Employment contracts are between employer and employee but have you heard of tortious interference?
The real problem is the non compete is not enforceable in California. Hopefully it is dispensed with by the judge quickly.
FOX will need to actually prove they suffered harm and loss; maybe I misunderstand tortious interference, but it was my impression that as long as Netflix was not aware of the provisions of the former executives contracts (which they can claim and FOX will need to prove otherwise) they acted in good faith to extend a job offer to two executives in a state where non-compete's are invalid (i.e. tough to prove they suffered harm and loss).
My opinion is this will come down to an employment dispute between FOX and its former employees, most likely over stock options, bonuses etc and whatever other incentives they had in their contracts and that Netflix may pay a penalty during their next streaming rights negotiations with FOX:)
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
It is my understanding that FOX would be required to prove that Netflix has caused FOX to suffer great and irreparable harm by hiring its executives in an attempt to undermine its business and in additional aware of the contractual relationship between the two and still carried with intent to incite the former employees to breach their contract, but since the non-compete is not enforceable in California where are the violated provisions in the contract that are the responsibility of Netflix? If anything this is a labor dispute between FOX and its former employees, one that will most likely come down to vested options in stock, bonuses etc with their former employer.
If I offered you a bribe in exchange for providing me with info that your NDA says you can't share, I may not be a party to your NDA, but I can still be sued for inciting you to breach it. The same applies here...sort of. The interesting wrinkle in this case is that the contract itself was likely illegal from the beginning due to the terms in contained, meaning that it was never enforceable to begin with.
There is no similar application here; employment contracts are between employee and employer and unless Netflix had a non-compete with Fox, this lawsuit is moot against Netflix
That being said, action against the former employees is probably likely and I doubt the term contract will be upheld in its entirety; in my field (IT) I usually have a standard non-compete clause in the employment contracts for the employers current industry, I would be shocked if a similar did not exist in these employees contracts.
Also, if the employees have violated the non-compete this does not compel Netflix to fire them either, in fact all Netflix needs to do is provide their corporate lawyers as apart of their employees benefits, so they can fight Fox in court. Also a NDA agreement that they likely signed does not allow them to divulge Fox corporate secrets, but it does not prevent them from practicing their skillset elsewhere (that would be the non-compete).
Bingo! I drive long distances to random hiking trails. An electric car is not for me, considering some of the trail heads can be located at a different GPS location, so exploring for it instead of predictable location is not a must for me. But you know what? A car is a tool and you pick the tool that works for you.
Does Hillary have any of those allergy problems like you?
I dunno... does she? Multiple things can cause hoarse throat, balance issues and not all of them are life threatening and I just gave you one personal example. The AAPS doctors are making a political statement, which is why they are members of the AAPS, a political organization. ANYONE making claims about another persons health without a) full medical records, b) advanced medical training, c) medical testing d) or indication of injury, are just quite frankly full of shit.
I don't like either Hillary or Trump, but just because you don't want to air your dirty laundry doesn't mean you have something to hide.
Just as a thought experiment, why don't you post nude pictures of yourself on the internet to prove that you don't have a small penis? And if you don't, is that evidence of guilt?
Apples and oranges; I am not making claims about my character to run the country, my penis size (despite what you may think) has absolutely nothing to do with running a country, nor is keeping my genitals clothed implying I am hiding anything, it is in fact a consideration for others.
Now on to the actual issue; Trump has made numerous claims against President Obama's lack of transparency, has claimed that Hillary is crooked and her foundation is crooked and has no transparency. His running mate Pence has made the same claims (albeit, better worded). Right now, he is running on a platform that he is better than Clinton, therefore implying he is not crooked, he then attempts to distract from his failure to produce tax returns implying that only the media cares. Well Mr. Trump, I care... when you make such bold accusations, you had better be able to prove you are better than the other guy, else one needs to start asking the question about what you are hiding. Often people distract by accusing others of crimes they are guilty of.
There is one easy way to settle this matter, release the damn documents...
Are you sure you can make that kind of diagnosis without the proper medical records?
Of course they can! They just have to say, "She is seriously ill! She is seriously ill!" enough to get the average Joe to believe it. The better question to ask them, "Okay, she is seriously ill, are you willing to state your medical license on that?" I bet the silence would be deafening;-)
I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.
Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy? I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times, or who need a stool while they're on stage.
So why is being in the media or spotlight suddenly important? The answer here it is not. I am 37 years old, I have bad allergies and just had sinus surgery last year. My sinuses were so filled with polyps (non-cancer), plus deviated septum and I would constantly get sinus infections. The build up in my sinuses caused fluid and yuck to back up via my Eustachian tubes and cause middle ear problems, therefore affecting my balance. There were times when the world would spin and I would stumble to my knees. This does not imply serious health issues, it implies a structural issues in my sinus cavities and sensitivity to allergens (both of which I am in treatment for, one which is a lot better).
There are many things that can cause balance issues or fatigue and not all of them are serious physical health issues. I know very few doctors who would diagnose a person by watching TV and it appears the AAPS are only offering their opinions because of their political ideology. Quite frankly, I had this discussion with my integrative ENT just this week who said the TV diagnosis was ridiculous and those doctors would never put their medical license on the line, so if they are not willing to do that, then they are not performing their duties as physicians and are merely offering a political opinion.
After thinking about it...I think I"d rather have medical records over tax records.
I guess having both are better, but I think the medical records would be more directly applicable to qualifications as US President than tax records...?
While I know your intent is not to imply, "we get to chose one and only one" we need both. Tax records back up some of the claims they have made. Clinton released hers, so why not Trump? If he is not hiding anything, why not reveal them? I heard comments from his spokes person on Fox that they are in the middle of a massive audit... sorry lady, you have already filed these tax returns, an audit would reveal whether you owe more money, or should be getting a greater return (both of which is common in business). Now, if the excuse is being used to try and hide criminal conduct, or head it of... well no amount of auditing is going to change already filed papers with the IRS and other regulatory agencies, unless you are coming up with a long ass campaign to explain why your apparent criminal actions were not intentional and lookie see, our good faith self audit showed we are trying to comply with all laws (if indeed this is the case, spoken like a lot of white collar criminals).
You know, the Democrats want access to your medical records so that they can keep you from buying a gun. If you are fine with that then what's the problem with putting Clinton's medical records on display? I seem to vaguely recall the occasional physical of presidents being a minor news item. You want these people to expose themselves for financial reasons, why not medical?
How about Trump first? He has boasted he will be the fittest president ever (actually Obama appears to be the fittest in the last several decades, lol). Those that spout forth and boast their physical prowess should be the first to disclose (he hasn't).
She actually isn't. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about the "classified" information. Some of the emails were mislabeled and most were either marked SBU (sensitive but unclassified) and or with a provisional confidential "classification" as a standard practice to mark something confidential or sensitive until such times as the secretary can review and determine. Often so the secretary has access to this information in order to do his or her job, so information is often provided in whatever easy mechanism there is.
In fact Comey himself had stated during his congressional testimonies that a lot of emails were not properly marked or easy enough to miss improper markings in these emails. This is a human error and it is important to separate the apparent decisions from the apparent usage of private email servers in our government (both the Bush Administration and Obama Administration via Hillary apparently conducted this).
Quite simply, this is the failure of our system and not one individual, but instead those that are trying to turn politic dirt would rather go after one person, instead of admitting that our system needs reviewed and modified to protect our interests. In this day in age is email really the proper conduit to provide sensitive or classified information?
I could go on and on about what I think they should do to provide information to officials in the field, but that is not the point here, the point is she is NOT a criminal. Negligent along with apparently multiple administrations, yes, very much so. But that is directed at her as leader and her team under her and anyone else connected with these emails and information being passed along.
The sad thing is, these investigations were geared at stopping Hillary Clinton's presidential bid instead of a more useful, okay let's identify the issues in apparently a very faulty system.
Hopefully there is paperwork to show management had a hand in this; this kind of culture needs to stop. Mr. Engineer, wink... bonus...wink... standards... wink.
Look my friend, you would have been wasted at ITT. With a degree of ambition to be apart of the problem, why not aim for upper management at some fortune 1000?
I agree with all I see here but I don't see any global company falling on their sword and thusly bleeding ca$h to benefit the US workforce. Kudos to you and your vision of a tax law that supports their U.S. based employees and maybe makes its reasonable to move production to a CONUS location.
In celebration of this pipe dream I'm gonna go look up "pigs fly" on YouTube.. I'm sure there is video that is appropriate.
Peace out.
"I'm gonna go look up "pigs fly" on YouTube.." -- yeah because things change by throwing up your hands and walking away in disgust... uhhuh.
pretty sure if there'd been a band of people looking to take my head for the last 20 odd years I'd answer just about everything with "I don't recall"
Yup I would agree. There has been massive attempts by opponents to bring down the Clinton's. The problem here is the public in general see these attempts to bring them down and pin charges on them and ultimately assume they MUST be guilty of something. 20 years is a long time to accuse two people of murdering people, committing fraud, committing crimes against the USA and yet NOTHING of substance has been proven. The Clinton's are not perfect and in fact are far from it, but I am so sick of hearing, "Corrupt Hillary" from the Trump who a) never provides a shred of evidence, b) totally and utterly refuses to address any of the accusations against him other than hyperbole and delusional ego. I have GRAVE concerns over both Hillary and Trump's mental state (more so of Trump's, he appears unable to control himself) and I consider this election not to be about either of them, but their running mates.
Lastly, pleading the 5th does not mean you are hiding anything, claiming you do not remember does not mean you are hiding anything. The American public has been so brain washed to believe you are GUILTY! GUILTY! I hear it all the time at work and in my personal life, "Well, if he/she were innocent, the police would not have arrested them." so on and so forth. Innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country has been swapped with, "he said, she said." and might be fine for civil cases, but criminal is a different kettle of fish.
Having worked for massive head hunter / recruitment firms to write software to parse an arbitrarily structured set of documents (in various forms) in the millions and while linking in to 3rd party applications that are still used through acquisitions and attempt to structure them, attempt to pull out critical information on a daily search basis, as well as generate repeatable ETL processes to import them in to a structure format (official company search application, repeatable imports while we customize the official search app with functionality demanded from our acquisitions) for easy search I concur with your comment.
Keyword searches get you so far, but until you start building a complete inventory of proximity terms (aka Lexical chaining), Levenshtein distance algorithms, term weightings when related terms are found for resolution as well past term analysis of the current text to determine what is more relevant, you are back to manual processes. Even the above requires lots of training of the system to become even halfway reliable and that still requires constant updates as the industry changes and as you encounter newly phrased terms, job descriptions etc.
Then add matching from multiple systems addressing information, education and past employment information, phone numbers, email addresses, professional associations to determine "Hey, Joe Blogs from these five systems from different companies that were acquired is the same guy!!! Sweet, let's combine the data and update our official system with any missing information."
Yeah, it isn't easy, it takes a lot of work... and the above barely scratches the surface. Now how the hell do you do searches of terms against emails looking for classified information that is not labeled correctly with out going through the above? Judgement call by a trained eye, or access to all classified material during her tenure, or hashed critical values from classified material used to compare and pull out "stuff to review".
While I worked there, I started to miss the simplicity of writing LOB applications;-)
If you actually did some research you would find the $150k a year is in high cost of living markets. Having been involved in hiring in the Ohio area, the average is around 70K->85K. If you are lucky enough to be a Sr. Developer and Sr. Level Network experience like I, then I am able to earn quite a bit higher, but the hats I wear is significantly more.
Citizenship is not some automagical status that makes you a productive member of society
No, but citizenship is an automagical status granted by our Constitution, if you were a Citizen you would have known that. In the strictest interpretation of the Constitution only Citizens are entitled to the rights it grants.
Your assertion that the strict interpretation of the Constitution only citizens are afforded its rights and protections is actually incorrect. For over a a century the Supreme Court has asserted that immigrants that are not naturalized are defined as "persons" which is the only designation that matters to determine whether the Constitution applies. The Constitution only explicitly restricts the right to run for federal office and the right to vote to US Citizens, at no other point does it imply that un-naturalized immigrants are not afforded rights and protections.
The intention of the Framers to only explicitly state the limits of holding federal office and the ability to vote to citizens implies that no such qualification exists for the remaining rights. To quote James Madison:
"[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage"
Madison's views won out, which is why federal office, right to vote and qualification to hold the office of president is restricted. Everything else, a person who is here is afforded the same protections as those naturally born (as my son and are wife are) and those that have naturalized.
The attitude you display here, that there is nothing more to being American than making and spending money, is exactly the attitude which is leading this country to destruction.
Make American Tesen-less again.
Yeah, okay... since the topic is about a very basic income level I only replied in an economic context. You are a coward and not willing to reply with a registered account. America is not on a path to destruction, that reads as a typical ignorant Trump support comment...
Slashdot Mirror
Employment contracts are between employer and employee but have you heard of tortious interference?
The real problem is the non compete is not enforceable in California. Hopefully it is dispensed with by the judge quickly.
FOX will need to actually prove they suffered harm and loss; maybe I misunderstand tortious interference, but it was my impression that as long as Netflix was not aware of the provisions of the former executives contracts (which they can claim and FOX will need to prove otherwise) they acted in good faith to extend a job offer to two executives in a state where non-compete's are invalid (i.e. tough to prove they suffered harm and loss).
My opinion is this will come down to an employment dispute between FOX and its former employees, most likely over stock options, bonuses etc and whatever other incentives they had in their contracts and that Netflix may pay a penalty during their next streaming rights negotiations with FOX :)
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
It is my understanding that FOX would be required to prove that Netflix has caused FOX to suffer great and irreparable harm by hiring its executives in an attempt to undermine its business and in additional aware of the contractual relationship between the two and still carried with intent to incite the former employees to breach their contract, but since the non-compete is not enforceable in California where are the violated provisions in the contract that are the responsibility of Netflix? If anything this is a labor dispute between FOX and its former employees, one that will most likely come down to vested options in stock, bonuses etc with their former employer.
And in addition, we have not seen their employment contracts, so who knows what else is in there that they the employee may have violated.
If I offered you a bribe in exchange for providing me with info that your NDA says you can't share, I may not be a party to your NDA, but I can still be sued for inciting you to breach it. The same applies here...sort of. The interesting wrinkle in this case is that the contract itself was likely illegal from the beginning due to the terms in contained, meaning that it was never enforceable to begin with.
There is no similar application here; employment contracts are between employee and employer and unless Netflix had a non-compete with Fox, this lawsuit is moot against Netflix
That being said, action against the former employees is probably likely and I doubt the term contract will be upheld in its entirety; in my field (IT) I usually have a standard non-compete clause in the employment contracts for the employers current industry, I would be shocked if a similar did not exist in these employees contracts.
Also, if the employees have violated the non-compete this does not compel Netflix to fire them either, in fact all Netflix needs to do is provide their corporate lawyers as apart of their employees benefits, so they can fight Fox in court. Also a NDA agreement that they likely signed does not allow them to divulge Fox corporate secrets, but it does not prevent them from practicing their skillset elsewhere (that would be the non-compete).
So, 90% of Americans would be fine.
Bingo! I drive long distances to random hiking trails. An electric car is not for me, considering some of the trail heads can be located at a different GPS location, so exploring for it instead of predictable location is not a must for me. But you know what? A car is a tool and you pick the tool that works for you.
Does Hillary have any of those allergy problems like you?
I dunno... does she? Multiple things can cause hoarse throat, balance issues and not all of them are life threatening and I just gave you one personal example. The AAPS doctors are making a political statement, which is why they are members of the AAPS, a political organization. ANYONE making claims about another persons health without a) full medical records, b) advanced medical training, c) medical testing d) or indication of injury, are just quite frankly full of shit.
I don't like either Hillary or Trump, but just because you don't want to air your dirty laundry doesn't mean you have something to hide.
Just as a thought experiment, why don't you post nude pictures of yourself on the internet to prove that you don't have a small penis? And if you don't, is that evidence of guilt?
Apples and oranges; I am not making claims about my character to run the country, my penis size (despite what you may think) has absolutely nothing to do with running a country, nor is keeping my genitals clothed implying I am hiding anything, it is in fact a consideration for others.
Now on to the actual issue; Trump has made numerous claims against President Obama's lack of transparency, has claimed that Hillary is crooked and her foundation is crooked and has no transparency. His running mate Pence has made the same claims (albeit, better worded). Right now, he is running on a platform that he is better than Clinton, therefore implying he is not crooked, he then attempts to distract from his failure to produce tax returns implying that only the media cares. Well Mr. Trump, I care... when you make such bold accusations, you had better be able to prove you are better than the other guy, else one needs to start asking the question about what you are hiding. Often people distract by accusing others of crimes they are guilty of.
There is one easy way to settle this matter, release the damn documents...
Are you sure you can make that kind of diagnosis without the proper medical records?
Of course they can! They just have to say, "She is seriously ill! She is seriously ill!" enough to get the average Joe to believe it. The better question to ask them, "Okay, she is seriously ill, are you willing to state your medical license on that?" I bet the silence would be deafening ;-)
I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.
Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy? I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times, or who need a stool while they're on stage.
So why is being in the media or spotlight suddenly important? The answer here it is not. I am 37 years old, I have bad allergies and just had sinus surgery last year. My sinuses were so filled with polyps (non-cancer), plus deviated septum and I would constantly get sinus infections. The build up in my sinuses caused fluid and yuck to back up via my Eustachian tubes and cause middle ear problems, therefore affecting my balance. There were times when the world would spin and I would stumble to my knees. This does not imply serious health issues, it implies a structural issues in my sinus cavities and sensitivity to allergens (both of which I am in treatment for, one which is a lot better).
There are many things that can cause balance issues or fatigue and not all of them are serious physical health issues. I know very few doctors who would diagnose a person by watching TV and it appears the AAPS are only offering their opinions because of their political ideology. Quite frankly, I had this discussion with my integrative ENT just this week who said the TV diagnosis was ridiculous and those doctors would never put their medical license on the line, so if they are not willing to do that, then they are not performing their duties as physicians and are merely offering a political opinion.
Interesting topic.
After thinking about it...I think I"d rather have medical records over tax records.
I guess having both are better, but I think the medical records would be more directly applicable to qualifications as US President than tax records...?
While I know your intent is not to imply, "we get to chose one and only one" we need both. Tax records back up some of the claims they have made. Clinton released hers, so why not Trump? If he is not hiding anything, why not reveal them? I heard comments from his spokes person on Fox that they are in the middle of a massive audit... sorry lady, you have already filed these tax returns, an audit would reveal whether you owe more money, or should be getting a greater return (both of which is common in business). Now, if the excuse is being used to try and hide criminal conduct, or head it of... well no amount of auditing is going to change already filed papers with the IRS and other regulatory agencies, unless you are coming up with a long ass campaign to explain why your apparent criminal actions were not intentional and lookie see, our good faith self audit showed we are trying to comply with all laws (if indeed this is the case, spoken like a lot of white collar criminals).
You know, the Democrats want access to your medical records so that they can keep you from buying a gun. If you are fine with that then what's the problem with putting Clinton's medical records on display? I seem to vaguely recall the occasional physical of presidents being a minor news item. You want these people to expose themselves for financial reasons, why not medical?
How about Trump first? He has boasted he will be the fittest president ever (actually Obama appears to be the fittest in the last several decades, lol). Those that spout forth and boast their physical prowess should be the first to disclose (he hasn't).
She actually isn't. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about the "classified" information. Some of the emails were mislabeled and most were either marked SBU (sensitive but unclassified) and or with a provisional confidential "classification" as a standard practice to mark something confidential or sensitive until such times as the secretary can review and determine. Often so the secretary has access to this information in order to do his or her job, so information is often provided in whatever easy mechanism there is.
In fact Comey himself had stated during his congressional testimonies that a lot of emails were not properly marked or easy enough to miss improper markings in these emails. This is a human error and it is important to separate the apparent decisions from the apparent usage of private email servers in our government (both the Bush Administration and Obama Administration via Hillary apparently conducted this).
Quite simply, this is the failure of our system and not one individual, but instead those that are trying to turn politic dirt would rather go after one person, instead of admitting that our system needs reviewed and modified to protect our interests. In this day in age is email really the proper conduit to provide sensitive or classified information?
I could go on and on about what I think they should do to provide information to officials in the field, but that is not the point here, the point is she is NOT a criminal. Negligent along with apparently multiple administrations, yes, very much so. But that is directed at her as leader and her team under her and anyone else connected with these emails and information being passed along.
The sad thing is, these investigations were geared at stopping Hillary Clinton's presidential bid instead of a more useful, okay let's identify the issues in apparently a very faulty system.
Hopefully there is paperwork to show management had a hand in this; this kind of culture needs to stop. Mr. Engineer, wink... bonus...wink... standards... wink.
Are you?
Governments are keeping secrets! SECRETS!!!
I fully support Fragnet's extremely large prick. Snowden on the other hand... Russia cold... shrinkage.
Look my friend, you would have been wasted at ITT. With a degree of ambition to be apart of the problem, why not aim for upper management at some fortune 1000?
Check out the following link (a bit old, but hey... I am sure they are worse by now!): http://247wallst.com/special-r...
Hot Coeds in the advertising? Mmmmmm Coeds...
I agree with all I see here but I don't see any global company falling on their sword and thusly bleeding ca$h to benefit the US workforce. Kudos to you and your vision of a tax law that supports their U.S. based employees and maybe makes its reasonable to move production to a CONUS location.
In celebration of this pipe dream I'm gonna go look up "pigs fly" on YouTube.. I'm sure there is video that is appropriate.
Peace out.
"I'm gonna go look up "pigs fly" on YouTube.." -- yeah because things change by throwing up your hands and walking away in disgust... uhhuh.
Can you leave tomorrow? I'd be happy to drive you to the airport. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
I have a minivan... I'll help shuttle them to the airport ;-)
pretty sure if there'd been a band of people looking to take my head for the last 20 odd years I'd answer just about everything with "I don't recall"
Yup I would agree. There has been massive attempts by opponents to bring down the Clinton's. The problem here is the public in general see these attempts to bring them down and pin charges on them and ultimately assume they MUST be guilty of something. 20 years is a long time to accuse two people of murdering people, committing fraud, committing crimes against the USA and yet NOTHING of substance has been proven. The Clinton's are not perfect and in fact are far from it, but I am so sick of hearing, "Corrupt Hillary" from the Trump who a) never provides a shred of evidence, b) totally and utterly refuses to address any of the accusations against him other than hyperbole and delusional ego. I have GRAVE concerns over both Hillary and Trump's mental state (more so of Trump's, he appears unable to control himself) and I consider this election not to be about either of them, but their running mates.
Lastly, pleading the 5th does not mean you are hiding anything, claiming you do not remember does not mean you are hiding anything. The American public has been so brain washed to believe you are GUILTY! GUILTY! I hear it all the time at work and in my personal life, "Well, if he/she were innocent, the police would not have arrested them." so on and so forth. Innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country has been swapped with, "he said, she said." and might be fine for civil cases, but criminal is a different kettle of fish.
Having worked for massive head hunter / recruitment firms to write software to parse an arbitrarily structured set of documents (in various forms) in the millions and while linking in to 3rd party applications that are still used through acquisitions and attempt to structure them, attempt to pull out critical information on a daily search basis, as well as generate repeatable ETL processes to import them in to a structure format (official company search application, repeatable imports while we customize the official search app with functionality demanded from our acquisitions) for easy search I concur with your comment.
Keyword searches get you so far, but until you start building a complete inventory of proximity terms (aka Lexical chaining), Levenshtein distance algorithms, term weightings when related terms are found for resolution as well past term analysis of the current text to determine what is more relevant, you are back to manual processes. Even the above requires lots of training of the system to become even halfway reliable and that still requires constant updates as the industry changes and as you encounter newly phrased terms, job descriptions etc.
Then add matching from multiple systems addressing information, education and past employment information, phone numbers, email addresses, professional associations to determine "Hey, Joe Blogs from these five systems from different companies that were acquired is the same guy!!! Sweet, let's combine the data and update our official system with any missing information."
Yeah, it isn't easy, it takes a lot of work... and the above barely scratches the surface. Now how the hell do you do searches of terms against emails looking for classified information that is not labeled correctly with out going through the above? Judgement call by a trained eye, or access to all classified material during her tenure, or hashed critical values from classified material used to compare and pull out "stuff to review".
While I worked there, I started to miss the simplicity of writing LOB applications ;-)
Tes
If you actually did some research you would find the $150k a year is in high cost of living markets. Having been involved in hiring in the Ohio area, the average is around 70K->85K. If you are lucky enough to be a Sr. Developer and Sr. Level Network experience like I, then I am able to earn quite a bit higher, but the hats I wear is significantly more.
That's ok. I only surf porn from my android phone and leave all my ECommerce interaction to my Windows XP machine unpatched sitting in my DMZ.
Citizenship is not some automagical status that makes you a productive member of society
No, but citizenship is an automagical status granted by our Constitution, if you were a Citizen you would have known that. In the strictest interpretation of the Constitution only Citizens are entitled to the rights it grants.
Your assertion that the strict interpretation of the Constitution only citizens are afforded its rights and protections is actually incorrect. For over a a century the Supreme Court has asserted that immigrants that are not naturalized are defined as "persons" which is the only designation that matters to determine whether the Constitution applies. The Constitution only explicitly restricts the right to run for federal office and the right to vote to US Citizens, at no other point does it imply that un-naturalized immigrants are not afforded rights and protections.
The intention of the Framers to only explicitly state the limits of holding federal office and the ability to vote to citizens implies that no such qualification exists for the remaining rights. To quote James Madison:
"[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution,
as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually
conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are
not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution;
yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one
hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to
their protection and advantage"
Madison's views won out, which is why federal office, right to vote and qualification to hold the office of president is restricted. Everything else, a person who is here is afforded the same protections as those naturally born (as my son and are wife are) and those that have naturalized.
Tes
The attitude you display here, that there is nothing more to being American than making and spending money, is exactly the attitude which is leading this country to destruction.
Make American Tesen-less again.
Yeah, okay... since the topic is about a very basic income level I only replied in an economic context. You are a coward and not willing to reply with a registered account. America is not on a path to destruction, that reads as a typical ignorant Trump support comment...
So long coward, lets kick you out!
Good correction!