Personally, I'd be fine with that however I don't see how you could do 10 minutes at places that require you to leave your desk for lunch for sanitary reasons.
Before I retired, I preferred working as a contractor (as long as the wage was comparable after paying my own benefits).
If I worked 5 hours, I got paid for 5 hours. If I needed to work 15 hours, I got paid for 15 hours.
And mainly, when I walked out the door they knew I wasn't being paid and it changed their attitude.
Companies asked for more hours at work and a larger slice of your personal time, so you use your smart phone at work to pay your bills, keep up with your personal life, and deal with emergencies.
Companies want to have it both ways. They can try, but we shouldn't let them.
You know... people did all those things before cell phones right?
Your business has a land line in every office if it requires no smart phones.
Combined with RFID tags, you don't even have to log into the phones.
I have friends who work for the government and they have no access to any kind of cell phones during the day and they do not appear to have stable locations while at work (swapping between lab, office, and a lab/plane).
My point was, companies ask for 65 hours a week of your time and then require you check email and be available for on-call 24/7 via your smart phone.
If they are going to cut your smart phone then they need to return you to normal working hours and stop calling you at 11pm.
a) Taking a way smart phones during working hours. b) Working hours are limited to 35 hours a week (40 hour week with an hour for lunch & breaks each day). c) Any employee not allowed to use a smart phone during work can't be required to use a smart phone for work outside of working hours.
Dr. Michael Roizen, MD , Internal Medicine, answered Although many studies have looked at the family history of disease in relation to the onset of disease, only three major studies have correlated overall longevity trends between parents and their children. The Framingham Study, the "Termite" Study, and the Alameda County Study looked at the age of parental death to determine if it predicted longevity of the offspring. Did the two correlate? Yes, but minimally. Each study showed a minor effect. The Framingham Study, the most comprehensive of the three, found about a 6 percent correlation between life span of the parents and life span of their offspring, meaning that many other factors affect longevity as well. If both your parents lived past the age of seventy-five, the odds that you will live past seventy-five increase to some extent. But to what extent? (Note that we are discussing, for the most part, death related to disease. If a parent dies at age forty in a car accident, for example, that provides little information about how long the child will live, although alcohol-induced accidents are a possible exception.)
If you are a man and both of your parents died before the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge (physiologic age) will be as much as 4.2 years older. If you are a woman, your RealAge will be as much as 3.5 years older. If both parents lived past the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge will be 4.2 years younger if you are man, and 3.5 years younger if you are a woman. If no first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister) had breast, colon, or ovarian cancer diagnosed early, you are an additional 0.2 to eleven years younger than if your siblings or parents had those diagnoses. Some genetic conditions, such as being a carrier of the BRCA-1 breast cancer gene, can make your RealAge as much as 17 years older. This is one of the instances where genetics can make a big difference.
Given a young healthy pain free body, you would never finish your interests.
There would always be new "pokemon go"'s coming along to get excited about. New musical instruments to master. New places to see (because they are changing if you live long enough. The world today is almost completely different than it was in 1935. New inventions to be excited about. A much longer investment horizon mean you'd probably go through being wealthy and being poor multiple times (I was wiped out in the panic of 2160, 2310, 2470, the big one of 3107, and was broke again in 3705. But today in 4212, I'm comfortably wealthy.)
People who are old, people who are unhappy, people who know they will be old and unhappy in only 30 years make it sound bad to live for a thousand years. But the last 1000 years rocked.
Even with the expected collapses of non-renewable resources and likely associated rapid population collapse, you'd then have an awesome world with fewer neat things but less crowding and get to see all the areas ruined by overuse recover and see the seas verdant with life again as it was in the 1870's.
Because putting your phone number out there will probably pollute it and soon you'll be getting telemarketing calls 24x7 effectively killing the number.
They'll promise to take care of your number but they'll sell it to a "business partner" or they'll lose the list due to poor security or when they go bankrupt it will be sold as an asset.
I've had multiple email and one phone number polluted like this so far. I don't trust'em any more.
But as we run out of non-renewable resources over the next 100 years, global warming won't matter.
The loss of pesticides, fertilizers, stainless steel, etc. all will limit our growth, lead to population declines, and possibly pretty terrible war (we have a lot of ugly stuff we agree not to use but as history shows, we will use during total war).
80 years from now, we may be at 12 billion and 80% likely to still be rising.
200 years from now, the earth is more likely to have a population of 3 billion than 20 billion. To avoid that we'll have to invent a lot of new technologies really fast as we hit multiple limits. Consumption of non-renewable resources by a population of 12 billion will be terrific.
I think most of the breakdown happens after I die. But I think we do have a breakdown- things have gotten visibly more brittle over the last 20 years. There's not as much slack in the system as their used to be. Which is fine until you have a problem.
Expense isn't the issue. OIder employees with similar experience (and similar compensation) are also discriminated against.
It's really blatant in some of the ads.. "Looking for YOUNG, dynamic, candidate who works to deadline" has actually be used by someone who was stupid in placing their ad. Usually they use dog whistles or (Infosys) require your resume have the date you graduated high school (so they can cull you before you wall in the door - and yes it's illegal to do that).
IT is incredibly low status, good play, but lacks a career path for 90% of workers. 20 years is insufficient. Being dumped on the street at 52 when you haven't been saving over half your salary means homelessness and dog food (or public assistance) by the time you are 70.
Companies won't find H1B candidates as appealing if they had personal minimum in their pocket salaries of a minimum of $120,000 per year. It is the absolutely most direct way to stop H1B abuse and to return it to the original intent of bringing in rare and top quality talent which wasn't available locally.
You are voting for a guy who regularly stiffed laborers of their pay (hundreds of cases on record), who stiffed subcontractors and other businesses on their pay, and who said he was using u.s. labor when he was found to be using foreign labor.
P.T. Barnum put it best. There's a sucker born every minute.
Fortunately, Trump has basically lost the race.
Just for funsy's go to Youtube and search for "trump praise clinton". You'll see only 7 years ago he was saying she was terrific and would make a good president or vice president.
H1B are supposed to represent rare talent unavailable in the u.s. market.
Simply set the pay for h1b equal to the top 10% pay band. So that would be about $120,000 today.
That way the companies that really need geniuses (like google) won't get shut out. That way sub par 3 year bachelor's degree candidates won't get the jobs for $60,000.
The H1B originally HAD a $60,000 floor on wages. But that was so long ago that adjusted for inflation, it would be close to $120,000 today.
I agree entirely however- if this accident was as advertised (dubious at this point), then what should have been an easy situation failed and almost turned dangerous.
I've seen videos of the car driving. This sounds like a trivial case and the car had driven the route before successfully.
The higher the population, the greater the danger of a non clean sterile environment.
It's going to get less expensive to kill larger numbers of people each decade.
You want to be constantly reducing the number of crazies and developing ways to keep anger and rage from overflowing (lest the future become a place full of milwaukees).
Lower populations support high individuality.
Higher populations need more conformity.
Some of the things in the list could be really great. But they probably won't be.
In expensive robotic doctors could provide GP care to all humans with standard issues for pennies while forwarding edge cases on to human doctors.
But more likely, they'll be just as expensive as human doctors (despite costing much less) because capital owners charge what the market will bear. The same restaurant may charge $10 on monday and tuesday but $16 for the same food on a friday. A dozen roses varies wildly in price- being much more expensive when people want them most even tho that is when the cost of producing roses is the lowest per rose.
The future won't be too bad for the next 20 years tho as long as we don't get a world war from some stupid action by one of the major superpowers.
After that it looks increasingly grim as we run out of many non-renewable resources over the following 20 year period. We are using more of them each year now than we used during 1901 to 2000. And when fertilizer precursors can no longer be produced cheaply- plant productivity drops. When pesticide precursors can't be produced cheap - plant productivity drops. When chromium becomes to expensive- no more cheap stainless steel (we have enough iron for 3 more centuries even at current rates of growth). The period 21 - 40 years from now could be ugly- especially if nation states decide to fight over particular diminishing nonrenewables.
Agreed. Some people seem to be astroturfing or are incredibly willfully stupid. Or to be applying an ICE edge case (heavy truck towing) to all cars.
Electric vehicles have challenges. But when gasoline returns to $3 a barrel, they are just so much less expensive than ICE cars.
Of course, they create a feedback loop.
More electric cars means lower gasoline demand means lower gasoline prices.
At least until the network effect for gasoline breaks down.
At that point then gasoline becomes more expensive, less profitable, and gasoline refueling stations become less common. That's probably at least 15 years away tho.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd be fine with that however I don't see how you could do 10 minutes at places that require you to leave your desk for lunch for sanitary reasons.
Before I retired, I preferred working as a contractor (as long as the wage was comparable after paying my own benefits).
If I worked 5 hours, I got paid for 5 hours. If I needed to work 15 hours, I got paid for 15 hours.
And mainly, when I walked out the door they knew I wasn't being paid and it changed their attitude.
EXACTLY.
Companies asked for more hours at work and a larger slice of your personal time, so you use your smart phone at work to pay your bills, keep up with your personal life, and deal with emergencies.
Companies want to have it both ways. They can try, but we shouldn't let them.
You know... people did all those things before cell phones right?
Your business has a land line in every office if it requires no smart phones.
Combined with RFID tags, you don't even have to log into the phones.
I have friends who work for the government and they have no access to any kind of cell phones during the day and they do not appear to have stable locations while at work (swapping between lab, office, and a lab/plane).
My point was, companies ask for 65 hours a week of your time and then require you check email and be available for on-call 24/7 via your smart phone.
If they are going to cut your smart phone then they need to return you to normal working hours and stop calling you at 11pm.
I wouldn't mind if we combine
a) Taking a way smart phones during working hours.
b) Working hours are limited to 35 hours a week (40 hour week with an hour for lunch & breaks each day).
c) Any employee not allowed to use a smart phone during work can't be required to use a smart phone for work outside of working hours.
It's $50 ($55 with tax).
I get unlimited music and 1 gig of data.
Recently right as the month ends I'm hitting 900mb (and that's with youtube videos).
They tried to upsell me to the post paid plan.
It was $70 ($77 with tax). And otherwise the same plan.
I looked at the salesperson and explained my plan again.
She went, "oh.. right" and stopped.
Do you have a great plan to recommend? I'd love to hear it. Every month, I have the option of changing plans or even services. I love it.
Yes and the three studies show that may have just been a lucky roll of the dice because it doesn't appear to be true when we look at large groups.
I think most people would not have marriages as we conventionally understand them for 1000 years.
Also, the likelihood of getting an STD would rise to nearly 100% if you took even the slightest risks.
From elsewhere..
Dr. Michael Roizen, MD , Internal Medicine, answered
Although many studies have looked at the family history of disease in relation to the onset of disease, only three major studies have correlated overall longevity trends between parents and their children. The Framingham Study, the "Termite" Study, and the Alameda County Study looked at the age of parental death to determine if it predicted longevity of the offspring. Did the two correlate? Yes, but minimally. Each study showed a minor effect. The Framingham Study, the most comprehensive of the three, found about a 6 percent correlation between life span of the parents and life span of their offspring, meaning that many other factors affect longevity as well. If both your parents lived past the age of seventy-five, the odds that you will live past seventy-five increase to some extent. But to what extent? (Note that we are discussing, for the most part, death related to disease. If a parent dies at age forty in a car accident, for example, that provides little information about how long the child will live, although alcohol-induced accidents are a possible exception.)
If you are a man and both of your parents died before the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge (physiologic age) will be as much as 4.2 years older. If you are a woman, your RealAge will be as much as 3.5 years older. If both parents lived past the age of seventy-five, then your RealAge will be 4.2 years younger if you are man, and 3.5 years younger if you are a woman. If no first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister) had breast, colon, or ovarian cancer diagnosed early, you are an additional 0.2 to eleven years younger than if your siblings or parents had those diagnoses. Some genetic conditions, such as being a carrier of the BRCA-1 breast cancer gene, can make your RealAge as much as 17 years older. This is one of the instances where genetics can make a big difference.
https://www.sharecare.com/heal...
Given a young healthy pain free body, you would never finish your interests.
There would always be new "pokemon go"'s coming along to get excited about.
New musical instruments to master.
New places to see (because they are changing if you live long enough. The world today is almost completely different than it was in 1935.
New inventions to be excited about.
A much longer investment horizon mean you'd probably go through being wealthy and being poor multiple times (I was wiped out in the panic of 2160, 2310, 2470, the big one of 3107, and was broke again in 3705. But today in 4212, I'm comfortably wealthy.)
People who are old, people who are unhappy, people who know they will be old and unhappy in only 30 years make it sound bad to live for a thousand years. But the last 1000 years rocked.
Even with the expected collapses of non-renewable resources and likely associated rapid population collapse, you'd then have an awesome world with fewer neat things but less crowding and get to see all the areas ruined by overuse recover and see the seas verdant with life again as it was in the 1870's.
Absolutely. If he still had a 30 year old body, he would probably not want to die.
Because putting your phone number out there will probably pollute it and soon you'll be getting telemarketing calls 24x7 effectively killing the number.
They'll promise to take care of your number but they'll sell it to a "business partner" or they'll lose the list due to poor security or when they go bankrupt it will be sold as an asset.
I've had multiple email and one phone number polluted like this so far. I don't trust'em any more.
The trend towards war is down.
But as we run out of non-renewable resources over the next 100 years, global warming won't matter.
The loss of pesticides, fertilizers, stainless steel, etc. all will limit our growth, lead to population declines, and possibly pretty terrible war (we have a lot of ugly stuff we agree not to use but as history shows, we will use during total war).
80 years from now, we may be at 12 billion and 80% likely to still be rising.
200 years from now, the earth is more likely to have a population of 3 billion than 20 billion. To avoid that we'll have to invent a lot of new technologies really fast as we hit multiple limits. Consumption of non-renewable resources by a population of 12 billion will be terrific.
I think most of the breakdown happens after I die. But I think we do have a breakdown- things have gotten visibly more brittle over the last 20 years. There's not as much slack in the system as their used to be. Which is fine until you have a problem.
In groups up to about 150 in size. Past there it was murderous genocide over and over.
Well, I guess it's better than a coin flip.
The feeling was that young people had a better promotion path.
Old people might quit.
The reality was that young people repeatedly quit after 2 years so their resume would look like they were "go getters".
The old people kept the department going (including one in his 70s).
The young people turned over like crazy.
Expense isn't the issue. OIder employees with similar experience (and similar compensation) are also discriminated against.
It's really blatant in some of the ads.. "Looking for YOUNG, dynamic, candidate who works to deadline" has actually be used by someone who was stupid in placing their ad. Usually they use dog whistles or (Infosys) require your resume have the date you graduated high school (so they can cull you before you wall in the door - and yes it's illegal to do that).
IT is incredibly low status, good play, but lacks a career path for 90% of workers. 20 years is insufficient. Being dumped on the street at 52 when you haven't been saving over half your salary means homelessness and dog food (or public assistance) by the time you are 70.
Avoid IT.
yes, and they could also kill them and harvest their organs. Or ship them to russia as slave labor.
Oh-- I thought we were talking about reality land, not conspiracy land.
You are a little confused all right!
Companies won't find H1B candidates as appealing if they had personal minimum in their pocket salaries of a minimum of $120,000 per year. It is the absolutely most direct way to stop H1B abuse and to return it to the original intent of bringing in rare and top quality talent which wasn't available locally.
The rest of your post sounds like word salad.
So let me get this right..
You are voting for a guy who regularly stiffed laborers of their pay (hundreds of cases on record), who stiffed subcontractors and other businesses on their pay, and who said he was using u.s. labor when he was found to be using foreign labor.
P.T. Barnum put it best. There's a sucker born every minute.
Fortunately, Trump has basically lost the race.
Just for funsy's go to Youtube and search for "trump praise clinton". You'll see only 7 years ago he was saying she was terrific and would make a good president or vice president.
H1B is easy to fix.
H1B are supposed to represent rare talent unavailable in the u.s. market.
Simply set the pay for h1b equal to the top 10% pay band. So that would be about $120,000 today.
That way the companies that really need geniuses (like google) won't get shut out.
That way sub par 3 year bachelor's degree candidates won't get the jobs for $60,000.
The H1B originally HAD a $60,000 floor on wages. But that was so long ago that adjusted for inflation, it would be close to $120,000 today.
The luddites were replaced -- they mostly died of starvation and exposure.
People may find new work (vanity work, stuff that's hard to automate) but I think a key difference is the velocity of change.
When automated trucks are ready, almost 3 million jobs will vanish in a couple years.
Every field will be like this and 38% of jobs are expected to be automated over the next 20 years.
That's a lot of jobs really fast.
I agree entirely however- if this accident was as advertised (dubious at this point), then what should have been an easy situation failed and almost turned dangerous.
I've seen videos of the car driving. This sounds like a trivial case and the car had driven the route before successfully.
Something is odd.
The higher the population, the greater the danger of a non clean sterile environment.
It's going to get less expensive to kill larger numbers of people each decade.
You want to be constantly reducing the number of crazies and developing ways to keep anger and rage from overflowing (lest the future become a place full of milwaukees).
Lower populations support high individuality.
Higher populations need more conformity.
Some of the things in the list could be really great. But they probably won't be.
In expensive robotic doctors could provide GP care to all humans with standard issues for pennies while forwarding edge cases on to human doctors.
But more likely, they'll be just as expensive as human doctors (despite costing much less) because capital owners charge what the market will bear. The same restaurant may charge $10 on monday and tuesday but $16 for the same food on a friday. A dozen roses varies wildly in price- being much more expensive when people want them most even tho that is when the cost of producing roses is the lowest per rose.
The future won't be too bad for the next 20 years tho as long as we don't get a world war from some stupid action by one of the major superpowers.
After that it looks increasingly grim as we run out of many non-renewable resources over the following 20 year period. We are using more of them each year now than we used during 1901 to 2000. And when fertilizer precursors can no longer be produced cheaply- plant productivity drops. When pesticide precursors can't be produced cheap - plant productivity drops. When chromium becomes to expensive- no more cheap stainless steel (we have enough iron for 3 more centuries even at current rates of growth). The period 21 - 40 years from now could be ugly- especially if nation states decide to fight over particular diminishing nonrenewables.
Agreed. Some people seem to be astroturfing or are incredibly willfully stupid. Or to be applying an ICE edge case (heavy truck towing) to all cars.
Electric vehicles have challenges. But when gasoline returns to $3 a barrel, they are just so much less expensive than ICE cars.
Of course, they create a feedback loop.
More electric cars means lower gasoline demand means lower gasoline prices.
At least until the network effect for gasoline breaks down.
At that point then gasoline becomes more expensive, less profitable, and gasoline refueling stations become less common. That's probably at least 15 years away tho.
There are cute little generator trailers but...
* They use gasoline (so expensive power)
* They pollute a lot (so if everyone starts using them, they will have to have pollute less).