The pay ratio is going to spread even if the CEO isn't taking any more money per employee, so long as you have a lot of employees. Look at the recent history of mergers and acquisitions and imagine the giant empires these people get to tithe.
In a small business with 3 employees (including the CEO), the CEO might make $70k, while the workers make $40k. That's a spread of 1.75:1, with the CEO receiving $35k per employee or what amounts to 87.5% of each employee's paycheck for himself.
Take a business with 10,000 employees and a CEO making $100/year per employee and you've got $1,000,000. Your employees might be making $80k, but you're making 12.5 times that--and you're only taking 0.125% of what amounts to their pay.
Home Depot has 300,000 employees. Ford has 200,000. Imagine getting $20 from each: that's $6 million. These are $10/hr workers taking home $20,000. You're making 300 times your average employee, and your income amounts to about 0.1% of their income. You can raise their wage to $15/hr, but it's got to come from somewhere: you need more revenue--higher prices--meaning the consumer pays for it. If your labor is 10% of your net operating costs, then you've only raised those costs by 5%, and every $100 thing must now be priced at $105 to compensate.
Honeywell has 181,000 employees. Adamczyk takes home $7.2 million in stocks and $2.5 million in cash compensation. Note that stocks come from creating inflation in the currency of your company's equity--you're picking shareholder pockets--and of course you could imagine if a business paid its employees 2/3 in stocks (the stock price would constantly tank, the business would put out no real money, and they'd tell you they're paying you as promised). So we're looking at cash comp only.
Cash comp here is $14.20 per employee per year at Honeywell for Adamczyk; however, that's their COO, not their CEO. Their CEO brings in $9.3 million of equity and $7.6 of cash. Honeywell CEO David M. Cote receives roughly $41.93 per employee per year.
I can't seriously believe any CEO brings that much to any table
Can you believe he's worth $42 of your entire year's wage; or at least that it doesn't matter? The UAW charges 1.4% dues, which would be $280/year at $10/hr, or 6.67 times what Cote takes from each employee. Some unions charge a lot in dues; if we could eliminate the freerider problem, the dues would spread more and be lower, but 2 hours per 40-hour week (2.5%) is actually a great deal for a union worker.
If I ran a huge corporation, I'd announce their two-week executive compensation burden every quarter. At AIG, including both cash and non-cash, non-equity compensation, that would actually be $22.30 per employee per 2-week pay for the top 5 key executives (AIG is ludicrous).
These regulations are important. ProPublica recently did an article about political ads on Facebook (they gave me some praise, although I generally dislike ProPublica's reporting). FEC has been on and off about only requiring a link to a landing page with a disclaimer or requiring disclosure in the ad; all Facebook ads link back to a page which has a disclaimer.
I essentially get a pass almost all the time: the FEC has a safe-harbor for TV ads (which I would use as a primary legal argument) if your face is clearly visible in the ad and taking up 80% of the screen. I'm featured prominently in most of my own ads (many of my original ads didn't include my face at all, and instead only went back to my Facebook page).
The FTC has similar rules for commerce, whereby they don't want people peddling advertisements as education. In the case of not disclosing that an affiliate link has AMAZON paying you for the click, I don't think it technically matters: everyone uses Amazon. If you're an affiliate of the seller or manufacturer of the product linked to, however, that raises significant concern of conflict of interest (collusion).
I'm going to put an end to recessions in the US forever, along with homelessness and hunger; I'm also absolutely on board with getting rid of FISA 702 and other such things (Elizabeth Warren is your best friend, by the way).
I need some guidance on where all the messes are. I can solve practically any problem, but I need to be appraised of the problem so I can ferret out the appropriate facts. Criminal justice reform is enormous for me; state surveillance is kind of a quiet topic that the state likes to not talk about,and I'm not a DOD surveillance technician running all those secret programs.
I'm going to need to look at things like GDPR and this ridiculous CLOUD act to figure out what to implement and what to repeal. USC is too huge and I'm not sure I can find it all by brute force; I may need to hire staff. Lots of staff. I need to check House ethics rules and determine if we need new legislation allowing Members to set up a Leadership 501(c)(4) for official use only--e.g. to hire staff in excess of what Congress allows--along with torpedoing the ridiculous abuse of Leadership PACs for personal use.
there are a lot of problems with virtualization that is secure these days due to flaws in CPU architectures.
Actually, hypervisors can flush cache and TLB when switching guests, which prevents leaking. The guest OS can use the full spread of CPU technology as it sees fit and still can't pull off things like spectre and meltdown.
What do you think it will look like when I try to pass Net Neutrality legislation? Will Verizon try to sue me? Maybe they'll donate to my campaign at some point, and then try to sue me because they want their money back. \o/
For one, I would have just gone with a.NET implementation, because CIL and CLR are open standards. Yep.
Also, as per the Bill of Rights I wrote, people have a right to their own cultural heritage. I intend to pass a copyright act which limits copyright terms to 7 years, plus 7 more on renewal at $1,000 (inflation-adjusted), then an annual renewal at the 14 year mark each priced at double the prior. At 25 years, that renewal costs $1 billion.
To file for the first copyright renewal, you must supply usable original source material of the copyrighted body. That means any custom pre-compilation tools or a definition of those tools allowing reproduction of said tools. It means master tracks of multimedia works, if you have them. It means that Windows XP is either no longer under copyright 7 years in, or its copyright extends to at least 14 years so long as the original source code (without all those bugfix patches) is held in escrow for release at expiration.
The US government has managed to bypass the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments by creating and extending the 3rd party doctrine. This doctrine roughly states that once information passes out of an individual's direct control, he can no longer exercise any control over it. This gives the government easy access to huge amounts of shared information.
Oddly enough, there are very few trying to ban all guns. I've found that sticking most gun-owning conservatives in a room with most reform-minded liberals and keeping the tone calm gets you a bunch of people who all have the same ideals and goals.
There are a few folks over at NGRA and way, way off to the left who think we should eliminate all background checks and automatic weapons bans or that we should ban all firearms unconditionally in the entire nation. 90% of the country thinks they're nuts, but half of those think the other half ARE those nuts.
there are very few rich kids compared to poor/middle class kids
Yes, which ends up with odd things like CEOs making $100 per employee per year and being multi-millionaires. That's why I push back against progressive ideals that start with "let's tax the rich a whole lot!": you're not going to pay for healthcare or raise wages that way.
I think pretty much all the various "benefits if you make less than X" introduce a lot of paperwork and errors that are solved by just taxing rich people more and giving it to everyone
In general, the bureaucratic and administrative overheads are in low single-digit percentages of systems that cost very little. Social Security OASDI makes up about $900 billion and Medicare makes up over $1 trillion of our spending, yet the administrative overhead there is about 1% (OASDI) and 2% (Medicare). Remaining programs are around 95%-98% efficient in terms of administrative overhead, with HUD and SNAP being in the $50Bn-$100Bn range in total program costs, and WIC around $6Bn.
That's all about $200 per American taxpayer per year or $125 per American (total population) per year.
There's a reason UBI is so compelling compared to welfare
Largely because UBI advocates don't understand the tax system, don't understand economics, and propose a system with high risk and no failure controls.
A Universal Dividend only, taxing 12.5% of all income (personal and corporate), would pay almost $7,000 per year to every adult in 2016. This is enough to lower the cost of our HUD, SNAP, and TANF programs and ensure that they reach every family in need; it's not enough to end all need for those programs. The costs only come down because many recipients are so much less-poor that they're no longer qualified, and many others who remain qualified are so much less-poor that we pay out less in total to them all.
The Dividend itself, with only the rough viability computations and no adjustment of the resulting tax rates, would lower corporate income taxes from 35% to 33.5%, and reduce the top tax bracket from 39.6% to about 36.2%. With the Dividend paying twice-monthly, every American household has an increase in take-home income across any two-week span; and Social Security's retirement and disability benefits programs are permanently-solvent under this program, as the Dividend takes some of the load (you get the same total benefit, but OASDI pays your owed total benefit less the Dividend).
Yes, that's right: there is no "taxing rich people more".
Besides immediately ensuring nobody is homeless or hungry (with the help of SNAP, WIC, HUD, and other programs whose costs fall), the Dividend increases the spending capacity of the poor and middle-class. That creates demand and thus jobs, so the poor inner cities with 13% unemployment suddenly have people going out and finding employment instead of coming home empty-handed. Recall that they're less-poor thanks to the Dividend, and receive less in welfare benefits: the Dividend keeps paying, and the welfare they lose (and risk not re-acquiring) with employment (and income) is smaller than it would otherwise be, so the Dividend increases the incentive to work as well as making more work available.
That's the bigger end of lowering costs. More job availability means less welfare need. It also means more productivity (fewer unemployed) and thus the Dividend gets bigger, causing a feedback loop (it levels off eventually). This is actually kind of dangerous, and we have to temper it by making people more-poor overall so as to reduce the number of jobs.
I can do that, too.
You reduce the number of working hours defined as "full-time", thus people can't produce as much, thus the wealth per-capita is lower, thus the number of consumer jobs available falls. We work 4 days, or 6 hour days, or whatever, and remain as wealthy as ever (or a touch more), except that the poor are able to get by.
Imagine if they used Plan C: Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication to share sensor data. Crack open a VTV module, take the private key, spoof people everywhere suddenly to get cars to slam brakes and cause collisions all over the place.
VTV is an excuse for municipal governments to not invest in infrastructure (sensors on posts and poles), but rather to make people pay for it with not-tax-money.
I'm surprised Google's gotten to that phase already, in any case.
The whole concept of free college if your income is below $X opens up two questions: are your parents able to afford college for you (are they super-rich millionaires?), and are you able to access that money? As a dependent on someone else's tax return, you're part of their household as far as income is concerned; if you file yourself, you're not. That seems straight-forward until you start trying to figure out how to get free college for your kids when you're a millionaire and nobody thinks you need assistance for college.
When you're dealing with poverty-line cases, there's not much wiggle room to set something up: the influx of daddy's money is already putting you near the income limits and cutting down the size of your assistance. When you decide a decently-middle-class, somewhat-okay, maybe-struggling family needs assistance, it's easier to sustain a single person on an income below those levels. When you just say all middle class but nobody upper-middle, suddenly rich folk can set their kids up to live lavishly and still get them free college.
Mostly, we don't want to tax people a whole hell of a lot (which will inevitably end up taxing the middle class, although the rich get higher taxes as well), so we want to leave the rich to fend for themselves. Imagine trying to tax the rich 80% to pay for all kinds of things, instead of taxing them 43% and paying for all kinds of things. Remember when Bernie announced his single-payer tax plan? 2.5% increase in income taxes on everyone (poor, middle-class, rich), plus 6.5% on payrolls (back-shifted into wages and forward-shifted into prices, mainly paid for by the middle-class). If the rich are paying 80%, how much are the middle-class paying?
A bigger question: if the rich are paying 80%, how do we raise taxes again when we need more revenue?
Be mindful: I've developed a tax plan wherein we have universal healthcare and shift the social security OASDI payroll taxes up to the top tax bracket as income taxes, and the top bracket is still under 45%. No two-adult household with less than $55k of income would have paid net taxes in 2016 in that model, either--in any two-week time span. I might be able to fit Bernie's college plan in there without breaking 45% at the top bracket. That $55k limit goes down over time, and the effective tax rate paid by any household also goes down year after year.
I'm a social democrat, and also kind of keep myself challenged and amused with financial wizardry.
On what basis do you determine these vehicles need large amounts of memory? Self-learning systems actually function with surprisingly-little memory; and special-purpose ANN hardware uses little power and small amounts of embedded RAM. Visual training doesn't recognize by comparing an image library or anything like that; it scans an image for attributes, feeds those into a processor, produces a result, and then validates the result and adjusts. That is: all images are compressed into one fixed-size block that neither grows nor shrinks as you add more images to the training set.
I've worked for several government contractors, I was an IT Security analyst and then an IT Security Engineer for 4 years at the Social Security Administration until 2012, and I've done IT systems engineering and currently work as an IT Security Engineer at a major broadcasting corporation.
I have a passing understanding of computer networking from CISCO-centric classes taken in high school in 2002 and 2003. I transferred my high school classes to college under an academic agreement, took a few basic sciences, and got an Associate's of Applied Science. I have a CompTIA Security+ certification from 2003.
My first office job--the one that came after Best Buy--started with a confused-looking internal recruiter (not an agency) asking me a bunch of questions about how I know what all these tools are when I have no relevant educational background. I told him I have strange hobbies and no friends. They pulled in some engineers, we talked about security tech, and they hired me. I helped with penetration tests, designed security policy for major defense contractors, and wrote the final reports for security assessments.
I learned about intrusion detection systems at Social Security's National Computer Center in Woodlawn, where I helped deploy a new IDS product (Google doesn't tell me what it is, so I'm not telling you what we used), worked out the best ways to use the tools available, and trained our analysts to use customized dashboards restricted to custom searches so as to essentially summarize only the data involved in a particular incident as we turned interesting and anomalous behavior into a logical description of the incident at hand.
Right now, an auditor is training himself to be a CISO, while mentoring me in performing broad-scope ISO27000 audits of our business--the kind of thing you typically outsource to IBM, EY, PWC, Qualys, and others.
I've been through the job market without college.
More than that, though: you seem to have missed that maybe the degree you chose in 2008 will get you into an overbloated job market in 2012, while the next degree over would have gotten you into a market with a desperate labor shortage. You can still get a job:
For men, the jobs with the highest rate of overqualification in 2014 included retail salespersons, customer service reps, and food service managers. For women, they were secretaries and office support workers, customer service reps, and teacher assistants.
... at Best Buy, working next to a guy who dropped out of high school and gets paid the same.
Women are actually using their degrees better--maybe. I actually came within 8 credits of an Office Administration degree, qualifying me as a secretary or office support worker. Teacher assistants also can benefit from a little education in education. Of course, I've met plenty of teachers with English or Math degrees and no Education degrees.
So I got into a high-demand job market without an appropriate degree, while people with Bachelor's degrees regularly end up at McDonalds. You want the appropriate degree to match the high-demand market when you get out of college, not the one that's in demand when you go in--which is speculation. Fail it and you might end up at McDonalds; you'll certainly end up with lower pay.
College is a highly-speculative position. It's part of why some of us are advocating for apprenticeship and trade school programs as well as just college access. The Democratic party has sort of built a narrative where you go to college and you're a winner, or you don't go to college and you're a loser; it doesn't work like that.
College educations require several years of time investment. Full-time college requires large amounts of attention and takes a toll on your capacity to work, which means you're either driving yourself insane or you're losing financial ground--yes, you can go to college and come out behind someone who skipped all that and tried to drive right into a career.
The rate of advancement of a minimally-educated, self-studied, experienced worker after four years is much higher than that of a new graduate with little practical experience; and there are far more basic engineer positions in technical fields (e.g. IT) than there are senior, lead, or management positions (e.g. CISO). You'll get to be a highly-valuable engineer earlier (in time) if you start out by diving into work and a little part-time study than you will if you do a solid bachelor's degree and then begin your career 4 years late; you might not have the career opportunities of a college graduate, but you'll be a well-paid engineer or senior engineer earlier the graduate who doesn't get those opportunities.
You'll also be damned far ahead in terms of money by that time.
Student loans make this even worse, of course, because you end up stacking up debt while you can't pay it off, and it collects interest while you wait. The Federal government pays that interest in subsidized deferments; otherwise you're going to mainly pay interest on your loan, making the actual cost of college tiny in comparison to the cost of the loan with which you paid for college.
The biggest risk, however, is the job market.
250,000 IT positions became available this year. Over the next 5 years, we project another 1.5 million positions. Sounds great, right?
What you see: 40% turn-over of job rate. HR working with anywhere from 3 to 15 recruiters. Each job gets posted 15 times on every online job search system. Millions upon millions of IT jobs pop up all throughout the year. A super hot market!
We have projections of IT worker demand growth. We have projections of salary growth. How many other students are running to college for IT?
Do you know if there will be an enormous glut of IT workers in 5 years? Do you know if there will be a slow-down in hiring? No.
That's the risk you take.
It's why we need to create some sort of cooperative employment programs, apprenticeships, and vocational programs. We want to do something like provide free access to two- or four-year college for everyone with less than $100,000/year of income (good luck with that: Donald Trump Jr. just has to move out of his dad's house when he turns 18, get a small apartment paid ahead by his father, and have daddy not claim him as a dependent so he can take free college; how do we write the legal language?). We also need to provide a way for them to ensure they won't come out of college begging for a McJob.
We can do that with shorter programs--apprenticeships (notable for plumbers and electricians), vocational training, etc.--and with cooperative programs in which you work while you attend college or trade school. A sponsoring organization would have a job prepared for you, and leverage you while you learn.
Think about computer programmers, network engineers, and the like. Do you need a Masters Degree in Computer Science and Information Systems to do this job? Well, no. To do the job of the senior technical lead programmer, you do; to do code clean-up, implement some basic software functionality, and otherwise handle those tasks that got most programmers into programming, you just need Googlepedia.
In this day and age, pulling information about digital transactions around a given time stamp and then pulling the related information is as simple as asking a data technician who is attached to this ID XXXXX that badged on a train at one terminal and off at another. The search space includes "where was card XXXXX sold?" and "at what time was card XXXXX sold?", followed by "pull the CCTV footage from the blue light police camera on that street" and "pick out any of these 3 POI at the destination." It's probably the only one person who bought a card in cash at that time.
I really need to reform 18 USC 1030, particularly 1030(e)(2)(B) (a catch-all that means "any computer", because any computer you can access on the Internet is used in or affecting interstate commerce) and 1030(c) (a complicated mess of escalating punishments).
I also need to reform 18 USC 1030(a), notably 1030(a)(4), to change that $5,000 to at least $15,000, but potentially as high as $50,000, to be adjusted with Chained-CPI inflation (regular CPI is used for benefits programs; Chained-CPI can be used for civil/criminal distinctions). 1030(a) needs to distinguish between cases of national security and private matters; and in the case of private matters, actual damages below the established limit (e.g. $50,000) make the case a civil matter, and not criminal misdemeanor or felony. Criminal matters occur as per the nature of the crime, e.g. criminal hacking with the intent of causing bodily injury or death is a felony because it's attempted murder.
If you're in the US, you can donate to my campaign. IANAL but legal language is easy to understand and most of it is self-contained in here; I'll draft a bill this week as a starting point, and can work from there when I'm elected to get something actually viable going.
A car port requires installing a new circuit breaker, using special cable, and digging a ditch--unless you have an indoor garage built into your house. The ditch must be a specific minimum depth (18 inches nonmetal conduit, 4 inches metal conduit under concrete). The cable will be sunk in water; it must be a single run with its jacket and insulation both in tact (no nicks, no cuts, no splices, no electrical tape). A covered car port may still require special, weather-rated exterior plugs, unless you hard-wire a weather-rated charger.
So you need either your car to park inside your house or something much more rigorous than just running standard service or riser cable.
My car port is 40 feet from my house. If it were 20 feet, I could wall-mount a 25-foot ChargePort with outdoor-rated riser (not in-ground) and have about 5 feet of slack when the car is at the end of the car port. Caveat: The cable connector cable must make a direct run downward, then back upward to the car; it can't hang, but rather must be slack when charging. That means an extra 4 and 3 feet: 7 feet of cable for slack, so really I'd need to get the charge port (which is 5 feet back from the car's nose) within 18 feet of the house, meaning the car has to be within 12 feet of the house, or 6 feet from my porch and parked all the way to the left.
A 25-foot charge cord only actually reaches your car from your house in rare situations. For most people, you'll need to run new circuits underground.
I've seen a few programmers who know what they're doing. Mostly, they don't trust anyone to know what they're doing (even themselves). The rest are really good at making functional programs; that doesn't mean they're any good at programming. At all.
One day, I'd like to see a programming language that makes viable programs less of a pile of instrumentation cruft. The problem is you'd have to hardcode all the boilerplate, and then someone would figure out a variation and your programming language would be useless.
Ostensibly, good code involves a lot of interfaces, abstract classes, factories, and builders just to get started; and in languages like C#, you can skip the piles of plug-in loading code and pointer management by using reflection to tell it to load all modules in some path, read some attribute from all of the classes that expose a certain interface, and expose some information to the user which leads to a user interaction that magically shuffles data through the right code (which is, all in all, three lines of code). In some fantasy, we could repeat that whole thing with the "define all these standard GoF patterns" boilerplate and get pages and pages of garbage off the screen.
In reality, all of that is necessary; sometimes it's a mess and also broken; and a lot of programmers assert that "real programmers" don't need all those fancy design patterns in the same way that "real athletes" don't need water and should just toughen up by training in the sun on 101 degree days with only a wet towel to wipe their heads.
If you got five people together who actually knew what they were doing, they'd be the most powerful programming team in the universe. They'd also probably be agile, instead of "our manager says we're agile and so we're not allowed to make design documents or do any planning."
Apparently there was no pedestrian, but a high-speed vehicle which travels 15-20mph and is dangerous to pedestrians, thus band on sidewalks in many jurisdictions.
Slashdot Mirror
The pay ratio is going to spread even if the CEO isn't taking any more money per employee, so long as you have a lot of employees. Look at the recent history of mergers and acquisitions and imagine the giant empires these people get to tithe.
In a small business with 3 employees (including the CEO), the CEO might make $70k, while the workers make $40k. That's a spread of 1.75:1, with the CEO receiving $35k per employee or what amounts to 87.5% of each employee's paycheck for himself.
Take a business with 10,000 employees and a CEO making $100/year per employee and you've got $1,000,000. Your employees might be making $80k, but you're making 12.5 times that--and you're only taking 0.125% of what amounts to their pay.
Home Depot has 300,000 employees. Ford has 200,000. Imagine getting $20 from each: that's $6 million. These are $10/hr workers taking home $20,000. You're making 300 times your average employee, and your income amounts to about 0.1% of their income. You can raise their wage to $15/hr, but it's got to come from somewhere: you need more revenue--higher prices--meaning the consumer pays for it. If your labor is 10% of your net operating costs, then you've only raised those costs by 5%, and every $100 thing must now be priced at $105 to compensate.
Honeywell has 181,000 employees. Adamczyk takes home $7.2 million in stocks and $2.5 million in cash compensation. Note that stocks come from creating inflation in the currency of your company's equity--you're picking shareholder pockets--and of course you could imagine if a business paid its employees 2/3 in stocks (the stock price would constantly tank, the business would put out no real money, and they'd tell you they're paying you as promised). So we're looking at cash comp only.
Cash comp here is $14.20 per employee per year at Honeywell for Adamczyk; however, that's their COO, not their CEO. Their CEO brings in $9.3 million of equity and $7.6 of cash. Honeywell CEO David M. Cote receives roughly $41.93 per employee per year.
I can't seriously believe any CEO brings that much to any table
Can you believe he's worth $42 of your entire year's wage; or at least that it doesn't matter? The UAW charges 1.4% dues, which would be $280/year at $10/hr, or 6.67 times what Cote takes from each employee. Some unions charge a lot in dues; if we could eliminate the freerider problem, the dues would spread more and be lower, but 2 hours per 40-hour week (2.5%) is actually a great deal for a union worker.
If I ran a huge corporation, I'd announce their two-week executive compensation burden every quarter. At AIG, including both cash and non-cash, non-equity compensation, that would actually be $22.30 per employee per 2-week pay for the top 5 key executives (AIG is ludicrous).
These regulations are important. ProPublica recently did an article about political ads on Facebook (they gave me some praise, although I generally dislike ProPublica's reporting). FEC has been on and off about only requiring a link to a landing page with a disclaimer or requiring disclosure in the ad; all Facebook ads link back to a page which has a disclaimer.
I essentially get a pass almost all the time: the FEC has a safe-harbor for TV ads (which I would use as a primary legal argument) if your face is clearly visible in the ad and taking up 80% of the screen. I'm featured prominently in most of my own ads (many of my original ads didn't include my face at all, and instead only went back to my Facebook page).
The FTC has similar rules for commerce, whereby they don't want people peddling advertisements as education. In the case of not disclosing that an affiliate link has AMAZON paying you for the click, I don't think it technically matters: everyone uses Amazon. If you're an affiliate of the seller or manufacturer of the product linked to, however, that raises significant concern of conflict of interest (collusion).
I'm going to put an end to recessions in the US forever, along with homelessness and hunger; I'm also absolutely on board with getting rid of FISA 702 and other such things (Elizabeth Warren is your best friend, by the way).
I need some guidance on where all the messes are. I can solve practically any problem, but I need to be appraised of the problem so I can ferret out the appropriate facts. Criminal justice reform is enormous for me; state surveillance is kind of a quiet topic that the state likes to not talk about,and I'm not a DOD surveillance technician running all those secret programs.
I'm going to need to look at things like GDPR and this ridiculous CLOUD act to figure out what to implement and what to repeal. USC is too huge and I'm not sure I can find it all by brute force; I may need to hire staff. Lots of staff. I need to check House ethics rules and determine if we need new legislation allowing Members to set up a Leadership 501(c)(4) for official use only--e.g. to hire staff in excess of what Congress allows--along with torpedoing the ridiculous abuse of Leadership PACs for personal use.
there are a lot of problems with virtualization that is secure these days due to flaws in CPU architectures.
Actually, hypervisors can flush cache and TLB when switching guests, which prevents leaking. The guest OS can use the full spread of CPU technology as it sees fit and still can't pull off things like spectre and meltdown.
What do you think it will look like when I try to pass Net Neutrality legislation? Will Verizon try to sue me? Maybe they'll donate to my campaign at some point, and then try to sue me because they want their money back. \o/
For one, I would have just gone with a .NET implementation, because CIL and CLR are open standards. Yep.
Also, as per the Bill of Rights I wrote, people have a right to their own cultural heritage. I intend to pass a copyright act which limits copyright terms to 7 years, plus 7 more on renewal at $1,000 (inflation-adjusted), then an annual renewal at the 14 year mark each priced at double the prior. At 25 years, that renewal costs $1 billion.
To file for the first copyright renewal, you must supply usable original source material of the copyrighted body. That means any custom pre-compilation tools or a definition of those tools allowing reproduction of said tools. It means master tracks of multimedia works, if you have them. It means that Windows XP is either no longer under copyright 7 years in, or its copyright extends to at least 14 years so long as the original source code (without all those bugfix patches) is held in escrow for release at expiration.
The US government has managed to bypass the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments by creating and extending the 3rd party doctrine. This doctrine roughly states that once information passes out of an individual's direct control, he can no longer exercise any control over it. This gives the government easy access to huge amounts of shared information.
Provide additional data on this topic. I must fix this.
Oddly enough, there are very few trying to ban all guns. I've found that sticking most gun-owning conservatives in a room with most reform-minded liberals and keeping the tone calm gets you a bunch of people who all have the same ideals and goals.
There are a few folks over at NGRA and way, way off to the left who think we should eliminate all background checks and automatic weapons bans or that we should ban all firearms unconditionally in the entire nation. 90% of the country thinks they're nuts, but half of those think the other half ARE those nuts.
there are very few rich kids compared to poor/middle class kids
Yes, which ends up with odd things like CEOs making $100 per employee per year and being multi-millionaires. That's why I push back against progressive ideals that start with "let's tax the rich a whole lot!": you're not going to pay for healthcare or raise wages that way.
I think pretty much all the various "benefits if you make less than X" introduce a lot of paperwork and errors that are solved by just taxing rich people more and giving it to everyone
In general, the bureaucratic and administrative overheads are in low single-digit percentages of systems that cost very little. Social Security OASDI makes up about $900 billion and Medicare makes up over $1 trillion of our spending, yet the administrative overhead there is about 1% (OASDI) and 2% (Medicare). Remaining programs are around 95%-98% efficient in terms of administrative overhead, with HUD and SNAP being in the $50Bn-$100Bn range in total program costs, and WIC around $6Bn.
That's all about $200 per American taxpayer per year or $125 per American (total population) per year.
There's a reason UBI is so compelling compared to welfare
Largely because UBI advocates don't understand the tax system, don't understand economics, and propose a system with high risk and no failure controls.
A Universal Dividend only, taxing 12.5% of all income (personal and corporate), would pay almost $7,000 per year to every adult in 2016. This is enough to lower the cost of our HUD, SNAP, and TANF programs and ensure that they reach every family in need; it's not enough to end all need for those programs. The costs only come down because many recipients are so much less-poor that they're no longer qualified, and many others who remain qualified are so much less-poor that we pay out less in total to them all.
The Dividend itself, with only the rough viability computations and no adjustment of the resulting tax rates, would lower corporate income taxes from 35% to 33.5%, and reduce the top tax bracket from 39.6% to about 36.2%. With the Dividend paying twice-monthly, every American household has an increase in take-home income across any two-week span; and Social Security's retirement and disability benefits programs are permanently-solvent under this program, as the Dividend takes some of the load (you get the same total benefit, but OASDI pays your owed total benefit less the Dividend).
Yes, that's right: there is no "taxing rich people more".
Besides immediately ensuring nobody is homeless or hungry (with the help of SNAP, WIC, HUD, and other programs whose costs fall), the Dividend increases the spending capacity of the poor and middle-class. That creates demand and thus jobs, so the poor inner cities with 13% unemployment suddenly have people going out and finding employment instead of coming home empty-handed. Recall that they're less-poor thanks to the Dividend, and receive less in welfare benefits: the Dividend keeps paying, and the welfare they lose (and risk not re-acquiring) with employment (and income) is smaller than it would otherwise be, so the Dividend increases the incentive to work as well as making more work available.
That's the bigger end of lowering costs. More job availability means less welfare need. It also means more productivity (fewer unemployed) and thus the Dividend gets bigger, causing a feedback loop (it levels off eventually). This is actually kind of dangerous, and we have to temper it by making people more-poor overall so as to reduce the number of jobs.
I can do that, too.
You reduce the number of working hours defined as "full-time", thus people can't produce as much, thus the wealth per-capita is lower, thus the number of consumer jobs available falls. We work 4 days, or 6 hour days, or whatever, and remain as wealthy as ever (or a touch more), except that the poor are able to get by.
Imagine if they used Plan C: Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication to share sensor data. Crack open a VTV module, take the private key, spoof people everywhere suddenly to get cars to slam brakes and cause collisions all over the place.
VTV is an excuse for municipal governments to not invest in infrastructure (sensors on posts and poles), but rather to make people pay for it with not-tax-money.
I'm surprised Google's gotten to that phase already, in any case.
The whole concept of free college if your income is below $X opens up two questions: are your parents able to afford college for you (are they super-rich millionaires?), and are you able to access that money? As a dependent on someone else's tax return, you're part of their household as far as income is concerned; if you file yourself, you're not. That seems straight-forward until you start trying to figure out how to get free college for your kids when you're a millionaire and nobody thinks you need assistance for college.
When you're dealing with poverty-line cases, there's not much wiggle room to set something up: the influx of daddy's money is already putting you near the income limits and cutting down the size of your assistance. When you decide a decently-middle-class, somewhat-okay, maybe-struggling family needs assistance, it's easier to sustain a single person on an income below those levels. When you just say all middle class but nobody upper-middle, suddenly rich folk can set their kids up to live lavishly and still get them free college.
Mostly, we don't want to tax people a whole hell of a lot (which will inevitably end up taxing the middle class, although the rich get higher taxes as well), so we want to leave the rich to fend for themselves. Imagine trying to tax the rich 80% to pay for all kinds of things, instead of taxing them 43% and paying for all kinds of things. Remember when Bernie announced his single-payer tax plan? 2.5% increase in income taxes on everyone (poor, middle-class, rich), plus 6.5% on payrolls (back-shifted into wages and forward-shifted into prices, mainly paid for by the middle-class). If the rich are paying 80%, how much are the middle-class paying?
A bigger question: if the rich are paying 80%, how do we raise taxes again when we need more revenue?
Be mindful: I've developed a tax plan wherein we have universal healthcare and shift the social security OASDI payroll taxes up to the top tax bracket as income taxes, and the top bracket is still under 45%. No two-adult household with less than $55k of income would have paid net taxes in 2016 in that model, either--in any two-week time span. I might be able to fit Bernie's college plan in there without breaking 45% at the top bracket. That $55k limit goes down over time, and the effective tax rate paid by any household also goes down year after year.
I'm a social democrat, and also kind of keep myself challenged and amused with financial wizardry.
Put in your IMEI instead.
On what basis do you determine these vehicles need large amounts of memory? Self-learning systems actually function with surprisingly-little memory; and special-purpose ANN hardware uses little power and small amounts of embedded RAM. Visual training doesn't recognize by comparing an image library or anything like that; it scans an image for attributes, feeds those into a processor, produces a result, and then validates the result and adjusts. That is: all images are compressed into one fixed-size block that neither grows nor shrinks as you add more images to the training set.
I forget: does google keep two people in their prototypes as the testing team?
Oh it's worse than that. These algorithms aren't ready; all this testing leads to tuning and adjustment of the code.
Testing them in a closed environment will build a learning algorithm more-refined to work on the fundamental assumptions of that closed environment.
I've worked for several government contractors, I was an IT Security analyst and then an IT Security Engineer for 4 years at the Social Security Administration until 2012, and I've done IT systems engineering and currently work as an IT Security Engineer at a major broadcasting corporation.
I have a passing understanding of computer networking from CISCO-centric classes taken in high school in 2002 and 2003. I transferred my high school classes to college under an academic agreement, took a few basic sciences, and got an Associate's of Applied Science. I have a CompTIA Security+ certification from 2003.
My first office job--the one that came after Best Buy--started with a confused-looking internal recruiter (not an agency) asking me a bunch of questions about how I know what all these tools are when I have no relevant educational background. I told him I have strange hobbies and no friends. They pulled in some engineers, we talked about security tech, and they hired me. I helped with penetration tests, designed security policy for major defense contractors, and wrote the final reports for security assessments.
I learned about intrusion detection systems at Social Security's National Computer Center in Woodlawn, where I helped deploy a new IDS product (Google doesn't tell me what it is, so I'm not telling you what we used), worked out the best ways to use the tools available, and trained our analysts to use customized dashboards restricted to custom searches so as to essentially summarize only the data involved in a particular incident as we turned interesting and anomalous behavior into a logical description of the incident at hand.
Right now, an auditor is training himself to be a CISO, while mentoring me in performing broad-scope ISO27000 audits of our business--the kind of thing you typically outsource to IBM, EY, PWC, Qualys, and others.
I've been through the job market without college.
More than that, though: you seem to have missed that maybe the degree you chose in 2008 will get you into an overbloated job market in 2012, while the next degree over would have gotten you into a market with a desperate labor shortage. You can still get a job:
For men, the jobs with the highest rate of overqualification in 2014 included retail salespersons, customer service reps, and food service managers. For women, they were secretaries and office support workers, customer service reps, and teacher assistants.
Women are actually using their degrees better--maybe. I actually came within 8 credits of an Office Administration degree, qualifying me as a secretary or office support worker. Teacher assistants also can benefit from a little education in education. Of course, I've met plenty of teachers with English or Math degrees and no Education degrees.
So I got into a high-demand job market without an appropriate degree, while people with Bachelor's degrees regularly end up at McDonalds. You want the appropriate degree to match the high-demand market when you get out of college, not the one that's in demand when you go in--which is speculation. Fail it and you might end up at McDonalds; you'll certainly end up with lower pay.
College is a highly-speculative position. It's part of why some of us are advocating for apprenticeship and trade school programs as well as just college access. The Democratic party has sort of built a narrative where you go to college and you're a winner, or you don't go to college and you're a loser; it doesn't work like that.
College educations require several years of time investment. Full-time college requires large amounts of attention and takes a toll on your capacity to work, which means you're either driving yourself insane or you're losing financial ground--yes, you can go to college and come out behind someone who skipped all that and tried to drive right into a career.
The rate of advancement of a minimally-educated, self-studied, experienced worker after four years is much higher than that of a new graduate with little practical experience; and there are far more basic engineer positions in technical fields (e.g. IT) than there are senior, lead, or management positions (e.g. CISO). You'll get to be a highly-valuable engineer earlier (in time) if you start out by diving into work and a little part-time study than you will if you do a solid bachelor's degree and then begin your career 4 years late; you might not have the career opportunities of a college graduate, but you'll be a well-paid engineer or senior engineer earlier the graduate who doesn't get those opportunities.
You'll also be damned far ahead in terms of money by that time.
Student loans make this even worse, of course, because you end up stacking up debt while you can't pay it off, and it collects interest while you wait. The Federal government pays that interest in subsidized deferments; otherwise you're going to mainly pay interest on your loan, making the actual cost of college tiny in comparison to the cost of the loan with which you paid for college.
The biggest risk, however, is the job market.
250,000 IT positions became available this year. Over the next 5 years, we project another 1.5 million positions. Sounds great, right?
What you see: 40% turn-over of job rate. HR working with anywhere from 3 to 15 recruiters. Each job gets posted 15 times on every online job search system. Millions upon millions of IT jobs pop up all throughout the year. A super hot market!
We have projections of IT worker demand growth. We have projections of salary growth. How many other students are running to college for IT?
Do you know if there will be an enormous glut of IT workers in 5 years? Do you know if there will be a slow-down in hiring? No.
That's the risk you take.
It's why we need to create some sort of cooperative employment programs, apprenticeships, and vocational programs. We want to do something like provide free access to two- or four-year college for everyone with less than $100,000/year of income (good luck with that: Donald Trump Jr. just has to move out of his dad's house when he turns 18, get a small apartment paid ahead by his father, and have daddy not claim him as a dependent so he can take free college; how do we write the legal language?). We also need to provide a way for them to ensure they won't come out of college begging for a McJob.
We can do that with shorter programs--apprenticeships (notable for plumbers and electricians), vocational training, etc.--and with cooperative programs in which you work while you attend college or trade school. A sponsoring organization would have a job prepared for you, and leverage you while you learn.
Think about computer programmers, network engineers, and the like. Do you need a Masters Degree in Computer Science and Information Systems to do this job? Well, no. To do the job of the senior technical lead programmer, you do; to do code clean-up, implement some basic software functionality, and otherwise handle those tasks that got most programmers into programming, you just need Googlepedia.
Here's the big secret: lots of t
It's been a stage 3 bubble for a while. Stage 3 can go up and up for the next 30 years, or it can go to $0 and die in the next 30 minutes.
In this day and age, pulling information about digital transactions around a given time stamp and then pulling the related information is as simple as asking a data technician who is attached to this ID XXXXX that badged on a train at one terminal and off at another. The search space includes "where was card XXXXX sold?" and "at what time was card XXXXX sold?", followed by "pull the CCTV footage from the blue light police camera on that street" and "pick out any of these 3 POI at the destination." It's probably the only one person who bought a card in cash at that time.
I really need to reform 18 USC 1030, particularly 1030(e)(2)(B) (a catch-all that means "any computer", because any computer you can access on the Internet is used in or affecting interstate commerce) and 1030(c) (a complicated mess of escalating punishments).
I also need to reform 18 USC 1030(a), notably 1030(a)(4), to change that $5,000 to at least $15,000, but potentially as high as $50,000, to be adjusted with Chained-CPI inflation (regular CPI is used for benefits programs; Chained-CPI can be used for civil/criminal distinctions). 1030(a) needs to distinguish between cases of national security and private matters; and in the case of private matters, actual damages below the established limit (e.g. $50,000) make the case a civil matter, and not criminal misdemeanor or felony. Criminal matters occur as per the nature of the crime, e.g. criminal hacking with the intent of causing bodily injury or death is a felony because it's attempted murder.
If you're in the US, you can donate to my campaign. IANAL but legal language is easy to understand and most of it is self-contained in here; I'll draft a bill this week as a starting point, and can work from there when I'm elected to get something actually viable going.
Sure. The cameras also know that the person getting around with the card wasn't the person who used a debit card there.
I'd hardly call a stove or dryer circuit exotic
A car port requires installing a new circuit breaker, using special cable, and digging a ditch--unless you have an indoor garage built into your house. The ditch must be a specific minimum depth (18 inches nonmetal conduit, 4 inches metal conduit under concrete). The cable will be sunk in water; it must be a single run with its jacket and insulation both in tact (no nicks, no cuts, no splices, no electrical tape). A covered car port may still require special, weather-rated exterior plugs, unless you hard-wire a weather-rated charger.
So you need either your car to park inside your house or something much more rigorous than just running standard service or riser cable.
My car port is 40 feet from my house. If it were 20 feet, I could wall-mount a 25-foot ChargePort with outdoor-rated riser (not in-ground) and have about 5 feet of slack when the car is at the end of the car port. Caveat: The cable connector cable must make a direct run downward, then back upward to the car; it can't hang, but rather must be slack when charging. That means an extra 4 and 3 feet: 7 feet of cable for slack, so really I'd need to get the charge port (which is 5 feet back from the car's nose) within 18 feet of the house, meaning the car has to be within 12 feet of the house, or 6 feet from my porch and parked all the way to the left.
A 25-foot charge cord only actually reaches your car from your house in rare situations. For most people, you'll need to run new circuits underground.
I'm sure.
I've seen a few programmers who know what they're doing. Mostly, they don't trust anyone to know what they're doing (even themselves). The rest are really good at making functional programs; that doesn't mean they're any good at programming. At all.
One day, I'd like to see a programming language that makes viable programs less of a pile of instrumentation cruft. The problem is you'd have to hardcode all the boilerplate, and then someone would figure out a variation and your programming language would be useless.
Ostensibly, good code involves a lot of interfaces, abstract classes, factories, and builders just to get started; and in languages like C#, you can skip the piles of plug-in loading code and pointer management by using reflection to tell it to load all modules in some path, read some attribute from all of the classes that expose a certain interface, and expose some information to the user which leads to a user interaction that magically shuffles data through the right code (which is, all in all, three lines of code). In some fantasy, we could repeat that whole thing with the "define all these standard GoF patterns" boilerplate and get pages and pages of garbage off the screen.
In reality, all of that is necessary; sometimes it's a mess and also broken; and a lot of programmers assert that "real programmers" don't need all those fancy design patterns in the same way that "real athletes" don't need water and should just toughen up by training in the sun on 101 degree days with only a wet towel to wipe their heads.
If you got five people together who actually knew what they were doing, they'd be the most powerful programming team in the universe. They'd also probably be agile, instead of "our manager says we're agile and so we're not allowed to make design documents or do any planning."
Road crews are often made up of a large assortment of complete fucking idiots.
You should see programming teams.
Apparently there was no pedestrian, but a high-speed vehicle which travels 15-20mph and is dangerous to pedestrians, thus band on sidewalks in many jurisdictions.