Help desk is a dead end job. I started there and have worked up to System Administration, but it was a long hard struggle. It's frustrating how few employers value experience learning over book learning. I had to come in at significant lower pay to get out of help desk. Now that I'm 10 years into System Admin work and specializing in Linux, it's getting better.
True, people interested in fixing things, or re purposing them are a minority. Truly they've always been, but economics allowed them to make a living doing the fixing and repurposing for others as well as themselves. That's no longer the case.
Your original conclusions are not data derived. You have one data point, poverty levels have not decreased. You use this data point to draw out a bunch of conclusions based on your own socioeconomic experience. I don't claim to be right, just that you are wrong. I'm not interested in dueling graphs, only in opening your mind a bit.
I see I've failed, but I take comfort in knowing I'm not the first.
My larger point continues to elude you. I don't object to the data from your graph. I object to the conclusions, which I have refuted. Half-assing something, letting poeple sabotage it, then claiming it is a failure. That is the hall mark of conservatism in America.
Your all over the place, the heritage foundation is shilling their policy, pretending it is helpful information, when it is biased information intended to push an agenda. They do not title their report, "People who hate spending money on stopping poverty have done research to show how ineffectual it is". That would be honest.
I don't have the time to break it down, but my point has more to do with the shifting of administrations. Your claiming that johnson, nixon, ford, carter, bush, clinton, bush, obama, and saint raygun were fighting the same fight. They weren't. The civil rights movement happened after the declaration of war on poverty. Gay rights are just now being recognized. The "create dependence on government" junk you are spouting is junk. It's creating dependence when you give someone cash assistance that they can only receive for afew years in a lifetime, but not when you use monetary policy to hand out free money to banks to lend? I think the debate over how slowly to raise interest has shown a clear dependency of business.
Your cherry picking a 50 year old declaration of "war on poverty", THe people running this "war" have changed and their priorities have gone from helping white families, to helping all non-gay families, to helping all people, with some stops in between that stripped benefits from "druggies", "sluts", etc.
I was referencing the cyclical nature of history. The only people saying the war on poverty failed, are conservative shills. Every other resource says it's been a wash, it hasn't failed, but it hasn't been won. Your point:
They "work" only in the sense that if you give people enough money, they temporarily don't meet the financial criteria for poverty. But that's not "working" in any useful sense.
is still wrong. If you've ever been in poverty, I guarantee you'll see the difference between suffering from all the symptoms and having some alleviated. There is nothing wrong with the bar for poverty raising over time. Even Conservatives claimed "a rising tide lifts all boats". While trickled own fails in that only crumbs trickle down, even those crumbs are worthwhile to the very poor.
His analysis of the great depression in 1930, stops short. His analysis of it in a later book is decent, although he knows it's incomplete.
His analysis of the times leading up to the collapse and the runaway 1920's are spot on, and what I"m referring to.
Heritage foundation, that's all I need to know... The stuff I cited is hardly progressive drivel. It rings true because it happened, that it's happenened again is really a foregone conclusion, but you can learn alot by studying what happened that time.
Or, you an dismiss it because you are way to smart and you have solid conservative leadership. (basically, your a dumbass)
It's not the system we have, it's the system your willing to pretend we have and take when nobody is looking. Most of your tax tricks are illegal and will almost certainly be thrown out if challenged.
So, what your saying is, "those poors that got given money still aren't as good as me" (it has a redneck accent in my mind).
The turnover rate of welfare tends to disprove your theories. Give me a citation for decreasing poverty pre-New Deal. You won't find one, there was this thing called the great depression... It was preceded by the market crash of 1890... Read some history, I recommend the financial historian Frederick Lewis Allen. The stuff he wrote in the 1930's rings true today. His analysis of 1920, could have been written about 2000.
Not true. There have been many periods of good political order. It has to be started, then it will slowly roll back around to shit, but people can get it started.
No startups, IMHO, it's partly because places with existing tech companies, like the ones you listed, do everything in their power to kill innovation. They preach it, but bury it under a pile of bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh... Your ruining his narrative.
Grow some balls and stand up for your rights, like these guys:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08...
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/...
Help desk is a dead end job. I started there and have worked up to System Administration, but it was a long hard struggle. It's frustrating how few employers value experience learning over book learning. I had to come in at significant lower pay to get out of help desk. Now that I'm 10 years into System Admin work and specializing in Linux, it's getting better.
Who are you, Jesus?
True, people interested in fixing things, or re purposing them are a minority. Truly they've always been, but economics allowed them to make a living doing the fixing and repurposing for others as well as themselves.
That's no longer the case.
Your original conclusions are not data derived. You have one data point, poverty levels have not decreased. You use this data point to draw out a bunch of conclusions based on your own socioeconomic experience. I don't claim to be right, just that you are wrong. I'm not interested in dueling graphs, only in opening your mind a bit.
I see I've failed, but I take comfort in knowing I'm not the first.
My larger point continues to elude you. I don't object to the data from your graph. I object to the conclusions, which I have refuted. Half-assing something, letting poeple sabotage it, then claiming it is a failure. That is the hall mark of conservatism in America.
Your all over the place, the heritage foundation is shilling their policy, pretending it is helpful information, when it is biased information intended to push an agenda. They do not title their report, "People who hate spending money on stopping poverty have done research to show how ineffectual it is". That would be honest.
I don't have the time to break it down, but my point has more to do with the shifting of administrations. Your claiming that johnson, nixon, ford, carter, bush, clinton, bush, obama, and saint raygun were fighting the same fight. They weren't.
The civil rights movement happened after the declaration of war on poverty. Gay rights are just now being recognized.
The "create dependence on government" junk you are spouting is junk. It's creating dependence when you give someone cash assistance that they can only receive for afew years in a lifetime, but not when you use monetary policy to hand out free money to banks to lend? I think the debate over how slowly to raise interest has shown a clear dependency of business.
Your cherry picking a 50 year old declaration of "war on poverty", THe people running this "war" have changed and their priorities have gone from helping white families, to helping all non-gay families, to helping all people, with some stops in between that stripped benefits from "druggies", "sluts", etc.
The whole article you cite is specious.
The Heritage Foundation is absolutely a shill;
The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns.
They "work" only in the sense that if you give people enough money, they temporarily don't meet the financial criteria for poverty. But that's not "working" in any useful sense.
is still wrong. If you've ever been in poverty, I guarantee you'll see the difference between suffering from all the symptoms and having some alleviated.
There is nothing wrong with the bar for poverty raising over time. Even Conservatives claimed "a rising tide lifts all boats". While trickled own fails in that only crumbs trickle down, even those crumbs are worthwhile to the very poor.
His analysis of the great depression in 1930, stops short. His analysis of it in a later book is decent, although he knows it's incomplete.
His analysis of the times leading up to the collapse and the runaway 1920's are spot on, and what I"m referring to.
Heritage foundation, that's all I need to know... The stuff I cited is hardly progressive drivel. It rings true because it happened, that it's happenened again is really a foregone conclusion, but you can learn alot by studying what happened that time.
Or, you an dismiss it because you are way to smart and you have solid conservative leadership. (basically, your a dumbass)
Yes, it's normal and customary for most small business owners to play audit lottery.
It's not the system we have, it's the system your willing to pretend we have and take when nobody is looking. Most of your tax tricks are illegal and will almost certainly be thrown out if challenged.
Most of the ones I've seen have a payment system integrated. They are not free.
Most insightful comment ever.
So, what your saying is, "those poors that got given money still aren't as good as me" (it has a redneck accent in my mind).
The turnover rate of welfare tends to disprove your theories. Give me a citation for decreasing poverty pre-New Deal. You won't find one, there was this thing called the great depression...
It was preceded by the market crash of 1890... Read some history, I recommend the financial historian Frederick Lewis Allen. The stuff he wrote in the 1930's rings true today. His analysis of 1920, could have been written about 2000.
Not true. There have been many periods of good political order. It has to be started, then it will slowly roll back around to shit, but people can get it started.
So it takes a year to upload... The sooner you start, the sooner it's done. Then you just have to rsync the changes.
Read the article, there is no box involved, it's a big plastic things with a kindle on the side that acts as the shipping label.
No startups, IMHO, it's partly because places with existing tech companies, like the ones you listed, do everything in their power to kill innovation. They preach it, but bury it under a pile of bureaucracy.
--voice of experience
Dell sells "enterprise" hardware. Their standard business class stuff is good, but their higher end stuff is trouble.
Thanks, that's an excellent way to look at this.
Ask me how I know you have problems understanding Logic.
Just wait, the TPP will strip.. er... I mean standardize all privacy rights.
Dude, I have your back, that was an excellent comment.