Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.
The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.
The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.
This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.
anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive
We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like. That is wrong, and isn't any less wrong just because he is a slimeball weasel.
And furthermore, one action does not define a man.
And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.
Assange tweeted (about 12h ago) that he would be willing to give himself up in any event if the US would guarantee his rights. And the White House said specifically that it wasn't a quid-pro-quo move, which would seem to release Assange from his promise.
The left likes to take only the one side of things and blow them out of proportion: Assange's heart is black as coal, he's completely untrustworthy, a rapist, self-centered egotist who cares for nothing except his own aggrandizement.
We have to get back into the mode where we can make verifiable statements without the other side calling "racist" all the time.
At this point, I think it's a knee-jerk reaction that the left "just always does". Always call "racist"! If it shuts down the conversation, great! If not, you've lost nothing and can try something else.
It's historically clear that local Democratic rule of minority areas has failed. Areas like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, Watts, Memphis, Flint, and so on.
Saying this is not being racist.
Detroit, as an example, is well known for graft and corruption. Democratic policies at the national level encouraged manufacturing jobs to leave the area, resulting in massive unemployment and a long drift into squalor.
Saying this is also not being racist.
The situation can realistically be described as an experiment that failed, and perhaps the reverse experiment should be tried: hold local governments responsible for their actions with stiff penalties and jail time, and reversing the national trend to bring back local jobs.
Saying this is also not being racist.
This is what racists actually believe.
Racists actually believe that blacks are inferior to whites.
Actually believing that we have political problems, failed policies with suggested improvements, and pathos for the state of our inner cities, is most definitely not something that racists believe.
Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).
You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.
Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.
Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.
He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.
He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.
It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people. He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.
When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".
Hmm... 65,000 visas auctioned off for $1000 each would net about $65 million, possibly more.
I think it would net WAY more than that. My company paid a lawyer $10k to do the H1-B paperwork for an important employee from a site we were closing in Europe. It turned out that we didn't even get the visa. If we could have just bid instead, I think we would have been willing to pay at least $50k, and likely a lot more, to guarantee a quota.
I agree completely, I was just hesitant to speculate that much on the value.
We're now talking about a billion dollars in revenue, which for comparison purposes is a sizeable percentage of the $18b NASA budget or the $6b NOAA budget.
With that amount of money, over 20 years you could rebuild a lot of infrastructure.
Here's another even better solution: Set a fixed limit, and then auction off the visas to the highest bidder, with the proceeds going to the US Treasury. Currently, they are free (other than a processing fee) and issued to whomever is first in the queue. An auction would ensure they go to the companies that value them the most, and have a real need to import critical skills, rather than just looking for cheap labor.
Hmm... 65,000 visas auctioned off for $1000 each would net about $65 million, possibly more.
That's actually enough to pay for some of the smaller services, and it's a great idea.
What's been going on with Slashdot? There's been, like, 4 insightful posts in the last 24 hours.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but if he actually delivers on this campaign promise (even if it's just scrawling his signature on the bill and then taking all the credit in speeches) that will be a good thing for me and most employed people on slashdot.
Is there any way this is a bad thing? H1B was supposed to be for bringing in essential foreign talent. If a company isn't willing to pay $100k per year plus the various expenses, whoever they are bringing it must not have been all that talented.
Good post.
We have to get back in the mode where we can say "the other side did this" without assigning blame and descending into name calling.
It's been argued for the last 2 decades (-ish) here on this site that the main problem with American governance is corruption by big business. Regardless of the left or right position we need to start doing things that are good for the people, even if such actions are narrowly bad for business.
This is a good start, it was indeed one of his campaign promises, and that part doesn't matter one bit.
(I'm very curious to see who votes for/against the bill, or if it gets killed in committee.)
One could argue that increased corporate tax rates and regulations have made it more difficult to start new businesses, and increases in health insurance costs (benefit packages are labor costs) thanks to Obamacare have made it more expensive to hire inexperienced workers. The government itself, i.e. The Democrat platform itself, is to blame.
Who knew that when you make it harder to run businesses, fewer people get employed (forcing them into part time work) and the average wage goes down?
You got modded to oblivion, but I think that's an insightful post. It suggests an alternate explanation without rancour.
We need to be able to say "the other side did this" without assigning blame and getting into name calling. I don't care what polarity (left or the right) the position is, so long as it's to our benefit.
Looking at your post, I note that the Democrats did, indeed give us Obamacare, it was widely advertised as being a good thing, and it's widely viewed as being a problem at this point in time.
Some ACA aspects were good - getting everyone insured and eliminating "pre-existing conditions" clauses among them - but the end result was a fiscal runaway that's causing a lot of grief among the people.
I note that Republicans (house *and* senate) have already voted to repeal the ACA without having a replacement on hand, and that will probably mean that we go back to pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage after an accident, and insurance companies charging whatever the hell they want.
Which is not at all a good thing, right or left.
Trump said he wanted to get rid of Obamacare and replace it, but he specifically said he wanted the replacement in place *first*. So now we're left to trust that he will do the right thing when the bill comes to his desk. That'll be a good test of his character. If he dumps Obamacare without a replacement and a lot of people lose insurance because of it, it would be a betrayal of our trust.
We really need to fix healthcare in this country. We're paying 6x as much as other countries, and only getting 3rd world care for it.
Was thinking the same thing. A additional 15% took an extra 4 or 5 years of partying before starting work. Graduate dumber, but better indoctrinated, than when they started.
Not just 'for profits', all schools are offering lots of watered down degrees, not that * studies wasn't already worthless 30 years ago.
It could also be globalism.
Jobs leaving the country create an excess of workers, so the remaining jobs can be offered for lower salaries. It's simple supply and demand.
Is there another economic explanation that could account for the difference between then and now?
Ignoring government numbers because of various controversies in how they are measured, the Gallup Poll survey puts us at 9.2% real unemployment, and less than half of those are rated "good" jobs.
We're supposedly out of the depression, the economy is doing great, and yet people are making 20% less than average from 30 years ago.
What other major economic forces could account for this?
So, Bush and Obama were both shitty Presidents. I think that has been firmly established. Should we just give worthless piece of shit Trump a pass since the other Presidents were shitty, too?
Of your points, this is one that I wanted to address because this sort of protectionism is something which really resonates with people who don't think too hard about it. It seems so simple: "Protect American jobs! The only cost is screwing some foreigners! Why haven't we been doing this all along? Our government must be corrupt or stupid or something." It's a topic which demagogues can latch onto, but the only people who protectionism really benefits are the people in control of the industry in question. Even to the peons in that industry the benefit from protectionism is questionable.
Finally, a cogent argument and the start of a discussion.
You say that protectionism seems good on the surface, but ultimately hurts the country.
Firstly, I think you're drawing a black-white distinction between protectionism and globalism, as if there are no middle ground positions or other policies. We could easily be protectionist in one industry and globalist in another, or "slightly" protectionist (through tariffs, for instance), or isolationist (like North Korea) in some circumstances(*).
Secondly, you're repeating an economist meme without citing references or analysis or even rationale, and making your point by making an emotional appeal.
I claim that the economist meme "globalism is better for a country" is false, in the mathematical sense.
I'm familiar with the globalism rationale as set forth by economists, and I agree that the mathematics show that globalism is better, but the analysis is based on a model that makes many assumptions. Even though the mathematics pans out, when the assumptions don't match the model you can't rely on the conclusions.
It's like Nate Silver predicting Hillary would win the election. It was based on sound statistical models with no calculation errors, but the assumptions were faulty.
In the specific case of globalism, the model assumes an economic and citizen equality between the two nations. Specifically, if both nations allow citizens to acquire and keep wealth, the model works as planned. When this is not true, all the wealth flows out of the wealth-building nation and into the poor nation, where it is squandered and lost.
To be even more specific, someone from Poland or Greece could emigrate to the UK and take a high-paying job (lab tech, dentist, programmer, or similar), but a Brit cannot expect to emigrate to Poland or Greece and do the same. Poland and Greece are rife with corruption, which makes it almost impossible to build wealth. For contrast, a Brit and a Norwegian could realistically swap places, in the economic sense.
Someone in China could do the same manufacturing jobs as Americans, but after a lifetime of work would have almost nothing to show: No paid-off house, or car, or retirement funds. Most of the wealth in China goes to the government, which spends it on infrastructure, much of which is unwisely spent.
Furthermore, a Chinese can emigrate to the US and take a job or start a company, but it's impossible for an American to go to China to do this, even if you live there and are married to a local. The difference in model completely reverses the effects of globalism on the US: It puts the US is in decline, while China experiences impressive growth.
And finally, the idea of "good for the country" in the minds of economists is based on the wealth of the corporations. The welfare of the citizenry is an afterthought in these models, as unemployment rate, and that only because of its effect on the corporations.
For these reasons, globalism is a terrible idea even though it's repeated by economists a lot, and even though their mathematics and analysis is correct.
That is my rationale, and the logical underpinnings of why that economic meme is wrong.
If you have a counter argument, I'd like to hear it... but just restating your position or saying "most economists agree" isn't a proper argument, and making an emotional appeal (which you've already done) i
The real story here is that Giuliani is now a goddamn cybersecurity advisor, not that this personal site is crap. The guy was hired not because of competence but because he spent the entire campaign kissing Trump's ass.
"Thus historian Vincent J. Cannato concluded in September 2006, "With time, Giuliani's legacy will be based on more than just 9/11. He left a city immeasurably better off — safer, more prosperous, more confident — than the one he had inherited eight years earlier, even with the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center at its heart. Debates about his accomplishments will continue, but the significance of his mayoralty is hard to deny."
You might be correct, in that Giuliani was not hired because of competence, but you are completely incorrect implying that Giuliani is wholly without competance.
And once again, I have to ask: is [what you said] this important? Is *why* someone is hired more important than their competence?
And once again again, I have to ask: compared to what? Is hiring Giuliani any worse than the practices of the previous administration or the runner-up candidate?
For contrast, note that Bush appointed a crony as head of FEMA who completely fell on his face during Katrina, and Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan, who was completely outmastered in our recent Japanese treaty negotiations(*).
Is it useful *at all* to just throw throws random aspersions around?
(*) Resulting in a treaty which is beneficial to Japan, but a very bad deal for America. I have no opinion about Ms. Kennedy, good or bad, only note that she was unqualified for the position, was apparently appointed because of her ties to a famous family dynasty, and America was worse off because of it.
Trump takes credit for everything that makes him look good even though he had nothing to do with it. He will constantly remind people that he is so awesome that he refers to himself in the third-person (i.e., "If Putin likes Donald Trump — guess what, folks, that's called an asset, not a liability."). It's going to be a long four years.
And that's important?
I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.
I think you're focusing on the wrong goals.
And additionally, you're imagining a fantasy situation just so you can complain how bad that fantasy situation is.
But hey, fantasy simulation seems like it'll be the next big thing in VR.
You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.
But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.
I'm not sure why this matters.
Adding 100,000 domestic workers in the US seems like it's a good thing. It even seems quite likely that many (if not all) of these jobs could have been outsourced or performed in a foreign office, and Amazon itself says that these are "across the board" jobs, and not simply seasonal or fulfilment slave-labor.
And you should also admit that Trump is largely the source of the "hire local" climate, he's caused companies to rethink their outsourcing plans, especially in light of the alternative candidate who said explicitly that she wants completely open borders for job seekers.
But none of that matters. I don't think many people really care who takes the credit.
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce, the same with wind power. Do the math with cost of production and construction. It NEVER works.
Slashdot seems to be pretty shallow recently, but at least they've stopped posting political troll-bait headlines. Those things caused a *lot* of toxic fights in the commentary. Slashdot popularity has gone way down because of this. Contrast with Hackaday, which had an editorial mandate to avoid political articles altogether and has largely weathered that storm fairly well.
It's unfortunate, because Slashdot has the capability to get user feedback on its product strategy, but doesn't. When you're running a company, negative feedback is like gold because it tells you where you can improve your product. Most companies struggle to get this sort of information, but slashdot could get it trivially by a) implementing a like/dislike feature that readers could use to inform story submissions, b) asking opinions in the polls (instead of the tongue-in-cheek polls that we seem to get), and c) actively soliciting feedback comments from people.
It's trivial to make a struggling business great if you can get negative feedback.
Hasbro seems to have this figured out. I was all set to be outraged about using emoticons for the new game pieces, but that page is actually pretty 'damn good from a usability perspective. It's simple, easy to use, pleasant to navigate... even the jazzy music is 'kinda pleasant. Color scheme is good, with high contrast. The interface is intuitive and explanatory, the scenery isn't too bad either.
While the pieces might be based on emoticons, it seems like they are simply looking at modern popular memes and not being driven by political correctness.
The Hasbro voting site is actually a clever, inviting way to take an online survey.
Brexit may exasperate this probably as many dentist in the UK come from EU countries...
On the flip side, Brexit will bring a need for more dentists.
I think dentistry is a fine profession, something that is unlikely to be replaced by AI any time soon. Having a high-paying vocation that students can strive for seems like it would be a win for any Brits who have children.
Your view of Brexit, that all the dentists would flee the UK leaving no one to care for peoples' teeth, seems a bit unrealistic.
Instead of articles about interesting discoveries described by patents, new and interesting scientific insights, or discussion and debate about technical issues facing society, we get...
IBM gets a record 8,000 patents in a single year, wow! Atlassian acquires Trello (for $425M), wow! Streaming is now #1 way to listen to music, wow! LG threatens to put Wifi in every appliance! (They threatened to do this? The very cheek!) Apple's IPhone turns 10.
Oh, but if you're not interested in an article, you don't have to read it so it's OK.
You do the line California move out. Isn't this what you Alt-Right nut faces keep telling everyone about the good ole USA? Now STFU and back south with you.
Us Alt-Right nut faces don't generally insult the other side of the debate.
Is that all you got? I haven't met a lefty yet that could rub two words together to make a coherent argument.
It's always "herp derp you're so stupid herp derp".
Shouldn't be any discussion about this. If a UNIVERSITY is outsourcing. They should instantly lose all federal and state funding.
Wanna behave like a private company? Get treated like one. No taxpayer soup for you.
It's a fine position, but how about the rest of the debate?
California was four-square against the recent election outcome, which was in large part *against* globalism. Lots and lots of supporters here and in the MSM were arguing the benefits of this sort of thing from every viewpoint. Some people lose their jobs, but the economy prospers overall. Those jobs are never coming back. We'll be losing all of them to AI anyway.
California is so much against the populist uprising that they are implementing sanctuary cities (and sanctuary universities), giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses and the ability to vote, and generally planning to oppose any new federal mandates and changes (such as deportation of illegals).
And yes, it's the California cities which are [politically] deep blue, while the rest is generally red.
So how does this position fit into the rest of the debate? How can one show outrage over this situation and still support the [generally accepted as] liberal Californian viewpoint which embraces globalism?
At one place I had a sword in a holder at my office, and my office mate used to take it out and swing it around during long compiles when I wasn't in the office.
So I put a couple of snap traps under the sword and waited. Those things are really loud when they go off.
A day or two later the sysadmin came into my office to do a system upgrade or something, and while it was installing he spun around in the chair and grabbed the sword off the holder, and both traps went off and the entire office heard it. Made quite a ruckus!
You could put a couple of those under a file on your desk, or inside a desk drawer or something. When they go off, you then ask him why he was going into your drawer in the first place, and afterwards he'll stop because he'll never know what you might have booby-trapped.
I've often thought the metal on the MacBook Pro was thick enough to stop or seriously slow a bullet...
Where are all you Ive haters now? Six feet under, that's where.
On a side note, it shows why you always make sure you have a full backup before traveling...
On another side note, this guy just voluntarily gave the FBI his laptop. Now they can rifle through his files and see if he's likely to have committed any crimes.
If he hasn't, and if there's nothing personal or interesting on his laptop he's OK, but they might just start a file on him and squirrel away the data for later use, "just in case".
He might have thought to remove the hard drive before giving it to them, but you tend not to think of these things in a tense situation.
China is doing something about it, albeit first steps. The U.S., by contrast, is being run buy delusional nuts who think global warming is some kind of scam. Makes me ashamed to be an American.
Your arguments are interesting, but not compelling enough - at least, not enough to sway opinions on the other side.
They just don't see the importance of your position.
Use more rhetoric. Use more insults, make the conclusions more dire, and make the deadlines for action seem nearer and less attainable. As a last resort, start threatening people who don't understand, ruin the careers of people who publicly don't agree, and use cheating. Lots and lots of cheating.
That's the only way to get your point across. Amp it up!
This subject is too important to let slide just because people didn't speak loudly enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.
The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.
The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.
This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.
What about any of this is unacceptable to you?
anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive
We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like. That is wrong, and isn't any less wrong just because he is a slimeball weasel.
And furthermore, one action does not define a man.
And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.
Assange tweeted (about 12h ago) that he would be willing to give himself up in any event if the US would guarantee his rights. And the White House said specifically that it wasn't a quid-pro-quo move, which would seem to release Assange from his promise.
The left likes to take only the one side of things and blow them out of proportion: Assange's heart is black as coal, he's completely untrustworthy, a rapist, self-centered egotist who cares for nothing except his own aggrandizement.
Since publishing dirt on Democrats, that is...
From the WIkileaks twitter account:
"Assange is still happy to come to the US provided all his rights are guarenteed despite White House now saying Manning was not quid-quo-pro."
This is what racists actually believe.
We have to get back into the mode where we can make verifiable statements without the other side calling "racist" all the time.
At this point, I think it's a knee-jerk reaction that the left "just always does". Always call "racist"! If it shuts down the conversation, great! If not, you've lost nothing and can try something else.
It's historically clear that local Democratic rule of minority areas has failed. Areas like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, Watts, Memphis, Flint, and so on.
Saying this is not being racist.
Detroit, as an example, is well known for graft and corruption. Democratic policies at the national level encouraged manufacturing jobs to leave the area, resulting in massive unemployment and a long drift into squalor.
Saying this is also not being racist.
The situation can realistically be described as an experiment that failed, and perhaps the reverse experiment should be tried: hold local governments responsible for their actions with stiff penalties and jail time, and reversing the national trend to bring back local jobs.
Saying this is also not being racist.
This is what racists actually believe.
Racists actually believe that blacks are inferior to whites.
Actually believing that we have political problems, failed policies with suggested improvements, and pathos for the state of our inner cities, is most definitely not something that racists believe.
Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).
You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.
Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.
Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.
He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.
He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.
It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people. He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.
When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".
Give him a chance.
He might actually make things better.
Hmm... 65,000 visas auctioned off for $1000 each would net about $65 million, possibly more.
I think it would net WAY more than that. My company paid a lawyer $10k to do the H1-B paperwork for an important employee from a site we were closing in Europe. It turned out that we didn't even get the visa. If we could have just bid instead, I think we would have been willing to pay at least $50k, and likely a lot more, to guarantee a quota.
I agree completely, I was just hesitant to speculate that much on the value.
We're now talking about a billion dollars in revenue, which for comparison purposes is a sizeable percentage of the $18b NASA budget or the $6b NOAA budget.
With that amount of money, over 20 years you could rebuild a lot of infrastructure.
Here's another even better solution: Set a fixed limit, and then auction off the visas to the highest bidder, with the proceeds going to the US Treasury. Currently, they are free (other than a processing fee) and issued to whomever is first in the queue. An auction would ensure they go to the companies that value them the most, and have a real need to import critical skills, rather than just looking for cheap labor.
Hmm... 65,000 visas auctioned off for $1000 each would net about $65 million, possibly more.
That's actually enough to pay for some of the smaller services, and it's a great idea.
What's been going on with Slashdot? There's been, like, 4 insightful posts in the last 24 hours.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but if he actually delivers on this campaign promise (even if it's just scrawling his signature on the bill and then taking all the credit in speeches) that will be a good thing for me and most employed people on slashdot.
Is there any way this is a bad thing? H1B was supposed to be for bringing in essential foreign talent. If a company isn't willing to pay $100k per year plus the various expenses, whoever they are bringing it must not have been all that talented.
Good post.
We have to get back in the mode where we can say "the other side did this" without assigning blame and descending into name calling.
It's been argued for the last 2 decades (-ish) here on this site that the main problem with American governance is corruption by big business. Regardless of the left or right position we need to start doing things that are good for the people, even if such actions are narrowly bad for business.
This is a good start, it was indeed one of his campaign promises, and that part doesn't matter one bit.
(I'm very curious to see who votes for/against the bill, or if it gets killed in committee.)
One could argue that increased corporate tax rates and regulations have made it more difficult to start new businesses, and increases in health insurance costs (benefit packages are labor costs) thanks to Obamacare have made it more expensive to hire inexperienced workers. The government itself, i.e. The Democrat platform itself, is to blame.
Who knew that when you make it harder to run businesses, fewer people get employed (forcing them into part time work) and the average wage goes down?
You got modded to oblivion, but I think that's an insightful post. It suggests an alternate explanation without rancour.
We need to be able to say "the other side did this" without assigning blame and getting into name calling. I don't care what polarity (left or the right) the position is, so long as it's to our benefit.
Looking at your post, I note that the Democrats did, indeed give us Obamacare, it was widely advertised as being a good thing, and it's widely viewed as being a problem at this point in time.
Some ACA aspects were good - getting everyone insured and eliminating "pre-existing conditions" clauses among them - but the end result was a fiscal runaway that's causing a lot of grief among the people.
I note that Republicans (house *and* senate) have already voted to repeal the ACA without having a replacement on hand, and that will probably mean that we go back to pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage after an accident, and insurance companies charging whatever the hell they want.
Which is not at all a good thing, right or left.
Trump said he wanted to get rid of Obamacare and replace it, but he specifically said he wanted the replacement in place *first*. So now we're left to trust that he will do the right thing when the bill comes to his desk. That'll be a good test of his character. If he dumps Obamacare without a replacement and a lot of people lose insurance because of it, it would be a betrayal of our trust.
We really need to fix healthcare in this country. We're paying 6x as much as other countries, and only getting 3rd world care for it.
Was thinking the same thing. A additional 15% took an extra 4 or 5 years of partying before starting work. Graduate dumber, but better indoctrinated, than when they started.
Not just 'for profits', all schools are offering lots of watered down degrees, not that * studies wasn't already worthless 30 years ago.
It could also be globalism.
Jobs leaving the country create an excess of workers, so the remaining jobs can be offered for lower salaries. It's simple supply and demand.
Is there another economic explanation that could account for the difference between then and now?
Ignoring government numbers because of various controversies in how they are measured, the Gallup Poll survey puts us at 9.2% real unemployment, and less than half of those are rated "good" jobs.
We're supposedly out of the depression, the economy is doing great, and yet people are making 20% less than average from 30 years ago.
What other major economic forces could account for this?
So, Bush and Obama were both shitty Presidents. I think that has been firmly established. Should we just give worthless piece of shit Trump a pass since the other Presidents were shitty, too?
Hillary put one of her big donors on a government intelligence advisory board, even though he had no relevant experience.
Yes, we can give Trump a pass on appointing Giuliani.
And also, why are you insulting our president?
Hillary lost.
Get over it.
Of your points, this is one that I wanted to address because this sort of protectionism is something which really resonates with people who don't think too hard about it. It seems so simple: "Protect American jobs! The only cost is screwing some foreigners! Why haven't we been doing this all along? Our government must be corrupt or stupid or something." It's a topic which demagogues can latch onto, but the only people who protectionism really benefits are the people in control of the industry in question. Even to the peons in that industry the benefit from protectionism is questionable.
Finally, a cogent argument and the start of a discussion.
You say that protectionism seems good on the surface, but ultimately hurts the country.
Firstly, I think you're drawing a black-white distinction between protectionism and globalism, as if there are no middle ground positions or other policies. We could easily be protectionist in one industry and globalist in another, or "slightly" protectionist (through tariffs, for instance), or isolationist (like North Korea) in some circumstances(*).
Secondly, you're repeating an economist meme without citing references or analysis or even rationale, and making your point by making an emotional appeal.
I claim that the economist meme "globalism is better for a country" is false, in the mathematical sense.
I'm familiar with the globalism rationale as set forth by economists, and I agree that the mathematics show that globalism is better, but the analysis is based on a model that makes many assumptions. Even though the mathematics pans out, when the assumptions don't match the model you can't rely on the conclusions.
It's like Nate Silver predicting Hillary would win the election. It was based on sound statistical models with no calculation errors, but the assumptions were faulty.
In the specific case of globalism, the model assumes an economic and citizen equality between the two nations. Specifically, if both nations allow citizens to acquire and keep wealth, the model works as planned. When this is not true, all the wealth flows out of the wealth-building nation and into the poor nation, where it is squandered and lost.
To be even more specific, someone from Poland or Greece could emigrate to the UK and take a high-paying job (lab tech, dentist, programmer, or similar), but a Brit cannot expect to emigrate to Poland or Greece and do the same. Poland and Greece are rife with corruption, which makes it almost impossible to build wealth. For contrast, a Brit and a Norwegian could realistically swap places, in the economic sense.
Someone in China could do the same manufacturing jobs as Americans, but after a lifetime of work would have almost nothing to show: No paid-off house, or car, or retirement funds. Most of the wealth in China goes to the government, which spends it on infrastructure, much of which is unwisely spent.
Furthermore, a Chinese can emigrate to the US and take a job or start a company, but it's impossible for an American to go to China to do this, even if you live there and are married to a local. The difference in model completely reverses the effects of globalism on the US: It puts the US is in decline, while China experiences impressive growth.
And finally, the idea of "good for the country" in the minds of economists is based on the wealth of the corporations. The welfare of the citizenry is an afterthought in these models, as unemployment rate, and that only because of its effect on the corporations.
For these reasons, globalism is a terrible idea even though it's repeated by economists a lot, and even though their mathematics and analysis is correct.
That is my rationale, and the logical underpinnings of why that economic meme is wrong.
If you have a counter argument, I'd like to hear it... but just restating your position or saying "most economists agree" isn't a proper argument, and making an emotional appeal (which you've already done) i
It m___ cer___ly c_n!
T__s is just th_ thing Telco_ and oth_r _____ prov___rs need to _ed__e usag_ and all__ more users __ lim_ted bandw__th circ__ts.
He__. C_n y__ call m_ bac_ on my house__one?
Robert Graham explained it succinctly: http://blog.erratasec.com/2017... .
The real story here is that Giuliani is now a goddamn cybersecurity advisor, not that this personal site is crap. The guy was hired not because of competence but because he spent the entire campaign kissing Trump's ass.
"Thus historian Vincent J. Cannato concluded in September 2006, "With time, Giuliani's legacy will be based on more than just 9/11. He left a city immeasurably better off — safer, more prosperous, more confident — than the one he had inherited eight years earlier, even with the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center at its heart. Debates about his accomplishments will continue, but the significance of his mayoralty is hard to deny."
You might be correct, in that Giuliani was not hired because of competence, but you are completely incorrect implying that Giuliani is wholly without competance.
And once again, I have to ask: is [what you said] this important? Is *why* someone is hired more important than their competence?
And once again again, I have to ask: compared to what? Is hiring Giuliani any worse than the practices of the previous administration or the runner-up candidate?
For contrast, note that Bush appointed a crony as head of FEMA who completely fell on his face during Katrina, and Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan, who was completely outmastered in our recent Japanese treaty negotiations(*).
Is it useful *at all* to just throw throws random aspersions around?
(*) Resulting in a treaty which is beneficial to Japan, but a very bad deal for America. I have no opinion about Ms. Kennedy, good or bad, only note that she was unqualified for the position, was apparently appointed because of her ties to a famous family dynasty, and America was worse off because of it.
Why should credit even matter?
Trump takes credit for everything that makes him look good even though he had nothing to do with it. He will constantly remind people that he is so awesome that he refers to himself in the third-person (i.e., "If Putin likes Donald Trump — guess what, folks, that's called an asset, not a liability."). It's going to be a long four years.
And that's important?
I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.
I think you're focusing on the wrong goals.
And additionally, you're imagining a fantasy situation just so you can complain how bad that fantasy situation is.
But hey, fantasy simulation seems like it'll be the next big thing in VR.
Knock yourself out.
You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.
But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.
I'm not sure why this matters.
Adding 100,000 domestic workers in the US seems like it's a good thing. It even seems quite likely that many (if not all) of these jobs could have been outsourced or performed in a foreign office, and Amazon itself says that these are "across the board" jobs, and not simply seasonal or fulfilment slave-labor.
And you should also admit that Trump is largely the source of the "hire local" climate, he's caused companies to rethink their outsourcing plans, especially in light of the alternative candidate who said explicitly that she wants completely open borders for job seekers.
But none of that matters. I don't think many people really care who takes the credit.
Is it important to you?
Help me out here.
Why should credit even matter?
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce, the same with wind power. Do the math with cost of production and construction. It NEVER works.
The internet disagrees with you. On both points.
Do you have links or other supporting information you can cite?
If not, consider changing your position.
Spreading these sorts of lies will only hurt our efforts to avoid a real and imminent crisis.
Slashdot seems to be pretty shallow recently, but at least they've stopped posting political troll-bait headlines. Those things caused a *lot* of toxic fights in the commentary. Slashdot popularity has gone way down because of this. Contrast with Hackaday, which had an editorial mandate to avoid political articles altogether and has largely weathered that storm fairly well.
It's unfortunate, because Slashdot has the capability to get user feedback on its product strategy, but doesn't. When you're running a company, negative feedback is like gold because it tells you where you can improve your product. Most companies struggle to get this sort of information, but slashdot could get it trivially by a) implementing a like/dislike feature that readers could use to inform story submissions, b) asking opinions in the polls (instead of the tongue-in-cheek polls that we seem to get), and c) actively soliciting feedback comments from people.
It's trivial to make a struggling business great if you can get negative feedback.
Hasbro seems to have this figured out. I was all set to be outraged about using emoticons for the new game pieces, but that page is actually pretty 'damn good from a usability perspective. It's simple, easy to use, pleasant to navigate... even the jazzy music is 'kinda pleasant. Color scheme is good, with high contrast. The interface is intuitive and explanatory, the scenery isn't too bad either.
While the pieces might be based on emoticons, it seems like they are simply looking at modern popular memes and not being driven by political correctness.
The Hasbro voting site is actually a clever, inviting way to take an online survey.
Much nicer than a table of radio buttons.
Have you seen British teeth in recent decades? Theirs are nicer than those of us who live in the US, now.
Maybe nicer, but only if can pay out of pocket, or you can find an NHS dentist...
Brexit may exasperate this probably as many dentist in the UK come from EU countries...
On the flip side, Brexit will bring a need for more dentists.
I think dentistry is a fine profession, something that is unlikely to be replaced by AI any time soon. Having a high-paying vocation that students can strive for seems like it would be a win for any Brits who have children.
Your view of Brexit, that all the dentists would flee the UK leaving no one to care for peoples' teeth, seems a bit unrealistic.
Here we are a tech site for nerds.
Instead of articles about interesting discoveries described by patents, new and interesting scientific insights, or discussion and debate about technical issues facing society, we get...
IBM gets a record 8,000 patents in a single year, wow!
Atlassian acquires Trello (for $425M), wow!
Streaming is now #1 way to listen to music, wow!
LG threatens to put Wifi in every appliance! (They threatened to do this? The very cheek!)
Apple's IPhone turns 10.
Oh, but if you're not interested in an article, you don't have to read it so it's OK.
You do the line California move out. Isn't this what you Alt-Right nut faces keep telling everyone about the good ole USA? Now STFU and back south with you.
Us Alt-Right nut faces don't generally insult the other side of the debate.
Is that all you got? I haven't met a lefty yet that could rub two words together to make a coherent argument.
It's always "herp derp you're so stupid herp derp".
Shouldn't be any discussion about this. If a UNIVERSITY is outsourcing. They should instantly lose all federal and state funding.
Wanna behave like a private company? Get treated like one. No taxpayer soup for you.
It's a fine position, but how about the rest of the debate?
California was four-square against the recent election outcome, which was in large part *against* globalism. Lots and lots of supporters here and in the MSM were arguing the benefits of this sort of thing from every viewpoint. Some people lose their jobs, but the economy prospers overall. Those jobs are never coming back. We'll be losing all of them to AI anyway.
California is so much against the populist uprising that they are implementing sanctuary cities (and sanctuary universities), giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses and the ability to vote, and generally planning to oppose any new federal mandates and changes (such as deportation of illegals).
And yes, it's the California cities which are [politically] deep blue, while the rest is generally red.
So how does this position fit into the rest of the debate? How can one show outrage over this situation and still support the [generally accepted as] liberal Californian viewpoint which embraces globalism?
At one place I had a sword in a holder at my office, and my office mate used to take it out and swing it around during long compiles when I wasn't in the office.
So I put a couple of snap traps under the sword and waited. Those things are really loud when they go off.
A day or two later the sysadmin came into my office to do a system upgrade or something, and while it was installing he spun around in the chair and grabbed the sword off the holder, and both traps went off and the entire office heard it. Made quite a ruckus!
You could put a couple of those under a file on your desk, or inside a desk drawer or something. When they go off, you then ask him why he was going into your drawer in the first place, and afterwards he'll stop because he'll never know what you might have booby-trapped.
I've often thought the metal on the MacBook Pro was thick enough to stop or seriously slow a bullet...
Where are all you Ive haters now? Six feet under, that's where.
On a side note, it shows why you always make sure you have a full backup before traveling...
On another side note, this guy just voluntarily gave the FBI his laptop. Now they can rifle through his files and see if he's likely to have committed any crimes.
If he hasn't, and if there's nothing personal or interesting on his laptop he's OK, but they might just start a file on him and squirrel away the data for later use, "just in case".
He might have thought to remove the hard drive before giving it to them, but you tend not to think of these things in a tense situation.
China is doing something about it, albeit first steps. The U.S., by contrast, is being run buy delusional nuts who think global warming is some kind of scam. Makes me ashamed to be an American.
Your arguments are interesting, but not compelling enough - at least, not enough to sway opinions on the other side.
They just don't see the importance of your position.
Use more rhetoric. Use more insults, make the conclusions more dire, and make the deadlines for action seem nearer and less attainable. As a last resort, start threatening people who don't understand, ruin the careers of people who publicly don't agree, and use cheating. Lots and lots of cheating.
That's the only way to get your point across. Amp it up!
This subject is too important to let slide just because people didn't speak loudly enough.