285 karma · joined March 12, 2012
This is very misleading. The reason is because we largely only choose to keep the factories alive that we can almost fully automate. The goods that don't lend themselves to cheap, low maintenance automation are imported.
This makes the most economic sense from a business owner's perspective. Free trade from sweat shops that have little or no regulations (environmental or other) or labor laws... yeah that is easy to compete with.
Of course there is only 250,000 jobs open, It's a declining industry. You don't see the Sears, Home Depot, Dell, or HP (to name a few) doing much hiring while they are doing layoffs (contracting) do you? This was partially my point (thanks for backing it up with sources).
My other point was that even when these jobs exist, people don't fill them. If we had 5 million of these same jobs open, how many people (besides legal and illegal immigrants) would fill them.
We have lost 7m+ manufacturing jobs and have 11m unemployed. That is a big percentage. It is estimated that innovation cost only 20-25% of those jobs. The reasons that I mentioned before cost us the rest. Also consider that US consumption of manufactured goods since 1990 has tripled. Even if Technology and innovation cost us 50% of manufacturing jobs, the rise in consumption should have more than compensated for it.
Don't forget the other jobs that are lost when a factory town loses it's factory. The barber, the local tax guy, the corner market ETC. They all go out of business and the employees and owners have been going on unemployment, then welfare, then disability for years. For every two lost factory jobs, there is at least one axillary job lost.
>Over 1 million illegal immigrants left the US in the aftermath of the financial crisis (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rs...) and the number hasn't markedly increased in the last 6 years (http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-imm...), yet we have persistently high unemployment and low labor-force participation in concert with baby boomers retiring. Why does the job market still have 8 million more unemployed than openings (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrT)?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There are still an estimated 12 million illegals here. More than half arriving while the US was riding the dotcom and housing bubbles (They came here for jobs while the perceived wealth was plentiful and no citizen "needed" these jobs anymore)
>There's no measure whatsoever that shows unemployment at 30%. The most inclusive rate (U6 - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rrS) shows us at about 13%.
30% is a bit of a stretch, I admit - but don't believe the Census Bureau cheaters. The numbers they give are all based on careful and changing criteria and technicalities. This sheds some light on what I am talking about. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/real-unemployment-rate-30/
Now just imagine in govt size/jobs had not grown by 40%+ in the last decade. Unemployment would be way worse.
Not sure how your post proves that my statements are ignorant and fairly abhorrent. You only go on to reinforce what I am saying.
So my neighbor's domestic servant must be imaginary then right?
I think it just changed names. It is now called "domestic worker". U.S. Census suggests that the number has only declined about 21% from 1900(927,402) to 2012 (726,437). It is suspected though that current statistics are off by about half (because of unreported undocumented workers) so the actual numbers likely have grown, (even per household).
You think a vacuum, dishwasher, mixer, blender, washer/dryer and microwave reduces the work that much? Be sure to express this to your significant other.
Actually the largest number of jobs that have disappeared are from the manufacturing industry. There is a few reasons behind this. Trade agreements, heavy regulation of pollution and over demanding unions made it far cheaper to have China (and the rest of the world) manufacture everything for us. The other reason is that people in the US have changed. They don't want to do these jobs anymore. They are lazy and feel entitled to better jobs (though they aren't qualified for them). People would rather go an permanent disability or welfare. There are literally thousands of labor and manufacturing jobs sitting unfilled in the US today. Jobs that US citizens used to do.
Couple this with the lost jobs that illegal Mexicans do today (jobs that "American's won't do"), and we have found 3/4 of these mysteriously disappearing jobs. This has nothing to do with Silicon Valley or technology in general. It is about policy and attitude.
It is ridiculous to make claims that Technology has displaced 18-20% of American workers in the last 15-20 years. Why do I say 18-20%? Because the true unemployment today (by more traditional US counting) is currently at 30%. I'll, give you 10-12% for being in a bad economy - thus a loss of 18-20%.
Show me how this is the fault of technology (and I don't mean from a sociological standpoint - that is a whole other argument).
These "wise fools" will be the ruin of us all.
How about doing it the same thing a man does? Why should you have to do it differently? Do you think women have to bat their eyelashes or wear skimpy outfits? I am not following why you need to learn this from women? To me this is like saying your public speaking professor has to be a women or you won't be able to learn from them.
>or how a woman can manage a public or pseudonymous online identity through the shoals of denigrating emails or sexually explicit snarking.
This isn't likely to happen in the first place, but just be professional and use your head. There is no particular trick to it. Just think about what you are doing (make wise choices). Don't post pictures of yourself in a bikini on your open permission Facebook page or Post your phone number online ETC. It isn't rocket science. Again, why do you need a women only convention to learn this?
The question is this. Why are people in the US wealthier then they have ever been, yet they act poorer and more depressed than ever? Comparing quality of life access to education and health care and relative wealth, "poor" people today would be considered in the middle (or even upper middle) class during the first third of 19th century. They ARE considered upper class compared to the majority of the people in the world today. Why they are they the laziest and have far more self pity then the fore mentioned groups?
The answer is that they FEEL disadvantaged and lacking opportunity relative to what they perceive as "everybody else". They FEEL helpless and hopeless. But this is really an illusion. This perception is formed mostly by watching visual media (television, movies, news ETC).
See really the stipend is a bailout of sorts. Something causes them to pity themselves (the false reality of media), and the money causes them to feel better about themselves. More aligned with that illusion.
What i am saying is - rather than a bailout, I wonder if just eliminating what caused the problem in the first place would be even better. I know that this is a fantasy because you can't just tell people to stop watching television.
The television thing is really just a symptom of a larger problem though. The main problem is the loss of Christianity and family. Even atheists cannot disagree with the fact that every legitimate study ever done about those with a strong belief in God concludes that they are harder working, far less depressed, commit far less crime, and stick with their spouses more ETC. (the same types of thing that this stipend seemed to help with). Take that away and of course there will be a big difference in crime, employment, divorce rate ETC. and how that affects future generations (the kids).
When was the Male Founders Conference again???
Network backup is another potentially time consuming task, but this is typically done late at night. Enterprise WiFi adoption is unlikely because this makes a company vulnerable to hacking and DOS (via interference or jamming) attacks.
Sort of like Sean parker, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, ETC...
All criminals. Do you consider them all in the same contempt?
Why did the parents of these poor kids do a terrible job of parenting before the stipend? They were drunk half of the time (literally 10-12 hours per day). They drank mostly because they felt sorry for themselves. Why? they felt disadvantaged and envious, they were basically pouting. Why? because their lives were not like those they saw on television. Also because they had "learned" by watching television that they were poor and worthless and could never get a leg up in the white country they lived in. Once they started getting money and buying more worthless crap from Walmart, they felt like they were keeping up with the Jones' thus they felt less sorry for themselves and drank less. The rest is self explanatory...
Simple really.
This is the truth, Self pity is the biggest enemy of the minority. Nothing does more to promote this than The visual media. How do I know this is true? because my wife was one of the children in this story. She and her family told it to me long before I read it here today.
So was the stipend in this story. 6k per year, then later 8k? who could live on this
If you mean concealing as in hidden partitions, data streams, or digital Stenography - these are all easily detectable upon close inspection. If there is extra bits where none are expected, this becomes a giveaway. Perhaps enough misdirection and a custom strategy of hiding could further obfuscate the location and content of the data, but as for hiding it's existence - this is not easily accomplished (if even possible).
Link bait may get you more traffic in the short turn, but will likely just hurt you in the long run. Especially since lots of people think that he an idiot now.
Why? Who would have thought... Modern day web dev needs to be rendered to different sized screens and we have CSS3, more skills, and better tooling now.
Who does not know this already. I was baited and now he is hated (JK)...
PSD is still used quite commonly for conceptual purposes. Of course no one expects anymore (did they ever?) that it will be pixel perfect across devices ETC.
The only stuff I have seen them accidentally stumble upon is the odd bikini image in Google Image Search.
I can't imagine any scenario how a four year old could accidentally stumble upon rape porn (which is the type that's supposedly psychologically damaging, right?). In particular because they can't type (they lack the motor skills).
(actually I'd question how four-year-olds "surf the web proficiently" at all, for any definition of "proficiently" and any reasonable definition of "the web". Public libraries are easier to use, they're not proficient at those either)
In a hypothetical thought experiment, give 1,000,000 four-year-olds a tablet with a browser opened on a child-friendly start page, and let them play for an hour. None of them will stumble upon rape porn. The "proficient" ones will find something fun and colourful to play with. Your biggest problem is the ones that don't, get stuck on something boring, and start crying. Good luck with that.
My 4yo stumbled on porn so this is my personal experience. A co-worker of mine says his 5yo that has also.
>Also not true. I put this to the test back when we still had these filters enabled. The two smartest kids (ages 11-12) couldn't do it, there's just too many hurdles, passwords, blocking, safeguards going on. It's horrible software, really cripples the machine (which is one of the reasons why we got rid of it, favouring simple supervision). It's quite hard to disable even if you are the administrator of these PCs. Super easy to set up, though. It's a real trapdoor.
I have to admit I believe that they might have had a better chance if they could read English natively. At age 11-12 Dutch kids can read English, but not fast enough to do proper research on the English language web (so the solution would be for English parents to install Chinese filters, they got the experience anyway :-P).
Kids ages 8 or lower couldn't do it no matter the language. There may be the odd (extremely) high-functioning exception, but we were talking about most kids.
And by the time they're 16 it doesn't matter if it's a parental filter or a government one, they can--and will--get around government-grade censorship too. But then, a 16-year-old mind can think of depravities with or without help of the Internet.
Just because children get better at computers than their parents all the time, doesn't mean developmental stages suddenly disappear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages
I personally got around more than one of them when I was 12 so again, this is my personal experience. I recently looked at these softwares and they are no more secure than they used to be. Add bootable live linux cd's and mobile devices and you can forget about this approach altogether.
>Sure! Education. Of the parents. Way before they're parents. It'll take a while before it pays off but when it does, oh boy, just look at all those bad statistics just evaporating!
If you really care about the children you'd put all the money spent on this and other bullshit into improving their education.
Parents can't be forced to be good parents or be educated in this way. They make more and more bad choices for themselves and their kids as the ages roll on.
Kids education is highly agendaized and liberally biased these days. It's a govt job, of course this would eventually happen.
There is no conclusive proof that spanking children causes psy harm. Nor is there a consensus of people who think is is. Every large study about psy effects by spanking is split one way or the other. A study of these study organizers found that the study results were always slanted in the favor of their original opinion. Your statement is (thus far) non deterministic and thus factually and even consensually incorrect.
>This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
China? I thought we were talking about England here... No, the govt there does not maintain the lists there. That is one of the issues that some here are taking. There is no centralized list.
>They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.
A soap opera is a far stretch from rape pornography. And how do you really know how your niece was affected deep down? Perhaps she is even desensitized to seeing things like this since apparently her parents just let her see it.
Since you are not sure it would harm kids to watch porn I guess it is all right then huh? How is this even an argument? I'm not sure it would harm them Are you kidding me? I certainly hope you don't have kids anytime soon. BTW, the consensus of physiologists, studies and general public conclude that it IS rather harmful to kids.
Again, how moving... If Google really was so generous and humanitarian, why don't they start paying the previous rate in these regions?
How moving.
Your example is bad. These two things are clearly not the same. Porn (even in a small dose) for young children is almost universally accepted to cause long term psychological damage. Cola in a small dose is universally accepted to cause zero long tern harm. I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
If a 4 year old kid drinks a bottle of soda, how will that affect them for the rest of their life? If a 4 year old kid watches a (simulated) hardcore porn rape scene, is that more likely to affect them negatively for the rest of his or her life?
How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles?
There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different.
I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it)
BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding.
I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?
Most kids are more tech savvy than their parents and can easily get around software installed on the PC with a Ubuntu live boot disk or by other means.
Many of these filtering softwares have less than current definitions, or need constant updating. Others have terrible fuzzy logic engines.
PC web filtering software has been around for at least 20 years and are not the answer to the porn industry targeting children.
You are naive if you really think this has ever been the case.
First, stop your misdirection. this is not about reading, it is about viewing. If the only pornographic material that ever existed online was written material, this sort of thing would never have happened.
Second, try to give your young kids porno mags in your house and if work ever leaks out - lets see what happens.
The in my own home argument never applies when abuse or mistreatment is occurring. Showing your kids content that is inappropriate for their age (as deemed by a consensus of society) has always and will always land you in trouble. The internet never changed this nor should it have.