Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Yes, that is correct."
(Potential Employer quietly checks the box next to "Does not play well with others", and upon conclusion of the interview, places your resume in the "don't bother" pile)
So let me get this straight, if you eschew nameless, faceless, random contacts on the internet, and instead choose to have deep, meaningful relationships with your friends and family, now all of a sudden you "don't play well with others"?
"If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?"
How does a decision not to use a social network indicate that you fail to understand the concept? It doesn't. And even if it did, what does failing to understand the concept of something that USES IT technology have to do with your understanding of IT technology? Nothing.
Middle School kids can also access porn on the internet. If I don't access porn on the internet, does that mean that I don't understand the concept and am not fit for a job in IT? Does the hiring manager insist on a list of my favorite porn sites, and if I say "I don't partake of internet porn" than I am not a goo job candidate?
If you don't want to hand over that information, then don't. If employers hear this enough, then maybe they will start to smarten up.
But employers won't hear "no" enough. There are plenty of people out there who would just hand over the passwords. Why? Well, why not? Unfortunately, the younger generation has been taught that their privacy is unimportant. Heck if they were concerned about handing over the keys to their facebook account, they are probably the sort of person who would have been concerned about having a facebook account in the first place.
Pah! So what happens to people like me with no social network? The can't ask me to send something I don't have.
Asking for your facebook password is the modern equivalent of asking that you turn over your "Little Black Book" or your Dayrunner (Remember those?) to the company. This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense. Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to have to make a law because common sense seems to have gone extinct.
So put another way, only one US senator agrees. The rest have been well-paid to support anything desired by anyone carrying the title "employer".
No, the other senators said "What the $%^ is facebook"?
Good luck getting a new job without a facebook acct you anti-social nut.
I'll bet there are a significant number of companies that won't hire you because you DO have a facebook account. Where I work, they have blocked facebook because people were spending all day on there. It didn't affect me, because I don't have a facebook account. The reason I don't have a facebook account is because I am a social person, and I find social network sites restricting to being social.
Instead, what this school board did is told all their teachers "you're going to get fired for teaching anything that goes against the arbitrary capricious whims of any nutcake parent."
You forgot "...even though we as a school board approved this literature for you to teach." Which is almost certainly the case.
put bankers in jail for their crimes,
Don't forget the homeowners who took out the loans they couldn't afford, and the politicians who required the bankers to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans.
I've got about 6TB of physical storage in my personal machine. Almost half of that is in use.
I've got about 3 TB of physical storage, and only about 200 GB is in use. The amount of space available has for me long since exceeded the space that I need. But then, I don't put stuff like movies or whatever on my laptop.
Hell, the next time you're at the grocery store look at the canned mushrooms. The only type grown in the USA anymore is Pennsylvania Dutch. You know it's bad when it's cheaper to grow, can, and ship across an ocean something that costs less than a dollar.
Well, to be fair, those mushrooms probably grew in the dank hold of the freighter on the way over. All they had to do was gather them and can them on the dock.
Lowering taxes can make people shift their purchases to B&M stores
The grandparent said eliminate the sales tax. If you eliminate the sales tax, no matter how much more volume you sell, you still won't make any sales tax revenue. tax-free online stores
No such thing. They just don't collect the tax. You are still responsible to pay it.
Why shouldn't online purchases be taxable?
They are, generally. They are quite often not paid, and that is a different issue. However, specific to this case and aside from the whole use tax versus sales tax issue, I think that digital downloads apparently have not historically been taxed in Connecticut and now they want to tax them.
This legislation seems* like it would add a tiny extra bit of accounting on the part of the seller (who, remember, is already set up for collecting sales taxes).
If they are an out-of-state seller, then they are not set up for collecting sales taxes in your state. Setting up connections with all 50 states would be an administrative nightmare, not to mention that there are literally hundreds of thousands of taxing districts in the United States and probably 50 or so changes in rates every day. They only way an online retailer could hope to keep up with this is if the states could all agree on a flat tax rate for digital purchases. Only a state agreement could accomplish this, the federal government is not allowed to make such a tax. Unfortunately, the states won't agree, and an out-of-state retailer is not allowed to be limited or controlled by a state in which they have no physical presence.
seller is required to collect tax on behalf of the state the purchaser lives in according to billing address.
The state has no jurisdiction to tell the out-of-state seller to collect tax on their behalf, nor are they allowed to restrict trade across borders, so there is literally nothing they can do to make that seller collect tax for them. The only reason that in state businesses have to do it is because the state makes it illegal to operate a retail business without collecting the sales tax. There should be no such thing as sales tax, only use tax, and it should be the state's duty to collect it.Yes, it is easier for an (in -state) retailer to collect it than for the state itself, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the state that wants the money, and the state is making somebody else do their job for them. In my state, I have to pay the state $50 a year for the privilege of collecting the state's money for them and sending it to them.
may lower their revenue in the short term
If they eliminate the sales tax, wouldn't that lower their revenue permanently? Or are you thinking that they will raise some other tax somewhere, like income tax or property tax?
How much time does posting/reading slashdot account for that 80 hour work week? How about doing other things other than working?
I spend about 5 hours a week reading slashdot while at work. Usually, this is while waiting for a program to start up, or during lunch. As far as other things, other than working, I spend only about 10 hours a week actually doing my job. The rest of the week is spent helping other people who aren't able to do their job without my help, recovering from network issues and SQL issues, meetings and so forth. I would say about 10% of my day is doing my job, 25% meetings, and 25% helping other people do their job, and 40% fighting fires.
If the work is engaging and interesting, yes, you can work 80 hour work weeks for a while.
I think it depends on the work in addition to the person. I could certainly do mindless tasks for 80 hours a week, but I don't think I could do coding 80 hours a week. In fact, if I am concentrating hard on trying to find and fix a bug, I can burn myself out for the day in only a couple of hours. After a few hours of that, I won't even consider trying to work on a major project. I'll just find some simple programming tasks for adding some simple features or cleaning up something simple.Or I'll help out our production team on something that is not even a programming task, because that type of work in our company doesn't require much brainpower.
Meanwhile the proles are actively campaigning for "tort reform" and trying to eliminate whatever accountability actually exists for these kinds of mistakes.
No, Tort Reform is not to stop accountability for mistakes. It is to stop people from suing when an operation goes wrong even though the doctor did everything correctly and the patient was made well aware of the risk. If a doctor makes a mistake, feel free to sue them until the cows come home. But if you were made aware of the risks, and you accepted the risk, and your body just didn't respond well to the procedure, then that is not something you get a big payday for, it just sucks to be you.
If you went fast enough, you would age 40 hours, while observers on the Earth would age 60 hours. So if you work fast enough, you can quit after 40 hours, and it will appear to observes on the Earth that you did 60 hours of work. I believe that is what the grandparent was going for.
That even works when you are not making a joke about the speed of light. If you do your job well enough, it appears that you must put in more hours, because the other people take 60 hours to get that amount of work done.
If in order to have a family and as a result have children and procreate, is ultimately dependent on the ability of the adults to be able to afford to do so, and in order for that to happen, an ever increasing work week. Only those that are able to handle longer work weeks will have offspring, and only those offspring who do the same... etc...
Fast Forward many generations, and you are looking at a worker breed.
Being able to afford to have kids has nothing to do with. The number of kids in a household is in fact inversely proportional to the household income.
Besides, we could make an exact opposite argument of what you made above. In order to have a family and as a result have children and procreate, is ultimately dependent on the ability of the adults to be able to have time to do so, and in order for that to happen, an ever decreasing work week. Only those that are able to have shorter work weeks will have offspring, and only those offspring who do the same... etc
Of course I cloised if after the theft! I sent all of them copies of the police report, and the fraudulent bastards, every single one, turned them into the county's State's Attorney anyway.
That sucks, my State's Attorney General won't prosecute a fraudulent check. We got one from a renter for $560, but the Attorney General said they won't pursue it.
cops are pretty damned serious about folks leaving the scene of an accident.
Unless the folks leaving the scene are police or a taxi. My friend got hit by a taxi a couple of months ago. She was going straight through an intersection on green, and the taxi was waiting to turn left from oncoming traffic. He turned into her car and struck her car behind the left rear wheel. He did not even stop, but continued going. She called the police, who showed up to take her information. She did not have the license number of the taxi, but they must have worried that she had gotten it, because they did come back about 10 minutes later. They said they had to drop off their fare and it was an emergency so they could not stop. The fare was being dropped off at home after having just been let out of the drunk tank. The taxi driver said my friend had hit them. The fare backed up the taxi driver. Anybody with a brain would know that you cannot run into someone else in such a way as to dent the panel just behind your left wheel. The officer did not issue any tickets, not even for fleeing the scene of an accident. My friend is still fighting with the taxi company over payment.
Oh, also, we suspect that the taxi company switched drivers before sending the cab back because the one driving originally may have been an illegal alien.
And what do you do if the item you went there for was maybe bought by the unsuspecting victims from the actual thief...
Doesn't matter. The police will be there to make sure you don't take your property back from the thief. They are there to protect the bullies from their victims, just like the administrators in high school.
My mother-in-law tells the story of when her son was young and got his bike stolen. They suspected who stole it was a neighborhood house that was well known for stealing bicycles. They confirmed that the bike was indeed in that persons garage, then called the police. The police did actually show up, and he pointed out his bike in the garage, which had about 40 to 50 bikes in various stages of being broken down into parts. He had the serial numbers, but the bike in question had been partially disassembled. The police said he could take the frame, but when he pointed out his wheels, they said he could not take them because he couldn't prove they were his. So his parents (who were also there) said "What if we just take them anyway"? The cops replied "We will arrest you." The cops are there to protect and serve the criminals. Criminals are dangerous. Cops don't want to mess with them. But law abiding people won't hurt you, so much better to arrest them.
Yep- that's right. There could even be people breaking into my house at night, while I am alone. But if they had no weapons, and I shot them, suddenly I would have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE by trying to convince the Police, the DA, a Jury, etc that I felt my life was threatened.
SCREWED UP.
No, it makes perfect sense. Think about it. Somebody breaking into your house might have a weapon, maybe even a gun. That kind of person is dangerous. On the other hand, you are a homeowner who uses the gun for home protection and it is extremely unlikely that you would use it to kill a cop. Therefore, it is much safer to arrest and prosecute you. You might get mad, but you won't shoot anybody because you are a generally law abiding citizen. They know this. That is why police and DAs spend time prosecuting good citizens like us.
Tell that to the young lady in Oklahoma that spent 30min on the phone with 911, hidden behind a couch, before dropping the assailant that was trying (and, to his chagrin, eventually succeed) to break through her door.
And in Oklahoma, where good old district attorney David Prater regularly prosecutes people who defend themselves from criminals past the fullest extent of the law, the lady is lucky to not be in jail now.
Prater successfully gave life in prison to a man who killed a robber who was holding a gun on him and others in a public pharmacy. Meanwhile, ACTUAL ROBBERS who kill INNOCENT PEOPLE who had no weapon whatsoever, get maybe 25 years. I swear the man must be on the take from the criminals, because he seems to have pledged his reign towards making it safer for criminals to walk the streets.
The "Make my day" law definitely no longer has any legal standing in Oklahoma.
Slashdot Mirror
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Yes, that is correct."
(Potential Employer quietly checks the box next to "Does not play well with others", and upon conclusion of the interview, places your resume in the "don't bother" pile)
So let me get this straight, if you eschew nameless, faceless, random contacts on the internet, and instead choose to have deep, meaningful relationships with your friends and family, now all of a sudden you "don't play well with others"?
"If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?"
How does a decision not to use a social network indicate that you fail to understand the concept? It doesn't. And even if it did, what does failing to understand the concept of something that USES IT technology have to do with your understanding of IT technology? Nothing.
Middle School kids can also access porn on the internet. If I don't access porn on the internet, does that mean that I don't understand the concept and am not fit for a job in IT? Does the hiring manager insist on a list of my favorite porn sites, and if I say "I don't partake of internet porn" than I am not a goo job candidate?
If you don't want to hand over that information, then don't. If employers hear this enough, then maybe they will start to smarten up.
But employers won't hear "no" enough. There are plenty of people out there who would just hand over the passwords. Why? Well, why not? Unfortunately, the younger generation has been taught that their privacy is unimportant. Heck if they were concerned about handing over the keys to their facebook account, they are probably the sort of person who would have been concerned about having a facebook account in the first place.
Pah! So what happens to people like me with no social network? The can't ask me to send something I don't have.
Asking for your facebook password is the modern equivalent of asking that you turn over your "Little Black Book" or your Dayrunner (Remember those?) to the company. This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense. Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to have to make a law because common sense seems to have gone extinct.
So put another way, only one US senator agrees. The rest have been well-paid to support anything desired by anyone carrying the title "employer".
No, the other senators said "What the $%^ is facebook"?
Good luck getting a new job without a facebook acct you anti-social nut.
I'll bet there are a significant number of companies that won't hire you because you DO have a facebook account. Where I work, they have blocked facebook because people were spending all day on there. It didn't affect me, because I don't have a facebook account. The reason I don't have a facebook account is because I am a social person, and I find social network sites restricting to being social.
Instead, what this school board did is told all their teachers "you're going to get fired for teaching anything that goes against the arbitrary capricious whims of any nutcake parent."
You forgot "...even though we as a school board approved this literature for you to teach." Which is almost certainly the case.
put bankers in jail for their crimes,
Don't forget the homeowners who took out the loans they couldn't afford, and the politicians who required the bankers to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans.
I've got about 6TB of physical storage in my personal machine. Almost half of that is in use.
I've got about 3 TB of physical storage, and only about 200 GB is in use. The amount of space available has for me long since exceeded the space that I need. But then, I don't put stuff like movies or whatever on my laptop.
Hell, the next time you're at the grocery store look at the canned mushrooms. The only type grown in the USA anymore is Pennsylvania Dutch. You know it's bad when it's cheaper to grow, can, and ship across an ocean something that costs less than a dollar.
Well, to be fair, those mushrooms probably grew in the dank hold of the freighter on the way over. All they had to do was gather them and can them on the dock.
Lowering taxes can make people shift their purchases to B&M stores
The grandparent said eliminate the sales tax. If you eliminate the sales tax, no matter how much more volume you sell, you still won't make any sales tax revenue.
tax-free online stores
No such thing. They just don't collect the tax. You are still responsible to pay it.
Why shouldn't online purchases be taxable?
They are, generally. They are quite often not paid, and that is a different issue. However, specific to this case and aside from the whole use tax versus sales tax issue, I think that digital downloads apparently have not historically been taxed in Connecticut and now they want to tax them.
This legislation seems* like it would add a tiny extra bit of accounting on the part of the seller (who, remember, is already set up for collecting sales taxes).
If they are an out-of-state seller, then they are not set up for collecting sales taxes in your state. Setting up connections with all 50 states would be an administrative nightmare, not to mention that there are literally hundreds of thousands of taxing districts in the United States and probably 50 or so changes in rates every day. They only way an online retailer could hope to keep up with this is if the states could all agree on a flat tax rate for digital purchases. Only a state agreement could accomplish this, the federal government is not allowed to make such a tax. Unfortunately, the states won't agree, and an out-of-state retailer is not allowed to be limited or controlled by a state in which they have no physical presence.
seller is required to collect tax on behalf of the state the purchaser lives in according to billing address.
The state has no jurisdiction to tell the out-of-state seller to collect tax on their behalf, nor are they allowed to restrict trade across borders, so there is literally nothing they can do to make that seller collect tax for them. The only reason that in state businesses have to do it is because the state makes it illegal to operate a retail business without collecting the sales tax. There should be no such thing as sales tax, only use tax, and it should be the state's duty to collect it.Yes, it is easier for an (in -state) retailer to collect it than for the state itself, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the state that wants the money, and the state is making somebody else do their job for them. In my state, I have to pay the state $50 a year for the privilege of collecting the state's money for them and sending it to them.
may lower their revenue in the short term
If they eliminate the sales tax, wouldn't that lower their revenue permanently? Or are you thinking that they will raise some other tax somewhere, like income tax or property tax?
How much time does posting/reading slashdot account for that 80 hour work week? How about doing other things other than working?
I spend about 5 hours a week reading slashdot while at work. Usually, this is while waiting for a program to start up, or during lunch. As far as other things, other than working, I spend only about 10 hours a week actually doing my job. The rest of the week is spent helping other people who aren't able to do their job without my help, recovering from network issues and SQL issues, meetings and so forth. I would say about 10% of my day is doing my job, 25% meetings, and 25% helping other people do their job, and 40% fighting fires.
If the work is engaging and interesting, yes, you can work 80 hour work weeks for a while.
I think it depends on the work in addition to the person. I could certainly do mindless tasks for 80 hours a week, but I don't think I could do coding 80 hours a week. In fact, if I am concentrating hard on trying to find and fix a bug, I can burn myself out for the day in only a couple of hours. After a few hours of that, I won't even consider trying to work on a major project. I'll just find some simple programming tasks for adding some simple features or cleaning up something simple.Or I'll help out our production team on something that is not even a programming task, because that type of work in our company doesn't require much brainpower.
Meanwhile the proles are actively campaigning for "tort reform" and trying to eliminate whatever accountability actually exists for these kinds of mistakes.
No, Tort Reform is not to stop accountability for mistakes. It is to stop people from suing when an operation goes wrong even though the doctor did everything correctly and the patient was made well aware of the risk. If a doctor makes a mistake, feel free to sue them until the cows come home. But if you were made aware of the risks, and you accepted the risk, and your body just didn't respond well to the procedure, then that is not something you get a big payday for, it just sucks to be you.
If you went fast enough, you would age 40 hours, while observers on the Earth would age 60 hours. So if you work fast enough, you can quit after 40 hours, and it will appear to observes on the Earth that you did 60 hours of work. I believe that is what the grandparent was going for.
That even works when you are not making a joke about the speed of light. If you do your job well enough, it appears that you must put in more hours, because the other people take 60 hours to get that amount of work done.
If in order to have a family and as a result have children and procreate, is ultimately dependent on the ability of the adults to be able to afford to do so, and in order for that to happen, an ever increasing work week. Only those that are able to handle longer work weeks will have offspring, and only those offspring who do the same... etc...
Fast Forward many generations, and you are looking at a worker breed.
Being able to afford to have kids has nothing to do with. The number of kids in a household is in fact inversely proportional to the household income.
Besides, we could make an exact opposite argument of what you made above. In order to have a family and as a result have children and procreate, is ultimately dependent on the ability of the adults to be able to have time to do so, and in order for that to happen, an ever decreasing work week. Only those that are able to have shorter work weeks will have offspring, and only those offspring who do the same... etc
Of course I cloised if after the theft! I sent all of them copies of the police report, and the fraudulent bastards, every single one, turned them into the county's State's Attorney anyway.
That sucks, my State's Attorney General won't prosecute a fraudulent check. We got one from a renter for $560, but the Attorney General said they won't pursue it.
cops are pretty damned serious about folks leaving the scene of an accident.
Unless the folks leaving the scene are police or a taxi. My friend got hit by a taxi a couple of months ago. She was going straight through an intersection on green, and the taxi was waiting to turn left from oncoming traffic. He turned into her car and struck her car behind the left rear wheel. He did not even stop, but continued going. She called the police, who showed up to take her information. She did not have the license number of the taxi, but they must have worried that she had gotten it, because they did come back about 10 minutes later. They said they had to drop off their fare and it was an emergency so they could not stop. The fare was being dropped off at home after having just been let out of the drunk tank. The taxi driver said my friend had hit them. The fare backed up the taxi driver. Anybody with a brain would know that you cannot run into someone else in such a way as to dent the panel just behind your left wheel. The officer did not issue any tickets, not even for fleeing the scene of an accident. My friend is still fighting with the taxi company over payment.
Oh, also, we suspect that the taxi company switched drivers before sending the cab back because the one driving originally may have been an illegal alien.
And what do you do if the item you went there for was maybe bought by the unsuspecting victims from the actual thief ...
Doesn't matter. The police will be there to make sure you don't take your property back from the thief. They are there to protect the bullies from their victims, just like the administrators in high school.
My mother-in-law tells the story of when her son was young and got his bike stolen. They suspected who stole it was a neighborhood house that was well known for stealing bicycles. They confirmed that the bike was indeed in that persons garage, then called the police. The police did actually show up, and he pointed out his bike in the garage, which had about 40 to 50 bikes in various stages of being broken down into parts. He had the serial numbers, but the bike in question had been partially disassembled. The police said he could take the frame, but when he pointed out his wheels, they said he could not take them because he couldn't prove they were his. So his parents (who were also there) said "What if we just take them anyway"? The cops replied "We will arrest you." The cops are there to protect and serve the criminals. Criminals are dangerous. Cops don't want to mess with them. But law abiding people won't hurt you, so much better to arrest them.
Yep- that's right. There could even be people breaking into my house at night, while I am alone. But if they had no weapons, and I shot them, suddenly I would have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE by trying to convince the Police, the DA, a Jury, etc that I felt my life was threatened.
SCREWED UP.
No, it makes perfect sense. Think about it. Somebody breaking into your house might have a weapon, maybe even a gun. That kind of person is dangerous. On the other hand, you are a homeowner who uses the gun for home protection and it is extremely unlikely that you would use it to kill a cop. Therefore, it is much safer to arrest and prosecute you. You might get mad, but you won't shoot anybody because you are a generally law abiding citizen. They know this. That is why police and DAs spend time prosecuting good citizens like us.
Tell that to the young lady in Oklahoma that spent 30min on the phone with 911, hidden behind a couch, before dropping the assailant that was trying (and, to his chagrin, eventually succeed) to break through her door.
And in Oklahoma, where good old district attorney David Prater regularly prosecutes people who defend themselves from criminals past the fullest extent of the law, the lady is lucky to not be in jail now.
Prater successfully gave life in prison to a man who killed a robber who was holding a gun on him and others in a public pharmacy. Meanwhile, ACTUAL ROBBERS who kill INNOCENT PEOPLE who had no weapon whatsoever, get maybe 25 years. I swear the man must be on the take from the criminals, because he seems to have pledged his reign towards making it safer for criminals to walk the streets.
The "Make my day" law definitely no longer has any legal standing in Oklahoma.