You are correct that I should be more explicit about the relationship between scalability and expense. Smaller computing platforms can be scaled up in smaller steps requiring less money up front than mainframes.
Re:IT needs some kind of an apprenticeship system
on
The Eternal Mainframe
·
· Score: 1
I meant this progression to be a "good thing". One problem with apprenticeships is that you reinforce the established way of doing things. Bringing people in from the outside, especially those who learned from others that read or write academic papers allows new concepts to be integrated with established practice.
Someone in the industry realizes that computing is really iterative and what's old will eventually become new again.
I believe the origin of this periodic realizations is as follows:
(I intentionally used "jargon" instead of "technique", since the need to create a new term doesn't seem proportional to the actual change in implementation)
1. A college fresh out get hired at a I.T. farm armed with a new set of computing jargon that impresses human resources.
2. He applies his version of how things should work to the current workplace and things progress well.
3. Over the next few years the department grows and new hires are brought in to help meet demand.
4. The new hires start preaching their version of computing jargon that was created by academia to publish a paper.
5. The once college fresh out comes to the realization that the new computing jargon are practically synonyms for the previous generation's jargon.
6. The new hire proceeds to step #1 and the circle of I.T. begins anew.
The neat thing about this iterative process is that the difference in implementation of the jargon between generation N and N - 1 are small enough to not seem that much different. However the difference in implementation of jargon between the current generation and the people hired 5 to 10 cycles prior can and usually are dramatic.
I entered the field when distributive computing and storage with localized networks were being created and evangelized. Scientific computing had to be performed at universities and anything serious had to be done by renting time on a supercomputer connected via the internet. Medium sized businesses had to rent time on mainframes to perform payroll or hired firms specializing in payroll which still exists today. Small businesses had no access to computing until personal computers and single user applications came into use. Because of the newer businesses being more familiar with distributive computing than centralized computing, they scaled personal computers up to meet the new demands. This ability to scale computing power up allows the company to grow the computing infrastructure as needed. This was not possible with mainframes. Eventually the company grows to the point that it needs to have their data and application centralized and use data centers to handle the load.
If you step back and look solely at the physical structure (e.g. data center, clerical offices) it resembles the centralized computing from 50 years ago. However if you look at the actual data and computing flow you'll see that its a hybrid of central and distributed computing that was not imagined in the past 20 years. It's more fractal in nature. Your computing at any given moment can be centralized to your terminal, your home, your office, your department, your company, or even global (e.g. Google, Github).
Actually Lawyers and Barristers are practically the same thing.
England have their barristers that presents the case in court while the solicitors do the actual case preparation and manage the documents during the proceedings.
The U.S. have their attorneys that presents the case in court and, while attorneys are no longer split into two professions which allows another attorney act as solicitor, they do have paralegals that perform many functions of a solicitor and aren't allowed to present a case in court.
The nerdy part being that social media and the large number of photos taken by people in the crowd from their smartphones were used in the quick investigation which lead to the alleged bombers.
GUI toolkits that promises cross-platform compatibility stick to the lowest common denominator of native features and then build on it. Java does a pretty good job of integrating with most desktops without the burden of cross compiling for every single target environment. Qt and Gtk applications do not look native on all desktops either.
The main factor affecting desktop integration is the amount of effort a developer will put into programming the GUI. This can be said for all libraries.
I'm more inclined that if the developers wanted to use the GPL license then they would have explicitly declared it. It is more likely they intended their work to be in the public domain but didn't realize that current copyright law requires you to explicitly forfeit your copyright rights.
Call me ignorant. but can someone explain why we have more than a post per week either about or mentioning Wayland for the last couple of months?
Because topics likes these generate web traffic. Bitcoin stories generate debates on its merits as a currency. Waveland stories generate X must live, RDP is better than X, and Linux may finally catchup debates.
There may be more legitimate stories out there, but it wouldn't generate as much traffic and therefore aren't favored as much by this and other tech news sites.
There was a spot on I-65 in Birmingham where my "Tire Pressure" warning would light up (always near the same mile marker). I recently purchased a new car and no longer experience the problem.
Microsoft has NEVER been cool, and I dont know that many people have cared enough about their computer to care what version MS released.
You're just too young to remember it.
Anyway this was inevitable, software will reach a point where the needed features are in place and any additional features provided by an upgrade aren't compelling enough to justify it. Hardware has a similar phenomena where the speed gains aren't as dramatic as they once were, and the current processors are more than fast enough to satisfy the user's needs. The reason pundits have been talking about a post-PC market isn't because people stop using PCs. Instead it's because companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple need to create a new market to monetize since the PC market is pretty much tapped out.
Hmmm... which is more likely? An utterly inoffensive group providing free education materials on the internet is the victim of a shadowy government conspiracy, or that one of the 1,200 other sites on the same IP did something sufficiently stupid as to attract govt. attention.
Dont forget that if it's like most community colleges the IP address was probably blacklisted due to DDOS attacks originating from infected campus computers.
I know I had to deal with DDOS attacks from computer labs at my university. My university ultimately fixed the problem by overwriting all the lab computers hard drives with a fresh image every other night at 3 am. Labs are open 24/7 and the students liked to test downloads out on lab computers before installing it on their own machine. I wouldn't be surprised that a small community college experienced the same problems but lacked the IT staff of a much larger institution.
You realize that foreign students fund the American education system, right?
Wrong!
For public institutions, foreign students pay the same tuition as out of state students. They are charged a non-resident rate. The reason for the higher charge is that residence pay most of the institutional expenses through state taxes collected from their household. Most of the graduates will remain in that state and will pay taxes that will go towards funding that institution. The non-residence will only offset the operational expenses of the institution for the short time that they are a student. The amount of money they contribute to the budget is significantly less than the money being spent by the state government.
In other words while the extra tuition provides additional revenue to the specific institution, the majority of the capital and labor costs are payed for by the residents of that state. Many who will probably never receive an education from that institution.
You get a PhD in a field because you're retardedly in love with the field...
I don't know why you are so bitter towards this person. Personally I rather be a PhD "retardedly" in love with my life's work than a bitter engineer (based on a different comment you made).
I can't help but notice that you're attacking a technical field of which you don't seem to be a member. It's pretty noble of you to sell out that job sector because you seem to have chosen an engineering field with less demand. It is quite apparent that you are envious of their demand. You'd think that when demand outstrips supply that the wages should actually increase. It would be a worker's market. The corporations are undercutting that market by importing cheap labor.
Also if it was true that your 8-year old could perform the same job then you'd think these same corporations would lower the educational requirements and pay them a much lower salary appropriate for their low-skill position. Of course, we all know this isn't the case. The corporations are asking for "highly skilled" labor with educational requirements therefore they should pay market price for that labor especially to makeup the out-of-pocket investment that the worker made when he or she took the risk in seeking an education without a guarantee of a job.
Anyway I don't think the salaries being asked for are too out-of-line. These corporations are asking for more H-1Bs so they can take advantage advantage of cheaper education subsidized by foreign nations.
I find it telling that you would sell out your own country because of some professional jealousy.
Obama averages a lot more trips than that. You aren't counting his...
I didn't say Obama averaged a golf trip every 4 months. You did.
unassimilatible:
And those golf trips and vacations every 4 months Obama takes? How much do those cost taxpayers? Like a million dollars each flight?
I just pointed out the fallacy of your argument. I also correctly stated the number of vacation days he had taken as of Jan 2013: 131
This is much less than his predecessor's 1,020 days
Not analogous, since Bush never presided over a sequester, let alone was one his idea, let alone did Bush threaten to veto a bill offering him budgeting discretion on a sequester, and then close the White House to tours and stop the Blue Angels, and then cry, "we have no money!"
You're upset that Obama is taking a brief vacation during congressional breaks while under sequestration. I would think you'd be more upset about the previous president that spent most of his time on vacation (the most in 36 years) despite having two ongoing wars that he started and having the most expensive and devastating natural disaster during his presidency.
Of course, Bush never had any problems passing his budget proposals because unlike Obama, he benefited from having a republican majority in both the house and senate from 2003 to 2007. It was this majority that allowed the financial crisis start during Bush's watch and Bush's economic policies combined with the two wars he started amass our HUGE debt.
One more thing you failed to mention, the sequester was agreed to under duress from a Republican controlled house that would destroy this country in exchange for some political gain. They will not compromise on a budget despite more than fair concessions being made. It seems the house republicans are dead set against removing the Bush era tax cuts that got us in this fiscal mess to begin with.
Google is using it's current market dominance with Web Search and Web Advertising to also gain marketshare in the Mobile markets. How else could they afford to give away an OS for free? You don't actually think Google does it out of the kindness of their hearts?
BTW I was always able to download Netscape despite having IE installed. In fact I only used IE to install Netscape. The argument was that IE came pre-installed and therefore made it less likely for people to download a competing browser. The same thing can be said today about the default browser of many of the alternative OSes.
Why is it that people seem to have more of a problem with private arbitration by more or less independent companies in civil contract disputes than the idea of a constitutional dispute affecting the rights of an entire society being arbitrated by a court which is part of the same organization as one party to the conflict?
Because it has been shown that arbitration benefits the corporation more than the consumer.
Just because you disagreed with the court's decision doesn't mean that the court was wrong. I'm not directing that statement solely to you, I see this on both sides of the ideological aisle.
It outright says that they're ignoring the Constitution because of the "exigencies of the Great Depression", placing transient political considerations above the law. It also embodies the misreading of the "general welfare" clause which exemplified the GP's post.
I disagree. The Great Depression demonstrated the need for the government to provide a social safety net in order to insure the general welfare of this nation. If the government hadn't introduced extraordinary measures to get the country out of the depression. We may have not remained a "first world" nation and wouldn't have had the luxury of debating the constitutionality of the Social Security Act today.
How about we start by giving every masters' degree candidate an H1B and go from there?
How about we don't?
Demands to raise H-1Bs sounds hollow after hearing it year-after-year-after-year since the mid 1990s as the industry grew despite dire predictions and the benefits for domestic workers haven't materialized other than the downward pressure on salaries. I find it ridiculous that congress continues to entertain the idea of importing workers whose education are subsidized by other countries while not putting much effort to improve education domestically. The H-1B program may have a great short-term benefits for corporations but it has long-term consequences for U.S. citizens.
FYI, Your sister can not be a 'law-abiding citizen' and participate in a H-1B. She is a 'law-abiding guest worker'. I'm not saying this to be harsh. I'm saying this because your statement caused confusion.
Now if your sister's professional status gave her preferred status for citizenship that would be something different entirely. She would most likely be a life long asset to her community and not just a short term worker being exploited to keep wages low.
Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[11] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
You haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of history. Why bring more superlative stuff into the discussion and why the negativity?
I'm not the one calling someone an idiot nor did I question anyone's cognitive ability. That appears to be all you.
Let me clarify things for you a little since you are upset. I didn't really want to upset anyone and I really intended "Quit trying to be a hipster and enjoy the show" to be more of humorous jab than an insult. Absolutely no insult was intended.
I "accused" the original poster of being a hipster because he used the term "geek blackface" and claiming that BBT is loathed by most people he knows. This seems counter-intuitive since the "Big Bang Theory" is currently the #1 show in syndication and the #1 show in first-run broadcast. One trait that defines hipsters is that they triy to be different from the masses. They also seem more critical of trivial things like television shows as if being critical of something someone else likes somehow elevates their authority.
Now I assumed that you consider yourself a hipster because it is quite obvious that you are being very defensive about it. So instead of entering a flamewar by firing up a vulgar insult in retaliation for you explicitly calling me an idiot simply because you disagree with my assessment of BBT, I simply described a situation where you are wearing the clothes of the stereotypical hipster. I admit it was a lame reply, but it was a gentle retort to your irrational insult. Based on your reaction, I'd think my assumption was "spot on". Not that I personally find anything wrong with the outfit.
Anyway your second reply demonstrates your need to assume that somehow you're not only more knowledgeable than me but you're into history which despite not being relevant to the conversation makes you feel superior. This to is a trait of a hipster.
And those golf trips and vacations every 4 months Obama takes? How much do those cost taxpayers? Like a million dollars each flight?
Cost of each travel is irrelevant. He's the president and, like all presidents before him, he flies Marine 1 and Air Force 1. He also needs a security detail, support staff, and press corp. because despite what they call it the president is never really on vacation.
Now let's get to the meat of the discussion - the frequency of trips.
If Obama averages a golf trip and vacation every 4 months then that would make the number of trips taken around 16. You want to know how many trips his predecessor made? Well Pres. G.W. Bush took 149 trips to Camp David and 77 trips to his ranch in Crawford, TX. It has been reported that Bush spent a total of 487 days at Camp David and 490 days at his Ranch. This doesn't include his trips to Martha's Vineyard.
"President Obama in his first four years has taken 131 days, dividing his time between Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard and, of course, Camp David, the official get away of U.S. presidents. At this rate, he could hit 262 days by the end of his eighth year, about average for modern presidents.
He certainly is not the king of vacation days. That honor falls to President George W. Bush, who racked up 1,020 vacation days in his eight years in office, including one five-week vacation, the most of any president in 36 years. Not to say he wasn’t on the job when he was at his Crawford, Texas ranch, but he was away from the White House."
The next question then becomes is it justifiable? I think we all can agree the answer is yes. Regardless whoever the president may be they have a very difficult job. The stress of the job has been documented very well. It even takes a physical toll on these guys. Look at the before and after picture of each president the difference can be startling. They have to be available 365/24 and have to deal with issues like national security, world events, the hot button political issue of the day, rallying support for a budget or bill, official visits to foreign countries, almost solely held accountable for all of the domestic problems regardless of how much is really congress, and to top it all off they have to do damage control from rumors or accusations from the typical right or left wing commentator (depending on who is in office).
Nancy Regain said it best (as quoted from the article): "Presidents don’t get vacations — they just get a change of scenery. The job goes with you."
Hell by official record, you should happy that Obama has curtailed the number of vacation days and personal trips taken by the U.S. President in the past 13 years.
Sucks when recorded facts doesn't fit in with your ideological views, doesn't it?
The cost of these events are covered by the White House budget which is also operating under sequestration.
Also keep in mind that article 1 section 7 of the constitution explicitly states that:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law...
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct that I should be more explicit about the relationship between scalability and expense. Smaller computing platforms can be scaled up in smaller steps requiring less money up front than mainframes.
I meant this progression to be a "good thing". One problem with apprenticeships is that you reinforce the established way of doing things. Bringing people in from the outside, especially those who learned from others that read or write academic papers allows new concepts to be integrated with established practice.
In context of money required. Small businesses normally couldn't afford one mainframe much less more than one.
Someone in the industry realizes that computing is really iterative and what's old will eventually become new again.
I believe the origin of this periodic realizations is as follows:
(I intentionally used "jargon" instead of "technique", since the need to create a new term doesn't seem proportional to the actual change in implementation)
1. A college fresh out get hired at a I.T. farm armed with a new set of computing jargon that impresses human resources.
2. He applies his version of how things should work to the current workplace and things progress well.
3. Over the next few years the department grows and new hires are brought in to help meet demand.
4. The new hires start preaching their version of computing jargon that was created by academia to publish a paper.
5. The once college fresh out comes to the realization that the new computing jargon are practically synonyms for the previous generation's jargon.
6. The new hire proceeds to step #1 and the circle of I.T. begins anew.
The neat thing about this iterative process is that the difference in implementation of the jargon between generation N and N - 1 are small enough to not seem that much different. However the difference in implementation of jargon between the current generation and the people hired 5 to 10 cycles prior can and usually are dramatic.
I entered the field when distributive computing and storage with localized networks were being created and evangelized. Scientific computing had to be performed at universities and anything serious had to be done by renting time on a supercomputer connected via the internet. Medium sized businesses had to rent time on mainframes to perform payroll or hired firms specializing in payroll which still exists today. Small businesses had no access to computing until personal computers and single user applications came into use. Because of the newer businesses being more familiar with distributive computing than centralized computing, they scaled personal computers up to meet the new demands. This ability to scale computing power up allows the company to grow the computing infrastructure as needed. This was not possible with mainframes. Eventually the company grows to the point that it needs to have their data and application centralized and use data centers to handle the load.
If you step back and look solely at the physical structure (e.g. data center, clerical offices) it resembles the centralized computing from 50 years ago. However if you look at the actual data and computing flow you'll see that its a hybrid of central and distributed computing that was not imagined in the past 20 years. It's more fractal in nature. Your computing at any given moment can be centralized to your terminal, your home, your office, your department, your company, or even global (e.g. Google, Github).
I declare this to be known as BTE's law. ;)
Actually Lawyers and Barristers are practically the same thing.
England have their barristers that presents the case in court while the solicitors do the actual case preparation and manage the documents during the proceedings.
The U.S. have their attorneys that presents the case in court and, while attorneys are no longer split into two professions which allows another attorney act as solicitor, they do have paralegals that perform many functions of a solicitor and aren't allowed to present a case in court.
The nerdy part being that social media and the large number of photos taken by people in the crowd from their smartphones were used in the quick investigation which lead to the alleged bombers.
GUI toolkits that promises cross-platform compatibility stick to the lowest common denominator of native features and then build on it. Java does a pretty good job of integrating with most desktops without the burden of cross compiling for every single target environment. Qt and Gtk applications do not look native on all desktops either.
The main factor affecting desktop integration is the amount of effort a developer will put into programming the GUI. This can be said for all libraries.
I'm more inclined that if the developers wanted to use the GPL license then they would have explicitly declared it. It is more likely they intended their work to be in the public domain but didn't realize that current copyright law requires you to explicitly forfeit your copyright rights.
I believe they are commenting on how the vast majority of the developers who declared a software license picked something other than GPL.
Because topics likes these generate web traffic. Bitcoin stories generate debates on its merits as a currency. Waveland stories generate X must live, RDP is better than X, and Linux may finally catchup debates.
There may be more legitimate stories out there, but it wouldn't generate as much traffic and therefore aren't favored as much by this and other tech news sites.
There was a spot on I-65 in Birmingham where my "Tire Pressure" warning would light up (always near the same mile marker). I recently purchased a new car and no longer experience the problem.
You're just too young to remember it.
Anyway this was inevitable, software will reach a point where the needed features are in place and any additional features provided by an upgrade aren't compelling enough to justify it. Hardware has a similar phenomena where the speed gains aren't as dramatic as they once were, and the current processors are more than fast enough to satisfy the user's needs. The reason pundits have been talking about a post-PC market isn't because people stop using PCs. Instead it's because companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple need to create a new market to monetize since the PC market is pretty much tapped out.
Dont forget that if it's like most community colleges the IP address was probably blacklisted due to DDOS attacks originating from infected campus computers.
I know I had to deal with DDOS attacks from computer labs at my university. My university ultimately fixed the problem by overwriting all the lab computers hard drives with a fresh image every other night at 3 am. Labs are open 24/7 and the students liked to test downloads out on lab computers before installing it on their own machine. I wouldn't be surprised that a small community college experienced the same problems but lacked the IT staff of a much larger institution.
Wrong!
For public institutions, foreign students pay the same tuition as out of state students. They are charged a non-resident rate. The reason for the higher charge is that residence pay most of the institutional expenses through state taxes collected from their household. Most of the graduates will remain in that state and will pay taxes that will go towards funding that institution. The non-residence will only offset the operational expenses of the institution for the short time that they are a student. The amount of money they contribute to the budget is significantly less than the money being spent by the state government.
In other words while the extra tuition provides additional revenue to the specific institution, the majority of the capital and labor costs are payed for by the residents of that state. Many who will probably never receive an education from that institution.
I don't know why you are so bitter towards this person. Personally I rather be a PhD "retardedly" in love with my life's work than a bitter engineer (based on a different comment you made).
I can't help but notice that you're attacking a technical field of which you don't seem to be a member. It's pretty noble of you to sell out that job sector because you seem to have chosen an engineering field with less demand. It is quite apparent that you are envious of their demand. You'd think that when demand outstrips supply that the wages should actually increase. It would be a worker's market. The corporations are undercutting that market by importing cheap labor.
Also if it was true that your 8-year old could perform the same job then you'd think these same corporations would lower the educational requirements and pay them a much lower salary appropriate for their low-skill position. Of course, we all know this isn't the case. The corporations are asking for "highly skilled" labor with educational requirements therefore they should pay market price for that labor especially to makeup the out-of-pocket investment that the worker made when he or she took the risk in seeking an education without a guarantee of a job.
Anyway I don't think the salaries being asked for are too out-of-line. These corporations are asking for more H-1Bs so they can take advantage advantage of cheaper education subsidized by foreign nations.
I find it telling that you would sell out your own country because of some professional jealousy.
I didn't say Obama averaged a golf trip every 4 months. You did.
unassimilatible:
I just pointed out the fallacy of your argument. I also correctly stated the number of vacation days he had taken as of Jan 2013: 131
This is much less than his predecessor's 1,020 days
You're upset that Obama is taking a brief vacation during congressional breaks while under sequestration. I would think you'd be more upset about the previous president that spent most of his time on vacation (the most in 36 years) despite having two ongoing wars that he started and having the most expensive and devastating natural disaster during his presidency.
Of course, Bush never had any problems passing his budget proposals because unlike Obama, he benefited from having a republican majority in both the house and senate from 2003 to 2007. It was this majority that allowed the financial crisis start during Bush's watch and Bush's economic policies combined with the two wars he started amass our HUGE debt.
One more thing you failed to mention, the sequester was agreed to under duress from a Republican controlled house that would destroy this country in exchange for some political gain. They will not compromise on a budget despite more than fair concessions being made. It seems the house republicans are dead set against removing the Bush era tax cuts that got us in this fiscal mess to begin with.
Google is using it's current market dominance with Web Search and Web Advertising to also gain marketshare in the Mobile markets. How else could they afford to give away an OS for free? You don't actually think Google does it out of the kindness of their hearts?
BTW I was always able to download Netscape despite having IE installed. In fact I only used IE to install Netscape. The argument was that IE came pre-installed and therefore made it less likely for people to download a competing browser. The same thing can be said today about the default browser of many of the alternative OSes.
Because it has been shown that arbitration benefits the corporation more than the consumer.
Just because you disagreed with the court's decision doesn't mean that the court was wrong. I'm not directing that statement solely to you, I see this on both sides of the ideological aisle.
I disagree. The Great Depression demonstrated the need for the government to provide a social safety net in order to insure the general welfare of this nation. If the government hadn't introduced extraordinary measures to get the country out of the depression. We may have not remained a "first world" nation and wouldn't have had the luxury of debating the constitutionality of the Social Security Act today.
How about we don't?
Demands to raise H-1Bs sounds hollow after hearing it year-after-year-after-year since the mid 1990s as the industry grew despite dire predictions and the benefits for domestic workers haven't materialized other than the downward pressure on salaries. I find it ridiculous that congress continues to entertain the idea of importing workers whose education are subsidized by other countries while not putting much effort to improve education domestically. The H-1B program may have a great short-term benefits for corporations but it has long-term consequences for U.S. citizens.
FYI, Your sister can not be a 'law-abiding citizen' and participate in a H-1B. She is a 'law-abiding guest worker'. I'm not saying this to be harsh. I'm saying this because your statement caused confusion.
Now if your sister's professional status gave her preferred status for citizenship that would be something different entirely. She would most likely be a life long asset to her community and not just a short term worker being exploited to keep wages low.
Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[11] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
You haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of history. Why bring more superlative stuff into the discussion and why the negativity?
I'm not the one calling someone an idiot nor did I question anyone's cognitive ability. That appears to be all you.
Let me clarify things for you a little since you are upset. I didn't really want to upset anyone and I really intended "Quit trying to be a hipster and enjoy the show" to be more of humorous jab than an insult. Absolutely no insult was intended.
I "accused" the original poster of being a hipster because he used the term "geek blackface" and claiming that BBT is loathed by most people he knows. This seems counter-intuitive since the "Big Bang Theory" is currently the #1 show in syndication and the #1 show in first-run broadcast. One trait that defines hipsters is that they triy to be different from the masses. They also seem more critical of trivial things like television shows as if being critical of something someone else likes somehow elevates their authority.
Now I assumed that you consider yourself a hipster because it is quite obvious that you are being very defensive about it. So instead of entering a flamewar by firing up a vulgar insult in retaliation for you explicitly calling me an idiot simply because you disagree with my assessment of BBT, I simply described a situation where you are wearing the clothes of the stereotypical hipster. I admit it was a lame reply, but it was a gentle retort to your irrational insult. Based on your reaction, I'd think my assumption was "spot on". Not that I personally find anything wrong with the outfit.
Anyway your second reply demonstrates your need to assume that somehow you're not only more knowledgeable than me but you're into history which despite not being relevant to the conversation makes you feel superior. This to is a trait of a hipster.
How would you know? I haven't seen any facts showing any the cost of the White House event. "Sounds" is a word used by pundits to manufacture hearsay.
Cost of each travel is irrelevant. He's the president and, like all presidents before him, he flies Marine 1 and Air Force 1. He also needs a security detail, support staff, and press corp. because despite what they call it the president is never really on vacation.
Now let's get to the meat of the discussion - the frequency of trips.
If Obama averages a golf trip and vacation every 4 months then that would make the number of trips taken around 16. You want to know how many trips his predecessor made? Well Pres. G.W. Bush took 149 trips to Camp David and 77 trips to his ranch in Crawford, TX. It has been reported that Bush spent a total of 487 days at Camp David and 490 days at his Ranch. This doesn't include his trips to Martha's Vineyard.
Here's an interesting article on the topic of presidential vacations:
"President Obama in his first four years has taken 131 days, dividing his time between Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard and, of course, Camp David, the official get away of U.S. presidents. At this rate, he could hit 262 days by the end of his eighth year, about average for modern presidents.
He certainly is not the king of vacation days. That honor falls to President George W. Bush, who racked up 1,020 vacation days in his eight years in office, including one five-week vacation, the most of any president in 36 years. Not to say he wasn’t on the job when he was at his Crawford, Texas ranch, but he was away from the White House."
The next question then becomes is it justifiable? I think we all can agree the answer is yes. Regardless whoever the president may be they have a very difficult job. The stress of the job has been documented very well. It even takes a physical toll on these guys. Look at the before and after picture of each president the difference can be startling. They have to be available 365/24 and have to deal with issues like national security, world events, the hot button political issue of the day, rallying support for a budget or bill, official visits to foreign countries, almost solely held accountable for all of the domestic problems regardless of how much is really congress, and to top it all off they have to do damage control from rumors or accusations from the typical right or left wing commentator (depending on who is in office).
Nancy Regain said it best (as quoted from the article): "Presidents don’t get vacations — they just get a change of scenery. The job goes with you."
Hell by official record, you should happy that Obama has curtailed the number of vacation days and personal trips taken by the U.S. President in the past 13 years.
Sucks when recorded facts doesn't fit in with your ideological views, doesn't it?
The cost of these events are covered by the White House budget which is also operating under sequestration.
Also keep in mind that article 1 section 7 of the constitution explicitly states that:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law...