I'm sorry, why would I (the business owner) be paying for someone to sell their home?
I don't know any software company that does this for you, and the large corporations that I know that do this only do it in certain situations for certain employees, and the costs come out of the profits from the sale of the home. The corporations evaluate whether or not there is a likely hood of the costs being covered before agreeing to do this (i.e. General Electric.)
Presuming you're spoiling your potential employee: A large house, with full pack and unpack, runs in the 10-15k range depending upon distance. Putting them up in a hotel during a house hunting trip - $1500. Airline (presumably) for 2 people - $1000
I can't imagine what else you think people get offered in regards to relocation by a software company. Most software companies simply give you a flat amount of money for relocation that you can do with what you wish (watch out for the I.R.S. though...);)
I would think that most of them remember the Kent State shootings, and in any case they're likely to feel the same about police, so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is...
And these cries that guns are too easy to get are complete bullshit. Have you tried to buy a gun at a gun show with no paperwork? Good luck with that. You MIGHT find an occasional private party who wants to sell something he has...
I don't know what planet you're from but the most recent gun show I visited with my neighbor (who is a licensed firearms dealer and goes to gun shows to buy, not sell) had dozens and dozens (probably more than a hundred) people walking around with signs, and several guys with tables that ADVERTISED no background check required. I asked one of these idiots about it and he said that he only sells at gun shows and therefore is actually unable to obtain a federal firearms license, and without a license he can't run background checks. I found this to be rather dubious reasoning as to why he was advertising 'no background check required' - but people find it especially easy to lie to themselves (as you appear to do in your post.)
but this idea that anyone can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer table is total BS. The same federal forms and background checks have to be completed for purchase from a dealer at a gun show just like it were at a regular gun store.
Who said that? I didn't. Note how carefully you insert
...from a dealer table...
- presumably you actually meant "licensed dealer" because you can have a table at the show without a license (like the jerkoff I spoke with above.)
Here's a news flash, laws restricting gun sales will not stop criminals from illegally buying guns. They're not following the laws anyway.
They'll sure stop some of them, plus lots of other people that shouldn't have them either. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-stupid.
Perhaps you should consider that you possibly don't understand what "anti-gun folk" fear about handguns. They don't fear an interlocking series of components that produces a chemical reaction that accelerates an emitted object or objects. They fear the human abuse of such an item.
I don't think I've ever heard an anti-gun protester complain about a marine carrying a sidearm in uniform, but lots of them seem to complain about how amazingly trivial it is to obtain one even if you're a diagnosed schizophrenic felon (just head to your nearest gun show.)
Death by handgun isn't any more horrible than death by any other method (hell, you could argue that it is more humane if the shooter knows what they're doing - I'd rather die by gunshot to the head than burn to death) - but I have never heard anyone complain that dying by handgun is worse than anything else.
What I have heard people complain about is that handguns are more dangerous than other 'murder weapons' for the same reason that assault rifles are more dangerous than handguns, that hand grenades are more dangerous than assault weapons, that grenade launchers are more dangerous than hand grenades, and a 20mm automatic cannon is more dangerous than a grenade launcher. Each one makes it easier to kill more people than the next.
I assure you that carrying two M9s will allow you to kill far more people than carrying two knives.
So, perhaps you're a bit mistaken about why people don't like handguns. Personally, I enjoy handgun shooting as a sport, but don't carry one - I use a Mark 23 (a little big to carry anyhow.)
...someone like you involved - but the problem is that your greatest value to me would likely be your actual presence at the company. The guy who stays calm in the face of adversity, who had seen it all, who would head off problematic decisions before they become canon, et cetera. All of that is awful hard to do when you're a remote worker.
My point is that your greatest asset IS your experience, and that's difficult to share remotely (unless you're an architect or someone who works a bit more in isolation.)
Yes, my Mom recently passed away due to cancer and the pain management at one point had her comatose. There was no option other than to let her expire due to what was ultimately heart failure probably brought on by dehydration.
It was the single most horrible experience of my life and will probably haunt me forever sitting at her bedside watching her slowly dehydrate/starve to death because we had no other legal option. Cracked lips, loose skin, horrible breathing sounds from the dessication, breath after breath until it catches and you pray that it is over but then it starts again... - it will never leave me.
A living will only allows you to end their life horribly. DNR isn't enough.
I certainly understand the slippery slope issues, but it should be possible to specify a DNR that includes actively ending someone's life more humanely.
Good thinking. Let's complicate things enormously and introduce huge levels of new risk into the product in the off chance that it may benefit some unknown and non existent requirement. Do you happen to work for the government? Lol.
Attempting to sabotage it maybe, succeeding no. There was never even so much as a stay issued, as far as I am aware, preventing the administration from getting started on implementation
Sorry, but even as an independent I would have to disagree with that. The statute provided monies for states to create their exchanges, there was no stipulated money to fund a federal exchange because it was entirely expected that states would want to control this themselves.
Suddenly GOP led states started saying "we're not building that" which makes absolutely zero sense except as a political stratagem to sabotage the process. You should note that the only two non-GOP states to leave the burden entirely to the feds are Montana and Missouri. Montana wasn't able to build their own because the GOP controlled legislature killed the governor's attempt to begin designing the exchange. Missouri is doing this for EXACTLY the same reasons.
The ambiguity over how many states the federal system would have to account for apparently hampered the setting of specifications (it would seem that most states needed custom integration bridges into the federal system) and severely impact the costs and complexity of the project (which was funded through means other than the bill.) It was always the goal of the statute that as many states as possible would manage their own exchanges - it was clearly not expected that the GOP would directly urge Republican led states to add their load the the federal exchange out of spite for the ACA. The irony is that this is the GOP asking states to give up authority to the federal government, lol.
You'll note that the states that did build their exchanges with the federal monies set aside for them seem to be doing ok, many of them exceeding their target roll-out goals.
It's also kind of silly to argue that GOP opposition hasn't made it more difficult and complicated to build, roll out, and run Healthcare.gov, I mean, simply ask yourself - "Would the healthcare.gov rollout gone better or worse with support from the GOP?"
The GOP is clearly doing everything in its power to have the federal exchange fail, and "doing everything in their power" doesn't mean just sitting quietly as you seem to suggest, it is actively sabotaging the funding and the process.
As for Democrats, apparently they...couldn't build anything other than a good case of hemorrhoids.
BTW, totally agree with you regarding the 17th amendment - states lost virtually all of their ability to be effectively represented when this happened.
I ran into this recently at a company whose new head of engineering was talking to me (an outsider) about the technology problem they had to solve and I thought it sounded very traditional and simple except they'd need to carefully plan for horizontal scaling.
Basically a potentially huge number of devices (in the range of millions) would be reporting in periodic data that had to be stored and potentially evaluated in real-time. The data was quite easily swim laned by geolocation and the data had no appreciable inter-related significance. So basically, one piece of data from one device had nothing to do with any other device's information except in the general sense that can come from a more heuristic correlation of their data.
I should mention that the new engineering head and I had already (together) handle a situation very similar to this at a previously successful software company.
Well, the new engineering head had inherited an external architect who had different ideas. All of these different ideas involved things like Cassandra over Hadoop, AMP/Spark, BDAS. He showed me a diagram of the technologies he wanted to integrate and I'd never heard of almost half of them (and I deal with scaling issues all the time), this diagram had about 15 different technologies stacked together. It was crazy - all to solve a relatively simple data volume problem.
Almost needless to say, I advised otherwise, and afaik they're going the bid data way because it will make it easier for them to pull in VC money since shockingly few VC's actually evaluate technology before they put money in (I do this for VCs also, and other VCs wonder how I get paid to do this, lol.)
Healthcare.gov isn't a particularly difficult scaling problem to solve. You can 'swim lane' the hell out of it.
It's not like it's a social network where people need to be constantly sharing things and an arbitrarily large (potentially huge) group of people need to be notified of everything each of them does/doesn't do...
Since the law has been passed almost the entire implementation has been up to the administration.
The implementation is, for the most part up to the administration and they certainly have screwed the pooch on this; however, the GOP can quite easily be accused of willfully sabotaging the process through the ACA lawsuits and intentional state exchange shortcomings (not to mention a myriad of other issues that relate to the shutdown, refusing ancillary funding out of spite, and issues with the Supreme Court.)
In any case, even if the GOP are being total jerks about the law, healthcare.gov requires a software solution that has been patterned thousands of times. It's a total fumble by the Democrats.
The party system should simply be banned outright.
Totally agree. I enjoyed the short stories, and I found the movie to be excellent; of course, I didn't go into it demanding a tit-for-tat retelling of the stories. You're right about Lebeouf getting killed being a plus. "Your lucky I can't breathe otherwise I'd be walking all up and down yo' ass.";)
It's well done considering its budget, but it's got some rough spots. The whole ***SPOILER ALERT*** Jesus tie in was just jumping the shark really, it would have been better if he'd been a disciple, and much better if he'd simply been in Rome and known early Christians ***
Anyone that doubts that is welcome to wander the nearest inner-city ghetto but I hope you have life insurance and all your affairs in order before you try it
Wow - the irony as you typed that out next to your 'home'/meth lab in your 'whites only' trailer park in eastern Alabama must be smothering...
You claim that only the sitting President is responsible and to blame for the state of the country, irrespective of what has happened in the past.
You also claim that the President can just "end it with a stroke" - presumably you don't mean magical powers with a wand, you mean magical powers with a pen.
I point out that you're ridiculously naive to think that way (ignoring that you're most likely some right wing nutjob who only thinks this way when it serves them - such as when the President is from the left wing) and that the actions of previous Presidents actually does have an impact on the state of the country at this point in time.
I give you an example, a clear cut and obvious to just about everyone including most Republicans, of a President who has had a lasting impact on the country outside of his term in office, and you tell me that I'm naive by disputing things that even most Republicans acknowledge. Hell, you even claim straight out that someone "cooked the books" - LOL.
You then, and here's the cherry on the cake of your idiocy, try to assert that the Republicans and Democrats are not in opposition to each other - despite the fact that we're actually, currently, at this time, experiencing a government shutdown due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are in direct opposition to each other...
You keep on saying that like it's true, or that it matters.. Well, you go ahead and keep on blaming the ghosts from Christmas Past for all your troubles. I'm going to keep on dealing in the present. That's where I will find solutions. You must be after something else.
It's both true, and important.
Just like how Obama passing the Affordable Care Act would be important if it ended up seriously derailing the health care industry, even if that doesn't happen until the next President.
You sound ridiculous saying that it wouldn't matter then, because it can only be the fault of the current President.
"BOTH parties"? You actually believe that there is such a thing?
Perhaps you could be clearer what you're trying to say here, because suggesting that there aren't two major political parties that have clear and disparate goals and philosophies makes you sound like a loony...
Aaah, so it's a conspiracy that has the several departments of the government (including the Congressional Budget Office) acting in collusion despite two differing parties (who don't exactly get along) managing them over the past 20 years?
LOL!
You believe what you saw and heard on the TeeVee...
Actually, I believe the data posted by the Congressional Budget Office (you can grab the data yourself, although you won't because you're not interested in reality, you're interesting in what you already believe.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, why would I (the business owner) be paying for someone to sell their home?
I don't know any software company that does this for you, and the large corporations that I know that do this only do it in certain situations for certain employees, and the costs come out of the profits from the sale of the home. The corporations evaluate whether or not there is a likely hood of the costs being covered before agreeing to do this (i.e. General Electric.)
$100K? What planet are you on?
Presuming you're spoiling your potential employee:
A large house, with full pack and unpack, runs in the 10-15k range depending upon distance.
Putting them up in a hotel during a house hunting trip - $1500.
Airline (presumably) for 2 people - $1000
I can't imagine what else you think people get offered in regards to relocation by a software company. Most software companies simply give you a flat amount of money for relocation that you can do with what you wish (watch out for the I.R.S. though...) ;)
I would think that most of them remember the Kent State shootings, and in any case they're likely to feel the same about police, so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is...
And these cries that guns are too easy to get are complete bullshit. Have you tried to buy a gun at a gun show with no paperwork? Good luck with that. You MIGHT find an occasional private party who wants to sell something he has...
I don't know what planet you're from but the most recent gun show I visited with my neighbor (who is a licensed firearms dealer and goes to gun shows to buy, not sell) had dozens and dozens (probably more than a hundred) people walking around with signs, and several guys with tables that ADVERTISED no background check required. I asked one of these idiots about it and he said that he only sells at gun shows and therefore is actually unable to obtain a federal firearms license, and without a license he can't run background checks. I found this to be rather dubious reasoning as to why he was advertising 'no background check required' - but people find it especially easy to lie to themselves (as you appear to do in your post.)
but this idea that anyone can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer table is total BS. The same federal forms and background checks have to be completed for purchase from a dealer at a gun show just like it were at a regular gun store.
Who said that? I didn't. Note how carefully you insert
...from a dealer table...
- presumably you actually meant "licensed dealer" because you can have a table at the show without a license (like the jerkoff I spoke with above.)
Here's a news flash, laws restricting gun sales will not stop criminals from illegally buying guns. They're not following the laws anyway.
They'll sure stop some of them, plus lots of other people that shouldn't have them either. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-stupid.
Perhaps you should consider that you possibly don't understand what "anti-gun folk" fear about handguns. They don't fear an interlocking series of components that produces a chemical reaction that accelerates an emitted object or objects. They fear the human abuse of such an item.
I don't think I've ever heard an anti-gun protester complain about a marine carrying a sidearm in uniform, but lots of them seem to complain about how amazingly trivial it is to obtain one even if you're a diagnosed schizophrenic felon (just head to your nearest gun show.)
Death by handgun isn't any more horrible than death by any other method (hell, you could argue that it is more humane if the shooter knows what they're doing - I'd rather die by gunshot to the head than burn to death) - but I have never heard anyone complain that dying by handgun is worse than anything else.
What I have heard people complain about is that handguns are more dangerous than other 'murder weapons' for the same reason that assault rifles are more dangerous than handguns, that hand grenades are more dangerous than assault weapons, that grenade launchers are more dangerous than hand grenades, and a 20mm automatic cannon is more dangerous than a grenade launcher. Each one makes it easier to kill more people than the next.
I assure you that carrying two M9s will allow you to kill far more people than carrying two knives.
So, perhaps you're a bit mistaken about why people don't like handguns. Personally, I enjoy handgun shooting as a sport, but don't carry one - I use a Mark 23 (a little big to carry anyhow.)
...someone like you involved - but the problem is that your greatest value to me would likely be your actual presence at the company. The guy who stays calm in the face of adversity, who had seen it all, who would head off problematic decisions before they become canon, et cetera. All of that is awful hard to do when you're a remote worker.
My point is that your greatest asset IS your experience, and that's difficult to share remotely (unless you're an architect or someone who works a bit more in isolation.)
My $0.000002
Yes, my Mom recently passed away due to cancer and the pain management at one point had her comatose. There was no option other than to let her expire due to what was ultimately heart failure probably brought on by dehydration.
It was the single most horrible experience of my life and will probably haunt me forever sitting at her bedside watching her slowly dehydrate/starve to death because we had no other legal option. Cracked lips, loose skin, horrible breathing sounds from the dessication, breath after breath until it catches and you pray that it is over but then it starts again... - it will never leave me.
A living will only allows you to end their life horribly. DNR isn't enough.
I certainly understand the slippery slope issues, but it should be possible to specify a DNR that includes actively ending someone's life more humanely.
Good thinking. Let's complicate things enormously and introduce huge levels of new risk into the product in the off chance that it may benefit some unknown and non existent requirement. Do you happen to work for the government? Lol.
Attempting to sabotage it maybe, succeeding no. There was never even so much as a stay issued, as far as I am aware, preventing the administration from getting started on implementation
Sorry, but even as an independent I would have to disagree with that. The statute provided monies for states to create their exchanges, there was no stipulated money to fund a federal exchange because it was entirely expected that states would want to control this themselves.
Suddenly GOP led states started saying "we're not building that" which makes absolutely zero sense except as a political stratagem to sabotage the process. You should note that the only two non-GOP states to leave the burden entirely to the feds are Montana and Missouri. Montana wasn't able to build their own because the GOP controlled legislature killed the governor's attempt to begin designing the exchange. Missouri is doing this for EXACTLY the same reasons.
The ambiguity over how many states the federal system would have to account for apparently hampered the setting of specifications (it would seem that most states needed custom integration bridges into the federal system) and severely impact the costs and complexity of the project (which was funded through means other than the bill.) It was always the goal of the statute that as many states as possible would manage their own exchanges - it was clearly not expected that the GOP would directly urge Republican led states to add their load the the federal exchange out of spite for the ACA. The irony is that this is the GOP asking states to give up authority to the federal government, lol.
You'll note that the states that did build their exchanges with the federal monies set aside for them seem to be doing ok, many of them exceeding their target roll-out goals.
It's also kind of silly to argue that GOP opposition hasn't made it more difficult and complicated to build, roll out, and run Healthcare.gov, I mean, simply ask yourself - "Would the healthcare.gov rollout gone better or worse with support from the GOP?"
The GOP is clearly doing everything in its power to have the federal exchange fail, and "doing everything in their power" doesn't mean just sitting quietly as you seem to suggest, it is actively sabotaging the funding and the process.
As for Democrats, apparently they ...couldn't build anything other than a good case of hemorrhoids.
BTW, totally agree with you regarding the 17th amendment - states lost virtually all of their ability to be effectively represented when this happened.
I ran into this recently at a company whose new head of engineering was talking to me (an outsider) about the technology problem they had to solve and I thought it sounded very traditional and simple except they'd need to carefully plan for horizontal scaling.
Basically a potentially huge number of devices (in the range of millions) would be reporting in periodic data that had to be stored and potentially evaluated in real-time. The data was quite easily swim laned by geolocation and the data had no appreciable inter-related significance. So basically, one piece of data from one device had nothing to do with any other device's information except in the general sense that can come from a more heuristic correlation of their data.
I should mention that the new engineering head and I had already (together) handle a situation very similar to this at a previously successful software company.
Well, the new engineering head had inherited an external architect who had different ideas. All of these different ideas involved things like Cassandra over Hadoop, AMP/Spark, BDAS. He showed me a diagram of the technologies he wanted to integrate and I'd never heard of almost half of them (and I deal with scaling issues all the time), this diagram had about 15 different technologies stacked together. It was crazy - all to solve a relatively simple data volume problem.
Almost needless to say, I advised otherwise, and afaik they're going the bid data way because it will make it easier for them to pull in VC money since shockingly few VC's actually evaluate technology before they put money in (I do this for VCs also, and other VCs wonder how I get paid to do this, lol.)
AKF cube.
Healthcare.gov isn't a particularly difficult scaling problem to solve. You can 'swim lane' the hell out of it.
It's not like it's a social network where people need to be constantly sharing things and an arbitrarily large (potentially huge) group of people need to be notified of everything each of them does/doesn't do...
Since the law has been passed almost the entire implementation has been up to the administration.
The implementation is, for the most part up to the administration and they certainly have screwed the pooch on this; however, the GOP can quite easily be accused of willfully sabotaging the process through the ACA lawsuits and intentional state exchange shortcomings (not to mention a myriad of other issues that relate to the shutdown, refusing ancillary funding out of spite, and issues with the Supreme Court.)
In any case, even if the GOP are being total jerks about the law, healthcare.gov requires a software solution that has been patterned thousands of times. It's a total fumble by the Democrats.
The party system should simply be banned outright.
...suddenly when they are patching themselves without any explanation why.
Why does a simple puzzle game without multi-player support need access to my contacts? Uninstall...
Et cetera...
Totally agree. I enjoyed the short stories, and I found the movie to be excellent; of course, I didn't go into it demanding a tit-for-tat retelling of the stories. You're right about Lebeouf getting killed being a plus. "Your lucky I can't breathe otherwise I'd be walking all up and down yo' ass." ;)
It's well done considering its budget, but it's got some rough spots. The whole ***SPOILER ALERT*** Jesus tie in was just jumping the shark really, it would have been better if he'd been a disciple, and much better if he'd simply been in Rome and known early Christians ***
Jackson turns The Hobbit into 3 movies when they should have turned Ender's Game into 3 ;)...
...not trusting and simply relying upon his evaluations and pointing out that you need to think for yourself.
Not a very positive trait for the NSA irrespective of their goals.
"Damnit Sparky! I'm busy prognosticating the downfall of the White Man, put out that damn cigaret..."
Anyone that doubts that is welcome to wander the nearest inner-city ghetto but I hope you have life insurance and all your affairs in order before you try it
Wow - the irony as you typed that out next to your 'home'/meth lab in your 'whites only' trailer park in eastern Alabama must be smothering...
Last word! lol
Yeah, I agree, giving up is your best option at this point.
So let's get this straight...
You claim that only the sitting President is responsible and to blame for the state of the country, irrespective of what has happened in the past.
You also claim that the President can just "end it with a stroke" - presumably you don't mean magical powers with a wand, you mean magical powers with a pen.
I point out that you're ridiculously naive to think that way (ignoring that you're most likely some right wing nutjob who only thinks this way when it serves them - such as when the President is from the left wing) and that the actions of previous Presidents actually does have an impact on the state of the country at this point in time.
I give you an example, a clear cut and obvious to just about everyone including most Republicans, of a President who has had a lasting impact on the country outside of his term in office, and you tell me that I'm naive by disputing things that even most Republicans acknowledge. Hell, you even claim straight out that someone "cooked the books" - LOL.
You then, and here's the cherry on the cake of your idiocy, try to assert that the Republicans and Democrats are not in opposition to each other - despite the fact that we're actually, currently, at this time, experiencing a government shutdown due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are in direct opposition to each other...
You're special :)
You keep on saying that like it's true, or that it matters.. Well, you go ahead and keep on blaming the ghosts from Christmas Past for all your troubles. I'm going to keep on dealing in the present. That's where I will find solutions. You must be after something else.
It's both true, and important.
Just like how Obama passing the Affordable Care Act would be important if it ended up seriously derailing the health care industry, even if that doesn't happen until the next President.
You sound ridiculous saying that it wouldn't matter then, because it can only be the fault of the current President.
"BOTH parties"? You actually believe that there is such a thing?
Perhaps you could be clearer what you're trying to say here, because suggesting that there aren't two major political parties that have clear and disparate goals and philosophies makes you sound like a loony...
Wow, so it's a conspiracy by BOTH parties that Bush was given a strong economy. That really makes sense for the Republicans to be a part of - LOL.
Tinfoil hat?
The books were cooked...
Aaah, so it's a conspiracy that has the several departments of the government (including the Congressional Budget Office) acting in collusion despite two differing parties (who don't exactly get along) managing them over the past 20 years?
LOL!
You believe what you saw and heard on the TeeVee...
Actually, I believe the data posted by the Congressional Budget Office (you can grab the data yourself, although you won't because you're not interested in reality, you're interesting in what you already believe.)