I don't see anyway around this for the gov't except (1) assume guilt a priori for anyone who uses Truecrypt, or (2) make the use of Truecrypt illegal. Well, the authorities could apply a rubber hose to the soles of your feet with great force and frequency.
Perhaps a standard could be developed. If a person goes for, what, a week or so of rubber-hose cryptanalysis without divulging any further keys, it can be assumed that all known keys are revealed.
Don't worry. The system only accepts a word as correct after two people give the same answer. Hopefully the next person to get your challenge won't make the same typo you did.:)
It seems to me that all this brouhaha is evidence that some change to Debian policies should be made Well, good for you. You happen to be wrong, but good for you.
Debian already had a policy to deal with this, and you can read about it here. debian-installer even gives you the option to include volatile in sources.list.
Justify the following claim that you made with actual numbers:
Take into consideration that when a bank has a dollar in savings, it can lend someone some ridiculous amount like 250 I'll be waiting.
Take into consideration that when a bank has a dollar in savings, it can lend someone some ridiculous amount like 250 Jumpin' Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
If you want people to read what you write, don't write something so fucking stupid in the second sentence. Slightly oversimplified, the current Reserve Requirement is 10%. That means for every $1 in liabilities, a bank can lend out $0.90.
I'm sure you wrote something brilliant in your comment, but when I see something like that, how can I assume anything other than that you are a first class moron?
Yes. That's the best part. These Convenient Care Clinics are attached to pharmacies. The NPs can prescribe antibiotics for your ear infection, and you pick it up right then and there. No separate trip to the pharmacy.
Doctors are definitely well-paid, but the average lawyer makes on-par with the average engineer.
Don't come back and tell me, "But when you graduate law school, you make $150k/yr!" That's only the top graduates from the top law schools, and those men and women work themselves to death in BigLaw for their $150k/yr.
The median starting salary out of law school is about $70k/yr. Which is pretty comparable to an engineer with an MS degree.
she's a law student. The university gave her a full ride scholarship that does not require that she work. There must be some outside reason for this, because this is not the norm at all. Free ride to law school? That's 1 in a million.
Is the part of a "scholars" program? I know the University of Wisconsin has a "med scholars" program where if you meet certain academic thresholds, you get a free ride to med school. Is she part of that type of program? Or is she benefiting from some affirmative action scholarship?
There still aren't nearly enough doctors to properly serve the population. And even worse, we way overconsume doctor time in this country.
For instance, let's say my daughter is complaining about her ears. Please explain why it's necessary to have someone who went to college for 12 years say, "yup. ear infection." Personally, I don't think it is. What's worse, because doctor time is so valuable, I have to wait in a goddamn waiting room for an hour, and then a goddamn doctor office for another half an hour, just so he can deign to see me.
But the public is starting to wake up to this problem. Convenient Care Clinics, where all appointments are walk-in and you see a nurse practitioner instead of a doc, are starting to sprout up to handle routine health matters. That way, you have someone who can say, "Yup, ear infection", "no, not ear infection", or "this looks weird. Go see a doctor." and you can get that answer at 1/3 the cost and in 1/4 the time.
This is very industry-specific. When I'm looking at a resume for an IT candidate, I don't pay too much attention to the education section. If there is no college degree, then I want to see some real stand-out work experience. But I don't even look at where the degree came from.
I have some friends who look at more business-type resumes, and for them the schools matters.
Yup - why anybody would deposit more than $100k in a bank account is beyond me. Well, I can think of many reasons why one would deposit more than $100k in a bank. For the most obvious, google "1031".
I can identify, because I have a child. Kids are expensive. Something I don't see you mention.
Don't tell me about expensive kids you have more than one kid, and in private school. College is cheap.
You see, what you fail to notice is that a two year old doesn't *WANT* a new video game console
No, you just didn't get my drift. Of course a two year old (and older children, though they won't dare admit it) want to be with you more than they want a new video game. That was exactly my original point: for workers who are now salaried, they are not going to be working any less if they go hourly. They'll just potentially earn more money, which they will spend on their kids out of guilt for absentee parenting.
What I will go so far to say is that employers, like myself, and yourself - know that most people live like this, and take advantage of it.
I think that you are attributing an awful lot of malice to me, and to employees in general. When I set my compensation, I do so based on the labor market. I do not think, "Heh. Joe. I can treat him like dirt because I know he doesn't have 6 months' expenses in the bank." Employers do whatever the labor market tells us to do.
Not everyone HAS the option of having six months cash on hand. I know people making over $130k-$150k a year who certainly do not.
Not everyone has the "option"? It's not an option, it's a requirement. It's just something you do--like wiping your ass. I suppose wiping your ass is technically optional (no one is holding a gun to your head), but just like having 6 months' expenses saved up, it's something you really have to do.
And what about people making $150k/yr? Why do you say that those people "certainly do not"? I said 6 months' expenses, not income. I don't have 6 months of my income in a liquid account, either. That would be stupid, since I make more than I spend. But you can be damn sure that I have 6 months of expenses in an FDIC-insured account, just waiting for an emergency to happen.
Although, I will counter that point with the idea that if you actually keep six months of living expenses liquid, then your dumb with your money - better to have it in short term investments that you can borrow against
And what would these short-term investments be? How safe are they? What is their rate of return?
My liquid savings is an an FDIC-insured money market account earning a 5.2% APY (Capital One/Costco MMA). Use that as a point of reference. For you, what happens if the economy takes a nosedive, your employer has to lay you off because of the economy, but the value of your "short-term investments" takes a nosedive as well due to said economic downturn? What are you going to borrow against now? How will you make your payments on this new debt?
Now, for some reason, you seem to want to direct these questions at me personally, so let me respond.
I was using "you" more in the general sense, but whatever.
What you are also forgetting is things like office furniture, computers etc. are considered assets of the company, and depreciate annually.
Who cares? Those were 3 of the 20-some-odd additional expenses that I named that you conveniently ignore. Plus, what comfort is a depreciation to me when I have to spend from my current cashflow just to depreciate an asset?
I don't know what business you're in, but in my businesses, we go to great pains NOT to depreciate assets. We rent. We take advantage of deductions for trucks and computer equipment.
And anyway, that depreciation/deduction point is totally moot. Why? You're weighing depreciating assets against employee compensation, which is, of course, a deduction. So your expense on depreciable assets vs. overtime wages, from a tax perspective, actually advantageous to paying the additional wages, since you don't have to depreciate wages over years.
All you need to do now is go back three to four years Well, you never said it was 3 or 4 years ago. You said a while ago.
Also, you have to admit, one of your solutions was a bit self-contradictory. FTP, but with secure login. I mean, really, what's the point? If I can sniff your traffic, I can impersonate your machine. I don't need your password when I can take over your in-progress session.
This is why you probably will never see an FTP program that only secures the login process (that, and the fact that secure logins are not part of the FTP protocol).
SSH/scp/sftp secure the whole session. If you're going to bother with any security, why not just do it right? By way of analogy, FTP with secure login is about as secure as installing a high-security door with reinforced door jambs and 5 high security deadbolts as your front door, but leaving the ground floor window right next to it wide open. This is not a common way to do security.
'You can always quit, you know' is a b.s. and cop out answer.
You know what? You're wrong. Not only is that answer not a cop out, it is an essential part of a free-market society. You need to provide feedback to the system; if you don't, then you are screwing up the labor market.
most people can't just quit. Especially not if you have a family that depends on you.
A situation such as this is the result of poor financial planning. I think that this is the biggest failing of US secondary education--that no personal finance courses are required or even available. If you don't have 6 months' living expenses in a liquid account somewhere, what is your plan for an involuntary job separation?
This isn't the 60s anymore. The days of lifetime employment at a single firm were over decades ago. You must plan for this! It is not optional.
Actually, I'm going to have to correct you on this. Being non-exempt WOULD give you more face time with your kids.
Wake me when you own your own business. Until then, don't try to "correct" me on how employers behave.
I'm going to tell you why you're wrong from two different angles. Finance and economics. Depending on your background, at least one ought to resonate.
First, the financial:
They only thing an employer might save on is duplication on health insurance benefits.
First, substitute "might" with "will". Secondly, realize that the savings you are so quick to trivialize amounts to over $10,000.00 per year.
But that isn't even the half of it. Off the top of my head, here are the expenses companies incur with hiring a new white-collar employee:
Job search
Interview process
Background check
Relocation
Signing bonus
New employee orientation/training
New employee unproductivity while learning corporate culture, processes, systems, philosophy, etc.
Other employees' time providing that knowledge to "the new guy/gal"
Real estate (your cube)
Furniture
IT expense (computer, phone, etc.)
401(k) match
Dependent/health care flexible spending account match
Life insurance
Short term disability insurance
Worker's comp insurance
Unemployment insurance
Paid time off (extra set of vacation days, etc.)
Office events cost more (lunches, dinners, holiday parties, etc.)
Continuing education (training)
Tuition reimbursement
And yes, even an extra medical policy (this is off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting many expenses that you take for granted.)
Weigh all of those expenses against "just asking one of your current employees to 'get it done', even if it means a little overtime," starts to sound awfully appealing, no?
This does not yet even factor in the "Mythical Man Month" effect. Just because one person can complete a job in X hours doesn't mean that two people can complete the same job in X/2 hours. The classic illustration: Can 9 women make a baby in 1 month? Of course not. Can 30 developers do the work of 15 in half the time? Well, what has your experience taught you? Mine has taught me, "nofsckin'way".
So, long story, as soon as accounting figures that out.. your[sic] back to 40 hours a week, with 3 extra folks in your dept to pick up the slack
Well, I think we've already debunked that math, but let's debunk it even further.
Employers are not stupid. Let's say I was to convert my employees from exempt to non-exempt hourly (this is a little bit of an academic exercise, since all of my employees already are non-exempt hourly, but let's stick with it). Am I going to take an employee who earns $50k/yr, divide by 2000 hours (typical work year), and set his hourly wages at $25/hr? Even if I know that that employee works a fair amount of overtime? Hah hah. No. Nice try.
Basically anyone who says that someone can get laid anytime she wishes and by anyone she wishes because she's a girl, probably is doing the same daydreaming: thinking about those top 10 most popular girls in the whole damn college. Noone thinks of the shy, flat, nerdy girl in the back row when they make such generalization. This, I'm going to have to disagree with.
If the contest to get laid is between a girl and a guy of equal attractiveness (or lack of attractiveness), the smart money is on the girl every time. I'd say even the awkward girl you describe would have zero difficulty getting laid any time she wants. Granted, it is not going to be with one of the "top 10 jocks", but she should be able to get laid by a guy who is at or above her own attractiveness level.
On the flip side, the advantage seems to go to guys when it comes to relationships. How often do you see a couple where the guy is more attractive than the girl? Sure, you may see it in a 45-year old couple, after the wife has had 5 kids. But in college? Never.
But the fact still remains, if you are female, you can get laid whenever you want. The only exception is made for the morbidly obese women. As an old friend of mine once put it, "If you're ugly, you can always turn out the lights. But if you're fat, you've got nowhere to hide."
I don't know where you get the $100k/yr number from. I don't make anywhere near that now and I've been in the field since 1988. I don't have benefits of any kind. And I don't have job security. Look at the salary survey posted here today. $100k/yr is very doable. And don't worry about your current job security. You should go out an get a new job ASAP, anyhow. You're getting hosed.
The consulting idea is BS, too. My brother, who as a PhD in statistics and over 20 years of industry experience, tried the consultant gig for a while. He got two contracts, but then things have dried up. So he's not good at marketing. Who cares? He landed on his feet. I never said consulting was for everyone.
IT/tech is crap; stressful, demanding, unrewarding. A bus driver goes home after his/her shift and enjoys life. I guess it's all in what you want out of life. I do no find IT work to be stressful or demanding. I work 40 hours per week, I get plenty of time off, and when I'm not working, I play with my kids.
Driving a bus, I could not do. I would get bored out of my mind, fall asleep behind the wheel, and probably kill someone. Plus, I hate driving. I take the bus to work, even though it takes longer, just to avoid driving. Driving is a waste of 30 perfectly good minutes that I could have spent reading.
Right, be a member of a group policy. Not all chambers, SBAs and professional organizations have this and the choices of such organizations are limited by geography and membership eligibility. There are so many groups out there. If you don't find one that you are eligible to join, then you haven't looked hard enough.
Bullshit. If one of you has a heart condition, you will not receive group coverage for your "organization." Your experience differs from mine.
This is not helpful if the carrier will not provide the health insurance in the first place and very few carriers offer all of the above. Well, it is if the carrier does. Most do. 12 seconds of googling produced State Farm, Metlife, and Nationwide as high-quality providers of both homeowners' policies as well as medical.
Yes, I can shove cash in the bank and write checks to doctors. Thanks for that advice. I'm not convinced that this constitutes a valid argument against high-deductible+HSA plans. I know many self-employed people with health issues that go this route, so I'm not going to let you dismiss it with a tangential rant about preventative maintenance.
The fact of the matter is, this is a great way to introduce predictability into your health care expenses, and these plans are much easier to qualify for. It works for a lot of people.
No, perhaps I should acquire one? OBVIOUSLY that is an option, but that goes back to my original point: in most circumstances, someone has to work for a large organization with group coverage. My intent was to provide many different options for people. Obviously it makes zero sense to marry someone just to obtain medical coverage. Some people out there happen to have spouses as a preexisting condition.
You're right. Having to reorganize your entire life, moving to another state, getting a marriage of convenience to someone who works for IBM, acquiring relevant advanced degrees for membership in professional organizations then waiting for a year or more You have totally missed the point. No one is asking you to do any of those things. The point is, depending on your current circumstances, you probably already have access to a medical plan that would meet your needs if you would only open your eyes and see it.
The biggest barrier to people becoming independent contractors is not obtaining medical coverage. The biggest barrier is the type of "Can't Do" attitude that you've just displayed here. People who are successful in business don't worry about such petty things as what can and cannot be done. We are simply too busy doing "it" to worry about whether or not "it" is supposedly impossible.
Amazing, how I went to the trouble to type in a bunch of different avenues, all of which I have seen work for various people, and your best response is, "People's lives are already complex." Well if my suggestions were too complex for you, then maybe you shouldn't be going into business. How are you going to write a business plan if you can't even buy an insurance policy? How are you going to assemble your team if you can't even find different avenues to medical coverage?
And that was your "only point"? That starting a business is complex? What will your next point be then, genius? That the sky is blue?
The problem with that sort of independence is the same as trying to be your own lawyer, civil engineer and dentist, all at once. If you do business that way, then you are doing something wrong.
Whatever your core competency is (what yer sellin'), do that. Everything else, you outsource.
I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant. When I need one, however, I call one.
Not everyone is willing to go through the crap that having a corporation entails. Here's my advice: outsource it. I own two corporations, and couldn't even tell you what "the crap that having a corporation" even is. That's my bookkeeper's problem, not mine.
Here's an old piece of business advice: spend your time doing whatever makes you money. The corollary to that is: outsource every task that does not make you money. Does filing tax forms and reports and whatnot make you money? No, it does not, so don't do it. Pay some bean counter to count the beans.
In addition, most employer companies will not contract directly, Well, that's somewhat true. The history on that is that employers are sick of getting burned by fly-by-night freelancers. They want to work with a company that they trust to properly vet their candidates. After they know you, they will generally be willing to work with you directly in the future.
How does one get started in the contracting world? Call everyone you have ever worked with in your life and say, "I'm looking for a contract gig." Networking will always yield the best opportunities.
How do you make sure you're getting a good contract? That's the beauty of it. You get to negotiate whatever is good for you. You know you've gotten a good contract when it meets your needs and your client's needs.
Do you get vacation days, sick days, personal time off? Whatever you can negotiate. Personally, I bill by the hour, so I have no "paid time off". I compensate by charging higher rates.
Basically, how would I know if contracting is right for me? It seems like an awful big risk to take if I don't have some confidence that it will work out for me. The beauty of contracting it isn't permanent. If you don't like it, go get a "real" job.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps a standard could be developed. If a person goes for, what, a week or so of rubber-hose cryptanalysis without divulging any further keys, it can be assumed that all known keys are revealed.
Don't worry. The system only accepts a word as correct after two people give the same answer. Hopefully the next person to get your challenge won't make the same typo you did. :)
For all of you Drupal admins out there, I just wanted to let you know that there is a reCAPTCHA module that makes using reCAPTCHA a snap.
I'm not affiliated with the project, other than as a happy, comment-spam-free user of it.
Debian already had a policy to deal with this, and you can read about it here. debian-installer even gives you the option to include volatile in sources.list.
Cheers!
If you want people to read what you write, don't write something so fucking stupid in the second sentence. Slightly oversimplified, the current Reserve Requirement is 10%. That means for every $1 in liabilities, a bank can lend out $0.90.
I'm sure you wrote something brilliant in your comment, but when I see something like that, how can I assume anything other than that you are a first class moron?
Yes. That's the best part. These Convenient Care Clinics are attached to pharmacies. The NPs can prescribe antibiotics for your ear infection, and you pick it up right then and there. No separate trip to the pharmacy.
Doctors are definitely well-paid, but the average lawyer makes on-par with the average engineer.
Don't come back and tell me, "But when you graduate law school, you make $150k/yr!" That's only the top graduates from the top law schools, and those men and women work themselves to death in BigLaw for their $150k/yr.
The median starting salary out of law school is about $70k/yr. Which is pretty comparable to an engineer with an MS degree.
Uhh. Are you implying that med school is easy?
Is the part of a "scholars" program? I know the University of Wisconsin has a "med scholars" program where if you meet certain academic thresholds, you get a free ride to med school. Is she part of that type of program? Or is she benefiting from some affirmative action scholarship?
For instance, let's say my daughter is complaining about her ears. Please explain why it's necessary to have someone who went to college for 12 years say, "yup. ear infection." Personally, I don't think it is. What's worse, because doctor time is so valuable, I have to wait in a goddamn waiting room for an hour, and then a goddamn doctor office for another half an hour, just so he can deign to see me.
But the public is starting to wake up to this problem. Convenient Care Clinics, where all appointments are walk-in and you see a nurse practitioner instead of a doc, are starting to sprout up to handle routine health matters. That way, you have someone who can say, "Yup, ear infection", "no, not ear infection", or "this looks weird. Go see a doctor." and you can get that answer at 1/3 the cost and in 1/4 the time.
This is very industry-specific. When I'm looking at a resume for an IT candidate, I don't pay too much attention to the education section. If there is no college degree, then I want to see some real stand-out work experience. But I don't even look at where the degree came from.
I have some friends who look at more business-type resumes, and for them the schools matters.
So, yeah. Industry-specific.
Why did all of the NetBank deposits go to ING?
I can identify, because I have a child. Kids are expensive. Something I don't see you mention.
Don't tell me about expensive kids you have more than one kid, and in private school. College is cheap.
You see, what you fail to notice is that a two year old doesn't *WANT* a new video game console
No, you just didn't get my drift. Of course a two year old (and older children, though they won't dare admit it) want to be with you more than they want a new video game. That was exactly my original point: for workers who are now salaried, they are not going to be working any less if they go hourly. They'll just potentially earn more money, which they will spend on their kids out of guilt for absentee parenting.
What I will go so far to say is that employers, like myself, and yourself - know that most people live like this, and take advantage of it.
I think that you are attributing an awful lot of malice to me, and to employees in general. When I set my compensation, I do so based on the labor market. I do not think, "Heh. Joe. I can treat him like dirt because I know he doesn't have 6 months' expenses in the bank." Employers do whatever the labor market tells us to do.
Not everyone HAS the option of having six months cash on hand. I know people making over $130k-$150k a year who certainly do not.
Not everyone has the "option"? It's not an option, it's a requirement. It's just something you do--like wiping your ass. I suppose wiping your ass is technically optional (no one is holding a gun to your head), but just like having 6 months' expenses saved up, it's something you really have to do.
And what about people making $150k/yr? Why do you say that those people "certainly do not"? I said 6 months' expenses, not income. I don't have 6 months of my income in a liquid account, either. That would be stupid, since I make more than I spend. But you can be damn sure that I have 6 months of expenses in an FDIC-insured account, just waiting for an emergency to happen.
Although, I will counter that point with the idea that if you actually keep six months of living expenses liquid, then your dumb with your money - better to have it in short term investments that you can borrow against
And what would these short-term investments be? How safe are they? What is their rate of return?
My liquid savings is an an FDIC-insured money market account earning a 5.2% APY (Capital One/Costco MMA). Use that as a point of reference. For you, what happens if the economy takes a nosedive, your employer has to lay you off because of the economy, but the value of your "short-term investments" takes a nosedive as well due to said economic downturn? What are you going to borrow against now? How will you make your payments on this new debt?
Now, for some reason, you seem to want to direct these questions at me personally, so let me respond.
I was using "you" more in the general sense, but whatever.
What you are also forgetting is things like office furniture, computers etc. are considered assets of the company, and depreciate annually.
Who cares? Those were 3 of the 20-some-odd additional expenses that I named that you conveniently ignore. Plus, what comfort is a depreciation to me when I have to spend from my current cashflow just to depreciate an asset?
I don't know what business you're in, but in my businesses, we go to great pains NOT to depreciate assets. We rent. We take advantage of deductions for trucks and computer equipment.
And anyway, that depreciation/deduction point is totally moot. Why? You're weighing depreciating assets against employee compensation, which is, of course, a deduction. So your expense on depreciable assets vs. overtime wages, from a tax perspective, actually advantageous to paying the additional wages, since you don't have to depreciate wages over years.
But more impor
Also, you have to admit, one of your solutions was a bit self-contradictory. FTP, but with secure login. I mean, really, what's the point? If I can sniff your traffic, I can impersonate your machine. I don't need your password when I can take over your in-progress session.
This is why you probably will never see an FTP program that only secures the login process (that, and the fact that secure logins are not part of the FTP protocol).
SSH/scp/sftp secure the whole session. If you're going to bother with any security, why not just do it right? By way of analogy, FTP with secure login is about as secure as installing a high-security door with reinforced door jambs and 5 high security deadbolts as your front door, but leaving the ground floor window right next to it wide open. This is not a common way to do security.
Not to be rude, but I found a chroot'ed SSH HOWTO in 3 seconds by googling 'ssh chroot'.
I'm not the type of person to actually come out and call someone an idiot, in so many words. So I'll just leave it at that.
'You can always quit, you know' is a b.s. and cop out answer.
You know what? You're wrong. Not only is that answer not a cop out, it is an essential part of a free-market society. You need to provide feedback to the system; if you don't, then you are screwing up the labor market.
most people can't just quit. Especially not if you have a family that depends on you.
A situation such as this is the result of poor financial planning. I think that this is the biggest failing of US secondary education--that no personal finance courses are required or even available. If you don't have 6 months' living expenses in a liquid account somewhere, what is your plan for an involuntary job separation?
This isn't the 60s anymore. The days of lifetime employment at a single firm were over decades ago. You must plan for this! It is not optional.
Actually, I'm going to have to correct you on this. Being non-exempt WOULD give you more face time with your kids.
Wake me when you own your own business. Until then, don't try to "correct" me on how employers behave.
I'm going to tell you why you're wrong from two different angles. Finance and economics. Depending on your background, at least one ought to resonate.
First, the financial:
They only thing an employer might save on is duplication on health insurance benefits.
First, substitute "might" with "will". Secondly, realize that the savings you are so quick to trivialize amounts to over $10,000.00 per year.
But that isn't even the half of it. Off the top of my head, here are the expenses companies incur with hiring a new white-collar employee:
Weigh all of those expenses against "just asking one of your current employees to 'get it done', even if it means a little overtime," starts to sound awfully appealing, no?
This does not yet even factor in the "Mythical Man Month" effect. Just because one person can complete a job in X hours doesn't mean that two people can complete the same job in X/2 hours. The classic illustration: Can 9 women make a baby in 1 month? Of course not. Can 30 developers do the work of 15 in half the time? Well, what has your experience taught you? Mine has taught me, "nofsckin'way".
So, long story, as soon as accounting figures that out .. your[sic] back to 40 hours a week, with 3 extra folks in your dept to pick up the slack
Well, I think we've already debunked that math, but let's debunk it even further.
Employers are not stupid. Let's say I was to convert my employees from exempt to non-exempt hourly (this is a little bit of an academic exercise, since all of my employees already are non-exempt hourly, but let's stick with it). Am I going to take an employee who earns $50k/yr, divide by 2000 hours (typical work year), and set his hourly wages at $25/hr? Even if I know that that employee works a fair amount of overtime? Hah hah. No. Nice try.
Instead, what I'm goi
If the contest to get laid is between a girl and a guy of equal attractiveness (or lack of attractiveness), the smart money is on the girl every time. I'd say even the awkward girl you describe would have zero difficulty getting laid any time she wants. Granted, it is not going to be with one of the "top 10 jocks", but she should be able to get laid by a guy who is at or above her own attractiveness level.
On the flip side, the advantage seems to go to guys when it comes to relationships. How often do you see a couple where the guy is more attractive than the girl? Sure, you may see it in a 45-year old couple, after the wife has had 5 kids. But in college? Never.
But the fact still remains, if you are female, you can get laid whenever you want. The only exception is made for the morbidly obese women. As an old friend of mine once put it, "If you're ugly, you can always turn out the lights. But if you're fat, you've got nowhere to hide."
Driving a bus, I could not do. I would get bored out of my mind, fall asleep behind the wheel, and probably kill someone. Plus, I hate driving. I take the bus to work, even though it takes longer, just to avoid driving. Driving is a waste of 30 perfectly good minutes that I could have spent reading.
The fact of the matter is, this is a great way to introduce predictability into your health care expenses, and these plans are much easier to qualify for. It works for a lot of people. No, perhaps I should acquire one? OBVIOUSLY that is an option, but that goes back to my original point: in most circumstances, someone has to work for a large organization with group coverage. My intent was to provide many different options for people. Obviously it makes zero sense to marry someone just to obtain medical coverage. Some people out there happen to have spouses as a preexisting condition. You're right. Having to reorganize your entire life, moving to another state, getting a marriage of convenience to someone who works for IBM, acquiring relevant advanced degrees for membership in professional organizations then waiting for a year or more You have totally missed the point. No one is asking you to do any of those things. The point is, depending on your current circumstances, you probably already have access to a medical plan that would meet your needs if you would only open your eyes and see it.
The biggest barrier to people becoming independent contractors is not obtaining medical coverage. The biggest barrier is the type of "Can't Do" attitude that you've just displayed here. People who are successful in business don't worry about such petty things as what can and cannot be done. We are simply too busy doing "it" to worry about whether or not "it" is supposedly impossible.
Amazing, how I went to the trouble to type in a bunch of different avenues, all of which I have seen work for various people, and your best response is, "People's lives are already complex." Well if my suggestions were too complex for you, then maybe you shouldn't be going into business. How are you going to write a business plan if you can't even buy an insurance policy? How are you going to assemble your team if you can't even find different avenues to medical coverage?
And that was your "only point"? That starting a business is complex? What will your next point be then, genius? That the sky is blue?
Whatever your core competency is (what yer sellin'), do that. Everything else, you outsource.
I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant. When I need one, however, I call one.
Here's an old piece of business advice: spend your time doing whatever makes you money. The corollary to that is: outsource every task that does not make you money. Does filing tax forms and reports and whatnot make you money? No, it does not, so don't do it. Pay some bean counter to count the beans. In addition, most employer companies will not contract directly, Well, that's somewhat true. The history on that is that employers are sick of getting burned by fly-by-night freelancers. They want to work with a company that they trust to properly vet their candidates. After they know you, they will generally be willing to work with you directly in the future.