The article isn't very clear. Are these forks of openvpn?
I mostly use Cisco AnyConnect for work and ssh tunneling for personal use, but I do have openvpn installed on my laptop and use it occasionally. I was thinking about installing it on my router and using it instead of ssh tunneling but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
I've never heard of either of the vpns mentioned in the article but the way the mix in mention of openvpn config files is confusing. Are the vulnerabilities only in proprietary forks of openvpn or could they be in the upstream code?
What, and have slashdot posters chastise them for setting up a "company town"? They wouldn't dare.
Though it would be interesting if one of them identified an end of line station on an existing rail line that could be extended and reached an agreement with the city to guarantee express, high speed service between downtown city center and a new station to be built within walking distance of the new corporate complex and pre-planned rail stops in every neighborhood around the complex.
Unfortunately, yes, because those long term unemployed adults are called retirees
Hold on a minute. So Trump is lying about unemployment because he quoted a rate that doesn't include RETIREES?
Your comments about drug and medical costs are irrelevant. I'd love to see major changes in the US Healthcare system, but anyone who calls a number "unemployment" when it includes retirees is full of shit. If somebody retired and then ran out of money and started looking for work then they're unemployed, but you can't just say that everyone who is not working is unemployed. At least not if you want to keep the word "unemployed" as a bad thing.
Unemployment means #1 you want to work and #2 you're able to work. If you don't meet both those criteria then you're not unemployed regardless of whether you don't have a job.
And if the only "work" you're willing to do is work that no one is willing to pay you for then you don't qualify as wanting to work. I do things that require skill and effort but that no one would be willing to pay me to do but I also do things a company IS willing to pay me for. If I CHOOSE to only do the former and not the later then I should NOT BE counted as unemployed.
Sucks more places don't or can't give a discount for cash only sales.
As a volunteer at a community theatre I sometimes have worked in the box office. I HATE people who pay with cash. It is so much easier to close out when all the sales are credit card. Just press the "batch" button on the machine and it prints out a report of the day's sales and you're done.
Counting the dirty wrinkled torn cash is a tedious nuisance and then finding that you don't have enough small bills to leave as change for the next shift and somebody needs to go to the bank. Or worse starting a shift and seeing that the last shift left you a stack of twenties as "change".
As a volunteer I put up with it for the sake of keeping the community theatre in operation, but if I were an employee of a company I'd damn well expect to be paid for that tedium and hassle. Why should the owner give you a discount for creating extra work that he/she has to pay me to do?
Why does slashdot have a moderation of +1 Interesting but not a -1 Uninteresting?
I'm baffled that some moderator found your lack of a smartphone interesting. I'm interested in lots of things and I'm capable of recognizing that things I'm not interested in are interesting to other people. But your not having of a smart phone and not using of a credit card is the antithesis of interesting.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with you lacking things that the vast majority of the population has. I'm simply saying that there's not the least bit of value or interest in reading your post about what you don't have.
A penny is money. I think most developers are worth more than a penny. A hundred dollar bill is money and I think most developers are worth more than a hundred dollar bill. A bank account containing a billion dollars is NOT money, although the bank will be willing to give you lots of money in exchange for decrementing the number in their computer.
The whole question "is X more valuable than money" is utter nonsense. What are you measuring the value of X in if not units of money?
The topic of the original article was "Are companies more worried about the difficulty in obtaining sufficient developers or the difficulty in obtaining sufficient money (i.e. capital investment or loans) needed to develop their product?" Obviously they will need to use some of the money they obtain (if they are able to do so) to pay the developers they hire whatever those developers agree they are worth. But they might not be able to obtain the developers even if they have the money.
Is this completely pointless snarkiness that you threw in because you're an ass or does Canada really pass judgement on your life choices to determine quality of health care?
I would have assumed that care would be dependent only on the medical condition, not a moral judgement of the person.
That's because you deliberately deleted his point from your quote of his post.
Next time try reading and comprehending rather than selectively quoting and expressing your lack of comprehension of the point you intentionally removed.
HINT: Learn what italicized means. He used it correctly and your lack of comprehension is directly linked to your inability to read and quote the relevant point.
Interesting. If I'm reading you're post correctly, you have drawn a conclusion about Elon Musk based on his skin color and place of birth. Do you have any other information to offer or are these two facts sufficient to form the entire basis of your conclusion?
I'm thinking of a word to describe someone who draws conclusions based SOLELY on skin color. Can you guess what it is? I don't think combining skin color with place of birth when announcing your conclusions makes you any less of one.
Furthermore, the central point of your post seems to be your "surprise" that Musk's skin color and place of birth never get brought up. Almost all Musk stories (on slashdot at least) are about Tesla or SpaceX. What is it exactly about cars and rockets that makes the CEO's skin color so relevant that it's absence from the discussion "suprises" you?
I'm a distance runner. The thing I found most interesting when I visited Tokyo (on business, but I ran a minimum of six miles every morning for a week, setting out in a different direction every morning) was the total absence of garbage cans visible anywhere and how clean all the sidewalks and streets were.
I don't know if what I saw was a bizarre exception, but it was a clear and striking impression that I noticed and couldn't stop noticing the entire time I was there. So many people, so many buildings, no trash that I could see and no trash cans or recycling bins that I could see.
Do those four words result in the itemized receipt being automatically logged to the same account as the NYC, London and Oslo receipts or were you unable to read the whole post?
I also travel intermittently on business and agree that having Uber automatically produce a report of all my trips is much more convienent than the mix of:
- generic paper receipts with no business name
- blank "receipt" that I'm supposed to fill in myself
- no receipt at all, just a blatant lie "my credit card reader is broken, you have to pay cash" That I've received from taxis in various cities
With the blank "receipt" I guess the idea is that I'm supposed to lie and pad the amount get my employer to "reimburse" me for more than the ride actually costs, but I'm honest so I don't submit false expense reports.
I've even had a taxi driver flat out tell me "I really need some cash, if you pay me X in cash I'll give you a receipt for X+Y". Look, I'm honest, I want no part in your scam to defraud either your employer or mine or to cheat on taxes or whatever other reason it is that taxi drivers lie about their credit card readers.
It's much easier to just use Uber in each city and automatically receive a single list of all trips with start and end locations and times and cost all conveniently read to be added to my itemized expense report.
Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on
Who sets this level? Elected representatives? If not elected then it will inevitably be an entrenched, connected elite. If elected then we have a big problem and here's what it is:
Suppose you live solely on UBI and aren't comfortable "enough", what's your best, easiest way to get more money? Simply vote for whoever promises the biggest UBI increase in every election. Even if you work a little for some money in addition to UBI, how likely are you to vote for someone who will reduce, or even hold steady the current UBI? Would any candidate even dare to express the idea of not boosting the UBI?
Once more than 50% of the voters are receiving UBI we have a runaway system, an engine without a governer. There aren't enough economists and mathematicians in the population to counterbalance the people who vote in favor of every "increase my UBI payout" at every opportunity. Without a feedback loop, "Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on" isn't a fixed amount calculated by sound economic priciples, it's "bread and circuses" that grows without bound until it exceeds the available production capacity and the system collapses.
Meanwhile there's no incentive to do any of the "dirty jobs" that are hard, messy, smelly and dangerous and nowhere near being automated. Lots of unpleasant work ceases to be economically viable and stops getting done once people have the option of just voting themselves more money.
Without a "benevolent dictator" to ensure that the idle can't vote themselves too big a share of the total and to ensure that enough people are forced into doing the unpleasant jobs that can't be or haven't been automated, the whole system collapses eventually.
Even if the voters can see that collapse eventually, they'll never vote as a block to prevent it. Enough of them will always vote in their short term self interest that no candidate will be able to win on a platform of near term austerity to avoid a long term collapse. There's no way to right the ship once it's taken on the critical percentage of UBI voters.
But if you pump the water back up then it won't be downstream for the people who need it. Or alternatively, if the people downstream use the water then how are you going to pump it back up?
I guess it depends what the people downstream need it for. If they're using it for swimming and boating that's fine, but if they're using if drinking and washing then aren't you really talking about pumping sewage upriver? Industrial uses or anything else that consumes or contaminates the water has the same issue.
You say "people downstream don't end up without water." but what are they doing with the water that requires them to have it but not reduce the quantity of it in the river? And if they only need to "use up" a little of it, then that means there's still margin to reduce the flow rate through the dam while still allowing them the amount they need. Doing that will allow increasing power production later without the added complexity of pumping the water back up.
This statement is not true and you will be unable to post a link or reference to the statute or other legal document that supports your claim that they are "legally required" because they are not.
And that's a surprise, why? Figuring out exactly what to do should take longer than doing it. Spending lots of time doing the wrong thing because you didn't put in the time making sure that you have a complete and accurate description of what to do and how to verify that you really have done the correct thing is a dumb waste of time.
In order to answer the question of whether a conference is overrated it is first necessary to know what the rating is.
Lots of posts have already made the valid point that if the main speakers are CEOs and other execs then it's not a tech conference, but attendees with brain cells already know that so it wouldn't figure into the rating.
So what are the ratings of IETF, IEEE, PyCon, OpenStack PTG (not summit; PTG is the tech event, summit is the marketing event), and other tech conferences? Without being specific about which conferences and what the ratings were it's impossible to have any intelligent discussion of whether the ratings are accurate.
it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery
You've just dramatically increased support for my point. It's not just a wealthy yacht maker getting rich off the sale of that yacht because that yacht maker has lots of suppliers. Those suppliers employ miners, refiners, forgers, skilled craftsmen for the expensive materials (hint, the reason they're "expensive" materials is that they involve a lot of labor to create. Those "payments for IP" go to companies that employ designers, lawyers, salespeople, receptionists, security guards, cafeteria workers, and on and on. The same goes for the companies that make the automated machinery.
If building a yacht only required the work of a handful of low wage boat builders then everyone could buy one. The reason you associate yachts with the ultrawealthy is precisely because of the vast number of people who got paid directly or indirectly for parts of the yacht. People who wouldn't have gotten paid if that yacht wasn't built.
"in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"
Now that's accurate, but obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "stash cash offshore". Those US stocks/bonds represent actual companies that employ actual people and pay them actual wages. Those people can certainly demand higher wages if demand for their skills exceeds supplies, but not if there are too many equally capable people for the amount of jobs. Who owns the company and what the market cap of the company is or how much debt (i.e. bonds) it has is simply not relevant to the question of whether it can meet its sales commitments at its current staffing and wage level.
Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.
So if the yacht was never built, which parts of it (or the raw materials or IP or automated machinery you astutely pointed out are pre-reqs) were those poor people going to eat?
Or are you suggesting that we have a shortage of farmers? Perhaps you want the yacht builders, miners, refiners, forgers, tool makers, IP lawyers, and so forth to quit their current jobs and go find some land on which to grow vegetables for the poor.
If you'll allow me to switch the topic from yachts to houses: In my area the government requires builders to produce a certain percentage of "low cost housing" in order to get permits. These builders make their profit selling houses to the wealthy (probably not "rich" in the original poster's sense of "are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages", but at least middle and upper middle class) but in order to do so they are forced by the government to build a certain percentage of houses at a loss so that people who for whatever reason (be it lack of skills, lack of intelligence, disability, whatever) can't convince anyone to voluntarily pay them enough money to cover the cost of a house. This seems to me like a reasonable function of local (not Federal) government. If the local government cuts too deep the builders will build elsewhere. It doesn't say "you're rich, we're taking your money at gunpoint because you're rich", instead it says "if you'd like to spend some of your wealth to create more wealth for yourself, here are the terms and conditions" and allows the builders to decide whether the profit they'll make, taking into account building a number of houses at a loss, is worth the risk they'll take.
that the rich are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages?
Caymens, Switzerland, Panama, [offshore destination of choice]. Oh, and for some of them it's a down payment on a bigger yacht.
Is that down payment being paid to other rich who are handcrafting yachts out of gold bars and stock certificates? If the grandparent post is dividing the population into "rich" and "Americans", where is the dividing line?
I would have thought that buying a yacht qualifies as "rich" paying wages to "not rich", via a yacht building company whose owner might be either.
Maybe the grandparent expects the "rich" should literally toss bundles of cash at random. It seems to me that creating luxury items, and especially frivolous and/or disposable luxury items is a great way for "not rich" folks to transfer money to themselves from "rich" folks.
If the "rich" simply stash cash offshore and never buy anything with it, that simply increases the buying power of the cash in the hands of the "not rich" (basically via supply and demand, all the cash that's out of circulation is not being used to buy goods and services, so that's essentially lower demand than if it was being used to make purchases. For a given level of supply, lower demand results in lower prices.)
If the "rich" buy luxury goods, especially (as in your example) a "bigger yacht" (implying that it's not their first yacht) or extra houses or cars or other big ticket items for which they can't actually use more than one at a time, that drives wages by increasing demand for "not rich" to build all those expensive extra items.
Why should the "rich" simply give away money for nothing when they can instead use it to employ "not rich" yacht builders? The "rich" gets a nice new yacht and the "not rich" get wages that they wouldn't have gotten if the yacht was never bought. In what way is that not "win-win"?
I don't run in political circles at all, so perhaps that's why I've never heard anyone talk about the "Republicans and Democratics" or "Republicans vs Democratics", but around the time of elections it's pretty much impossible to avoid hearing mention of "Republicans and Democrats".
Are you saying that there are "political circles" where a member of congress would be referred to as "a Democratic from California"?
Because if a member of congress is a Democrat then I have very little sympathy if they get butt hurt over having their party referred to as the Democrat party.
I often vote for a Democrat, but also often vote for a Republican or an independent, and if you asked me which party I vote for I would say, "sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, sometimes neither".
So if you think it is pejorative when I vote for a Democrat rather than a Democratic, well, I'm sorry... I guess... but not really very sorry... actually I don't care much if I hurt your feelings... maybe try being less sensitive about very common word usage.
Mine does. Cyberpower 1200AVR is the model I have. It reports curent load in watts and allows me to configure any shell script I want to run on power outage and a separate script to run on low battery level. If I remember correctly, I can also configure what percentage triggers the low battery script.
I'm not sure what you consider a "nice display", but to me a command with text output is nice. It's easy to parse and trivial to put into a cron job and pipe the output to whatever graphing and/or logging software I might like.
I did have an outage recently because I forgot to change the batteries. I'm guessing they're at least 5 years old but probably more like 8. From now on I'm adding a reminder to my calendar to replace them every three years.
Slashdot Mirror
The article isn't very clear. Are these forks of openvpn?
I mostly use Cisco AnyConnect for work and ssh tunneling for personal use, but I do have openvpn installed on my laptop and use it occasionally. I was thinking about installing it on my router and using it instead of ssh tunneling but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
I've never heard of either of the vpns mentioned in the article but the way the mix in mention of openvpn config files is confusing. Are the vulnerabilities only in proprietary forks of openvpn or could they be in the upstream code?
What, and have slashdot posters chastise them for setting up a "company town"? They wouldn't dare.
Though it would be interesting if one of them identified an end of line station on an existing rail line that could be extended and reached an agreement with the city to guarantee express, high speed service between downtown city center and a new station to be built within walking distance of the new corporate complex and pre-planned rail stops in every neighborhood around the complex.
Unfortunately, yes, because those long term unemployed adults are called retirees
Hold on a minute. So Trump is lying about unemployment because he quoted a rate that doesn't include RETIREES?
Your comments about drug and medical costs are irrelevant. I'd love to see major changes in the US Healthcare system, but anyone who calls a number "unemployment" when it includes retirees is full of shit. If somebody retired and then ran out of money and started looking for work then they're unemployed, but you can't just say that everyone who is not working is unemployed. At least not if you want to keep the word "unemployed" as a bad thing.
Unemployment means #1 you want to work and #2 you're able to work. If you don't meet both those criteria then you're not unemployed regardless of whether you don't have a job.
And if the only "work" you're willing to do is work that no one is willing to pay you for then you don't qualify as wanting to work. I do things that require skill and effort but that no one would be willing to pay me to do but I also do things a company IS willing to pay me for. If I CHOOSE to only do the former and not the later then I should NOT BE counted as unemployed.
Sucks more places don't or can't give a discount for cash only sales.
As a volunteer at a community theatre I sometimes have worked in the box office. I HATE people who pay with cash. It is so much easier to close out when all the sales are credit card. Just press the "batch" button on the machine and it prints out a report of the day's sales and you're done.
Counting the dirty wrinkled torn cash is a tedious nuisance and then finding that you don't have enough small bills to leave as change for the next shift and somebody needs to go to the bank. Or worse starting a shift and seeing that the last shift left you a stack of twenties as "change".
As a volunteer I put up with it for the sake of keeping the community theatre in operation, but if I were an employee of a company I'd damn well expect to be paid for that tedium and hassle. Why should the owner give you a discount for creating extra work that he/she has to pay me to do?
Why does slashdot have a moderation of +1 Interesting but not a -1 Uninteresting?
I'm baffled that some moderator found your lack of a smartphone interesting. I'm interested in lots of things and I'm capable of recognizing that things I'm not interested in are interesting to other people. But your not having of a smart phone and not using of a credit card is the antithesis of interesting.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with you lacking things that the vast majority of the population has. I'm simply saying that there's not the least bit of value or interest in reading your post about what you don't have.
How valuable is money?
A penny is money. I think most developers are worth more than a penny. A hundred dollar bill is money and I think most developers are worth more than a hundred dollar bill. A bank account containing a billion dollars is NOT money, although the bank will be willing to give you lots of money in exchange for decrementing the number in their computer.
The whole question "is X more valuable than money" is utter nonsense. What are you measuring the value of X in if not units of money?
The topic of the original article was "Are companies more worried about the difficulty in obtaining sufficient developers or the difficulty in obtaining sufficient money (i.e. capital investment or loans) needed to develop their product?" Obviously they will need to use some of the money they obtain (if they are able to do so) to pay the developers they hire whatever those developers agree they are worth. But they might not be able to obtain the developers even if they have the money.
https://github.com/openstack/n...
due to poor life choices
Is this completely pointless snarkiness that you threw in because you're an ass or does Canada really pass judgement on your life choices to determine quality of health care?
I would have assumed that care would be dependent only on the medical condition, not a moral judgement of the person.
might want to have a word with your supplier
What word would you suggest and what effect do you imagine that word would have?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
That's because you deliberately deleted his point from your quote of his post.
Next time try reading and comprehending rather than selectively quoting and expressing your lack of comprehension of the point you intentionally removed.
HINT: Learn what italicized means. He used it correctly and your lack of comprehension is directly linked to your inability to read and quote the relevant point.
White South Africans are racist as fuck.
Interesting. If I'm reading you're post correctly, you have drawn a conclusion about Elon Musk based on his skin color and place of birth. Do you have any other information to offer or are these two facts sufficient to form the entire basis of your conclusion?
I'm thinking of a word to describe someone who draws conclusions based SOLELY on skin color. Can you guess what it is? I don't think combining skin color with place of birth when announcing your conclusions makes you any less of one.
Furthermore, the central point of your post seems to be your "surprise" that Musk's skin color and place of birth never get brought up. Almost all Musk stories (on slashdot at least) are about Tesla or SpaceX. What is it exactly about cars and rockets that makes the CEO's skin color so relevant that it's absence from the discussion "suprises" you?
I'm a distance runner. The thing I found most interesting when I visited Tokyo (on business, but I ran a minimum of six miles every morning for a week, setting out in a different direction every morning) was the total absence of garbage cans visible anywhere and how clean all the sidewalks and streets were.
I don't know if what I saw was a bizarre exception, but it was a clear and striking impression that I noticed and couldn't stop noticing the entire time I was there. So many people, so many buildings, no trash that I could see and no trash cans or recycling bins that I could see.
Do those four words result in the itemized receipt being automatically logged to the same account as the NYC, London and Oslo receipts or were you unable to read the whole post?
I also travel intermittently on business and agree that having Uber automatically produce a report of all my trips is much more convienent than the mix of:
- generic paper receipts with no business name
- blank "receipt" that I'm supposed to fill in myself
- no receipt at all, just a blatant lie "my credit card reader is broken, you have to pay cash"
That I've received from taxis in various cities
With the blank "receipt" I guess the idea is that I'm supposed to lie and pad the amount get my employer to "reimburse" me for more than the ride actually costs, but I'm honest so I don't submit false expense reports.
I've even had a taxi driver flat out tell me "I really need some cash, if you pay me X in cash I'll give you a receipt for X+Y". Look, I'm honest, I want no part in your scam to defraud either your employer or mine or to cheat on taxes or whatever other reason it is that taxi drivers lie about their credit card readers.
It's much easier to just use Uber in each city and automatically receive a single list of all trips with start and end locations and times and cost all conveniently read to be added to my itemized expense report.
Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on
Who sets this level? Elected representatives? If not elected then it will inevitably be an entrenched, connected elite. If elected then we have a big problem and here's what it is:
Suppose you live solely on UBI and aren't comfortable "enough", what's your best, easiest way to get more money? Simply vote for whoever promises the biggest UBI increase in every election. Even if you work a little for some money in addition to UBI, how likely are you to vote for someone who will reduce, or even hold steady the current UBI? Would any candidate even dare to express the idea of not boosting the UBI?
Once more than 50% of the voters are receiving UBI we have a runaway system, an engine without a governer. There aren't enough economists and mathematicians in the population to counterbalance the people who vote in favor of every "increase my UBI payout" at every opportunity. Without a feedback loop, "Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on" isn't a fixed amount calculated by sound economic priciples, it's "bread and circuses" that grows without bound until it exceeds the available production capacity and the system collapses.
Meanwhile there's no incentive to do any of the "dirty jobs" that are hard, messy, smelly and dangerous and nowhere near being automated. Lots of unpleasant work ceases to be economically viable and stops getting done once people have the option of just voting themselves more money.
Without a "benevolent dictator" to ensure that the idle can't vote themselves too big a share of the total and to ensure that enough people are forced into doing the unpleasant jobs that can't be or haven't been automated, the whole system collapses eventually.
Even if the voters can see that collapse eventually, they'll never vote as a block to prevent it. Enough of them will always vote in their short term self interest that no candidate will be able to win on a platform of near term austerity to avoid a long term collapse. There's no way to right the ship once it's taken on the critical percentage of UBI voters.
But if you pump the water back up then it won't be downstream for the people who need it. Or alternatively, if the people downstream use the water then how are you going to pump it back up?
I guess it depends what the people downstream need it for. If they're using it for swimming and boating that's fine, but if they're using if drinking and washing then aren't you really talking about pumping sewage upriver? Industrial uses or anything else that consumes or contaminates the water has the same issue.
You say "people downstream don't end up without water." but what are they doing with the water that requires them to have it but not reduce the quantity of it in the river? And if they only need to "use up" a little of it, then that means there's still margin to reduce the flow rate through the dam while still allowing them the amount they need. Doing that will allow increasing power production later without the added complexity of pumping the water back up.
This statement is not true and you will be unable to post a link or reference to the statute or other legal document that supports your claim that they are "legally required" because they are not.
And that's a surprise, why? Figuring out exactly what to do should take longer than doing it. Spending lots of time doing the wrong thing because you didn't put in the time making sure that you have a complete and accurate description of what to do and how to verify that you really have done the correct thing is a dumb waste of time.
Um, we do. It's called DNS. I assume you've heard of it since you mentioned it in your post.
In order to answer the question of whether a conference is overrated it is first necessary to know what the rating is.
Lots of posts have already made the valid point that if the main speakers are CEOs and other execs then it's not a tech conference, but attendees with brain cells already know that so it wouldn't figure into the rating.
So what are the ratings of IETF, IEEE, PyCon, OpenStack PTG (not summit; PTG is the tech event, summit is the marketing event), and other tech conferences? Without being specific about which conferences and what the ratings were it's impossible to have any intelligent discussion of whether the ratings are accurate.
Also non-Uber cars and non-Uber drivers. The pattern may be bigger than you think.
it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery
You've just dramatically increased support for my point. It's not just a wealthy yacht maker getting rich off the sale of that yacht because that yacht maker has lots of suppliers. Those suppliers employ miners, refiners, forgers, skilled craftsmen for the expensive materials (hint, the reason they're "expensive" materials is that they involve a lot of labor to create. Those "payments for IP" go to companies that employ designers, lawyers, salespeople, receptionists, security guards, cafeteria workers, and on and on. The same goes for the companies that make the automated machinery.
If building a yacht only required the work of a handful of low wage boat builders then everyone could buy one. The reason you associate yachts with the ultrawealthy is precisely because of the vast number of people who got paid directly or indirectly for parts of the yacht. People who wouldn't have gotten paid if that yacht wasn't built.
"in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"
Now that's accurate, but obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "stash cash offshore". Those US stocks/bonds represent actual companies that employ actual people and pay them actual wages. Those people can certainly demand higher wages if demand for their skills exceeds supplies, but not if there are too many equally capable people for the amount of jobs. Who owns the company and what the market cap of the company is or how much debt (i.e. bonds) it has is simply not relevant to the question of whether it can meet its sales commitments at its current staffing and wage level.
Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.
So if the yacht was never built, which parts of it (or the raw materials or IP or automated machinery you astutely pointed out are pre-reqs) were those poor people going to eat?
Or are you suggesting that we have a shortage of farmers? Perhaps you want the yacht builders, miners, refiners, forgers, tool makers, IP lawyers, and so forth to quit their current jobs and go find some land on which to grow vegetables for the poor.
If you'll allow me to switch the topic from yachts to houses: In my area the government requires builders to produce a certain percentage of "low cost housing" in order to get permits. These builders make their profit selling houses to the wealthy (probably not "rich" in the original poster's sense of "are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages", but at least middle and upper middle class) but in order to do so they are forced by the government to build a certain percentage of houses at a loss so that people who for whatever reason (be it lack of skills, lack of intelligence, disability, whatever) can't convince anyone to voluntarily pay them enough money to cover the cost of a house. This seems to me like a reasonable function of local (not Federal) government. If the local government cuts too deep the builders will build elsewhere. It doesn't say "you're rich, we're taking your money at gunpoint because you're rich", instead it says "if you'd like to spend some of your wealth to create more wealth for yourself, here are the terms and conditions" and allows the builders to decide whether the profit they'll make, taking into account building a number of houses at a loss, is worth the risk they'll take.
that the rich are supposed to be using to pay Americans higher wages?
Caymens, Switzerland, Panama, [offshore destination of choice]. Oh, and for some of them it's a down payment on a bigger yacht.
Is that down payment being paid to other rich who are handcrafting yachts out of gold bars and stock certificates? If the grandparent post is dividing the population into "rich" and "Americans", where is the dividing line?
I would have thought that buying a yacht qualifies as "rich" paying wages to "not rich", via a yacht building company whose owner might be either.
Maybe the grandparent expects the "rich" should literally toss bundles of cash at random. It seems to me that creating luxury items, and especially frivolous and/or disposable luxury items is a great way for "not rich" folks to transfer money to themselves from "rich" folks.
If the "rich" simply stash cash offshore and never buy anything with it, that simply increases the buying power of the cash in the hands of the "not rich" (basically via supply and demand, all the cash that's out of circulation is not being used to buy goods and services, so that's essentially lower demand than if it was being used to make purchases. For a given level of supply, lower demand results in lower prices.)
If the "rich" buy luxury goods, especially (as in your example) a "bigger yacht" (implying that it's not their first yacht) or extra houses or cars or other big ticket items for which they can't actually use more than one at a time, that drives wages by increasing demand for "not rich" to build all those expensive extra items.
Why should the "rich" simply give away money for nothing when they can instead use it to employ "not rich" yacht builders? The "rich" gets a nice new yacht and the "not rich" get wages that they wouldn't have gotten if the yacht was never bought. In what way is that not "win-win"?
I don't run in political circles at all, so perhaps that's why I've never heard anyone talk about the "Republicans and Democratics" or "Republicans vs Democratics", but around the time of elections it's pretty much impossible to avoid hearing mention of "Republicans and Democrats".
Are you saying that there are "political circles" where a member of congress would be referred to as "a Democratic from California"?
Because if a member of congress is a Democrat then I have very little sympathy if they get butt hurt over having their party referred to as the Democrat party.
I often vote for a Democrat, but also often vote for a Republican or an independent, and if you asked me which party I vote for I would say, "sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, sometimes neither".
So if you think it is pejorative when I vote for a Democrat rather than a Democratic, well, I'm sorry ... I guess ... but not really very sorry ... actually I don't care much if I hurt your feelings ... maybe try being less sensitive about very common word usage.
Mine does. Cyberpower 1200AVR is the model I have. It reports curent load in watts and allows me to configure any shell script I want to run on power outage and a separate script to run on low battery level. If I remember correctly, I can also configure what percentage triggers the low battery script.
I'm not sure what you consider a "nice display", but to me a command with text output is nice. It's easy to parse and trivial to put into a cron job and pipe the output to whatever graphing and/or logging software I might like.
I did have an outage recently because I forgot to change the batteries. I'm guessing they're at least 5 years old but probably more like 8. From now on I'm adding a reminder to my calendar to replace them every three years.
Congratulations, you got it on the first try.