The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories.
I think you're the only one proposing that we make it a law. Everyone else is merely pointing out a flaw in the usual argument in favor of trickle-down economics. In other words, while he should and is free to use that land as he sees fit (albeit while paying his taxes and having historical restrictions likely preventing removal of the building), there's no reason that he should receive favorable tax rates over those who work hard for a living, and indeed due to the high income he can contribute a greater share to the general welfare without it impacting his lifestyle.
The flaw in your logic is that most of the jobs created at the sub-minimum wage level (in the absence of such a wage) wouldn't go to a 13-year-old making money to buy candy. They would go to people working five jobs trying to scrape by a living. Instead, with a minimum wage, those people scrape by a living while working only three jobs, thereby providing them a small amount of time at rest.
Also, minimum wage establishes a base line for education. As you point out, certain jobs are no longer worth hiring someone to do them. Those jobs by their wage point had little to no education requirement. Okay, so there are no longer jobs for people who chose to drop out of school in ninth grade and refuse to learn a trade. You know what? That's a fair trade to me. If those people have a development disability that prevents them for learning a skill, then we have a social safety net to help them.
Finally the $10,000/hr statement is just absurd right now, because that price point would eliminate all jobs except those requiring skill as a Fortune 500 CEO. Now, if we were a country with 501 citizens and 500 CEO jobs to fill? Then sure, it would be perfectly viable.
This is what I came here to say. (Disclaimer: I'm a hardware engineer and most of the code I write is in HDL.)
There are two factors at work. 1. With the exception of big thesis-style projects, most academic work is scoped for you by the nature of the assignment or the teacher. This is almost never true in the real world. 2. When options are available, the proper way to write code is the way that is most readable and supportable. However, the most readable way to write a given piece of code varies by its scope.
Thus, as you work on real-world code, you might design something a certain way because it's the cleanest, most readable way you know. Then, later, as the scope of the project is made more clear, either through your own investigation or through changing business requirements, you have to modify the code, but you don't have enough time to toss it all out and start over with a new design that is the most cleanest, readable way to do things given the new requirements. This is most especially true when the scope changes in little steps, each one of which seems small enough to not be a big deal.
My example is with state machine design. For a simple system that moves between a few states and has a few Moore outputs, a single-process state machine with good state names and a few comments is readable and supportable - it all fits on one page. But if I'm designing a 50-process state machine to handle a big, complex process (and can't break it down into multiple machines for timing or whatever reasons), then I'll use a multi-process state machine, with state and nextstate separated, and probably a dedicated process for each I/O or group of I/O signals, where each one can get it's own page-sized bit of code and comments. The latter style is much harder to read and follow for simple systems, but if the former type morphs into the latter type, I need to cut it out and start over. That's only possible when time permits, and I don't own my time when I'm on the job.
And all of this assumes that you even bothered to write the code the most readable and supportable way the first time. Far too often the first time code is written, it's written to get "something out there working" so the analog guys or marketing can test their stuff or show it off. And then you don't get time to even fix that code into something readable in the first place. With a project manager and a few software and analog engineers waiting on you, demanding time to do things right the first time can be challenging.
If someone wants to know if I'm home, they can peek through the curtains and determine if that's really me dancing in the living room, or if it's a cardboard cutout moving around on a toy train. Or maybe they can just notice that there are no cars and the lights haven't changed for a while.
Sometimes you want to dive in, be first, and maybe get a huge portion of the market's mindshare.
Fortunately for the rest of us, we can now review his experiences when doing our research. So the rest of us can be more cautious. Likely, though, the rest of us won't get Microsoft's dedicated attention to our game as he is getting now.
When we checked into the Bellagio in Vegas a long time ago, we found our room safe already locked. We called down to the desk, and they sent up three guys: a technician, a security dude to stand behind the technician, and a security guy at the door.
The technician had to plug something in and manipulate the lock. When it opened, the security guy behind him looking over his shoulder confirmed it was empty, said so out loud, and the guy at the door radioed the information down to someone.
So while it might have been just as easily hackable, the hotel's policies at least made it look like it was a much bigger deal.
As an aside, there's nothing at all that Zuckerberg could have done to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver when he was 18, rendering him unable to walk and with cognitive difficulties, or developing Crohn's Disease at 23 and being unable to devote so many hours to the work life.
You may say, the Zuckerbergs of the world are in control of their destiny, the lottery winners rely on luck.
Everyone relies on luck to some extent. Just some successful people use their own success as an excuse to deny their own luck.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 3, Informative
So for that school, in-state is about $9800 a year, while out-of-state is about $32000.
Both of these ignore the possibility of a community college for the first two years of school, which can save a lot of money for someone working his or her own way through college.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You don't need a college degree if you have these two things:
1) Technical Skills - The skills actually needed to do your job. Essential.
2) People Skills - The skills to actually talk to people and convince them that you're not an idiot. Convincing people that you're worth the time and the money is the 2nd most important skill you can have.
I'm making more money than all of my 4-year degree friends because I decided long ago to educate myself in a field that's likely to GROW (and not things like art history, where you go to school just to teach other kids, so they can teach other kids, and so on) and because I can talk to people and have them see me as an asset and not a potential liability.
So really you need at least three things - the two you numbered above, plus
3) A desire to work in a field where money is thrown at anyone, not just college graduates.
At least where I live, it's 100% legal to pull into the intersection and wait for oncoming traffic to clear before making a left turn. If oncoming traffic does not clear until their and your light turns red, you make your turn after your light is red. 100% legal - the light was green when you entered the intersection, and you can enter an intersection that you can't exit due to oncoming traffic. (You can't enter an intersection you can't exit due to traffic flowing in your same direction - that's not legal.)
City intersections with crosswalks often have countdown timers for the pedestrians. Most of the time the timer light changes to yellow just as the timer reaches 0, so it does exactly what you propose.
And yes, watching those does help me prepare to stop when I need to.
Err, so do you not have printers at your office? Do you squirt epoxy into all the USB ports? How do you keep your employees from looking at corporate data on their monitors?
If you mistrust your employees to the point that you don't entrust them with corporate data, the problems are far bigger than whether or not they take their meeting notes on their own iPad or the (lack of) iPad you provided them.
Indeed, like taxes, though as you can deduct foreign taxes paid, you might not owe anything to the U.S. government. Providing support to terrorists or engaging in child trafficking also pop to mind as things illegal for U.S. citizens to do whether they are in the U.S. or not at the time. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions, but they are dwarfed by the large numbers of federal, state, and local laws that only apply to people currently within the jurisdiction (citizen, resident or visitor) and don't apply to those outside the jurisdiction.
Yes, as is true for most all U.S. laws. Were you to visit the U.S., you would not be able to do things that are currently legal in your home country, unless they are also legal in the United States. Were you to do one of those things (smoke pot in the U.S. as a Dutch citizen, to continue my previous example), you could be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for doing so.
Again, I'm not making any claims as to whether this should be illegal or not.
Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands (unless Netherlands law makes it illegal).
So in this case, blocking by U.S. IP address effectively stops people in the U.S. from doing something illegal for people in the U.S. to do, while not preventing those in other countries (including U.S. citizens in other countries) from doing that same thing if it's legal where they currently are.
That's only true when you presume that there is a for-profit insurance company involved in the process. My (largish) employer is self insured (with a big company paid a fixed cost to administer the plan), so our VP of HR cuts a check every week to pay to sum total of all employees' health care costs for that week.
Thus, the company is actively trying to encourage and incentivize us to better take care of routine maintenance. Engineers tend to ignore health issues, so the company put a full-time clinic on-site and encourage us to visit if we sneeze once. They want us to not get avoidable diseases so they ban smoking on their property and create lots of free physical activity programs where we can get exercise.
My insurance company, also known as my employer, wants my routine maintenance covered because it saves them money, pushing the overall costs down (not up).
While it's not the case in the U.S. right now, were you to replace "my employer" with "my government", the same arguments could apply.
I think that was the plan behind Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism". Cut the social safety net, allowing non-profit religious organizations to take up the burden of care, but remove restrictions that prevent those organizations from proselytizing and imposing religious restrictions upon the recipients of their aid.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impact
Refer to definitions 9 and 11 as well as the usage note at the end of the entry. I apologize but the language has changed without your consent.
Should we make that law then?
I think you're the only one proposing that we make it a law. Everyone else is merely pointing out a flaw in the usual argument in favor of trickle-down economics. In other words, while he should and is free to use that land as he sees fit (albeit while paying his taxes and having historical restrictions likely preventing removal of the building), there's no reason that he should receive favorable tax rates over those who work hard for a living, and indeed due to the high income he can contribute a greater share to the general welfare without it impacting his lifestyle.
The flaw in your logic is that most of the jobs created at the sub-minimum wage level (in the absence of such a wage) wouldn't go to a 13-year-old making money to buy candy. They would go to people working five jobs trying to scrape by a living. Instead, with a minimum wage, those people scrape by a living while working only three jobs, thereby providing them a small amount of time at rest.
Also, minimum wage establishes a base line for education. As you point out, certain jobs are no longer worth hiring someone to do them. Those jobs by their wage point had little to no education requirement. Okay, so there are no longer jobs for people who chose to drop out of school in ninth grade and refuse to learn a trade. You know what? That's a fair trade to me. If those people have a development disability that prevents them for learning a skill, then we have a social safety net to help them.
Finally the $10,000/hr statement is just absurd right now, because that price point would eliminate all jobs except those requiring skill as a Fortune 500 CEO. Now, if we were a country with 501 citizens and 500 CEO jobs to fill? Then sure, it would be perfectly viable.
This is what I came here to say. (Disclaimer: I'm a hardware engineer and most of the code I write is in HDL.)
There are two factors at work.
1. With the exception of big thesis-style projects, most academic work is scoped for you by the nature of the assignment or the teacher. This is almost never true in the real world.
2. When options are available, the proper way to write code is the way that is most readable and supportable. However, the most readable way to write a given piece of code varies by its scope.
Thus, as you work on real-world code, you might design something a certain way because it's the cleanest, most readable way you know. Then, later, as the scope of the project is made more clear, either through your own investigation or through changing business requirements, you have to modify the code, but you don't have enough time to toss it all out and start over with a new design that is the most cleanest, readable way to do things given the new requirements. This is most especially true when the scope changes in little steps, each one of which seems small enough to not be a big deal.
My example is with state machine design. For a simple system that moves between a few states and has a few Moore outputs, a single-process state machine with good state names and a few comments is readable and supportable - it all fits on one page. But if I'm designing a 50-process state machine to handle a big, complex process (and can't break it down into multiple machines for timing or whatever reasons), then I'll use a multi-process state machine, with state and nextstate separated, and probably a dedicated process for each I/O or group of I/O signals, where each one can get it's own page-sized bit of code and comments. The latter style is much harder to read and follow for simple systems, but if the former type morphs into the latter type, I need to cut it out and start over. That's only possible when time permits, and I don't own my time when I'm on the job.
And all of this assumes that you even bothered to write the code the most readable and supportable way the first time. Far too often the first time code is written, it's written to get "something out there working" so the analog guys or marketing can test their stuff or show it off. And then you don't get time to even fix that code into something readable in the first place. With a project manager and a few software and analog engineers waiting on you, demanding time to do things right the first time can be challenging.
If someone wants to know if I'm home, they can peek through the curtains and determine if that's really me dancing in the living room, or if it's a cardboard cutout moving around on a toy train. Or maybe they can just notice that there are no cars and the lights haven't changed for a while.
Sometimes you want to dive in, be first, and maybe get a huge portion of the market's mindshare.
Fortunately for the rest of us, we can now review his experiences when doing our research. So the rest of us can be more cautious. Likely, though, the rest of us won't get Microsoft's dedicated attention to our game as he is getting now.
When we checked into the Bellagio in Vegas a long time ago, we found our room safe already locked. We called down to the desk, and they sent up three guys: a technician, a security dude to stand behind the technician, and a security guy at the door.
The technician had to plug something in and manipulate the lock. When it opened, the security guy behind him looking over his shoulder confirmed it was empty, said so out loud, and the guy at the door radioed the information down to someone.
So while it might have been just as easily hackable, the hotel's policies at least made it look like it was a much bigger deal.
He was a robot. MIT patented a Turing PR bot. That patent is going to auction next week actually, but I'm not going to tell you the details...
As an aside, there's nothing at all that Zuckerberg could have done to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver when he was 18, rendering him unable to walk and with cognitive difficulties, or developing Crohn's Disease at 23 and being unable to devote so many hours to the work life.
You may say, the Zuckerbergs of the world are in control of their destiny, the lottery winners rely on luck.
Everyone relies on luck to some extent. Just some successful people use their own success as an excuse to deny their own luck.
Here's another example:
http://web.utk.edu/~bursar/Fall2012FeesUG.pdf
So for that school, in-state is $9100 a year, while out-of-state is $27600. That's in-line with the grandparent poster's estimates.
Here's another example:
http://www.utexas.edu/tuition/costs.html
So for that school, in-state is about $9800 a year, while out-of-state is about $32000.
Both of these ignore the possibility of a community college for the first two years of school, which can save a lot of money for someone working his or her own way through college.
Along the same lines as your point:
All Of Nation's Resources Dumped Into 50 Children Who Are Actually The Future
If we could just cherry pick those kids now, we wouldn't need to worry about everyone else! ~sarcasm
You don't need a college degree if you have these two things:
1) Technical Skills - The skills actually needed to do your job. Essential.
2) People Skills - The skills to actually talk to people and convince them that you're not an idiot. Convincing people that you're worth the time and the money is the 2nd most important skill you can have.
I'm making more money than all of my 4-year degree friends because I decided long ago to educate myself in a field that's likely to GROW (and not things like art history, where you go to school just to teach other kids, so they can teach other kids, and so on) and because I can talk to people and have them see me as an asset and not a potential liability.
So really you need at least three things - the two you numbered above, plus
3) A desire to work in a field where money is thrown at anyone, not just college graduates.
I think Google would have been happier to have a longer heads up so they could finish their own iOS app version of their maps.
At least where I live, it's 100% legal to pull into the intersection and wait for oncoming traffic to clear before making a left turn. If oncoming traffic does not clear until their and your light turns red, you make your turn after your light is red. 100% legal - the light was green when you entered the intersection, and you can enter an intersection that you can't exit due to oncoming traffic. (You can't enter an intersection you can't exit due to traffic flowing in your same direction - that's not legal.)
Well, if everyone managed to successfully avoid a reckless driver, he or she would be "wreckless" too, right?
You don't have to be able to read the crosswalk timer, you just have to recognize that it contains more than one digit.
1X = I have time to make the light
_X = if I'm not close enough to see what X is, I won't make the light and better slow down
City intersections with crosswalks often have countdown timers for the pedestrians. Most of the time the timer light changes to yellow just as the timer reaches 0, so it does exactly what you propose.
And yes, watching those does help me prepare to stop when I need to.
Err, so do you not have printers at your office? Do you squirt epoxy into all the USB ports? How do you keep your employees from looking at corporate data on their monitors?
If you mistrust your employees to the point that you don't entrust them with corporate data, the problems are far bigger than whether or not they take their meeting notes on their own iPad or the (lack of) iPad you provided them.
Indeed, like taxes, though as you can deduct foreign taxes paid, you might not owe anything to the U.S. government. Providing support to terrorists or engaging in child trafficking also pop to mind as things illegal for U.S. citizens to do whether they are in the U.S. or not at the time. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions, but they are dwarfed by the large numbers of federal, state, and local laws that only apply to people currently within the jurisdiction (citizen, resident or visitor) and don't apply to those outside the jurisdiction.
Yes, as is true for most all U.S. laws. Were you to visit the U.S., you would not be able to do things that are currently legal in your home country, unless they are also legal in the United States. Were you to do one of those things (smoke pot in the U.S. as a Dutch citizen, to continue my previous example), you could be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for doing so.
Again, I'm not making any claims as to whether this should be illegal or not.
I thought you were going somewhere, then you degraded into an anti-government rant and I stopped reading. Sorry.
Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands (unless Netherlands law makes it illegal).
So in this case, blocking by U.S. IP address effectively stops people in the U.S. from doing something illegal for people in the U.S. to do, while not preventing those in other countries (including U.S. citizens in other countries) from doing that same thing if it's legal where they currently are.
That's only true when you presume that there is a for-profit insurance company involved in the process. My (largish) employer is self insured (with a big company paid a fixed cost to administer the plan), so our VP of HR cuts a check every week to pay to sum total of all employees' health care costs for that week.
Thus, the company is actively trying to encourage and incentivize us to better take care of routine maintenance. Engineers tend to ignore health issues, so the company put a full-time clinic on-site and encourage us to visit if we sneeze once. They want us to not get avoidable diseases so they ban smoking on their property and create lots of free physical activity programs where we can get exercise.
My insurance company, also known as my employer, wants my routine maintenance covered because it saves them money, pushing the overall costs down (not up).
While it's not the case in the U.S. right now, were you to replace "my employer" with "my government", the same arguments could apply.
I think that was the plan behind Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism". Cut the social safety net, allowing non-profit religious organizations to take up the burden of care, but remove restrictions that prevent those organizations from proselytizing and imposing religious restrictions upon the recipients of their aid.