In America, that's basically how it works. The rich pay an extremely low marginal tax rate, while the first cuts to spending seem to generally be pointed at the low income earners and the ones that need a hand in order to move up in class.
The ones that don't typically started with a lot of money with which they could afford to take a lower rate of yield that comes from not screwing people over.
It's possible, it's just that way too many executives and investors believe it. Meaning that treating ones employees with respect is really hard to do if you're not some sort of a private concern. A lot of companies interpret employees that aren't constantly stressed about pay as being overpaid.
There are exceptions. Costco beats the tar out of Sam's Club and Walmart on labor costs because they can undercut the cost of training due to the competitive advantage of employee retention.
But it's really not the status quo, everywhere that I've ever worked was run the way that the GP states it. People interpret it as violating the executives responsibility to refuse to engage in unethical treatment for short term gains. And layoffs seem to almost inevitably result in a higher stock price. Which makes precisely zero sense since that shrinks the production capacity as well as future earnings.
If that's what you want, you're probably better off going the apprenticeship route. Right now there's places which'll pay an apprentice electrician for example $26/hour. And that's while learning. That's a similar starting rate for a linesman, who when fully trained up to journeyman makes nearly double that.
That's really not true. Or at least not in all cases. I went to The Evergreen State College and it's known for turning out attorneys, teachers and doctors. Just because a school is public doesn't necessarily mean that the education is sub par. From what I gather a lot of the way that my alma mater handled classwork was actually fairly similar to the way that Harvard business school did it back before they sold out.
Ultimately, it's the only school I would've graduated from, because quite frankly most of the other ones lack the variety that was necessary to keep my interest. And today, I'm significantly better educated than most of the people I know, including the ones that shelled out way too much money on private schooling.
Private schools are an East coast phenomenon mainly, out west there are some really good public ones. The University of Washington is also a public school that is way above the curve. The main thing you get from a private school is the connections that come from hob knobbing with people willing to put way too much money down on an education.
I don't think he meant that, I think he's referring to the ones that get the degree but can't actually use it and end up doing something menial for which they didn't require the degree. Usually that's a result of poor timing, or not having the connections to make it work.
Or getting a stupid degree in something which is already completely saturated.
Actually, that's a real problem. Blanket encouragement to everybody to go to college was a big mistake. There's a fair number of people who would be both happier and better off if instead of going to college they picked up an apprenticeship or got a certification of some sort. It's a complete waste of resources to have individuals with a PhD serving coffee at the local coffee shop or waiting tables.
Close, not having a degree really requires having some sort of certification or apprenticeship to demonstrate that you have a valuable skill. There's a lot of high paying trades out there to work in. And others that aren't high paying, but definitely pay a living wage.
But technically speaking, having the wrong degree will exclude you from a lot of jobs as well. While simultaneously being the correct degree for other jobs.
You're right it can't be outsourced, it could if not for the IBEW have to compete with imported talent. That's already a problem in the IT industry and nursing as well.
Actually the odds are even worse than you're making them out to be. Bill Gates would've never made it any kind of big had he not been able to tap his parents for a loan and contacts.
Doesn't matter, Sony doesn't get to use it's marketing position to harm competitors. I'd be surprised if the latest firmware updates didn't run afoul of antitrust regulations.
Not quite, that level of accuracy only became a requirement sometime around when Quake was introduced. Wolf3d for instance allowed you to use the chain gun to hit two enemies on a single shot if you got it right, and you just had to be close enough when aiming.
You might want to file a complaint with your Attorney General or whoever it is that handles consumer complaints in your part of the world. The only way that Sony is going to stop this nonsense is if they get sued into oblivion by various regulatory agencies.
Or a reflection of the fact that the DoD has had a series of exploits which even a moderately qualified sysadmin would've been able to prevent. The attacks may have, and probably would've, happened anyways, but it would've taken at least some technical competence. I mean, honestly, a network definitely isn't secure if it hasn't got a password at all.
It's really, really hard not to feel superior to that sort of incompetence.
But, they probably aren't. I'm sure if you ask around, there's a surprising number of people who at 18 already had years of experience dealing with technical systems. You're not going to do a crash course and catch somebody up in even several years. It's just not going to happen. Hell, by the time I was of enlistment age, I already had the better part of a decade under my belt dealing with computers. And that was back when AOL was huge, OSX didn't exist and a person could wear a turtle neck without worrying about endorsing Apple products.
Also ad hominem arguments really don't make me want to respect you. They mostly make me think that perhaps the problem is even worse than it appears on the surface and that perhaps you've got something to be insecure about.
There's no meaningful connection between network security and combat. None, zip, nada. I'd suggest that the process of turning a person into a warrior is counter productive in terms of the necessary creativity to handle network security.
Which is why the DoD will continue to fail at computer security. Also nice ad hominem, it's those sorts of posts which demean the service of veterans everywhere.
Security of that sort really doesn't handle the chain of command model very well. What you need is the best of the best, and by the time such an individual rises through the ranks, they're probably already 5 years behind the times.
No, the second gulf war was a complete and utter failure. We sent troops in to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining WMDs from Saddam. We lost thousands of lives on our side and they lost at least 10x as many and the objective turned out to be completely pointless, as Saddam didn't have any WMDs and he wasn't in any sort of talks with Al Qaeda.
In other words we lost a huge number of our personnel for nothing at all, that's about as big a failure as you're going to get. Worse is the fact that after we invaded, then we got terrorists going in. And it gave us a huge black eye with the folks that we needed to get on our side.
I suppose that it could've ended up without any state at all there and they could've got WMDs, but that's really not any worse, considering that now we've got Iran using their weapons to menace other nations as a result of our incompetence.
Yeah, that's my thought, this is a liberal area, and I can't recall having seen or heard of any liberal talk radio stations around here. I think the only liberal talk radio that I've ever heard of was Air America, and didn't that fold a while back?
The closest thing I've heard of is NPR and that's really not the same thing, not by a long shot. Regardless of ones political views it's not analogous at all.
Do they do that in the UK? Around here the only offense I can think of where they do that is with those red light cameras and you do get your chance to take it to court if you'd like, people can and do get out of it from time to time.
I'm not sure about the UK, but I doubt very much that in the US there's be a reasonable expectation of privacy for a document posted unencrypted on the net without a password or any security at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Zuckerber bobble heads would work. Whether you love or hate Facebook, I'm sure you could find a use for one.
It just characterizes all the edits to the conservapedia to be vandalism.
In America, that's basically how it works. The rich pay an extremely low marginal tax rate, while the first cuts to spending seem to generally be pointed at the low income earners and the ones that need a hand in order to move up in class.
The ones that don't typically started with a lot of money with which they could afford to take a lower rate of yield that comes from not screwing people over.
It's possible, it's just that way too many executives and investors believe it. Meaning that treating ones employees with respect is really hard to do if you're not some sort of a private concern. A lot of companies interpret employees that aren't constantly stressed about pay as being overpaid.
There are exceptions. Costco beats the tar out of Sam's Club and Walmart on labor costs because they can undercut the cost of training due to the competitive advantage of employee retention.
But it's really not the status quo, everywhere that I've ever worked was run the way that the GP states it. People interpret it as violating the executives responsibility to refuse to engage in unethical treatment for short term gains. And layoffs seem to almost inevitably result in a higher stock price. Which makes precisely zero sense since that shrinks the production capacity as well as future earnings.
If that's what you want, you're probably better off going the apprenticeship route. Right now there's places which'll pay an apprentice electrician for example $26/hour. And that's while learning. That's a similar starting rate for a linesman, who when fully trained up to journeyman makes nearly double that.
That's really not true. Or at least not in all cases. I went to The Evergreen State College and it's known for turning out attorneys, teachers and doctors. Just because a school is public doesn't necessarily mean that the education is sub par. From what I gather a lot of the way that my alma mater handled classwork was actually fairly similar to the way that Harvard business school did it back before they sold out.
Ultimately, it's the only school I would've graduated from, because quite frankly most of the other ones lack the variety that was necessary to keep my interest. And today, I'm significantly better educated than most of the people I know, including the ones that shelled out way too much money on private schooling.
Private schools are an East coast phenomenon mainly, out west there are some really good public ones. The University of Washington is also a public school that is way above the curve. The main thing you get from a private school is the connections that come from hob knobbing with people willing to put way too much money down on an education.
I don't think he meant that, I think he's referring to the ones that get the degree but can't actually use it and end up doing something menial for which they didn't require the degree. Usually that's a result of poor timing, or not having the connections to make it work.
Or getting a stupid degree in something which is already completely saturated.
Actually, that's a real problem. Blanket encouragement to everybody to go to college was a big mistake. There's a fair number of people who would be both happier and better off if instead of going to college they picked up an apprenticeship or got a certification of some sort. It's a complete waste of resources to have individuals with a PhD serving coffee at the local coffee shop or waiting tables.
Close, not having a degree really requires having some sort of certification or apprenticeship to demonstrate that you have a valuable skill. There's a lot of high paying trades out there to work in. And others that aren't high paying, but definitely pay a living wage.
But technically speaking, having the wrong degree will exclude you from a lot of jobs as well. While simultaneously being the correct degree for other jobs.
So, the next big thing never requires senior level coursework?
You're right it can't be outsourced, it could if not for the IBEW have to compete with imported talent. That's already a problem in the IT industry and nursing as well.
Actually the odds are even worse than you're making them out to be. Bill Gates would've never made it any kind of big had he not been able to tap his parents for a loan and contacts.
Doesn't matter, Sony doesn't get to use it's marketing position to harm competitors. I'd be surprised if the latest firmware updates didn't run afoul of antitrust regulations.
Not quite, that level of accuracy only became a requirement sometime around when Quake was introduced. Wolf3d for instance allowed you to use the chain gun to hit two enemies on a single shot if you got it right, and you just had to be close enough when aiming.
Personally, I found Painkiller to be a lot more entertaining than Halo. And without giving any money to MS for the privilege.
You might want to file a complaint with your Attorney General or whoever it is that handles consumer complaints in your part of the world. The only way that Sony is going to stop this nonsense is if they get sued into oblivion by various regulatory agencies.
Or a reflection of the fact that the DoD has had a series of exploits which even a moderately qualified sysadmin would've been able to prevent. The attacks may have, and probably would've, happened anyways, but it would've taken at least some technical competence. I mean, honestly, a network definitely isn't secure if it hasn't got a password at all.
It's really, really hard not to feel superior to that sort of incompetence.
But, they probably aren't. I'm sure if you ask around, there's a surprising number of people who at 18 already had years of experience dealing with technical systems. You're not going to do a crash course and catch somebody up in even several years. It's just not going to happen. Hell, by the time I was of enlistment age, I already had the better part of a decade under my belt dealing with computers. And that was back when AOL was huge, OSX didn't exist and a person could wear a turtle neck without worrying about endorsing Apple products.
Also ad hominem arguments really don't make me want to respect you. They mostly make me think that perhaps the problem is even worse than it appears on the surface and that perhaps you've got something to be insecure about.
There's no meaningful connection between network security and combat. None, zip, nada. I'd suggest that the process of turning a person into a warrior is counter productive in terms of the necessary creativity to handle network security.
Which is why the DoD will continue to fail at computer security. Also nice ad hominem, it's those sorts of posts which demean the service of veterans everywhere.
Security of that sort really doesn't handle the chain of command model very well. What you need is the best of the best, and by the time such an individual rises through the ranks, they're probably already 5 years behind the times.
No, the second gulf war was a complete and utter failure. We sent troops in to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining WMDs from Saddam. We lost thousands of lives on our side and they lost at least 10x as many and the objective turned out to be completely pointless, as Saddam didn't have any WMDs and he wasn't in any sort of talks with Al Qaeda.
In other words we lost a huge number of our personnel for nothing at all, that's about as big a failure as you're going to get. Worse is the fact that after we invaded, then we got terrorists going in. And it gave us a huge black eye with the folks that we needed to get on our side.
I suppose that it could've ended up without any state at all there and they could've got WMDs, but that's really not any worse, considering that now we've got Iran using their weapons to menace other nations as a result of our incompetence.
Yeah, that's my thought, this is a liberal area, and I can't recall having seen or heard of any liberal talk radio stations around here. I think the only liberal talk radio that I've ever heard of was Air America, and didn't that fold a while back?
The closest thing I've heard of is NPR and that's really not the same thing, not by a long shot. Regardless of ones political views it's not analogous at all.
You obviously aren't into either sports or conservative talk radio. I think those have been the major uses of AM radio in recent years.
Do they do that in the UK? Around here the only offense I can think of where they do that is with those red light cameras and you do get your chance to take it to court if you'd like, people can and do get out of it from time to time.
I'm not sure about the UK, but I doubt very much that in the US there's be a reasonable expectation of privacy for a document posted unencrypted on the net without a password or any security at all.