My point isn't that employers should continue playing games by not listing the salary range for open positions. My point is that it seems ridiculous to pass a specific law about ONE question you can't ask people, and pretend that fixes things!
If I was interviewing, I *might* want to ask about what a candidate earned at a previous job - and not just because I have some ulterior motive to underpay them compared to the going rate. It could be because they moved from a different part of the country and I was curious how much difference there was in pay rates for what they did where they lived vs. here.
Many places already have a pretty narrow range of pay they're allowed to offer for a given position. What you earned previously makes no difference in what you're going to be offered because upper management won't even allow that much flexibility.
The portion of the law ending the practice of not disclosing salary ranges isn't the part I took issue with.
I read a similar article on this on a different web site and didn't read the specific Slashdot-linked one. So sure, if this one makes a point that Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon ALSO supported the legislation, I'll happily revise my number to say 46 states instead of 49. Whatever.... Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the Union, so certainly doesn't shock me they'd be behind this one.
I stand behind everything else I said.
Just because you CAN make another law doesn't mean you SHOULD. In the grand scheme of things, I also said I'm not inclined to care a whole lot either way on something this tiny... It just isn't a "world changer" either way. It's just on principle I dislike it, because I'd rather not live in a society where we make so many simple questions "illegal to ask".
I never suggested lying about anything! I suggested using a bit of creativity, just like pretty much ALL job applicants do with everything else surrounding interviews.
When you study all those ways to "properly answer interview questions", you're lying too, technically. You're not just having a regular conversation with the interviewer, giving the actual answers you'd naturally give. Instead, you've memorized canned answers you think they'd rather hear.
Do you show up wearing the clothes you'd normally wear any other day to a job? Probably not! You're told to dress up in a suit and tie most of the time. In other words, you're making a special effort to project a different image of yourself to an interviewer than what they'd otherwise get.
The whole thing is kind of a game.... I'm saying, you may as well acknowledge it for what it is and work with it.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you here, though I follow.....
I certainly can't speak for what the true motives of the Koch brothers really are. But as a very general thing, I can still appreciate the fact that free market Capitalism is the best motivator we've ever had to get people to do work/accomplish things. Without it in place, the only alternatives we've seen in ANY other form of government are letting a few at the top dictate who is distributed what, completely subjectively. Thanks to the fact that greed is a known human emotion, this inevitably ends very badly for everyone who isn't on top, calling the shots.
In most successful nations today, there's at least a black market of free market Capitalism going on underneath the Communist or Socialist infrastructure. This is VERY much the case in countries like China, where "anything goes, as long as you don't speak ill of the people in power and don't happen to do something they happen to disapprove of at that moment in time".
Bloodshed tends to force a "reset" of whatever the norm was in a nation -- but it doesn't truly fix anything.
IMO, some of the super wealthy DO have various mental illnesses or psychopathic tendencies. That doesn't really mean anything in the big picture though, except for the fact that some of those distorted outlooks on life happen to "hyper motivate" them beyond the motivation MOST people get from earning money/wealth.
Eventually, technology seems to be headed towards giving us a world where all the human "work" just isn't necessary anymore. THAT obsoletes Capitalism since machines and robots don't require motivation to do labor. They just do it by design. I think any real/worthwhile revolution will only come about when this is truly a reality AND you have to force a total re-think of how the wealth will be distributed, when it's not actually earned by people anymore. In the (probably lengthy) transition period that has to happen to get there, my fear is that people will overreact and try to push an anti-technology agenda, wanting things to go back to how they were before as the answer. That would be unsuccessfully trying to "put a genie back into the bottle" and will cause unending suffering and strife UNTIL they give up that plan. (If the tech exists to perform labor without using people, someone out there will do it, one way or another, and control the majority of wealth in the process, while everyone else fights about those advances in tech.)
In the short term at least? This is much more about people disliking getting pushed out of their comfort zones than a real disaster in the making. There's PLENTY that can be done, including more folks coming up with new ideas for things others would pay for. Instead of sitting at that desk job every day where you collect your fat paycheck for doing a few boring, repetitive tasks? How about you pursue something you truly love and try to monetize it? Even in a world where everything is done by machine or robot? Art will still flourish. Art will probably only INCREASE in value as this happens because the whole point of it will be displaying what human hands and a human mind came up with. Used to be a truck driver and upset that self driving vehicles made you lose your job? Ok, fine. Don't sit there and tell me you have no valuable skills at ALL besides knowing how to drive a truck around! Most truckers I know did other things before starting that career anyway. Heck, as a professional driver, you probably saw more of the country than most people ever get to see in a lifetime. THAT has to have some value, right? Think outside the box a bit and leverage what you know a new way.
How so, when the powers that be could simply declare control over the land and seize it from private hands, just like they seize drug money today in a bust?
The *real* trick is not to let government succeed in dividing the people against themselves, IMO. Right now, we've got all of this division -- from movements like BLM creating lines based on race to people fighting the "pro gun control" vs. "freedom to own and carry guns" debate, to division based on gay/LGBT rights, to the "everyone else vs the 1%" battles. Don't forget the Republican vs. Democrat political fighting escalated to new heights, where long time friends are declaring themselves enemies with each other simply based on who voted which direction in the last election.
As long as the population feels that we're all "in this thing together" -- we still have a shot at enforcing government that's "by the people, for the people". Once there's not enough citizens on the same page, we're screwed.
Leave it to California to come up with yet another piece of legislation that the other 49 states didn't feel a need for.... Hope they're all happy with themselves.
My experience in the job market (both in the midwest and now on the east coast) is pretty much the same. SOME employers will ask your previous salary. Others won't. It's always been the case that you're free to fudge the numbers if you think it's to your advantage to do so, when they ask for this information. (For example... your previous salary may well have been X number of dollars, but did you receive any bonuses like a Christmas bonus perhaps? You can add all of that in to the total you give them and you're not lying -- and it wouldn't be a big deal if you rounded that estimated number up a bit, because of an assumption you'd get higher bonuses in following years if you stayed where you were instead of taking this new job.)
I get that nobody likes that uncertainty of trying to figure out how much to demand, without pricing yourself out of the range of what the person hiring wants to pay. But come on! Pretending employers hold ALL the cards here just isn't reality in the Internet age. You have web sites like GlassDoor you can use to get all sorts of info in advance about what an employer was paying other people, as well as how they liked it there. You can scope out the average salaries paid for your job title in your area by browsing listings on sites like Monster or Dice. I never felt like I need the LAW to force employers to stop asking the previous salary question in order to get a fair interview.
The external Apple keyboard I purchased is being used with a different laptop at home (my 15" retina Macbook Pro), just so I can use it like a desktop with its lid closed, attached to a couple of external monitors, plus that keyboard and a regular mouse.
I don't like the feel of the latest model Apple keyboards as much as earlier models, but yes - it's in Apple's defense to say that after making a lot of use of this new rechargeable one, it's still working properly and would be a perfectly fine product for someone who doesn't take issue with the (subjective) key feel when typing on it.
And for what it's worth? I'm not sure we know what one of these keyboards will do when the rechargeable battery inside it wears out? It seems lie it may continue to work just fine as a wired USB keyboard, since I can use it with the USB cable attached to it.
Honestly, it's kind of amazing how quickly it was picked up by all different web sites and blogs! I've probably read 5 different discussions on the original article already this morning.
The thing is? The "Genius" used the wrong terminology, in my opinion, which made things sound worse than they really are. A speck of dust is most assuredly NOT enough to jam up one of the new Apple keyboards. CRUMBS, however, from people eating by the machine? Absolutely possible.
I had one of these "New Macbooks" when it first came out. Ordered the "high spec" configuration to test it out at work, using it as my own personal work computer, to get a feel for what it was and wasn't really capable of doing for us. (We have a lot of highly mobile employees who care more about a computer being lightweight and easy to carry around, plus long battery life, than raw CPU power. So it was potentially a good fit, vs. the Macbook Air 13" machines we've issued to most of them for years.)
I really despised the keyboard design on it. Practically no key travel and just too easy to mistype things when I wasn't purposely typing extra slow. The 2017 edition has a slightly revised variation of the original keyboard and I tried that out at an Apple Store. IMO, still pretty awful, though MARGINALLY better tactile feel.
I finally resold the thing after concluding it just wasn't enough of a full-fledged notebook computer for our needs. (I'd really just classify it as Apple's high-fashion/style idea of a netbook.) But I never had sticking keys on it. With that little bit of key travel though, it's clear to me you're going to have to take extra care to keep this machine clean. (Wash your hands before typing on it if you were just eating some toast or bread, for example.) It won't take much to get some crumbs or grains of sand or salt or what-not in there, messing up one of the small scissor type key-switches under the key-caps.
I'll also say though, in Apple's defense? I've been using one of the latest models of external keyboards that's wireless, with the built-in rechargeable batteries that charge when you connect it via USB. After typing on that one quite a bit at home, still no real key issues. I try to keep it as clean as I can, but don't go to extrodinary lengths to do so either. Maybe the external ones just hold up a little bit better, or it's the fact they're not getting taken around so many different places where the environments aren't always as clean? Whatever the case, it's worked as well as can be expected. Still dislike the limited key travel on the new designs though, vs. what they had previously.
The Macbook Air is on its way out, right? You look a bit desperate or ridiculous comparing a brand new, supposedly "best in class" portable from Microsoft with an Apple notebook that's been around with only incremental upgrades over the years since about 2011.
Honestly, the only reason people usually keep buying the Airs is because you've got a lot of educational or corporate deployments of them and the consistency has value. Apple's not exactly known for keeping a specific machine configuration around for very long -- and historically, that's been a problem for mass deployments in corporate (or even educational) settings. My workplace has many Macbook Airs deployed to our employees and it's a big advantage that if we buy a new one today, it can still share the same AC power adapters, USB Ethernet dongles and other accessories with everyone else -- and helps make sure everyone has relatively equal setups. (As soon as you give one admin assistant a new machine with an amazing 4K resolution screen, everybody is going to ask why THEY didn't get/deserve one. The joy of office politics.)
I kept thinking about buying this game, but held off due to so many bad reviews about the issues with cheaters.
Maybe I'll break down and give it a try, if they're really doing anything effective to get that under control.
I'm not some "punk kid" gamer. I'm in my 40's and I only play a few games at a time. Kind of picky these days about what's a worthwhile use of my free time. (Still kind of addicted to Starcraft II because I find in a lot of ways, it's like playing a game of chess against an opponent, at least in 1v1 battles, which I prefer.)
I do have a soft spot in my heart for a good 3D multiplayer shooter -- but too many cheaters and/or bots just ruins the whole experience. Disappointingly, we have a pre-teen daughter who seems to be fascinated by the idea of using hacks and cheats on the online games she plays, and her accounts get banned on a regular basis. I wouldn't say she wants to bully other players so much as just gets a kick out of "beating the system". It's the "game within the game" for her to find ways to get an advantage. I'm not sure I'm getting through to her when I try to lecture her on why that's a bad way to go about things.
I mean, I've been in I.T. for about 30 years now and I know there's really nothing "good" that will come of trying to mess up the corporate networks or computers on your way out the door if you're let go.
But that said? This article really doesn't tell us anything about what the guy was angry about? If you're screaming at your boss, that tells me one of two basic things. Either A) you're just that unprofessional and have anger issues, or B) the company is doing something SO wrong, internally, that they've created a situation where YOU could become the "fall guy" for major problems set up to happen, and you have reason to confront them angrily.
(Even if option B is true? This assumes you've already exhausted other avenues to get your message across.)
I agree though. This railroad obviously has shoddy H.R. policies for handling terminations, in any case. Why would you let someone back onto your network once you terminated them?
Seriously... I've never heard a reference to any software he developed before?
Bill Gates, by contrast, actually DID write some code, including part of the BASIC operating system that was used in some of the old Radio Shack TRS-80 computers.
It seems to me like if you haven't learned to code yourself, it's pretty hypocritical to declare that all students need to learn it now.
So... let's see here. Your "rebuttal" consisted not of anything really showing your ideas are more workable than mine, but simply picking my comments apart line by line and declaring all my hypotheticals "magic" and "fairy dust". Ok, because you say so -- you must be right. Humans would NEVER solve problems on their own without a big central government to mandate rules and regulations first.
I understand the purpose of credit reporting agencies, and I don't have a blanket hatred or dislike of them like some people. (Hey, sorry if you're irresponsible with your money all the time and don't pay your bills when due. That doesn't make the "messenger" evil when they perform the function of warning others about your financial behavior.)
But Equifax? They've long been frustrating because of a lack of care in verifying the data they collect, and a general unwillingness to correct mistakes on credit reports. Inability to secure all of this sensitive information they've collected is icing on that cake.
Look at some of the nonsense they partake in, such as giving you "ONE free look at your credit report per year". That's YOUR info they've collected and make money off of, and they don't even want to show YOU what they've got unless you pay like everybody else? As far as I'm concerned, I should be able to create an account with these people where I can log in and see my credit report ANY time, as well as submit online requests for changes whenever I see something wrong or questionable. I know Equifax and one of their competitors had wrong information about the history of addresses I lived at previously, and neglected to fix it, even after multiple requests. (It seems they don't consider that part of the content of a credit report that could potentially hurt your credit score, so it's not a priority to correct.) If it's worth keeping track of though, it's worth keeping track of correctly, IMO. Don't lie to everyone pulling my report, giving a bogus street address I supposedly resided at (which was obviously due to a typo somebody made at some point, since the street is fairly similar to the name of one I actually DID live at previously).
I see a lot of demand for Android tablets for use in automotive applications.... custom projects to put one in the dashboard in place of a double-DIN car stereo.
I think some are also surely getting used as single-purpose kiosks or remote controllers for things. You can, for example, dedicate one as the controller for videoconferencing systems built around the Zoom software (http://www.zoom.us).
For general purpose use? It's really the same argument you get on the Apple side of things. Why buy an expensive iPad Pro when a full-blown notebook computer comes in around the same price? It depends... The notebook with its own integrated keyboard, ports and expansion slots, is always going to be the more "powerful" option. But what about use-cases where you're standing up all the time, like delivery drivers needing to input data about packages dropped off or picked up? For them, a tablet is going to be the only option that makes a lot of sense.
Everyone *should* want the most return for the least effort, though. That's how things become more efficient. The best software developers I know wrote great automation scripts that saved people lots of time doing repetitive tasks not because they were so hard-working, but because they were so lazy!
I don't believe in ANY utopias, whether the Star Trek type post-capitalist world or the idea that a minimalist U.S. government with no controls on the free market would make things perfect.
But what I *do* know for certain is that under ANY form of government that's ever existed, humans still act like humans, complete with tendencies to do evil, to take advantage of a fellow man for short term gain, etc. It's impossible to leverage central governance to make it go away. Government itself is run by more humans who sometimes choose to use the power they've been given in self-serving and corrupt ways.
If government never regulated communications in America at all? I think things would be different than what we have today. Better? I think so, in the sense that individuals were free to implement any idea they had that might solve the problem. How many limitations have we imposed on progress BECAUSE we made assumptions early on that government needed to control such things as our airwaves? Initially, it probably seemed like madness not to have an agency like the FCC controlling how much wattage you could broadcast with and what slice of frequency spectrum you could use for various purposes. But imagine the scenario if it was just a "free for all"? Eventually, people would invent other solutions to the problem. Maybe they'd come up with ways to broadcast across a big swatch of radio spectrum, in a shared system with all the other broadcasts? It could work something like the Internet does currently, where all the data goes out to the net in real time and specific chunks of data get routed back to the appropriate receiver. Then, it wouldn't be a matter of "Company X" not even being able to offer cellular service until they can buy a few channels in a costly government auction. CB radio operators would have had radios that let people talk with as much range as they needed, without needing to get a government license first. Wi-Fi would "just work" and work well, without all the standards that have to inter-operate due to the limited frequencies declared usable for the purpose.
I think now is not the time. It's that simple. We're currently in a situation where Apple's iOS pleases a big segment of the population who like the relative ease of use, the compatibility with many other devices (from clock radios to car stereos supporting "CarPlay"), and like the App Store "walled garden" model where every submission is subject to review (higher confidence of no malware problems or non-functioning software).
The others fall pretty well into the category of being happy with various Android powered phone offerings, because they have more flexibility to customize them, support a hardware model assuming you use MicroSD as additional storage, have more freedom to use alternate "app stores", and are made by enough different companies so you can own one made by some manufacturer you don't have issues with, if you're anti-Apple on principle.
Right now, either way you go -- you can count on any app that's worth a darn running on either platform. That app compatibility is more important to people than a "better UI", most of the time. Otherwise, I think Microsoft's recent attempts would have been much better received.
More competition is a good thing, but you can't expect someone to invest all the hard work and expense in rolling one out if there's no pressing need. Right now, the "needs" people express seem to be more of niches like "more secure platform". (The general public doesn't really believe a current, patched version of iOS or Android's OS is a security risk - and many apps exist for both platforms that offer high security solutions, like Signal for IM.)
If Android or Apple (or both) start displeasing the masses and people stop buying or upgrading to the latest OS as it's offered -- that will be the catalyst for change.
You know... despite all the hatred for her opinions, Ayn Rand tried to point out the fact that framed properly, "Greed is good." Not a big fan of hers, but can respect her for taking that radical of an idea and backing it up with some reasoning.
If you really take a basic human emotion like greed out of the equation, you remove a prime motivator for humans to work hard to achieve goals. Anything, to excess, becomes bad or unhealthy. Greed is no different. (Gluttony is another one of the supposed "deadly sins" - yet you'd starve and die if you didn't eat regularly.)
Anyone who respects the values behind the Democratic Republic we put together in the USA *should* be waving their arms and screaming "Socialism!" when they see it infiltrating our government. The United States has a pretty exceptional thing going with the government we were formed under - and I'd go so far as to say the majority of problems people point to in the country have their roots in attempts to introduce socialist solutions.
The REAL challenge is how to keep our government from meddling in free market capitalism and allowing "corporatism" to take hold where big businesses collude with government, instead of getting governed by them. I dare say we'd never have found ourselves in the current situation with regards to Internet broadband if we didn't start out with telephones as a regulated government monopoly, followed by government regulation of the cable industry when it was first forming. For something like a decade, Americans were stuck dealing with dial-up modems over analog phone lines because the telcos didn't want to give up their precious copper wire infrastructure. The rest of the developing world leap-frogged right over us (even as we were "gifted" with 64K and then 128K ISDN service over copper).
Given the "monster" our government helped the chosen big businesses build, we're kind of stuck now. That's why you can't really let things like Net Neutrality legislation die. Once govt. meddles with a service like this enough, they can't just duck out completely and say, "It's a free market now! All good!"
But as new technologies emerge, we've GOT to try to learn from these past mistakes.... not throw the baby out with the bath-water, deciding our Constitution and Bill of Rights is outdated and worthless, and advocating a conversion to the same old socialism we've got in plenty of other nations.
Haven't bought an electric yet, but a couple of things are making them more attractive for our family.
#1, I live in an area where you have a lot of highways with HOV lanes. During rush hour in the morning and evening, it's often the case that the whole interstate is clogged up except that far left HOV lane, that's traveling along near the speed limit. Electric cars are allowed to drive in the HOV lanes legally at these times, even if you have no occupants other than yourself as the driver. The idea I could cut all of that time out of my daily commute almost makes buying one worthwhile.
#2, There are finally enough electrics sold so you have a decent used market of them to choose from. If I want to buy one as an extra vehicle, mainly for the teenagers to use to get to school or work after they learn to drive? I can actually buy something like a used 2012-2014 Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt hybrid electric, or Smart-4-Two electric in that "$10,000 and under" price range. (Remember, with the Volt -- the reviews when it was new consistently said they liked the car but the ONLY real issue was the price point. If you did the math, you just couldn't ever save enough money in gas driving one to offset its high cost.)
The problem I still see with the technology, though, is the lack of available charging stations. The cheaper electrics (like the used Leafs) just don't have enough range to do much with them besides short trips or one longer work commute. If I knew I could always plug one in, in any parking space I used in one of the municipal garages by my office? That would be kind of a game-changer, since it'd have a full 8 hours to recharge while I worked. Realistically though? The places with charging stations tend to be retail stores or restaurants with only 2 or 3 designated spots for them. Parking garages aren't interested in the type of electric bill they'd have if a whole bunch of people were charging cars off of their electrical system every day, in 6 stories of parking! So what you have to plan for with these cars is that you're only really going to charge it up overnight at home, and whatever range you get with that is as far as you can go in a day with the vehicle.
You still had almost nothing but huge slabs as "gaming laptops" until VERY recently because they couldn't pack a high end graphics card in a small, thin notebook and still have decent cooling for it.
But even there? People are buying systems like the new ASUS ROG Zephyrus now, because it fits a GTX1080 series GPU in there with 8GB of VRAM and still manages to look like a reasonably thin machine. (Bottom of the case actually opens up when you open the lid, to provide sufficient ventilation for the GPU -- but with the lid closed, looks like any other modern notebook in thickness.)
The push for "thin and lightweight" isn't just because people are fixated on it being stylish. It's really much more pleasant to carry around a thinner, lighter computer. If you made a big, huge cellphone that looked like the old "bag phones", think how long you could go on a battery charge today? But yet, nobody wants that either.
The gauntlet has been thrown down to PC makers, saying "Find a way to cram all of the latest technology into this thin, light form-factor!" And increasingly, they're doing it. It's all good.
Rather than asking why someone would pay over $1,000 for the latest iPhone (an established product as a leader in the cellphone market), one could ask why anyone ever paid over $10,000 for the gold Apple Watch "Edition" when that came out? Why do people pay multiple hundreds of dollars for the latest pairs of sneakers, when a $60 pair of New Balance tennis shoes is most likely every bit as good?
Apple products are recognized as "premium" in today's marketplace, no matter how legitimate you think that really is. That means higher earning people take an interest in what they're selling. Those people can easily afford $1000 or a little more to have the flagship cellphone offering that keeps them in the iOS "ecosphere" -- able to run all the apps they purchased in the past, etc.
Personally? I can afford to buy the new iPhone X if I really wanted to. I'm not rich, by any means, but I'm probably in the low end of the "upper middle class" (thanks to being married to a woman who works full-time in a career job similar to my own). I doubt I'll upgrade at all though, since I purchased the 7 Plus in the 256GB RAM configuration when it came out - and it meets all of my needs.
As a few people pointed out already though? These days, a lot of people use their cellphone more than almost any other electronics device they own. If you judge "value" based on how much you use something -- $1,000 or so might make it a bargain. It always amazes me when I think of how many separate gadgets I can eliminate because of my smartphone. Not that long ago, I would have had a separate MP3 music player, alarm clock, pocket calculator, flashlight, ruler or measuring tape, notepad, camera, camcorder, guitar tuner, tape recorder... not to mention all the paper coupons I would have clipped in lieu of digital alternatives. These days, the phone even substitutes for carrying credit cards in a wallet.
The system has a lot of problems, but your explanation is questionable too.
You *really* think we're imprisoning people primarily to strip them of their voting rights? Corporations are worried that common citizens will vote in a way contrary to their interests so they prevent that by getting them locked up in large numbers? That might make a good dystopian sci-fi theme -- but kind of far-fetched.
As for revoking driving privileges because someone owes money (typically unpaid child support)? That's arguably overused, but worth keeping on the table as an option. All too often, you have people out there refusing to pay the support they owe, yet finding ways to take regular vacation trips all over the country where they spend thousands of dollars. Sure, it makes no sense to take a license away from somebody actually needing it to get to and from a job they're trying to do. But that's not where this law is getting applied, most of the time. They know that people value having the ability to drive. It's a big part of one's freedom in America. So taking it away when it's clear they're using it to make it harder to find them to collect child support? That just makes sense. And the fact they're likely to then drive without the license? That further helps ensure they wind up back in court at some point, where their lack of willingness to pay can be addressed.
I was really pleased with the improvements we saw at 2 different companies when we finally let go of outdated LTO or DLT backup tape solutions.
It may be true that tape has a better chance of being readable after sitting in storage for a long enough period of time. But my experience was, the tape drives themselves would suffer from breakdowns causing them to unspool or "eat" tapes, too. The older DLT drives I used to work with were especially prone to failure modes causing them not to sense the "leader" at the start or end of a tape properly, causing it to unspool.
Tapes would physically wear out too, after so many read and write cycles. The friction of the tape dragging past the heads on the drive was the reason you had to regularly run cleaning tapes to keep the drives happy and working well. They physically stripped some of the magnetic material off the tapes as they were used.
"Best practices" for backups involved regularly buying new sets of cartridges and taking older ones out of service in backup rotations by some date you wrote on their labels. But that used to get costly and was kind of wasteful.
I guess every technology has its place - so if going back to tape improves security and solves problems for some businesses, great! But I'd rather try my best to secure the environment without resorting to that, wherever I could. The modern backup systems that do real-time backups to hard drives are so much more flexible and make restores so much quicker and less painful.
I probably should have added the "professional" or "career" qualifier to my original comment about lobbyists.
If you're going to say any activist who tries to put together some kind of small "awareness" group is outlawed from speaking with politicians because that's construed as lobbying them? Obviously no... that's not what I'm suggesting.
What I'm saying is that it's a very real thing that you've got individuals, today, who make a career job out of lobbying politicians for very specific agendas. They're PAID to do this day in and day out. Sometimes? I'd agree 100% with what they're trying to do. (I met a guy out here in the DC suburbs who was doing this for marijuana legalization, and I think he was completely right with his arguments.)
But ultimately? I think we need to draw a line with this stuff and say IF you're going to get paid to try to push a certain political agenda? Then you need to be limited to influencing the voting citizenry. Give THEM the info they need to vote the way you want them to vote to make the change happen, or give them the list of their senators and congressmen who are already on-board with the idea. Unless you do this, you're accepting a situation where the voice of the masses is always worth less than money spent to bend the ear of the decision-makers directly, bypassing the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
My point isn't that employers should continue playing games by not listing the salary range for open positions. My point is that it seems ridiculous to pass a specific law about ONE question you can't ask people, and pretend that fixes things!
If I was interviewing, I *might* want to ask about what a candidate earned at a previous job - and not just because I have some ulterior motive to underpay them compared to the going rate. It could be because they moved from a different part of the country and I was curious how much difference there was in pay rates for what they did where they lived vs. here.
Many places already have a pretty narrow range of pay they're allowed to offer for a given position. What you earned previously makes no difference in what you're going to be offered because upper management won't even allow that much flexibility.
The portion of the law ending the practice of not disclosing salary ranges isn't the part I took issue with.
I read a similar article on this on a different web site and didn't read the specific Slashdot-linked one. So sure, if this one makes a point that Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon ALSO supported the legislation, I'll happily revise my number to say 46 states instead of 49. Whatever .... Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the Union, so certainly doesn't shock me they'd be behind this one.
I stand behind everything else I said.
Just because you CAN make another law doesn't mean you SHOULD. In the grand scheme of things, I also said I'm not inclined to care a whole lot either way on something this tiny... It just isn't a "world changer" either way. It's just on principle I dislike it, because I'd rather not live in a society where we make so many simple questions "illegal to ask".
I never suggested lying about anything! I suggested using a bit of creativity, just like pretty much ALL job applicants do with everything else surrounding interviews.
When you study all those ways to "properly answer interview questions", you're lying too, technically. You're not just having a regular conversation with the interviewer, giving the actual answers you'd naturally give. Instead, you've memorized canned answers you think they'd rather hear.
Do you show up wearing the clothes you'd normally wear any other day to a job? Probably not! You're told to dress up in a suit and tie most of the time. In other words, you're making a special effort to project a different image of yourself to an interviewer than what they'd otherwise get.
The whole thing is kind of a game.... I'm saying, you may as well acknowledge it for what it is and work with it.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you here, though I follow.....
I certainly can't speak for what the true motives of the Koch brothers really are. But as a very general thing, I can still appreciate the fact that free market Capitalism is the best motivator we've ever had to get people to do work/accomplish things. Without it in place, the only alternatives we've seen in ANY other form of government are letting a few at the top dictate who is distributed what, completely subjectively. Thanks to the fact that greed is a known human emotion, this inevitably ends very badly for everyone who isn't on top, calling the shots.
In most successful nations today, there's at least a black market of free market Capitalism going on underneath the Communist or Socialist infrastructure. This is VERY much the case in countries like China, where "anything goes, as long as you don't speak ill of the people in power and don't happen to do something they happen to disapprove of at that moment in time".
Bloodshed tends to force a "reset" of whatever the norm was in a nation -- but it doesn't truly fix anything.
IMO, some of the super wealthy DO have various mental illnesses or psychopathic tendencies. That doesn't really mean anything in the big picture though, except for the fact that some of those distorted outlooks on life happen to "hyper motivate" them beyond the motivation MOST people get from earning money/wealth.
Eventually, technology seems to be headed towards giving us a world where all the human "work" just isn't necessary anymore. THAT obsoletes Capitalism since machines and robots don't require motivation to do labor. They just do it by design. I think any real/worthwhile revolution will only come about when this is truly a reality AND you have to force a total re-think of how the wealth will be distributed, when it's not actually earned by people anymore. In the (probably lengthy) transition period that has to happen to get there, my fear is that people will overreact and try to push an anti-technology agenda, wanting things to go back to how they were before as the answer. That would be unsuccessfully trying to "put a genie back into the bottle" and will cause unending suffering and strife UNTIL they give up that plan. (If the tech exists to perform labor without using people, someone out there will do it, one way or another, and control the majority of wealth in the process, while everyone else fights about those advances in tech.)
In the short term at least? This is much more about people disliking getting pushed out of their comfort zones than a real disaster in the making. There's PLENTY that can be done, including more folks coming up with new ideas for things others would pay for. Instead of sitting at that desk job every day where you collect your fat paycheck for doing a few boring, repetitive tasks? How about you pursue something you truly love and try to monetize it? Even in a world where everything is done by machine or robot? Art will still flourish. Art will probably only INCREASE in value as this happens because the whole point of it will be displaying what human hands and a human mind came up with. Used to be a truck driver and upset that self driving vehicles made you lose your job? Ok, fine. Don't sit there and tell me you have no valuable skills at ALL besides knowing how to drive a truck around! Most truckers I know did other things before starting that career anyway. Heck, as a professional driver, you probably saw more of the country than most people ever get to see in a lifetime. THAT has to have some value, right? Think outside the box a bit and leverage what you know a new way.
"It all depends on who owns the land..." ??!
How so, when the powers that be could simply declare control over the land and seize it from private hands, just like they seize drug money today in a bust?
The *real* trick is not to let government succeed in dividing the people against themselves, IMO. Right now, we've got all of this division -- from movements like BLM creating lines based on race to people fighting the "pro gun control" vs. "freedom to own and carry guns" debate, to division based on gay/LGBT rights, to the "everyone else vs the 1%" battles. Don't forget the Republican vs. Democrat political fighting escalated to new heights, where long time friends are declaring themselves enemies with each other simply based on who voted which direction in the last election.
As long as the population feels that we're all "in this thing together" -- we still have a shot at enforcing government that's "by the people, for the people". Once there's not enough citizens on the same page, we're screwed.
Leave it to California to come up with yet another piece of legislation that the other 49 states didn't feel a need for.... Hope they're all happy with themselves.
My experience in the job market (both in the midwest and now on the east coast) is pretty much the same. SOME employers will ask your previous salary. Others won't. It's always been the case that you're free to fudge the numbers if you think it's to your advantage to do so, when they ask for this information. (For example ... your previous salary may well have been X number of dollars, but did you receive any bonuses like a Christmas bonus perhaps? You can add all of that in to the total you give them and you're not lying -- and it wouldn't be a big deal if you rounded that estimated number up a bit, because of an assumption you'd get higher bonuses in following years if you stayed where you were instead of taking this new job.)
I get that nobody likes that uncertainty of trying to figure out how much to demand, without pricing yourself out of the range of what the person hiring wants to pay. But come on! Pretending employers hold ALL the cards here just isn't reality in the Internet age. You have web sites like GlassDoor you can use to get all sorts of info in advance about what an employer was paying other people, as well as how they liked it there. You can scope out the average salaries paid for your job title in your area by browsing listings on sites like Monster or Dice. I never felt like I need the LAW to force employers to stop asking the previous salary question in order to get a fair interview.
The external Apple keyboard I purchased is being used with a different laptop at home (my 15" retina Macbook Pro), just so I can use it like a desktop with its lid closed, attached to a couple of external monitors, plus that keyboard and a regular mouse.
I don't like the feel of the latest model Apple keyboards as much as earlier models, but yes - it's in Apple's defense to say that after making a lot of use of this new rechargeable one, it's still working properly and would be a perfectly fine product for someone who doesn't take issue with the (subjective) key feel when typing on it.
And for what it's worth? I'm not sure we know what one of these keyboards will do when the rechargeable battery inside it wears out? It seems lie it may continue to work just fine as a wired USB keyboard, since I can use it with the USB cable attached to it.
Honestly, it's kind of amazing how quickly it was picked up by all different web sites and blogs! I've probably read 5 different discussions on the original article already this morning.
The thing is? The "Genius" used the wrong terminology, in my opinion, which made things sound worse than they really are. A speck of dust is most assuredly NOT enough to jam up one of the new Apple keyboards. CRUMBS, however, from people eating by the machine? Absolutely possible.
I had one of these "New Macbooks" when it first came out. Ordered the "high spec" configuration to test it out at work, using it as my own personal work computer, to get a feel for what it was and wasn't really capable of doing for us. (We have a lot of highly mobile employees who care more about a computer being lightweight and easy to carry around, plus long battery life, than raw CPU power. So it was potentially a good fit, vs. the Macbook Air 13" machines we've issued to most of them for years.)
I really despised the keyboard design on it. Practically no key travel and just too easy to mistype things when I wasn't purposely typing extra slow. The 2017 edition has a slightly revised variation of the original keyboard and I tried that out at an Apple Store. IMO, still pretty awful, though MARGINALLY better tactile feel.
I finally resold the thing after concluding it just wasn't enough of a full-fledged notebook computer for our needs. (I'd really just classify it as Apple's high-fashion/style idea of a netbook.) But I never had sticking keys on it. With that little bit of key travel though, it's clear to me you're going to have to take extra care to keep this machine clean. (Wash your hands before typing on it if you were just eating some toast or bread, for example.) It won't take much to get some crumbs or grains of sand or salt or what-not in there, messing up one of the small scissor type key-switches under the key-caps.
I'll also say though, in Apple's defense? I've been using one of the latest models of external keyboards that's wireless, with the built-in rechargeable batteries that charge when you connect it via USB. After typing on that one quite a bit at home, still no real key issues. I try to keep it as clean as I can, but don't go to extrodinary lengths to do so either. Maybe the external ones just hold up a little bit better, or it's the fact they're not getting taken around so many different places where the environments aren't always as clean? Whatever the case, it's worked as well as can be expected. Still dislike the limited key travel on the new designs though, vs. what they had previously.
The Macbook Air is on its way out, right? You look a bit desperate or ridiculous comparing a brand new, supposedly "best in class" portable from Microsoft with an Apple notebook that's been around with only incremental upgrades over the years since about 2011.
Honestly, the only reason people usually keep buying the Airs is because you've got a lot of educational or corporate deployments of them and the consistency has value. Apple's not exactly known for keeping a specific machine configuration around for very long -- and historically, that's been a problem for mass deployments in corporate (or even educational) settings. My workplace has many Macbook Airs deployed to our employees and it's a big advantage that if we buy a new one today, it can still share the same AC power adapters, USB Ethernet dongles and other accessories with everyone else -- and helps make sure everyone has relatively equal setups. (As soon as you give one admin assistant a new machine with an amazing 4K resolution screen, everybody is going to ask why THEY didn't get/deserve one. The joy of office politics.)
I kept thinking about buying this game, but held off due to so many bad reviews about the issues with cheaters.
Maybe I'll break down and give it a try, if they're really doing anything effective to get that under control.
I'm not some "punk kid" gamer. I'm in my 40's and I only play a few games at a time. Kind of picky these days about what's a worthwhile use of my free time. (Still kind of addicted to Starcraft II because I find in a lot of ways, it's like playing a game of chess against an opponent, at least in 1v1 battles, which I prefer.)
I do have a soft spot in my heart for a good 3D multiplayer shooter -- but too many cheaters and/or bots just ruins the whole experience. Disappointingly, we have a pre-teen daughter who seems to be fascinated by the idea of using hacks and cheats on the online games she plays, and her accounts get banned on a regular basis. I wouldn't say she wants to bully other players so much as just gets a kick out of "beating the system". It's the "game within the game" for her to find ways to get an advantage. I'm not sure I'm getting through to her when I try to lecture her on why that's a bad way to go about things.
I mean, I've been in I.T. for about 30 years now and I know there's really nothing "good" that will come of trying to mess up the corporate networks or computers on your way out the door if you're let go.
But that said? This article really doesn't tell us anything about what the guy was angry about? If you're screaming at your boss, that tells me one of two basic things. Either A) you're just that unprofessional and have anger issues, or B) the company is doing something SO wrong, internally, that they've created a situation where YOU could become the "fall guy" for major problems set up to happen, and you have reason to confront them angrily.
(Even if option B is true? This assumes you've already exhausted other avenues to get your message across.)
I agree though. This railroad obviously has shoddy H.R. policies for handling terminations, in any case. Why would you let someone back onto your network once you terminated them?
Seriously ... I've never heard a reference to any software he developed before?
Bill Gates, by contrast, actually DID write some code, including part of the BASIC operating system that was used in some of the old Radio Shack TRS-80 computers.
It seems to me like if you haven't learned to code yourself, it's pretty hypocritical to declare that all students need to learn it now.
So... let's see here. Your "rebuttal" consisted not of anything really showing your ideas are more workable than mine, but simply picking my comments apart line by line and declaring all my hypotheticals "magic" and "fairy dust". Ok, because you say so -- you must be right. Humans would NEVER solve problems on their own without a big central government to mandate rules and regulations first.
I understand the purpose of credit reporting agencies, and I don't have a blanket hatred or dislike of them like some people. (Hey, sorry if you're irresponsible with your money all the time and don't pay your bills when due. That doesn't make the "messenger" evil when they perform the function of warning others about your financial behavior.)
But Equifax? They've long been frustrating because of a lack of care in verifying the data they collect, and a general unwillingness to correct mistakes on credit reports. Inability to secure all of this sensitive information they've collected is icing on that cake.
Look at some of the nonsense they partake in, such as giving you "ONE free look at your credit report per year". That's YOUR info they've collected and make money off of, and they don't even want to show YOU what they've got unless you pay like everybody else? As far as I'm concerned, I should be able to create an account with these people where I can log in and see my credit report ANY time, as well as submit online requests for changes whenever I see something wrong or questionable. I know Equifax and one of their competitors had wrong information about the history of addresses I lived at previously, and neglected to fix it, even after multiple requests. (It seems they don't consider that part of the content of a credit report that could potentially hurt your credit score, so it's not a priority to correct.) If it's worth keeping track of though, it's worth keeping track of correctly, IMO. Don't lie to everyone pulling my report, giving a bogus street address I supposedly resided at (which was obviously due to a typo somebody made at some point, since the street is fairly similar to the name of one I actually DID live at previously).
I see a lot of demand for Android tablets for use in automotive applications .... custom projects to put one in the dashboard in place of a double-DIN car stereo.
I think some are also surely getting used as single-purpose kiosks or remote controllers for things. You can, for example, dedicate one as the controller for videoconferencing systems built around the Zoom software (http://www.zoom.us).
For general purpose use? It's really the same argument you get on the Apple side of things. Why buy an expensive iPad Pro when a full-blown notebook computer comes in around the same price? It depends... The notebook with its own integrated keyboard, ports and expansion slots, is always going to be the more "powerful" option. But what about use-cases where you're standing up all the time, like delivery drivers needing to input data about packages dropped off or picked up? For them, a tablet is going to be the only option that makes a lot of sense.
Everyone *should* want the most return for the least effort, though. That's how things become more efficient. The best software developers I know wrote great automation scripts that saved people lots of time doing repetitive tasks not because they were so hard-working, but because they were so lazy!
I don't believe in ANY utopias, whether the Star Trek type post-capitalist world or the idea that a minimalist U.S. government with no controls on the free market would make things perfect.
But what I *do* know for certain is that under ANY form of government that's ever existed, humans still act like humans, complete with tendencies to do evil, to take advantage of a fellow man for short term gain, etc. It's impossible to leverage central governance to make it go away. Government itself is run by more humans who sometimes choose to use the power they've been given in self-serving and corrupt ways.
If government never regulated communications in America at all? I think things would be different than what we have today. Better? I think so, in the sense that individuals were free to implement any idea they had that might solve the problem. How many limitations have we imposed on progress BECAUSE we made assumptions early on that government needed to control such things as our airwaves? Initially, it probably seemed like madness not to have an agency like the FCC controlling how much wattage you could broadcast with and what slice of frequency spectrum you could use for various purposes. But imagine the scenario if it was just a "free for all"? Eventually, people would invent other solutions to the problem. Maybe they'd come up with ways to broadcast across a big swatch of radio spectrum, in a shared system with all the other broadcasts? It could work something like the Internet does currently, where all the data goes out to the net in real time and specific chunks of data get routed back to the appropriate receiver. Then, it wouldn't be a matter of "Company X" not even being able to offer cellular service until they can buy a few channels in a costly government auction. CB radio operators would have had radios that let people talk with as much range as they needed, without needing to get a government license first. Wi-Fi would "just work" and work well, without all the standards that have to inter-operate due to the limited frequencies declared usable for the purpose.
I think now is not the time. It's that simple. We're currently in a situation where Apple's iOS pleases a big segment of the population who like the relative ease of use, the compatibility with many other devices (from clock radios to car stereos supporting "CarPlay"), and like the App Store "walled garden" model where every submission is subject to review (higher confidence of no malware problems or non-functioning software).
The others fall pretty well into the category of being happy with various Android powered phone offerings, because they have more flexibility to customize them, support a hardware model assuming you use MicroSD as additional storage, have more freedom to use alternate "app stores", and are made by enough different companies so you can own one made by some manufacturer you don't have issues with, if you're anti-Apple on principle.
Right now, either way you go -- you can count on any app that's worth a darn running on either platform. That app compatibility is more important to people than a "better UI", most of the time. Otherwise, I think Microsoft's recent attempts would have been much better received.
More competition is a good thing, but you can't expect someone to invest all the hard work and expense in rolling one out if there's no pressing need. Right now, the "needs" people express seem to be more of niches like "more secure platform". (The general public doesn't really believe a current, patched version of iOS or Android's OS is a security risk - and many apps exist for both platforms that offer high security solutions, like Signal for IM.)
If Android or Apple (or both) start displeasing the masses and people stop buying or upgrading to the latest OS as it's offered -- that will be the catalyst for change.
You know ... despite all the hatred for her opinions, Ayn Rand tried to point out the fact that framed properly, "Greed is good." Not a big fan of hers, but can respect her for taking that radical of an idea and backing it up with some reasoning.
If you really take a basic human emotion like greed out of the equation, you remove a prime motivator for humans to work hard to achieve goals. Anything, to excess, becomes bad or unhealthy. Greed is no different. (Gluttony is another one of the supposed "deadly sins" - yet you'd starve and die if you didn't eat regularly.)
Anyone who respects the values behind the Democratic Republic we put together in the USA *should* be waving their arms and screaming "Socialism!" when they see it infiltrating our government. The United States has a pretty exceptional thing going with the government we were formed under - and I'd go so far as to say the majority of problems people point to in the country have their roots in attempts to introduce socialist solutions.
The REAL challenge is how to keep our government from meddling in free market capitalism and allowing "corporatism" to take hold where big businesses collude with government, instead of getting governed by them. I dare say we'd never have found ourselves in the current situation with regards to Internet broadband if we didn't start out with telephones as a regulated government monopoly, followed by government regulation of the cable industry when it was first forming. For something like a decade, Americans were stuck dealing with dial-up modems over analog phone lines because the telcos didn't want to give up their precious copper wire infrastructure. The rest of the developing world leap-frogged right over us (even as we were "gifted" with 64K and then 128K ISDN service over copper).
Given the "monster" our government helped the chosen big businesses build, we're kind of stuck now. That's why you can't really let things like Net Neutrality legislation die. Once govt. meddles with a service like this enough, they can't just duck out completely and say, "It's a free market now! All good!"
But as new technologies emerge, we've GOT to try to learn from these past mistakes .... not throw the baby out with the bath-water, deciding our Constitution and Bill of Rights is outdated and worthless, and advocating a conversion to the same old socialism we've got in plenty of other nations.
Haven't bought an electric yet, but a couple of things are making them more attractive for our family.
#1, I live in an area where you have a lot of highways with HOV lanes. During rush hour in the morning and evening, it's often the case that the whole interstate is clogged up except that far left HOV lane, that's traveling along near the speed limit. Electric cars are allowed to drive in the HOV lanes legally at these times, even if you have no occupants other than yourself as the driver. The idea I could cut all of that time out of my daily commute almost makes buying one worthwhile.
#2, There are finally enough electrics sold so you have a decent used market of them to choose from. If I want to buy one as an extra vehicle, mainly for the teenagers to use to get to school or work after they learn to drive? I can actually buy something like a used 2012-2014 Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt hybrid electric, or Smart-4-Two electric in that "$10,000 and under" price range. (Remember, with the Volt -- the reviews when it was new consistently said they liked the car but the ONLY real issue was the price point. If you did the math, you just couldn't ever save enough money in gas driving one to offset its high cost.)
The problem I still see with the technology, though, is the lack of available charging stations. The cheaper electrics (like the used Leafs) just don't have enough range to do much with them besides short trips or one longer work commute. If I knew I could always plug one in, in any parking space I used in one of the municipal garages by my office? That would be kind of a game-changer, since it'd have a full 8 hours to recharge while I worked. Realistically though? The places with charging stations tend to be retail stores or restaurants with only 2 or 3 designated spots for them. Parking garages aren't interested in the type of electric bill they'd have if a whole bunch of people were charging cars off of their electrical system every day, in 6 stories of parking! So what you have to plan for with these cars is that you're only really going to charge it up overnight at home, and whatever range you get with that is as far as you can go in a day with the vehicle.
So, you can pay at any store accepting Apple Pay with your Lumina phone? I'd like to see that work ...
You still had almost nothing but huge slabs as "gaming laptops" until VERY recently because they couldn't pack a high end graphics card in a small, thin notebook and still have decent cooling for it.
But even there? People are buying systems like the new ASUS ROG Zephyrus now, because it fits a GTX1080 series GPU in there with 8GB of VRAM and still manages to look like a reasonably thin machine. (Bottom of the case actually opens up when you open the lid, to provide sufficient ventilation for the GPU -- but with the lid closed, looks like any other modern notebook in thickness.)
The push for "thin and lightweight" isn't just because people are fixated on it being stylish. It's really much more pleasant to carry around a thinner, lighter computer. If you made a big, huge cellphone that looked like the old "bag phones", think how long you could go on a battery charge today? But yet, nobody wants that either.
The gauntlet has been thrown down to PC makers, saying "Find a way to cram all of the latest technology into this thin, light form-factor!" And increasingly, they're doing it. It's all good.
Rather than asking why someone would pay over $1,000 for the latest iPhone (an established product as a leader in the cellphone market), one could ask why anyone ever paid over $10,000 for the gold Apple Watch "Edition" when that came out? Why do people pay multiple hundreds of dollars for the latest pairs of sneakers, when a $60 pair of New Balance tennis shoes is most likely every bit as good?
Apple products are recognized as "premium" in today's marketplace, no matter how legitimate you think that really is. That means higher earning people take an interest in what they're selling. Those people can easily afford $1000 or a little more to have the flagship cellphone offering that keeps them in the iOS "ecosphere" -- able to run all the apps they purchased in the past, etc.
Personally? I can afford to buy the new iPhone X if I really wanted to. I'm not rich, by any means, but I'm probably in the low end of the "upper middle class" (thanks to being married to a woman who works full-time in a career job similar to my own). I doubt I'll upgrade at all though, since I purchased the 7 Plus in the 256GB RAM configuration when it came out - and it meets all of my needs.
As a few people pointed out already though? These days, a lot of people use their cellphone more than almost any other electronics device they own. If you judge "value" based on how much you use something -- $1,000 or so might make it a bargain. It always amazes me when I think of how many separate gadgets I can eliminate because of my smartphone. Not that long ago, I would have had a separate MP3 music player, alarm clock, pocket calculator, flashlight, ruler or measuring tape, notepad, camera, camcorder, guitar tuner, tape recorder ... not to mention all the paper coupons I would have clipped in lieu of digital alternatives. These days, the phone even substitutes for carrying credit cards in a wallet.
The system has a lot of problems, but your explanation is questionable too.
You *really* think we're imprisoning people primarily to strip them of their voting rights? Corporations are worried that common citizens will vote in a way contrary to their interests so they prevent that by getting them locked up in large numbers? That might make a good dystopian sci-fi theme -- but kind of far-fetched.
As for revoking driving privileges because someone owes money (typically unpaid child support)? That's arguably overused, but worth keeping on the table as an option. All too often, you have people out there refusing to pay the support they owe, yet finding ways to take regular vacation trips all over the country where they spend thousands of dollars. Sure, it makes no sense to take a license away from somebody actually needing it to get to and from a job they're trying to do. But that's not where this law is getting applied, most of the time. They know that people value having the ability to drive. It's a big part of one's freedom in America. So taking it away when it's clear they're using it to make it harder to find them to collect child support? That just makes sense. And the fact they're likely to then drive without the license? That further helps ensure they wind up back in court at some point, where their lack of willingness to pay can be addressed.
I was really pleased with the improvements we saw at 2 different companies when we finally let go of outdated LTO or DLT backup tape solutions.
It may be true that tape has a better chance of being readable after sitting in storage for a long enough period of time. But my experience was, the tape drives themselves would suffer from breakdowns causing them to unspool or "eat" tapes, too. The older DLT drives I used to work with were especially prone to failure modes causing them not to sense the "leader" at the start or end of a tape properly, causing it to unspool.
Tapes would physically wear out too, after so many read and write cycles. The friction of the tape dragging past the heads on the drive was the reason you had to regularly run cleaning tapes to keep the drives happy and working well. They physically stripped some of the magnetic material off the tapes as they were used.
"Best practices" for backups involved regularly buying new sets of cartridges and taking older ones out of service in backup rotations by some date you wrote on their labels. But that used to get costly and was kind of wasteful.
I guess every technology has its place - so if going back to tape improves security and solves problems for some businesses, great! But I'd rather try my best to secure the environment without resorting to that, wherever I could. The modern backup systems that do real-time backups to hard drives are so much more flexible and make restores so much quicker and less painful.
I probably should have added the "professional" or "career" qualifier to my original comment about lobbyists.
If you're going to say any activist who tries to put together some kind of small "awareness" group is outlawed from speaking with politicians because that's construed as lobbying them? Obviously no ... that's not what I'm suggesting.
What I'm saying is that it's a very real thing that you've got individuals, today, who make a career job out of lobbying politicians for very specific agendas. They're PAID to do this day in and day out. Sometimes? I'd agree 100% with what they're trying to do. (I met a guy out here in the DC suburbs who was doing this for marijuana legalization, and I think he was completely right with his arguments.)
But ultimately? I think we need to draw a line with this stuff and say IF you're going to get paid to try to push a certain political agenda? Then you need to be limited to influencing the voting citizenry. Give THEM the info they need to vote the way you want them to vote to make the change happen, or give them the list of their senators and congressmen who are already on-board with the idea. Unless you do this, you're accepting a situation where the voice of the masses is always worth less than money spent to bend the ear of the decision-makers directly, bypassing the masses.