You only make $3.35/hr ($26.82 for an 8 hour workday, 6x Mexican Minimum Wage)? Does your boss realize he's hired you illegally? Do YOU realize federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25/hr or $58/day, nearly twice as much as you're getting?
It took me 15 years to reach a senior programmer position- now they're telling me next year, at age 40, it's time to quit the industry altogether and do something else?
And no, those guys had no interest in overthrowing the US government; if they did that then who'd be around to pay them billions and billions of taxpayer dollars?
That was the purpose for overthrowing and taking control of the government- to force a payment of tribute, just like any other conqueror.
a) Economic instability is a form of violence- and as proof, our government just paid out a huge ransom to prevent it. b) I'm pretty sure large numbers of brokers who work for those companies were told that if they could get enough foreclosures, the government would step in and bail them out, while earning huge transaction fees in the process. c) You have a point that they've already registered.
And also in the Guide (the book within the book, an encyclopedia much like wikipedia) it's the definition and advice for the Planet Earth before it was destroyed. Mostly Harmless.
Given the events of September 2008, does this mean South Carolina can put the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and JP Morgan Chase in jail for their (largely successful) attempt to overthrow the government of the United States?
After reading the article, no script kiddie is going to be able to duplicate this feat.
But after reading the article the method used seemed to me to be a whole lot of overkill: 1. Dissolve the chip package with acid 2. Expose the core 3. Use a needle probe to wiretap the chip.
It seems to me it would be far easier to desolder the chip from the board, obtain a 2nd computer from the same production run, set bios password, then swap TPM chips and hard drives at the same time.
But that's also an expensive solution with a relatively high level of skill- no script kiddie is going to accomplish it.
I agree though- we seem really determined to refuse to learn the basic lesson- any hardware that is physically available, is hackable.
Makes me wonder why we're trying to build economies and governments based on secrecy to begin with.
But the possibility of the later, unfortunately, has become rather large; especially given anonymity. Something in not knowing the other person, seems to give the human animal the right to do anything. Stuff we would never do to our friends, in an anonymous environment, becomes OK, even virtuous.
I'm to the point where I'm in the process of bringing all business dealings to only people within 40 miles of my house; for the only practical defense to fraud is violence.
In fact, I happen to think that rail combined with small electric vehicles is a better, more efficient solution to transportation, yes.
Freedom in general is a sword that cuts both ways; it can be used for both great good and great evil. I think the lovers of freedom often forget the 2nd.
Given how anonymous bankers nearly took down the entire worldwide financial industry, I'm not so sure anonymity isn't a freedom that we as a species have proven to be incapable of not abusing.
I agree that it should be legalized (pursuit of happiness and all that) but I'm not so sure that I buy the "you can keep much better control over it" line. When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal. We always knew which store we could go to that wouldn't card us, which 21+ sibling of a friend would make a straw purchase and whose parents were too lazy to lock up the liquor cabinet.
Depends upon the type of control you're seeking. Yes, the carding system has flaws, but at least you can be sure that your booze wasn't cut with turpentine or that your cigarettes, while including tar and nicotine, at least didn't include radioactive plutonium.
Right now, marijuana you buy on the street is probably cut with any flamable substance that the dealer can get away with. At least legalizing it would bring quality control.
One good point here: At least half of these mental problems *were not mental problems* in the 1930s. The DSM-IV, and the new DSM-V have many more pages than the original DSM.
Well if that happens some one pays for that fuel. To them the Washington apples are worth the added cost of the fuel. Why not let them pay to have them shipped if they want them? If NY apple farmers can't compete then they need to find something they can do instead. Forcing the citizens of NY to buy the NY apples will only prop up the NY apple industry which clearly is inferior in some way to the WA one. Again in the long term this will hurt the people of NY. They will eat inferior apples and prevent them from finding something they can do better than the people of WA.
And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.
Those aren't the only choices though. We can not do manual labor and live in a world with reasonable amounts of pollution. As for permaculture, I see three possibilities. Either it increases food yield greatly, it requires a fundamental change in people's lifestyles, or it doesn't work. If it increases yield then I'm sure it will be utilized. If it requires people to fundamentally change their lifestyles then most people won't do it voluntarily. Most people enjoy their current lifestyle and simply won't change. Plans that require most people to change are flawed for this reason.
It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.
If we are talking about the US population then I'd bet a good chunk of the population on welfare could in fact work extreme hours and get off welfare.
They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.
The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.
Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.
We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.
I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...
I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.
Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.
Nah- that's just a natural consequence of how the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I Section 8, when even giving marijuana away for free to your neighbors without crossing a state line is considered interstate commerce.
Which is exactly the problem: cheaper stuff fails in the primary duty of having an economic system supported by government, which is to provide living wage jobs for one's own citizens.
What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida?
Yes, which would encourage farmers in your state to grow more oranges, thus employing more people. The problem with efficiency and economy of scale is that it directly causes unemployment, and thus welfare.
Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.
But it is beneficial to the INDIVIDUALS involved, and thus, if you're for freedom and individualism, you should be for protection of the economic conditions that employ the most people, rather than that which produces the cheapest goods. Subsidiarity states that nothing should be done in a more complex way than is necessary- and trade is complex.
Which bugs the hell out of me for reasons OTHER than CO2 reduction; it effectively prevents any sort of economic experimentation in subsidiarity among the States, because it prevents protection of local markets.
Which has now, in the last years of the first decade of the 21st century, allowed the Manhattan Island Bankers to effectively pull off an economic coup that Congress seems powerless to respond to.
Taxes of over 100% and even up to 1000% on some goods were imposed just to cross the Hudson River. It nearly started an all out war between those two states, where both armies and navies were being assembled for just that very purpose, and some shots were exchanged between uniformed military forces of both states.
Why were they trying to economically invade each other's territory to begin with? What sense did it make to ship goods across the Hudson that were already in existence in the other territory?
I would have gone to war over that as well- and the answer SHOULD have been an utter ban on interstate trade in anything made in the other state. As it stands, 250 years later NYC economically dominates the whole bloody country with a tyranny far worse than any trade war. Maybe what we really need is to return to individual state currencies and NO trade between the states, after the damage the big bank mergers have done.
There is a good reason why this clause was put into the Constitution in the first place, and a damn good reason why it should be respected and not tampered with for even a well meaning cause like "global warming".
And in return, we've got a tyranny of the Eastern Seaboard over the rest of the United States- including people living over 3000 miles away.
Unfortunately for you and the rest of the normal people in this country, the Supreme Court could define the Constitution as Roast Beef and we'd all have to eat it.
Slashdot Mirror
You only make $3.35/hr ($26.82 for an 8 hour workday, 6x Mexican Minimum Wage)? Does your boss realize he's hired you illegally? Do YOU realize federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25/hr or $58/day, nearly twice as much as you're getting?
At least here in North America, our general aversion to unions is entirely rational. Unions here do not foster creativity - they foster group think.
And management does the same, and uses their group think to destroy our creativity.
Finally- at least one outlier to give a person a decade younger some hope.
COBOL the language for the latest hardware.
How many smartphones run COBOL?
$4.47/day last I looked.
But I'd point out that in Mexico, that's a living wage- one that you can survive on. In United States, you need 8x that just to eat.
Yeah, it doesn't rerun 20 times a week on Syfy channel now that they've gone to attempting to woo women....
At which point the PEBCAK destroys your code anyway, because your unit test didn't handle unexpected idiocy.
It took me 15 years to reach a senior programmer position- now they're telling me next year, at age 40, it's time to quit the industry altogether and do something else?
And no, those guys had no interest in overthrowing the US government; if they did that then who'd be around to pay them billions and billions of taxpayer dollars?
That was the purpose for overthrowing and taking control of the government- to force a payment of tribute, just like any other conqueror.
a) Economic instability is a form of violence- and as proof, our government just paid out a huge ransom to prevent it.
b) I'm pretty sure large numbers of brokers who work for those companies were told that if they could get enough foreclosures, the government would step in and bail them out, while earning huge transaction fees in the process.
c) You have a point that they've already registered.
And also in the Guide (the book within the book, an encyclopedia much like wikipedia) it's the definition and advice for the Planet Earth before it was destroyed. Mostly Harmless.
Given the events of September 2008, does this mean South Carolina can put the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and JP Morgan Chase in jail for their (largely successful) attempt to overthrow the government of the United States?
After reading the article, no script kiddie is going to be able to duplicate this feat.
But after reading the article the method used seemed to me to be a whole lot of overkill:
1. Dissolve the chip package with acid
2. Expose the core
3. Use a needle probe to wiretap the chip.
It seems to me it would be far easier to desolder the chip from the board, obtain a 2nd computer from the same production run, set bios password, then swap TPM chips and hard drives at the same time.
But that's also an expensive solution with a relatively high level of skill- no script kiddie is going to accomplish it.
I agree though- we seem really determined to refuse to learn the basic lesson- any hardware that is physically available, is hackable.
Makes me wonder why we're trying to build economies and governments based on secrecy to begin with.
But the possibility of the later, unfortunately, has become rather large; especially given anonymity. Something in not knowing the other person, seems to give the human animal the right to do anything. Stuff we would never do to our friends, in an anonymous environment, becomes OK, even virtuous.
I'm to the point where I'm in the process of bringing all business dealings to only people within 40 miles of my house; for the only practical defense to fraud is violence.
In fact, I happen to think that rail combined with small electric vehicles is a better, more efficient solution to transportation, yes.
Freedom in general is a sword that cuts both ways; it can be used for both great good and great evil. I think the lovers of freedom often forget the 2nd.
Given how anonymous bankers nearly took down the entire worldwide financial industry, I'm not so sure anonymity isn't a freedom that we as a species have proven to be incapable of not abusing.
I agree that it should be legalized (pursuit of happiness and all that) but I'm not so sure that I buy the "you can keep much better control over it" line. When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal. We always knew which store we could go to that wouldn't card us, which 21+ sibling of a friend would make a straw purchase and whose parents were too lazy to lock up the liquor cabinet.
Depends upon the type of control you're seeking. Yes, the carding system has flaws, but at least you can be sure that your booze wasn't cut with turpentine or that your cigarettes, while including tar and nicotine, at least didn't include radioactive plutonium.
Right now, marijuana you buy on the street is probably cut with any flamable substance that the dealer can get away with. At least legalizing it would bring quality control.
One good point here: At least half of these mental problems *were not mental problems* in the 1930s. The DSM-IV, and the new DSM-V have many more pages than the original DSM.
And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.
It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.
They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.
The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.
Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.
We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.
I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...
I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.
Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.
Nah- that's just a natural consequence of how the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I Section 8, when even giving marijuana away for free to your neighbors without crossing a state line is considered interstate commerce.
Trade makes things cheaper.
Which is exactly the problem: cheaper stuff fails in the primary duty of having an economic system supported by government, which is to provide living wage jobs for one's own citizens.
What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida?
Yes, which would encourage farmers in your state to grow more oranges, thus employing more people. The problem with efficiency and economy of scale is that it directly causes unemployment, and thus welfare.
Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.
But it is beneficial to the INDIVIDUALS involved, and thus, if you're for freedom and individualism, you should be for protection of the economic conditions that employ the most people, rather than that which produces the cheapest goods. Subsidiarity states that nothing should be done in a more complex way than is necessary- and trade is complex.
Which bugs the hell out of me for reasons OTHER than CO2 reduction; it effectively prevents any sort of economic experimentation in subsidiarity among the States, because it prevents protection of local markets.
Which has now, in the last years of the first decade of the 21st century, allowed the Manhattan Island Bankers to effectively pull off an economic coup that Congress seems powerless to respond to.
Taxes of over 100% and even up to 1000% on some goods were imposed just to cross the Hudson River. It nearly started an all out war between those two states, where both armies and navies were being assembled for just that very purpose, and some shots were exchanged between uniformed military forces of both states.
Why were they trying to economically invade each other's territory to begin with? What sense did it make to ship goods across the Hudson that were already in existence in the other territory?
I would have gone to war over that as well- and the answer SHOULD have been an utter ban on interstate trade in anything made in the other state. As it stands, 250 years later NYC economically dominates the whole bloody country with a tyranny far worse than any trade war. Maybe what we really need is to return to individual state currencies and NO trade between the states, after the damage the big bank mergers have done.
There is a good reason why this clause was put into the Constitution in the first place, and a damn good reason why it should be respected and not tampered with for even a well meaning cause like "global warming".
And in return, we've got a tyranny of the Eastern Seaboard over the rest of the United States- including people living over 3000 miles away.
Where do you find that information? I've been unable to find the bill- and all the reports on it so far label it as a Tariff, not a sales tax.
Unfortunately for you and the rest of the normal people in this country, the Supreme Court could define the Constitution as Roast Beef and we'd all have to eat it.