Where I live HOA isn't a thing. There are no requirements of how you maintain your property anywhere for about 50 miles. People also won't pay $50/week for their lawn to be maintained. You'd be lucky if people here would pay $10 (and from my own experience people are willing to pay somewhere between $5-15).
I have a friend whose older brother has run a 'lawn carer' business with a single truck and his own tools for a couple decades now. He only gets paid good money by businesses and they pay about $40-50/hour of work done. He does very few houses because they simply won't pay even half what he gets from businesses. He also can't maintain 10 hours of work a day, he's lucky to get 6. So at the best possible rate here he earns (by himself) $300 a day, $1,800 per week (6 days a week which is what he works), or roughly $7,200 a month. Which is a best case scenario and it looks good until you factor in equipment (including maintenance, repair, and fuel), insurance (which is around $800/month for him and his family), and everything else he needs to factor in. However the one time we talked numbers he actually made about $50k that year, so his earnings are sub optimal compared to these best case numbers above. He used to hire teens to help with larger jobs and paid them in cash, but that's become to much of a hassle and so he doesn't do that anymore.
Even with a hardware decoder as part of the GPU's processing ability, to stream or record it takes system resources and so reduces performance somewhat. Hence the comments before mine. Streamers use 'streaming PCs' to reduce this performance hit to nil and optimize the output they can stream. It also lets them do overlays, effects, and other visual alterations with no performance hit as well.
You know streamers have solved this by using a second PC to capture the video output from the first PC before it's output to a monitor, right? The second PC doesn't even need to be particularly powerful in comparison so sometimes you'll see some pretty old systems being used as 'capture devices'. So really there isn't much excuse for not capturing the feed themselves, other than just not wanting to.
Actually cars are a bad example of 'planned obsolescence', mostly because while some parts may fail the entire car does not. I have a car from the 1999 model year (so somewhere between July 1998 and June 1999 for production) and while it always had weird electrical bugs that caused the interior lights to flicker randomly at night at certain humility levels, and the Aluminium block engine broke after about 150k miles and needed to be replaced, and the A/C died for reasons unknown, and the transmission failed once and needed rebuilt.... Well after all of that the car still works nearly a decade after it was made.
Sadly the 'road salt' here in the snow belt has caused the underbelly to begin to rust and so sometime soon it will fail inspection for the state, but even that doesn't mean the vehicle is unusable (just illegal to drive in my state). From the outside it still looks to be in very good condition and the engine (from a model several years newer) is in excellent shape. Even if we do consider that the end, 'wear and tear' is not the same as 'planned obsolescence'. I'm sure if I wanted to spend several times the value of the car I could 'save' it from needing to be scrapped even. If I never drove it during the winter and had a garage for it's entire lifetime I bet it would be just fine today as well.
So no, the traditional car is not simply going to fail after a specific point in time because it was designed that way. However plenty of other things will. Electronics often more so than other areas. That said, MS is supporting Windows... By offering Windows 10 to users of 7 & 8. If you want continued support than install the latest version for no charge. Apple does this very thing, but we don't seem very concerned about that. How many versions of Mac OS X are we up to now? 12? 13? Several of those have bricked older hardware or simply not supported it. Not a popular thing to say on Slashdot, but to me I don't see a big difference.
Basically I had 'stomach pain' and an 'upset' stomach every morning causing me problems with eating until later in the day. Enough stress caused the pain to increase until I felt like I had an ulcer and I couldn't eat. In fact I went to the doctors twice because I literally thought I did have an ulcer. The final test I had that proved it was a diseased gal bladder was a stomach ultrasound.
My grandmother (on my mother's side) passed away about a decade ago after 'routine' heart surgery (no double or triple bipass). However it wasn't the heart surgery that got her, it was the infection after. The doctor's however had been 'confused' by her lack of progress and didn't believe she had an infection. At the same time I picked up on her having an infection after one visit and with no tests. She was never treated for an infection, though the autopsy proved that was the cause of death in the end. After that I truly understood why the US has such a high malpractice rate. The Doctor's had continued to rely on tests which told them the wrong answers and had so little time to actually see a patient that she was never treated properly.
In my own personal experience I had a diseased gall bladder since I was a teenager, however it went misdiagnosed for a decade and a half as IBS. However it finally got so bad that I couldn't function normally and for about the fifth time in my life I returned to the hospital to finally get a real explanation of what was wrong with me. When they removed my gal bladder the doctor who had performed the surgery had said it was the most diseased gal bladder he'd ever seen in a living patient.
All that money we pay for medical care seems utterly wasted between the insurance companies and the hospitals.
Actually if you look at the numbers on that wiki page, it shows the CIA figures the rate to be about the same. However, the rate under 15 is lower in India as is the WDB estimate. On the other hand India didn't have the purges China did during the last century or a one child per family policy, so the Indian trend is more static until the age when people tend to start dying off. This line sup pretty well from what I've heard form both Indians and Chinese people I've known.
India, at least in the bigger cities, is starting to trend toward more acceptance of women and so are less extreme than a significant portion of China. They usually at least don't outright kill girls when they are born or sell them into slavery. Instead they just aren't treated all that well. Sometimes this can get pretty extreme in the 'not treated well' category like being sold at or near the legal marriage age to (typically) older men as wives. Since parents are usually expected to provide a dowry (or 'marriage price') to the husbands family, selling a child into marriage is often seen as a better option (and no one asks the girl what she wants). All of this is usually at the lower levels of their caste system however.
In China parents don't ask their kids 'when are you going to provide us with grand children?', they ask 'when are you going to provide us with a grandson?'. In the countryside they are actively known to kill female children or sell them off shortly after birth and claim they died. This lets them skirt around the 'one child' policy and try again. What makes that hilarious is that on the other end of the scale their are so few Chinese girls that they actively have family who buy them a bride from another country because 'it's better to marry a foreigner than to have no legacy'.
By no means are either countries that seem to understand the value of women, but the degree is different.
Well the main problem in general is no one checks the 'why' in why a person is not hired. The companies get to say "We tried to find a local, but none were suitable for this position", the majority get thrown out during the paperwork phase before even getting an interview. Less than 1% get interviews and of those any reason under the sun is 'valid'. Technically they can't avoid hiring you for age, gender, or other protected status traits, but even that happens all the time because the company doesn't even have to tell you why you weren't hired. Most people get form letters that simply say "We found a more qualified applicant". Which is hilarious if the same job then appears in the paper (or online) the next week at that same company.
If the company had to disclose why they didn't hire someone and could only hire an H1B for skill, things would be much different. The companies would hate it though.
This isn't hard. Do you know how many times I've had good interviews, but I hear from people I know working at the place that I wasn't hired because HR said I was "To expensive due to experience", "Overqualified for the position", or "We felt they were not a good fit". None of those has any substance to them, but they are considered valid reasons to not hire someone.
Well since the late 90s american law firms have taught companies how to disqualify american workers for jobs and get in H1Bs instead. A Pittsburgh firm famously got on Youtube for a seminar were they did that. It hasn't stopped. In my region it's gotten so bad for H1Bs that there are barely any large companies that have american IT workers, at the same time myself and hundreds of others who have applied for some of these jobs were not hired. While I can't tell what rate those workers are then paid, what exactly do you suppose is the reason to discriminate against american IT workers?
Looking at my usage in the TWC control panel, I regularly use 300 GB+ almost every month. All of which is streaming from Twitch or Youtube, web surfing, and gaming. Most of my entertainment is from those sources.
Most of India lives in very tight quarters, if you think cities like New York and Tokyo are cramped then Dehli would shock you. Also they select children with a preference for boys over girls (not to Chinese degree, but it still is certainly a 'thing'), with boys in a often superior cultural role over girls. Combine these two and it's no surprise some boys can't keep their hands to themselves. I bet many feel safely anonymous most of the time. They also have a culture social class structure to make this all the worse.
So I'm not terribly surprised that this combination has lead to severe issues.
Actually the upper bounds of the atmosphere on Venus is relatively habitable. The catch is you need a floating structure that can maintain a certain height from the ground for long periods of time (potentially decades or more). It's the lower levels of Venus which would require serious effort to manage do to pressure, temperature, and atmospheric content. This by the way is why you can google Aerostats.
I didn't come from a family that could pay for my education, nor did I have a spare ~50k when I went back. Hence I owe a total of around 80k in student loans. Which includes Pell grants slightly reducing what I owe. For my associate degree and then my not finished bachelor's degree. However I ran out of money I could get from the government. I could still get about 1.5k/semester with most of that from grants, but the cost is around 12k/semester to attend (and this is a state financed school). So I just can't finish it. It's been 1.5 years since I had to leave now.
Actually they would not lock you in a padded room... You don't qualify for health coverage, remember? You'd have to hurt someone and become a 'criminal' to get the government to provide mental health anything.
That said, I know that same boat and I'm a decade younger than you (37). Except I did finish high school and a associates degree, and when I lost my job in 2011 I went back to school to try to get my bachelor's... Before I ran out of money in my last year. So now I'm left with even more debt and I don't have a nice 401k to fall back on.
While I'm not suicidal, I do stare into the abyss of my future and wonder if anyone would even notice I was gone once my parents pass away...
Where I live, he'd get unemployment and the wife wouldn't qualify for anything until that ran out if they lived together. If they guy was lucky enough to get part time work before or at the end of his unemployment he might qualify for assistance (depends on exact income), but the wife still wouldn't if he lives with her. Only if he's not able to get work can they live together. But we've just broken up (ie they no have to live separately) this family if the woman wants money to live on. That's messed up. Or goal as a society should be to keep families together. More so if their are kids in this mix.
I've been in the system that welfare is a part of. I never qualified for actual money, instead I got a small amount of 'food stamp' funds (ones only usable for food) and medical assistance. Then the rules changed and I couldn't even get that. The 'councilor' basically told me my best way to get support again was to go knock up a woman and retain custody of the kid.
Wow, thank you arrogant cunt. I have in fact read it and while he waxes quite a lot about other things, his actual economic system he proposed was as I said. But go on being a useless tool to your own ideology. Thankfully you are unlikely to ever have a say in anything important.
Are you a retard? Communism has never, ever, ever, been used. Communism is an economic system where the means of production (land, machinery, etc) are in the hands of those who do the producing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a centralized command economy (the means of production and the labor for production are controlled by the state or central authority). Do those things sound the same to you? Because you just told me the USSR was communist and that would imply they are. If so you are a retard.
No country to date has actually had a purely Marxist, Communist, or Socialist economy. Most that have said they are any of those have lied.
No offense, but that rant on republicans and presidents in particular is pretty silly. Congress and the Senate collectively wield way more power to 'do things' than the president. He's a figurehead and a tool tasked with acting on the will of congress and the senate. Like Obama did, they can suggest things (including a budget) and those two bodies can soundly reject that (like they did). I neither blame any president for the acts of congress and the senate, not do I expect presidents to be able to keep their promises because they don't have control over the bodies that can. Rational discussion of things the president can do (like reigning in the alphabet agencies who are under the presidents direct authority) are not things presidents have ever wanted to do. Instead they promise the moon to the voters, knowing that few if any of their promises will ever happen.
I'm an independent voter and I don't trust either party farther than I could throw them. However the heart of the economic issues started before Bush took over and nothing either president did made much of a difference... Well up until Bush started police actions which those bodies completely supported. That racked up massive uses of funds (most taken as debt because the budget for the year had already passed). That was horrible for any part of the economy not focused on those 'police actions', but even that wasn't the will of the president alone.
You can't say that. It's only recently in history we have had 'public safety nets' and so far we haven't had any that are universal. Who is to say people wouldn't create the next greatest piece of art or literature for their own reasons? I would. Which was exactly my point.
Sure some my decide to do fuck all with their life, but their are always people who do fuck all with their life. At least this way people can stop doing work just to survive and instead 'do what makes them happy'. Who the fuck are you to say who deserves to be happy or not? Some people get a great job that makes them happy, most people just work a job because they have no choice. The later is several times the former in raw numbers. I'm absolutely positive if college wasn't "I need to do 'X' degree or I'll never make a living" was instead "I like this subject so I should take it." We would see an upswing in the arts, musicians, painters, photographers, writers, etc. People like art and culture, but more often than not people can't 'make a living' out of it. Even people with art degrees often go on to be nothing more than waitresses, factory workers, etc because they needed to make money to live.
Heck I know lots of those people since I used to work anime conventions. Do you have any idea how many people in an 'artists alley' would make more from their art in a day there compared to a year normally? Pretty much everyone. They all were talented artists, but no one wanted to pay them constantly to generate art they wanted to make. So they had jobs they disliked to live and got a couple days a year of art they enjoyed. Heck if we could pull off a convention like that without charging the artists for the tables and space (because we are charged for those), then most of those artists would give up their artwork for free.
I think I prefer my outlook on the world based on my experience and not yours.
Oh and the Soviets of the 1900s were never given the means to do what they wanted. They were told by the authorities where they would work and what they would do. If you think otherwise you need to read some actual history about how the system worked under their command economy (not communist, that was a joke and a lie they were never communist or socialist in anything more than name).
It's a trap and even worse can be a weapon used against people in need. Husband lose his job and you were a single income family? Kick him out and we'll give you money! Stay with him and we'll make sure you burn together. What the fuck sort of message is that?
It may not be only single mothers caught in the trap. After all I've not only seen, but I've known men who are effectively 'playboys' who simply knock up women and then say they care for these children to 'earn a living'. My ex-fiancee had two children before I dated her. One from her boyfriend in high school and another from one of those 'playboys' who knocked her up to have another kid he could mooch off of. My Ex is a nurse and as is typical the caring type of person, though not always the smartest. Even so she never intended to have a second child, the guy went to quite some lengths to get another kid he could claim is his. One of our constant issues while we were together was that she'd lose part of her government provided income if I ever married her. She could qualify for welfare while working full time because of the kids and got free medical coverage and 'food stamps' to go with it.
When I lost my job and my unemployment expired? "You don't meet our standards of need or protected status for any type of support." Ironically if we would have gotten married and I lost my job I bet I'd have qualified then because I would have been 'supporting two kids'... The whole system is shit and couldn't see need if it bite it in the ass. It's rife for abuse because we decide some people deserve help and others don't. Making it universal would finally be a means of destroying the traps and weapons and creating a balanced environment without bias.
'Living Wage' and 'Welfare' do not go hand in hand. Layering the two makes zero sense. Repurposing the existing system for a new purpose does.
Why should 'civil rights' activists care that a person who got 16k/year under Welfare gets 20k under a living wage? And the unions shouldn't care if we aren't firing employees. If anything the only thing we are decreasing is the paper work involved in 'verifying' a person qualifies. We've made that simply 'A US citizen'. I'd imagine most people working in the welfare system would rather not have to tell a nearly desperate person that they aren't a 'protected group' that qualifies for their help. All the ones I've ever dealt with would rather not talk to you than to have to tell you that. However the number of people they would support would rise to be everyone so there would certainly be no net loss of jobs for them. Of all groups those tow have the biggest incentives to see a living wage created.
No the ones who don't want it are the selfish people who have never been poor, never been in need, and who would prefer to be able to trade things like jobs for votes.
Calling what the Soviets did 'Marxism' makes Karl Marx roll over in his grave. His sole idea was that the power of production needed to be in the hands of the people who did the labor. The Soviet state may have said that was their goal, but that's not what they did. Instead a select few people mandated all production for the country combing means of production and labor into a single whole under their authority. We call this a 'centralized command economy' not 'communism' or 'marxism' even. The biggest lie ever told was that of those who promoted a 'centralized command economy' as the desire of Marx and those like him.
Real 'Marxism' does exist. I've heard of more than a few companies that are run by that method with the companies 'shares' owned by the workers and everyone having a say into the shape of the companies future. They tend to be highly resistant to downturns and profitable for both workers and the cities and towns they work in.
Why bother? Because maybe it's what you want to do.
I've always had creative interests in storytelling and writing, but do you know how many people can make a living off of 'writing novels'? In the age of paper publishing most genres would see 5 new writers per year get published. 5. Even in the age of online distribution the number of people who can write full time is fairly low. It's maybe a thousand or so a year across all genres.
Worse, who makes an income as a 'storyteller'? It's a completely lost art in this day and age to put together a compelling story on the fly and make it interesting. It's more of a gimmick among friends and family now. It used to be the most popular general form of entertainment. You'd go down to the local tavern or pub and trade stories. I doubt people ever made money at it outside a few people who could probably best be described as 'travelling bards', yet a few collected works of these types of people have become the root of out cultural heritage. Is it worthless? Current society wouldn't pay for it. I could do it though if I didn't have to worry about where my next meal came from.
Lots of people are creative and either through a lack of money, a lack of time, or a lack of energy after a long day at work never end up making any use of it.
I'm getting rid of my moderations to reply to this, but I think I need to...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government would just 'give' money to anyone. It doesn't. Food Stamps and medical care in my state requires that your either: a woman, pregnant, or have kids. Or... You work a job with no less than 15 hours a week, but make less than a certain amount (I don't recall the cutoff right now). Welfare actually has higher requirements. So if your a man who didn't sleep around? Not getting money. A woman with a partner? Not getting money. A single woman with no children? Not getting as much money. Want money? Sleep around and have lots of unprotected sex and keep at least some portion of those kids.
Also this wouldn't create money, it would remove programs like welfare and the hassles that go with it to simply distribute funds evenly across the population. It might need a slight increase in taxes, or we could just stop pissing away money on being the world's police and use that money to help our own people. That's not to mention carious other 'half-baked' programs we have that have requirements we could do away with. Telecom taxes just recently came up because the FTC wanted to use it to support low income broadband. If anyone could afford broadband their is no 'low income' to worry about.
I've always found it funny how the world sees us as so rich, yet I can drive into almost every city in this country and find homeless people in conditions as bad as any third world country. I mean we have people who live in service tunnels, under bridges, and in sewer outlets because we just don't give a shit for our own people. If we could just get money to where it needs to go maybe we could stop being a first world country built on top of a third world one. I'm all for basic income. Welfare and other support systems are rife with abuse because we pick and chose who we help and who are 'garbage' to be thrown away by society.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live HOA isn't a thing. There are no requirements of how you maintain your property anywhere for about 50 miles. People also won't pay $50/week for their lawn to be maintained. You'd be lucky if people here would pay $10 (and from my own experience people are willing to pay somewhere between $5-15).
I have a friend whose older brother has run a 'lawn carer' business with a single truck and his own tools for a couple decades now. He only gets paid good money by businesses and they pay about $40-50/hour of work done. He does very few houses because they simply won't pay even half what he gets from businesses. He also can't maintain 10 hours of work a day, he's lucky to get 6. So at the best possible rate here he earns (by himself) $300 a day, $1,800 per week (6 days a week which is what he works), or roughly $7,200 a month. Which is a best case scenario and it looks good until you factor in equipment (including maintenance, repair, and fuel), insurance (which is around $800/month for him and his family), and everything else he needs to factor in. However the one time we talked numbers he actually made about $50k that year, so his earnings are sub optimal compared to these best case numbers above. He used to hire teens to help with larger jobs and paid them in cash, but that's become to much of a hassle and so he doesn't do that anymore.
Even with a hardware decoder as part of the GPU's processing ability, to stream or record it takes system resources and so reduces performance somewhat. Hence the comments before mine. Streamers use 'streaming PCs' to reduce this performance hit to nil and optimize the output they can stream. It also lets them do overlays, effects, and other visual alterations with no performance hit as well.
You know streamers have solved this by using a second PC to capture the video output from the first PC before it's output to a monitor, right? The second PC doesn't even need to be particularly powerful in comparison so sometimes you'll see some pretty old systems being used as 'capture devices'. So really there isn't much excuse for not capturing the feed themselves, other than just not wanting to.
Actually cars are a bad example of 'planned obsolescence', mostly because while some parts may fail the entire car does not. I have a car from the 1999 model year (so somewhere between July 1998 and June 1999 for production) and while it always had weird electrical bugs that caused the interior lights to flicker randomly at night at certain humility levels, and the Aluminium block engine broke after about 150k miles and needed to be replaced, and the A/C died for reasons unknown, and the transmission failed once and needed rebuilt.... Well after all of that the car still works nearly a decade after it was made.
Sadly the 'road salt' here in the snow belt has caused the underbelly to begin to rust and so sometime soon it will fail inspection for the state, but even that doesn't mean the vehicle is unusable (just illegal to drive in my state). From the outside it still looks to be in very good condition and the engine (from a model several years newer) is in excellent shape. Even if we do consider that the end, 'wear and tear' is not the same as 'planned obsolescence'. I'm sure if I wanted to spend several times the value of the car I could 'save' it from needing to be scrapped even. If I never drove it during the winter and had a garage for it's entire lifetime I bet it would be just fine today as well.
So no, the traditional car is not simply going to fail after a specific point in time because it was designed that way. However plenty of other things will. Electronics often more so than other areas. That said, MS is supporting Windows... By offering Windows 10 to users of 7 & 8. If you want continued support than install the latest version for no charge. Apple does this very thing, but we don't seem very concerned about that. How many versions of Mac OS X are we up to now? 12? 13? Several of those have bricked older hardware or simply not supported it. Not a popular thing to say on Slashdot, but to me I don't see a big difference.
Basically I had 'stomach pain' and an 'upset' stomach every morning causing me problems with eating until later in the day. Enough stress caused the pain to increase until I felt like I had an ulcer and I couldn't eat. In fact I went to the doctors twice because I literally thought I did have an ulcer. The final test I had that proved it was a diseased gal bladder was a stomach ultrasound.
My grandmother (on my mother's side) passed away about a decade ago after 'routine' heart surgery (no double or triple bipass). However it wasn't the heart surgery that got her, it was the infection after. The doctor's however had been 'confused' by her lack of progress and didn't believe she had an infection. At the same time I picked up on her having an infection after one visit and with no tests. She was never treated for an infection, though the autopsy proved that was the cause of death in the end. After that I truly understood why the US has such a high malpractice rate. The Doctor's had continued to rely on tests which told them the wrong answers and had so little time to actually see a patient that she was never treated properly.
In my own personal experience I had a diseased gall bladder since I was a teenager, however it went misdiagnosed for a decade and a half as IBS. However it finally got so bad that I couldn't function normally and for about the fifth time in my life I returned to the hospital to finally get a real explanation of what was wrong with me. When they removed my gal bladder the doctor who had performed the surgery had said it was the most diseased gal bladder he'd ever seen in a living patient.
All that money we pay for medical care seems utterly wasted between the insurance companies and the hospitals.
Actually if you look at the numbers on that wiki page, it shows the CIA figures the rate to be about the same. However, the rate under 15 is lower in India as is the WDB estimate. On the other hand India didn't have the purges China did during the last century or a one child per family policy, so the Indian trend is more static until the age when people tend to start dying off. This line sup pretty well from what I've heard form both Indians and Chinese people I've known.
India, at least in the bigger cities, is starting to trend toward more acceptance of women and so are less extreme than a significant portion of China. They usually at least don't outright kill girls when they are born or sell them into slavery. Instead they just aren't treated all that well. Sometimes this can get pretty extreme in the 'not treated well' category like being sold at or near the legal marriage age to (typically) older men as wives. Since parents are usually expected to provide a dowry (or 'marriage price') to the husbands family, selling a child into marriage is often seen as a better option (and no one asks the girl what she wants). All of this is usually at the lower levels of their caste system however.
In China parents don't ask their kids 'when are you going to provide us with grand children?', they ask 'when are you going to provide us with a grandson?'. In the countryside they are actively known to kill female children or sell them off shortly after birth and claim they died. This lets them skirt around the 'one child' policy and try again. What makes that hilarious is that on the other end of the scale their are so few Chinese girls that they actively have family who buy them a bride from another country because 'it's better to marry a foreigner than to have no legacy'.
By no means are either countries that seem to understand the value of women, but the degree is different.
Well the main problem in general is no one checks the 'why' in why a person is not hired. The companies get to say "We tried to find a local, but none were suitable for this position", the majority get thrown out during the paperwork phase before even getting an interview. Less than 1% get interviews and of those any reason under the sun is 'valid'. Technically they can't avoid hiring you for age, gender, or other protected status traits, but even that happens all the time because the company doesn't even have to tell you why you weren't hired. Most people get form letters that simply say "We found a more qualified applicant". Which is hilarious if the same job then appears in the paper (or online) the next week at that same company.
If the company had to disclose why they didn't hire someone and could only hire an H1B for skill, things would be much different. The companies would hate it though.
This isn't hard. Do you know how many times I've had good interviews, but I hear from people I know working at the place that I wasn't hired because HR said I was "To expensive due to experience", "Overqualified for the position", or "We felt they were not a good fit". None of those has any substance to them, but they are considered valid reasons to not hire someone.
Well since the late 90s american law firms have taught companies how to disqualify american workers for jobs and get in H1Bs instead. A Pittsburgh firm famously got on Youtube for a seminar were they did that. It hasn't stopped. In my region it's gotten so bad for H1Bs that there are barely any large companies that have american IT workers, at the same time myself and hundreds of others who have applied for some of these jobs were not hired. While I can't tell what rate those workers are then paid, what exactly do you suppose is the reason to discriminate against american IT workers?
Looking at my usage in the TWC control panel, I regularly use 300 GB+ almost every month. All of which is streaming from Twitch or Youtube, web surfing, and gaming. Most of my entertainment is from those sources.
Most of India lives in very tight quarters, if you think cities like New York and Tokyo are cramped then Dehli would shock you. Also they select children with a preference for boys over girls (not to Chinese degree, but it still is certainly a 'thing'), with boys in a often superior cultural role over girls. Combine these two and it's no surprise some boys can't keep their hands to themselves. I bet many feel safely anonymous most of the time. They also have a culture social class structure to make this all the worse.
So I'm not terribly surprised that this combination has lead to severe issues.
Actually the upper bounds of the atmosphere on Venus is relatively habitable. The catch is you need a floating structure that can maintain a certain height from the ground for long periods of time (potentially decades or more). It's the lower levels of Venus which would require serious effort to manage do to pressure, temperature, and atmospheric content. This by the way is why you can google Aerostats.
Btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I didn't come from a family that could pay for my education, nor did I have a spare ~50k when I went back. Hence I owe a total of around 80k in student loans. Which includes Pell grants slightly reducing what I owe. For my associate degree and then my not finished bachelor's degree. However I ran out of money I could get from the government. I could still get about 1.5k/semester with most of that from grants, but the cost is around 12k/semester to attend (and this is a state financed school). So I just can't finish it. It's been 1.5 years since I had to leave now.
Actually they would not lock you in a padded room... You don't qualify for health coverage, remember? You'd have to hurt someone and become a 'criminal' to get the government to provide mental health anything.
That said, I know that same boat and I'm a decade younger than you (37). Except I did finish high school and a associates degree, and when I lost my job in 2011 I went back to school to try to get my bachelor's... Before I ran out of money in my last year. So now I'm left with even more debt and I don't have a nice 401k to fall back on.
While I'm not suicidal, I do stare into the abyss of my future and wonder if anyone would even notice I was gone once my parents pass away...
Where I live, he'd get unemployment and the wife wouldn't qualify for anything until that ran out if they lived together. If they guy was lucky enough to get part time work before or at the end of his unemployment he might qualify for assistance (depends on exact income), but the wife still wouldn't if he lives with her. Only if he's not able to get work can they live together. But we've just broken up (ie they no have to live separately) this family if the woman wants money to live on. That's messed up. Or goal as a society should be to keep families together. More so if their are kids in this mix.
I've been in the system that welfare is a part of. I never qualified for actual money, instead I got a small amount of 'food stamp' funds (ones only usable for food) and medical assistance. Then the rules changed and I couldn't even get that. The 'councilor' basically told me my best way to get support again was to go knock up a woman and retain custody of the kid.
Wow, thank you arrogant cunt. I have in fact read it and while he waxes quite a lot about other things, his actual economic system he proposed was as I said. But go on being a useless tool to your own ideology. Thankfully you are unlikely to ever have a say in anything important.
Are you a retard? Communism has never, ever, ever, been used. Communism is an economic system where the means of production (land, machinery, etc) are in the hands of those who do the producing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a centralized command economy (the means of production and the labor for production are controlled by the state or central authority). Do those things sound the same to you? Because you just told me the USSR was communist and that would imply they are. If so you are a retard.
No country to date has actually had a purely Marxist, Communist, or Socialist economy. Most that have said they are any of those have lied.
No offense, but that rant on republicans and presidents in particular is pretty silly. Congress and the Senate collectively wield way more power to 'do things' than the president. He's a figurehead and a tool tasked with acting on the will of congress and the senate. Like Obama did, they can suggest things (including a budget) and those two bodies can soundly reject that (like they did). I neither blame any president for the acts of congress and the senate, not do I expect presidents to be able to keep their promises because they don't have control over the bodies that can. Rational discussion of things the president can do (like reigning in the alphabet agencies who are under the presidents direct authority) are not things presidents have ever wanted to do. Instead they promise the moon to the voters, knowing that few if any of their promises will ever happen.
I'm an independent voter and I don't trust either party farther than I could throw them. However the heart of the economic issues started before Bush took over and nothing either president did made much of a difference... Well up until Bush started police actions which those bodies completely supported. That racked up massive uses of funds (most taken as debt because the budget for the year had already passed). That was horrible for any part of the economy not focused on those 'police actions', but even that wasn't the will of the president alone.
You can't say that. It's only recently in history we have had 'public safety nets' and so far we haven't had any that are universal. Who is to say people wouldn't create the next greatest piece of art or literature for their own reasons? I would. Which was exactly my point.
Sure some my decide to do fuck all with their life, but their are always people who do fuck all with their life. At least this way people can stop doing work just to survive and instead 'do what makes them happy'. Who the fuck are you to say who deserves to be happy or not? Some people get a great job that makes them happy, most people just work a job because they have no choice. The later is several times the former in raw numbers. I'm absolutely positive if college wasn't "I need to do 'X' degree or I'll never make a living" was instead "I like this subject so I should take it." We would see an upswing in the arts, musicians, painters, photographers, writers, etc. People like art and culture, but more often than not people can't 'make a living' out of it. Even people with art degrees often go on to be nothing more than waitresses, factory workers, etc because they needed to make money to live.
Heck I know lots of those people since I used to work anime conventions. Do you have any idea how many people in an 'artists alley' would make more from their art in a day there compared to a year normally? Pretty much everyone. They all were talented artists, but no one wanted to pay them constantly to generate art they wanted to make. So they had jobs they disliked to live and got a couple days a year of art they enjoyed. Heck if we could pull off a convention like that without charging the artists for the tables and space (because we are charged for those), then most of those artists would give up their artwork for free.
I think I prefer my outlook on the world based on my experience and not yours.
Oh and the Soviets of the 1900s were never given the means to do what they wanted. They were told by the authorities where they would work and what they would do. If you think otherwise you need to read some actual history about how the system worked under their command economy (not communist, that was a joke and a lie they were never communist or socialist in anything more than name).
It's a trap and even worse can be a weapon used against people in need. Husband lose his job and you were a single income family? Kick him out and we'll give you money! Stay with him and we'll make sure you burn together. What the fuck sort of message is that?
It may not be only single mothers caught in the trap. After all I've not only seen, but I've known men who are effectively 'playboys' who simply knock up women and then say they care for these children to 'earn a living'. My ex-fiancee had two children before I dated her. One from her boyfriend in high school and another from one of those 'playboys' who knocked her up to have another kid he could mooch off of. My Ex is a nurse and as is typical the caring type of person, though not always the smartest. Even so she never intended to have a second child, the guy went to quite some lengths to get another kid he could claim is his. One of our constant issues while we were together was that she'd lose part of her government provided income if I ever married her. She could qualify for welfare while working full time because of the kids and got free medical coverage and 'food stamps' to go with it.
When I lost my job and my unemployment expired? "You don't meet our standards of need or protected status for any type of support." Ironically if we would have gotten married and I lost my job I bet I'd have qualified then because I would have been 'supporting two kids'... The whole system is shit and couldn't see need if it bite it in the ass. It's rife for abuse because we decide some people deserve help and others don't. Making it universal would finally be a means of destroying the traps and weapons and creating a balanced environment without bias.
'Living Wage' and 'Welfare' do not go hand in hand. Layering the two makes zero sense. Repurposing the existing system for a new purpose does.
Why should 'civil rights' activists care that a person who got 16k/year under Welfare gets 20k under a living wage? And the unions shouldn't care if we aren't firing employees. If anything the only thing we are decreasing is the paper work involved in 'verifying' a person qualifies. We've made that simply 'A US citizen'. I'd imagine most people working in the welfare system would rather not have to tell a nearly desperate person that they aren't a 'protected group' that qualifies for their help. All the ones I've ever dealt with would rather not talk to you than to have to tell you that. However the number of people they would support would rise to be everyone so there would certainly be no net loss of jobs for them. Of all groups those tow have the biggest incentives to see a living wage created.
No the ones who don't want it are the selfish people who have never been poor, never been in need, and who would prefer to be able to trade things like jobs for votes.
Calling what the Soviets did 'Marxism' makes Karl Marx roll over in his grave. His sole idea was that the power of production needed to be in the hands of the people who did the labor. The Soviet state may have said that was their goal, but that's not what they did. Instead a select few people mandated all production for the country combing means of production and labor into a single whole under their authority. We call this a 'centralized command economy' not 'communism' or 'marxism' even. The biggest lie ever told was that of those who promoted a 'centralized command economy' as the desire of Marx and those like him.
Real 'Marxism' does exist. I've heard of more than a few companies that are run by that method with the companies 'shares' owned by the workers and everyone having a say into the shape of the companies future. They tend to be highly resistant to downturns and profitable for both workers and the cities and towns they work in.
Why bother? Because maybe it's what you want to do.
I've always had creative interests in storytelling and writing, but do you know how many people can make a living off of 'writing novels'? In the age of paper publishing most genres would see 5 new writers per year get published. 5. Even in the age of online distribution the number of people who can write full time is fairly low. It's maybe a thousand or so a year across all genres.
Worse, who makes an income as a 'storyteller'? It's a completely lost art in this day and age to put together a compelling story on the fly and make it interesting. It's more of a gimmick among friends and family now. It used to be the most popular general form of entertainment. You'd go down to the local tavern or pub and trade stories. I doubt people ever made money at it outside a few people who could probably best be described as 'travelling bards', yet a few collected works of these types of people have become the root of out cultural heritage. Is it worthless? Current society wouldn't pay for it. I could do it though if I didn't have to worry about where my next meal came from.
Lots of people are creative and either through a lack of money, a lack of time, or a lack of energy after a long day at work never end up making any use of it.
I'm getting rid of my moderations to reply to this, but I think I need to...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the government would just 'give' money to anyone. It doesn't. Food Stamps and medical care in my state requires that your either: a woman, pregnant, or have kids. Or... You work a job with no less than 15 hours a week, but make less than a certain amount (I don't recall the cutoff right now). Welfare actually has higher requirements. So if your a man who didn't sleep around? Not getting money. A woman with a partner? Not getting money. A single woman with no children? Not getting as much money. Want money? Sleep around and have lots of unprotected sex and keep at least some portion of those kids.
Also this wouldn't create money, it would remove programs like welfare and the hassles that go with it to simply distribute funds evenly across the population. It might need a slight increase in taxes, or we could just stop pissing away money on being the world's police and use that money to help our own people. That's not to mention carious other 'half-baked' programs we have that have requirements we could do away with. Telecom taxes just recently came up because the FTC wanted to use it to support low income broadband. If anyone could afford broadband their is no 'low income' to worry about.
I've always found it funny how the world sees us as so rich, yet I can drive into almost every city in this country and find homeless people in conditions as bad as any third world country. I mean we have people who live in service tunnels, under bridges, and in sewer outlets because we just don't give a shit for our own people. If we could just get money to where it needs to go maybe we could stop being a first world country built on top of a third world one. I'm all for basic income. Welfare and other support systems are rife with abuse because we pick and chose who we help and who are 'garbage' to be thrown away by society.