Last time I was there, I happened to stop the car in a really nice looking neighborhood in Georgetown. The house was for sale. The listing had it in the $140/sq foot range. It looked like a nice spacious house with a decent yard, looked like it probably had pretty good light, etc. I thought, "maybe I've been misled as to how horrible DC is."
Nothing came of it, of course. I have never been offered a job in DC, or even a first interview. *shrug*
>To say that the VPs office is not part of the Executive branch is not quite correct. (After further study)
Can you, using the U.S. Constitution as your source, tell us what Executive duties the Vice President has? If he is Executive, why does the Constitution define him as Legislative?
>You might want to tell the webmasters at USA.gov and Whitehouse.gov that they are misleading millions of schoolchildren by listing the VP under the >Executive branch.
Well I hardly think either of those websites will stand as authoritative, against the US Constitution, which authorizes the Vice President in Article I (defining the Legislative Branch), Section 3.
What Executive functions or duties does the Vice President perform, according to the Constitution?
>I seem to recall google having a pretty excellent benefits package in *addition* to their superior salary.
It's slightly easier to get in the door at Apple, than at Google. Google will give an internship to pretty much any CS major. They are less accommodating for entry level jobs. Mid-career entry? I haven't met anyone yet who got in. On the other hand, I know quite a few Apple employees who are colleagues of mine from past jobs. (And I seriously, seriously doubt any of them are working for the low salary noted in TFA. They made more working with me, ten years ago.)
>maybe if your spouse also has a high paying job or you had a large inheritance.
Or, as was the case in my experience when I worked in Silicon Valley, you have equity in the real estate market that pre-dates the growth of the early 90s.
Yes but a job that requires the employee to be located in any major city in California, needs to pay in the 250,000 range as a base salary, if it is expected to attract any kind of mid-career talent.
Remember, you aren't trying to recruit "kids" out of "college", that's easy. But what you want is experience -- the kind of experienced people that you need to persuade away from operating their own businesses. You don't get that for $90K in California. 90k after taxes is about 55k in California. If you already have some kind of equity in the housing market there, you can do it, but you're still looking at something on the order of 25k after expenses. It's doable, but it's not lucrative.
That said, I don't know anything about Apple's career band, or how the staff is distributed to get this "89,000" average. It could mean a whole lot of things. But I can assure you, experienced engineers at Apple are getting much more than that. One thing they aren't, is stupid.
>Much more to blame are environmentalists and other terrorists.
You misspelled "futures market traders", which, if you have a 401(k), you probably are yourself.
Neither supply, demand, nor the ratio of the two correlate to the price. Every other factor can be derived from quite transparent market trading data.
So where did the environmentalists ("and other terrorists") come in? Did the hippies simply BUY all the oil? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
> Oil is a global market --- perhaps the most globalized of all markets.
Save your breath. I've tried so many times to explain how the market has functioned, without any interference from the US government, to allow the value to reach today's level. The demand curve does not explain it, there is no correlation between supply, demand, and price, aside from trading behavior.
One person who insisted that the common person could not be part of the oil futures market, discovered that his own 401(k) had oil futures hedging a mutual fund, and that he had made money over the 2003-2008 period. He continues to insist that Bush and Cheney, somehow by making some "secret deal" have directly manipulated the oil market -- despite the fact that the oil futures markets are among the most competitive and transparent commodities markets in history.
>And so how do the people of the United States get open access to the records of the "Executive Office"?
Elect a chief executive who will make it a matter of policy to grant such access?
You could do it yourself if you could make yourself a candidate with a sufficiently broad base of appeal as to get elected. It will probably help tremendously if you first present broad and consistent appeal to one of the dominant political parties in the US, but this is not strictly necessary.
In other words, President Bush is perfectly willing to hand over amazing, near dictatorial powers, to President Obama, and Bush's powerful political is okay with this.
>I highly doubt it unless you are a US Constitutional law student.
Actually, I was studying law at the time. I'm amused that you think that in order for me to know more about it than you, I would need to have been directly involved in the case.
You're wrong. Don't attack *me*. Come to the table with facts that support your assertions, or go away.
I expected you to say that. I know a lot more about this case than you do. You are completely wrong on several points, not just the mistaken idea that President Clinton was "tried and found guilty."
You are free to believe whatever you like, but statements like this simply destroy your credibility.
>I imagine repairing a tear caused by a key, or a pocketknife, or a rock on the freeway, would be a lot less expensive if the repair consists only of >replacing a piece of fabric.
A piece of *color-matched*, BMW-branded, safety-rated fabric. But we already have a precedent: the convertible top. Have you ever priced the replacement and repair costs for a BMW convertible top? Door or boot skin will just be on that level.
Historic, in the sense of the gravity of the charges. The charges may be true, may be false, but they are among the most serious crimes ever charged against a sitting head of state.
Ask them to explain first, what the word "socialism" means, and then ask them, in the context of their own definition, to explain how that applies to the situation they've brought up by using that word.
They usually just blow a fuse on the first question, and if they make it to the second question, get stuck in a circular argument.
>The Clinton thing was blown out of proportion because they had a provable lie under oath.
Even that, as it turns out, is false. And there lies the crux of the failed impeachment against Clinton. Clinton asked the judge to define sexual relations. He then responded according to that definition. In no court in the land is that perjury.
Slashdot Mirror
>That place is a complete dump!
Last time I was there, I happened to stop the car in a really nice looking neighborhood in Georgetown.
The house was for sale. The listing had it in the $140/sq foot range. It looked like a nice spacious
house with a decent yard, looked like it probably had pretty good light, etc. I thought, "maybe I've
been misled as to how horrible DC is."
Nothing came of it, of course. I have never been offered a job in DC, or even a first interview. *shrug*
>To say that the VPs office is not part of the Executive branch is not quite correct. (After further study)
Can you, using the U.S. Constitution as your source, tell us what Executive duties the Vice President has?
If he is Executive, why does the Constitution define him as Legislative?
>You might want to tell the webmasters at USA.gov and Whitehouse.gov that they are misleading millions of schoolchildren by listing the VP under the
>Executive branch.
Well I hardly think either of those websites will stand as authoritative, against the US Constitution, which authorizes the Vice President in Article I (defining the Legislative Branch), Section 3.
What Executive functions or duties does the Vice President perform, according to the Constitution?
>Then why doesn't anyone call him on his bullshit when he tries to pull the "Executive Privilege" line?
He has not, actually, done this. Quite the opposite. He consistently refused to invoke executive privilege.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040702.html
So where are you going with this?
Can't see the screenshots.
>I seem to recall google having a pretty excellent benefits package in *addition* to their superior salary.
It's slightly easier to get in the door at Apple, than at Google.
Google will give an internship to pretty much any CS major. They are less
accommodating for entry level jobs. Mid-career entry? I haven't met anyone
yet who got in. On the other hand, I know quite a few Apple employees who
are colleagues of mine from past jobs. (And I seriously, seriously doubt any
of them are working for the low salary noted in TFA. They made more working with me,
ten years ago.)
>maybe if your spouse also has a high paying job or you had a large inheritance.
Or, as was the case in my experience when I worked in Silicon Valley, you have equity in the real estate market that pre-dates the growth of the early 90s.
>There's more to a job than the salary.
Yes but a job that requires the employee to be located in any major city in California, needs to pay in the 250,000 range as a base salary, if it is expected to attract any kind of mid-career talent.
Remember, you aren't trying to recruit "kids" out of "college", that's easy. But what you want is experience -- the kind of experienced people that you need to persuade away from operating their own businesses. You don't get that for $90K in California. 90k after taxes is about 55k in California. If you already have some kind of equity in the housing market there, you can do it, but you're still looking at something on the order of 25k after expenses. It's doable, but it's not lucrative.
That said, I don't know anything about Apple's career band, or how the staff is distributed to get this "89,000" average. It could mean a whole lot of things. But I can assure you, experienced engineers at Apple are getting much more than that. One thing they aren't, is stupid.
>I'm looking at you Pelosi
So in other words, bringing the case and the evidence to the table is somebody else's responsibility, not yours.
>Much more to blame are environmentalists and other terrorists.
You misspelled "futures market traders", which, if you have a 401(k), you probably are yourself.
Neither supply, demand, nor the ratio of the two correlate to the price. Every other factor
can be derived from quite transparent market trading data.
So where did the environmentalists ("and other terrorists") come in? Did the hippies simply BUY all the oil?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
> Oil is a global market --- perhaps the most globalized of all markets.
Save your breath. I've tried so many times to explain how the market has functioned,
without any interference from the US government, to allow the value to reach today's level.
The demand curve does not explain it, there is no correlation between supply, demand, and price,
aside from trading behavior.
One person who insisted that the common person could not be part of the oil futures market,
discovered that his own 401(k) had oil futures hedging a mutual fund, and that he had made
money over the 2003-2008 period. He continues to insist that Bush and Cheney, somehow by making
some "secret deal" have directly manipulated the oil market -- despite the fact that the oil futures markets
are among the most competitive and transparent commodities markets in history.
People believe what they want to believe.
>And so the information stays in a lockbox forever,
Insofar as it exists and is preserved, this is not the case. "Forever != 12 years".
" information which should be public knowledge"
A matter of opinion not supported by law...
" and which could incriminate the heads of the administration"
A matter of pure speculation not supported by evidence.
" which would then affect the judicial branch and make the legislative branch look really, really good."
Even deeper speculation.
>The probably contain evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors
Then the Senate could execute discovery on them.
Why haven't you persuaded a majority of the Senate to do so?
>And so how do the people of the United States get open access to the records of the "Executive Office"?
Elect a chief executive who will make it a matter of policy to grant such access?
You could do it yourself if you could make yourself a candidate with a sufficiently broad base of appeal as to get elected.
It will probably help tremendously if you first present broad and consistent appeal to one of the dominant political parties
in the US, but this is not strictly necessary.
>Cheney says the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive branch.
He is correct. The Vice President's primary duty is to serve as President of the Senate.
In other words, President Bush is perfectly willing to hand over amazing, near dictatorial powers, to President Obama,
and Bush's powerful political is okay with this.
Okay then.
>I highly doubt it unless you are a US Constitutional law student.
Actually, I was studying law at the time.
I'm amused that you think that in order for me to know more about it than you,
I would need to have been directly involved in the case.
You're wrong. Don't attack *me*. Come to the table with facts that support your assertions, or go away.
>He was tried and found guilty
I expected you to say that. I know a lot more about this case than you do.
You are completely wrong on several points, not just the mistaken idea that
President Clinton was "tried and found guilty."
You are free to believe whatever you like, but statements like this simply destroy your credibility.
>I imagine repairing a tear caused by a key, or a pocketknife, or a rock on the freeway, would be a lot less expensive if the repair consists only of
>replacing a piece of fabric.
A piece of *color-matched*, BMW-branded, safety-rated fabric. But we already have a precedent: the convertible top.
Have you ever priced the replacement and repair costs for a BMW convertible top? Door or boot skin will just be on that level.
>Historic, maybe.
Historic, in the sense of the gravity of the charges.
The charges may be true, may be false, but they are among the most serious crimes
ever charged against a sitting head of state.
>Clinton was impeached just not removed from office
Yes. That means he was accused of a crime, tried, and acquitted. Your point?
>How is FUD like this anything but a troll?
Ask them to explain first, what the word "socialism" means,
and then ask them, in the context of their own definition,
to explain how that applies to the situation they've brought
up by using that word.
They usually just blow a fuse on the first question, and if they
make it to the second question, get stuck in a circular argument.
>Kerry. He's such a loser.
You must be a *very* successful person, to be able to say that.
How is it that you find time to post on slashdot?
It's clear you've never worked in a government bureaucracy before.
>The Clinton thing was blown out of proportion because they had a provable lie under oath.
Even that, as it turns out, is false. And there lies the crux of the failed impeachment against Clinton.
Clinton asked the judge to define sexual relations. He then responded according to that definition.
In no court in the land is that perjury.