OHHHHHH, bureaucracy! So net neutrality must be bad!
How about a system that lets PEOPLE compete competitively with multi-billion dollar corporations? Entry into the market place can be easily restricted to those with large amounts of money without net neutrality.
Well if you move to a third world country where people often have to move about to work and can't afford the level of calorie intake a Westerner has, as a means of stretching your retirement money then you will be able to consume just as many calories and be just as sedentary as in the US. Literally, the reason to move to a third world nation for retirement is so that you can continue an American life style but in a far cheaper manner.
I really don't understand why I needed to explain that by the way.
But how much of that is due to quality of healthcare and how much of that is due to Americans being the fattest people on the planet?
Life expectancy is a good way to see how healthy people are in a given place. It has turned into a far less perfect metric for determining quality of healthcare with the increasingly unhealthy lifestyles the West is living. All the quality healthcare in the world can't do much for some one 200lbs over weight.
That might make sense for the first decade of retirement but as one starts to rack up all the health issues that start to come with old age, cheap rent may not seem so great when dealing with third world medical systems.
Wow, way to ignore everything I said but one point. As I stated before, your advice is the pathway to mediocrity. If you have significant amounts of time to slack off then you should be asking for more work and not just looking busy otherwise you just look like everyone else who took longer to finish. This is how I have advanced my own career and it is the people who do this whose careers I now help to advance.
Your boss in your initial story had the same problem with you that I would have, you don't seem to have a strong work ethic. The worst part is that in a 15 year old this is understandable, as an adult though, stating that was what you learned from that event I find disconcerting.
You know what works a million times better? Not slacking off when you're done. Go ask your boss for more work and pretty soon you'll be a favorite rather than just coasting along. That is, unless he's a terrible boss in which case you should find another job.
Your advice seems like a solid path towards mediocrity. Take some pride in your work.
Plenty of news sites/publications have an "on the lighter side" section. These are stories that are generally of little importance but people often find them amusing. In this case, many find it amusing to see the lengths a flat earther will take their beliefs and for those of us with any science education it's seeing the 101 glaring problems with his plan. It's an amusing distraction.
Way to not understand reality! The franchise agreements were generally a way of getting private enterprise to connect people when it wasn't immediately profitable for private enterprise. It was government trying to make private enterprise work for everyone.
Really, for such an essential service it should have been government providing it much like water, law enforcement, or schooling.
Private enterprise would never ever work on its own to connect everyone without government help. There's no money to be made in it.
What a world of ignorance you live in. There is an entire Western world outside of our own that has perfectly healthy economies (think Germany, UK, Australia, and Canada to name a few) that have socialized medicine. No one who finds themselves ill due to genetic disease, cancer, or any other form of illness ever has to worry about impoverishing their families in these societies.
Really it sounds like some sort of crazy utopia to Americans and yet it's something that is regularly enjoyed by country's that are far less wealthy than ours. The reality is we are poorer than these nations for this.
You're comparison of socialized medicine to country's that were massively corrupt and/or miss-run really betrays your willful ignorance of the subject.
You don't seem to understand the difference between possibly colluding with an adversarial nation to get dirt on an opponent and paying not an adversarial nation for dirt on an opponent. One is bad, the other is infinity worse though (hint: adversary).
Trump is an idiot, sure. That does not at absolve him of Russian involvement though. Meanwhile a government checking out potential foreign ties of a future leader seems awfully prudent, don't you think? Sure, one can claim political favoritism in this case but one can just as easily claim the desire to not want our leaders influenced by adversarial nations. Trump has a number of arrows that point from him to Russia, investigating that is not at all unreasonable.
My dad is in the VA health system. He has a hospital bed and an electric wheel chair that they have provided and gets regular physical therapy in the hopes that we can get him walking again.
So were you pointing out how awesome VA coverage is as a means of reinforcing the above's claims?
You strike me as a "fairy tale" liberal. This is a liberal who believes that we can have everything great, all the time, in an affordable manner, and in a way that acknowledges free will. Your living wage solution to the housing shortage is a blatant giveaway to this; giving people more money to chase after a scarce resource solves nothing, the resource is still scarce. Likewise with your solutions that have absolutely no means of implementation. I suspect you're just naive.
"Real life" liberals like myself, acknowledge reality. You can't have a highly desirable place to live and not allow for growth without repressing the working class. It's literally impossible. At the end of the day, a housing shortage is a housing shortage no matter how you want to frame it and not working to solve it will harm the lowest income people far more than anything else. Hence my description of the liberals who favor maintaining their small towns as "false liberals". They're literally subscribing to the tenets of conservatism in their objections to growth. Maintaining the old is literally conservative politics.
You live in a dream world where the people of silicon valley can maintain the past without acknowledging the present.
After thought, even it was truely the will of the people that would still make them false liberals (if they call themselves as such) so this line of conversation is irrelevant.
Quit having offices! Alright, so how do we do that? Clearly these company's think it is worth the money to maintain them or they wouldnt still be doing it.
The company's should move! Alright, so how does that happen. They clearly see advantages to staying in the valley or they would have moved already.
Pay a living wage! I am generally in favor of living wages but a living wage does absolutly nothing to solve a housing shortage. Everyone is still competing over the same scarce resources, the bids just go higher.
Sorry, but you havent suggested a working solution yet to the housing ahortage and the resulting poverty.
"This IS what the people want.."
No, it's what the elected officials that the voters elect want, not the people in general and the lower ones income the less likely one is to vote
You don't pay attention to earthquake news much do you? Modern cities with modern buildings don't suffer much damage in earthquakes due to modern engineering practices that are required by local governments in the construction of large buildings. Large buildings in modern societies general don't topple over in hurricanes either.
The more I talk to you the more I feel like I'm talking to a child. Lots of name calling and no substance.
I'll break it down for you as simply as I can. If city housing planning doesnt allow for housing growth to meet demand, as it does not in silicon valley, then it is hindering supply in the face of demand (in this case, overwhelming demand). I've never said other factors don't come into play with growth (you're just making things up there) but there is a very obvious road block to housing growth in silicon valley and that is its various local government's irresponsible policies on growth. To put it at its simplest, if government wont let supply growth happen at anywhere close to demand then all other factors don't really matter. Supply will never meet demand because the government literally has polices in place that won't let it.
"I'm from a farming family from the Midwest. I moved out at 18. If you're talking manual labor son I've done and seen more than my fair share. "
You didn't understand what I was getting at here at all. Working the family farm as a child has nothing to do with this. You never had to pay the bills, put food on the table, or any of the other things adults worry over. My point was not about hard manual labor, I was talking about grown adults who bust their asses every day for very little money. Now imagine not being able to find decent place to live, not because you arent willing to work, but because you happen to be in the bottom half of income earners in your area. So you share a room with another person in a house with 2 other families in it and still pay half your income on rent.
"Chief, those valley residents feel the housing pinch as much as anyone. Secondly I was arguing that your proposed solution of building nothing but 20 story tall skyscrapers goes against what ANY Valley resident wants. Why? The view, the atmosphere, the fact that the city isn't choking like Manhattan is? You've yet to propose anything other than your 20 story skyscraper metropolis. My concept would actually result in more land being develop-able into apartment complexes that don't need to span 20 stories tall."
Please, tell me friend, if allowing cities to grow upwards isn't the solution to the problems that are impoverishing the people of the valley and is such a truly awful idea then what might a better one be? A quarter of the population is food insecure? That's not America, that's boarding on the third world. Over regulation by government is choking these people. If the region had been allowed to grow like our current major cities life would be far better for the bottom half of that region.
My tiny brain? What an idiot you are. We are talking about very simple supply and demand concepts here and you tell me I have a tiny brain because I acknowledge fundamental truths.You can't fix a supply shortage with wishful thinking, you can only fix it by increasing supplies. There is a truly massive shortage of housing in the valley, well above and beyond anything happening in New York, and it is due to a complete denial of reality. If any of our major cities took this approach a century ago we wouldn't have one of our major cities.
You speak like some one who either still lives with their parents or rolled from parents to parents funding college to nice job with no concept of what real labor means for a lot of people. Every single six figure silicon valley worker who votes against improving housing conditions is no liberal no matter how much they lavish praise on gay rights and the like. Living in poverty as so much of the valley has been forced into has always been perfectly avoidable if only voters gave a shit.
It makes me sick that so many valley residents are willing to vote against proper growth while looking in the eye the people who sell them their food who live four families per single family home just to make things work. This is the reality of Silicon Valley and is increasingly the reality of other Leftist communities who find their affluent partners are no better than far right conservatives.
The Left is about prosperity for all, first, second, third, and fourth. Silicon Valley's growth plan has been pure conservative "I have mine and mine is mine" and yet so much of the valley likes to pretend at leftism.
Then obviously New York isn't getting enough built to catch up with demand. This is a very simple supply and demand equation. If silicon valley had zoned to allow more housing then prices wouldnt have risen if not at all then not nearly as quickly. Keeping small town levels of housing when there are big city levels of demand is just setting up the bottom quarter for poverty living.
Also, we are a long ways away from reaching the limits of population growth in any major US city I can think of off the top of my head
The vast majority of this is the fault of shit hole city planning and false liberals. Everything within a half hour drive of google or apple headquarters should be 20+ story buildings and largly would be if zoned appropriately. It's the "perserving" of the old communities that has created a completely unsustainable environment for working class people. Far to many "liberals" are happy to maintain backwards city planning that leaves the working class impoverished so they maintain their own property values and quaint downtowns at the expense of any type of livable environment for those who sell them their food.
I live in the Northbay of California (an hourish drive from SF) and we're experiencing the same thing up here (to a lesser degree of course). Tons of "liberals" who demonstratably don't give a rats ass about anyone earning less than 50k.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I think about your mother sometimes. What's your point?
OHHHHHH, bureaucracy! So net neutrality must be bad!
How about a system that lets PEOPLE compete competitively with multi-billion dollar corporations? Entry into the market place can be easily restricted to those with large amounts of money without net neutrality.
Well if you move to a third world country where people often have to move about to work and can't afford the level of calorie intake a Westerner has, as a means of stretching your retirement money then you will be able to consume just as many calories and be just as sedentary as in the US. Literally, the reason to move to a third world nation for retirement is so that you can continue an American life style but in a far cheaper manner.
I really don't understand why I needed to explain that by the way.
But how much of that is due to quality of healthcare and how much of that is due to Americans being the fattest people on the planet?
Life expectancy is a good way to see how healthy people are in a given place. It has turned into a far less perfect metric for determining quality of healthcare with the increasingly unhealthy lifestyles the West is living. All the quality healthcare in the world can't do much for some one 200lbs over weight.
That might make sense for the first decade of retirement but as one starts to rack up all the health issues that start to come with old age, cheap rent may not seem so great when dealing with third world medical systems.
Yeah, that's why I suggest asking for more when what is assigned is finished. That's just a brilliant deduction you have come up with there.
Wow, way to ignore everything I said but one point. As I stated before, your advice is the pathway to mediocrity. If you have significant amounts of time to slack off then you should be asking for more work and not just looking busy otherwise you just look like everyone else who took longer to finish. This is how I have advanced my own career and it is the people who do this whose careers I now help to advance.
Your boss in your initial story had the same problem with you that I would have, you don't seem to have a strong work ethic. The worst part is that in a 15 year old this is understandable, as an adult though, stating that was what you learned from that event I find disconcerting.
Definition of civil rights for English Language Learners
: the rights that every person should have regardless of his or her sex, race, or religion
I wonder if it will be a true 10mbps or if it will be like my service where I'm subscribed for 25mbps but get at most 8mbps (at 3am on a weeknight)
You know what works a million times better? Not slacking off when you're done. Go ask your boss for more work and pretty soon you'll be a favorite rather than just coasting along. That is, unless he's a terrible boss in which case you should find another job.
Your advice seems like a solid path towards mediocrity. Take some pride in your work.
Do you get outraged every time some one else finds something funny that you dont or did I just catch you on a bad day?
Plenty of news sites/publications have an "on the lighter side" section. These are stories that are generally of little importance but people often find them amusing. In this case, many find it amusing to see the lengths a flat earther will take their beliefs and for those of us with any science education it's seeing the 101 glaring problems with his plan. It's an amusing distraction.
As an example: http://www.bbc.com/news/also_i...
If you don't get it that's fine, feel free to be outraged. That's what it's doing on slashdot and in the news though.
Way to not understand reality! The franchise agreements were generally a way of getting private enterprise to connect people when it wasn't immediately profitable for private enterprise. It was government trying to make private enterprise work for everyone.
Really, for such an essential service it should have been government providing it much like water, law enforcement, or schooling.
Private enterprise would never ever work on its own to connect everyone without government help. There's no money to be made in it.
What a world of ignorance you live in. There is an entire Western world outside of our own that has perfectly healthy economies (think Germany, UK, Australia, and Canada to name a few) that have socialized medicine. No one who finds themselves ill due to genetic disease, cancer, or any other form of illness ever has to worry about impoverishing their families in these societies.
Really it sounds like some sort of crazy utopia to Americans and yet it's something that is regularly enjoyed by country's that are far less wealthy than ours. The reality is we are poorer than these nations for this.
You're comparison of socialized medicine to country's that were massively corrupt and/or miss-run really betrays your willful ignorance of the subject.
Cat's are homicidal maniacs.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
Maybe get a dog. They're generally smart enough to know what not to kill.
You don't seem to understand the difference between possibly colluding with an adversarial nation to get dirt on an opponent and paying not an adversarial nation for dirt on an opponent. One is bad, the other is infinity worse though (hint: adversary).
Trump is an idiot, sure. That does not at absolve him of Russian involvement though. Meanwhile a government checking out potential foreign ties of a future leader seems awfully prudent, don't you think? Sure, one can claim political favoritism in this case but one can just as easily claim the desire to not want our leaders influenced by adversarial nations. Trump has a number of arrows that point from him to Russia, investigating that is not at all unreasonable.
My dad is in the VA health system. He has a hospital bed and an electric wheel chair that they have provided and gets regular physical therapy in the hopes that we can get him walking again.
So were you pointing out how awesome VA coverage is as a means of reinforcing the above's claims?
You strike me as a "fairy tale" liberal. This is a liberal who believes that we can have everything great, all the time, in an affordable manner, and in a way that acknowledges free will. Your living wage solution to the housing shortage is a blatant giveaway to this; giving people more money to chase after a scarce resource solves nothing, the resource is still scarce. Likewise with your solutions that have absolutely no means of implementation. I suspect you're just naive.
"Real life" liberals like myself, acknowledge reality. You can't have a highly desirable place to live and not allow for growth without repressing the working class. It's literally impossible. At the end of the day, a housing shortage is a housing shortage no matter how you want to frame it and not working to solve it will harm the lowest income people far more than anything else. Hence my description of the liberals who favor maintaining their small towns as "false liberals". They're literally subscribing to the tenets of conservatism in their objections to growth. Maintaining the old is literally conservative politics.
You live in a dream world where the people of silicon valley can maintain the past without acknowledging the present.
After thought, even it was truely the will of the people that would still make them false liberals (if they call themselves as such) so this line of conversation is irrelevant.
Quit having offices! Alright, so how do we do that? Clearly these company's think it is worth the money to maintain them or they wouldnt still be doing it.
The company's should move! Alright, so how does that happen. They clearly see advantages to staying in the valley or they would have moved already.
Pay a living wage! I am generally in favor of living wages but a living wage does absolutly nothing to solve a housing shortage. Everyone is still competing over the same scarce resources, the bids just go higher.
Sorry, but you havent suggested a working solution yet to the housing ahortage and the resulting poverty.
"This IS what the people want.."
No, it's what the elected officials that the voters elect want, not the people in general and the lower ones income the less likely one is to vote
You don't pay attention to earthquake news much do you? Modern cities with modern buildings don't suffer much damage in earthquakes due to modern engineering practices that are required by local governments in the construction of large buildings. Large buildings in modern societies general don't topple over in hurricanes either.
The more I talk to you the more I feel like I'm talking to a child. Lots of name calling and no substance.
I'll break it down for you as simply as I can. If city housing planning doesnt allow for housing growth to meet demand, as it does not in silicon valley, then it is hindering supply in the face of demand (in this case, overwhelming demand). I've never said other factors don't come into play with growth (you're just making things up there) but there is a very obvious road block to housing growth in silicon valley and that is its various local government's irresponsible policies on growth. To put it at its simplest, if government wont let supply growth happen at anywhere close to demand then all other factors don't really matter. Supply will never meet demand because the government literally has polices in place that won't let it.
"I'm from a farming family from the Midwest. I moved out at 18. If you're talking manual labor son I've done and seen more than my fair share. "
You didn't understand what I was getting at here at all. Working the family farm as a child has nothing to do with this. You never had to pay the bills, put food on the table, or any of the other things adults worry over. My point was not about hard manual labor, I was talking about grown adults who bust their asses every day for very little money. Now imagine not being able to find decent place to live, not because you arent willing to work, but because you happen to be in the bottom half of income earners in your area. So you share a room with another person in a house with 2 other families in it and still pay half your income on rent.
"Chief, those valley residents feel the housing pinch as much as anyone. Secondly I was arguing that your proposed solution of building nothing but 20 story tall skyscrapers goes against what ANY Valley resident wants. Why? The view, the atmosphere, the fact that the city isn't choking like Manhattan is? You've yet to propose anything other than your 20 story skyscraper metropolis. My concept would actually result in more land being develop-able into apartment complexes that don't need to span 20 stories tall."
Please, tell me friend, if allowing cities to grow upwards isn't the solution to the problems that are impoverishing the people of the valley and is such a truly awful idea then what might a better one be? A quarter of the population is food insecure? That's not America, that's boarding on the third world. Over regulation by government is choking these people. If the region had been allowed to grow like our current major cities life would be far better for the bottom half of that region.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/foo...
My tiny brain? What an idiot you are. We are talking about very simple supply and demand concepts here and you tell me I have a tiny brain because I acknowledge fundamental truths.You can't fix a supply shortage with wishful thinking, you can only fix it by increasing supplies. There is a truly massive shortage of housing in the valley, well above and beyond anything happening in New York, and it is due to a complete denial of reality. If any of our major cities took this approach a century ago we wouldn't have one of our major cities.
You speak like some one who either still lives with their parents or rolled from parents to parents funding college to nice job with no concept of what real labor means for a lot of people. Every single six figure silicon valley worker who votes against improving housing conditions is no liberal no matter how much they lavish praise on gay rights and the like. Living in poverty as so much of the valley has been forced into has always been perfectly avoidable if only voters gave a shit.
It makes me sick that so many valley residents are willing to vote against proper growth while looking in the eye the people who sell them their food who live four families per single family home just to make things work. This is the reality of Silicon Valley and is increasingly the reality of other Leftist communities who find their affluent partners are no better than far right conservatives.
The Left is about prosperity for all, first, second, third, and fourth. Silicon Valley's growth plan has been pure conservative "I have mine and mine is mine" and yet so much of the valley likes to pretend at leftism.
Then obviously New York isn't getting enough built to catch up with demand. This is a very simple supply and demand equation. If silicon valley had zoned to allow more housing then prices wouldnt have risen if not at all then not nearly as quickly. Keeping small town levels of housing when there are big city levels of demand is just setting up the bottom quarter for poverty living.
Also, we are a long ways away from reaching the limits of population growth in any major US city I can think of off the top of my head
The vast majority of this is the fault of shit hole city planning and false liberals. Everything within a half hour drive of google or apple headquarters should be 20+ story buildings and largly would be if zoned appropriately. It's the "perserving" of the old communities that has created a completely unsustainable environment for working class people. Far to many "liberals" are happy to maintain backwards city planning that leaves the working class impoverished so they maintain their own property values and quaint downtowns at the expense of any type of livable environment for those who sell them their food.
I live in the Northbay of California (an hourish drive from SF) and we're experiencing the same thing up here (to a lesser degree of course). Tons of "liberals" who demonstratably don't give a rats ass about anyone earning less than 50k.