And when mimnimum wage goes up, many new jobs are eliminated fromt eh private secotr, because small business can't afford them, so they do without and businesses fail or not.
You specify small business; but, it's actually all businesses. Take McDonald's (large business) as an example. It used to be that McD hired someone whose only job was to fill soda cups. They paid minimum wage and the person stood there all day filling soda cups. Minimum wage went up and McD's said "well, it's now cheaper for us to install those soda dispensers than it is to keep the soda guy". So in went the soda machine and out went the guy (theoretically to welfare).
Now a point to remember is that McD already had invented the soda machine (or bought the rights) prior to minimum wage going up. It was just cheaper to have the guy. So you now have to ask yourself: Does McD already have an automatic-burger-flipper ready and waiting for the time that paying minimum wage exceeds the price of the machine?
Apply the same theory to all minimum wage positions and you'll see how unemployment can (theoretically) increase with each pay raise that's supposed to help the minimum wage worker. Using that logic, increasing minimum wage actually increases unemployment, which then increases the tax burden on the employed.
This comment now approaching trolling, but I have to now say that (according to the theory) politicians pushing a minimum wage increase are actually pushing for higher unemployment -- it looks good to uneducated constituents though. Side note: Democrats historically advocate higher minimum wage because it benefits "the people".
I actually just had the same sort of experience but in modern times. My kids were the new kids (we just moved to the area) and were having bullying problems which were reported time and time again. I went through the due process, continually escalating through new people. I was amazed at the number of people that I actually had to tell, and at the lack of response - apparently everyone was so focused on working on FCATs (standardized tests) that there wasn't time to address the issue.
That changed however very quickly. I simply sent a note to the teacher telling him "I do not know who else I need to inform of this as I've already escalated through four separate people, but my son is still having trouble with Logan. I have instructed my son to use his Taekwondo and strike the bully if anything he has any other problems with him. Please understand that I have directed my child to do this and take full responsibility for his actions."
That same day, I received a phone call from his teacher, and the principal. The next day I met with the principal and explained the note. One week later, Logan was expelled from the afterschool program my son was also enrolled in. Two months later (last week actually), school let out for the summer. From the time I sent the note through the last day of school, my son was not bothered again.
Unfortunately, the proper process and procedure failed my son utterly. What my son and I learned was that the process fails until you are willing to resort to "old school" techniques. At that point, the school's unwillingness to follow up on your complaints becomes a liability to them and they will do just about anything you ask.
It has the other benefit of taking the "grousing and grumbling" or "bored and chatty" short-timer out of the office. The short-timer wandering around the office distracting people typically costs more than sending you home with pay. Especially if you're wandering around touting that new company you found that is still accepting resumes!
The only real question the client -- and courts -- can and will ask the employer is "Were you aware that the employee with access to the data had reason for vengeance?". If yes, then the employer pays. It's much easier to just cut them off than to even send the lawyers to the depositions.
It's in the company's interest for you to do nothing. They actually will prefer if you do absolutely nothing because of their own liability. As a regular employee, if you mess something up it's just negligence (oops). On the other hand if the company terminates you and still gives you access, and then you mess something up, they're criminally liable because they should have restricted your access.
For example, I worked on banking software and had god-rights. If I as a regular employee steal all of the customer data and sell it, then I am the criminal. If I have been terminated and do the same, then they are at fault. Now yes, I realize that it's a pedantic difference, but the banks which run the software see a world of difference and will sue the my employer accordingly.
Believe me, it's cheaper to pay me 6 months severance than it is to be sued for my actions.
What they're doing instead is creating a separate type of commercial. While you're fastforwarding, they display a different add next to or overlaid onto the regular screen image. In short, they can be rather certain that you're at the controls (pressing the buttons) and watching the screen (so you know when to stop). That let's them play back very focused commercials which they sold at a very high price. You still get to skip the 3 minute commercial break, but you get to endure a single expensive ad while you're doing it.
Re:That kind of attitude is the problem
on
Hacking a Pacemaker
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So what I'm saying is: let's all stop and think twice before shrugging and dismissing security as impossible anyway. Sometimes it's very feasible to make it bulletproof, and, really, it has no excuse to not be so.
The excuse is that people are not willing to spend the difference it would cost to make it bulletproof. There are diminishing returns (even on life-saving devices) which people won't recognize or spend on.
Imagine walking into a doctor's office being presented with two (apparently) identical devices. One costs $1000, and the other costs $10,000. Yes, it's your life, but spending another $9000 to make it more secure isn't going to be the option most people choose.
Beyond that, imagine trying to convince an HMO the medical necessity for spending more money on the secure version. I'd suspect that the manufacturers have already considered that and decided to be competitive instead.
Just how many women do you think would pick up a pair of Privacy Britches (TM) to go through the check process? I am betting 99.9999%, with the very small percentage being nymphomaniacs, exhibitionists, and freaky sadistic grannies.
My bigger gripe is people who say the 9/11 will always be remembered... and then can't name the day Pearl Harbor occurred
Those people are probably right. That's the benefit of naming an entire event after a time period. If it were named "America Under Siege" or something else, then the date itself would be forgotten just like Pearl Harbor was (by most people). By being named after the date, it is much more likely to be remembered. Take The War of 1812 for example. I bet that most people could guess when it started; even if they couldn't tell what it was about.
To partially agree with your point though, the next time you hear someone talking about 9/11 always being remembered, ask them what year it happened in and see how fast they can name it.
Sweden was able to stay out of the first world war and keep an "armed neutrality" during the second world war.
I went to Denmark, and was told all about Sweden's "armed neutrality". I was told that the only reason that Sweden was allowed to remain neutral was because it succumbed to Germany's will. It essentially agreed to work full-time supplying war materials (iron ore) if Germany agreed not to destroy it. For more, check out this link.
Minor disclaimer: I'm relaying info a Dane gave me on the Swedes. Don't kill the messenger. Personally, I love all things Swedish and offer the traditional salute; bork-bork-bork!!
require that all bills be read into law in a Congressional session. That way the legislature has to decide that a bill is still worth the effort to renew.
When I first thought about the idea of auto-sunsetting laws, I figured it was a great idea. There's a huge problem with that though, which you actually almost mentioned. Your words were "...legislature has to decide that a bill is still worth...". Given the given the history of our politicians, I'd expect that the automatic expiration of laws would quickly turn into a corporate bidding war (to buy politicians) to determine which laws will be renewed and in what new capacity.
Imagine how the different interest groups will be paying different politicians to rephrase each new iteration of law. You could see how interest groups could quickly rephrase laws to legalize or criminalize anything. For example, a law which legalizes abortion is about to expire, and is slated for revision and renewal. Imagine how much the wording would vary depending on whether the Concerned Christian Coalition* or Planned Parenthood bought the right politicians.
*This is not a slam against religion. It's just the most clear example I could think of. Substitute in the Fraternal Foundation for Fetuses if it makes you feel better.
I think I'd prefer to get wet or use an umbrella than breathe the horrible smog [guardian.co.uk] that blankets Beijing. In fact, the rain is often the only thing that reduces the smog and air pollution for a shirt while.
Wired actually had an article, Smog and Mirrors, about this exact same thing. They actually wrote the opposite of TFA:
And there's always the Hail Mary play: cloud seeding. Should air quality threaten to steal the show, the Beijing Meteorological Bureau promises to have its fleet of cloud-seeding aircraft warmed up on the runways, ready to bomb the sky with silver iodide and set off air-scrubbing showers over competition areas.
Can't expect MBAs to understand the difference between good code and bad code, to them it's all just code, and as far as their concerned, the more the better. It's the old idiotic idea that more lines of code means a better product, therefor anything that reduces lines of code must be a bad thing.
Umm... MBA and coder here. Your apparent problem is that you have trouble conveying ideas to them in concepts that a typical MBA can understand. First hint: don't even try to support your measurements with "lines of code". Use easily-understood, business-common terms; such as return on investment or simply money. Try explaining that you can save the company X downtime or support hours by investing Y development hours into a fix. They ("We MBA's" if you prefer) can quickly calculate that Y development hours costs a lot less than X downtime hours.
By using the important measurement (money instead of lines of code) I have convinced my critics to support me in a total rewrite of the architecture and code. As geeky as it is to say, it's actually fun to impose my will and then be allowed and paid to rewrite it.
As an aside, I have to mention that using proper English will help you in converting others to support you. "their" is possessive; meaning "it belongs to them". You meant "they're", which means "they are" (the ' character replaces the missing characters " a").
It will be interesting to see what effect this has on digital media distribution online.
How long do you think it will be before you start getting an ISP bundled with a streaming company? You'll automatically subscribe to Netflix when you sign up with Time Warner. You get slightly-cheaper rentals, and the streaming doesn't count against your quota. TW makes their money from exclusivity with Netflix.
People are stupid, but they are also easily distracted and forget last year's MAJOR CRISIS in favor of this year's equally all-consuming disaster.
Think Homeland Security will declare cloned cows a threat? If people forget all about terrorists we'll have no way to justify such huge government spending!
Hehehe, of course, it would be a kick watching Homeland security declare the FDA and Agriculture Department terrorist cells. With TV's writers' strike, that plot idea may be what we get for the next 24 series.
I actuall see no problem with more representation, currently we're getting less and less. You tell me, do you feel adequately represented by anyone, let alone by your congress critter?
I agree with you. I'm actually surprised that nobody has mentioned Thirty thousandyet. It explains where the number of reps came from:
"The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."
The site also details a lot of other implementation ideas. Definately worth a read.
ps - That quote wasn't directly responding to this post, but was raised elsewhere. Sue me for not threading well, but we're a bit all over in this topic already.
Let the airlines make whatever policies they wish, implement them as they wish.
So how do I get the airlines with no policies to not fly over my house? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that airline's flightpath; they likely have matching maintenance schedules.
If we're going for free market, that means that I should be able to personally charge each airline rent for using MY airspace. Yes, it's 30,000 feet up, but I did pay for it.
Free market rules would suddenly force airlines to have to pre-negotiate flight routes around cities instead of over them.
Walmart has them, but you have to buy a $677 bundle of console
That bundle is precisely how I bought one for my kids. I bought the bundle; then after receiving it I took it into the store and returned all of the parts I didn't want to keep. They looked at me strangely, but since the register didn't complain as they scanned in the returns, they were content to proceed.
I don't know if you noticed; but, that bundle is actually out of stock (as of when I wrote this, as well as when I checked it last week). I was considering buying the bundle and returning the extras before ebaying the console -- too much hassle for too little return.
Why would you take medical advice from a stranger on the internet?
Seeing as how I agree with you, I hate to have to point out the opposite also -- most people do not have personal relationships with their doctors. The doctors are, by definition, strangers. Add to that fact that no doctors have unlimited time to spend with you (they get paid to see you and get you out the door) and none are experts in all areas. You may very well get better advice about certain ailments from someone that has survived them and wants to teach others than you would from a fresh-from-school doctor.
Simple example: that lady that survived breast cancer and has lots of time at home with her web-camera would be a much better source of information than a newly-graduated family-doctor.
Of course, I would hope that people would listen to the lady to find out how she felt about the things that happened, and then consulted a doctor to see why those things happened. Of course, every time I start asking a doctor questions, they start to either get comfortable and want to share answers, or get defensive and get away.
Most people also fail to recognize that a flu vaccine is only a vaccine against the most prevalent and dire versions of the flu for that particular season. As the flu mutates every year, the previous years' vaccines become obsolete. The mutations are the reason that we can't stockpile vaccine ahead of time, and why so many places are short of the vaccines they want. Only after the mutations occur may we develop the vaccine to it, and by then it's a race to develop and then distribute it faster than nature.
In other words, Granny may have gotten the vaccine (against the often-lethal flu X, Y, and Z) but then fell ill to the flu ( variant J ) anyhow. So while you may moan about Granny getting the flu, she may have very well been exposed to multiple variants which she did not also get.
one of my developers went home early as she was up all last night fixing her machine after it was affected by this little problem
You could use "this little problem" as a screening tactic. If it really took her all night to fix her machine, you could identify her as needing either more experience or troubleshooting ability. Beyond the question of "how long did it take to fix it?" you could also find out her ability to rank priorities. "Does staying up all night to fix my gaming machine justify inferior work performance tomorrow?" Before anyone exclaims that she may have been playing on her work machine, consider that she should understand those implications too.
Slashdot Mirror
You specify small business; but, it's actually all businesses. Take McDonald's (large business) as an example. It used to be that McD hired someone whose only job was to fill soda cups. They paid minimum wage and the person stood there all day filling soda cups. Minimum wage went up and McD's said "well, it's now cheaper for us to install those soda dispensers than it is to keep the soda guy". So in went the soda machine and out went the guy (theoretically to welfare).
Now a point to remember is that McD already had invented the soda machine (or bought the rights) prior to minimum wage going up. It was just cheaper to have the guy. So you now have to ask yourself: Does McD already have an automatic-burger-flipper ready and waiting for the time that paying minimum wage exceeds the price of the machine?
Apply the same theory to all minimum wage positions and you'll see how unemployment can (theoretically) increase with each pay raise that's supposed to help the minimum wage worker. Using that logic, increasing minimum wage actually increases unemployment, which then increases the tax burden on the employed.
This comment now approaching trolling, but I have to now say that (according to the theory) politicians pushing a minimum wage increase are actually pushing for higher unemployment -- it looks good to uneducated constituents though. Side note: Democrats historically advocate higher minimum wage because it benefits "the people".
I actually just had the same sort of experience but in modern times. My kids were the new kids (we just moved to the area) and were having bullying problems which were reported time and time again. I went through the due process, continually escalating through new people. I was amazed at the number of people that I actually had to tell, and at the lack of response - apparently everyone was so focused on working on FCATs (standardized tests) that there wasn't time to address the issue.
That changed however very quickly. I simply sent a note to the teacher telling him "I do not know who else I need to inform of this as I've already escalated through four separate people, but my son is still having trouble with Logan. I have instructed my son to use his Taekwondo and strike the bully if anything he has any other problems with him. Please understand that I have directed my child to do this and take full responsibility for his actions."
That same day, I received a phone call from his teacher, and the principal. The next day I met with the principal and explained the note. One week later, Logan was expelled from the afterschool program my son was also enrolled in. Two months later (last week actually), school let out for the summer. From the time I sent the note through the last day of school, my son was not bothered again.
Unfortunately, the proper process and procedure failed my son utterly. What my son and I learned was that the process fails until you are willing to resort to "old school" techniques. At that point, the school's unwillingness to follow up on your complaints becomes a liability to them and they will do just about anything you ask.
It has the other benefit of taking the "grousing and grumbling" or "bored and chatty" short-timer out of the office. The short-timer wandering around the office distracting people typically costs more than sending you home with pay. Especially if you're wandering around touting that new company you found that is still accepting resumes!
The only real question the client -- and courts -- can and will ask the employer is "Were you aware that the employee with access to the data had reason for vengeance?". If yes, then the employer pays. It's much easier to just cut them off than to even send the lawyers to the depositions.
It's in the company's interest for you to do nothing. They actually will prefer if you do absolutely nothing because of their own liability. As a regular employee, if you mess something up it's just negligence (oops). On the other hand if the company terminates you and still gives you access, and then you mess something up, they're criminally liable because they should have restricted your access.
For example, I worked on banking software and had god-rights. If I as a regular employee steal all of the customer data and sell it, then I am the criminal. If I have been terminated and do the same, then they are at fault. Now yes, I realize that it's a pedantic difference, but the banks which run the software see a world of difference and will sue the my employer accordingly.
Believe me, it's cheaper to pay me 6 months severance than it is to be sued for my actions.
What they're doing instead is creating a separate type of commercial. While you're fastforwarding, they display a different add next to or overlaid onto the regular screen image. In short, they can be rather certain that you're at the controls (pressing the buttons) and watching the screen (so you know when to stop). That let's them play back very focused commercials which they sold at a very high price. You still get to skip the 3 minute commercial break, but you get to endure a single expensive ad while you're doing it.
The excuse is that people are not willing to spend the difference it would cost to make it bulletproof. There are diminishing returns (even on life-saving devices) which people won't recognize or spend on.
Imagine walking into a doctor's office being presented with two (apparently) identical devices. One costs $1000, and the other costs $10,000. Yes, it's your life, but spending another $9000 to make it more secure isn't going to be the option most people choose.
Beyond that, imagine trying to convince an HMO the medical necessity for spending more money on the secure version. I'd suspect that the manufacturers have already considered that and decided to be competitive instead.
To partially agree with your point though, the next time you hear someone talking about 9/11 always being remembered, ask them what year it happened in and see how fast they can name it.
Minor disclaimer: I'm relaying info a Dane gave me on the Swedes. Don't kill the messenger. Personally, I love all things Swedish and offer the traditional salute; bork-bork-bork!!
Imagine how the different interest groups will be paying different politicians to rephrase each new iteration of law. You could see how interest groups could quickly rephrase laws to legalize or criminalize anything. For example, a law which legalizes abortion is about to expire, and is slated for revision and renewal. Imagine how much the wording would vary depending on whether the Concerned Christian Coalition* or Planned Parenthood bought the right politicians.
*This is not a slam against religion. It's just the most clear example I could think of. Substitute in the Fraternal Foundation for Fetuses if it makes you feel better.
By using the important measurement (money instead of lines of code) I have convinced my critics to support me in a total rewrite of the architecture and code. As geeky as it is to say, it's actually fun to impose my will and then be allowed and paid to rewrite it.
As an aside, I have to mention that using proper English will help you in converting others to support you. "their" is possessive; meaning "it belongs to them". You meant "they're", which means "they are" (the ' character replaces the missing characters " a").
Hehehe, of course, it would be a kick watching Homeland security declare the FDA and Agriculture Department terrorist cells. With TV's writers' strike, that plot idea may be what we get for the next 24 series.
ps - That quote wasn't directly responding to this post, but was raised elsewhere. Sue me for not threading well, but we're a bit all over in this topic already.
If we're going for free market, that means that I should be able to personally charge each airline rent for using MY airspace. Yes, it's 30,000 feet up, but I did pay for it.
Free market rules would suddenly force airlines to have to pre-negotiate flight routes around cities instead of over them.
I don't know if you noticed; but, that bundle is actually out of stock (as of when I wrote this, as well as when I checked it last week). I was considering buying the bundle and returning the extras before ebaying the console -- too much hassle for too little return.
Simple example: that lady that survived breast cancer and has lots of time at home with her web-camera would be a much better source of information than a newly-graduated family-doctor.
Of course, I would hope that people would listen to the lady to find out how she felt about the things that happened, and then consulted a doctor to see why those things happened. Of course, every time I start asking a doctor questions, they start to either get comfortable and want to share answers, or get defensive and get away.
Most people also fail to recognize that a flu vaccine is only a vaccine against the most prevalent and dire versions of the flu for that particular season. As the flu mutates every year, the previous years' vaccines become obsolete. The mutations are the reason that we can't stockpile vaccine ahead of time, and why so many places are short of the vaccines they want. Only after the mutations occur may we develop the vaccine to it, and by then it's a race to develop and then distribute it faster than nature.
In other words, Granny may have gotten the vaccine (against the often-lethal flu X, Y, and Z) but then fell ill to the flu ( variant J ) anyhow. So while you may moan about Granny getting the flu, she may have very well been exposed to multiple variants which she did not also get.