I Believe the Mexican police or Federalis have this practice. We might start with the "get the bad guy assets" of course to fight crime and hit the bad guy where it hurts. Eventually, it becomes good funding to enhance law enforcement. Since we still have SOME infrastructure, then people get the idea we can cut taxes without looking at what that means and suddenly the forfeiture becomes a replacement for taxes -- just like a Lottery. And guess who pays more in both "let's not tax" system? You get a cookie if you guessed the poor. People who plead guilty for a lesser punishment because they can't afford to fight any charges -- and before you say it, In Georgia, you have to pay to get a public defender and even then they are too overburdened to do anything but get an automatic reduction -- something any lawyer gets just for showing up.
Well, without getting too far into a rant on how bogus our court system is where the poor are 95% automagically guilty. Eventually the police will just be shaking down people for a fee, or they loser their cars based on "might be used to do something wrong." There are too police who want to make people feel awful. I know when we criticize the police, we throw out that bone that "most police are good" -- I don't think thamanyt's true. Good people with even a little savvy, couldn't in good conscience throw someone in jail for using or selling weed, or for using or being a Prostitute. The people who can afford call girls -- are THEY getting thrown in jail? No. The same downtrodden who procure streeetwalkers are the target. And the best way to get arrested is to hurt the feelings of the cops.
People of good conscience would be squeezed out over time, because the last thing crooked people want is honest people who might turn them in. Civil forfeiture is just one of those things you get a Banana Republic. I feel like our Supreme Court has done an excellent job in this regard.
I'm certainly not a Liberal, because I remember growing up with them and they were very tactful, never spoke in sweeping generalizations, and were polite. I'm just not happy enough nor educated enough to be a true Liberal. I don't quote Keats nor do I have one sweater vest (OK, just the one).
I'm a Progressive. I'm a pissed of Liberal who believes in Democratic Socialism and enough to make sure nobody slips through the cracks but not centralized planning or a perfectly level playing field that Communism requires (note: Communism does not require central planning). I know we have to guarantee rights and I think going back to stronger restrictions on corporations, as the Founding Fathers intended, is an absolute necessity.
If you did not intend the meaning that your words implied, I apologize, But what I said still applies to what impression most people would construe by your post.
Socialism is the only path right now for America if we want to avoid the dystopian world I believe we are headed for -- and ending the "dollars = votes" lobbying system. Do people honestly think most people will be able to have a decent income in the labor force 10 years from now? Self-driving cars means self-driving trucks and taxis. We can't even count on fast food burger flipping. Free education and healthcare aren't even enough to deal with the indentured servitude we will be facing.
PS. I'm not sure why I'm making these comments in a discussion of String Theory.
Streaming is dolling out compressed data (usually video or audio) at a rate that the connection and underlying network can consistently deliver, although congestion can cause momentary reductions. So you watch the video, without downloading everything. Downloading requires the entire file, and the data rate fluctuates but can move faster than the guaranteed average data rate that streaming uses -- and it can usually pass more data, especially with a congested connection.
iTunes can allow you to stream music WHILE you are downloading it. So you are left with a complete file -- not a cache of a segment of it. A lot of streaming services don't allow you to save the file and I'm guessing they hash or destroy the cache, which you'll notice when you skip to a prior moment of the stream and you have to wait for it to download enough to buffer, which is the caching of enough data to play at the current guaranteed bandwidth (I'm pretty sure the other term for this QOS; Quality Of Service).
This new Slashdot crowd is making feel a lot smarter than the old Slashdot crowd.
And in case people are missing what "DAT" files means; Digital Audio Tape. it's using a magnetic tape to store Digital Information and was orginally intended as a new audio standard, didn't catch on, and became a way to back up computer files (usually SLOWLY). It's like people thinking that HDMI has higher resolution than the 15 pin RGB cables or DVI. I'm at a loss for any real comparison other HDMI was intended to create a standard AND include DRM (seems they abandoned this because people could just use a TOR for the video and audio and like DRM on a DVD, it just added more costs and support headaches) -- there is likely an upper bandwidth, but I'm not sure what that would be for any of them. Even Vinyl or Cassette Tapes, which are analog, can be used to store digital information -- you just have to encode it a different way, with more checksums and smaller chunks likely, and it isn't as efficient (but it was cheaper). I remember when DAT was expensive, I spent $300 to get a 40 meg external SCSI hard drive and the major investment where I worked was a device that could make a CD-ROM to be used as a master for duplication.
CDs killed vinyl just as surely as digital has killed CDs. That a few holdouts still use them does not make them any less dead as a mainstream medium. You can still ride a horse if you like, and once a year a significant number of people even watch a horse race. That does not mean that the automobile did not kill the horse.
There is a lot of self righteous Nerdiness that will lambast this comment. Whatever confusion this poster might have regarding Analog vs. Digital, I'm more worried about the extinction of horses, how cars have been killing them, and how riding a horse and watching a horse is a good analogy for digital to analog. If the horse has a bowel movement is that a core dump? -- and If I don't watch it, will I have a checksum error? The mind boggles.
I don't have the Geek cred of many here, but I still do learn a lot even while I see more jokes and errors than before. Slashdot changes, and we embrace the buggy whip again, because it's very Steam Punk.
Liberals don't receive any more money from government than do Conservatives. I can't speak for everyone, but WE don't ask for "bigger government" just to get more -- a lot of us might not get welfare. We just have a bigger tribe; meaning, we care about things beyond our family, team, church, country. People. None of us want "more regulations" -- just the RIGHT ones. You know who sponsors most of the regulations? Big companies. You know who does MOST of the Medicare fraud? About 70% or more (if memory serves) by large institutions. "Big" government means nothing. There are about 1 million people employed due to Bush (OK, half of them, maybe) who are in the security, intelligence, and other cloak and dagger organizations. I want that to shrink because MY THEORY of human behavior is the best security is being fair to people and they will not blow you up because they have a shared future and a stake in the community they are now a part of. It's not 100% perfect, but it's a lot better (with historic justification) than the security via intimidation and heavy handed law enforcement.
"view it as a humanitarian crisis so you can convince yourselves (ie rationalize) you are doing the right thing despite fleecing citizens through idiotic taxes, regulations, etc." None of those whine points have much to do with each other. How is Climate Change NOT going to cause a humanitarian crisis? People who can't eat or who are displaced by rising tides or drought will go where they can survive. Not being able to live is a Humanitarian issue, a million people migrating is a crisis. Regardless of "Liberalism" or "Democrat" -- it's going to happen.
"idiotic taxes, regulations, etc. whose costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies." So by this logic, no taxes and no regulations would make things great. I don't like idiotic taxes. Government pays 54% of the bill for medical care in this country, and we spend about 4 times more per person than Germany. I'd much rather pay about 10% more in taxes and stop fearing sickness or retirement. So we pay MORE to get crap. Your co-pay usually is the real value of the service, and the Insurance companies negotiate and pay, then charge the doctors and hospitals more for insurance and pay radio show hosts to talk about torte reform. If they were good for the system; why would they have incredibly huge profits? Paying less than you paid for the insurance is how you make profit. It's an idiotic system. Hospitals also can vary over 9 times in cost for the same procedure -- the competitive market to lower costs is not in effect.
What's idiotic is those Republicans who think they can have two Santa Klaus's. They can get stuff which they happily take advantage of, and not pay for it. Patriotism and fairy dust solves everything. So while you might hear about this or that wasteful boondoggle -- just understand those are tiny fractions of the budget, and usually it's due to a politician paying back a supporter on the country dime. Like the Republicans just in office paying 10X more for mercenaries and failing consultants to provide services that the military provided. That raked in a lot of cash. Just tell us where you would cut the budget to reduce the stupid. Would you let seniors die of starvation or go homeless? You want to shut down the military? How about roads and water? Education? Law enforcement? I mean, seriously, can you just look at a budget sometime and not see that things are allocated for things you get a benefit from?
"costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies." If something costs a certain amount, and every company gets charged the same amount, it becomes the cost of business. IF the costs get passed on, then people will need higher wages, companies that depend on Oil or whatever will raise prices. It's been shown that over time, it creates no real burden as the market adjusts to the higher prices of whatever good. Less oil might be used.
Of course you can group things together with the same preface and have a rhetorical argument.
Snowden is not a terrorist, because we know from WikiLeaks that most of this information is available for purchase via third parties who get databases full of information about Americans. Other intelligence agencies likely know all about the internal spying, but he spooked the public and corporations not in the know. Plus, he isn't spreading fear for an agenda: we have news agencies who do far more of that.
Keynesian theory is really sound, and has been maligned by Globalists and Fascists, and people who tank economies. Printing more money is about the Fed, which arguable could be called "collectivist banking organization". Print no money or too much? More bad?
The next sentence makes no sense, "corporate collectivism"? Just throwing that word in doesn't help all the self contradictions, of course. Democratic collectivism might be a term for Socialism. When we had more of that, our economy was booming, so you'll have to site some examples of any time in history when we had MORE of a free market and the economy wasn't tanking. The banks had a free market in 2008 and just before the prior great depression. And the collapse of the dollar before that -- we've had to reissue the currency a few times BTW. And the history of the awesome free market in the USA being awesome is between 1940 and 1980, so, this is like a global warming chart where you use two points to make a trend line.
The Federal Reserve Bank is not part of the government like the US Mint. They DO manipulate the economy, and by extension the market. Not sure if they are printing a lot or a little money right now but the interest rate being low is due to deleveraging of the economic catastrophe in 2008 -- when the free market tanked banking.
Why would corporate collectivists (fascists?) hand the economy over to Democratic Socialists (the only example of democratic collectivism I've ever seen is on Star Trek, so I'm taking a guess here)? Total free markets and private property ALWAYS tank an economy -- see; history. We are far too close to "free market" right now, which is why wages have been stagnant. I'm sure too collectivist and it would tank -- but we've never been there.
New rules and regulations, that is what makes a nation productive. This is usually a sign of a Libertarian child. All rules and regulations are not bad nor good. The correct rules and regulations are awesome. If you have no rules and regulations, you can't have a marketplace, nor an infrastructure. Not having building codes in Haiti means a level 4 earthquake can level a city. Too many and you have expensive buildings like California. Like Socialism, and salt, you need a little but not too much.
Of course, you could be sarcastically using double negatives. I agree with you that terrorism is blowing things up to scare people, but that also describes our military,
It's just asymmetric warfare.
I wasn't huge on stock investing, but I did pretty well. The few horrible choices I made was Sun Microsystems and Lucent. I thought of all my choices, Lucent was the hands down safest bet. They were a spin-off of Bell Labs with some of the smartest people in the business. They OWNED the market for Fiber Optic -- and heck, AT&T was a shoe-in for a captive market. The got rid of the fat, and had nothing but muscle.
When their stock tanked, I asked someone at Lucent years later what was wrong. He replied; "management." If it was Carly at the helm during that period -- well, I detect a pattern. It might show savvy if she were a corporate pillager and rented Lucent's property back to them, but if she was TRYING to make them successful? My disrespect for her has grown. Can't the Republicans find a greedy bastard with an IQ? Do they all HAVE to be lipstick on a pig? I digress...
It seems AT&T will be using that twisted pair crap in U=verse and all their other data systems until we have people on Mars. They've got a few million miles of the stuff so -- no need for fiber. Everyone else looking at a new installation; fiber. But AT&T will just multiplex that copper crap and hope nobody demands too much bandwidth. I'm sure for a few larger customers they've done fiber.
Anyway, I bought Apple at $19 per share around the time Steve Jobs came back (after learning his lessons at NeXT), and sold everything August 2008 when the Reserve Requirement went to zero. Sure I should have held onto it, but all the other stock took a beating that too many were surprised by.
I thought we needed 8 essential minerals + Titanium in our breakfast serials -- has this changed? It's the other white mineral, after all. Like Turkey but without the additives of meat.
It's amazing the Nigerians even have to trick you to give them your bank account number. I suppose it's nice the Russian mob shows restraint and doesn't just rip EVERYONE off.
My MacBook Pro 13" can display a max resolution of 3360 x 2100. It's kind of useless to switch to this resolution (you'll need a 3rd party utility to do so -- I use SwitchRez X, but you can also do it via the terminal if you are handy). I suppose it's useful if you plug in an external monitor. I think they've updated this model. The top end 15" could probably be much higher than that -- but again, why? You'd need a magnifying glass to make that useful.
The latest MacBook Pro at about $1800 has these specs; 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz 8GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 memory 512GB PCIe-based flash storage1 Intel Iris Graphics 6100 Built-in battery (10 hours)2 Force Touch trackpad
If you max out at $2500, well you get; 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 Turbo Boost up to 3.7GHz 16GB 1600MHz memory 512GB PCIe-based flash storage1 Intel Iris Pro Graphics AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5 memory Built-in battery (9 hours)2 Force Touch trackpad
BTW the PCIe-based flash storage is faster than almost any RAID. Up to 4X the normal flash storage on the 512 GB models.
The battery specs are accurate, not sure about the competitors.
So while the Macs aren't the cheapest bang for the buck around - they tend to be more than just their specs. They remove the bottlenecks, whisper quiet, stable.
Though if I had the money, I'd go for the discrete graphics card. And I can't wait for the new OS, as Yosemite seems to not be as stable as Mavericks.
As far as TCO, I don't NEED to buy a lot of utilities, anti spyware and the like, or remove shovel-ware buried in my system. The average Windows user may spend less up front, but they seem miserable with a hybrid OS 8, trojan horses hijacking their system (my mother went through various apps like Kaspersky and never got her system working right).
But I'm not preaching -- I don't care. Use what you want. There are robust PCs but you pay for them -- so then you are left with the OS.
Most Native Americans were wiped out by Yellow Fever, Measles, Chicken Pox, Small Pox and other diseases the Europeans brought; https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... Same could be said for how the Conquistadors conquered the Aztecs and Mayans. Not military tactics or steel, just dirty, dirty bodies and the immune systems of the Europeans who didn't understand hygiene.
My opinion is that if the Indians had been less cultured, clean and understood medicine a little less, they would have kept the riff-raff from gaining a foothold. To get some perspective, the Indian cities in North America had higher populations than Europe. About 100 million in America vs. 50 million in all of Europe. It's believed that burning trees from Indian populations may have caused the little ice age in Europe -- so there might be karma at play.
It's ironic I'm getting answers from some Yahoo, and they didn't link to Slashdot for the answer.
You understand the Roads and the need for some kind of road building agency because you probably have driven a car.
You MIGHT understand the need for the NRC, because they make sure someone doesn't cut corners and blow you up -- or maybe you think industry would just do that.
Is there waste in these organizations? Maybe. Maybe some of them have been captured by their industries, like our energy resource oversight group that's run by a coal lobbyist.
You have no idea or appreciation for what bureaucrats do. But you turn on your tap and water comes out -- and most places without flame. And you can swim in the river, and you can walk clean streets, and you can I don't know, fly a kite in a park. I worked in marketing at a Financial Services company that sold expensive insurance products -- did I do anything more valuable than someone at any of this agencies in the scheme of things? No. An agency may or may not be useless -- but let's reduce the ones that do harm first -- and after we understand them.
The nature of the economy is that prosperity is NOT created by efficiency. We've lowered wages, pulled the caps off banks and how much a CEO can make and I make less than my dad did 40 years ago. I don't want to live in a corrupt cesspool of government waste any more than a dog-eat-dog free market. But Hell, I'm more worried about being eaten by dogs right now.
The "Fed's Business" is to help Americans prosper. And people employed by these agencies are Americans too -- Beyond that, they might actually provide services that industry might use but NOT invest in in the short term. They might regulate things so that resources are not abused. If nobody regulates fishing -- one company can capture all the shrimp and next years harvest.
I just saw a rationale for an Oil pipeline that would make "thousands of jobs." it would pollute the world, and almost all the profits would pass away through a tax free port in Texas. And then we find it would create about 50 permanent jobs because; hey it's just a big pipe!
Honestly, I just don't know everything about all those agencies do. But I have an inking that you have less of an idea of what purpose they serve and have no idea how you benefit. So why are you bothering everyone with unresearched and unverified data? It's useless ranting.
I realize the irony of making my comment about opinions, and not bringing research -- but that's the bar we've lowered this to, why bother? Whose going to read the well researched links? People without a clue, spouting opinions, and getting voted up by other low information people because it "sounds right" to them.
People getting modded to 5 should have said something I didn't know, something really funny, something inspiring, or something epic. This was just a laundry list of stuff someone doesn't know. "Big government bashing" because you don't know shit about the country you live in nor appreciate that the bridges and pipes are not being replaced and we are coasting on infrastructure created by socialists -- but again, that's my opinion that I could back up with facts and links. War and giant space projects and security is ironically, also government and just as prone to abuse as any other branch.
As I read this comment, without logic or support, it's moderated to a 5 -- on Slashdot???
What's the deal here that moronic comments are getting a 5? Are NeoCons and Tea Baggers chasing off all the people with brains now?
I came to Slashdot because there are geeks here who know a lot more than me. I'd offer an opinion with temerity and respect because it was very likely someone would inform me why X, Y and Z were incorrect, and tell me HOW they derived their conclusions.
Now I feel above average for the wrong reasons, and I have to make useless comments to people who made useless comments.
We need to go into space for national pride -- I get that. But screw off with your half baked, Rush Limbaugh derived talking points. You take the glorious image of bases on the moon or mars, and then throw in your own agenda for screwing over the poor --- as if they wanted to live in constant anxiety about paying the rent and buying food.
It's not a valid connection, and taking care of the Citizens of the USA is the prime justification for the Existence of our Government. Or go to some fascist country where they eat their young, get out of mine.
Pay a living wage and tax super earners and you won't have to complain about "throwing money at the poor."
In fact, the Great Society and the New Deal mostly did fix the problem; people were dying. Old folks were freezing to death. Before the Reagan era, the Homeless problem was almost nonexistent. To be fair; Carter did release a lot of people from mental institutions with no alternative -- but those institutions were pretty messed up warehouses, I'd dare say walking the streets was a better life for a schizophrenic.
Why does the space race have to come out of money we give TO PEOPLE? Take it from war, or handouts to the wealthy. How about not having a bank collapse we have to shell out for every twenty years?
How do you figure $21 Trillion? Is Social Security included? Because people MOSTLY pay into that. Also, workers comp and unemployment insurance; you pay for it when you work.
If the disparity between low paid and high paid weren't over a 1000x, then you MIGHT have a point. But really, no. There are a lot more people trying to get a fair wage than a handout. And I'll be programming, creating digital media and working my butt off for less than the Median wage. People with $200,000 college degrees now are working for $30,000.
They'll need handouts too like food stamps -- and you can inflate that $21 Trillion figure further. And tell us how social programs don't work. Because this is an economy designed for the CEO, not the po.
I find it interesting that he has the same conclusion despite finding that his statistical basis for the prior conclusion is wrong. Different input, same answer; Damn foreigners!
If you get rid of cheap foreign labor, crops get picked by higher paid Americans or easy to fix super cheap robots. OK, we don't have super cheap robots yet, so prices would go up.
This guy talks about the lawless Mexicans and their government. Well, we could decriminalize drugs and bankrupt those horrible cartels down South. We could change the terms in our trade agreements that we will apply tariffs to items that do not pay higher wages and guarantee worker safety. Good jobs in Mexico -- people stay. Good jobs in Brazil -- people stay.
Rather than threatening them with weapons -- a real diplomat with the trading power of America could certainly FORCE countries to do better by their people.
The problem with the border is completely fixable, but the will is not there because the problem is very PROFITABLE to Archer Daniels Midland, hotel people like Trump, and food processors, sweatshops, developers, and politicians who rabble rouse to do something macho about the situation and get paid by industry to do NOTHING to resolve the situation. If you just closed the doors on companies or at least confiscated a lot of their money for hiring illegals -- that would prevent people from entering.
But do we WANT to really stop them from entering, when they do so much work, don't get SS or workers comp, and stimulate the economy with little fuss? I mean; other than my ideas of fairness and empathy, why am I bothering to stop this? -- I'm not going to pick strawberries. I have no direct down-side to the Latins crossing the border. If they commit a crime against me, I might change my mind. But it's hard to believe that all the "build a wall with the border" folks have all been mugged.
The only people REALLY getting screwed here and living in danger and fear are the poor people coming to the US for the opportunity to feed their families.
That's it! Play the race card! The first and last resort of everyone who pretends they can't tell the difference between genetics and culture.
It's really worrisome that you bring up genetics and culture. The "criminal element" from Mexico wasn't a problem a few years ago. But how does a person with no education rise up in Mexico without drug trade or kidnapping? Apologies to anyone more familiar with Mexico and perhaps easy to obtain McDonald's franchises.
The people who talk about "Genetic dispositions or superiority" are thinking of breeds of dogs. Dachshunds and Greyhounds have very different, and consistent profiles. The variance in people is far, far less. There is more genetic difference between tribes in Africa, than between whites and blacks in the USA. So humans are like the difference between Labrador and Golden retrievers. I'm comprised of lawless Irish blood, invading Welsh heritage, and a smattering of crazy French. Yet here I am, not running raids into Mexico. Maybe my circumstances have more influence -- who knows?
There are genetic disorders that can very much affect performance of specific people.
But why does Trump (who has lots of Latins working in his hotels for low wages) and people like yourself, worry so much about Mexico? Were not teaming with crime -- except in places where kids get sucked into gangs.
Really, I think we can follow the rise in gangs with the decrease in Unions. Parents are away at work or have broken homes, and the kids see little future and a subsistence living.
Years ago, I was working at a Convention for my company in Vegas. The loading dock and floor were controlled by young men who were all from the Crips gang. The guy who coordinated workers for our convention sat down with the leader at a lunch table that I happened to sit down at without any clue as to the "danger". This guy was Latino if memory serves, and he was covered with Tattoos -- big and muscular. You know what we talked about? Whether his son would be in a gang in the future, economic prospects for his family, and how to have a good quality of life. I respected him (as I do everyone I meet, regardless) and he respected me.
The coordinator told me they paid a "bribe" to the Crips in order that they not rob us during the convention. ON balance, it was a little less than what we'd pay for Union labor in a Chicago convention.
So if this guy had a stable union job, he and his kids might not have to join gangs to have influence. To me, it's always a balance of power and if people can't get fairness legally -- they move outside the law.
If people really want a happy and harmonious America, it starts with not exploiting people and giving everyone a shared interest in being part of society. If people have nothing to lose -- they are dangerous.
You know who reports almost all Muslim extremists who might do damage? Muslims who live in America. The best way to keep Mexicans from being a threat is to put them in a home with a mortgage and a fear of losing the good deal they've got by breaking things.
It works every time. Shared prosperity and opportunity.
The "illegals" are employed by someone in the USA. So we can solve that problem by punishing the companies that hire -- not the poor shmoe who just wanted to feed his/her family.
It's US policies that prop up governments that have high disparities of income that cause this problem. Now we might not BE the government -- but, well, I probably won't get you to follow down that road. Best to stick to humanity 101 before the tough courses.
*Pew Research reports that only 4% of Central American illegals in the US actually work in agriculture* Did someone do the stats for "how many produce pickers are NOT from Latin America working as migrant workers or illegals?" Because if you kick them all out -- they'll have to hire all these lazy people who want a living wage and health benefits, and maybe, not to die in the fields.
And the hotels, food processing, and such -- they are also a "small percent of illegals" however, if you ask the question the other way; "What percentage of Chicken Nuggets is produced by illegal Latin Americans?" What are the stats on that?
I just removed some choice comments that should not be part of a "discussion" that should remain congenial. But people like you really try my patience, you really do.
But one good quote out of so much dreck is not a redemption of an elitist hack. The smart people and engineers aren't being burdened by the dumb and the poor -- they are being exploited by the owner class.
And Atlas Shrugged would have been better if Rand had had raining fetuses. Keep with a good shtick.
If we don't TRY, we will have no credibility when asking other countries to improve their technology.
Also, by trying to improve our technology, we will learn some things we didn't know how to do.
China is very interested in improving efficiency and reducing pollution; they really can't go on with the smog they have. We could be exporting solutions and services to them.
Not doing anything will cost us more; in credibility, in scientific advancement, economically, and of course jobs. It's going to be the #1 source of new jobs or mercenary will be the number one source of new jobs as we cause damage to crops and flood coastal areas.
This point is really the crux of the matter. But the larger point is; why have companies try and "attack" or hack someone who hacked them? Wouldn't they also then be guilty of hacking?
Did anyone really think this through?
The simple solution is to have an offensive hacking team, and have companies JUST CALL the experts and present their proof. Every company cannot be an expert, will not be an expert and can't afford to be an expert.
I used to believe this BEFORE i joined Linked-In. After many years of my eternal search for a living wage in America, I decided I might as well bight the bullet and see if there was any value in Linked-IN.
Now I KNOW for a fact that I'm just being shot-gunned by recruiters -- before that it was just a theory.
However, if no recruiters are actually hiring anyone they find on Linked-In, how long before they realize it's just a place for them to blow smoke and dangle promising job opportunities in front of desperate people who go through 600 emails a day?
Slashdot Mirror
I Believe the Mexican police or Federalis have this practice. We might start with the "get the bad guy assets" of course to fight crime and hit the bad guy where it hurts. Eventually, it becomes good funding to enhance law enforcement. Since we still have SOME infrastructure, then people get the idea we can cut taxes without looking at what that means and suddenly the forfeiture becomes a replacement for taxes -- just like a Lottery. And guess who pays more in both "let's not tax" system? You get a cookie if you guessed the poor. People who plead guilty for a lesser punishment because they can't afford to fight any charges -- and before you say it, In Georgia, you have to pay to get a public defender and even then they are too overburdened to do anything but get an automatic reduction -- something any lawyer gets just for showing up.
Well, without getting too far into a rant on how bogus our court system is where the poor are 95% automagically guilty. Eventually the police will just be shaking down people for a fee, or they loser their cars based on "might be used to do something wrong." There are too police who want to make people feel awful. I know when we criticize the police, we throw out that bone that "most police are good" -- I don't think thamanyt's true. Good people with even a little savvy, couldn't in good conscience throw someone in jail for using or selling weed, or for using or being a Prostitute. The people who can afford call girls -- are THEY getting thrown in jail? No. The same downtrodden who procure streeetwalkers are the target. And the best way to get arrested is to hurt the feelings of the cops.
People of good conscience would be squeezed out over time, because the last thing crooked people want is honest people who might turn them in. Civil forfeiture is just one of those things you get a Banana Republic. I feel like our Supreme Court has done an excellent job in this regard.
I'm certainly not a Liberal, because I remember growing up with them and they were very tactful, never spoke in sweeping generalizations, and were polite. I'm just not happy enough nor educated enough to be a true Liberal. I don't quote Keats nor do I have one sweater vest (OK, just the one).
I'm a Progressive. I'm a pissed of Liberal who believes in Democratic Socialism and enough to make sure nobody slips through the cracks but not centralized planning or a perfectly level playing field that Communism requires (note: Communism does not require central planning). I know we have to guarantee rights and I think going back to stronger restrictions on corporations, as the Founding Fathers intended, is an absolute necessity.
If you did not intend the meaning that your words implied, I apologize, But what I said still applies to what impression most people would construe by your post.
Socialism is the only path right now for America if we want to avoid the dystopian world I believe we are headed for -- and ending the "dollars = votes" lobbying system. Do people honestly think most people will be able to have a decent income in the labor force 10 years from now? Self-driving cars means self-driving trucks and taxis. We can't even count on fast food burger flipping. Free education and healthcare aren't even enough to deal with the indentured servitude we will be facing.
PS.
I'm not sure why I'm making these comments in a discussion of String Theory.
Streaming is dolling out compressed data (usually video or audio) at a rate that the connection and underlying network can consistently deliver, although congestion can cause momentary reductions. So you watch the video, without downloading everything. Downloading requires the entire file, and the data rate fluctuates but can move faster than the guaranteed average data rate that streaming uses -- and it can usually pass more data, especially with a congested connection.
iTunes can allow you to stream music WHILE you are downloading it. So you are left with a complete file -- not a cache of a segment of it. A lot of streaming services don't allow you to save the file and I'm guessing they hash or destroy the cache, which you'll notice when you skip to a prior moment of the stream and you have to wait for it to download enough to buffer, which is the caching of enough data to play at the current guaranteed bandwidth (I'm pretty sure the other term for this QOS; Quality Of Service).
This new Slashdot crowd is making feel a lot smarter than the old Slashdot crowd.
And in case people are missing what "DAT" files means; Digital Audio Tape. it's using a magnetic tape to store Digital Information and was orginally intended as a new audio standard, didn't catch on, and became a way to back up computer files (usually SLOWLY). It's like people thinking that HDMI has higher resolution than the 15 pin RGB cables or DVI. I'm at a loss for any real comparison other HDMI was intended to create a standard AND include DRM (seems they abandoned this because people could just use a TOR for the video and audio and like DRM on a DVD, it just added more costs and support headaches) -- there is likely an upper bandwidth, but I'm not sure what that would be for any of them. Even Vinyl or Cassette Tapes, which are analog, can be used to store digital information -- you just have to encode it a different way, with more checksums and smaller chunks likely, and it isn't as efficient (but it was cheaper). I remember when DAT was expensive, I spent $300 to get a 40 meg external SCSI hard drive and the major investment where I worked was a device that could make a CD-ROM to be used as a master for duplication.
Oh what was I talking about? Get off my lawn!
CDs killed vinyl just as surely as digital has killed CDs. That a few holdouts still use them does not make them any less dead as a mainstream medium. You can still ride a horse if you like, and once a year a significant number of people even watch a horse race. That does not mean that the automobile did not kill the horse.
There is a lot of self righteous Nerdiness that will lambast this comment. Whatever confusion this poster might have regarding Analog vs. Digital, I'm more worried about the extinction of horses, how cars have been killing them, and how riding a horse and watching a horse is a good analogy for digital to analog. If the horse has a bowel movement is that a core dump? -- and If I don't watch it, will I have a checksum error? The mind boggles.
I don't have the Geek cred of many here, but I still do learn a lot even while I see more jokes and errors than before. Slashdot changes, and we embrace the buggy whip again, because it's very Steam Punk.
I'm so excited that modern science has started to use nano-particles. In the past, we'd just use molecules and atoms in chemistry and metallurgy.
From the perspective of the Silicon nano-particles, that Magnesium must be HUGE.
Everything you said just annoys me.
Liberals don't receive any more money from government than do Conservatives. I can't speak for everyone, but WE don't ask for "bigger government" just to get more -- a lot of us might not get welfare. We just have a bigger tribe; meaning, we care about things beyond our family, team, church, country. People. None of us want "more regulations" -- just the RIGHT ones. You know who sponsors most of the regulations? Big companies. You know who does MOST of the Medicare fraud? About 70% or more (if memory serves) by large institutions. "Big" government means nothing. There are about 1 million people employed due to Bush (OK, half of them, maybe) who are in the security, intelligence, and other cloak and dagger organizations. I want that to shrink because MY THEORY of human behavior is the best security is being fair to people and they will not blow you up because they have a shared future and a stake in the community they are now a part of. It's not 100% perfect, but it's a lot better (with historic justification) than the security via intimidation and heavy handed law enforcement.
"view it as a humanitarian crisis so you can convince yourselves (ie rationalize) you are doing the right thing despite fleecing citizens through idiotic taxes, regulations, etc." None of those whine points have much to do with each other. How is Climate Change NOT going to cause a humanitarian crisis? People who can't eat or who are displaced by rising tides or drought will go where they can survive. Not being able to live is a Humanitarian issue, a million people migrating is a crisis. Regardless of "Liberalism" or "Democrat" -- it's going to happen.
"idiotic taxes, regulations, etc. whose costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies."
So by this logic, no taxes and no regulations would make things great. I don't like idiotic taxes. Government pays 54% of the bill for medical care in this country, and we spend about 4 times more per person than Germany. I'd much rather pay about 10% more in taxes and stop fearing sickness or retirement. So we pay MORE to get crap. Your co-pay usually is the real value of the service, and the Insurance companies negotiate and pay, then charge the doctors and hospitals more for insurance and pay radio show hosts to talk about torte reform. If they were good for the system; why would they have incredibly huge profits? Paying less than you paid for the insurance is how you make profit. It's an idiotic system. Hospitals also can vary over 9 times in cost for the same procedure -- the competitive market to lower costs is not in effect.
What's idiotic is those Republicans who think they can have two Santa Klaus's. They can get stuff which they happily take advantage of, and not pay for it. Patriotism and fairy dust solves everything. So while you might hear about this or that wasteful boondoggle -- just understand those are tiny fractions of the budget, and usually it's due to a politician paying back a supporter on the country dime. Like the Republicans just in office paying 10X more for mercenaries and failing consultants to provide services that the military provided. That raked in a lot of cash. Just tell us where you would cut the budget to reduce the stupid. Would you let seniors die of starvation or go homeless? You want to shut down the military? How about roads and water? Education? Law enforcement? I mean, seriously, can you just look at a budget sometime and not see that things are allocated for things you get a benefit from?
"costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies."
If something costs a certain amount, and every company gets charged the same amount, it becomes the cost of business. IF the costs get passed on, then people will need higher wages, companies that depend on Oil or whatever will raise prices. It's been shown that over time, it creates no real burden as the market adjusts to the higher prices of whatever good. Less oil might be used.
On the other hand, if th
Of course you can group things together with the same preface and have a rhetorical argument.
Snowden is not a terrorist, because we know from WikiLeaks that most of this information is available for purchase via third parties who get databases full of information about Americans. Other intelligence agencies likely know all about the internal spying, but he spooked the public and corporations not in the know. Plus, he isn't spreading fear for an agenda: we have news agencies who do far more of that.
Keynesian theory is really sound, and has been maligned by Globalists and Fascists, and people who tank economies. Printing more money is about the Fed, which arguable could be called "collectivist banking organization". Print no money or too much? More bad?
The next sentence makes no sense, "corporate collectivism"? Just throwing that word in doesn't help all the self contradictions, of course. Democratic collectivism might be a term for Socialism. When we had more of that, our economy was booming, so you'll have to site some examples of any time in history when we had MORE of a free market and the economy wasn't tanking. The banks had a free market in 2008 and just before the prior great depression. And the collapse of the dollar before that -- we've had to reissue the currency a few times BTW. And the history of the awesome free market in the USA being awesome is between 1940 and 1980, so, this is like a global warming chart where you use two points to make a trend line.
The Federal Reserve Bank is not part of the government like the US Mint. They DO manipulate the economy, and by extension the market. Not sure if they are printing a lot or a little money right now but the interest rate being low is due to deleveraging of the economic catastrophe in 2008 -- when the free market tanked banking.
Why would corporate collectivists (fascists?) hand the economy over to Democratic Socialists (the only example of democratic collectivism I've ever seen is on Star Trek, so I'm taking a guess here)? Total free markets and private property ALWAYS tank an economy -- see; history. We are far too close to "free market" right now, which is why wages have been stagnant. I'm sure too collectivist and it would tank -- but we've never been there.
New rules and regulations, that is what makes a nation productive. This is usually a sign of a Libertarian child. All rules and regulations are not bad nor good. The correct rules and regulations are awesome. If you have no rules and regulations, you can't have a marketplace, nor an infrastructure. Not having building codes in Haiti means a level 4 earthquake can level a city. Too many and you have expensive buildings like California. Like Socialism, and salt, you need a little but not too much.
Of course, you could be sarcastically using double negatives. I agree with you that terrorism is blowing things up to scare people, but that also describes our military,
It's just asymmetric warfare.
I wasn't huge on stock investing, but I did pretty well. The few horrible choices I made was Sun Microsystems and Lucent. I thought of all my choices, Lucent was the hands down safest bet. They were a spin-off of Bell Labs with some of the smartest people in the business. They OWNED the market for Fiber Optic -- and heck, AT&T was a shoe-in for a captive market. The got rid of the fat, and had nothing but muscle.
When their stock tanked, I asked someone at Lucent years later what was wrong. He replied; "management." If it was Carly at the helm during that period -- well, I detect a pattern. It might show savvy if she were a corporate pillager and rented Lucent's property back to them, but if she was TRYING to make them successful? My disrespect for her has grown. Can't the Republicans find a greedy bastard with an IQ? Do they all HAVE to be lipstick on a pig? I digress...
It seems AT&T will be using that twisted pair crap in U=verse and all their other data systems until we have people on Mars. They've got a few million miles of the stuff so -- no need for fiber. Everyone else looking at a new installation; fiber. But AT&T will just multiplex that copper crap and hope nobody demands too much bandwidth. I'm sure for a few larger customers they've done fiber.
Anyway, I bought Apple at $19 per share around the time Steve Jobs came back (after learning his lessons at NeXT), and sold everything August 2008 when the Reserve Requirement went to zero. Sure I should have held onto it, but all the other stock took a beating that too many were surprised by.
I thought we needed 8 essential minerals + Titanium in our breakfast serials -- has this changed? It's the other white mineral, after all. Like Turkey but without the additives of meat.
...and?
It's amazing the Nigerians even have to trick you to give them your bank account number. I suppose it's nice the Russian mob shows restraint and doesn't just rip EVERYONE off.
So what you are saying is; the moon is a harder place to survive.
If you can survive on the moon -- why would you NEED to over engineer for Mar? I'm not sure if you mean to refute your own statement or not.
My MacBook Pro 13" can display a max resolution of 3360 x 2100. It's kind of useless to switch to this resolution (you'll need a 3rd party utility to do so -- I use SwitchRez X, but you can also do it via the terminal if you are handy). I suppose it's useful if you plug in an external monitor. I think they've updated this model. The top end 15" could probably be much higher than that -- but again, why? You'd need a magnifying glass to make that useful.
The latest MacBook Pro at about $1800 has these specs;
2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics 6100
Built-in battery (10 hours)2
Force Touch trackpad
If you max out at $2500, well you get;
2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.7GHz
16GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Pro Graphics
AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (9 hours)2
Force Touch trackpad
BTW the PCIe-based flash storage is faster than almost any RAID. Up to 4X the normal flash storage on the 512 GB models.
The battery specs are accurate, not sure about the competitors.
So while the Macs aren't the cheapest bang for the buck around - they tend to be more than just their specs. They remove the bottlenecks, whisper quiet, stable.
Though if I had the money, I'd go for the discrete graphics card. And I can't wait for the new OS, as Yosemite seems to not be as stable as Mavericks.
As far as TCO, I don't NEED to buy a lot of utilities, anti spyware and the like, or remove shovel-ware buried in my system. The average Windows user may spend less up front, but they seem miserable with a hybrid OS 8, trojan horses hijacking their system (my mother went through various apps like Kaspersky and never got her system working right).
But I'm not preaching -- I don't care. Use what you want. There are robust PCs but you pay for them -- so then you are left with the OS.
Thanks for the correction on the Spanish. It's been a LOONG time since I was taking history.
Although, I do remember reading about other pandemics when the English arrived -- so maybe it was a one - two punch.
The Spaniards got into Florida and much of the SouthWest -- but that wasn't where most of the Indian population was.
The English foothold in the North East would never have happened without spreading disease.
The remaining populations were wiped out by Genocide that would make Hitler blush.
Most Native Americans were wiped out by Yellow Fever, Measles, Chicken Pox, Small Pox and other diseases the Europeans brought;
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Same could be said for how the Conquistadors conquered the Aztecs and Mayans. Not military tactics or steel, just dirty, dirty bodies and the immune systems of the Europeans who didn't understand hygiene.
My opinion is that if the Indians had been less cultured, clean and understood medicine a little less, they would have kept the riff-raff from gaining a foothold. To get some perspective, the Indian cities in North America had higher populations than Europe. About 100 million in America vs. 50 million in all of Europe. It's believed that burning trees from Indian populations may have caused the little ice age in Europe -- so there might be karma at play.
It's ironic I'm getting answers from some Yahoo, and they didn't link to Slashdot for the answer.
You understand the Roads and the need for some kind of road building agency because you probably have driven a car.
You MIGHT understand the need for the NRC, because they make sure someone doesn't cut corners and blow you up -- or maybe you think industry would just do that.
Is there waste in these organizations? Maybe. Maybe some of them have been captured by their industries, like our energy resource oversight group that's run by a coal lobbyist.
You have no idea or appreciation for what bureaucrats do. But you turn on your tap and water comes out -- and most places without flame. And you can swim in the river, and you can walk clean streets, and you can I don't know, fly a kite in a park. I worked in marketing at a Financial Services company that sold expensive insurance products -- did I do anything more valuable than someone at any of this agencies in the scheme of things? No. An agency may or may not be useless -- but let's reduce the ones that do harm first -- and after we understand them.
The nature of the economy is that prosperity is NOT created by efficiency. We've lowered wages, pulled the caps off banks and how much a CEO can make and I make less than my dad did 40 years ago. I don't want to live in a corrupt cesspool of government waste any more than a dog-eat-dog free market. But Hell, I'm more worried about being eaten by dogs right now.
The "Fed's Business" is to help Americans prosper. And people employed by these agencies are Americans too -- Beyond that, they might actually provide services that industry might use but NOT invest in in the short term. They might regulate things so that resources are not abused. If nobody regulates fishing -- one company can capture all the shrimp and next years harvest.
I just saw a rationale for an Oil pipeline that would make "thousands of jobs." it would pollute the world, and almost all the profits would pass away through a tax free port in Texas. And then we find it would create about 50 permanent jobs because; hey it's just a big pipe!
Honestly, I just don't know everything about all those agencies do. But I have an inking that you have less of an idea of what purpose they serve and have no idea how you benefit. So why are you bothering everyone with unresearched and unverified data? It's useless ranting.
I realize the irony of making my comment about opinions, and not bringing research -- but that's the bar we've lowered this to, why bother? Whose going to read the well researched links? People without a clue, spouting opinions, and getting voted up by other low information people because it "sounds right" to them.
People getting modded to 5 should have said something I didn't know, something really funny, something inspiring, or something epic. This was just a laundry list of stuff someone doesn't know. "Big government bashing" because you don't know shit about the country you live in nor appreciate that the bridges and pipes are not being replaced and we are coasting on infrastructure created by socialists -- but again, that's my opinion that I could back up with facts and links. War and giant space projects and security is ironically, also government and just as prone to abuse as any other branch.
As I read this comment, without logic or support, it's moderated to a 5 -- on Slashdot???
What's the deal here that moronic comments are getting a 5? Are NeoCons and Tea Baggers chasing off all the people with brains now?
I came to Slashdot because there are geeks here who know a lot more than me. I'd offer an opinion with temerity and respect because it was very likely someone would inform me why X, Y and Z were incorrect, and tell me HOW they derived their conclusions.
Now I feel above average for the wrong reasons, and I have to make useless comments to people who made useless comments.
We need to go into space for national pride -- I get that. But screw off with your half baked, Rush Limbaugh derived talking points. You take the glorious image of bases on the moon or mars, and then throw in your own agenda for screwing over the poor --- as if they wanted to live in constant anxiety about paying the rent and buying food.
It's not a valid connection, and taking care of the Citizens of the USA is the prime justification for the Existence of our Government. Or go to some fascist country where they eat their young, get out of mine.
Pay a living wage and tax super earners and you won't have to complain about "throwing money at the poor."
In fact, the Great Society and the New Deal mostly did fix the problem; people were dying. Old folks were freezing to death. Before the Reagan era, the Homeless problem was almost nonexistent. To be fair; Carter did release a lot of people from mental institutions with no alternative -- but those institutions were pretty messed up warehouses, I'd dare say walking the streets was a better life for a schizophrenic.
Why does the space race have to come out of money we give TO PEOPLE? Take it from war, or handouts to the wealthy. How about not having a bank collapse we have to shell out for every twenty years?
How do you figure $21 Trillion? Is Social Security included? Because people MOSTLY pay into that. Also, workers comp and unemployment insurance; you pay for it when you work.
If the disparity between low paid and high paid weren't over a 1000x, then you MIGHT have a point. But really, no. There are a lot more people trying to get a fair wage than a handout. And I'll be programming, creating digital media and working my butt off for less than the Median wage. People with $200,000 college degrees now are working for $30,000.
They'll need handouts too like food stamps -- and you can inflate that $21 Trillion figure further. And tell us how social programs don't work. Because this is an economy designed for the CEO, not the po.
I find it interesting that he has the same conclusion despite finding that his statistical basis for the prior conclusion is wrong. Different input, same answer; Damn foreigners!
If you get rid of cheap foreign labor, crops get picked by higher paid Americans or easy to fix super cheap robots. OK, we don't have super cheap robots yet, so prices would go up.
This guy talks about the lawless Mexicans and their government. Well, we could decriminalize drugs and bankrupt those horrible cartels down South. We could change the terms in our trade agreements that we will apply tariffs to items that do not pay higher wages and guarantee worker safety. Good jobs in Mexico -- people stay. Good jobs in Brazil -- people stay.
Rather than threatening them with weapons -- a real diplomat with the trading power of America could certainly FORCE countries to do better by their people.
The problem with the border is completely fixable, but the will is not there because the problem is very PROFITABLE to Archer Daniels Midland, hotel people like Trump, and food processors, sweatshops, developers, and politicians who rabble rouse to do something macho about the situation and get paid by industry to do NOTHING to resolve the situation. If you just closed the doors on companies or at least confiscated a lot of their money for hiring illegals -- that would prevent people from entering.
But do we WANT to really stop them from entering, when they do so much work, don't get SS or workers comp, and stimulate the economy with little fuss? I mean; other than my ideas of fairness and empathy, why am I bothering to stop this? -- I'm not going to pick strawberries. I have no direct down-side to the Latins crossing the border. If they commit a crime against me, I might change my mind. But it's hard to believe that all the "build a wall with the border" folks have all been mugged.
The only people REALLY getting screwed here and living in danger and fear are the poor people coming to the US for the opportunity to feed their families.
That's it! Play the race card! The first and last resort of everyone who pretends they can't tell the difference between genetics and culture.
It's really worrisome that you bring up genetics and culture. The "criminal element" from Mexico wasn't a problem a few years ago. But how does a person with no education rise up in Mexico without drug trade or kidnapping? Apologies to anyone more familiar with Mexico and perhaps easy to obtain McDonald's franchises.
The people who talk about "Genetic dispositions or superiority" are thinking of breeds of dogs. Dachshunds and Greyhounds have very different, and consistent profiles. The variance in people is far, far less. There is more genetic difference between tribes in Africa, than between whites and blacks in the USA. So humans are like the difference between Labrador and Golden retrievers. I'm comprised of lawless Irish blood, invading Welsh heritage, and a smattering of crazy French. Yet here I am, not running raids into Mexico. Maybe my circumstances have more influence -- who knows?
There are genetic disorders that can very much affect performance of specific people.
But why does Trump (who has lots of Latins working in his hotels for low wages) and people like yourself, worry so much about Mexico? Were not teaming with crime -- except in places where kids get sucked into gangs.
Really, I think we can follow the rise in gangs with the decrease in Unions. Parents are away at work or have broken homes, and the kids see little future and a subsistence living.
Years ago, I was working at a Convention for my company in Vegas. The loading dock and floor were controlled by young men who were all from the Crips gang. The guy who coordinated workers for our convention sat down with the leader at a lunch table that I happened to sit down at without any clue as to the "danger". This guy was Latino if memory serves, and he was covered with Tattoos -- big and muscular. You know what we talked about? Whether his son would be in a gang in the future, economic prospects for his family, and how to have a good quality of life. I respected him (as I do everyone I meet, regardless) and he respected me.
The coordinator told me they paid a "bribe" to the Crips in order that they not rob us during the convention. ON balance, it was a little less than what we'd pay for Union labor in a Chicago convention.
So if this guy had a stable union job, he and his kids might not have to join gangs to have influence. To me, it's always a balance of power and if people can't get fairness legally -- they move outside the law.
If people really want a happy and harmonious America, it starts with not exploiting people and giving everyone a shared interest in being part of society. If people have nothing to lose -- they are dangerous.
You know who reports almost all Muslim extremists who might do damage? Muslims who live in America. The best way to keep Mexicans from being a threat is to put them in a home with a mortgage and a fear of losing the good deal they've got by breaking things.
It works every time. Shared prosperity and opportunity.
The "illegals" are employed by someone in the USA. So we can solve that problem by punishing the companies that hire -- not the poor shmoe who just wanted to feed his/her family.
It's US policies that prop up governments that have high disparities of income that cause this problem. Now we might not BE the government -- but, well, I probably won't get you to follow down that road. Best to stick to humanity 101 before the tough courses.
*Pew Research reports that only 4% of Central American illegals in the US actually work in agriculture*
Did someone do the stats for "how many produce pickers are NOT from Latin America working as migrant workers or illegals?" Because if you kick them all out -- they'll have to hire all these lazy people who want a living wage and health benefits, and maybe, not to die in the fields.
And the hotels, food processing, and such -- they are also a "small percent of illegals" however, if you ask the question the other way; "What percentage of Chicken Nuggets is produced by illegal Latin Americans?" What are the stats on that?
I just removed some choice comments that should not be part of a "discussion" that should remain congenial. But people like you really try my patience, you really do.
That was an awesome quote from Ayn Rand.
But one good quote out of so much dreck is not a redemption of an elitist hack. The smart people and engineers aren't being burdened by the dumb and the poor -- they are being exploited by the owner class.
And Atlas Shrugged would have been better if Rand had had raining fetuses. Keep with a good shtick.
If we don't TRY, we will have no credibility when asking other countries to improve their technology.
Also, by trying to improve our technology, we will learn some things we didn't know how to do.
China is very interested in improving efficiency and reducing pollution; they really can't go on with the smog they have. We could be exporting solutions and services to them.
Not doing anything will cost us more; in credibility, in scientific advancement, economically, and of course jobs. It's going to be the #1 source of new jobs or mercenary will be the number one source of new jobs as we cause damage to crops and flood coastal areas.
This point is really the crux of the matter. But the larger point is; why have companies try and "attack" or hack someone who hacked them? Wouldn't they also then be guilty of hacking?
Did anyone really think this through?
The simple solution is to have an offensive hacking team, and have companies JUST CALL the experts and present their proof. Every company cannot be an expert, will not be an expert and can't afford to be an expert.
I used to believe this BEFORE i joined Linked-In. After many years of my eternal search for a living wage in America, I decided I might as well bight the bullet and see if there was any value in Linked-IN.
Now I KNOW for a fact that I'm just being shot-gunned by recruiters -- before that it was just a theory.
However, if no recruiters are actually hiring anyone they find on Linked-In, how long before they realize it's just a place for them to blow smoke and dangle promising job opportunities in front of desperate people who go through 600 emails a day?