I worked in a shop which had large VB applications and they were told "convert or die". As if they could just print money and whip up a bunch of programmers to convert the applications. (It looks like microsoft eventually relented a bit but they didn't want to and I still don't trust them.)
Car manufacturers support their cars for 10 years after they stop making them.
Decades old COBOL still works and runs every day at many companies.
While C is faster in some cases, java is faster in other cases starting with Android 6.0.
Personally, I think Java is the way to go until we invent another language which is clearly better and can easily and automatically be converted to from Java.
I saw the value of Java when it first came out. And I've seen many other languages come and go since which are less mature and frequently lose support after you commit to them. I know of more than one multi-million dollar application written in hot new languages which were subsequently end of life'd.
In one case, it also failed to replace the java application successfully and was tossed. The millions of dollars spent on the new application could have been spent polishing the java application- but our arcane tax rules favor new development over maintenance. In any case, 7 years later the java application is still being used.
Like Cobol, java is well suited for a wide range of applications but not all applications. And we have the potential to use the same code and programs 30 years from now without rewriting them again and again.
If the police officer did two searches that should have been clearly indicated in his written report.
something like..."I found drugs while searching the vehicle. I replaced them, turned on my body cam and then reenacted finding them."
If police were credible, it wouldn't matter. But so many have been caught lying by cameras (not just body cams) that we no longer extend police the default trust we used to give them if there was no apparent motive for them to lie.
Now we know they will lie simply to justify a ticket or an arrest- without regard to the innocence of the citizen they ticketed or arrested.
And your response to data is this unsourced bullshit backed up by your ignorant opinions?
You are the type of person who votes to take away food from hungry pre-schoolers to give a larger tax break to yourself and then goes and has a kegger to celebrate doing so.
Which the republicans actually did. What asshats.
I don't see how christians can associate with this party other than the abortion issue.
Once abortion is outlawed, I suspect their tie to the republican party will evaporate if their souls and doctrine haven't been completely corrupted.
$2 excise tax is a lot of money when you make $8 per hour.
It is almost nothing when you make $100 per hour.
And sales tax is highly regressive since the poor spend everything they make but the wealthy do not or they find ways to avoid some or all of the taxes.
Read the who pays analysis. Understand what a high share of their income the poor pay for social security and state, local and excise taxes.
Try to tell me how someone who makes $16,000 a year is going to survive if you take half of their income in social security, sales tax, state and local taxes and then add on federal income taxes which we currently excuse them from.
If we are going to do this, we should raise state taxes to take the same share of the wealthy's money that it takes from the middle income and the poor.
The math doesn't support your position and the included IRS data does support mine.
The top ten percent of earners in the United States took home more than 50 percent of all income in 2012, the highest amount ever recorded since data was first collected in 1917, according to an updated report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.
While the wealthiest took a big hit during the financial crisis, theyâ(TM)ve almost fully recovered. Last year, income for the top 1 percent of earners âoeincreased sharply,â the report notes, growing by nearly 20 percent, while the bottom 99 percent only saw money rise by 1 percent. âoeIn sum,â the authors write, âoetop 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.â
This follows a trend since the recovery officially began. From 2009 to 2012, income for the 1 percent grew by 31.4 percent, while everyone else only saw it grow by 0.4 percent. That means the 1 percent âoecaptured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery,â they write.
"U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth" "The top 1 percent income earners in the United States hit a new high last year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better. The latest IRS data show that incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 3.9 percent over 2014 levels, the best annual growth rate since 1998, but incomes for those families in the top 1 percent of earners grew even faster, by 7.7 percent, over the same period. (See Figure 1.)"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-... Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains.
Saezâ(TM)s new data show that income for the 1 percent did actually decrease somewhat in 2013 as compared to 2012: its share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 20.1 percent.
Note: The top 1% alone earned 20% of the entire nation's income. It's easy to hit 50% when you go to the top 10%.
The ENTIRE bottom 50% earned only 11.49% of the entire nation's income.
If you allow any kind of deductions at all, their taxes are going to be much lower because even tiny deductions are a huge portion of their income. But worst case, let them starve- the most they could pay would be 11.49%.
But given the crippling size of state and local taxes combined with social security taxes, many would starve and go homeless.
Here's a state by state breakdown of how much people pay in state, local, and excise taxes.
The top 10%'s share of U.S. income is over 50% of total income for the country. So, it's logical that they would pay at least 50% of the taxes.
However, we give $4,000 deduction to everyone (including the top 10%) and a ~$6,600 standard deduction to everyone (more if you can itemize -- which the top 10% can do in abundance).
So that means the bottom quintile basically pay no federal income tax.
BUT, they do pay 15% social security tax, and 10% to 12.9% state, local, and excise taxes for a tax of about 25 to 28%.
The top 10% pay about 3% social security tax (down to under.3% for the top 1%) and 3% in state, local, and excise taxes (under 1% for the top 1%). So their total tax rate is well under that of low and middle income citizens. If we were to put a higher rate on the lower income citizens combined with their higher rate of local taxes and social security, they would literally not have money to eat or house themselves and would probably turn violent as they died of a combination of hunger and starvation.
And as a result policing and prison expenses (already about $31,000 a year but as high as $100,000 a year in some states) would be even higher.
So SINCE the deductions we give to everyone have a larger benefit to lower incomes in terms of PERCENTAGE but not DOLLARS, they pay little to no federal income tax.
But- the very wealthy pay a MUCH lower rate on long term capital gains and often pay no tax at all since the basis is reset on their death. They already pay over a total tax rate 10% lower most people in the 21% to 90% income brackets.
And you conservative jackwads just voted for a bill to LITERALLY take money from pre-kindergarden children so you could give the top 2% a larger tax cut.
Way to go- taking food from babies to fund yachts. Conservatives are sociopaths.
Are you proud of taking money from kids to fund luxury travel and multiple luxury condomiums?
If someone loses a loved and gets the urge to kill for revenge, it's much easier in the U.S. than in many other countries. It's a fact our representatives may have to deal with.
It's possible to hold multiple related thoughts in your head at the same time. Taking away people's health care has already lead to rooms full of angry voters. Thousands of u.s. citizens shoot people in anger every year.
Addressing your underlying point.
Gun Control will *never* happen in the U.S. It will always be unconstitutional. There will never be another constitutional amendment to roll back or limit the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership is a fact of life in the U.S. So you better plan on the impact it will have.
U.N. now predicts as high as 12.3 billion by 2100. And there is wiggle room for higher (up to about 14 billion).
"According to a new study by the United Nations (UN) and the University of Washington, there is an 80% probability that the world population will reach between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100. Thatâ(TM)s around 2 billion higher than previous estimates.
âoeThe consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around 7 billion, would go up to 9 billion and level off or probably decline,â study author and statistician Adrian Raftery said in a news release. âoeWe found thereâ(TM)s a 70 percent probability the world population will not stabilize this century. Population, which had sort of fallen off the worldâ(TM)s agenda, remains a very important issue.â
As reported in the journal Science, the population projections estimated by the UN were obtained using a field of statistics known as Bayesian statistics in which states of nature are expressed in degrees of belief. To generate their numbers, statisticians combined all available information until 2012 in order to produce superior population predictions compared with previous estimates."
When I was young, projections were lower than 9 billion.
And all this assumes that the part of the population having children doesn't come to dominate the population. If any part of the population has a set of values which allows it to ignore the suppressive effects of modern living, then they'll eventually dominate the population.
And from my life's experience I can tell you that people who are horny and risky about birth control have lots of kids. 4-5 on average. And their kids are slightly more likely to be horny and risky about birth control too.
The selective pressure of the western lifestyle is very strong.
OTH- Universe 133 shows us that population it self can have permanent effects on population size. In these famous rat studies, rats given unlimited food and water repeatedly reached maximum population- sorta went insane from over crowding and then went extinct.
So what do you need 150Mbps for? I was able to cut the cost $360 a year by dropping to 25Mbps and I don't notice a difference. I suspect I'm getting over 25Mbps for one thing. I had a multi-gigabyte download finish in under 10 minutes a couple weeks ago. Maybe more stuff is cached locally.
What they have done over the last 30 years is increased the rate of population growth and raised the estimated peak population. If pollution had remained on track, population growth would have been lower. If food had been constrained as expected, population growth would have been lower.
But we got a good handle on pollution after rivers started burning and we had the green revolution.
Bringing the entire planet's living standard up to western standards is just impossible today. So we need to get the cost of the western style of living down by an order of magnitude.
Oh... and the sky does fall. It falls regularly. World wars actually happen. Financial panics happen regularly. Epidemics do occur. Tens of millions of young adults have repeatedly died in history. Entire cities have repeatedly seen their populations collapse and return to nature.
The thing is-- when we are ready for the sky to fall, it usually doesn't because we are ready for it. The sky falls when we finally all decide as a group the sky can't fall and start acting as if the sky will never fall.
Right now, everyone's pretty much ignoring population and limits to growth even they are on track to hit us hard between the eyes in another 25-35 years. So maybe we will have a crisis and 3-4 billion people will die. But if folks start paying attention to it and mitigating it.. then probably not.
Think how bad Y2K *could* have been if no one had done anything to address it.
This is what gets me about the republicans taking away the aca.
People's children, spouses, and parents will die in obvious avoidable ways.
And we have a lot of guns in this country.
I would not want to be a republican representative who voted for this bill. Voting for the ACA maybe pisses someone off over your taxes. Voting against the ACA puts the representative, their friends, and their families at risk when someone's 3 year old loses health care and dies.
Yes, but since a computer successfully did it, it's no longer A.I.
People are in denial over the power of competing multi-layer neural networks for rapid self training and superhuman performance. We leapt over a decade in 2 years and folks haven't caught up yet.
It took 4 generations to recover from the industrial revolution. the A.I. revolution will hit much harder and last much longer as automation quickly eliminates white collar jobs and robots quickly eliminate blue collar jobs.
Combined with a resource crunch that's staged up to hit extremely hard between 2045 and 2100, things will be unpleasant for a long time.
On the one hand, and if you have a completely automated business- then how many "human" jobs were lost?
OTH, that automated business STILL depends on police, fire, courts, roads, sewers, etc. etc. etc. and most of all the common market provided by the area.
And now that automated business may be extracting money from the local economy at a much faster rate which will suppress local economic activity over time.
Nope- I had friends who worked for Infosys. Some of them they actually retained for a while.
Conditions were reasonable, age discrimination was rampant, training was constantly available (unlike most american companies), sex discrimination was fairly low and of a different kind (less sexual harassment and more "women shouldn't talk while male managers are present"- tho that's much more common among koreans than at infosys per stories from female friends at Samsung).
Infosys employees are competent, cheap, willing to work long hours essentially off the clock, never say no ("ill do my best" really means "that's impossible. you are clearly crazy so I will lie to you.", and not as competent as they were back in 2003.
Slashdot Mirror
After what microsoft did to visual basic, I would never trust them with an enterprise/mission critical application I intended to use long term.
http://www.eweek.com/developme...
I worked in a shop which had large VB applications and they were told "convert or die". As if they could just print money and whip up a bunch of programmers to convert the applications. (It looks like microsoft eventually relented a bit but they didn't want to and I still don't trust them.)
Car manufacturers support their cars for 10 years after they stop making them.
Decades old COBOL still works and runs every day at many companies.
http://www.androidauthority.co...
While C is faster in some cases, java is faster in other cases starting with Android 6.0.
Personally, I think Java is the way to go until we invent another language which is clearly better and can easily and automatically be converted to from Java.
I saw the value of Java when it first came out. And I've seen many other languages come and go since which are less mature and frequently lose support after you commit to them. I know of more than one multi-million dollar application written in hot new languages which were subsequently end of life'd.
In one case, it also failed to replace the java application successfully and was tossed. The millions of dollars spent on the new application could have been spent polishing the java application- but our arcane tax rules favor new development over maintenance. In any case, 7 years later the java application is still being used.
Like Cobol, java is well suited for a wide range of applications but not all applications. And we have the potential to use the same code and programs 30 years from now without rewriting them again and again.
If the police officer did two searches that should have been clearly indicated in his written report.
something like..."I found drugs while searching the vehicle. I replaced them, turned on my body cam and then reenacted finding them."
If police were credible, it wouldn't matter. But so many have been caught lying by cameras (not just body cams) that we no longer extend police the default trust we used to give them if there was no apparent motive for them to lie.
Now we know they will lie simply to justify a ticket or an arrest- without regard to the innocence of the citizen they ticketed or arrested.
And those stories go back for over 100 years.
Things are actually better now and improving. Body cams and DNA exposed a lot of bad behavior by police and prosecutors.
And your response to data is this unsourced bullshit backed up by your ignorant opinions?
You are the type of person who votes to take away food from hungry pre-schoolers to give a larger tax break to yourself and then goes and has a kegger to celebrate doing so.
Which the republicans actually did. What asshats.
I don't see how christians can associate with this party other than the abortion issue.
Once abortion is outlawed, I suspect their tie to the republican party will evaporate if their souls and doctrine haven't been completely corrupted.
Read the who pays.
$2 excise tax is a lot of money when you make $8 per hour.
It is almost nothing when you make $100 per hour.
And sales tax is highly regressive since the poor spend everything they make but the wealthy do not or they find ways to avoid some or all of the taxes.
Read the who pays analysis. Understand what a high share of their income the poor pay for social security and state, local and excise taxes.
Try to tell me how someone who makes $16,000 a year is going to survive if you take half of their income in social security, sales tax, state and local taxes and then add on federal income taxes which we currently excuse them from.
If we are going to do this, we should raise state taxes to take the same share of the wealthy's money that it takes from the middle income and the poor.
The math doesn't support your position and the included IRS data does support mine.
https://thinkprogress.org/weal...
The top ten percent of earners in the United States took home more than 50 percent of all income in 2012, the highest amount ever recorded since data was first collected in 1917, according to an updated report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.
While the wealthiest took a big hit during the financial crisis, theyâ(TM)ve almost fully recovered. Last year, income for the top 1 percent of earners âoeincreased sharply,â the report notes, growing by nearly 20 percent, while the bottom 99 percent only saw money rise by 1 percent. âoeIn sum,â the authors write, âoetop 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.â
This follows a trend since the recovery officially began. From 2009 to 2012, income for the 1 percent grew by 31.4 percent, while everyone else only saw it grow by 0.4 percent. That means the 1 percent âoecaptured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery,â they write.
http://equitablegrowth.org/res...
"U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth"
"The top 1 percent income earners in the United States hit a new high last year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better. The latest IRS data show that incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 3.9 percent over 2014 levels, the best annual growth rate since 1998, but incomes for those families in the top 1 percent of earners grew even faster, by 7.7 percent, over the same period. (See Figure 1.)"
http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/...
https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains.
Saezâ(TM)s new data show that income for the 1 percent did actually decrease somewhat in 2013 as compared to 2012: its share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 20.1 percent.
Note: The top 1% alone earned 20% of the entire nation's income. It's easy to hit 50% when you go to the top 10%.
here's updated 2015 data...
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
Top 10% 45.87% of the total income.
The ENTIRE bottom 50% earned only 11.49% of the entire nation's income.
If you allow any kind of deductions at all, their taxes are going to be much lower because even tiny deductions are a huge portion of their income. But worst case, let them starve- the most they could pay would be 11.49%.
But given the crippling size of state and local taxes combined with social security taxes, many would starve and go homeless.
Here's a state by state breakdown of how much people pay in state, local, and excise taxes .
http://www.itep.org/whopays/fu...
Excise taxes are things like $2 on your cell phone bill and $70 a year for your car. Likewise, the poorest get no share of pr
Interesting. So does everyone understand italian, does he use a translator, or does no one have a clue what he's talking about?
The top 10%'s share of U.S. income is over 50% of total income for the country.
So, it's logical that they would pay at least 50% of the taxes.
However, we give $4,000 deduction to everyone (including the top 10%) and a ~$6,600 standard deduction to everyone (more if you can itemize -- which the top 10% can do in abundance).
So that means the bottom quintile basically pay no federal income tax.
BUT, they do pay 15% social security tax, and 10% to 12.9% state, local, and excise taxes for a tax of about 25 to 28%.
The top 10% pay about 3% social security tax (down to under .3% for the top 1%) and 3% in state, local, and excise taxes (under 1% for the top 1%). So their total tax rate is well under that of low and middle income citizens. If we were to put a higher rate on the lower income citizens combined with their higher rate of local taxes and social security, they would literally not have money to eat or house themselves and would probably turn violent as they died of a combination of hunger and starvation.
And as a result policing and prison expenses (already about $31,000 a year but as high as $100,000 a year in some states) would be even higher.
So SINCE the deductions we give to everyone have a larger benefit to lower incomes in terms of PERCENTAGE but not DOLLARS, they pay little to no federal income tax.
But- the very wealthy pay a MUCH lower rate on long term capital gains and often pay no tax at all since the basis is reset on their death. They already pay over a total tax rate 10% lower most people in the 21% to 90% income brackets.
And you conservative jackwads just voted for a bill to LITERALLY take money from pre-kindergarden children so you could give the top 2% a larger tax cut.
Way to go- taking food from babies to fund yachts. Conservatives are sociopaths.
Are you proud of taking money from kids to fund luxury travel and multiple luxury condomiums?
Don't you mean "draining the swamp" and "literally denying food to preschoolers to give tax breaks to the wealthy"?
They are related issues.
If someone loses a loved and gets the urge to kill for revenge, it's much easier in the U.S. than in many other countries.
It's a fact our representatives may have to deal with.
It's possible to hold multiple related thoughts in your head at the same time. Taking away people's health care has already lead to rooms full of angry voters. Thousands of u.s. citizens shoot people in anger every year.
Addressing your underlying point.
Gun Control will *never* happen in the U.S. It will always be unconstitutional. There will never be another constitutional amendment to roll back or limit the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership is a fact of life in the U.S. So you better plan on the impact it will have.
U.N. now predicts as high as 12.3 billion by 2100. And there is wiggle room for higher (up to about 14 billion).
"According to a new study by the United Nations (UN) and the University of Washington, there is an 80% probability that the world population will reach between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100. Thatâ(TM)s around 2 billion higher than previous estimates.
âoeThe consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around 7 billion, would go up to 9 billion and level off or probably decline,â study author and statistician Adrian Raftery said in a news release. âoeWe found thereâ(TM)s a 70 percent probability the world population will not stabilize this century. Population, which had sort of fallen off the worldâ(TM)s agenda, remains a very important issue.â
As reported in the journal Science, the population projections estimated by the UN were obtained using a field of statistics known as Bayesian statistics in which states of nature are expressed in degrees of belief. To generate their numbers, statisticians combined all available information until 2012 in order to produce superior population predictions compared with previous estimates."
When I was young, projections were lower than 9 billion.
And all this assumes that the part of the population having children doesn't come to dominate the population. If any part of the population has a set of values which allows it to ignore the suppressive effects of modern living, then they'll eventually dominate the population.
And from my life's experience I can tell you that people who are horny and risky about birth control have lots of kids. 4-5 on average. And their kids are slightly more likely to be horny and risky about birth control too.
The selective pressure of the western lifestyle is very strong.
OTH- Universe 133 shows us that population it self can have permanent effects on population size. In these famous rat studies, rats given unlimited food and water repeatedly reached maximum population- sorta went insane from over crowding and then went extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes but when a german and a frenchwoman get together for business, they'll most likely talk english.
Same for the Greek and Belgian business people.
And when italians meet with germans, belgians, french and swiss- they'll speak english.
At least until completely reliable real time translation apps come along and it no longer matters.
So what do you need 150Mbps for? I was able to cut the cost $360 a year by dropping to 25Mbps and I don't notice a difference. I suspect I'm getting over 25Mbps for one thing. I had a multi-gigabyte download finish in under 10 minutes a couple weeks ago. Maybe more stuff is cached locally.
For a Close Shave Use
When I went to cut the cord, they offered me basic cable plus HBO (and I can switch it to Showtime on a month to month basis) for $10 a month more.
Ordinary cable has gotten TOO EXPENSIVE.
I'm not sure they care tho.
They may feel, "Well 20% of the market will pay $240 a month and that's more profit than if we charged everyone $120 a month".
Or their just greedy and dumb.
What they have done over the last 30 years is increased the rate of population growth and raised the estimated peak population. If pollution had remained on track, population growth would have been lower. If food had been constrained as expected, population growth would have been lower.
But we got a good handle on pollution after rivers started burning and we had the green revolution.
Bringing the entire planet's living standard up to western standards is just impossible today. So we need to get the cost of the western style of living down by an order of magnitude.
.
Oh... and the sky does fall. It falls regularly. World wars actually happen. Financial panics happen regularly. Epidemics do occur. Tens of millions of young adults have repeatedly died in history. Entire cities have repeatedly seen their populations collapse and return to nature.
The thing is-- when we are ready for the sky to fall, it usually doesn't because we are ready for it. The sky falls when we finally all decide as a group the sky can't fall and start acting as if the sky will never fall.
Right now, everyone's pretty much ignoring population and limits to growth even they are on track to hit us hard between the eyes in another 25-35 years. So maybe we will have a crisis and 3-4 billion people will die. But if folks start paying attention to it and mitigating it.. then probably not.
Think how bad Y2K *could* have been if no one had done anything to address it.
This is what gets me about the republicans taking away the aca.
People's children, spouses, and parents will die in obvious avoidable ways.
And we have a lot of guns in this country.
I would not want to be a republican representative who voted for this bill. Voting for the ACA maybe pisses someone off over your taxes. Voting against the ACA puts the representative, their friends, and their families at risk when someone's 3 year old loses health care and dies.
Yes, but since a computer successfully did it, it's no longer A.I.
People are in denial over the power of competing multi-layer neural networks for rapid self training and superhuman performance. We leapt over a decade in 2 years and folks haven't caught up yet.
It took 4 generations to recover from the industrial revolution. the A.I. revolution will hit much harder and last much longer as automation quickly eliminates white collar jobs and robots quickly eliminate blue collar jobs.
Combined with a resource crunch that's staged up to hit extremely hard between 2045 and 2100, things will be unpleasant for a long time.
Health care is horrible in prison- especially private prisons.
They simply define what you have as not being an issue and then they do not need to treat you.
And almost no pain medication for anything except OTC type stuff.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Or Hell No?
Exactly.
On the one hand, and if you have a completely automated business- then how many "human" jobs were lost?
OTH, that automated business STILL depends on police, fire, courts, roads, sewers, etc. etc. etc. and most of all the common market provided by the area.
And now that automated business may be extracting money from the local economy at a much faster rate which will suppress local economic activity over time.
Nope- I had friends who worked for Infosys. Some of them they actually retained for a while.
Conditions were reasonable, age discrimination was rampant, training was constantly available (unlike most american companies), sex discrimination was fairly low and of a different kind (less sexual harassment and more "women shouldn't talk while male managers are present"- tho that's much more common among koreans than at infosys per stories from female friends at Samsung).
Infosys employees are competent, cheap, willing to work long hours essentially off the clock, never say no ("ill do my best" really means "that's impossible. you are clearly crazy so I will lie to you.", and not as competent as they were back in 2003.