EEE, they simply don't care. Apologies if you have been fooled into thinking there is some new and more altruistic MS Philosophy and I hurt your reality..
What we have today is a severe problem with our education system as a whole. Classical education has been completely dumped, and people are learning how to believe everything they are told by a person in authority. The fix is to revert to the classical system of education, but with the people holding all the power in Government it won't happen. Remember, they want workers.. not thinkers.. STEM requires the latter, not the former.
Where I mostly agree is that the mastery of things like Math is important. I'll argue that so is communication, critical thought, rational discourse and dialogue, and science that has math as the foundation. Read back 100 years and look at "how people learned" and you will see the difference. Also remember, the US Government moved us over about 40 years from a "Classical Education" system to the Prussian designed "Industrial Education" system. The selling point of the Prussian system was that it is good enough to make artillery guys smart enough to target enemies of the State, stupid enough to never question their orders.
The Classical system started with the fundamentals. Reading, Writing, Basic Math, and basic rhetoric (simple fallacy, simple debate). As math improved, physics was introduced. As rhetoric improved, so did the critical thought exercises (Philosophy). Trig was introduced with Music so that you can see how trig works with musical notes. Physics was introduced with Algebra, complex physics with Calculus. It was a continuous system of improvement. Private schools still use this system, go figure..
Compare that system to what we have currently, which is kids learning how to take tests and give predetermined answers. Kids spend almost half of every school year learning to test and taking tests on average. Poor results means more time testing. All of this means that they can't learn, and are under so much pressure that the few lessons they have are useless.
Selling "STEM" is a crock on just about every level. A EE grad that can only use Matlab/Simulink and can't design a circuit by hand really does not understand EE. But they sure did pass a test on Matlab.
I agree, and come from a similar place. Not quite ghetto poor, but not being able to eat poor and we lived next to the ghetto. My dad was my example of what not to be when I grew up, since he was drunk and unemployed more often than sober and working. Mom did her best with what she had, a GED and two kids.
Not to say I have not made mistakes, but my son is now in college which I'm able to pay cash for. I have a good job which I worked very hard for. I'm not rich, but I am content for now.
That aside, there is a fine line between feeling hopeless and being determined to get out. It's not an easy line to jump over, and I knew plenty of people that went the other way.
And this generalization has been proven false somehow? I have worked for 25+ years focused on IT Security. Complex hacks come from China. Spammers, porn, etc.. comes from Russia. Script kiddies from must about everywhere else. Since the US has access to US data, there is not a whole lot of us hacking ourselves.
Since China controls the "great wall" anything going outbound becomes suspect for government sponsorship. Large attacks have to be, because there is no way they don't know what's coming in and going out when it reaches scale.
This attack however was a bit different, and that the DDOS only required a simple modification to an HTML page. It did not have to originate from China per-say.
Yes, it is contradicted. I gave you the contradiction not once, but on three separate occasions. Your ~oh woe as me, I can't afford to start a business~ (paraphrased) rant omitted exactly half of her text, in fact it was the FIRST half of what you quoted. The remainder of the article is not extremism, it's about using market pressure to find normalcy over time because "law" is not the problem.
Yeah yeah, reading and comprehension is not your strong point. Baseless allegations and poor communications skills, those are.
While I am surely against discrimination, there is a place for law, and a place to let the market handle itself. We already have laws to address discrimination, so the law being discussed is something else. For example if you refuse to sell a tire from your shelf to "one of those" you will be sued, and rightfully so. Similarly, if you refuse to hire "one of those" or fire a person because they are "one of those" you will be sued, and again rightfully so. These are good laws, and should remain on the books. (Pardon the generalization, "one of those" was shorter than the long list of potential discrimination targets, no offense was intended.)
Considering that we already have laws, and the new law is not overruling those, we should ask what the new law was supposed to cover (go ahead and read the short history on this, I have). It is to cover a service industry having the right to refuse specific customized services and was exactly the result of a gay couple suing a bakery that refused to customize a cake they way the couple wanted. Note that this is not some off the shelf item that the baker refused to sell, it was not a job applicant that was refused, it was a specific modification that someone wanted that was refused.
If you answer no to the question in my subject, then why do you care about a law forcing a service to make you something the way you want it? Is this not a place for normal marketing pressure to make the correction if and where necessary? If a bakery refuses to make something you want, don't shop at that bakery? A different bakery willing to do your custom work will be happy to make the money. Good service distinguished from bad is exactly the thing that makes successes and failures in the "Services industry". If there are no other bakeries worth a damn in your area, start your own and cash in! That is what the "American Spirit" is all about.
I think the law as written was vague enough to be poor. Better written, it would have still resulted in some protest but not nearly as justified.
I see this in line with the huge amount funding and campaigns that went into making all bars and restaurants "no smoking". No law ever forced any of those businesses to support smokers, and a savvy entrepreneur could have made a mint on "no smoking" clubs and restaurants. Not that smoking is good (though it's legal), but the legislation forcing a service to behave a certain way breaks normal competition. The market can't dictate success, the Government does. It is too easy for this type of law to end up on a slippery slope.
Whether or not you believe it was "stupid" there are additional costs associated with customizing services, some are potentially long term. If the bakery was in a highly religious area and accepted the job of customizing the cake how much business would they lose? If they are in an area with a high population of LGBT, how much would they gain? Those are factors a service business needs to weigh. Even if in someone's opinion it's stupid not to do the extra, how many people in the world have a religion? I'll give you a hint, the majority does. Again, this is not refusing to sell an off the shelf product which resulted in a successful lawsuit. It was the refusal to customize a product that resulted in the successful lawsuit.
To make some comparative analogies: Should the Jewish or Muslim person be able sue the butcher for having pork on it's shelf, or should the market dictate that a butcher shop in a predominantly Jewish or Muslim area not carry pork? How about the atheist that lives in the same neighborhood, can they sue? Can the gay male sue the topless bar for not having male performers? Can the lesbian woman sue Chip&Dales for not having female performers? This is the precedent that was set with the successful bakery suit, unfortunately. We can't put that Jeanie back in the bottle, so I believe additional legislation is surely needed.
As I indirectly stated numerous times, the "Services Industry" is not the same as other businesses. The commodity is the personalization, not just fixed object cost. Society generates the normals with financial support for good choices, and gets rid of bad the same way.
You failed to back your assertion regarding another person's thoughts. I realize that reading and comprehension are "hard", but nowhere does the author make the claims you said they did. You took them so out of context that you could not even follow the text _YOU_ had quoted.
Your next assertion is that facts only matter if you are submitting your opinion (delusional or not) to a specific source. What pure genius that gem is! I'm sure that Fox News would be happy that you have the same opinion they do.. it's "entertainment" that counts even if your opinion is wrong and damages other people.
You stand by what you wrote because you are a hypocrite, as well as an idiot. Good job not using punctuation and grammar as well, proving that you are a triple threat.
However, there's no excuse for a website doing something like storing passwords in plaintext. That's just fucking stupid.
If it comes to a point where a hacker has your password file, it's too late. Sure. The bad practice made it easier for hackers at this point, but you were already compromised so you are really trying to protect "everything else" from that point on.
IMHO it is a culture that needs to change to improve. Some start-ups are security oriented, those tend to have long term success. Some have little concern, and tend to be fly-by-night companies. The latter is due to people playing the economic lottery.
Until very recent times the OpenSSL project was maintained by 2 guys who pretty much worked for free, meaning that they had to work full time jobs in addition to maintaining OpenSSL. You may have had a point somewhere, but it seems to have been lost in ignorance.
You claim to dislike the article because it provides no facts, and follow that up with two of your own assertions which appear to be nothing more than slander. I am assuming you have facts which back these two statements.
basically, she an extreme capitalist that doesn't believe in "workers' rights" at all.
she's saying "hey, being discriminating on? just leave and work somewhere else. it's a free country."
I make no claim that you have to agree with her opinion, but I do claim that poisoning the well with slander is a pathetic way of garnering agreements with your own opinion. Placing the proverbial icing on the cake, your last statement is completely irrational.
"leave and get a new job or start your own business."
that's just a little elitist. assuming everyone has the capital to start their own business.
Notice that your short rant omits exactly half of the text which _you_ quoted. She stated very clearly "get a new job or start your own business" according to your quote.
Surely I agree that finding a new job is not always easy, but it is an option that the majority of people take when they dislike something at their place of work. Good grief, the exodus from Michigan was massive after the automotive collapses so people (including myself) packed up and moved thousands of miles to find better working conditions and jobs. Choices are not always easy to make, but there certainly are choices. Further, there are good employers out there. I'd agree that it's not a majority but there are quite a few. Call my personal anecdote and yours a wash and we could say roughly half.
As a personal note, calling someone an "extreme capitalist" is not an insult. Adam Smith was brilliant, and Milton Friedman did a great job of modernizing his work. Attempting to blame capitalism failures on the extreme levels of corruption we have in Government is simply delusional. Unchecked corruption breaks all economic systems and forms of Government. You can check my statement against every Government in history. Capitalism and the US Republic were attempts to keep systems healthy for a longer duration, and in that respect they were extremely successful.
Lacking citations to back your seemingly false assertions, I do hope to see an apology for the slander. I have no expectation mind you, but I am occasionally incorrect judging character.
I've already hear rumblings about 35 year childhoods, including a TED talk where some Blackhawk was trying to say that women are not physically ready to have children until they are around 35 years old.
Which is rubbish at face value. While I won't win any popularity contests with this, let me provide a break down.
Physically speaking a women is best suited to have a child between the ages of 16 and 26 when the body is fully developed and has an amazing healing ability. By 35 the regenerative process has slowed significantly, and normal wear and tear has made both conception and carrying a child to term extremely difficult. Not to mention that genetic issues are in full swing by that time (much higher rates of breast and cervical cancer at that age, and remember breast feeding is the best possible thing a woman can do for herself and her baby).
Emotionally speaking, it really depends on the person's education and upbringing. Women who come from a sound family structure and wish to have a similar strong "family" do much better than single parents, or women that change relationships after giving birth. People don't like to hear it, but a stable relationship does not require you to be 30 and is extremely beneficial to all parties and especially children.
This 35 thing relates almost exclusively to financial security and a woman's career. This is a huge conflict of interest, because a child is much better off with a full time parent than they are in someone else' custody. Mothers already need at least a couple months off for giving birth and healing, they are the only ones that can breast feed, so are the easy choice for that responsibility. I recently worked with a mother who's husband stayed at home and raised the kid. The latter is as good in my opinion, but also extremely rare. Taking the "norm" we have moms spending 10-15 years career building to take 5 years off and then go back to the workforce. That is obviously back-asswards to anyone that really looks at it.
Like I said, I won't win a popularity contest with logic but...
According to this, the doors are supposed to have an override which is easily accessed. I have not investigated the source enough to trust their opinion fully, and think it more likely that the override code is not being properly shared with the crew. Still, I don't think this is an event that needs something "new" outside of procedural. Unless of course the documentation on the Jet is wrong and no override panel exists. I'm not a pilot and don't fly enough to check so perhaps someone working in the industry can validate the claim.
Further, we don't have proof that this was a suicide with lots of additional casualties. The original claim was that the pilot may had some type of medical issue causing the plane to crash and I still believe this over a suicide. The overwhelming majority of suicides are done in isolation without taking other people with you. The obvious exception are Religious suicides, where the people pray while performing their act. Nothing is heard on the recording to indicate this was a religious suicide, in fact the co-pilot is only heard to be breathing (not an indication of consciousness).
Lots of things in this story simply don't add up. Jumping to a suicide claim without definitive proof is unhealthy for everyone.
I find that most people I talk to don't trust US media. They don't do anything about it, but they don't believe what they are told any longer. Apathy works for a while, but historically this can not last. Corruption and abuse will get to a point where there has to be some form of revolution (not always bloody) and then the cycle will start over again.
To be in line with TFA's point, sure the Russian's have paid shills and trolls. Their play books are the same as our own Government's. Whistle blowers have demonstrated that most large US companies have paid shills and trolls, the US Government pays shills and trolls, as does just every "Western" Government including the UK and Canada. Snowden's leaks give us a nice powerpoint view of the play book, no need for anecdote and hearsay trying to vilify "those other guys". Nobody likes a hypocrite..
Actually it's 4 employers in the last 5 years. More than I like personally, but with the high rate of Contract/Temp work in the bay area 6month contracts worked for a while. None of those would have ended up with me working there even if I was offered, but all of them were opportunities to improve my resume. I honed my interviewing and negotiating skills as well, so win-win for me.
If you see yourself as a commodity so will employers, assuming you can back your assertions and ego that is. A whole lot of people believe that knowledge of X is all you need to land a great job, and that is extremely far from being true. Long long ago my knowledge of MVS, or HP-UX, or AIX was enough but that changed about 15 years ago. Today you need exceptional base knowledge, an ability to find what you need, an ability to share knowledge, and an ability to simplify complex problems. Most of those require a good amount of communication/logic/rhetoric skills.
I am pretty sure I agree with the message for the most part, just not the style in which it was communicated. "Employers should provide employees with" reads a whole lot differently than "give me" or "give us". There are countless stories and articles being published with a slant for entitlement based on any number of factors. We can have a rational discussion without degrading the conversation to that level.
Two bits of advice for yourself. First, don't assume everyone else lacks experience. Second, learn not to use straw man arguments. I never claimed that people owe a company business, in fact read my post again and you will see clearly that I have no issue harming a business that behaves immorally and even provided a personal experience.
Your troll was this comment "It's not some godlike entity which designed humans with a goal in mind", though you probably know it and are just denying. Nuh uh in this post does not address or argue any of my points, which clearly demonstrate that it's not an issue of my ability or desire to debate. The issue is yours.
Sarcasm is not "dumping" on someone. I'll go further and point out that correcting someone is not "dumping" on them, punishing people for violating the rules is not "dumping" on them, offering advice is not "dumping" on them. Study after study has shown that children require enforced rules and guidelines for proper development, as well as positive reinforcement.
Yeah, I agree with you that we should not be a culture of disposable humans. At the same time if you never see any humor in anything life has to be terribly miserable.
Perhaps it's just your communication style, but I read way too much "gimme, gimme" in your post. "Pay us well" How about making fair market value for your expertise, abilities, and productivity? "Treat us well?" How about being treated like everyone else in said company? "Give us job security"? How about making sure that you are valuable enough that a company want's to hire/keep you? I am well over 40 and have no idea what people are talking about claiming they can't get a job. I have a constant stream of offers, and I'm not even looking to change jobs. Are you over 40 and still refuse to work on anything but the VAX? Can you not act as a Lead anything? Are you still claiming Q-Basic can solve all problems? Humor aside if you have trouble finding work over age 40 I'd take a long hard look at your resume and skill set, because the issue is probably not your age.
Sure, there is something to be said for abusive employers. I have worked IT for over 3 decades, before that I managed restaurants to put myself through College, served in the US Army, and worked full time during my junior and senior year in High School so that I could have a car and niceties (that last one is not legal any longer, but..). I have seen abusive employers, and I work elsewhere. Hell, I moved over 3,500 miles to have better prospects 5 years ago. The company I worked at was shit, and all but a couple people I knew left. After a few years of being forced to hire shitty temps and losing contracts the board finally got wise and canned the management (we were smart and told other people not to work there!). I wasn't there, and doubt I'd ever go back. Point here is that nobody can force you to stay in crappy situations, but you have to be willing to make changes.
A big part of the culture coming out of College, especially the younger grads, have this idea that they should be making 6 figures because they got a degree. They don't have experience, and most have no respect for experience. Professors tell all students they are gifted, and some of these people actually believe them and wear it on their collar. Generally the younger graduates lack communication skills and professionalism, which in my opinion relates largely to the lack of experience. A thirty something that changed careers and has a new shiny degree is not the same thing as the 20 something.. I'll take a 30 something any day.
Anyway, enough rambling and back on point. Yes, there are crappy places to work. If you have to work at one for some duration use that time to build your resume. Everyone I know has run into "one of those" sometime in their career. Consider them a long rung on a ladder, and move out when you can. If you are shit to a shitty business, it's going to be hard to build the resume to move on. If you are professional in the worst circumstances people will recognize that, and know that you can be professional in better circumstances. As I started with, perhaps you don't have a sense of entitlement and just communicated your point poorly. Consider that last point if you really are forty-something and can't find good work.
Slashdot Mirror
EEE, they simply don't care. Apologies if you have been fooled into thinking there is some new and more altruistic MS Philosophy and I hurt your reality..
What we have today is a severe problem with our education system as a whole. Classical education has been completely dumped, and people are learning how to believe everything they are told by a person in authority. The fix is to revert to the classical system of education, but with the people holding all the power in Government it won't happen. Remember, they want workers.. not thinkers.. STEM requires the latter, not the former.
Where I mostly agree is that the mastery of things like Math is important. I'll argue that so is communication, critical thought, rational discourse and dialogue, and science that has math as the foundation. Read back 100 years and look at "how people learned" and you will see the difference. Also remember, the US Government moved us over about 40 years from a "Classical Education" system to the Prussian designed "Industrial Education" system. The selling point of the Prussian system was that it is good enough to make artillery guys smart enough to target enemies of the State, stupid enough to never question their orders.
The Classical system started with the fundamentals. Reading, Writing, Basic Math, and basic rhetoric (simple fallacy, simple debate). As math improved, physics was introduced. As rhetoric improved, so did the critical thought exercises (Philosophy). Trig was introduced with Music so that you can see how trig works with musical notes. Physics was introduced with Algebra, complex physics with Calculus. It was a continuous system of improvement. Private schools still use this system, go figure..
Compare that system to what we have currently, which is kids learning how to take tests and give predetermined answers. Kids spend almost half of every school year learning to test and taking tests on average. Poor results means more time testing. All of this means that they can't learn, and are under so much pressure that the few lessons they have are useless.
Selling "STEM" is a crock on just about every level. A EE grad that can only use Matlab/Simulink and can't design a circuit by hand really does not understand EE. But they sure did pass a test on Matlab.
You must be a white male! *ducks*
I agree, and come from a similar place. Not quite ghetto poor, but not being able to eat poor and we lived next to the ghetto. My dad was my example of what not to be when I grew up, since he was drunk and unemployed more often than sober and working. Mom did her best with what she had, a GED and two kids.
Not to say I have not made mistakes, but my son is now in college which I'm able to pay cash for. I have a good job which I worked very hard for. I'm not rich, but I am content for now.
That aside, there is a fine line between feeling hopeless and being determined to get out. It's not an easy line to jump over, and I knew plenty of people that went the other way.
And this generalization has been proven false somehow? I have worked for 25+ years focused on IT Security. Complex hacks come from China. Spammers, porn, etc.. comes from Russia. Script kiddies from must about everywhere else. Since the US has access to US data, there is not a whole lot of us hacking ourselves.
Since China controls the "great wall" anything going outbound becomes suspect for government sponsorship. Large attacks have to be, because there is no way they don't know what's coming in and going out when it reaches scale.
This attack however was a bit different, and that the DDOS only required a simple modification to an HTML page. It did not have to originate from China per-say.
Yes, it is contradicted. I gave you the contradiction not once, but on three separate occasions. Your ~oh woe as me, I can't afford to start a business~ (paraphrased) rant omitted exactly half of her text, in fact it was the FIRST half of what you quoted. The remainder of the article is not extremism, it's about using market pressure to find normalcy over time because "law" is not the problem.
Yeah yeah, reading and comprehension is not your strong point. Baseless allegations and poor communications skills, those are.
While I am surely against discrimination, there is a place for law, and a place to let the market handle itself. We already have laws to address discrimination, so the law being discussed is something else. For example if you refuse to sell a tire from your shelf to "one of those" you will be sued, and rightfully so. Similarly, if you refuse to hire "one of those" or fire a person because they are "one of those" you will be sued, and again rightfully so. These are good laws, and should remain on the books. (Pardon the generalization, "one of those" was shorter than the long list of potential discrimination targets, no offense was intended.)
Considering that we already have laws, and the new law is not overruling those, we should ask what the new law was supposed to cover (go ahead and read the short history on this, I have). It is to cover a service industry having the right to refuse specific customized services and was exactly the result of a gay couple suing a bakery that refused to customize a cake they way the couple wanted. Note that this is not some off the shelf item that the baker refused to sell, it was not a job applicant that was refused, it was a specific modification that someone wanted that was refused.
If you answer no to the question in my subject, then why do you care about a law forcing a service to make you something the way you want it? Is this not a place for normal marketing pressure to make the correction if and where necessary? If a bakery refuses to make something you want, don't shop at that bakery? A different bakery willing to do your custom work will be happy to make the money. Good service distinguished from bad is exactly the thing that makes successes and failures in the "Services industry". If there are no other bakeries worth a damn in your area, start your own and cash in! That is what the "American Spirit" is all about.
I think the law as written was vague enough to be poor. Better written, it would have still resulted in some protest but not nearly as justified.
I see this in line with the huge amount funding and campaigns that went into making all bars and restaurants "no smoking". No law ever forced any of those businesses to support smokers, and a savvy entrepreneur could have made a mint on "no smoking" clubs and restaurants. Not that smoking is good (though it's legal), but the legislation forcing a service to behave a certain way breaks normal competition. The market can't dictate success, the Government does. It is too easy for this type of law to end up on a slippery slope.
Whether or not you believe it was "stupid" there are additional costs associated with customizing services, some are potentially long term. If the bakery was in a highly religious area and accepted the job of customizing the cake how much business would they lose? If they are in an area with a high population of LGBT, how much would they gain? Those are factors a service business needs to weigh. Even if in someone's opinion it's stupid not to do the extra, how many people in the world have a religion? I'll give you a hint, the majority does. Again, this is not refusing to sell an off the shelf product which resulted in a successful lawsuit. It was the refusal to customize a product that resulted in the successful lawsuit.
To make some comparative analogies: Should the Jewish or Muslim person be able sue the butcher for having pork on it's shelf, or should the market dictate that a butcher shop in a predominantly Jewish or Muslim area not carry pork? How about the atheist that lives in the same neighborhood, can they sue? Can the gay male sue the topless bar for not having male performers? Can the lesbian woman sue Chip&Dales for not having female performers? This is the precedent that was set with the successful bakery suit, unfortunately. We can't put that Jeanie back in the bottle, so I believe additional legislation is surely needed.
As I indirectly stated numerous times, the "Services Industry" is not the same as other businesses. The commodity is the personalization, not just fixed object cost. Society generates the normals with financial support for good choices, and gets rid of bad the same way.
You failed to back your assertion regarding another person's thoughts. I realize that reading and comprehension are "hard", but nowhere does the author make the claims you said they did. You took them so out of context that you could not even follow the text _YOU_ had quoted.
Your next assertion is that facts only matter if you are submitting your opinion (delusional or not) to a specific source. What pure genius that gem is! I'm sure that Fox News would be happy that you have the same opinion they do.. it's "entertainment" that counts even if your opinion is wrong and damages other people.
You stand by what you wrote because you are a hypocrite, as well as an idiot. Good job not using punctuation and grammar as well, proving that you are a triple threat.
Yup, I hinted at this in my "Emotionally" section.
Are you attempting to claim that only a new person would point out an irrational hypocrite? I think you are the new guy.
However, there's no excuse for a website doing something like storing passwords in plaintext. That's just fucking stupid.
If it comes to a point where a hacker has your password file, it's too late. Sure. The bad practice made it easier for hackers at this point, but you were already compromised so you are really trying to protect "everything else" from that point on.
IMHO it is a culture that needs to change to improve. Some start-ups are security oriented, those tend to have long term success. Some have little concern, and tend to be fly-by-night companies. The latter is due to people playing the economic lottery.
Until very recent times the OpenSSL project was maintained by 2 guys who pretty much worked for free, meaning that they had to work full time jobs in addition to maintaining OpenSSL. You may have had a point somewhere, but it seems to have been lost in ignorance.
Wholly F&$K, that happens to be my safe word. Damn it, back to the dictionary!
haha, well done!
You claim to dislike the article because it provides no facts, and follow that up with two of your own assertions which appear to be nothing more than slander. I am assuming you have facts which back these two statements.
basically, she an extreme capitalist that doesn't believe in "workers' rights" at all.
she's saying "hey, being discriminating on? just leave and work somewhere else. it's a free country."
I make no claim that you have to agree with her opinion, but I do claim that poisoning the well with slander is a pathetic way of garnering agreements with your own opinion. Placing the proverbial icing on the cake, your last statement is completely irrational.
"leave and get a new job or start your own business."
that's just a little elitist. assuming everyone has the capital to start their own business.
Notice that your short rant omits exactly half of the text which _you_ quoted. She stated very clearly "get a new job or start your own business" according to your quote.
Surely I agree that finding a new job is not always easy, but it is an option that the majority of people take when they dislike something at their place of work. Good grief, the exodus from Michigan was massive after the automotive collapses so people (including myself) packed up and moved thousands of miles to find better working conditions and jobs. Choices are not always easy to make, but there certainly are choices. Further, there are good employers out there. I'd agree that it's not a majority but there are quite a few. Call my personal anecdote and yours a wash and we could say roughly half.
As a personal note, calling someone an "extreme capitalist" is not an insult. Adam Smith was brilliant, and Milton Friedman did a great job of modernizing his work. Attempting to blame capitalism failures on the extreme levels of corruption we have in Government is simply delusional. Unchecked corruption breaks all economic systems and forms of Government. You can check my statement against every Government in history. Capitalism and the US Republic were attempts to keep systems healthy for a longer duration, and in that respect they were extremely successful.
Lacking citations to back your seemingly false assertions, I do hope to see an apology for the slander. I have no expectation mind you, but I am occasionally incorrect judging character.
I've already hear rumblings about 35 year childhoods, including a TED talk where some Blackhawk was trying to say that women are not physically ready to have children until they are around 35 years old.
Which is rubbish at face value. While I won't win any popularity contests with this, let me provide a break down.
Physically speaking a women is best suited to have a child between the ages of 16 and 26 when the body is fully developed and has an amazing healing ability. By 35 the regenerative process has slowed significantly, and normal wear and tear has made both conception and carrying a child to term extremely difficult. Not to mention that genetic issues are in full swing by that time (much higher rates of breast and cervical cancer at that age, and remember breast feeding is the best possible thing a woman can do for herself and her baby).
Emotionally speaking, it really depends on the person's education and upbringing. Women who come from a sound family structure and wish to have a similar strong "family" do much better than single parents, or women that change relationships after giving birth. People don't like to hear it, but a stable relationship does not require you to be 30 and is extremely beneficial to all parties and especially children.
This 35 thing relates almost exclusively to financial security and a woman's career. This is a huge conflict of interest, because a child is much better off with a full time parent than they are in someone else' custody. Mothers already need at least a couple months off for giving birth and healing, they are the only ones that can breast feed, so are the easy choice for that responsibility. I recently worked with a mother who's husband stayed at home and raised the kid. The latter is as good in my opinion, but also extremely rare. Taking the "norm" we have moms spending 10-15 years career building to take 5 years off and then go back to the workforce. That is obviously back-asswards to anyone that really looks at it.
Like I said, I won't win a popularity contest with logic but...
Last time in Paris was strange?
Probably need to be a Queensryche fan to get the reference, and I am...
According to this, the doors are supposed to have an override which is easily accessed. I have not investigated the source enough to trust their opinion fully, and think it more likely that the override code is not being properly shared with the crew. Still, I don't think this is an event that needs something "new" outside of procedural. Unless of course the documentation on the Jet is wrong and no override panel exists. I'm not a pilot and don't fly enough to check so perhaps someone working in the industry can validate the claim.
Further, we don't have proof that this was a suicide with lots of additional casualties. The original claim was that the pilot may had some type of medical issue causing the plane to crash and I still believe this over a suicide. The overwhelming majority of suicides are done in isolation without taking other people with you. The obvious exception are Religious suicides, where the people pray while performing their act. Nothing is heard on the recording to indicate this was a religious suicide, in fact the co-pilot is only heard to be breathing (not an indication of consciousness).
Lots of things in this story simply don't add up. Jumping to a suicide claim without definitive proof is unhealthy for everyone.
Lots and lots of GOTO NNNN and I know it's good code!
I find that most people I talk to don't trust US media. They don't do anything about it, but they don't believe what they are told any longer. Apathy works for a while, but historically this can not last. Corruption and abuse will get to a point where there has to be some form of revolution (not always bloody) and then the cycle will start over again.
To be in line with TFA's point, sure the Russian's have paid shills and trolls. Their play books are the same as our own Government's. Whistle blowers have demonstrated that most large US companies have paid shills and trolls, the US Government pays shills and trolls, as does just every "Western" Government including the UK and Canada. Snowden's leaks give us a nice powerpoint view of the play book, no need for anecdote and hearsay trying to vilify "those other guys". Nobody likes a hypocrite..
Actually it's 4 employers in the last 5 years. More than I like personally, but with the high rate of Contract/Temp work in the bay area 6month contracts worked for a while. None of those would have ended up with me working there even if I was offered, but all of them were opportunities to improve my resume. I honed my interviewing and negotiating skills as well, so win-win for me.
If you see yourself as a commodity so will employers, assuming you can back your assertions and ego that is. A whole lot of people believe that knowledge of X is all you need to land a great job, and that is extremely far from being true. Long long ago my knowledge of MVS, or HP-UX, or AIX was enough but that changed about 15 years ago. Today you need exceptional base knowledge, an ability to find what you need, an ability to share knowledge, and an ability to simplify complex problems. Most of those require a good amount of communication/logic/rhetoric skills.
I am pretty sure I agree with the message for the most part, just not the style in which it was communicated. "Employers should provide employees with" reads a whole lot differently than "give me" or "give us". There are countless stories and articles being published with a slant for entitlement based on any number of factors. We can have a rational discussion without degrading the conversation to that level.
Two bits of advice for yourself. First, don't assume everyone else lacks experience. Second, learn not to use straw man arguments. I never claimed that people owe a company business, in fact read my post again and you will see clearly that I have no issue harming a business that behaves immorally and even provided a personal experience.
Your troll was this comment "It's not some godlike entity which designed humans with a goal in mind", though you probably know it and are just denying. Nuh uh in this post does not address or argue any of my points, which clearly demonstrate that it's not an issue of my ability or desire to debate. The issue is yours.
Sarcasm is not "dumping" on someone. I'll go further and point out that correcting someone is not "dumping" on them, punishing people for violating the rules is not "dumping" on them, offering advice is not "dumping" on them. Study after study has shown that children require enforced rules and guidelines for proper development, as well as positive reinforcement.
Yeah, I agree with you that we should not be a culture of disposable humans. At the same time if you never see any humor in anything life has to be terribly miserable.
Classical Education System? Oh, never mind.. you are trolling.
Perhaps it's just your communication style, but I read way too much "gimme, gimme" in your post. "Pay us well" How about making fair market value for your expertise, abilities, and productivity? "Treat us well?" How about being treated like everyone else in said company? "Give us job security"? How about making sure that you are valuable enough that a company want's to hire/keep you? I am well over 40 and have no idea what people are talking about claiming they can't get a job. I have a constant stream of offers, and I'm not even looking to change jobs. Are you over 40 and still refuse to work on anything but the VAX? Can you not act as a Lead anything? Are you still claiming Q-Basic can solve all problems? Humor aside if you have trouble finding work over age 40 I'd take a long hard look at your resume and skill set, because the issue is probably not your age.
Sure, there is something to be said for abusive employers. I have worked IT for over 3 decades, before that I managed restaurants to put myself through College, served in the US Army, and worked full time during my junior and senior year in High School so that I could have a car and niceties (that last one is not legal any longer, but..). I have seen abusive employers, and I work elsewhere. Hell, I moved over 3,500 miles to have better prospects 5 years ago. The company I worked at was shit, and all but a couple people I knew left. After a few years of being forced to hire shitty temps and losing contracts the board finally got wise and canned the management (we were smart and told other people not to work there!). I wasn't there, and doubt I'd ever go back. Point here is that nobody can force you to stay in crappy situations, but you have to be willing to make changes.
A big part of the culture coming out of College, especially the younger grads, have this idea that they should be making 6 figures because they got a degree. They don't have experience, and most have no respect for experience. Professors tell all students they are gifted, and some of these people actually believe them and wear it on their collar. Generally the younger graduates lack communication skills and professionalism, which in my opinion relates largely to the lack of experience. A thirty something that changed careers and has a new shiny degree is not the same thing as the 20 something.. I'll take a 30 something any day.
Anyway, enough rambling and back on point. Yes, there are crappy places to work. If you have to work at one for some duration use that time to build your resume. Everyone I know has run into "one of those" sometime in their career. Consider them a long rung on a ladder, and move out when you can. If you are shit to a shitty business, it's going to be hard to build the resume to move on. If you are professional in the worst circumstances people will recognize that, and know that you can be professional in better circumstances. As I started with, perhaps you don't have a sense of entitlement and just communicated your point poorly. Consider that last point if you really are forty-something and can't find good work.