If an institution is too big to fail, then Politics was involved in getting it there, and politics will be involved in keeping it there.
As a Libertarian, I'm okay with failure, for the sole reason that failure is what fuels innovation.
That being said, Bernie is an interesting cat. He is a true socialist, who believes government has the ability to manage and shape the economy without unintended consequences. My experience is that most of the economic problems are due to (caused by) government interference, and not allowing the natural forces to work themselves out. Sometimes the lions eat the gazelles, sometimes the bugs eat the lions.
Can you mention one country outperforming the crisis that does not have way more and stronger goverment institutions then the
US?
The liberatrian "small state" is as far as i have been able to tell religious in nature, with all empirical data contradicting the theory.
Shock therapy in eastern Europe is a good example of what happens if you simply dismantle a even a horribly inefficient government, and something similar have happened everything the small state "libertarian" theory have been tried in practice, things gets worse not better.
Libertarianism is based on assumptions that cannot be true for any system we can create from the ruins of the one we have.
The social democratic movement of Western Europe(Germany and Scandinavia in particular) Bernie Saunders is trying to introduce to America, is on the other hand very real, and most of it's polices have been tried out in practise and while they fall short of the full promise, they produced results rarely seen in other systems.
I am not saying his way are the right one but that the libertarian trap of ignoring the mess we have to start from should be avoided.
But the downside has been that IT has lost touch with the business almost completely, and the amount of red tape is staggering.
But were the downsides really accidental or a well understood consequence of a deliberate decision by the "Board of directors"? The red tape might be there on purpose to keep "junior management" from getting sucked in by the constant hype being pushed by "the press" for gadgets and bespoke IT solutions.
Most of the potential IT productivity gains for "traditional industries" might have been realised as far back as the mid 90ies, when all inventory, order processing and accounting were digitized, so a deliberate strategy to hold back and make do with cheaper commodity tools rather then try to fit everything to every niche inside the company, might release funds for other more important projects outside of IT.
Sure there are changes but were pretty far down the curve of diminishing returns that every new technology follows, so new innovations in IT have less of an effect then the innovations of the past.
Affirmative action is primarily the compromise made to avoid having half of the political and business elite of the US thrown in jail for high treason and will full violation of the US constitution which in the hindsight probably is what should have happened.
Instead a deal was made that essentially goes were going to give you amnesty but you will dedicate a set fraction of your economy toward the minorities whos right were violated for generations after they revolt had failed and universal equality became the American way. It's not the right solution but the people complaining about it ate typically the ones who parents got the better deal of not being prosecuted or bankrupted in a fair post slavery/apartheid trial.
It's way to easy to do clean slate ethics and just forget that any society is a product of it's past and that the US don't have that good a record of living up to the ideals it claims to support.
But clean state ethics like all utopianism is the tempting because it offer salvation in earth and that's why once in a wile a society tears itself apart in the not so cleansing fires of fascism which is always the outcome when someone tries to force an utopian vision based on clean slate ethics through.
But you need to make sure that is a personal expense. because unless you specifically close any loophole that might allow for the department to pay insurance costs, you can be sure the cost of insurance will fall right back on the tax payers leaving nothing changed.
As far as i know the responsibility and malpractice insurance required by doctors and lawyers can be company/clinic level and is not paid directly by "employees" but by the company they work for in most cases.
A much better solution would be to remove all investigations of police misconduct or use of force from the local justice system who depend on good day to day working relations with the police. As the real problem here is that the only ones who can discipline a cop cannot function unless the police supports them.
If the military justice system or a federal agency with no other domestic law enforcement responsibility then to police the police were automatically put in charge the minute any force are used by the police you would likely see a increase in convictions and a decrease in incidents.
If this trend continues, we're going to be awash in smart financial or medical people. Y'know, stuff that's harder to outsource so easily.
I understand why medical is hard to outsource, but I would think finance would be incredibly easy. I'm pretty sure Excel and calculators are plentiful in other countries.
Finance is a sub branch of law, and laws are specific to each jurisdiction, the reason finance is not widely outsourced is that same as the reason why there is no H1B lawyers.
I think at this point everyone agrees that the STEM job market in the US is screwed up. Right now we're all pointing fingers at eachother blaming millennials, gen X, baby boomers, immigrants, business owners, politicians, civil servants, the whole government, high schools, colleges, testing services, misogynists, political correctness, investors, people who don't invest, Obama, Bush...
Anyone have any ideas on what to do about it? How about we work on that now.
What Europe and Asia does have the state play the role of investor of last resort in oddball basic research and kick the profiteers(contractors, private universities etc) out of the equation. There is essentially no reason ever for a job funded by taxes to be outsourced to a equally inefficient private bureaucracy and not the government itself. And plenty of reason why you want science done with an openness policy that runs against short term shareholder interests.
Also there might be a need to realise that the perpetual growth might be an impossibility and start adjusting the social structure so zero growth don't lead to people being forced to choose between returning to the old feudal order or violent revolt. Not doing so might hamper long slow but stable term growth because people panic if there is "bad years".
But we also had it easy when we emerged, since nobody else knew anything about anything, so all sorts of sysadmin jobs were wide open, and there were no Bangalore outsourcing industry, so the companies had to hire "local".
If you played with computers in the 80ies you essentially self selected into a skill set that was needed by the late 90ies but not taught by any vocational school until the 00's, and there were no older generation to displace since the entire market were expanding like crazy.
Now what you have is a fairly stable market, almost in stagnation if not decline, an older generation, already filling most of the demand, and an tendency for companies to hire in places with less political instability then the US. despite all of the silicon valley hype.
Danmark(and the rest of scandinavia) have completely different sensitivities then the anglo american culture, especially when it comes to explaining the world to kids, it's after all the place where an state run educational institution dissected and fed an giraffe to a bunch of lions in front of a bunch of kids. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... and routinely takes schoolchildren on excursions to slaughterhouses to prevent the Disneyfication of animals.
The difference in philosophy runs a lot deeper then the rating bodies.
No, they are closer to a contractor, which is why they are self employed. All Uber provides is the platform.
When I do contract work for a company I may be bound by that companies codes as well. Doesn't make me anything other than a contractor.
A contractor is normally defined as a independent agent who can work for you and your competitor within the same time frame, once you start demanding they work exclusively for you, the contractor becomes a employee in most jurisdiction.
Another distinction, is that a contractor is a legal entity, i.e. a contractor can hire someone else to do the work as long as they meat the specified qualifications, ie if the contract specify one named individual the the base assumption is that there is a de facto employment contract.
There are overlaps between those two standards and lots of exceptions, but mostly in the more expensive end of the market. the closer you get to minimum wage the more likely it is that the details start pointing towards employee and not contractor once it gets down to actual case law.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.
The argument that gets made is that it would be unacceptable to have different classes of companies competing for the same market and not be subject to the exact same regulation, ie that Uber either get to try and prove that the rules are illegal or get out. Ubers main argument seams to be the rather silly but were not a taxi company so we dont need to follow any regulations and that just wont fly anywhere civilized.
The real problem for uber is not the volume regulation but the two main set of regulations that all taxi and bus companies have to follow, even in rural hinterlands with no volume regulation.
The first is the driver licensing, you need a special license to be allowed to drive paying customers, this involves additional tests of driving skills a full background check(criminal record) and completion of course in business regulations. Uber sometimes claim to vet their drivers for this but rarely follows the existing standard for due diligence. (more incompetent then the law is a thing on the continent).
Secondly the company must be operating under a rule set that makes it mandatory for them to accept liability(and to be insured against it) for almost everything involving a car driving under their banner, and bans them from discriminating against "costly" customer types(handicapped people) or poor neighbourhoods, specific terms and condition like fixed maximum tariffs might be in place and there is a lot of technical details hiding here but it's still mostly public "health and safety" and not meant to limit the number of operators. Uber really don't want to follow those rules, as half their business model is discriminatory pricing, and liability avoidance.
The third and the only one Uber wants to talk about is the volume limitations in place in congested cities, aka medallions here the rules span from Westministers(London) absurd rules mandating specific car designs etc, with a "full time drivers with detailed local knowledge only" restriction being the norm. It's rare that those volume restrictions are absolute ie an cap company based outside of the city can make some trips inside the city limits etc. And unlike the first two those rules are subject to fierce political debates as it's sort of an exemption to basic EU principles, getting into that market is an investment but not an impossible barrier.
Key Here Deutche Telecom, they are not known under that name in america so obviusly they are not concerned with US regulation.
Under EU regulation there were never a debate, broadband have always been under common carrier regulation and last mile subletting were made mandatory in the mid 90ies. And the anti molopoly regulation in europe are a lot less useless then the US counterpart.
Both Facebook and Google are being monitored by the EU antitrust regulators due to revenue sharing agreement with mobile and im guessing Deutche Telecom is hinting that there might be stuff going on in the backroom at contract negotiations that might in effect be favoratism of certain carriers or bribing to become default, which you cannot do as a "dominant niche player" in the european marketplace.
There are also mumblings in the corner that google might be filtering out competitors from the first page of search results and issue that have led to court cases against google. Again a big no no for a large company in europe.
My employer is not a fortune 500 company and we just got a notice from IT that none of the corporate Lenovo laptops are affected and only consumer laptops are affected. This is most likely due to the fact that corporate laptops tend to not have all the usual consumer bloatware installed.
But those models also get an actual pricetag for windows pro and if you buy in volume(20+) through a retailer you can get them OS-free. Dell sells linux laptops though the backdoors, and all of the large vendors will charge seperately for windows proffessional and deliver them with stock microsoft settings and not do the bundling discount they do for consumer laptop, but you pay more for those systems, then similar specced consumer laptops.
The core problem is that we dont consider discount through bundling 3rd party software as illegal trade harming cartel activity, which is why it wont be the last time some company bundle malware, but then again those parts of "weath of nations" that deal with the dangers of cartels have more or less been censored out of the copies US students are taught from.
Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.
Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.
Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.
Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.
But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?
It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition, sure they dont use those words but newspeak like market differentiation or leveraging intellectual property but the goal of any publicly traded company is always to overcharge customers, and avoid markets with real competition and low profit margins.
There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition and not cartel forming and other dirty tactics, but most of the trade lobbyist funding said politicians are less naive then that.
The system they are building with privatization and deregulation more neo-mercantilist then neo-capitalist
FYI... I'm running systemd in a busybox environment currently. Have been for the last 3 years now.
Not seeing what the big fuss is. The dependency model that systemd enforces helps with speeding startup of embedded systems. I like it more than the hacked init.d scripts we had been using. We're not using near 50% what systemd can do. But, I see measurable value by going that direction.
But, then again, I happen to like gnome compared to my other options out there. So, I guess I fit in the demographic you're railing about.
As developers, we're looking for something that "just works". All of those hand-crafted scripts used by init.d doesn't address this.
I like the init part of systemd but all of the mess that gets bolted on because the team behind it dont want to write or deal with API's and 3rd party plugins is breaking stuff faster then they can fix it because the project management team forgot to limit the project scope to something they could manage. Systemd does not "just work" for the people whom sysV did not also "just work".
Not true. Average user doesn't use UI on linux. Number of headless linux boxes outnumbers UI based ones 10:1.
And the number of non mainline linux system outnumber mainline servers by a similar margin, and here we get the core of the systemd resistance.
Because of poor project management and corporate politics systemd have gone from being a init replacement to something that will never be compatible with all of the non mainline linux systems out there. having systemd maintain cgroups the redhat way is not going to work for FC swtitch since systemd cannot know about the switching application the way a custom implementation. And there dozens of edge case like this were an resource rich organization gets thrown under the bus and have to abandon any hope collaborating with mainline linux if systemd becomes the defining factor for mainline linux.
Google who does sell linux based consumer products does not seams to have that much of an interest in systemd and is not in a hurry to adopt it, canonocal voted against it in the debian election and is still pushing their own cgroup manager, and is trying to implement systemd in a weird almost fashion and running into a ton of problems that also plague debian jessie, which mark the first time in almost a decade Debian testing is actually broken beyond the point where a end user becomes frustrated. This is following the mess GTK3/gnome3 created which spawned the unity, mate and cinnamon desktop environments, whith much of the same retoric on forums as we now get with systemd/anti-systemd
GTK3 went into a decline declining, following the failure of the gnome3 vision to resonate with the market, so it's far from certain systemd is the success people hope it hurried adoption will make it by the time RHEL8 is scheduled for release you might see real competition in the cgroup manager space, and a decent non systemd embedded API for setting cgroups permissions.
It is quite well known systemd was a political backed decision and not a technical one. Plus I will never understand how it made so fast to stable.
It never became stable, look at their bug list then compare with any other stable init.
Upstart have 10 part timers and dont see a lot of critical bugs sitting around, sysV and OpenRC is the same story, systemd have a bug queue the size of that for windows and more then 500 active developers, And every distribution adapting is have are facing more turmoil then they've seen since the late 90ies.
At the end it might pen out but since systemd is redhat 3rd in just as many major releases it's still possible that a 4th init system get's adopted around the time 8 comes along, or that systemd gets put on a diet, and reduced to just a init system.
It's political but it probably have as much to do with the irrelevance linux bestowed of the old giants at Xopen and FSF then it have to do with redhat.
GNU HURD failed because they wanted to put all systemd wants to do under one committee had they not done so they might have shipped, early enough for the FSF to remain relevant
I doubt well ever see systemd with a busybox environment so by making everything in mainline a sub feature of system mainline will no longer be able to share resources with the cash rich embedded world, custom server farms might even end up diverging so much from the mainline being pushed by redhat, suse and canonical that they too stop contribution code into systemd compatible components.It's what you get when you fal into the trap of wanting to manage every component you use under one umbrella.
This is essentially what happened to the BSD world, at one point all of the fringes, which is where the development cash tend to be, decided not to deal with the committee in charge and left for the anarchic world of linux.
It#s also interesting that systemd and gnome camps are 110% aligned and tend to be the people who want to put a central committee back in charge just like in the old HURD/BSD days, where as the people and organization who grew in the chaos that is linux tend to grumble about the throwback to old style waterfall design by comittee models of opensource.
Indeed, sorry you got modded down for an insightful reply. Science denial in this specific case however, seems to be across the political spectrum: (http://www.vice.com/read/weird-politics-of-anti-vaxxers-203) - as opposed to the generally right wing tilt of denying climate change, evolution, etc.
The psychology of it is also rather different, like with the anti-gluten movement it's a side effect of how we have been trained to trust/reat advertizing keywords
Vaccine is injecting bacteria/virus into you and since weve been told by soap commecial that all microorganisms are bad for you and nobody remember that were also dependent on them to stay alive the natural instinctive common sense view is to think that vaccines are dangerous.
Gluten is similar about 1% of the population have an mutation that means they cant digest it properly, so it have to be declared along with allergens on packaging, and since the health and gourmand food advertizing have told people that sub ingredients are scary and since gluten is a sub-ingredient of wheat the Instinctive common sense response for some people is that gluten must be dangerous. Despite the fact that it is just as natural as nuts or dairy, which is declared the same way.
Where as the question of believing vs rejecting in climate models and evolution is almost entirely about declaring sociopolitical loyalties.
Good luck getting the NIMBYs to agree to it. No one wants to live next to a nuclear plant. Would you?
You just put it next to someone else metro area, that's how non nuclear Denmark got a reactor about 25km outside of it's capital. It's like most other can's about nuclear something that have been done in the past.
Sure it's not optimal but given that coal is killing the planet and might cause mass extinction level of hardship down the line, maybe it's time to redo the equation, and start realizing that even if we face a couple of mishap a decade on the Fukushima scale you still end up causing less damage then if we stick with the current trend of using coal to fill the gaps renewable wont be able to for the foreseeable future,
This is not my area - but surely some of the issues could be resolved with better storage solutions together with greater take up? It strikes me that an advantage solar has is that people can pop a solar panel anywhere, from watches to houses, meaning they can be integrated more fully into where energy is needed. Storing excess well means peaks are covered.
The problem is that all of that is theoretical future tech nobody knows how to make.
Nuclear can be build now it all tech sitting in engineering blueprints on file and can go online at almost any scale we want it in 15-20 years time, where as most of the storage/green miracle stuff is still at the point where none of the real world kinks are well understood and where no full scale blueprints exists.Once the clock rolls oast 2115 we might get a real energy surplus out of green tech but on the 10-50 year scale you got the hard choice between Coal or Nuclear, unless were willing to turn off 80% of our modern infrastructure.
There a lot of nitty gritty politics involved at the IPCC this dont mean the data is always cooked but the reports are often bended towards advocating the "preferred" solution weather or not the science actually says it can be effective which for most part is not the case. Some of the models do suggest that we passed point of no return where change can no longer be stopped quite some time ago.
Missiles don't have the same range as planes if you want to deny an area to other planes
But at 10 times the cost of a flotilla of mobile anti aircraft platforms are a carrier then worth it given that it takes one lucky hit to put it out of action.
That the core problem of the asymmetrical doctrine if you put a carrier at see into contested waters you open the door to failure if your doctrine depend on having the carrier, so the enemy is likely to get really creative in finding ways to sink it.
Land based planes have a role but only if you can field them in numbers and with the 5th gen what you get is a plane that cannot dogfight against a 4th gen, dont have the bomb capacity of even a 3rd gen, and is a sitting duck once someone makes an SAM radar that can defeat the stealth. And at 10 times the cost your back to the problem of having a tool that's just too expensive to field. It's as if nobody learned a lesson from the failure of the yamato to have any impact on wwII.
Oh, and one overpriced aircraft carrier with no planes that can fly from it.
It's increasingly unclear that having planes launched from an aircraft carrier is a feature. Drones and missiles are a lot cheaper than manned planes (and require less logistical support).
But without aircraft a carrier becomes useless and with it being the only big ship that matters those days, and with out big capital shops the lore of the royal navy becomes useless. The truth is i suspect that your mostly right those things are nothing but white elephants and is going to fall pray to swarm/saturation tactics if they get deployed to contested waters. And i am guessing that's why the Chinese is going slow with the big stuff whill mass producing out fast assault boats like the type 022.
The west's current geopolitical failure to do anything other the set fire to things is due to a myth and legend driven doctrine where everyone wants to fight a bunch of 19century wars over and over again, against an enemy playing by 21st century rules.
The problem is that the navy the politicians and admirals wants is not all that relevant in a world of mass produced missiles hit'n'run tactics, where the civilian population might not be entirely passive, and where off the shelf gear often provide a pretty good match against anything the secret military research arms can deliver. And people certainly dont want to learn from watching the numbers from previous conflicts but prefer the hollywood version of history.
With the reactors on board most ships they got the power, without the need for large shells with/or gun power taking up space. They can have much more ammo on board since they only need the shell part not a ton of gun powder to get shell from A to B. On top of much more power behind a rail gun shot makes armor of another ship well worthless.
What reactors? Most naval vessels use diesel, reactors are reserved for the unseen gunless submarines and the equally gunless aircraft carriers, since it just dont make sense on run off the mill surface ships like destroyers and frigates.
Is this merely an attempt to bringe the expensive white elephants that the battleship proved to be back into active service?
I though they abandoned gunpowder for their main armament before the first world war. gun powder is for small arms ammunition where anything else is too expensive.
This is the kind of stuff the Military industrial complex comes up with when they need to give congress a set of cheap buzzword to defend wasting more money on equipment that will never be used to make a real difference anyway,
The US stategic doctrine is flawed and have been since the Vietnam but just like the cavalry survived almost a century after it was proven inefficient the Pentagon is not interested in abandoning it's old legends and myths and adopt new doctrines. So we got more hi-tech and less correct trained ground troops, which is exactly the opposite of what you need for efficient COIN operations.
Slashdot Mirror
If an institution is too big to fail, then Politics was involved in getting it there, and politics will be involved in keeping it there.
As a Libertarian, I'm okay with failure, for the sole reason that failure is what fuels innovation.
That being said, Bernie is an interesting cat. He is a true socialist, who believes government has the ability to manage and shape the economy without unintended consequences. My experience is that most of the economic problems are due to (caused by) government interference, and not allowing the natural forces to work themselves out. Sometimes the lions eat the gazelles, sometimes the bugs eat the lions.
Can you mention one country outperforming the crisis that does not have way more and stronger goverment institutions then the US?
The liberatrian "small state" is as far as i have been able to tell religious in nature, with all empirical data contradicting the theory.
Shock therapy in eastern Europe is a good example of what happens if you simply dismantle a even a horribly inefficient government, and something similar have happened everything the small state "libertarian" theory have been tried in practice, things gets worse not better.
Libertarianism is based on assumptions that cannot be true for any system we can create from the ruins of the one we have.
The social democratic movement of Western Europe(Germany and Scandinavia in particular) Bernie Saunders is trying to introduce to America, is on the other hand very real, and most of it's polices have been tried out in practise and while they fall short of the full promise, they produced results rarely seen in other systems.
I am not saying his way are the right one but that the libertarian trap of ignoring the mess we have to start from should be avoided.
But the downside has been that IT has lost touch with the business almost completely, and the amount of red tape is staggering.
But were the downsides really accidental or a well understood consequence of a deliberate decision by the "Board of directors"? The red tape might be there on purpose to keep "junior management" from getting sucked in by the constant hype being pushed by "the press" for gadgets and bespoke IT solutions.
Most of the potential IT productivity gains for "traditional industries" might have been realised as far back as the mid 90ies, when all inventory, order processing and accounting were digitized, so a deliberate strategy to hold back and make do with cheaper commodity tools rather then try to fit everything to every niche inside the company, might release funds for other more important projects outside of IT.
Sure there are changes but were pretty far down the curve of diminishing returns that every new technology follows, so new innovations in IT have less of an effect then the innovations of the past.
Affirmative action is primarily the compromise made to avoid having half of the political and business elite of the US thrown in jail for high treason and will full violation of the US constitution which in the hindsight probably is what should have happened.
Instead a deal was made that essentially goes were going to give you amnesty but you will dedicate a set fraction of your economy toward the minorities whos right were violated for generations after they revolt had failed and universal equality became the American way. It's not the right solution but the people complaining about it ate typically the ones who parents got the better deal of not being prosecuted or bankrupted in a fair post slavery/apartheid trial.
It's way to easy to do clean slate ethics and just forget that any society is a product of it's past and that the US don't have that good a record of living up to the ideals it claims to support.
But clean state ethics like all utopianism is the tempting because it offer salvation in earth and that's why once in a wile a society tears itself apart in the not so cleansing fires of fascism which is always the outcome when someone tries to force an utopian vision based on clean slate ethics through.
But you need to make sure that is a personal expense. because unless you specifically close any loophole that might allow for the department to pay insurance costs, you can be sure the cost of insurance will fall right back on the tax payers leaving nothing changed.
As far as i know the responsibility and malpractice insurance required by doctors and lawyers can be company/clinic level and is not paid directly by "employees" but by the company they work for in most cases.
A much better solution would be to remove all investigations of police misconduct or use of force from the local justice system who depend on good day to day working relations with the police. As the real problem here is that the only ones who can discipline a cop cannot function unless the police supports them.
If the military justice system or a federal agency with no other domestic law enforcement responsibility then to police the police were automatically put in charge the minute any force are used by the police you would likely see a increase in convictions and a decrease in incidents.
I understand why medical is hard to outsource, but I would think finance would be incredibly easy. I'm pretty sure Excel and calculators are plentiful in other countries.
Finance is a sub branch of law, and laws are specific to each jurisdiction, the reason finance is not widely outsourced is that same as the reason why there is no H1B lawyers.
I think at this point everyone agrees that the STEM job market in the US is screwed up. Right now we're all pointing fingers at eachother blaming millennials, gen X, baby boomers, immigrants, business owners, politicians, civil servants, the whole government, high schools, colleges, testing services, misogynists, political correctness, investors, people who don't invest, Obama, Bush...
Anyone have any ideas on what to do about it? How about we work on that now.
What Europe and Asia does have the state play the role of investor of last resort in oddball basic research and kick the profiteers(contractors, private universities etc) out of the equation. There is essentially no reason ever for a job funded by taxes to be outsourced to a equally inefficient private bureaucracy and not the government itself. And plenty of reason why you want science done with an openness policy that runs against short term shareholder interests.
Also there might be a need to realise that the perpetual growth might be an impossibility and start adjusting the social structure so zero growth don't lead to people being forced to choose between returning to the old feudal order or violent revolt. Not doing so might hamper long slow but stable term growth because people panic if there is "bad years".
But we also had it easy when we emerged, since nobody else knew anything about anything, so all sorts of sysadmin jobs were wide open, and there were no Bangalore outsourcing industry, so the companies had to hire "local".
If you played with computers in the 80ies you essentially self selected into a skill set that was needed by the late 90ies but not taught by any vocational school until the 00's, and there were no older generation to displace since the entire market were expanding like crazy.
Now what you have is a fairly stable market, almost in stagnation if not decline, an older generation, already filling most of the demand, and an tendency for companies to hire in places with less political instability then the US. despite all of the silicon valley hype.
Danmark(and the rest of scandinavia) have completely different sensitivities then the anglo american culture, especially when it comes to explaining the world to kids, it's after all the place where an state run educational institution dissected and fed an giraffe to a bunch of lions in front of a bunch of kids. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... and routinely takes schoolchildren on excursions to slaughterhouses to prevent the Disneyfication of animals.
The difference in philosophy runs a lot deeper then the rating bodies.
No, they are closer to a contractor, which is why they are self employed. All Uber provides is the platform.
When I do contract work for a company I may be bound by that companies codes as well. Doesn't make me anything other than a contractor.
A contractor is normally defined as a independent agent who can work for you and your competitor within the same time frame, once you start demanding they work exclusively for you, the contractor becomes a employee in most jurisdiction.
Another distinction, is that a contractor is a legal entity, i.e. a contractor can hire someone else to do the work as long as they meat the specified qualifications, ie if the contract specify one named individual the the base assumption is that there is a de facto employment contract.
There are overlaps between those two standards and lots of exceptions, but mostly in the more expensive end of the market. the closer you get to minimum wage the more likely it is that the details start pointing towards employee and not contractor once it gets down to actual case law.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog... The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.
The argument that gets made is that it would be unacceptable to have different classes of companies competing for the same market and not be subject to the exact same regulation, ie that Uber either get to try and prove that the rules are illegal or get out. Ubers main argument seams to be the rather silly but were not a taxi company so we dont need to follow any regulations and that just wont fly anywhere civilized.
The real problem for uber is not the volume regulation but the two main set of regulations that all taxi and bus companies have to follow, even in rural hinterlands with no volume regulation.
The first is the driver licensing, you need a special license to be allowed to drive paying customers, this involves additional tests of driving skills a full background check(criminal record) and completion of course in business regulations. Uber sometimes claim to vet their drivers for this but rarely follows the existing standard for due diligence. (more incompetent then the law is a thing on the continent).
Secondly the company must be operating under a rule set that makes it mandatory for them to accept liability(and to be insured against it) for almost everything involving a car driving under their banner, and bans them from discriminating against "costly" customer types(handicapped people) or poor neighbourhoods, specific terms and condition like fixed maximum tariffs might be in place and there is a lot of technical details hiding here but it's still mostly public "health and safety" and not meant to limit the number of operators. Uber really don't want to follow those rules, as half their business model is discriminatory pricing, and liability avoidance.
The third and the only one Uber wants to talk about is the volume limitations in place in congested cities, aka medallions here the rules span from Westministers(London) absurd rules mandating specific car designs etc, with a "full time drivers with detailed local knowledge only" restriction being the norm. It's rare that those volume restrictions are absolute ie an cap company based outside of the city can make some trips inside the city limits etc. And unlike the first two those rules are subject to fierce political debates as it's sort of an exemption to basic EU principles, getting into that market is an investment but not an impossible barrier.
Key Here Deutche Telecom, they are not known under that name in america so obviusly they are not concerned with US regulation.
Under EU regulation there were never a debate, broadband have always been under common carrier regulation and last mile subletting were made mandatory in the mid 90ies. And the anti molopoly regulation in europe are a lot less useless then the US counterpart.
Both Facebook and Google are being monitored by the EU antitrust regulators due to revenue sharing agreement with mobile and im guessing Deutche Telecom is hinting that there might be stuff going on in the backroom at contract negotiations that might in effect be favoratism of certain carriers or bribing to become default, which you cannot do as a "dominant niche player" in the european marketplace.
There are also mumblings in the corner that google might be filtering out competitors from the first page of search results and issue that have led to court cases against google. Again a big no no for a large company in europe.
My employer is not a fortune 500 company and we just got a notice from IT that none of the corporate Lenovo laptops are affected and only consumer laptops are affected. This is most likely due to the fact that corporate laptops tend to not have all the usual consumer bloatware installed.
But those models also get an actual pricetag for windows pro and if you buy in volume(20+) through a retailer you can get them OS-free. Dell sells linux laptops though the backdoors, and all of the large vendors will charge seperately for windows proffessional and deliver them with stock microsoft settings and not do the bundling discount they do for consumer laptop, but you pay more for those systems, then similar specced consumer laptops.
The core problem is that we dont consider discount through bundling 3rd party software as illegal trade harming cartel activity, which is why it wont be the last time some company bundle malware, but then again those parts of "weath of nations" that deal with the dangers of cartels have more or less been censored out of the copies US students are taught from.
Lets reduce his argument to it's core:
Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.
Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.
Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.
Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.
But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?
It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition, sure they dont use those words but newspeak like market differentiation or leveraging intellectual property but the goal of any publicly traded company is always to overcharge customers, and avoid markets with real competition and low profit margins.
There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition and not cartel forming and other dirty tactics, but most of the trade lobbyist funding said politicians are less naive then that.
The system they are building with privatization and deregulation more neo-mercantilist then neo-capitalist
FYI... I'm running systemd in a busybox environment currently. Have been for the last 3 years now.
Not seeing what the big fuss is. The dependency model that systemd enforces helps with speeding startup of embedded systems. I like it more than the hacked init.d scripts we had been using. We're not using near 50% what systemd can do. But, I see measurable value by going that direction.
But, then again, I happen to like gnome compared to my other options out there. So, I guess I fit in the demographic you're railing about.
As developers, we're looking for something that "just works". All of those hand-crafted scripts used by init.d doesn't address this.
I like the init part of systemd but all of the mess that gets bolted on because the team behind it dont want to write or deal with API's and 3rd party plugins is breaking stuff faster then they can fix it because the project management team forgot to limit the project scope to something they could manage. Systemd does not "just work" for the people whom sysV did not also "just work".
Not true. Average user doesn't use UI on linux. Number of headless linux boxes outnumbers UI based ones 10:1.
And the number of non mainline linux system outnumber mainline servers by a similar margin, and here we get the core of the systemd resistance.
Because of poor project management and corporate politics systemd have gone from being a init replacement to something that will never be compatible with all of the non mainline linux systems out there. having systemd maintain cgroups the redhat way is not going to work for FC swtitch since systemd cannot know about the switching application the way a custom implementation.
And there dozens of edge case like this were an resource rich organization gets thrown under the bus and have to abandon any hope collaborating with mainline linux if systemd becomes the defining factor for mainline linux.
Google who does sell linux based consumer products does not seams to have that much of an interest in systemd and is not in a hurry to adopt it, canonocal voted against it in the debian election and is still pushing their own cgroup manager, and is trying to implement systemd in a weird almost fashion and running into a ton of problems that also plague debian jessie, which mark the first time in almost a decade Debian testing is actually broken beyond the point where a end user becomes frustrated. This is following the mess GTK3/gnome3 created which spawned the unity, mate and cinnamon desktop environments, whith much of the same retoric on forums as we now get with systemd/anti-systemd
GTK3 went into a decline declining, following the failure of the gnome3 vision to resonate with the market, so it's far from certain systemd is the success people hope it hurried adoption will make it by the time RHEL8 is scheduled for release you might see real competition in the cgroup manager space, and a decent non systemd embedded API for setting cgroups permissions.
It is quite well known systemd was a political backed decision and not a technical one. Plus I will never understand how it made so fast to stable.
It never became stable, look at their bug list then compare with any other stable init.
Upstart have 10 part timers and dont see a lot of critical bugs sitting around, sysV and OpenRC is the same story, systemd have a bug queue the size of that for windows and more then 500 active developers, And every distribution adapting is have are facing more turmoil then they've seen since the late 90ies.
At the end it might pen out but since systemd is redhat 3rd in just as many major releases it's still possible that a 4th init system get's adopted around the time 8 comes along, or that systemd gets put on a diet, and reduced to just a init system.
It's political but it probably have as much to do with the irrelevance linux bestowed of the old giants at Xopen and FSF then it have to do with redhat.
GNU HURD failed because they wanted to put all systemd wants to do under one committee had they not done so they might have shipped, early enough for the FSF to remain relevant
I doubt well ever see systemd with a busybox environment so by making everything in mainline a sub feature of system mainline will no longer be able to share resources with the cash rich embedded world, custom server farms might even end up diverging so much from the mainline being pushed by redhat, suse and canonical that they too stop contribution code into systemd compatible components.It's what you get when you fal into the trap of wanting to manage every component you use under one umbrella.
This is essentially what happened to the BSD world, at one point all of the fringes, which is where the development cash tend to be, decided not to deal with the committee in charge and left for the anarchic world of linux.
It#s also interesting that systemd and gnome camps are 110% aligned and tend to be the people who want to put a central committee back in charge just like in the old HURD/BSD days, where as the people and organization who grew in the chaos that is linux tend to grumble about the throwback to old style waterfall design by comittee models of opensource.
Indeed, sorry you got modded down for an insightful reply. Science denial in this specific case however, seems to be across the political spectrum: (http://www.vice.com/read/weird-politics-of-anti-vaxxers-203) - as opposed to the generally right wing tilt of denying climate change, evolution, etc.
The psychology of it is also rather different, like with the anti-gluten movement it's a side effect of how we have been trained to trust/reat advertizing keywords
Vaccine is injecting bacteria/virus into you and since weve been told by soap commecial that all microorganisms are bad for you and nobody remember that were also dependent on them to stay alive the natural instinctive common sense view is to think that vaccines are dangerous.
Gluten is similar about 1% of the population have an mutation that means they cant digest it properly, so it have to be declared along with allergens on packaging, and since the health and gourmand food advertizing have told people that sub ingredients are scary and since gluten is a sub-ingredient of wheat the Instinctive common sense response for some people is that gluten must be dangerous. Despite the fact that it is just as natural as nuts or dairy, which is declared the same way.
Where as the question of believing vs rejecting in climate models and evolution is almost entirely about declaring sociopolitical loyalties.
Good luck getting the NIMBYs to agree to it. No one wants to live next to a nuclear plant. Would you?
You just put it next to someone else metro area, that's how non nuclear Denmark got a reactor about 25km outside of it's capital. It's like most other can's about nuclear something that have been done in the past.
Sure it's not optimal but given that coal is killing the planet and might cause mass extinction level of hardship down the line, maybe it's time to redo the equation, and start realizing that even if we face a couple of mishap a decade on the Fukushima scale you still end up causing less damage then if we stick with the current trend of using coal to fill the gaps renewable wont be able to for the foreseeable future,
This is not my area - but surely some of the issues could be resolved with better storage solutions together with greater take up? It strikes me that an advantage solar has is that people can pop a solar panel anywhere, from watches to houses, meaning they can be integrated more fully into where energy is needed. Storing excess well means peaks are covered.
The problem is that all of that is theoretical future tech nobody knows how to make.
Nuclear can be build now it all tech sitting in engineering blueprints on file and can go online at almost any scale we want it in 15-20 years time, where as most of the storage/green miracle stuff is still at the point where none of the real world kinks are well understood and where no full scale blueprints exists.Once the clock rolls oast 2115 we might get a real energy surplus out of green tech but on the 10-50 year scale you got the hard choice between Coal or Nuclear, unless were willing to turn off 80% of our modern infrastructure.
There a lot of nitty gritty politics involved at the IPCC this dont mean the data is always cooked but the reports are often bended towards advocating the "preferred" solution weather or not the science actually says it can be effective which for most part is not the case. Some of the models do suggest that we passed point of no return where change can no longer be stopped quite some time ago.
Missiles don't have the same range as planes if you want to deny an area to other planes
But at 10 times the cost of a flotilla of mobile anti aircraft platforms are a carrier then worth it given that it takes one lucky hit to put it out of action.
That the core problem of the asymmetrical doctrine if you put a carrier at see into contested waters you open the door to failure if your doctrine depend on having the carrier, so the enemy is likely to get really creative in finding ways to sink it.
Land based planes have a role but only if you can field them in numbers and with the 5th gen what you get is a plane that cannot dogfight against a 4th gen, dont have the bomb capacity of even a 3rd gen, and is a sitting duck once someone makes an SAM radar that can defeat the stealth. And at 10 times the cost your back to the problem of having a tool that's just too expensive to field. It's as if nobody learned a lesson from the failure of the yamato to have any impact on wwII.
Oh, and one overpriced aircraft carrier with no planes that can fly from it.
It's increasingly unclear that having planes launched from an aircraft carrier is a feature. Drones and missiles are a lot cheaper than manned planes (and require less logistical support).
But without aircraft a carrier becomes useless and with it being the only big ship that matters those days, and with out big capital shops the lore of the royal navy becomes useless. The truth is i suspect that your mostly right those things are nothing but white elephants and is going to fall pray to swarm/saturation tactics if they get deployed to contested waters. And i am guessing that's why the Chinese is going slow with the big stuff whill mass producing out fast assault boats like the type 022.
The west's current geopolitical failure to do anything other the set fire to things is due to a myth and legend driven doctrine where everyone wants to fight a bunch of 19century wars over and over again, against an enemy playing by 21st century rules.
The problem is that the navy the politicians and admirals wants is not all that relevant in a world of mass produced missiles hit'n'run tactics, where the civilian population might not be entirely passive, and where off the shelf gear often provide a pretty good match against anything the secret military research arms can deliver. And people certainly dont want to learn from watching the numbers from previous conflicts but prefer the hollywood version of history.
With the reactors on board most ships they got the power, without the need for large shells with/or gun power taking up space. They can have much more ammo on board since they only need the shell part not a ton of gun powder to get shell from A to B. On top of much more power behind a rail gun shot makes armor of another ship well worthless.
What reactors? Most naval vessels use diesel, reactors are reserved for the unseen gunless submarines and the equally gunless aircraft carriers, since it just dont make sense on run off the mill surface ships like destroyers and frigates.
Is this merely an attempt to bringe the expensive white elephants that the battleship proved to be back into active service?
I though they abandoned gunpowder for their main armament before the first world war. gun powder is for small arms ammunition where anything else is too expensive.
This is the kind of stuff the Military industrial complex comes up with when they need to give congress a set of cheap buzzword to defend wasting more money on equipment that will never be used to make a real difference anyway,
The US stategic doctrine is flawed and have been since the Vietnam but just like the cavalry survived almost a century after it was proven inefficient the Pentagon is not interested in abandoning it's old legends and myths and adopt new doctrines. So we got more hi-tech and less correct trained ground troops, which is exactly the opposite of what you need for efficient COIN operations.