I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
You know, I agree that the quality of editing at/. is at an all-time low. Having said that, it's bad enough when people complain that TFS doesn't contain all the details to be found in TFA, but the headline?? Seriously? Read. The. Fucking. Article.
In the absence of more targeted grant or scholarship programs, more people are taking out student loans, and they are borrowing more. All that borrowing adds up to a total of $1.3 trillion, nearly triple what it was a decade ago.
Their math is still wrong but your reading comprehension is too.
The "debt has tripled" refers to the total outstanding debt, not the average borrower's debt. But then, you'd have to RTFA to know that, so you get a pass on that. The hint is in the headline ("Student Debt", not "Average Student Debt"), but given the average quality of Slashdot headlines these days, you get a pass on that as well.
34 / (34 - 20) = 2.4%
Say what? Drop the percent sign and you're approximately right. I'm just not sure what it has to do with the topic under discussion.
The guidance memo is predictably obtuse and a little difficult to penetrate. What I got out of it is basically "Just because a position requires a BS degree does not mean the position qualifies for H1-B approval." In particular, the memo warns applicants against basing their claims on the creation of "a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement."
I don't think so, although they're probably a lot like other Silicon Valley/San Francisco companies. Reading TFA, it's pretty obvious they have no idea how to run a successful flight test program. Here's a hint: it's not at all like crash-developing a social media app or ways to track your "customers".
Yeah I missed that. The obvious solution is for the landlord and his preferred tenant to collude: Landlord asks an artificially high price. Tenant agrees to that price. Landlord then kicks back to the tenant the difference between the agreed-upon price and fair market value. Tenant and landlord are happy; Rentberry gets nothing.
After reading the recommendations, computer programmers as a profession are not being limited. Programmers who only have an associates degree will be limited. I'm not sure how many H1-B holders only have associates degrees, but I haven't met any.
I read both of TFAs, and I didn't find any reference to associates degrees. Maybe I missed something along the way, so I'll apologize in advance if that's so. But I did see something on the Bureau of Labor Statistics site's page on Computer Programmers that might be a clue as to just how, uh, clueless our Federal government is when it comes to this sort of thing:
What Computer Programmers Do
Computer programmers write and test code that allows computer applications and software programs to function properly. They turn the program designs created by software developers and engineers into instructions that a computer can follow.
From TFS: For now, Rentberry charges users a $25 fee, but in the future, it plans to charge 25 percent of the difference between the asking price and the agreed upon rent.
So if the agreed upon rent is lower than the asking price (i.e., all of the bids are below asking price), does Rentberry pay the user 25% of the difference each month? And by the way, is "the user" the landlord or the renter?
the claim you made that every employer required people to be fully covered is BS>
His example was an industrial accident. The employee's health care coverage, if they have any, wouldn't be involved, as this is covered by Workers' Compensation.
Yeah, tell us more about how awesome you are. That totally helps people.
If your intention is to brag, bravo!. If you have some sort of desire to help or influence people, your failing.
I'm not trying to help or influence people either; just making an observation. I feel sympathy for people who live in poverty due to circumstances beyond their control, and those people need to be helped. I don't feel sympathy for people who are lucky enough to be making a decent salary but dig themselves into a debt hole because they have an itch they can't afford to scratch, but insist on scratching it anyway.
Depending on the area, $100k can be tight for a family with 2 kids.
Any income can be tight regardless of kids or area if you don't have a budget and the discipline to adhere to it, and you're unwilling or unable to curb your appetite for what the marketeers want you to view as "the finer things of life". In 1976 I worked in Manhattan, commuting from just across the Hudson in New Jersey; single-income household with a wife and one child, on a salary of $15,000 (equivalent to just over $60K in today's dollars), and while we weren't living high off the hog, we were comfortable and were able to put some money aside in savings. Of course, given the era -- no cellphones, no cable subscription, no ISP.
I'm amazed that anyone here would try equating "the Internet" with some limited number of physical objects.
I would be amazed by that as well. Of course, I didn't compare "the internet" to cars. I compared the ability of car manufacturers' ability to craft policy to the ability of ISPs to craft policy.
If you didn't know, the way car manufacturers cope with the California emissions standards is by making cars that comply with those standards. Those cars are referred to as "50 state compliant', a class that includes almost all cars manufactured for sale in the United States. A small number of cars are "49 state compliant", which means they can't be sold in California. Not being able to sell your car in California means you miss out on a significant portion of the US market.
If enough states pass laws similar to Minnesota's, the ISPs will most likely cope by complying with those laws everywhere, because the cost of sorting the traffic covered by those laws from the traffic that isn't, will be higher than the potential revenue to be gained by selling information gleaned from the traffic not covered by the laws.
I believe the appropriate response here is "whoosh".
Though to be honest, "acute" would only be appropriate if the guardian angle was between 0 and 90 degrees. If it was between 90 and 180, "obtuse" would be more fitting.
I mildly suspect that it's the number of ISPs who <i>admit</i> to selling information is zero.
You're right, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the long term (i.e., except for the recent few months), the joint resolution doesn't change anything.
From your linked article: "Nine percent of those earning $100,000 or more each year felt they usually or always live paycheck-to-paycheck, while 23 percent of those making between $50,000 and $99,999 also described living paycheck-to-paycheck, and 51 percent of those earning less than $50,000 met the description."
I have sympathy for low earners, and I understand why a lot of them live from one paycheck to the next. Been there, done that. But 1 out of 10 earning $100K or more? That sounds like a combination of poor money management skills combined with low impulse control. Even in high-cost areas, $100K+ should be enough to accumulate an adequate cushion (again, been there and done that) unless you're saddled with student loan debt and you're wearing out your credit cards.
The Minnesota ruling simply rolls back the law, last weeks congress vote simply removed the consent requirement. This is how it's been for many years and the number of ISPs selling user data is zero!
The consent requirement was not a law; it was an FCC regulation. What Congress passed recently was not a law, but a joint resolution.
The consent requirement was only in effect for a few months, so killing it does not upend any long-standing privacy related policy.
How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.
Maybe something similar to the way auto manufacturers cope with the fact that California has different emissions requirements than other states.
Not being able to spell "losing" is bad. Not being able to spell it when it's in the bloody headline you just read, that's a whole other level of stupid.
I agree that the inability to distinguish between "losing" and "loosing" is bad. But suggesting the use of Slashdot article headlines as guides to spelling, syntax, or grammar is just wrong.
That's standard. Pretty much every law that's passed has a clause at the end exempting Congress from having to obey the law.
I don't know whether or not that is true. However, this is not a law but a joint resolution stating, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
That's it. There is no language in SJ Res 34 that exempts Congress or anyone else.
Just wanted to point out that a successful head transplant does not necessarily result in a body with only one head. Just ask Roosevelt Grier and Ray Milland.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
You know, I agree that the quality of editing at /. is at an all-time low. Having said that, it's bad enough when people complain that TFS doesn't contain all the details to be found in TFA, but the headline?? Seriously? Read. The. Fucking. Article.
In the absence of more targeted grant or scholarship programs, more people are taking out student loans, and they are borrowing more. All that borrowing adds up to a total of $1.3 trillion, nearly triple what it was a decade ago.
Their math is still wrong but your reading comprehension is too.
The "debt has tripled" refers to the total outstanding debt, not the average borrower's debt. But then, you'd have to RTFA to know that, so you get a pass on that. The hint is in the headline ("Student Debt", not "Average Student Debt"), but given the average quality of Slashdot headlines these days, you get a pass on that as well.
34 / (34 - 20) = 2.4%
Say what? Drop the percent sign and you're approximately right. I'm just not sure what it has to do with the topic under discussion.
The guidance memo is predictably obtuse and a little difficult to penetrate. What I got out of it is basically "Just because a position requires a BS degree does not mean the position qualifies for H1-B approval." In particular, the memo warns applicants against basing their claims on the creation of "a generic (and essentially artificial) degree requirement."
Google is a company like any other.
I don't think so, although they're probably a lot like other Silicon Valley/San Francisco companies. Reading TFA, it's pretty obvious they have no idea how to run a successful flight test program. Here's a hint: it's not at all like crash-developing a social media app or ways to track your "customers".
Yeah I missed that. The obvious solution is for the landlord and his preferred tenant to collude: Landlord asks an artificially high price. Tenant agrees to that price. Landlord then kicks back to the tenant the difference between the agreed-upon price and fair market value. Tenant and landlord are happy; Rentberry gets nothing.
After reading the recommendations, computer programmers as a profession are not being limited. Programmers who only have an associates degree will be limited. I'm not sure how many H1-B holders only have associates degrees, but I haven't met any.
I read both of TFAs, and I didn't find any reference to associates degrees. Maybe I missed something along the way, so I'll apologize in advance if that's so. But I did see something on the Bureau of Labor Statistics site's page on Computer Programmers that might be a clue as to just how, uh, clueless our Federal government is when it comes to this sort of thing:
From TFS: For now, Rentberry charges users a $25 fee, but in the future, it plans to charge 25 percent of the difference between the asking price and the agreed upon rent.
So if the agreed upon rent is lower than the asking price (i.e., all of the bids are below asking price), does Rentberry pay the user 25% of the difference each month? And by the way, is "the user" the landlord or the renter?
They will advertise cheap hotel rooms but those have the worst views of the garbage dump.
That's a pisser. I'd rather pay a little more and get the best view of the garbage dump.
Care to offer up some sources for that? Without sources, all I see is someone pulling numbers out of his ass.
Don't be so lazy. Google "tv writer compensation" and see what you get.
the claim you made that every employer required people to be fully covered is BS>
His example was an industrial accident. The employee's health care coverage, if they have any, wouldn't be involved, as this is covered by Workers' Compensation.
Yeah, tell us more about how awesome you are. That totally helps people. If your intention is to brag, bravo!. If you have some sort of desire to help or influence people, your failing.
I'm not trying to help or influence people either; just making an observation. I feel sympathy for people who live in poverty due to circumstances beyond their control, and those people need to be helped. I don't feel sympathy for people who are lucky enough to be making a decent salary but dig themselves into a debt hole because they have an itch they can't afford to scratch, but insist on scratching it anyway.
Current deliveries are done by trucks, are drones louder than trucks?
Not necessarily louder, but a much more annoying frequency spectrum.
Depending on the area, $100k can be tight for a family with 2 kids.
Any income can be tight regardless of kids or area if you don't have a budget and the discipline to adhere to it, and you're unwilling or unable to curb your appetite for what the marketeers want you to view as "the finer things of life". In 1976 I worked in Manhattan, commuting from just across the Hudson in New Jersey; single-income household with a wife and one child, on a salary of $15,000 (equivalent to just over $60K in today's dollars), and while we weren't living high off the hog, we were comfortable and were able to put some money aside in savings. Of course, given the era -- no cellphones, no cable subscription, no ISP.
I'm amazed that anyone here would try equating "the Internet" with some limited number of physical objects.
I would be amazed by that as well. Of course, I didn't compare "the internet" to cars. I compared the ability of car manufacturers' ability to craft policy to the ability of ISPs to craft policy.
If you didn't know, the way car manufacturers cope with the California emissions standards is by making cars that comply with those standards. Those cars are referred to as "50 state compliant', a class that includes almost all cars manufactured for sale in the United States. A small number of cars are "49 state compliant", which means they can't be sold in California. Not being able to sell your car in California means you miss out on a significant portion of the US market.
If enough states pass laws similar to Minnesota's, the ISPs will most likely cope by complying with those laws everywhere, because the cost of sorting the traffic covered by those laws from the traffic that isn't, will be higher than the potential revenue to be gained by selling information gleaned from the traffic not covered by the laws.
Maybe they have 6 or 7 kids?
Like I said, poor impulse control.
I believe the appropriate response here is "whoosh".
Though to be honest, "acute" would only be appropriate if the guardian angle was between 0 and 90 degrees. If it was between 90 and 180, "obtuse" would be more fitting.
I mildly suspect that it's the number of ISPs who <i>admit</i> to selling information is zero.
You're right, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the long term (i.e., except for the recent few months), the joint resolution doesn't change anything.
From your linked article: "Nine percent of those earning $100,000 or more each year felt they usually or always live paycheck-to-paycheck, while 23 percent of those making between $50,000 and $99,999 also described living paycheck-to-paycheck, and 51 percent of those earning less than $50,000 met the description."
I have sympathy for low earners, and I understand why a lot of them live from one paycheck to the next. Been there, done that. But 1 out of 10 earning $100K or more? That sounds like a combination of poor money management skills combined with low impulse control. Even in high-cost areas, $100K+ should be enough to accumulate an adequate cushion (again, been there and done that) unless you're saddled with student loan debt and you're wearing out your credit cards.
The Minnesota ruling simply rolls back the law, last weeks congress vote simply removed the consent requirement. This is how it's been for many years and the number of ISPs selling user data is zero!
The consent requirement was not a law; it was an FCC regulation. What Congress passed recently was not a law, but a joint resolution.
The consent requirement was only in effect for a few months, so killing it does not upend any long-standing privacy related policy.
How are ISP going to manage their privacy policies if each states has different laws? This is why the FCC needed to regulate the abuse of user data at the federal level.
Maybe something similar to the way auto manufacturers cope with the fact that California has different emissions requirements than other states.
guardian angle laws
That's acute way of looking at the problem.
Not being able to spell "losing" is bad. Not being able to spell it when it's in the bloody headline you just read, that's a whole other level of stupid.
I agree that the inability to distinguish between "losing" and "loosing" is bad. But suggesting the use of Slashdot article headlines as guides to spelling, syntax, or grammar is just wrong.
That's standard. Pretty much every law that's passed has a clause at the end exempting Congress from having to obey the law.
I don't know whether or not that is true. However, this is not a law but a joint resolution stating, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
That's it. There is no language in SJ Res 34 that exempts Congress or anyone else.
Just wanted to point out that a successful head transplant does not necessarily result in a body with only one head. Just ask Roosevelt Grier and Ray Milland.
I'm convinced that these petitions will be at least as effective as the ones posted on whitehouse.gov.