Can you image if cashiers had to figure out your change without the register telling them how much money to give back to the customer
So it's hard for you to imagine someone using basic math? Did you know they do still teach math in school? Most people surely can handle basic subtraction by 3rd grade, including cashiers.
While that would seem reasonable it doesn't reflect reality. You don't actually even need to "do the math" if you know how to count change but it's my experience that the majority of folks simply can't handle making change without the computer. Heck, even WITH a computer they can't always figure it out.
Similar, yes. The difference is you aren't an expert in the field presenting the evidence. That's probably the key to winning: paying an expert to present the evidence. Since the prof in the article is such an expert, he didn't have to pay one to present it.
To heck with scaling this up. Lets scale it down so I can have one in my back yard, or at every corner gas station. A small reactors working any time there is sunlight and water scaled just large enough to keep your car topped off makes a lot more sense than trucking hydrogen around.
You must live somewhere like CA where there's lots of sun. Here in Seattle it is less feasible and don't even get me started on Canada, much of Russia and so on.
Here's an idea to clear up this mess nicely: get rid of all sales taxes. They're extremely regressive and complicate and impede commerce. Increase income, property, and capital gains taxes to compensate.
I agree sales taxes can be harder on the poor in some cases but it's a manageable risk. Blanket statements suchas yours do little more than expose the lack of depth of your understanding. They're only harmful if you assume sales tax is charged on the basics of life. Food, for example, is not taxable in many states. There's no reason the poor shouldn't pay sales tax on a television, however, or a car.
There are ways to make the taxes more fair overall. I'm a fan of the Fair Tax myself which offers a rebate up front every year to everyone that covers the tax paid for everyone up to the income level for poverty. That way nobody pays anything out of pocket until you make more than that base level. I also like that it wouldn't tax used goods. There may be other issues with the Fair Tax that I don't recognize as I am not an expert in the field but that method would seem to work well.
Anyhow, saying a regressive tax is inherently bad ignores that other forms of taxes are too easy to avoid for those wealthy enough to pay accountants and attorneys to do so. How's that any more fair?
Again displaying their infinite law-and-order wisdom, the US Supreme Court has ruled that anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched, even if there's no suspicion that they are concealing contraband.
He wasn't convicted.
He didn't commit any crime.
Yes, he was. This is detailed in the actual ruling so if you RTFR you'd have gotten that.
He pled guilty to several offenses earlier and was paying off some fines associated with that. When he fell behind on those payments, a hearing was scheduled. When he didn't appear at that hearing, a bench warrant for failure to appear (FTA) was issued. While he may have paid his fine later, the FTA is a wholly separate issue and officers likely had no discretion in that case. FTA is kind of like contempt of court; it's a separate issue from whatever you were supposed to be there for to begin with.
He was publicly humiliated.
Stop apologizing for the complete and total gutting of our rights.
You may have that view, of course, but I take the view that should I be arrested I want to be safe from other inmates. That's one of the duties of an incarcerating agency!
Not hate speech, but copyright, and used to silence critics with lawsuits;
Eh, as those critics are still there I wouldn't really call the "silenced". Also, it wasn't criticism that was targetted, but publishing a pages from a Church manual online. I imagine if they'd instead tried to summarize the content in their own words there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
Disclaimer: IAAM
I am not a Mormon and I agree. That article is dealing with specifically posting content. The same information could easily have been summarized, and may now be, on the website without actually infringing the copyright. I can't say I agree with everything any church does regardless of denomination but in that specific case I side with the church's position.
Not a perfect analogy; most mortgage contracts lay out the foreclosure process very specifically. Choosing to stop paying your mortgage doesn't necessarily break the contract, it simply allows them to potentially foreclose on the property. Of course, every mortgage can be different so this may not apply universally.
Do you have Stalkeritis? Do you need that special "treatment" for this serious "medical condition" and just can't manage to convince your preferred provider to, well, provide it? Just call 1-800-Girl-Now! We have genuine look-a-likes for all your medical needs. Offer not valid in all areas, some restrictions may apply. Satisfaction guaranteed, assuming you aren't finicky.
(You may not want to actually call that number; I have no clue what it goes to for real.)
There are already many, many opportunities for arbitrage in legal pharmaceuticals, but I don't think anyone has hard evidence about how much of a problem in the North American and EU markets this really is. Typically seniors on Medicaid don't buy their drugs out of the back of El Camino that has a bunch of Folexes and Foakleys in it...
Just like Apple needs patents on rounded corners for smartphones
I could be wrong since I haven't looked it up but rounded corners on a phone wouldn't likely be patent-able but can certainly be considered part of the "trade dress". While both matters covered by "IP law", patents and trade dress are wildly different from each other. I think conflating the two is a bad idea in general.
There are other parts that apply but this is pretty specific:
(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
I'm not entirely sure but you may have just demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger Effect nicely.:)
As with so many articles I see about "breakthroughs", this is the key bit. The researchers probably just needed another round of funding so they released some information about it. Call me when we actually have serious trials and it's about to start final testing.
That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
While your basic premise is sound, it is not entirely accurate. A law enforcement officer needs a warrant to enter a home, or other private space, uninvited except in cases of exigent circumstances. Now, whether all officers are truthful regarding exigent circumstances after the fact may be debated but the law is pretty clear. We're talking US law, of course.
I went once, not long ago. I'm of the opinion it's stretching the term "museum" to its breaking point. I wish they had more museum-like displays and the owner, when I asked, said they're working on funding. The place is well worth a visit for any pinball fan but don't expect too much "history" other than old machines.
For that matter, do you really think we have THREE THOUSAND terrorists in our country?
Not to defend the warrant-less trackers but do you really think the FBI only monitors and investigates suspected terrorists? They also deal with any crime that happens on Federal lands, crimes that cross state lines such as kidnappings, murders, thefts, and much more. They aren't all there just to fuck with our freedoms, you know. Yes, some members of law enforcement are power hungry assholes. That's not all of them, however, and you do a dis-service to the good ones when you forget it or trivialize what they actually do.
To the OP, ignore all the subjective "Company A has better coverage/speeds/widgets" since that varies by region and personal usage patterns. For basic usage, I agree just pick your carrier of choice. Then look at both pre-paid and postpaid options. Many would be surprised how WELL you get treated by pre-paid customer service and if it's the same network you normally use, you'd really never know the difference unless you roam outside the coverage area regularly.
I've been happy with Boost myself for some time now. I've used AT&T, Verizon and Sprint post-paid at various times myself and have helped clients with the issues they have with them as well. Prepaid is inexpensive and if you don't "need" the latest phones it's the way to go. I'm on my phone nearly all day every day and coverage hasn't been an issue for me with Boost in Seattle. Heck, even in outlying areas it's better than I expected.
If I had the $$$$ that I assume this guy must have...I'd have quit a LONG time ago....and spend the rest of my life enjoying my money...traveling the world, bedding new babes, basically one long party the rest of my life.
But, I guess to each his own...everyone has something different that makes them happy. Whatever it is...DO IT...life on this planet is short, make sure you have no regrets on your deathbed.
Who says he isn't enjoying his money and bedding "new babes"? Nothing whatsoever in working a job, even as a hobby of sorts, precludes someone from having an active sex life.
I got a HUGE settlement when I was 18 and spent some years doing exactly what you said. While it's fun for a while, eventually you get bored and need more than that. Finding what it is that fulfills you can be difficult but for this guy, it seems helping get decent education to others is part of it. I found mine and he found his. That's truly the power of money; it allows you to more easily find that which you desire most to accomplish.
Now that's an idea I like. Force them to pay foreigners more than they would a US worker. Thus they don't have an incentive to hire foreigners unless the shortage is real and when the shortage goes away they'll hire US workers. No wonder Germany manages to continue to be successful even though the EU flounders.
I absolutely agree. That'd allow them to use skilled foreign labor when it's actually needed as opposed to just easier to find at the cheapest rate possible.
Yes, we old engineers are so greedy and lazy... I mean, I just hired on with a new company just 3 months ago, a grizzled 25 year veteran of consumer electronics design - and I demanded (and got) well beyond the $150K. Of course, in the first 2 months I've also identified a firm $2.5 million in annual savings, with a very small, zero-cost change to the production line. So yeah - some begrudge the high salary I command - but my new employer gladly pays it because I've already turned back 10X the savings.
And so you earned that salary. The problem that many won't see is that the salary isn't earned by your years of experience but instead by how you applied them. There are far too many who feel they deserve such a salary simply because "they put in their time".
A similar example from my own business: my best "find" was a former Boeing machinist. He had virtually no experience in working with computers but applied himself to learn. His people skills and willingness to actually learn new things are what make him valuable. He's my single best tech now after 6 years and the clients love him. Now, that's a different circumstance form what most are talking about since he went into a new field but he took a hit in pay form what he was doing and is now making more than he ever did at Boeing... which I happily pay!
My point is not everyone "deserves" a certain pay rate just because they've got X years of experience. Unfortunately, we've lost the knack of doing anything other than hiring by the numbers so we're in this situation where many want more than HR is willing to pay because a few bad apples screwed it up for everyone.
First, f he's a bad engineer (your first refutation), then he won't have the recommendations, won't be commanding the salary levels that we're talking about. He will have worked in skut projects during his career, and his previous manager will not have nice things to say about him. His linked in profile will show the same, and he won't be eloquent at the white board.
Or they will because how else will they get rid of him. It's not a zero sum game; there are various shades of grey to it all. The thing is experience is not all the same so being older with more experience does not automatically warrant a certain pay scale.
Unfortunately, running businesses via spreadsheet alone is indeed a race to the bottom. That's why I refuse to do so in my own.
I'm curious... "costing more than they're worth"... I had thought that that most IT workers are not unionized. Am I mistaken?
No, you're not mistaken in my experience. Most IT workers have traditionally (as much as you can use that word in a new-ish industry like this) assumed they can negotiate better packages than a union. When there was a shortage of skilled workers that was true to a degree. Now, however, we see plenty of unskilled workers and there's no union to negotiate for job security. While thatused to be OK since you could jump from one company to the next getting a 5% or 10% pay raise each time, the tables have turned.
I get paid what I do because my employer and I have negotiated that value on my initial hiring. At subsequent years they've increased my salary to compensate for my performance and increased experience. If I don't agree with the pay rate, I'm free to try to re-negotiate or find a higher paying job.
Is someone forcing these companies to pay employees based on some time-based salary schedule? Or are we just talking about normal market forces, where if you don't pay experience people enough some other company will lure them away? Sorry, I just don't know how it works outside my own somewhat specialized industry (game development), where pretty much everyone negotiates salaries on their own.
Unions aren't there just to get you a fair salary when you start. They negotiate the conditions under which you may be replaced as well. While I agree many unions have gone too far with this and many also do very little for their workers, that's not reason enough to discard the concept entirely. I see it as much like the political landscape; when the masses no longer govern by regular involvement in the process, those who wish to abuse the process come into power and, frankly, screw it all up.
Game development is an industry RIPE for unionization but the companies keep the workers in a competitive frenzy and rely on churn to get rid of those who may desire a stable life along with their decent job.
Note, please, that I own a business and my employees are unionized by my choice. I encouraged them to organize and stayed hands-off as they interviewed various unions until they found one they thought suitable. I negotiated a fair deal with the union based on what my employees actually wanted as a whole. Surprisingly, there was less about pay that changed and more about things I would consider silly such as them being allowed to use their own tools instead of the ones I provided. We're talking screwdrivers and such here but they felt it was important. I'm happy to have satisfied employees who feel empowered in their own benefits and working conditions. They're much more productive this way than when each was thinking about how to outdo the next in pay or benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's hard for you to imagine someone using basic math? Did you know they do still teach math in school? Most people surely can handle basic subtraction by 3rd grade, including cashiers.
While that would seem reasonable it doesn't reflect reality. You don't actually even need to "do the math" if you know how to count change but it's my experience that the majority of folks simply can't handle making change without the computer. Heck, even WITH a computer they can't always figure it out.
I had a similar situation
Similar, yes. The difference is you aren't an expert in the field presenting the evidence. That's probably the key to winning: paying an expert to present the evidence. Since the prof in the article is such an expert, he didn't have to pay one to present it.
To heck with scaling this up. Lets scale it down so I can have one in my back yard, or at every corner gas station. A small reactors working any time there is sunlight and water scaled just large enough to keep your car topped off makes a lot more sense than trucking hydrogen around.
You must live somewhere like CA where there's lots of sun. Here in Seattle it is less feasible and don't even get me started on Canada, much of Russia and so on.
Here's an idea to clear up this mess nicely: get rid of all sales taxes. They're extremely regressive and complicate and impede commerce. Increase income, property, and capital gains taxes to compensate.
I agree sales taxes can be harder on the poor in some cases but it's a manageable risk. Blanket statements suchas yours do little more than expose the lack of depth of your understanding. They're only harmful if you assume sales tax is charged on the basics of life. Food, for example, is not taxable in many states. There's no reason the poor shouldn't pay sales tax on a television, however, or a car.
There are ways to make the taxes more fair overall. I'm a fan of the Fair Tax myself which offers a rebate up front every year to everyone that covers the tax paid for everyone up to the income level for poverty. That way nobody pays anything out of pocket until you make more than that base level. I also like that it wouldn't tax used goods. There may be other issues with the Fair Tax that I don't recognize as I am not an expert in the field but that method would seem to work well.
Anyhow, saying a regressive tax is inherently bad ignores that other forms of taxes are too easy to avoid for those wealthy enough to pay accountants and attorneys to do so. How's that any more fair?
RTFA:
Again displaying their infinite law-and-order wisdom, the US Supreme Court has ruled that anyone arrested for any offense, however innocuous, can be strip-searched, even if there's no suspicion that they are concealing contraband.
He wasn't convicted.
He didn't commit any crime.
Yes, he was. This is detailed in the actual ruling so if you RTFR you'd have gotten that.
He pled guilty to several offenses earlier and was paying off some fines associated with that. When he fell behind on those payments, a hearing was scheduled. When he didn't appear at that hearing, a bench warrant for failure to appear (FTA) was issued. While he may have paid his fine later, the FTA is a wholly separate issue and officers likely had no discretion in that case. FTA is kind of like contempt of court; it's a separate issue from whatever you were supposed to be there for to begin with.
He was publicly humiliated.
Stop apologizing for the complete and total gutting of our rights.
You may have that view, of course, but I take the view that should I be arrested I want to be safe from other inmates. That's one of the duties of an incarcerating agency!
Not hate speech, but copyright, and used to silence critics with lawsuits;
Eh, as those critics are still there I wouldn't really call the "silenced". Also, it wasn't criticism that was targetted, but publishing a pages from a Church manual online. I imagine if they'd instead tried to summarize the content in their own words there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
Disclaimer: IAAM
I am not a Mormon and I agree. That article is dealing with specifically posting content. The same information could easily have been summarized, and may now be, on the website without actually infringing the copyright. I can't say I agree with everything any church does regardless of denomination but in that specific case I side with the church's position.
Not a perfect analogy; most mortgage contracts lay out the foreclosure process very specifically. Choosing to stop paying your mortgage doesn't necessarily break the contract, it simply allows them to potentially foreclose on the property. Of course, every mortgage can be different so this may not apply universally.
Do you have Stalkeritis? Do you need that special "treatment" for this serious "medical condition" and just can't manage to convince your preferred provider to, well, provide it? Just call 1-800-Girl-Now! We have genuine look-a-likes for all your medical needs. Offer not valid in all areas, some restrictions may apply. Satisfaction guaranteed, assuming you aren't finicky.
(You may not want to actually call that number; I have no clue what it goes to for real.)
There are already many, many opportunities for arbitrage in legal pharmaceuticals, but I don't think anyone has hard evidence about how much of a problem in the North American and EU markets this really is. Typically seniors on Medicaid don't buy their drugs out of the back of El Camino that has a bunch of Folexes and Foakleys in it...
Sorry, that should be Medicare...
No, that'd be the seniors on Fedicare ... ha!
I'm not opposed to Medicare, BTW.
Just like Apple needs patents on rounded corners for smartphones
I could be wrong since I haven't looked it up but rounded corners on a phone wouldn't likely be patent-able but can certainly be considered part of the "trade dress". While both matters covered by "IP law", patents and trade dress are wildly different from each other. I think conflating the two is a bad idea in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
*facepalm* Yeah, double clicking the preview button auto-posts if you time it just so. Way to go me.
That should have read "You might want to check the actual statute before spouting off about it" ...
before spouting off about it.
There are other parts that apply but this is pretty specific:
(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
I'm not entirely sure but you may have just demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger Effect nicely. :)
If this new interface is successful
As with so many articles I see about "breakthroughs", this is the key bit. The researchers probably just needed another round of funding so they released some information about it. Call me when we actually have serious trials and it's about to start final testing.
That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
While your basic premise is sound, it is not entirely accurate. A law enforcement officer needs a warrant to enter a home, or other private space, uninvited except in cases of exigent circumstances. Now, whether all officers are truthful regarding exigent circumstances after the fact may be debated but the law is pretty clear. We're talking US law, of course.
I went once, not long ago. I'm of the opinion it's stretching the term "museum" to its breaking point. I wish they had more museum-like displays and the owner, when I asked, said they're working on funding. The place is well worth a visit for any pinball fan but don't expect too much "history" other than old machines.
For that matter, do you really think we have THREE THOUSAND terrorists in our country?
Not to defend the warrant-less trackers but do you really think the FBI only monitors and investigates suspected terrorists? They also deal with any crime that happens on Federal lands, crimes that cross state lines such as kidnappings, murders, thefts, and much more. They aren't all there just to fuck with our freedoms, you know. Yes, some members of law enforcement are power hungry assholes. That's not all of them, however, and you do a dis-service to the good ones when you forget it or trivialize what they actually do.
To the OP, ignore all the subjective "Company A has better coverage/speeds/widgets" since that varies by region and personal usage patterns. For basic usage, I agree just pick your carrier of choice. Then look at both pre-paid and postpaid options. Many would be surprised how WELL you get treated by pre-paid customer service and if it's the same network you normally use, you'd really never know the difference unless you roam outside the coverage area regularly.
I've been happy with Boost myself for some time now. I've used AT&T, Verizon and Sprint post-paid at various times myself and have helped clients with the issues they have with them as well. Prepaid is inexpensive and if you don't "need" the latest phones it's the way to go. I'm on my phone nearly all day every day and coverage hasn't been an issue for me with Boost in Seattle. Heck, even in outlying areas it's better than I expected.
Come on, this isn't that hard to find: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/372859/amd-what-went-wrong/print
He's a better man than I am I guess.
If I had the $$$$ that I assume this guy must have...I'd have quit a LONG time ago....and spend the rest of my life enjoying my money...traveling the world, bedding new babes, basically one long party the rest of my life.
But, I guess to each his own...everyone has something different that makes them happy. Whatever it is...DO IT...life on this planet is short, make sure you have no regrets on your deathbed.
Who says he isn't enjoying his money and bedding "new babes"? Nothing whatsoever in working a job, even as a hobby of sorts, precludes someone from having an active sex life.
I got a HUGE settlement when I was 18 and spent some years doing exactly what you said. While it's fun for a while, eventually you get bored and need more than that. Finding what it is that fulfills you can be difficult but for this guy, it seems helping get decent education to others is part of it. I found mine and he found his. That's truly the power of money; it allows you to more easily find that which you desire most to accomplish.
I can lay down some letters for the iranian drones - "f"..."u"..."c"...
More like "f"..."u"..."D", I suspect.
Now that's an idea I like. Force them to pay foreigners more than they would a US worker. Thus they don't have an incentive to hire foreigners unless the shortage is real and when the shortage goes away they'll hire US workers. No wonder Germany manages to continue to be successful even though the EU flounders.
I absolutely agree. That'd allow them to use skilled foreign labor when it's actually needed as opposed to just easier to find at the cheapest rate possible.
Yes, we old engineers are so greedy and lazy... I mean, I just hired on with a new company just 3 months ago, a grizzled 25 year veteran of consumer electronics design - and I demanded (and got) well beyond the $150K. Of course, in the first 2 months I've also identified a firm $2.5 million in annual savings, with a very small, zero-cost change to the production line. So yeah - some begrudge the high salary I command - but my new employer gladly pays it because I've already turned back 10X the savings.
And so you earned that salary. The problem that many won't see is that the salary isn't earned by your years of experience but instead by how you applied them. There are far too many who feel they deserve such a salary simply because "they put in their time".
A similar example from my own business: my best "find" was a former Boeing machinist. He had virtually no experience in working with computers but applied himself to learn. His people skills and willingness to actually learn new things are what make him valuable. He's my single best tech now after 6 years and the clients love him. Now, that's a different circumstance form what most are talking about since he went into a new field but he took a hit in pay form what he was doing and is now making more than he ever did at Boeing ... which I happily pay!
My point is not everyone "deserves" a certain pay rate just because they've got X years of experience. Unfortunately, we've lost the knack of doing anything other than hiring by the numbers so we're in this situation where many want more than HR is willing to pay because a few bad apples screwed it up for everyone.
First, f he's a bad engineer (your first refutation), then he won't have the recommendations, won't be commanding the salary levels that we're talking about. He will have worked in skut projects during his career, and his previous manager will not have nice things to say about him. His linked in profile will show the same, and he won't be eloquent at the white board.
Or they will because how else will they get rid of him. It's not a zero sum game; there are various shades of grey to it all. The thing is experience is not all the same so being older with more experience does not automatically warrant a certain pay scale.
Unfortunately, running businesses via spreadsheet alone is indeed a race to the bottom. That's why I refuse to do so in my own.
mod parent up
The education industry has taken over too much in too many fields.
I'm curious... "costing more than they're worth"... I had thought that that most IT workers are not unionized. Am I mistaken?
No, you're not mistaken in my experience. Most IT workers have traditionally (as much as you can use that word in a new-ish industry like this) assumed they can negotiate better packages than a union. When there was a shortage of skilled workers that was true to a degree. Now, however, we see plenty of unskilled workers and there's no union to negotiate for job security. While thatused to be OK since you could jump from one company to the next getting a 5% or 10% pay raise each time, the tables have turned.
I get paid what I do because my employer and I have negotiated that value on my initial hiring. At subsequent years they've increased my salary to compensate for my performance and increased experience. If I don't agree with the pay rate, I'm free to try to re-negotiate or find a higher paying job.
Is someone forcing these companies to pay employees based on some time-based salary schedule? Or are we just talking about normal market forces, where if you don't pay experience people enough some other company will lure them away? Sorry, I just don't know how it works outside my own somewhat specialized industry (game development), where pretty much everyone negotiates salaries on their own.
Unions aren't there just to get you a fair salary when you start. They negotiate the conditions under which you may be replaced as well. While I agree many unions have gone too far with this and many also do very little for their workers, that's not reason enough to discard the concept entirely. I see it as much like the political landscape; when the masses no longer govern by regular involvement in the process, those who wish to abuse the process come into power and, frankly, screw it all up.
Game development is an industry RIPE for unionization but the companies keep the workers in a competitive frenzy and rely on churn to get rid of those who may desire a stable life along with their decent job.
Note, please, that I own a business and my employees are unionized by my choice. I encouraged them to organize and stayed hands-off as they interviewed various unions until they found one they thought suitable. I negotiated a fair deal with the union based on what my employees actually wanted as a whole. Surprisingly, there was less about pay that changed and more about things I would consider silly such as them being allowed to use their own tools instead of the ones I provided. We're talking screwdrivers and such here but they felt it was important. I'm happy to have satisfied employees who feel empowered in their own benefits and working conditions. They're much more productive this way than when each was thinking about how to outdo the next in pay or benefits.