The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.
I believe that this is a fundamentally flawed idea. It is true from a practical perspective that the President has that power. However, I believe that above that the President has an obligation to enforce the law. If what you say is true, then what difference is there between a law and an executive order? If it was right for Obama to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, then how come Trump does not simply to choose to not enforce the Affordable Care Act? Now, the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and there is an argument there that the Obama Administration's decision to not enforce it or defend it in court was not prima facie wrong. And of course, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
However, the way that the checks and balances are structured, Congress writes and passes the laws, the President either signs or vetos the laws (or does a pocket veto). However, if the President signs the law or Congress successfully overrides the veto, then it becomes law. To say at that point it is the choice of that or any future president whether or not to enforce the law renders the legislative process effectively irrelevant. Only the judicial branch can declare that a law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have to assume that if it was created via a constitutional mechanism (passed by Congress, signed by the President or veto overridden), then the law is constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.
misclassified contractors should not be on the hook for taxes no the recruitment agency should be paying and doing the paper work.
I do freelance/contract/consulting work. However, I never work through an agency. I always form an agreement directly with my client. In my case I am responsible for all my own taxes along with everything else, which is how I prefer it to be. Is this approach not common? Is it more common for IT/tech/software dev consultants/freelancers/contractors to use an agency? If so, what is the benefit?
From my perspective I have always steered clear of those agencies because I don't care for recruiters in the first place, and because I would rather not have some filtering the exchange between me and the client.
Because they don't want their taxpayer dollars to be pissed away on the ultimate form of corporate welfare? Because they don't want to saddle future generations with an enormous waste problem? Because they took fifth grade econ and have heard the term "cost effective"?
Let me guess. That is why France (where 75% of the electrical capacity is generated by nuclear power) is a model of corporate welfare, has more nuclear waste than they know what to do with (and for which the current generation hates past generations), and is a poster child for cost ineffective electrical power generation. Oh wait, it is none of those things.
Your arguments are tired and only apply here because over-regulation has the US nuclear industry stuck in the 1960s. If modern, fail-safe (as opposed to fail-unsafe) reactor designs were used and regulatory burden were on par with what other forms of electrical power generation have, then we could have spent the last 20 or 30 years doing something to improve our situation.
Of course, the irrational fear that so many people have regarding nuclear power has resulted in what we have now. That is, if you think fracking is bad and you oppose nuclear power, then you have yourself partly to blame. Had we started 30 years ago following the model France established we would be in a very different situation today, and I suspect that fracking would largely have never become cost effective.
So, rather than offset any of that base load with a 2.2 GW nuclear facility, they'll supplement demand growth and cover peaks with solar and keep burning the coal and gas. It's cheaper and they get to wave the green flag etc.
The saying for this is "perfect is the enemy of good enough."
Is nuclear perfect? No. But then, neither is solar, wind, or any other technology? Is nuclear better than coal/natural gas? You bet. So then, why do people cheer when a nuclear project gets killed? Because they ignore the very thing that you pointed out. They look at it in absolute terms instead of "fossil fuel < nuclear < wind/solar/etc."
Sort of like getting a cancer diagnosis and being told that while it might take some time to completely eradicate it because the treatment is new and not yet widely available, they can do something to slow its growth for now. You can be all principled and turn down the interim treatment while you wait for the perfect treatment. In the meantime you die waiting for the perfect treatment instead of opting to do something now that will buy time.
I'm coming up to 40 and I've found that there are plenty of well paid jobs than ever for someone with my experience and skills. Then again this is the EU... Maybe the US has more age discrimination.
I too am approaching 40, but I am in the US (in the Midwest, specifically). My experience and observation is that while companies here certainly hire young talent (I teach an upper university class and most of my students with whom I stay connected end up with jobs in tech), the companies around here tend to value experience a great deal. It is reflected in the salaries for mid-level and senior-level developer jobs that are advertised. In fact, the salary I am able to command here (based on my experience) is no where close to what I would likely be able to get in SV (accounting for the significant cost of living different as well). The lifestyle I am able to enjoy is far and away from the lifestyle I would be able to enjoy in SV, even if I could find a job with a salary comparable to what I earn now that accounted for the differences in cost of living.
It still absolutely amazes me that people, especially in middle age, want that SV culture. I feel like I would have to give up everything that I value that I have now in return for nothing that I value. Plus as a middle aged worker I don't feel like I would be valued by a SV company.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here. While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them. Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted). Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
If however, the output expected is of folks who can do heavy serious coding (read coding closer to the metal), then such camps are a pipe dream.
As you point out, it is all about expectations. However, I think that in general there is a wrong assumption about the skill level of a new graduate. Take surgery as a comparison, for instance. A new medical doctor just graduated from school will not be put into an operating room unsupervised. In fact, every medical specialty requires that new graduates complete a residency. It very similar to what new plumbers and electricians go through, though a doctor will spend a great deal more money to get there.
To me, a new graduate with a computer engineering, computer science, or perhaps even a management information systems (depending on the school) degree has achieved the level of "now I am ready to apprentice under an experienced senior developer." I find it humorous how start ups will load up their staffs with all new graduates for developers and later wonder why their apps and infrastructure have problems. It would be like hiring all apprentice bricklayers, plumbers, and electricians to build you a building. You are likely to encounter problems down the road.
I know that some folks think of coding as an art more than as a trade or skill. However, coding has enough of the skilled trade flavor to it, in particular developing the understanding for how decisions you make in one place will have long lasting effects throughout an application and the things that interact with it (which a new graduate or junior developer is not likely to understand), that the only really sensible way to look at it is as something that requires a pseudo-apprenticeship.
Granted, some people have a natural talent, but even then they benefit from being under the guidance of good experienced developers.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. In any event, I can understand where you are coming from. However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
Imagine that if everyone in a particular local government organization were member of a particular church. Then imagine that the church declared that anyone who goes to work for that agency must also join that church. That sort of thing wouldn't fly. I don't think it should be a problem for any organization to try to recruit members, but why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
I agree with you here. Unions are free to speak as they like. However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves (claiming to care only about employee safety and other workplace-related matters, while in reality being primarily politically oriented and primarily active in that area); and, 2) forced membership (i.e., closed shops), where people are forced to pay union dues, including supporting the union's political activities with which they may disagree, in order to get the collective bargaining representation that unions claim is their primary member benefit.
Some unions do a really good job of ensuring that their members are skilled and properly qualified. I know some folks in construction (as in own a company), for example, who won't hire non-union people for certain skilled trades. Not because non-union people can't be good at those trades, but because he knows that for people to be in good standing with the local union in that trade they have to be good and reputable. The UAW, SIEU, and other big mostly-political unions don't offer that.
You see, if a company sold you a product and lied about it, the FTC would get involved. If an automaker sold you a car that was not fit for the marketplace, or if a device manufacturer sold you a phone that was prone to exploding, you have some recourse as a consumer. However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
I think that free speech is quite important and if I choose to get together with other like-minded individuals to speak with one voice, then that is great. If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine. However, they historically have not found that arrangement agreeable. They want to force everyone to be a member.
XXVI, the name of the new holding entity, is the number of letters in the alphabet expressed in Roman numerals.
Thanks for clarifying that. At first I thought they named themselves for Taylor Switft's age. The number of letters in the alphabet is much better. Of course, it is a good thing that Google wasn't started in China, or the new company would have ended up with a name like MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Unions were necessary and were a force for protecting employees' interests.
Unions act as a counterbalance to corporate greed. Has corporate greed disappeared? Have companies stopped killing their workers to save a few pennies on the dollar in profits? Have they stopped demanding their workers make huge pay and benefit cuts to up quarterly dividends - even as the company is enjoying all-time high profits?
I agree that union greed does a good job of balancing corporate greed. However, the world would be a better place without either. Safety is interesting because it used to be that the union was the only way to attempt to deal with safety violations. These days any employee can report problems directly to OSHA, which has the police power of state behind and actually sanction a company. The union is not able to do that, except perhaps by way of a walkout or strike. As far as your assertion of companies demanding that their workers take pay/benefit cuts at the same time the company enjoys record profits does not seem believable. Can you provide an example where this has actually occurred?
Unions now are primarily political action committees.
Uh huh. And how do you propose they counterbalance the (infinitely more funded) political action committees from big business? You expecting them to unilaterally disarm as the latter engages in shenanigans like getting "small government" Republicans to override city-based minimum wage increases with state laws?
Employees can balance out the political action committees of big business by getting of their behinds and voting. People make it seem like money in elections is a problem. If that is the case, then how did Trump win while Clinton spent nearly twice the amount of money that Trump did and had more than three times the amount of outside money supporting her campaign? The fact is that regardless of the money spent and who says what, the people will make their voices heard.
I believe that most small government Republicans believe in states rights, so a state preempting local laws is perfectly consistent with that. The exception would be instances where a state constitution prohibits it, similar to how the federal government is prohibited certain things because of the US Constitution.
Of course minimum wage laws are really interesting. They establish a minimum. Nothing says that you have to stick to paying that. You can always pay more. Sort of how a speed limit establishes an upper bound on the allowed speed. You are always free to go slower. If you don't like the minimum wage in your city or state, feel free to start a business and pay a higher wage. If everyone in your city feels that way, then what does it matter what the law says the minimum wage is if nobody pays that low?
Without them we could enjoy the same unparalleled working conditions as Bangladeshi factory workers.
Unions were necessary and were a force for protecting employees' interests.
Unions now are primarily political action committees.
As with anything else whose time has come and gone, they are hanging on, but they are clearly in their death throes. If the Tesla factory were in South Carolina or Tennessee, they could even roll out the red carpet for the union, secure in the knowledge that the employees themselves will defeat any attempt to unionize, because it doesn't do anything for them.
So, does the guy with the more expensive house use more government services which would justify his paying more?
Not necessarily, but why is that relevant? Taxation has long been established as a means of funding the functioning of government. There is no perfect system, just different trade offs to make. Given that in some cases it is not possible to properly allocate the costs of government services (e.g., transportation infrastructure, the justice system, national defense) to all beneficiaries, some approximation has to be made. Some approximations are more equitable or fair than others.
You're saying that paying a percent of value (sales tax is completely different, and a red herring) makes the tax uniform.
A constant percentage of value is in fact the very definition of a constant tax. By its nature, tax is levied with respect to the value of the thing being taxed. A constant payment without regard to the value of the thing being assessed is a fee or a toll. For example, You can go through a toll booth in Florida in a 1979 Toyota Camry and you will pay $1.25, or you can go through the same toll booth in a 2014 Bugatti Veyron and you will still pay the same $1.25 toll. Fees and tolls are not at issue here.
It doesn't, it means some people pay more than others. Why is that "fair?"
There is a difference between constant rate and constant amount or value. Which is appropriate or fair is situational, just like in calculus.
I don't know of one which doesn't. If what you say were true, there would be no reason to have a (government) assessed value, everyone would pay the same. As it is, your taxes go up if the assessed value does - if that's not a difference "based on their assessed value", I'm not sure what is.
I think we have a miscommunication here.
The rates of taxation on property are uniform. I pay 2.5% and so does my next door neighbor. My house is assessed at a value of $100k, so I pay $2500, his house is assessed at $150k, so he pays $3750.
It is no different than if I go to the store and buy a $100 tablet, on which I will pay $6.50 sales tax. If you guy and buy a $200 tablet, you will pay $13.00. If they looked at you and said, hey you are buying a more expensive tablet and can afford to pay more tax, so we are taxing you 9% instead of 6.5%, that would be unfair. It is the same for property tax, and I maintain that it is the same for income tax. This is why there such a big deal made over the income tax passed in Seattle for high earners. The Washington Constitution says that taxes have to be uniform (e.g., at the same rate of taxation on all affected parties) and that provision has successfully been used to challenge attempts at levying progressive income taxes.
The important thing is that the rate of taxation is uniform regardless of the amount being taxed.
Why stop there? Even if the rate is the same, the person earning more still pays more. Do they get additional government services for their greater payment? How about property taxes? Subsidies/tax breaks which go to one industry, but not another?
This is why I happen to think income-based taxation is the worst possible strategy. Property taxes and most other taxes are already uniform. For example, I am not aware of any jurisdiction that taxes properties differently based on their assessed value. They may have exemptions (e.g., lower your assessed value if it is your primary residence, or lower your assessed value if you are drawing Social Security disability, etc.). But they don't have 1% tax rate for properties up to $100k assessed value, 2% tax rate for properties from $100k to $500k, etc. Now, there may different tax rates applied depending upon the designated use of the property (a residential property may be taxed differently than an industrial property), which is usually fine. Sales taxes are another example, they tend to be flat (at least within a tax jurisdiction, where you may have state, county, and local taxes all adding up to determine the tax rate that shows on the receipt at the store). It would probably not pass legal muster to tax certain things at different rates based solely on their cost. Though, there are lots of examples of different taxes on different classes of goods (e.g., tobacco and liquor). But again those tend to be uniform.
All of this is why I like the Fair Tax proposal. It is uniform and you can determine your exact tax burden with a few simple mathematical operations on the back of a business card. It is a far cry from the tangled mess that we have now. And by the way, if you are a fan of "tax the rich because they can afford it" the Fair Tax handles that too. If you buy a big ticket item, you pay the same tax rate on that. So, if I go buy a book for $10, I will pay tax on that at X %. If some rich guy goes and buys a yacht for $10M, then he will literally pay 1,000,000 times the gross tax I paid on my $10 book. Seems very fair to me.
Also, think about this: how prevalent is sales tax fraud compared to income tax fraud? Hint: sales tax fraud is a rounding error compared to income tax fraud. I am not saying nonexistent, just a few orders of magnitude less common. Income tax fraud requires one party to act fraudulently. Sales tax fraud requires two or three parties to act fraudulently, which is far less likely. Also, drug dealers, gangbangers, and organized criminals all buy stuff too, so they will begin to share in the burden of funding the government, whether they want to or not.
But not any more illegal than, say, having different tax rates for different income levels.
It is interesting that you mention that. I actually started use income taxes as an example, but I figured it would detract from my overall point, seeing as there are lots of people who would reflexively down-mod any suggestion along the lines of "taxing those who earn more at a higher rate is not right and everyone should be taxed at the same rate".
You are correct in that it is not illegal to have different income tax rates, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, I don't think "they can afford it" is a proper justification. You may have someone earning $50k living better than someone who earns $150k because of family situations, personal tragedies, etc. If you tax someone who makes $50k at an effective rate of 10% and someone who makes $150k at an effective rate of 20% what you are saying is along the lines of "you should penalized for your success." Seeing that we already have something like half of the population not paying income taxes, things are already unfair enough on that front. To me, the only "fair" solution is to have uniform taxation (I happen to like the Fair Tax proposal which uniformly taxes everything at the point of first retail sale and which accounts for spending on necessities by giving a pre-bate on taxes spent on everything up to the federal poverty line). That particular proposal happens to place each taxpayer in complete control of exactly how much tax they pay, regardless of how much they earn. Of course, it will never get any real consideration because then Congress would lose the ability to use the tax code to control people's behavior.
In the same way that I think "they can afford it" is an improper justification for individual taxes, I think it is an improper justification for regulating and taxing businesses differently from their competitors. The marketplace should be level and any government involvement in the marketplace should treat competitors equitably. It is really the only logical approach if you believe in "equal justice (or treatment) before the law."
The SIZE of your existing installation is a germane topic regarding permits for operating a cable company.
I agree with you. However, levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory.
A better approach would be to establish a formula that mandates build out to un-cabled areas as a function of gross revenues generated by customers in the state. It needs to be revenue based instead of based on the number of customers or amount of profit because being based on the number of customers would be easily gamed and of course anything profit-based would easily fall victim to accounting tricks which big companies are so fond of.
In that way a mom and pop operation that makes small $$ would have a small build out requirement and Comcast and other big fish would that make lots of $$ would have a bigger requirement. The objective is still achieved and in a clear, open, and fair manner.
When your job ad demands 7-10 years of experience in a thing that isn't even 10 years old [i.redd.it] then yeah, you might have some difficulty "finding quality talent" because you're being ridiculous.
I really would like to think that this is a good way to filter out the liars or a way to test the applicant pool's BS filter. Though, I have never applied for a job that asked for more experience with something for longer than it has existed. However, if I were faced with that, I would specify my actual experience with the item and in the cover letter add a note about how what they are asking for is not possible. I would probably also add any related experience that I might have. So if they asked for 10 years of Node.js, I might put that I only have X years of Node.js experience, but I also have Y years of experience with these other dynamic server-side languages.
Going through that will tell you quite a few things. If they reject your resume/cover letter then it was probably for the best. If they are really sharp (remember that you could have a sharp hiring manager stuck behind a not-so-sharp HR department), then they will see you for what they are worth and they are likely to also flat out reject anybody who claims to have the impossible qualification.
Of course, a job posting that has an impossible to meet requirement might be a warning flag (e.g., dysfunctional or incompetent organization) or just a pretext to be able to say that no US citizen is qualified and that the situation calls for an H1B.
I would like to look at it more form the positive perspective than the negative. However, after re-reading what I wrote, I suspect that might just be wishful thinking.
But amid a lack of official data about their use and effects, a new report by Reuters found 1,005 incidents in the U.S. in which people died after police stunned them with the electrical weapons, most since the early 2000s.
The summary mentions Axon and their product, but then the above statement uses the generic term "electrical weapons." The actual article from Reuters is not any more clear, as it too mixes the generic term "stun gun" and Taser in a way that makes it difficult to tell when they refer specifically to the brand-name product and when they refer to the entire class of product regardless of brand.
Are the 1,005 reported deaths the result of all documented electrical weapon deployments, or just Axon's? Also, what was the total number of incidents? An absolute number (as opposed to a ratio or percentage) without any reference point is not especially meaningful. Also, for comparison can we get the number of incidents in which people died after police shot them with a firearm? We would also need to the total number of incidents in which police used firearms so be able to calculate a ratio and make a comparison.
Note, I am not actually looking for those numbers, as I am relatively certain that they could be found without much trouble.
The point is that this sounds like a hit-piece. Sort of like when some groups decry the 30,000 birds killed by wind turbines while ignoring the millions of birds that probably die from pollution related to fossil fuel electrical generation and its attendant activities. That is to say, looking at the numbers in isolation they seem bad, but then you need context to determine if they are better or worse than they would otherwise be. It just seems like we should an organization like Reuters to be more rigorous, as opposed to what they published which seems to push an agenda..
"The level of obstruction exhibited by Senate Democrats on these nominees is just breathtaking," Mr. McConnell said...
...and yet it is still far, far better than what McConnell and the other bitch republicans did with Merrick Garland, a level of obstruction that had never been seen since at least 1992 thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden and the Democrats. And because you're an inbred little piece of shit hypocrite...
There. I fixed that for you. Here is a citation in case you are unaware of what I am referring to.
It was rather aggressively reported by quite a number of media outlets, though I suppose the particular media outlets from which you consume news helpfully decided that this particular bit of information was not at all newsworthy.
Pretty much all I've seen is trumpets blaming everything on either obama or hillary, whether it happened after obama was out of office, during his 2 terms, or things that happened before for that matter. They've really got some serious issues, but I don't think even freud could help them!
Well, it is par for the course. Recall that the start of the Obama was an endless chorus of "it's Bush's fault" continuing until well after the 2012 election. That did not happen so much during the Bush presidency, but I suspect that is because September 11 happened so soon after he took office and at that point everyone in the country united under a common cause. Even after the unity dissolved, the government stayed focused on the "Global War on Terror" until well into the Obama presidency. If not for September 11, I am sure we would have heard lots more "it's [Bill] Clinton's fault." If you remember, Bush got elected during the dot-com meltdown, so there was plenty of fodder there for the spin doctors to try to pin on [Bill] Clinton.
My opinion on this with respect to Trump is the same as it was with respect to Obama: you can"t run on "the last guy made a total mess and I am going to clean up" and then blame every problem you encounter on the last guy. As the new leader you get to suck it up, take the lumps, and solve the problem. If you don"t want clean up duty, then don't run for office in the first place.
You need to think about utility theory here. If you are truly rich fast internet is worth the price because your time has value.
Then again, the time wasted making use of high-speed internet may be a net drain for some, making it a matter of choice to not purchase it. That is the same reason that I have not had cable for approaching 20 years: I could easily afford cable, satellite, or any number of online TV subscription services, but I value my time too much to just sit there watching TV for endless hours.
As a result, I am judicious about what I watch (usually on DVD/BD from my local library or RedBox, or BlockBuster when they were still a thing). I limit my entertainment consumption because there are far more productive things I would rather do with my time. If I were paying for a constantly there TV service of some kind it would either go to waste or tempt me to watch it even when it is not worth watching.
Slashdot Mirror
The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.
I believe that this is a fundamentally flawed idea. It is true from a practical perspective that the President has that power. However, I believe that above that the President has an obligation to enforce the law. If what you say is true, then what difference is there between a law and an executive order? If it was right for Obama to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, then how come Trump does not simply to choose to not enforce the Affordable Care Act? Now, the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and there is an argument there that the Obama Administration's decision to not enforce it or defend it in court was not prima facie wrong. And of course, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
However, the way that the checks and balances are structured, Congress writes and passes the laws, the President either signs or vetos the laws (or does a pocket veto). However, if the President signs the law or Congress successfully overrides the veto, then it becomes law. To say at that point it is the choice of that or any future president whether or not to enforce the law renders the legislative process effectively irrelevant. Only the judicial branch can declare that a law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have to assume that if it was created via a constitutional mechanism (passed by Congress, signed by the President or veto overridden), then the law is constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.
misclassified contractors should not be on the hook for taxes no the recruitment agency should be paying and doing the paper work.
I do freelance/contract/consulting work. However, I never work through an agency. I always form an agreement directly with my client. In my case I am responsible for all my own taxes along with everything else, which is how I prefer it to be. Is this approach not common? Is it more common for IT/tech/software dev consultants/freelancers/contractors to use an agency? If so, what is the benefit?
From my perspective I have always steered clear of those agencies because I don't care for recruiters in the first place, and because I would rather not have some filtering the exchange between me and the client.
Because they don't want their taxpayer dollars to be pissed away on the ultimate form of corporate welfare? Because they don't want to saddle future generations with an enormous waste problem? Because they took fifth grade econ and have heard the term "cost effective"?
Let me guess. That is why France (where 75% of the electrical capacity is generated by nuclear power) is a model of corporate welfare, has more nuclear waste than they know what to do with (and for which the current generation hates past generations), and is a poster child for cost ineffective electrical power generation. Oh wait, it is none of those things.
Your arguments are tired and only apply here because over-regulation has the US nuclear industry stuck in the 1960s. If modern, fail-safe (as opposed to fail-unsafe) reactor designs were used and regulatory burden were on par with what other forms of electrical power generation have, then we could have spent the last 20 or 30 years doing something to improve our situation.
Of course, the irrational fear that so many people have regarding nuclear power has resulted in what we have now. That is, if you think fracking is bad and you oppose nuclear power, then you have yourself partly to blame. Had we started 30 years ago following the model France established we would be in a very different situation today, and I suspect that fracking would largely have never become cost effective.
So, rather than offset any of that base load with a 2.2 GW nuclear facility, they'll supplement demand growth and cover peaks with solar and keep burning the coal and gas. It's cheaper and they get to wave the green flag etc.
The saying for this is "perfect is the enemy of good enough."
Is nuclear perfect? No. But then, neither is solar, wind, or any other technology? Is nuclear better than coal/natural gas? You bet. So then, why do people cheer when a nuclear project gets killed? Because they ignore the very thing that you pointed out. They look at it in absolute terms instead of "fossil fuel < nuclear < wind/solar/etc."
Sort of like getting a cancer diagnosis and being told that while it might take some time to completely eradicate it because the treatment is new and not yet widely available, they can do something to slow its growth for now. You can be all principled and turn down the interim treatment while you wait for the perfect treatment. In the meantime you die waiting for the perfect treatment instead of opting to do something now that will buy time.
I'm coming up to 40 and I've found that there are plenty of well paid jobs than ever for someone with my experience and skills. Then again this is the EU... Maybe the US has more age discrimination.
I too am approaching 40, but I am in the US (in the Midwest, specifically). My experience and observation is that while companies here certainly hire young talent (I teach an upper university class and most of my students with whom I stay connected end up with jobs in tech), the companies around here tend to value experience a great deal. It is reflected in the salaries for mid-level and senior-level developer jobs that are advertised. In fact, the salary I am able to command here (based on my experience) is no where close to what I would likely be able to get in SV (accounting for the significant cost of living different as well). The lifestyle I am able to enjoy is far and away from the lifestyle I would be able to enjoy in SV, even if I could find a job with a salary comparable to what I earn now that accounted for the differences in cost of living.
It still absolutely amazes me that people, especially in middle age, want that SV culture. I feel like I would have to give up everything that I value that I have now in return for nothing that I value. Plus as a middle aged worker I don't feel like I would be valued by a SV company.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here. While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them. Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted). Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
If however, the output expected is of folks who can do heavy serious coding (read coding closer to the metal), then such camps are a pipe dream.
As you point out, it is all about expectations. However, I think that in general there is a wrong assumption about the skill level of a new graduate. Take surgery as a comparison, for instance. A new medical doctor just graduated from school will not be put into an operating room unsupervised. In fact, every medical specialty requires that new graduates complete a residency. It very similar to what new plumbers and electricians go through, though a doctor will spend a great deal more money to get there.
To me, a new graduate with a computer engineering, computer science, or perhaps even a management information systems (depending on the school) degree has achieved the level of "now I am ready to apprentice under an experienced senior developer." I find it humorous how start ups will load up their staffs with all new graduates for developers and later wonder why their apps and infrastructure have problems. It would be like hiring all apprentice bricklayers, plumbers, and electricians to build you a building. You are likely to encounter problems down the road.
I know that some folks think of coding as an art more than as a trade or skill. However, coding has enough of the skilled trade flavor to it, in particular developing the understanding for how decisions you make in one place will have long lasting effects throughout an application and the things that interact with it (which a new graduate or junior developer is not likely to understand), that the only really sensible way to look at it is as something that requires a pseudo-apprenticeship.
Granted, some people have a natural talent, but even then they benefit from being under the guidance of good experienced developers.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. In any event, I can understand where you are coming from. However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
Imagine that if everyone in a particular local government organization were member of a particular church. Then imagine that the church declared that anyone who goes to work for that agency must also join that church. That sort of thing wouldn't fly. I don't think it should be a problem for any organization to try to recruit members, but why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
I agree with you here. Unions are free to speak as they like. However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves (claiming to care only about employee safety and other workplace-related matters, while in reality being primarily politically oriented and primarily active in that area); and, 2) forced membership (i.e., closed shops), where people are forced to pay union dues, including supporting the union's political activities with which they may disagree, in order to get the collective bargaining representation that unions claim is their primary member benefit.
Some unions do a really good job of ensuring that their members are skilled and properly qualified. I know some folks in construction (as in own a company), for example, who won't hire non-union people for certain skilled trades. Not because non-union people can't be good at those trades, but because he knows that for people to be in good standing with the local union in that trade they have to be good and reputable. The UAW, SIEU, and other big mostly-political unions don't offer that.
You see, if a company sold you a product and lied about it, the FTC would get involved. If an automaker sold you a car that was not fit for the marketplace, or if a device manufacturer sold you a phone that was prone to exploding, you have some recourse as a consumer. However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
I think that free speech is quite important and if I choose to get together with other like-minded individuals to speak with one voice, then that is great. If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine. However, they historically have not found that arrangement agreeable. They want to force everyone to be a member.
XXVI, the name of the new holding entity, is the number of letters in the alphabet expressed in Roman numerals.
Thanks for clarifying that. At first I thought they named themselves for Taylor Switft's age. The number of letters in the alphabet is much better. Of course, it is a good thing that Google wasn't started in China, or the new company would have ended up with a name like MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Unions were necessary and were a force for protecting employees' interests.
Unions act as a counterbalance to corporate greed. Has corporate greed disappeared? Have companies stopped killing their workers to save a few pennies on the dollar in profits? Have they stopped demanding their workers make huge pay and benefit cuts to up quarterly dividends - even as the company is enjoying all-time high profits?
I agree that union greed does a good job of balancing corporate greed. However, the world would be a better place without either. Safety is interesting because it used to be that the union was the only way to attempt to deal with safety violations. These days any employee can report problems directly to OSHA, which has the police power of state behind and actually sanction a company. The union is not able to do that, except perhaps by way of a walkout or strike. As far as your assertion of companies demanding that their workers take pay/benefit cuts at the same time the company enjoys record profits does not seem believable. Can you provide an example where this has actually occurred?
Unions now are primarily political action committees.
Uh huh. And how do you propose they counterbalance the (infinitely more funded) political action committees from big business? You expecting them to unilaterally disarm as the latter engages in shenanigans like getting "small government" Republicans to override city-based minimum wage increases with state laws?
Employees can balance out the political action committees of big business by getting of their behinds and voting. People make it seem like money in elections is a problem. If that is the case, then how did Trump win while Clinton spent nearly twice the amount of money that Trump did and had more than three times the amount of outside money supporting her campaign? The fact is that regardless of the money spent and who says what, the people will make their voices heard.
I believe that most small government Republicans believe in states rights, so a state preempting local laws is perfectly consistent with that. The exception would be instances where a state constitution prohibits it, similar to how the federal government is prohibited certain things because of the US Constitution.
Of course minimum wage laws are really interesting. They establish a minimum. Nothing says that you have to stick to paying that. You can always pay more. Sort of how a speed limit establishes an upper bound on the allowed speed. You are always free to go slower. If you don't like the minimum wage in your city or state, feel free to start a business and pay a higher wage. If everyone in your city feels that way, then what does it matter what the law says the minimum wage is if nobody pays that low?
I just talk to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Without them we could enjoy the same unparalleled working conditions as Bangladeshi factory workers.
Unions were necessary and were a force for protecting employees' interests.
Unions now are primarily political action committees.
As with anything else whose time has come and gone, they are hanging on, but they are clearly in their death throes. If the Tesla factory were in South Carolina or Tennessee, they could even roll out the red carpet for the union, secure in the knowledge that the employees themselves will defeat any attempt to unionize, because it doesn't do anything for them.
Odd, that's not how gas taxes work around here.
How do they work where you are?
So, does the guy with the more expensive house use more government services which would justify his paying more?
Not necessarily, but why is that relevant? Taxation has long been established as a means of funding the functioning of government. There is no perfect system, just different trade offs to make. Given that in some cases it is not possible to properly allocate the costs of government services (e.g., transportation infrastructure, the justice system, national defense) to all beneficiaries, some approximation has to be made. Some approximations are more equitable or fair than others.
You're saying that paying a percent of value (sales tax is completely different, and a red herring) makes the tax uniform.
A constant percentage of value is in fact the very definition of a constant tax. By its nature, tax is levied with respect to the value of the thing being taxed. A constant payment without regard to the value of the thing being assessed is a fee or a toll. For example, You can go through a toll booth in Florida in a 1979 Toyota Camry and you will pay $1.25, or you can go through the same toll booth in a 2014 Bugatti Veyron and you will still pay the same $1.25 toll. Fees and tolls are not at issue here.
It doesn't, it means some people pay more than others. Why is that "fair?"
There is a difference between constant rate and constant amount or value. Which is appropriate or fair is situational, just like in calculus.
I don't know of one which doesn't. If what you say were true, there would be no reason to have a (government) assessed value, everyone would pay the same. As it is, your taxes go up if the assessed value does - if that's not a difference "based on their assessed value", I'm not sure what is.
I think we have a miscommunication here.
The rates of taxation on property are uniform. I pay 2.5% and so does my next door neighbor. My house is assessed at a value of $100k, so I pay $2500, his house is assessed at $150k, so he pays $3750.
It is no different than if I go to the store and buy a $100 tablet, on which I will pay $6.50 sales tax. If you guy and buy a $200 tablet, you will pay $13.00. If they looked at you and said, hey you are buying a more expensive tablet and can afford to pay more tax, so we are taxing you 9% instead of 6.5%, that would be unfair. It is the same for property tax, and I maintain that it is the same for income tax. This is why there such a big deal made over the income tax passed in Seattle for high earners. The Washington Constitution says that taxes have to be uniform (e.g., at the same rate of taxation on all affected parties) and that provision has successfully been used to challenge attempts at levying progressive income taxes.
The important thing is that the rate of taxation is uniform regardless of the amount being taxed.
Why stop there? Even if the rate is the same, the person earning more still pays more. Do they get additional government services for their greater payment? How about property taxes? Subsidies/tax breaks which go to one industry, but not another?
This is why I happen to think income-based taxation is the worst possible strategy. Property taxes and most other taxes are already uniform. For example, I am not aware of any jurisdiction that taxes properties differently based on their assessed value. They may have exemptions (e.g., lower your assessed value if it is your primary residence, or lower your assessed value if you are drawing Social Security disability, etc.). But they don't have 1% tax rate for properties up to $100k assessed value, 2% tax rate for properties from $100k to $500k, etc. Now, there may different tax rates applied depending upon the designated use of the property (a residential property may be taxed differently than an industrial property), which is usually fine. Sales taxes are another example, they tend to be flat (at least within a tax jurisdiction, where you may have state, county, and local taxes all adding up to determine the tax rate that shows on the receipt at the store). It would probably not pass legal muster to tax certain things at different rates based solely on their cost. Though, there are lots of examples of different taxes on different classes of goods (e.g., tobacco and liquor). But again those tend to be uniform.
All of this is why I like the Fair Tax proposal. It is uniform and you can determine your exact tax burden with a few simple mathematical operations on the back of a business card. It is a far cry from the tangled mess that we have now. And by the way, if you are a fan of "tax the rich because they can afford it" the Fair Tax handles that too. If you buy a big ticket item, you pay the same tax rate on that. So, if I go buy a book for $10, I will pay tax on that at X %. If some rich guy goes and buys a yacht for $10M, then he will literally pay 1,000,000 times the gross tax I paid on my $10 book. Seems very fair to me.
Also, think about this: how prevalent is sales tax fraud compared to income tax fraud? Hint: sales tax fraud is a rounding error compared to income tax fraud. I am not saying nonexistent, just a few orders of magnitude less common. Income tax fraud requires one party to act fraudulently. Sales tax fraud requires two or three parties to act fraudulently, which is far less likely. Also, drug dealers, gangbangers, and organized criminals all buy stuff too, so they will begin to share in the burden of funding the government, whether they want to or not.
But not any more illegal than, say, having different tax rates for different income levels.
It is interesting that you mention that. I actually started use income taxes as an example, but I figured it would detract from my overall point, seeing as there are lots of people who would reflexively down-mod any suggestion along the lines of "taxing those who earn more at a higher rate is not right and everyone should be taxed at the same rate".
You are correct in that it is not illegal to have different income tax rates, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, I don't think "they can afford it" is a proper justification. You may have someone earning $50k living better than someone who earns $150k because of family situations, personal tragedies, etc. If you tax someone who makes $50k at an effective rate of 10% and someone who makes $150k at an effective rate of 20% what you are saying is along the lines of "you should penalized for your success." Seeing that we already have something like half of the population not paying income taxes, things are already unfair enough on that front. To me, the only "fair" solution is to have uniform taxation (I happen to like the Fair Tax proposal which uniformly taxes everything at the point of first retail sale and which accounts for spending on necessities by giving a pre-bate on taxes spent on everything up to the federal poverty line). That particular proposal happens to place each taxpayer in complete control of exactly how much tax they pay, regardless of how much they earn. Of course, it will never get any real consideration because then Congress would lose the ability to use the tax code to control people's behavior.
In the same way that I think "they can afford it" is an improper justification for individual taxes, I think it is an improper justification for regulating and taxing businesses differently from their competitors. The marketplace should be level and any government involvement in the marketplace should treat competitors equitably. It is really the only logical approach if you believe in "equal justice (or treatment) before the law."
The SIZE of your existing installation is a germane topic regarding permits for operating a cable company.
I agree with you. However, levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory.
A better approach would be to establish a formula that mandates build out to un-cabled areas as a function of gross revenues generated by customers in the state. It needs to be revenue based instead of based on the number of customers or amount of profit because being based on the number of customers would be easily gamed and of course anything profit-based would easily fall victim to accounting tricks which big companies are so fond of.
In that way a mom and pop operation that makes small $$ would have a small build out requirement and Comcast and other big fish would that make lots of $$ would have a bigger requirement. The objective is still achieved and in a clear, open, and fair manner.
When your job ad demands 7-10 years of experience in a thing that isn't even 10 years old [i.redd.it] then yeah, you might have some difficulty "finding quality talent" because you're being ridiculous.
I really would like to think that this is a good way to filter out the liars or a way to test the applicant pool's BS filter. Though, I have never applied for a job that asked for more experience with something for longer than it has existed. However, if I were faced with that, I would specify my actual experience with the item and in the cover letter add a note about how what they are asking for is not possible. I would probably also add any related experience that I might have. So if they asked for 10 years of Node.js, I might put that I only have X years of Node.js experience, but I also have Y years of experience with these other dynamic server-side languages.
Going through that will tell you quite a few things. If they reject your resume/cover letter then it was probably for the best. If they are really sharp (remember that you could have a sharp hiring manager stuck behind a not-so-sharp HR department), then they will see you for what they are worth and they are likely to also flat out reject anybody who claims to have the impossible qualification.
Of course, a job posting that has an impossible to meet requirement might be a warning flag (e.g., dysfunctional or incompetent organization) or just a pretext to be able to say that no US citizen is qualified and that the situation calls for an H1B.
I would like to look at it more form the positive perspective than the negative. However, after re-reading what I wrote, I suspect that might just be wishful thinking.
But amid a lack of official data about their use and effects, a new report by Reuters found 1,005 incidents in the U.S. in which people died after police stunned them with the electrical weapons, most since the early 2000s.
The summary mentions Axon and their product, but then the above statement uses the generic term "electrical weapons." The actual article from Reuters is not any more clear, as it too mixes the generic term "stun gun" and Taser in a way that makes it difficult to tell when they refer specifically to the brand-name product and when they refer to the entire class of product regardless of brand.
Are the 1,005 reported deaths the result of all documented electrical weapon deployments, or just Axon's? Also, what was the total number of incidents? An absolute number (as opposed to a ratio or percentage) without any reference point is not especially meaningful. Also, for comparison can we get the number of incidents in which people died after police shot them with a firearm? We would also need to the total number of incidents in which police used firearms so be able to calculate a ratio and make a comparison.
Note, I am not actually looking for those numbers, as I am relatively certain that they could be found without much trouble.
The point is that this sounds like a hit-piece. Sort of like when some groups decry the 30,000 birds killed by wind turbines while ignoring the millions of birds that probably die from pollution related to fossil fuel electrical generation and its attendant activities. That is to say, looking at the numbers in isolation they seem bad, but then you need context to determine if they are better or worse than they would otherwise be. It just seems like we should an organization like Reuters to be more rigorous, as opposed to what they published which seems to push an agenda..
"The level of obstruction exhibited by Senate Democrats on these nominees is just breathtaking," Mr. McConnell said...
...and yet it is still far, far better than what McConnell and the other bitch republicans did with Merrick Garland, a level of obstruction that had never been seen since at least 1992 thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden and the Democrats. And because you're an inbred little piece of shit hypocrite...
There. I fixed that for you. Here is a citation in case you are unaware of what I am referring to.
Short memory Kiddo, The republicans learned this stunt from us 16 years ago.
I like how you talk shit but provide no citation. Classy! Thanks for helping make Slashdot grate! Lazy fuckhead.
Here you go: courtesy of then-Senator Joe Biden
It was rather aggressively reported by quite a number of media outlets, though I suppose the particular media outlets from which you consume news helpfully decided that this particular bit of information was not at all newsworthy.
Pretty much all I've seen is trumpets blaming everything on either obama or hillary, whether it happened after obama was out of office, during his 2 terms, or things that happened before for that matter. They've really got some serious issues, but I don't think even freud could help them!
Well, it is par for the course. Recall that the start of the Obama was an endless chorus of "it's Bush's fault" continuing until well after the 2012 election. That did not happen so much during the Bush presidency, but I suspect that is because September 11 happened so soon after he took office and at that point everyone in the country united under a common cause. Even after the unity dissolved, the government stayed focused on the "Global War on Terror" until well into the Obama presidency. If not for September 11, I am sure we would have heard lots more "it's [Bill] Clinton's fault." If you remember, Bush got elected during the dot-com meltdown, so there was plenty of fodder there for the spin doctors to try to pin on [Bill] Clinton.
My opinion on this with respect to Trump is the same as it was with respect to Obama: you can"t run on "the last guy made a total mess and I am going to clean up" and then blame every problem you encounter on the last guy. As the new leader you get to suck it up, take the lumps, and solve the problem. If you don"t want clean up duty, then don't run for office in the first place.
You need to think about utility theory here. If you are truly rich fast internet is worth the price because your time has value.
Then again, the time wasted making use of high-speed internet may be a net drain for some, making it a matter of choice to not purchase it. That is the same reason that I have not had cable for approaching 20 years: I could easily afford cable, satellite, or any number of online TV subscription services, but I value my time too much to just sit there watching TV for endless hours.
As a result, I am judicious about what I watch (usually on DVD/BD from my local library or RedBox, or BlockBuster when they were still a thing). I limit my entertainment consumption because there are far more productive things I would rather do with my time. If I were paying for a constantly there TV service of some kind it would either go to waste or tempt me to watch it even when it is not worth watching.