governmental involvement for, and lottery funds are a common form of public funding. Its not much different than historical preservation of architecturally significant buildings or the preservation of national parks. Sometimes private groups are involved in these endeavors, but government institutions are usually also involved.
I'm anxious to hear the left's comprehensive rules that identify hate speech in a non-partisan way. Rules that clearly delineate unbridled hatred (to be banned) from opposing political views (to be discussed).
There are international treaties and case law to look to for guidance here, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The USA is a member of ICERD, although it does not recognize articles 4 or 7, which include criminalizing dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority, public authorities promoting racial discrimination, or promoting education with a view to combating prejudices with lead to racial discrimination (US Supreme Court case law state these provisions conflict with our first amendment).
While our constitution prevents our government from following these international treaties in their entirety, it is certainly reasonable for private companies to follow guidelines set forth by nearly every other free society on the planet. It certainly isn't some form of extreme leftism to prohibit hate speech; in fact the USA is certainly the more extreme member state for allowing such incitement of discrimination. For better or worse.
You heard correctly, Boys and Girls: this clown's implication is indeed that if a substance isn't completely safe (in absolute terms, of course; nannystate-style), then don't assume it should be allowed.
He didn't say or imply anything of the sort. His only implication is that comparing the safety of pot to other legal substances is not a good enough reason to legalize pot. I'm not sure why I am defending someone you started his post with "Fail. Go back to preschool", but other than his childish opening statement the rest of his argument is sound.
For instance, one argument could be that alcohol should be illegal based solely on its safety, but the widespread usage of alcohol makes prohibition impractical. The same is not necessarily true for marijuana, although it could be argued that the damage the war on drugs does to society is enough reason to legalize pot.
FYI, I am on the side of legalizing pot, but I acknowledge there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
They should have to pay more than the market wage for an H1B. That would kill off the abuse of the program fairly quickly.
Only if you could find a way to actually enforce it. I make about 30% more than at least one coworker with the same title as me. And if I look at coworkers without a Senior or AVP prefix to their title, the discrepancy grows. It would certainly not be easy to craft legislation which stops workers from being hired for intermediate software developer positions with software architect level responsibilities. If my company hired an H1B employee to replace me at $100k, they would save a lot of money but still appear to be giving a high wage in the Midwest. But he would still be "underpaid" by the standards of those complaining about H1B worker salaries.
A large project with a complete design, an actual plan, may be agile (the adjective), but it's very much not Agile (the development methodology). A core tenet of Agile is that design, planning ahead to the end of a project, is impossible.
Absolutely false. Agile project management still allows for and encourages product road maps and release planning, even if more granular tasks are only planned one sprint at a time. The only core tenant is that you cannot know all of your requirements up front, and that you should manage a project so that ongoing changes to requirements are expected and embraced.
If you want to know what the actual requirements are, there's one way to find out (and maybe ONLY one way). Sit down with the user and watch them work. Ask questions as needed to understand their workflow while they actually do it, and take notes. Ask the actual user, not their manager's manager, what they need to do their actual daily tasks. That way, (and probably only that way), your User Stories aren't fictional stories imagined by some manager, they are real descriptions of real users doing real work. Requirements flow directly from there.
This only works when the user knows exactly what they want. And what users' want is usually very constrained by their current environment. Try asking a salesman using spreadsheets and Outlook what he wants out of a new CRM implementation and see how far that goes. If you think that is sufficient to get good requirements, you have likely never played a large role in releasing a high quality software product in your life.
Showing users working demos or better yet working software which is not 100% complete blows your method of gathering requirements out of the water. It is an order of magnitude better. Your method is still good and should be done as well, but it is only a rudimentary early step in gathering requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm fed backed student loans are now thought to contribute to spiraling education costs.
Only by those who haven't researched the topic. Read Why Does College Cost So Much? for a good run down of the actual evidence, and student loans barely register. It basically all comes down to every labor intensive service which requires highly educated and difficult to automate practitioners, whether they be doctors or professors, has grown in cost much faster than inflation.
And how exactly do you expect our average 100 IQ worker to do that shit? That's all fine for me...I'm an electrical engineer. But what about my less gifted countrymen? What should they do?
100 IQ workers are the least of our problems. How about the approximately 34% of people who fall between 85-100? That question is essentially what led me to become more progressive in my late 20's. There is no answer for the majority of these people other than public assistance. We cannot wish ourselves back to a world where manufacturing work had enough economic value to support $30/hour jobs with good pensions. At least not tens of millions of these jobs anyway.
The answer is ensuring everyone is able to have a good quality of life regardless of their economic value (income redistribution), and that the main avenues to future economic prosperity (education) are as open and available to the working class as they are to the upper class. That is much harder to implement than it is to propose, but they are the heart of most progressive economic policies.
Have you been to the rust belt? The financial elite are doing great, yes. The middle and working class? Not so much.
I grew up in the rust belt on my dad's farm (which he rented). And then I did what the majority of people leaving the middle class have done, I moved to the upper middle class. A combination of public school funding, supportive parents, publically funded colleges, and federally backed student loans made it possible for someone who even screwed up enough to drop out of college his first time (very immature) to move up in stature in society. And far from this being a rare success story, it is what has happened to two thirds of the people who are moving out of the middle class.
What is true is that the gap between the upper classes of society and the lower classes is widening. This is a product of many factors, but mostly because the economy is doing so well and those with more resources and/or more capability are better able to take advantage of that opportunity. The widening gap at its root can be summed up with the old saying "it takes money to make money". While obviously not entirely true, overall it explains most of our country's problem with the left-behind working class.
The only thing we know nearly for certain is that the working class success stories of the last century are a thing of the past. When manufacturing and other low skill industries come back to the US, it will be because automation has reached a level where few unskilled labor is required. The working class will not be able to provide their children the same opportunity I can provide mine. That is why I made the switch to a more progressive view in my late 20's. We can still have a similar level of opportunity, but it will come from income redistribution.
Taxes and public aid, like my federally backed student loans, are how we can fix this imbalance. It won't come from bringing high paying rust belt jobs back to this country. That part of human history is over. We just need to find a way to fight against demagogues who prey on struggling citizens' broken pride and tell them what they want to hear. Especially when those leaders fight against the same progressive policies which could help them most.
For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead. Maybe try something else for a bit?
What you call rolling over and playing dead, would be more accurately called leading the world at the end of the second industrial revolution and setting the stage to lead in the next revolution. There is no economy which compares to the USA. The European Union as a whole is the closest comparison, with 71% of the US's GDP per capita (PPP). The USA is undeniably the leader of this generation's technological revolution. Anyone who looks at the last 30 years of the USA and sees a nation rolling over and playing dead needs to read a book sometime.
None of this guarantees the US will remain the world economy's leader over the next century. In fact it is nearly impossible we can lead with the same level of authority especially as Asia continues to develop. But if our nation's leaders look at the last 30 years of the USA as anything but something to replicate then we have little chance of keeping up as the world evolves.
So... do you actually believe there are 60 million (25% of the US adult population) "delusional" people who can't find jobs? If so, what does that say about the current state of America and how well these "highly educated elite" have been running things?
No, just a large enough portion to push him over the edge. And I was implicitly referring to the AC when I singled out people who cannot find jobs, there is a much larger subset of people who are generally disillusioned by the job market but are still employed who make up most of the voting bloc I was describing.
As for how the elite has been running things, no political group has any idea how to help these people, since in many cases they won't even help themselves. The worst message they can be given is that they don't have to change but some white knight will fix all of their problems are return the world to the 1960's.
You, of course, fell for the fake news. But your side was saying it, so it's true. Trump has never been anti-immigration. He realize the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Not caring what happens to millions of children of immigrants is anti-immigrant. Saying an American born Hispanic judge is not qualified to do his job is anti-immigrant. Fueling a populist narrative that immigrants are the cause of working class problems is anti-immigrant.
If you want to see the effect of politicians' rhetoric, instead of their strategically crafted phrases meant to hide their implications, just look at the politicians' voters. Trump is very proud that he was able to target voters better than Hillary, as evidenced by winning the electoral college but not the popular vote, so take a look at the voters he targeted. They carry his true message. And they create the atmosphere other nations see when they form their view of the US.
There was a time when some people, especially on the left, thought all of his success was just an accident. Or that he was simply taking advantage of a small segment of angry voters instead of helping create enough of them to win a general election. But that is certainly a stretch now. The anti-immigrant message he was sending both explicitly and implicitly was heard loud and clear. Both here and around the world.
What strikes me is that Facebook is asking the very people that believe the fake news to point out it's fake news.
While this statement is true, it is very misleading. Facebook is asking a random sampling of everyone to point out news is fake (or misleading). Sure there will be people who believe the stories clouding the survey results, but that is what clustering algorithms are for, among other techniques. The work of relatively few paid meta-moderators could be multiplied a thousand time over by easily identifying the Facebook users who are overly biased and/or unable to read news critically.
In a very short period of time Facebook would know which sites and which users are propagating this garbage, and will have an army of millions of moderators who can police the content going forward.
Anyone who thinks Facebook couldn't identify partisan BS needs to look at Congress voting records. Partisan hacks are very easy to identify in even very basic clustering techniques. It wouldn't take many paid fact checkers to identify a large number of biased Facebook users, and then even a student in his first machine learning class could cluster these with millions of other biased users. The main reason to be mad that Facebook isn't already doing this is just how easy it would be to do this well.
How many people does it take to run robot factories that makes products for the largely irrelevant unemployed people who used to work in those factories to buy?
I have a feeling companies will continue to make money targeting people on welfare.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
That is not the job of individual companies. Their job is to compete with other companies to provide goods and services. This study makes a good argument that corporate leaders should put more value on their human resources, but not for some lofty goals like improving society. It is because doing so will improve their company.
It is the job of society, aka government, to improve how corporate well being affects societal well being. Corporations simply live within the regulatory world created by society and will act accordingly.
Remember when they used to have some original ideas?
When was that? They don't invent new industries, their success has come from entering struggling or new markets with a better product. Making driverless car technology would certainly be similar.
Well, Renault Samsung Motors already exists, and Samsung just bought Harmin International. So even if you don't own one of their cars, there's the chance your car stereo will soon be made by them.
I imagine it would have terrible battery life with that spec
Laptops like those are mobile workstations, meant to be moved from one desk to another. They are usually plugged in at all times. At least mine was when I had one. I personally would love a laptop with a desktop class processor even if it only have a half hour battery life. But I've never found one yet.
THIS is why Trump won. White votes matter.
This is why Trump won: people who cannot even find a job think they are competent enough to determine which candidate is more likely to improve their opportunities. So much so that they pick the candidate whose campaign promises caused nearly all economists to refute his ideas. Even the republican establishment desired to tone down his proposed tax cuts. These citizens convince themselves the elite (aka educated) are somehow incompetent and that people who haven't been able to keep up with the modern world are somehow more capable. It is quite the delusion. But if religion teaches us one thing is that delusions are often powerful enough to affect the vast majority of people.
The job market for truly skilled older works has never been better. The past three companies I have worked for would create positions for any available skilled worker they were lucky enough to find, because an unemployed skilled IT worker is more rare than a mega-millions lottery winner. The only ones I have come across were only unemployed because of a recent move to a new area.
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.
So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.
Try not to accuse people of a bald faced lie unless you have all your facts straight. It makes the rest of your comments seem less credible.
People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay. And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years? In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
I have two daughters (9 & 26 months old), and with my $3280 in monthly child care costs I assure you I understand the economic decisions that go into paying those bills. Although in my case we are lucky that we can make a decision instead of being forced into a decision since my wife (the lower earner) still makes over $4000 take home each month.
But note I did not say non-U6 related reasons to be unemployed are never impacted by economic realities (they always are), but that they aren't a good measure of economic strength or a poor economy. The vast majority of households do not have two earners taking home $3k+ after taxes, and a few extra percentage points of growth in median income won't change that. If both parents aren't making $60k+ by the time they have children, the economic reality is one of you is probably staying home if you have multiple kids no matter how well the economy is doing.
In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.
No, 4% of people over the age of 16 are employed. This is a combination of more students getting higher level degrees, and more retired people. The labor department uses the ages of 25-54 to determine working age participation rates. These have still been declining, but at a much slower pace.
But all of that is mostly irrelevant, because anyone unemployed who isn't caught in the U6 unemployment figures are choosing to be unemployed. Not forced by a poor economy. U6 unemployment catches anyone who is unemployed for economic reasons. Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason.
Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength. U1 through U6 unemployment rates are the relevant statistics to look at.
Same goes with chocolate.
But I don't want chocolate. Your reasoning is unsound.
Which is why the other AC questioned your humanity. I'm not sure the no true Scotsman fallacy applies to monsters who don't like chocolate. ;-)
You don't really have to be a libertarian or a conservative or a "pseudo-skeptic" (whatever the hell that is) to jump down the throat of an AGW proponent who's not an accredited climatologist.
You don't have to be an accredited climatologist to have a credible opinion on the topic. Just as long as your opinion conforms to the research of nearly all accredited climatologists. It is people who believe this consensus is wrong, and who don't have their own climatology PhD or some other similar knowledge level, who deserve to have their opinions fought and ultimately ignored.
You do bring up poorly constructed arguments held by many AGW defenders, mostly because they aren't all extremely educated on the matter. But those are all very minor infractions, as long as the overall narrative of humans needing to do far more to combat climate change is the theme of their argument. The only time these minor arguments even come up is when a climate change denier (or someone being a devil's advocate) is being pedantic.
No one was crying about the different opinions, just pointing out that the site has a broad range of opinions. Microsoft hate may be the only constant ;-)
We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".
Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.
By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.
For most of human history humans have not eaten chocolate. I am most assuredly a human.
For most of human history humans did not have indoor plumbing, but I'm sure they would have wanted it. Same goes with chocolate.
I think the issue is not whether such things should be digitized to protect them, but who pays for it. Using lottery funds is not the right source. And trying to paint it as a grand attempt at improving diversity in film is, well, silly.
Preserving our cultural history is certainly something you would expect governmental involvement for, and lottery funds are a common form of public funding. Its not much different than historical preservation of architecturally significant buildings or the preservation of national parks. Sometimes private groups are involved in these endeavors, but government institutions are usually also involved.
I'm anxious to hear the left's comprehensive rules that identify hate speech in a non-partisan way. Rules that clearly delineate unbridled hatred (to be banned) from opposing political views (to be discussed).
There are international treaties and case law to look to for guidance here, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The USA is a member of ICERD, although it does not recognize articles 4 or 7, which include criminalizing dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority, public authorities promoting racial discrimination, or promoting education with a view to combating prejudices with lead to racial discrimination (US Supreme Court case law state these provisions conflict with our first amendment).
While our constitution prevents our government from following these international treaties in their entirety, it is certainly reasonable for private companies to follow guidelines set forth by nearly every other free society on the planet. It certainly isn't some form of extreme leftism to prohibit hate speech; in fact the USA is certainly the more extreme member state for allowing such incitement of discrimination. For better or worse.
You heard correctly, Boys and Girls: this clown's implication is indeed that if a substance isn't completely safe (in absolute terms, of course; nannystate-style), then don't assume it should be allowed.
He didn't say or imply anything of the sort. His only implication is that comparing the safety of pot to other legal substances is not a good enough reason to legalize pot. I'm not sure why I am defending someone you started his post with "Fail. Go back to preschool", but other than his childish opening statement the rest of his argument is sound.
For instance, one argument could be that alcohol should be illegal based solely on its safety, but the widespread usage of alcohol makes prohibition impractical. The same is not necessarily true for marijuana, although it could be argued that the damage the war on drugs does to society is enough reason to legalize pot.
FYI, I am on the side of legalizing pot, but I acknowledge there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
They should have to pay more than the market wage for an H1B. That would kill off the abuse of the program fairly quickly.
Only if you could find a way to actually enforce it. I make about 30% more than at least one coworker with the same title as me. And if I look at coworkers without a Senior or AVP prefix to their title, the discrepancy grows. It would certainly not be easy to craft legislation which stops workers from being hired for intermediate software developer positions with software architect level responsibilities. If my company hired an H1B employee to replace me at $100k, they would save a lot of money but still appear to be giving a high wage in the Midwest. But he would still be "underpaid" by the standards of those complaining about H1B worker salaries.
A large project with a complete design, an actual plan, may be agile (the adjective), but it's very much not Agile (the development methodology). A core tenet of Agile is that design, planning ahead to the end of a project, is impossible.
Absolutely false. Agile project management still allows for and encourages product road maps and release planning, even if more granular tasks are only planned one sprint at a time. The only core tenant is that you cannot know all of your requirements up front, and that you should manage a project so that ongoing changes to requirements are expected and embraced.
If you want to know what the actual requirements are, there's one way to find out (and maybe ONLY one way). Sit down with the user and watch them work. Ask questions as needed to understand their workflow while they actually do it, and take notes. Ask the actual user, not their manager's manager, what they need to do their actual daily tasks. That way, (and probably only that way), your User Stories aren't fictional stories imagined by some manager, they are real descriptions of real users doing real work. Requirements flow directly from there.
This only works when the user knows exactly what they want. And what users' want is usually very constrained by their current environment. Try asking a salesman using spreadsheets and Outlook what he wants out of a new CRM implementation and see how far that goes. If you think that is sufficient to get good requirements, you have likely never played a large role in releasing a high quality software product in your life.
Showing users working demos or better yet working software which is not 100% complete blows your method of gathering requirements out of the water. It is an order of magnitude better. Your method is still good and should be done as well, but it is only a rudimentary early step in gathering requirements.