Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race Sex Pregnancy Religious Affiliation National Origin Disability Age Military Affiliation Bankruptcy Genetic Information Citizenship Status
Funny, political party isn't up there. What a wonderful false equivalence you've devised.
And don't forget bona fide occupational qualifications! If the job skill required is logical thought and the prospective seeker voted for Trump, that'd be legal discrimination even if they *were* a protected group. Which, again, you're... I mean, *they're* not.
What I'm getting at is that there's always "a way". You just need an alternative. "The position is no longer available (but one with a different ID is and there just happens to be the person we want to hire already signed up for it)." How about, "The job description and requirements have changed (to make sure there's something in there that you don't have as a legal excuse, even though the person we want to hire has that one but is missing four other ones)". It's amazing.
Can you see this, am I dfoing it right. Am I on the Web now or the Internit?
Now, wait.. You're jumping in a little too soon. After losing this suit and a troll..err...scroll of other suits, RIM/BlackBerry will declare that it created the Internet as we know it today, you know, because ummm... like... uhhhh..... there wouldn't be mobile-slanted stuff if.. they... didn't..start..it... uhhh.... and there would be...lke..no Internet without...it? *drools*
Oh Christ defend us from the BB apologists. It has a large pile of cash from ye olden days, and while there's some QNX growth, it's hardly stellar. The company is a shell of what it used to be and has been fucking around with cash flows for a couple of years now by selling off assets.
It is very much indeed well on its way to patent trolling, as was predicted as its hardware sales crashed.
Blah, blah blah. It's so boring when you speak the truth.;) </sarcasm>
That's like a zombie wanting to eat the brains of another zombie.
Hey now, you wouldn't be able to see what the brains of a zombie look like on your mobile phone if it weren't for BlackBerry's radio technology. They, not the service providers, Siemens, Motorola, etc made everything!!!!!!! Now where do I put the trademark symbol again, after or before the exclamation points? Do I have to use caps?
...if you can only release a new "version" of i* devices every year, there isn't enough money coming in anymore. Solution, release the iPhone 8 in December, and the iPhone 9 in February, followed by the iPhone 10 in March to fix all of the annoying but awesome bugs and glitches in version 9.
How much do you pay for bluetooth and WiFi on your phone?
This is fascinating, intended for third world use. Do we imagine that the density of cell phones in the third world is really sufficient to meet the 200' range? Maybe in the city, on the streets. Anywhere else, huh?
You only need to be a true shareholder in IBM stock to get the inside company information on how this will work with 100% certainty. *choke*
I'm sorry, I lost interest when I read that a "bridge construction group" announced something that they could make billions off of being involved in correcting.
Make H1B an auction, where employers bid for them instead of distribution by lottery. That will make them cost more than American workers and thereby eliminate the companies that only want low wage "guest workers" while still letting the legitimate skills shortages to be filled. Oh look, a free market solution!
That's too good of an idea. It can't work. People will start crying "slavery" as soon as it's adopted, too.
Yep. I've discussed similar with people, and seen comedians incorporate that stuff into their acts. The malady that is being treated must be a real sob to deal with to put up with the side effects.
I find it disgustingly humorous how every single medication to "help treat depression" has a known side effect percentage chance (per test group, of course) of development of suicidal tendencies. Well, I guess that gets rid of your depression..?
No? What you described and what is allowed in the US are vastly different versions of each other. Drug companies ARE allowed to advertise their offerings, but they aren't allowed to claim they are recommended by doctors and must include all of the side effects, etc. Most drug commercials ere are depressing reminders for those of us who don't suffer from such conditions.
I thought it was more of a "go see your doctor about product x", because the doctor gets a nice little bonus on the side (hush hush, you) for handing out samples and talking people into how great something is, until it's not so great anymore, then they can disavow all knowledge of their initial recommendation. Now I'm curious. I want to go to a slimy doctor who's in bed with the pharma, then check my records a few months later and see if they even mention the recommendation in them. *zips off*
I think you've got it. I remember a lot of "Brand X" advertising, esp'ly detergents & other commodities that are all more or less the same. Tide doesn't want to mention, well, any other brand. And it works. ATM I can't think of another brand.
So, I don't think it was ever a gov't regulation. Also, I would imagine mentioning a specific brand could open a company up to litigation in some manner.
I know, right? When I see commercials comparing their product to another, that's pushed rationalization. It makes me curious about this other product that they are trying to overcome because, hell, it takes at least a commercial to do it, right? I then want to check out this other product. I think that's Human. Reverse logic is only effective if the person is oppositional, and we haven't come out with multiple commercials tailored to each personality type yet. I trademark that, BTW.:)
Then what would qualify as "unlimited"? Because LTE speeds aren't infinite either. No mobile phone technology has the ability to provide unlimited bandwidth?
I think a reasonable criticism is that they're not using the word "unlimited" in the same sense that T-Mobile is (who will allow LTE access over the soft-limit, but will deprioritize your data when the tower is congested), and perhaps there needs to be a common definition. But it is unlimited in the consumer sense of "I will always be able to use data, and not worry about overages."
Agreed. It would be nice for everyone to hear "limitation = lower priority when tower is congested, but not all of the time". Then they have nothing to bitch about unless they have a problem with heavy data usage, which we would all love to hear an explanation of.:)
Ultimately, there is a limit imposed by physical laws, but we don't ban anyone from using the term unlimited due to such restrictions. Similarly, in this context, the amount of data transferred is only limited by speed, and not by any inherent limit in the amount itself. The term is perfectly fine for those who understand English.
Thus, unlimited = unlimited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred, until data transferred > $LIMIT; then unlimited = limited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred
Understood, and us techies get it. To the commoner, though, it would seem that they have word play to work with and DO (probably just to win, even though they don't need to).
When they get unlimited = unlimited speed and data transferred (-natural congestion and system load), they'll do it for a day or two, maybe a week. Then, they'll realize they don't need it and back down.
The exception are people who want to eliminate the charge of their cable co/telecom co/etc for Internet access and use a repeater to set their phone up as a wifi hot spot, repeated for all devices in the house to access the Internet through it. If 10% of the customers did that, the network would be congested to the point of nearly unusable daily.
And I'm sure your property value and property taxes reflect your access to services. If they don't, then you overpaid for your home. I live in literally the most expensive home market in the US and have the taxes to go with it. I have reasonable access to broadband and wireless. You want to switch?
This isn't rocket science. It's why homes in urban areas cost more, and why the property taxes in urban areas higher. You are paying for the infrastructure offered by the urban area. And yeah I know this isn't the only factory in home costs and taxes, but it's a big factor.
You're doing "that thing". I don't think that someone who is looking for a home, given the situation they're in or what's going on at the time, always thinks to call telecom companies to ask if service is prime in their area or not. Besides, companies lie to get your business.
Related to that, if I were to call ATT and Cincinnati Bell (the providers I use), they can both say they have service in the area. Caveat - it's hilly and ATT has four towers within range of the home I live in. It can barely find a stable signal from any of the 4, depending on where I am in the house, and if it does find one it's minimal data speed (below a megabit) and choppy voice. One of those "stand an inch to the left... now kneel down 5 inches...one more.. okay now I can understand you" things. Cincinnati Bell says there is "fioptics available" to the home. They leave out the part that the it is within a 1 block area of a medium density living area (not rural, not urban) where there is no fiber run. Literally, five houses up the street and I can get fiber with gigabit service. This home, I can get 30mb/s max via copper from the nearest FDH (can look at it from the house, less than a block up the road). For some reason they decided to run fiber up one side of the street and from the other side (east-west and west-east), but leave out a block. What the hell?
Also, what world are you living in where utility poles and what's run on them, by whom, are paid for/subsidized by taxing? I haven't seen one place where that's the case - the utility companies have the right because they purchased said right and pass that cost on to their customers. The city and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it, "it" being the directly relational cost to the homeowner. It's the provider that passes their fees on, and BTW I also know people that work for the telecom company that can't explain why they didn't include my block in the fiber build-out, and those people have had conversations with me where I pulled a bit of info and they say laughingly that the cost of heavily dense areas is so much lower because the build-out and equipment generate loads of income for them, versus a non-dense area where said build-out generates little income.
These aren't things that you can expect every home buyer to check out in detail before they purchase a home, and their financials could even be a limiting factor. Availability of open homes might be a factor. Sure, I look at things like this when I'm considering moving, but they don't affect the decision; the cost of the place to live and other taxes (meaning $$$) determine the decision. If I were a multi-billionaire, then it wouldn't matter because I could be picky and choosy, but I could also pay the telecom and utility companies to build whatever I want them to to get what I want at my home. I'm not, you're not, mishehu is not.
You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.
You are very right but that also, on the other side of the proverbial coin, allows another company to set up service in that area and nab all of the business, creating a mental image in peoples' minds that the company providing the service is the "savior". Even if their service sucks, it's more than nothing. That company wins all business in an area. If another competitor moves in, they can offer an upgraded service that is beyond the competitor's "we're here" snatch'n'grab of previously "enslaved/trapped" customers. As long as you aren't raping a customer for high profit in an area with no competition, your increased cost will benefit in the long-run.
In this context, Verizon and AT&T get the overall award because they are the buyers of one of the two "Initial A/B Cell Service Companies". Their lack of service in an outlying area just makes them look bad to anyone with a brain because it's not hard to do basic business math. I have lovely ATT service everywhere, except where I travel to visit a relative. The "WTF" enters my mind every time because there is a big old 200-500 foot tower on a nearby hill (hard to tell because that hill is so high) and the company that built that tower has the working business (Verizon, it's called these days). Another company was also given allowance to install on that tower (T-Mobile). ATT either decided not to pay the rape pricing for colocating or Verizon somehow kept them out. I'm not up to speed on the laws governing usage of existing tower/rack space in wireless telecom and government intervention to the same (if there is any) so I have no idea why ATT decided not to provide. This area is by a big lake, BTW. This lake sees heavy "business" all year 'round. I'm not sure how other ATT customers feel about having no service in this wonderful lake area while on a rented houseboat, while someone's talking on their mobile in the houseboat right next to them...?
Anyhow, the point is that lack of service provision, or provision of shitty service in an area with other providers with better service is stupid. It will hurt in the long-run in many ways. Just fucking provide up-front and watch your profits climb slowly over time. Wait, what am I talking about? That's not "today thought". Heh.
Customers on the veritable last mile should have essential services whether they are are profitable or not, but that would certainly fall far from being described as ridiculous regulation. Nonetheless, paying for additional towers in BFE and Shitfuck, NE so that people can download data to sketchy 3G service probably encourages companies like Verizon to attempt cap limits.
The free market keeps Verizon competitive when upstarts that do not cover quite as unprofitable rural area begin to cut into their bottom line.
I think you've got it but you're missing a leg to the logic... The up-front cost(s) of getting land allowance, setting up a hut, raising a tower, and getting electricity to it are the costs that are set at whatever they are (unless negotiable). Allowing for more bandwidth requires (possibly, depending on the installation) more panels on the tower, more bandwidth delivered by directional beam from another location or utility-based landline upgrade of speed, or both. The cost is usually fixed per month on the second part of it, after the basic location layer 0 setup. Installation charges vary. Here's the kicker: if they get a shit ton of business in a city nearby, the net profit (financially-speaking) offsets the cost of the "BFE people". Those people may move. Whether or not Verizon keeps the networking (wireless or wired) at the level it is with less people (due to move) is their choice. In the mean time, those that move may keep their service if they're happy with it and be sucked into the massive black hole of city-level service. The costs offset. Population and housing will increase; it's a given unless there's a war or disease outbreak, natural disaster beyond comprehension, etc. Population increase would fit better into an enabled network, meaning the upgrade costs for the layer 1/2 services don't have to be constant costs with installation/service charges from the provider/contractors/etc - it's in place and requires only maintenance like any other site.
This is the thinking from someone who has suggested this as a business model, but the idea was rejected because the up-front costs and lower net profit were overriding the decision-makers' minds. Once service increased at an exponential rate, clients (customers) got pissed at the shitty service and the cost to upgrade to make them happy was higher than the overall cost over time because it was an "immediate need" and rushed. The amount of service increase was also a good guess and not set in stone, so there was over-provisioning, leading to removal of components. Then, the removal was enough to piss people off and require more installation at a high cost to compensate, but this time they weren't taking growth into mind. It's stupid in my opinion. Just create a wonderful thing up front where the gross profit is less and the net profit is way less, but watch it spike over time. I was fired from that job, BTW. "Higher-ups" and decision-makers hate having someone around that makes them not look like the center of the Universe of best practices. Anyhow, it isn't about me, I'm just sharing that to paint the story clearly.
I don't buy this. You could equally argue that not enough people are getting the educations they need to do these jobs because they know the jobs are going to foreign workers at cheap rates. In other words the H-1Bs could, at least in part be the cause of the "shortage" if such a thing really exists.
That is PRECISELY my point. The facts don't support a true STEM worker shortage. Back when the H-1B visa program was passed in 1990, that was the claim, that there was a shortage of STEM workers. I think when you say H-1B's could be the part of the shortage, what you must mean is that the shortage from the American worker's perspective is because less jobs available for American citizens for fair wages and working arrangements because they are going to H-1B visas because they will work more hours a week for cheaper. The ultimate problem there is that there are no GLOBAL standards for fair labor.
The other serious question is during The Great Recession 2008-2015/16 (it didn't end when the government pronounced it over) when the unemployment rates were higher than anything we had seen since The Great Depression with record numbers of college graduates, why was the H-1B visa program kept in place? Clearly there was no STEM worker shortage then. It's all a bunch of self-serving lies.
I am in total agreement and on-board with you. Don't take my question the wrong way. It is truly curiosity on what your stance would be...
Economy tanks... The Gov't of the USA says "All H1B workers must return to their country of origin and have 90 days to comply." Nah, that sounds bad. How about "Every corporation in America is now forced to remove all non-American workers from all positions and employ American workers who are unemployed."
Both examples are extreme and... how do you go about doing that? Like I said, I want it done, but I'm not sure how to go about DOING it without starting a war (or two or three). Thoughts?
I can drive over to Radio Shack tomorrow and get a soldering iron, if you insist. It's about a ten minute drive. Mind if I stop at the bank first and maybe to White Castle on the way for lunch?
The small midwestern town I live on the outskirts of does still have a Radio Shack. I can buy assorted parts and tools and stuff. They even stock Arduinos and Shields, though they're way overpriced.
Wow. I'm on the outskirts of Greater Cincinnati and they got rid of the last Mobile Sh... er Radio Shack a couple of years ago. Amazing. I wonder who the actual owner is!
<sarcasm> You can't apply that title to the article. It's not Lockheed's fault. They have never done anything wrong. They use subcontractors for everything but the choosing of subcontractors. Hell, maybe that's even automated now. Change the title!!! </sarcasm>
I would prefer that the punishment be an opportunity for any recipient of any of the mail messages sent be allowed to literally give the jackass an electric shock, each varying in intensity to keep him from becoming accustomed to the shock.
I was initially thinking each person be allowed a punch to jackass' face or gut, but damage may occur and that's unfair;)
No, I'm not joking. I wish fucking asshats like this paid for their "gains" in equal pain and suffering for all combined, unwilling recipients.
Hey, severe punishment is used in other countries and we're seen in the USA to be "too civilized" to resort to such measures. On the other hand, the ones that wish to commit crimes know that they're doing so in a manner where the outcome won't be unimaginable and ruin them for life. I should shut up. I'll just summarize it with "I wish I were allowed to be on the appeals jury because you KNOW that's coming."
...and not even read the article before saying that you "designing" something doesn't mean you're also "manufacturing" it. What you design might be really cool but take into account (no pun) who is actually implementing that design for you and how those "tests" are going to pan out. Media releases of "we're so safe and on top" don't work anymore. Wait, yeah they do. Just like the evening news, they give people things to talk about around the water cooler.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 1: Delete your social media account. Step 2: Travel. Step 3: ????. Step 4: Profit
Pssst... 3 is collection of underpants. Don't share that inside info.
Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religious Affiliation
National Origin
Disability
Age
Military Affiliation
Bankruptcy
Genetic Information
Citizenship Status
Funny, political party isn't up there. What a wonderful false equivalence you've devised.
And don't forget bona fide occupational qualifications! If the job skill required is logical thought and the prospective seeker voted for Trump, that'd be legal discrimination even if they *were* a protected group. Which, again, you're... I mean, *they're* not.
What I'm getting at is that there's always "a way". You just need an alternative. "The position is no longer available (but one with a different ID is and there just happens to be the person we want to hire already signed up for it)." How about, "The job description and requirements have changed (to make sure there's something in there that you don't have as a legal excuse, even though the person we want to hire has that one but is missing four other ones)". It's amazing.
Can you see this, am I dfoing it right. Am I on the Web now or the Internit?
Now, wait.. You're jumping in a little too soon. After losing this suit and a troll..err...scroll of other suits, RIM/BlackBerry will declare that it created the Internet as we know it today, you know, because ummm... like... uhhhh..... there wouldn't be mobile-slanted stuff if.. they... didn't..start..it... uhhh.... and there would be...lke..no Internet without...it? *drools*
Oh Christ defend us from the BB apologists. It has a large pile of cash from ye olden days, and while there's some QNX growth, it's hardly stellar. The company is a shell of what it used to be and has been fucking around with cash flows for a couple of years now by selling off assets.
It is very much indeed well on its way to patent trolling, as was predicted as its hardware sales crashed.
Blah, blah blah. It's so boring when you speak the truth. ;)
</sarcasm>
That's like a zombie wanting to eat the brains of another zombie.
Hey now, you wouldn't be able to see what the brains of a zombie look like on your mobile phone if it weren't for BlackBerry's radio technology. They, not the service providers, Siemens, Motorola, etc made everything!!!!!!! Now where do I put the trademark symbol again, after or before the exclamation points? Do I have to use caps?
Aww, and Blackberry Looked like it was coming back. Faces certain doom now.
...if you can only release a new "version" of i* devices every year, there isn't enough money coming in anymore. Solution, release the iPhone 8 in December, and the iPhone 9 in February, followed by the iPhone 10 in March to fix all of the annoying but awesome bugs and glitches in version 9.
Wait a minute...
What about data and txt costs?
How much do you pay for bluetooth and WiFi on your phone?
This is fascinating, intended for third world use. Do we imagine that the density of cell phones in the third world is really sufficient to meet the 200' range? Maybe in the city, on the streets. Anywhere else, huh?
You only need to be a true shareholder in IBM stock to get the inside company information on how this will work with 100% certainty. *choke*
I'm sorry, I lost interest when I read that a "bridge construction group" announced something that they could make billions off of being involved in correcting.
Make H1B an auction, where employers bid for them instead of distribution by lottery. That will make them cost more than American workers and thereby eliminate the companies that only want low wage "guest workers" while still letting the legitimate skills shortages to be filled. Oh look, a free market solution!
That's too good of an idea. It can't work. People will start crying "slavery" as soon as it's adopted, too.
Yep. I've discussed similar with people, and seen comedians incorporate that stuff into their acts. The malady that is being treated must be a real sob to deal with to put up with the side effects.
I find it disgustingly humorous how every single medication to "help treat depression" has a known side effect percentage chance (per test group, of course) of development of suicidal tendencies. Well, I guess that gets rid of your depression..?
No? What you described and what is allowed in the US are vastly different versions of each other. Drug companies ARE allowed to advertise their offerings, but they aren't allowed to claim they are recommended by doctors and must include all of the side effects, etc. Most drug commercials ere are depressing reminders for those of us who don't suffer from such conditions.
I thought it was more of a "go see your doctor about product x", because the doctor gets a nice little bonus on the side (hush hush, you) for handing out samples and talking people into how great something is, until it's not so great anymore, then they can disavow all knowledge of their initial recommendation. Now I'm curious. I want to go to a slimy doctor who's in bed with the pharma, then check my records a few months later and see if they even mention the recommendation in them. *zips off*
I think you've got it. I remember a lot of "Brand X" advertising, esp'ly detergents & other commodities that are all more or less the same. Tide doesn't want to mention, well, any other brand. And it works. ATM I can't think of another brand.
So, I don't think it was ever a gov't regulation. Also, I would imagine mentioning a specific brand could open a company up to litigation in some manner.
I know, right? When I see commercials comparing their product to another, that's pushed rationalization. It makes me curious about this other product that they are trying to overcome because, hell, it takes at least a commercial to do it, right? I then want to check out this other product. I think that's Human. Reverse logic is only effective if the person is oppositional, and we haven't come out with multiple commercials tailored to each personality type yet. I trademark that, BTW. :)
Then what would qualify as "unlimited"? Because LTE speeds aren't infinite either. No mobile phone technology has the ability to provide unlimited bandwidth?
I think a reasonable criticism is that they're not using the word "unlimited" in the same sense that T-Mobile is (who will allow LTE access over the soft-limit, but will deprioritize your data when the tower is congested), and perhaps there needs to be a common definition. But it is unlimited in the consumer sense of "I will always be able to use data, and not worry about overages."
Agreed. It would be nice for everyone to hear "limitation = lower priority when tower is congested, but not all of the time". Then they have nothing to bitch about unless they have a problem with heavy data usage, which we would all love to hear an explanation of. :)
Ultimately, there is a limit imposed by physical laws, but we don't ban anyone from using the term unlimited due to such restrictions. Similarly, in this context, the amount of data transferred is only limited by speed, and not by any inherent limit in the amount itself. The term is perfectly fine for those who understand English.
Thus, unlimited = unlimited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred, until data transferred > $LIMIT; then unlimited = limited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred
Understood, and us techies get it. To the commoner, though, it would seem that they have word play to work with and DO (probably just to win, even though they don't need to).
When they get unlimited = unlimited speed and data transferred (-natural congestion and system load), they'll do it for a day or two, maybe a week. Then, they'll realize they don't need it and back down.
The exception are people who want to eliminate the charge of their cable co/telecom co/etc for Internet access and use a repeater to set their phone up as a wifi hot spot, repeated for all devices in the house to access the Internet through it. If 10% of the customers did that, the network would be congested to the point of nearly unusable daily.
And I'm sure your property value and property taxes reflect your access to services. If they don't, then you overpaid for your home. I live in literally the most expensive home market in the US and have the taxes to go with it. I have reasonable access to broadband and wireless. You want to switch?
This isn't rocket science. It's why homes in urban areas cost more, and why the property taxes in urban areas higher. You are paying for the infrastructure offered by the urban area. And yeah I know this isn't the only factory in home costs and taxes, but it's a big factor.
You're doing "that thing". I don't think that someone who is looking for a home, given the situation they're in or what's going on at the time, always thinks to call telecom companies to ask if service is prime in their area or not. Besides, companies lie to get your business.
Related to that, if I were to call ATT and Cincinnati Bell (the providers I use), they can both say they have service in the area. Caveat - it's hilly and ATT has four towers within range of the home I live in. It can barely find a stable signal from any of the 4, depending on where I am in the house, and if it does find one it's minimal data speed (below a megabit) and choppy voice. One of those "stand an inch to the left... now kneel down 5 inches...one more.. okay now I can understand you" things. Cincinnati Bell says there is "fioptics available" to the home. They leave out the part that the it is within a 1 block area of a medium density living area (not rural, not urban) where there is no fiber run. Literally, five houses up the street and I can get fiber with gigabit service. This home, I can get 30mb/s max via copper from the nearest FDH (can look at it from the house, less than a block up the road). For some reason they decided to run fiber up one side of the street and from the other side (east-west and west-east), but leave out a block. What the hell?
Also, what world are you living in where utility poles and what's run on them, by whom, are paid for/subsidized by taxing? I haven't seen one place where that's the case - the utility companies have the right because they purchased said right and pass that cost on to their customers. The city and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it, "it" being the directly relational cost to the homeowner. It's the provider that passes their fees on, and BTW I also know people that work for the telecom company that can't explain why they didn't include my block in the fiber build-out, and those people have had conversations with me where I pulled a bit of info and they say laughingly that the cost of heavily dense areas is so much lower because the build-out and equipment generate loads of income for them, versus a non-dense area where said build-out generates little income.
These aren't things that you can expect every home buyer to check out in detail before they purchase a home, and their financials could even be a limiting factor. Availability of open homes might be a factor. Sure, I look at things like this when I'm considering moving, but they don't affect the decision; the cost of the place to live and other taxes (meaning $$$) determine the decision. If I were a multi-billionaire, then it wouldn't matter because I could be picky and choosy, but I could also pay the telecom and utility companies to build whatever I want them to to get what I want at my home. I'm not, you're not, mishehu is not.
You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.
You are very right but that also, on the other side of the proverbial coin, allows another company to set up service in that area and nab all of the business, creating a mental image in peoples' minds that the company providing the service is the "savior". Even if their service sucks, it's more than nothing. That company wins all business in an area. If another competitor moves in, they can offer an upgraded service that is beyond the competitor's "we're here" snatch'n'grab of previously "enslaved/trapped" customers. As long as you aren't raping a customer for high profit in an area with no competition, your increased cost will benefit in the long-run.
In this context, Verizon and AT&T get the overall award because they are the buyers of one of the two "Initial A/B Cell Service Companies". Their lack of service in an outlying area just makes them look bad to anyone with a brain because it's not hard to do basic business math. I have lovely ATT service everywhere, except where I travel to visit a relative. The "WTF" enters my mind every time because there is a big old 200-500 foot tower on a nearby hill (hard to tell because that hill is so high) and the company that built that tower has the working business (Verizon, it's called these days). Another company was also given allowance to install on that tower (T-Mobile). ATT either decided not to pay the rape pricing for colocating or Verizon somehow kept them out. I'm not up to speed on the laws governing usage of existing tower/rack space in wireless telecom and government intervention to the same (if there is any) so I have no idea why ATT decided not to provide. This area is by a big lake, BTW. This lake sees heavy "business" all year 'round. I'm not sure how other ATT customers feel about having no service in this wonderful lake area while on a rented houseboat, while someone's talking on their mobile in the houseboat right next to them...?
Anyhow, the point is that lack of service provision, or provision of shitty service in an area with other providers with better service is stupid. It will hurt in the long-run in many ways. Just fucking provide up-front and watch your profits climb slowly over time. Wait, what am I talking about? That's not "today thought". Heh.
Customers on the veritable last mile should have essential services whether they are are profitable or not, but that would certainly fall far from being described as ridiculous regulation. Nonetheless, paying for additional towers in BFE and Shitfuck, NE so that people can download data to sketchy 3G service probably encourages companies like Verizon to attempt cap limits.
The free market keeps Verizon competitive when upstarts that do not cover quite as unprofitable rural area begin to cut into their bottom line.
I think you've got it but you're missing a leg to the logic... The up-front cost(s) of getting land allowance, setting up a hut, raising a tower, and getting electricity to it are the costs that are set at whatever they are (unless negotiable). Allowing for more bandwidth requires (possibly, depending on the installation) more panels on the tower, more bandwidth delivered by directional beam from another location or utility-based landline upgrade of speed, or both. The cost is usually fixed per month on the second part of it, after the basic location layer 0 setup. Installation charges vary. Here's the kicker: if they get a shit ton of business in a city nearby, the net profit (financially-speaking) offsets the cost of the "BFE people". Those people may move. Whether or not Verizon keeps the networking (wireless or wired) at the level it is with less people (due to move) is their choice. In the mean time, those that move may keep their service if they're happy with it and be sucked into the massive black hole of city-level service. The costs offset. Population and housing will increase; it's a given unless there's a war or disease outbreak, natural disaster beyond comprehension, etc. Population increase would fit better into an enabled network, meaning the upgrade costs for the layer 1/2 services don't have to be constant costs with installation/service charges from the provider/contractors/etc - it's in place and requires only maintenance like any other site.
This is the thinking from someone who has suggested this as a business model, but the idea was rejected because the up-front costs and lower net profit were overriding the decision-makers' minds. Once service increased at an exponential rate, clients (customers) got pissed at the shitty service and the cost to upgrade to make them happy was higher than the overall cost over time because it was an "immediate need" and rushed. The amount of service increase was also a good guess and not set in stone, so there was over-provisioning, leading to removal of components. Then, the removal was enough to piss people off and require more installation at a high cost to compensate, but this time they weren't taking growth into mind. It's stupid in my opinion. Just create a wonderful thing up front where the gross profit is less and the net profit is way less, but watch it spike over time. I was fired from that job, BTW. "Higher-ups" and decision-makers hate having someone around that makes them not look like the center of the Universe of best practices. Anyhow, it isn't about me, I'm just sharing that to paint the story clearly.
I don't buy this. You could equally argue that not enough people are getting the educations they need to do these jobs because they know the jobs are going to foreign workers at cheap rates. In other words the H-1Bs could, at least in part be the cause of the "shortage" if such a thing really exists.
That is PRECISELY my point. The facts don't support a true STEM worker shortage. Back when the H-1B visa program was passed in 1990, that was the claim, that there was a shortage of STEM workers. I think when you say H-1B's could be the part of the shortage, what you must mean is that the shortage from the American worker's perspective is because less jobs available for American citizens for fair wages and working arrangements because they are going to H-1B visas because they will work more hours a week for cheaper. The ultimate problem there is that there are no GLOBAL standards for fair labor.
The other serious question is during The Great Recession 2008-2015/16 (it didn't end when the government pronounced it over) when the unemployment rates were higher than anything we had seen since The Great Depression with record numbers of college graduates, why was the H-1B visa program kept in place? Clearly there was no STEM worker shortage then. It's all a bunch of self-serving lies.
I am in total agreement and on-board with you. Don't take my question the wrong way. It is truly curiosity on what your stance would be...
Economy tanks... The Gov't of the USA says "All H1B workers must return to their country of origin and have 90 days to comply." Nah, that sounds bad. How about "Every corporation in America is now forced to remove all non-American workers from all positions and employ American workers who are unemployed."
Both examples are extreme and... how do you go about doing that? Like I said, I want it done, but I'm not sure how to go about DOING it without starting a war (or two or three). Thoughts?
I can drive over to Radio Shack tomorrow and get a soldering iron, if you insist. It's about a ten minute drive. Mind if I stop at the bank first and maybe to White Castle on the way for lunch?
The small midwestern town I live on the outskirts of does still have a Radio Shack. I can buy assorted parts and tools and stuff. They even stock Arduinos and Shields, though they're way overpriced.
Wow. I'm on the outskirts of Greater Cincinnati and they got rid of the last Mobile Sh... er Radio Shack a couple of years ago. Amazing. I wonder who the actual owner is!
Here we go again...
<sarcasm>
You can't apply that title to the article. It's not Lockheed's fault. They have never done anything wrong. They use subcontractors for everything but the choosing of subcontractors. Hell, maybe that's even automated now. Change the title!!! </sarcasm>
I would prefer that the punishment be an opportunity for any recipient of any of the mail messages sent be allowed to literally give the jackass an electric shock, each varying in intensity to keep him from becoming accustomed to the shock.
I was initially thinking each person be allowed a punch to jackass' face or gut, but damage may occur and that's unfair ;)
No, I'm not joking. I wish fucking asshats like this paid for their "gains" in equal pain and suffering for all combined, unwilling recipients.
Hey, severe punishment is used in other countries and we're seen in the USA to be "too civilized" to resort to such measures. On the other hand, the ones that wish to commit crimes know that they're doing so in a manner where the outcome won't be unimaginable and ruin them for life. I should shut up. I'll just summarize it with "I wish I were allowed to be on the appeals jury because you KNOW that's coming."
Humor.
Outlawed in 1989.
...and not even read the article before saying that you "designing" something doesn't mean you're also "manufacturing" it. What you design might be really cool but take into account (no pun) who is actually implementing that design for you and how those "tests" are going to pan out. Media releases of "we're so safe and on top" don't work anymore. Wait, yeah they do. Just like the evening news, they give people things to talk about around the water cooler.
Good work with those designs!!!