Salaries being determined by the free market is a race to the bottom. There is localized salary variation for a reason, there is a higher standard of living in some locations. The lowest bidder lives in third world conditions, if you want to open an IT shop somewhere with those conditions and sell services to the people who live in those conditions then by all means hire at their local rates.
But as long as you want the superior conditions found in the US to exist, if for no other reason so that you can benefit from the economic power of selling to the fat US market, you'll need to pay US level salaries to the workers in your US level market. You believe in the free market? The free market is ethic and moral free leverage, squeeze, blackmail do whatever it takes to gain no matter who you burn. Well, the US is an organization with massive economic power and it is just as free to leverage it to the benefit of local workers as companies are to leverage their size and ability to absorb the impact of any one worker being fired to take advantage of staff in employment term negotiations.
I'd be careful, those Americans invented most of the technology the rest of the world needs to modernize and those H1B visa workers are coming here to work on.
First "prevailing wage" should be defined as within 1% of the mean salary for functionally comparable positions within the organization. For a sys admin the prevailing wage depends on the flavor and the sector and also the location. In the rural midwest salaries might top at 55k with the average being $35-45k. In Dallas that range is more $85k-150k with the division having to do with specialization and experience. If an organization has to pay an average of $120k/yr for sys admins domestically they should have to pay an H1B $120k/yr + cost of benefits + a guarantee of paying for them relocate back to their origin and a period of continued sponsorship to search for alternate employment should either party decide to end the arrangement.
Otherwise they can use that $35k in the rural midwest or ignore the level of resource being required for the type of sys admin work in question to pay less. Even paying the same amount they have a slave for the term of the contract who has to risk deportation if the company is unhappy for any reason and has no leverage to negotiate increases.
Sure but even that gives wiggle room because they can take the average wage nationally instead of locally, allowing them to rural Missouri pay rates to cut metropolitan wages to half the actual prevailing wage. They also create impossible to qualify for postings so they can justify firing or not hiring the US talent and then hire an import worker who doesn't meet those qualifications. You don't have to justify the qualifications of the person you hire, you only have to justify those you don't.
Give me a break. The statistics showed the same thing for the Clinton v Sanders primary. The voting machine rig is in on every election the only question is who decides who gets it. If it was Trump it sounds like it may simply be the highest bidder.
They TALK sure, but they don't do. Instead they actually borrow from the social security coffers which makes it insolvent, then claim it is unworkable because it is insolvent. And they don't even talk about cutting defense spending which is the biggest issue.
I should have said legitimate reason. Also, it's been a great replacement for the cold war in getting a pack of cowardly dog citizens to provide public support for politicians using the Constitution to wipe their arses. This was critical for them since they forget to budget tp.
Not what I expected to see from that headline but I wrote code that was used by the ExtenZe people in their earliest days when they were spammers.
As for programmers and the higher tiers of systems/db/network engineers we do actually have the power to enable terrible things, cause extreme harm through negligence, including loss of life. Industry is trying to grow our numbers as much as possible to keep salaries down but the world is probably a better place if we keep the club more exclusive.
Computer professionals should probably have ethics boards and professional regulation like Doctors, Attorneys, and other flavors of Engineer. How do you feel about he possibility your spouse/child/mother might be flying on an aircraft tomorrow which is being piloted and air traffic controlled by software taken over by an H1B with zero experience and an Indian no academic standards and no 4 actual years required 4 year degree code monkey? A doctor can refuse to oversee military experiments modifying humans or testing chemical weapons because of ethical constraints. Should we not also be refusing to do harm?
Any requirement that someone performing this duty would report to anyone in their chain of command or who answers to anyone in their chain of command outside of public scrutiny is preposterous. These are the very people they are informing on. Even another body or official simply creates another corruptable/blackmailable organization.
Rule of the people, by the people, and for the people is the core principle of our nation. That can't exist if the government does not have to account and disclose, while relevant and preventable not decades after the fact, to the people. The biggest potential threat to national security is and always will innately be its government.
We should not recognize any portion of government as having the authority to withhold evidence of illegal and especially unconstitutional action. Any artifice, construct of paper, practice, or reasoning, which has this result should be held as void without exception. Since serving the people and obeying the Constitution is the first and foremost Constitutional duty of anyone in government, working for government, directly or indirectly they have absolute legal immunity when performing that duty. This includes Snowden. The NSA was his boss, The President was their boss, The People are the Presidents boss. Uncensored mass public disclosure is how you inform The People and they are not outside but at the top of the chain of the command.
To suggest that rule by the people does not outweigh even potential lost lives is to deny the ocean of blood that has been spilled in an effort to protect it. I brand anyone who is not willing to accept a certain amount of personal risk, no matter what the alleged boogeyman of the day, for the liberty, freedom, and voice in our own rule we so cherish not only for ourselves but those who come after, to be a coward or the traitor depending on cowards selling our nation so cheaply. That isn't "national security" it is the path of national ruin.
Yes, he definitely has the power. And if what he is saying were true he could still publicly promise that he would pardon Snowden if he returned from exile. During the Obama presidency the administration has persecuted now three people for revealing executive branch abuses and crimes including Snowden and Assange who remain in political asylum and none of the abuses revealed have been stopped.
Remind me again just what is it that we are afraid of Trump doing that is worse than what has been happening already and would certainly have continued under Clinton since much of it was happening when her husband was in office? We have perpetual war of one form or another used to justify the invention of a secret executive class of government action spying on our population, including all other government officials, Judges, media, etc that answers to no one and other than naive trust they will act contrary to their motive, means, and opportunity have no reason to think they aren't blackmailing any and all of them they've needed to. People who have access to some of the secret details feel it is so terrible they are compelled to speak out at great risk to themselves. Even though is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect and exactly the sort of thing it was written to protect they've all faced cruel and unusual punishment for speaking out.
Remember when it leaked that we are maintaining networks of torture around the globe to bypass the rules? We aren't allowed to use torture to interrogate our own citizens/prisoners but our people have immunity acting in an official capacity and if they are interrogating a suspect on behalf of the Isreali's those limitations don't apply and the immunity and fact it is classified and secret (see above) guarantees they face no risk of charges for harming someone. Similarly, we can send our people to them (or any of many other nations around the world) for similar treatment, imprisonment, execution, etc. Sure we could send them to Gitmo or another US territory and possibly get around some of those things but this is better because there are no records to be found and revealed later and Gitmo can only hold so many.
"And then the Bush Administration provided fake evidence to the world about WMD's and terror connections in Iraq. When someone that knew better said something, they outed the fact that his wife was a CIA agent, putting her and her contacts at severe risk."
The fake evidence came later, we went into Iraq with no evidence at all just the claim that they couldn't tell us because it was sensitive. What is important to remember is that people you know who supported going into Iraq were just wrong because they believed the government and were loyal to a party, those in congress knew it was bullshit and having voted yes despite knowing means they are 100% corrupt and belong in prison no office. Something I'm amazed neither Sanders nor Trump raised about Hillary's support of Iraq. Sanders did not support it. Trump has been alleged to have supported it but that would only make him guilty of believing the official statement at the time and not been privy to evidence or lack thereof regarding Iraq.
It's easy, you publicly apologizing for any and all formal actions of the United States. State flat out the United States is not a Christian nation and advocates no religious practice and that support for anyone on any side of the issue is the result of secular interests we do not and will not ever care about or take sides in these disputes. We welcome parties of all sides to contact us where our strategic and economic interests are consistent and from this point on would like them and our allies to know that how any such deals impact their holy war will receive no consideration in our decisions or even a response is raised in a private sitting.
We have no reason to be in the middle east except an overblown military reaction to a police matter and that only happened because we are perceived as taking sides in a holy war. We are a nation with a Constitutional separation of church and state if Islamic extremists are attacking us as part of their war clearly we haven't been expressing and acting on that well enough.
"So... you are saying that because Obama isn't going to pardon Snowden, he is phoning it in?
People put WAY too many hopes into the role of president. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment if you do this.
The president has 0 power to do most of the things that people apparently think they do."
What does that have to do with pardoning Snowden? That is absolutely something the president indisputably has the power to do. Making a public commitment to do so should Snowden return so that it will then be safe for him to do so, is also something he can do even if technically he couldn't grant the pardon in advance.
There is plenty of reason D's and R's should be unhappy about the Obama presidency.
Obama created a system that funnels massive amounts of our money to insurance companies, it hasn't merely raised the cost of insurance for those who don't qualify for the subsidies but it has dramatically raised deductibles and the out of pocket costs for care. A 500-1000 deductible has gone from being high to incredibly low and $3000-5000 for an individual is now common. With all the new revisions your plan that covers 80% after deductible somehow results in you getting multiple bills for the same things from different parties and having to pay thousands if you need anything beyond routine care. Saying you cover 20,000,000 people who weren't covered before is a great talking point but those people aren't getting any medical care because the bill you after using care is as large as the bill the insurance company used to get before Obamacare.
Obama has expanded executive power to an unprecedented level, he not only didn't end the abuses of Bush people elected him to end he expanded them. This includes all the crimes committed by the NSA and exposed by Snowden. When they were revealed, instead of distancing himself from it and acting out rage because they were caught he defended the programs and leveraged our political power to disrupt the business of other world leaders and try to hunt down the man who revealed the illegal and corrupt actions. Then under the guise of reform he pushed for a bill that "addressed the abuses," and it did in the sense that the bill gave them congressional blessing but no branch of government has the Constitutional authority to make NSA actions legal. Why do all this? J. Edgar hoover and the dirt he collected through domestic spying on officials to blackmail them, now scale that up to NSA level capturing EVERY voice and data transmission in the country and retaining anything he wants.
I say 2+2=4. I say water is wet. I say air is important. I say you can't generally breath soup in my experience. I say hammers can be a useful tool around the house. You know absolutely nothing about me. Which of those is true? Which is false? Record your answers. Now, I say I'm a grand wizard of the klan. Which of those is true? Which of those is false? Now, I say I'm a liar. Which of those is true, which of those is false? Record your answers. If you recorded false at any point I welcome you to prove that something about me impacted the veracity of my messages by testing them to see if they are indeed false. Work out a new math in which 2+2 isn't true, start using the shower to dry off, stop breathing, start breathing soup as your primary source of air, ban the use of hammers from your home. Record the results.
What about things that can't be reasonably verified? Do what suits you. But when resurrected Hitler tells me I shouldn't put Jewish babies in toxic gas chambers because it will harm them I'm going to form my OPINION based on things I can verify, like that toxic gas is generally toxic, if it is true. You go ahead and form your judgement based on him being Hitler and a Nazi. Or if he claims the opposite and says it is good for Jewish babies and a bystander who has never tossed a baby into a single toxic gas chamber says it would hurt them, go ahead and listen to Hitler, he is the one with all the experience, right? I'll use the same method and reach the same conclusion.
No, there is some legitimacy here. Not the authors actual argument which seems to depend on the premise that we are all worker droids and the only in an activity is how it will impact your ability to indenture yourself into the service of others or at least financially. But there is a degree of truth to the headline. Employers all search social media (or have background investigation firms do so, often illegally since they always access even restricted and private profiles). Using social media in and of itself has no impact on your career except in instances where you do not and employers distrust you because they CAN'T snoop on you.
Having said the wrong thing on social media can impact your ability to obtain employment or even cause you to lose your job, setting the privacy settings on a post incorrect can reveal to a jealous and two-faced co-worker that your sick day was a personal day or reveal the truth behind the double face we all wear privately vs the official workplace place we present. There is very little chance you will benefit financially or in your career from social media so using only increases the chance of it hurting you in those ways at some point.
I should not post before coffee. In English this time.
Mod parent UP to the power of 200. Stop identifying with left, right, D, and R. Skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source. Be the devils advocate then be the other devils advocate and not just coldly be a method actor in all cases. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on. Catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself in order to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone. Whatever every group has in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even if unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously, if there is a way someone benefits should you believe them, getting you to do so is most likely their motive. Do not assume anyone is innocent of anything they would have gained from and thought they could get away with. Do not assume coincidences are coincidences.
After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism if you prefer to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves. Which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree.
Mod parent UP. This, this to the power of 200x. Stop identifying with left and right, D and R, and for god sake lean that skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source be the devils advocate then be that devils advocate. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on and catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone, every group, whatever they have in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously if there is a way someone benefits if you believe them it is most likely their motive.
After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism and preferring to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves (which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree).
You know I read the first line of your post and wished I had mod points. If you'd stopped there is would have been an very insightful post.
Unfortunately, you continued. If what the man said was correct about Pence, it was correct, it would be correct regardless of who spoke the words. In the same token, if the information contained in wikileaks regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was correct, it was correct regardless of who provided the data. Whether someone is trying to make you ignore the message of an Actor because of his personal flaws or disregard damning information about a political candidate because they allege the source is Russia; they are trying to present a logical fallacy. If someone says the Redskins crushed the packers last night, the statement remains true or false regardless of my bias the degree of "crushing" is impacted by bias but it is a personal judement and those should always be disregarded regardless of the source since there is no common scale and they provide useful information to the person who made them.
294 take downs is not a significant enough sample size to start making a report or pointing fingers at one outlet or another. Additionally, I doubt the EFF had access to this information directly which means it could just be easier in some fashion to pass along FB information.
I'm not saying FB does not account for the majority; I'm saying the data presented here provides negligible weight toward that conclusion and my respect for the EFF just dropped a notch. It is irresponsible for a credible and respected organization to public something like this without more to go on.
"But predicting that we will be seeing 95% unemployment in the future is just plain silly."
Of course we will it is just a matter of when. But we need a UBI at a number far lower than 50% let alone 95%.
"Its as if no one had learned anything from the past revolutions and evolutions in the industry in general."
Past revolutions have not all created enough new jobs to replace the ones lost. They created fewer new jobs that were harder to qualify for shrinking the size of the true middle class and shifting people either downward or upward. The entire point of technological evolution is to make things easier and reduce labor.
Drone pilot is a new job, but drones have become highly automated and don't need drone pilots anymore. Now they just need supervisors who can watch many many drones and intervene on the occasional hiccup. Replace many jobs with just one. Of course, those drones will deliver packages from the almost entirely automated warehouse that pulls ordered items out onto conveyers, packs them, labels them (with embedded radio tag), drops them into sorted shipping bins, the bins will eventually be self driving vehicles that themselves work like dump trucks. A simple algorithm based conceptually on an internet routing protocol will determine which drone silo that truck goes to with all those packages having the same next common hop but potentially having more after that. These would likely be handled by flying drones because you can have far more in the air especially with automated air traffic control. Swarms of drones route packages and deliver them to homes. And of course the sales portion of this is already automated. Now shipping for the entire US can be handled with just a few hundred people who supervise these bots, intervene in the edge cases that get in the way, and the people who assess those edge cases and come up with ways to fix them or automate those as well, eventually we'll be able to automate the production of even the drones and have algorithms and processes in place such that the system can automatically recover from almost every failure and the return on the efforts of even these people will be so low they can't be justified anymore.
We don't just automate specific tasks, as we solve specific tasks we learn how to automate classes and types of task in a way that would be applicable to problems we don't know about or have yet. Eventually we will have a combination of AI that can adapt all those discovered answers to the new tasks and automated infrastructure to apply them. Suggesting this will never happen is rather short sighted, it IS happening, all over the place and the world isn't going to stop because you think the sound barrier is impossible to cross or that man will never fly, a computer could never beat that something special that is human intellect in Chess let alone Go or something more abstract like Jeopardy.
Technology is not an endless pursuit, it has a goal, that goal is making things easier for us and making things easier means less labor needing to be done. 95% of the US population not needing to work isn't a bad thing. A UBI isn't something we "resort" to or charity, there will always be physical realities that limit and prioritize production even with machines doing all the work and the UBI becomes a fair way to distribute those resources.
Slashdot Mirror
Salaries being determined by the free market is a race to the bottom. There is localized salary variation for a reason, there is a higher standard of living in some locations. The lowest bidder lives in third world conditions, if you want to open an IT shop somewhere with those conditions and sell services to the people who live in those conditions then by all means hire at their local rates.
But as long as you want the superior conditions found in the US to exist, if for no other reason so that you can benefit from the economic power of selling to the fat US market, you'll need to pay US level salaries to the workers in your US level market. You believe in the free market? The free market is ethic and moral free leverage, squeeze, blackmail do whatever it takes to gain no matter who you burn. Well, the US is an organization with massive economic power and it is just as free to leverage it to the benefit of local workers as companies are to leverage their size and ability to absorb the impact of any one worker being fired to take advantage of staff in employment term negotiations.
I'd be careful, those Americans invented most of the technology the rest of the world needs to modernize and those H1B visa workers are coming here to work on.
First "prevailing wage" should be defined as within 1% of the mean salary for functionally comparable positions within the organization. For a sys admin the prevailing wage depends on the flavor and the sector and also the location. In the rural midwest salaries might top at 55k with the average being $35-45k. In Dallas that range is more $85k-150k with the division having to do with specialization and experience. If an organization has to pay an average of $120k/yr for sys admins domestically they should have to pay an H1B $120k/yr + cost of benefits + a guarantee of paying for them relocate back to their origin and a period of continued sponsorship to search for alternate employment should either party decide to end the arrangement.
Otherwise they can use that $35k in the rural midwest or ignore the level of resource being required for the type of sys admin work in question to pay less. Even paying the same amount they have a slave for the term of the contract who has to risk deportation if the company is unhappy for any reason and has no leverage to negotiate increases.
Sure but even that gives wiggle room because they can take the average wage nationally instead of locally, allowing them to rural Missouri pay rates to cut metropolitan wages to half the actual prevailing wage. They also create impossible to qualify for postings so they can justify firing or not hiring the US talent and then hire an import worker who doesn't meet those qualifications. You don't have to justify the qualifications of the person you hire, you only have to justify those you don't.
No, I meant it. You have a lot of hate in your heart. You should be treated by a doctor.
You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe you should see a doctor.
Give me a break. The statistics showed the same thing for the Clinton v Sanders primary. The voting machine rig is in on every election the only question is who decides who gets it. If it was Trump it sounds like it may simply be the highest bidder.
They TALK sure, but they don't do. Instead they actually borrow from the social security coffers which makes it insolvent, then claim it is unworkable because it is insolvent. And they don't even talk about cutting defense spending which is the biggest issue.
I should have said legitimate reason. Also, it's been a great replacement for the cold war in getting a pack of cowardly dog citizens to provide public support for politicians using the Constitution to wipe their arses. This was critical for them since they forget to budget tp.
Not what I expected to see from that headline but I wrote code that was used by the ExtenZe people in their earliest days when they were spammers.
As for programmers and the higher tiers of systems/db/network engineers we do actually have the power to enable terrible things, cause extreme harm through negligence, including loss of life. Industry is trying to grow our numbers as much as possible to keep salaries down but the world is probably a better place if we keep the club more exclusive.
Computer professionals should probably have ethics boards and professional regulation like Doctors, Attorneys, and other flavors of Engineer. How do you feel about he possibility your spouse/child/mother might be flying on an aircraft tomorrow which is being piloted and air traffic controlled by software taken over by an H1B with zero experience and an Indian no academic standards and no 4 actual years required 4 year degree code monkey? A doctor can refuse to oversee military experiments modifying humans or testing chemical weapons because of ethical constraints. Should we not also be refusing to do harm?
Any requirement that someone performing this duty would report to anyone in their chain of command or who answers to anyone in their chain of command outside of public scrutiny is preposterous. These are the very people they are informing on. Even another body or official simply creates another corruptable/blackmailable organization.
Rule of the people, by the people, and for the people is the core principle of our nation. That can't exist if the government does not have to account and disclose, while relevant and preventable not decades after the fact, to the people. The biggest potential threat to national security is and always will innately be its government.
We should not recognize any portion of government as having the authority to withhold evidence of illegal and especially unconstitutional action. Any artifice, construct of paper, practice, or reasoning, which has this result should be held as void without exception. Since serving the people and obeying the Constitution is the first and foremost Constitutional duty of anyone in government, working for government, directly or indirectly they have absolute legal immunity when performing that duty. This includes Snowden. The NSA was his boss, The President was their boss, The People are the Presidents boss. Uncensored mass public disclosure is how you inform The People and they are not outside but at the top of the chain of the command.
To suggest that rule by the people does not outweigh even potential lost lives is to deny the ocean of blood that has been spilled in an effort to protect it. I brand anyone who is not willing to accept a certain amount of personal risk, no matter what the alleged boogeyman of the day, for the liberty, freedom, and voice in our own rule we so cherish not only for ourselves but those who come after, to be a coward or the traitor depending on cowards selling our nation so cheaply. That isn't "national security" it is the path of national ruin.
"Since the national security agencies were breaking the law, I think mr. obama is making the wrong call."
Were breaking the law? I think you mean are breaking the law.
Yes, he definitely has the power. And if what he is saying were true he could still publicly promise that he would pardon Snowden if he returned from exile. During the Obama presidency the administration has persecuted now three people for revealing executive branch abuses and crimes including Snowden and Assange who remain in political asylum and none of the abuses revealed have been stopped.
Remind me again just what is it that we are afraid of Trump doing that is worse than what has been happening already and would certainly have continued under Clinton since much of it was happening when her husband was in office? We have perpetual war of one form or another used to justify the invention of a secret executive class of government action spying on our population, including all other government officials, Judges, media, etc that answers to no one and other than naive trust they will act contrary to their motive, means, and opportunity have no reason to think they aren't blackmailing any and all of them they've needed to. People who have access to some of the secret details feel it is so terrible they are compelled to speak out at great risk to themselves. Even though is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect and exactly the sort of thing it was written to protect they've all faced cruel and unusual punishment for speaking out.
Remember when it leaked that we are maintaining networks of torture around the globe to bypass the rules? We aren't allowed to use torture to interrogate our own citizens/prisoners but our people have immunity acting in an official capacity and if they are interrogating a suspect on behalf of the Isreali's those limitations don't apply and the immunity and fact it is classified and secret (see above) guarantees they face no risk of charges for harming someone. Similarly, we can send our people to them (or any of many other nations around the world) for similar treatment, imprisonment, execution, etc. Sure we could send them to Gitmo or another US territory and possibly get around some of those things but this is better because there are no records to be found and revealed later and Gitmo can only hold so many.
"And then the Bush Administration provided fake evidence to the world about WMD's and terror connections in Iraq. When someone that knew better said something, they outed the fact that his wife was a CIA agent, putting her and her contacts at severe risk."
The fake evidence came later, we went into Iraq with no evidence at all just the claim that they couldn't tell us because it was sensitive. What is important to remember is that people you know who supported going into Iraq were just wrong because they believed the government and were loyal to a party, those in congress knew it was bullshit and having voted yes despite knowing means they are 100% corrupt and belong in prison no office. Something I'm amazed neither Sanders nor Trump raised about Hillary's support of Iraq. Sanders did not support it. Trump has been alleged to have supported it but that would only make him guilty of believing the official statement at the time and not been privy to evidence or lack thereof regarding Iraq.
It's easy, you publicly apologizing for any and all formal actions of the United States. State flat out the United States is not a Christian nation and advocates no religious practice and that support for anyone on any side of the issue is the result of secular interests we do not and will not ever care about or take sides in these disputes. We welcome parties of all sides to contact us where our strategic and economic interests are consistent and from this point on would like them and our allies to know that how any such deals impact their holy war will receive no consideration in our decisions or even a response is raised in a private sitting.
We have no reason to be in the middle east except an overblown military reaction to a police matter and that only happened because we are perceived as taking sides in a holy war. We are a nation with a Constitutional separation of church and state if Islamic extremists are attacking us as part of their war clearly we haven't been expressing and acting on that well enough.
"So... you are saying that because Obama isn't going to pardon Snowden, he is phoning it in?
People put WAY too many hopes into the role of president. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment if you do this.
The president has 0 power to do most of the things that people apparently think they do."
What does that have to do with pardoning Snowden? That is absolutely something the president indisputably has the power to do. Making a public commitment to do so should Snowden return so that it will then be safe for him to do so, is also something he can do even if technically he couldn't grant the pardon in advance.
There is plenty of reason D's and R's should be unhappy about the Obama presidency.
Obama created a system that funnels massive amounts of our money to insurance companies, it hasn't merely raised the cost of insurance for those who don't qualify for the subsidies but it has dramatically raised deductibles and the out of pocket costs for care. A 500-1000 deductible has gone from being high to incredibly low and $3000-5000 for an individual is now common. With all the new revisions your plan that covers 80% after deductible somehow results in you getting multiple bills for the same things from different parties and having to pay thousands if you need anything beyond routine care. Saying you cover 20,000,000 people who weren't covered before is a great talking point but those people aren't getting any medical care because the bill you after using care is as large as the bill the insurance company used to get before Obamacare.
Obama has expanded executive power to an unprecedented level, he not only didn't end the abuses of Bush people elected him to end he expanded them. This includes all the crimes committed by the NSA and exposed by Snowden. When they were revealed, instead of distancing himself from it and acting out rage because they were caught he defended the programs and leveraged our political power to disrupt the business of other world leaders and try to hunt down the man who revealed the illegal and corrupt actions. Then under the guise of reform he pushed for a bill that "addressed the abuses," and it did in the sense that the bill gave them congressional blessing but no branch of government has the Constitutional authority to make NSA actions legal. Why do all this? J. Edgar hoover and the dirt he collected through domestic spying on officials to blackmail them, now scale that up to NSA level capturing EVERY voice and data transmission in the country and retaining anything he wants.
I hope you are kidding. If not, let's test it.
I say 2+2=4. I say water is wet. I say air is important. I say you can't generally breath soup in my experience. I say hammers can be a useful tool around the house. You know absolutely nothing about me. Which of those is true? Which is false? Record your answers. Now, I say I'm a grand wizard of the klan. Which of those is true? Which of those is false? Now, I say I'm a liar. Which of those is true, which of those is false? Record your answers. If you recorded false at any point I welcome you to prove that something about me impacted the veracity of my messages by testing them to see if they are indeed false. Work out a new math in which 2+2 isn't true, start using the shower to dry off, stop breathing, start breathing soup as your primary source of air, ban the use of hammers from your home. Record the results.
What about things that can't be reasonably verified? Do what suits you. But when resurrected Hitler tells me I shouldn't put Jewish babies in toxic gas chambers because it will harm them I'm going to form my OPINION based on things I can verify, like that toxic gas is generally toxic, if it is true. You go ahead and form your judgement based on him being Hitler and a Nazi. Or if he claims the opposite and says it is good for Jewish babies and a bystander who has never tossed a baby into a single toxic gas chamber says it would hurt them, go ahead and listen to Hitler, he is the one with all the experience, right? I'll use the same method and reach the same conclusion.
No, there is some legitimacy here. Not the authors actual argument which seems to depend on the premise that we are all worker droids and the only in an activity is how it will impact your ability to indenture yourself into the service of others or at least financially. But there is a degree of truth to the headline. Employers all search social media (or have background investigation firms do so, often illegally since they always access even restricted and private profiles). Using social media in and of itself has no impact on your career except in instances where you do not and employers distrust you because they CAN'T snoop on you.
Having said the wrong thing on social media can impact your ability to obtain employment or even cause you to lose your job, setting the privacy settings on a post incorrect can reveal to a jealous and two-faced co-worker that your sick day was a personal day or reveal the truth behind the double face we all wear privately vs the official workplace place we present. There is very little chance you will benefit financially or in your career from social media so using only increases the chance of it hurting you in those ways at some point.
I should not post before coffee. In English this time.
Mod parent UP to the power of 200. Stop identifying with left, right, D, and R. Skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source. Be the devils advocate then be the other devils advocate and not just coldly be a method actor in all cases. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on. Catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself in order to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone. Whatever every group has in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even if unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously, if there is a way someone benefits should you believe them, getting you to do so is most likely their motive. Do not assume anyone is innocent of anything they would have gained from and thought they could get away with. Do not assume coincidences are coincidences.
After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism if you prefer to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves. Which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree.
Mod parent UP. This, this to the power of 200x. Stop identifying with left and right, D and R, and for god sake lean that skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source be the devils advocate then be that devils advocate. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on and catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone, every group, whatever they have in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously if there is a way someone benefits if you believe them it is most likely their motive.
After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism and preferring to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves (which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree).
Even if he had it wouldn't be relevant. Either the content of that lecture had merit or it did not, that is independent of who spoke the words.
You know I read the first line of your post and wished I had mod points. If you'd stopped there is would have been an very insightful post.
Unfortunately, you continued. If what the man said was correct about Pence, it was correct, it would be correct regardless of who spoke the words. In the same token, if the information contained in wikileaks regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was correct, it was correct regardless of who provided the data. Whether someone is trying to make you ignore the message of an Actor because of his personal flaws or disregard damning information about a political candidate because they allege the source is Russia; they are trying to present a logical fallacy. If someone says the Redskins crushed the packers last night, the statement remains true or false regardless of my bias the degree of "crushing" is impacted by bias but it is a personal judement and those should always be disregarded regardless of the source since there is no common scale and they provide useful information to the person who made them.
294 take downs is not a significant enough sample size to start making a report or pointing fingers at one outlet or another. Additionally, I doubt the EFF had access to this information directly which means it could just be easier in some fashion to pass along FB information.
I'm not saying FB does not account for the majority; I'm saying the data presented here provides negligible weight toward that conclusion and my respect for the EFF just dropped a notch. It is irresponsible for a credible and respected organization to public something like this without more to go on.
"But predicting that we will be seeing 95% unemployment in the future is just plain silly."
Of course we will it is just a matter of when. But we need a UBI at a number far lower than 50% let alone 95%.
"Its as if no one had learned anything from the past revolutions and evolutions in the industry in general."
Past revolutions have not all created enough new jobs to replace the ones lost. They created fewer new jobs that were harder to qualify for shrinking the size of the true middle class and shifting people either downward or upward. The entire point of technological evolution is to make things easier and reduce labor.
Drone pilot is a new job, but drones have become highly automated and don't need drone pilots anymore. Now they just need supervisors who can watch many many drones and intervene on the occasional hiccup. Replace many jobs with just one. Of course, those drones will deliver packages from the almost entirely automated warehouse that pulls ordered items out onto conveyers, packs them, labels them (with embedded radio tag), drops them into sorted shipping bins, the bins will eventually be self driving vehicles that themselves work like dump trucks. A simple algorithm based conceptually on an internet routing protocol will determine which drone silo that truck goes to with all those packages having the same next common hop but potentially having more after that. These would likely be handled by flying drones because you can have far more in the air especially with automated air traffic control. Swarms of drones route packages and deliver them to homes. And of course the sales portion of this is already automated. Now shipping for the entire US can be handled with just a few hundred people who supervise these bots, intervene in the edge cases that get in the way, and the people who assess those edge cases and come up with ways to fix them or automate those as well, eventually we'll be able to automate the production of even the drones and have algorithms and processes in place such that the system can automatically recover from almost every failure and the return on the efforts of even these people will be so low they can't be justified anymore.
We don't just automate specific tasks, as we solve specific tasks we learn how to automate classes and types of task in a way that would be applicable to problems we don't know about or have yet. Eventually we will have a combination of AI that can adapt all those discovered answers to the new tasks and automated infrastructure to apply them. Suggesting this will never happen is rather short sighted, it IS happening, all over the place and the world isn't going to stop because you think the sound barrier is impossible to cross or that man will never fly, a computer could never beat that something special that is human intellect in Chess let alone Go or something more abstract like Jeopardy.
Technology is not an endless pursuit, it has a goal, that goal is making things easier for us and making things easier means less labor needing to be done. 95% of the US population not needing to work isn't a bad thing. A UBI isn't something we "resort" to or charity, there will always be physical realities that limit and prioritize production even with machines doing all the work and the UBI becomes a fair way to distribute those resources.
That would still be "limited" but the vendor would likely know if they sold them a site license.