CNN, MSNBC, and aljazeera are also all biased. In fact, all news is.
The only difference is that you don't agree with the politics of Fox news.
732 karma · joined July 9, 2009
The only difference is that you don't agree with the politics of Fox news.
Freelancing is a terrible way to make money. It's like you traded in one boss for X where X is the number of clients you have.
The problem with keeping everything quiet about your accomplishments is that HR departments and company owners won't know anything about you and you may get passed up on jobs as a result.
As a result, the people that lie or don't actually have good accomplishments get better jobs because they have better self PR.
You can fight it all you want, but if someone doesn't know anything about you, they most likely won't want to hire you either. Being connected on linkedin and through old co-workers and people that know all about my accomplishments has helped me find many great jobs.
You will always be inconvenienced by security measures. All of the things you described is the company working "behind the scenes".
"tldr; these "security measures" absolutely suck and I can't wait for the service that comes along and says "we did the hard security work so you don't have to"."
The problem is that if you got your money stolen, like you wrote above, you expect the company to pay for it 100%. If security was reduced to the levels you are describing, more money would get stolen and the company would be liable. Why would any company want to take this risk?
For any company or bank dealing with money, image is everything. Customers will leave if they can't trust someone with their money. I know I would.
"This is a common marketing lie. This actually isn't trying to protect his parents. This is greatly inconveniencing his parents in order to protect themselves in a cheaper fashion."
I would gladly start a company with less security if you sign a statement saying that my company isn't liable for any money stolen because of the inconvenience of higher security.
No matter how good it is at a company like Facebook or Google, there will always be a point where they make you realize they have control over you. Whether it's working on a project you hate, ridiculous corporate policies, or having to kiss the ass of your manager. I've done it all for the past 15 years at a few different companies and I finally just got sick of it.
It's one of the reasons I tend to stay away from things like Django and RoR. It makes it easy to develop applications quickly, but I many times have to create hacks to make any changes that don't fit into the one-size fits all libraries.
I think it has more to do with the fact that people with higher IQs don't feel like they are a part of regular society and it's a way to cope with it.
Many people that are depressed use illegal and legal drugs to make themselves feel better. I have a feeling there is also a higher level of depression in people with high IQs as well.
I would be interested to see if the same holds true with people that have lower than average IQs.
"The articles shy away from the elephant in the room which is that the UK and US gvts have a massive legal and propaganda effort to prevent drug use"
Illegal drugs aren't good or healthy for you. I feel like you will most likely spread propaganda in the opposite direction and it's just as bad.
If I'm going to slave away for 8+ hours/day on something, I would rather have it make me rich than someone else.
I wasn't a troll and explained my points, yet nobody wants to listen. It's sad. It's becoming more and more difficult to fight this mentality.
I thought this was a community of intelligent people, yet I'm beginning to realize that this just isn't the case anymore.
Which is what I said. The reason the US isn't third-world is because most cops don't accept bribes. This sort of behavior infects society as a whole.
"3) Comparative resources available to the police forces."
Why are they out of resources? We need to figure things out if we ever want to stop it.
"4) Pressure from the US to overextend the Mexican police force."
It's because the violence and crime is spilling over to the US side of things. If they were stopping these guys, I don't think we would need to overextend anything. Does the US over-extend Canada's police force?
"To boil this all down to "the police aren't doing their jobs" is a huge mistake."
The police aren't doing their job because of a systematic problem of corruption. So I suppose it's just a symptom of a greater problem, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a huge corruption problem with the Mexican police.
We have criminal gangs in the US and the police here don't have to worry about that. It's mostly because of our justice system and the fact that you can't buy off any cop with some cash.
I'm sorry, I read the article and I disagree. I'm merely giving a different view and you have to get all angry about it. You should use more logic and less emotion when dealing with issues like this.
"The most fucking locked down place on Earth. If you can't eradicate it there how do you plan on eradicating it outside?"
I never said anything about eradicating it. I'm saying that the decrease in Cocaine prices might have to do with the increase in the corruption of Mexican officials.
So, when more drug businesses pop-up, there will be less of a monopoly on the supply and the cost will go down over time. It's the same as any normal business.
Even if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, it won't stop the violence. If the Mexican police were actually doing their job, the criminals wouldn't be running the show.
It's different. 100% of the population doesn't need to use the police or fire. I've never had to use either my entire life, but I've gone to the doctor many times.
I don't like the current system, but complete socialization isn't what I want either. When you socialize it completely, private care is truly in the hands of the very rich (because private companies can't compete with the government). Take a look at the UK for a good example of this.
I would like to be able to pay for better care, if I have the money and complete government care means I will have no options but to take what the government gives me, which is usually sub-par (or ends up that way when the government runs out of money).
In addition to this, when something is free (or can't feel it because they are paying money in taxes), people generally don't appreciate it, and in fact, will abuse it. We will have more people in the hospitals for things that don't require medical care with less room for people that actually need it.
I see a parallel with tech support. If you are the tech guy that always helps people out for free, you (the resource) will eventually get tired of helping everyone out for free because people will come to you with questions they could have easily Googled or figured out themselves (like going to the hospital for something that doesn't require a doctor's attention). If you charge money (even if it's a little bit), only the serious people will ask you to do work for them.
I think many people (including myself) got into trouble with credit cards because of this. I would buy things and I it didn't really feel like I was spending money. $20,000 later, I felt it, but it was almost too late by then. It took me 3 years to pay it off. Now, I only spend money that I have and $10 feels like I'm spending $10.
Money is a good way of dividing up a finite resource. Hospitals are a finite resource. If we got rid of the insurance companies, hospitals wouldn't be able to charge $80 for Aspirin, because most people can't afford it. We would see the actual cost for things and the rates for everything would go down.
A small percentage of the population would still need some form of subsidized, government care, but it could easily be supported by the rest of the system.
Nobody will talk about the downsides of universal care. All of the supporters will only talk about how great it is. I want to know both sides and if you can't tell me as a supporter, I'm less likely to listen to you in the future.
If a non-tech person can't offer me connections in my app's market or cash for funding, they won't ever be a partner.
I also now have problems with acquaintances giving me simple ideas that I thought of before (or are in the process of implementing) and claiming that they gave me the idea.
see: webspark and bizspark programs. You can get all Microsoft software for free for 3 years.
If a customer says they didn't receive a package and file an A-Z claim, they win 99% of the time, even when the seller has proof of delivery.
I understand that we don't want bad sellers ripping people off, but Amazon should at least hold themselves to the same standards.
They also can't really seem to get their act together. In the past 6 months, every time they make a change to their system, sellers lose orders for weeks. Amazon won't ever admit this of course, but as a seller, I can't chock it up to a coincidence anymore.
It really makes me wonder what kind of code base they are working with.
It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, it matters what the laws says and what it allows you to do. Many companies don't want you to resell their products on ebay (their philosophy). However, the first sale doctrine says something different (the law).
So while you may not like someone re-packaging and re-selling open source software, as long as they are following the license, there isn't much you can do about it.
The difference is that you have control over your own path. There were many bad decisions at my previous job that I warned my managers and bosses against. They wouldn't listen to me and the company ended up losing money or the idea was a complete failure. I could see the company on a path of failure and the only thing I had the power to do was ride it out. Every good idea was squashed.
"When you are employed you typically know if you job is safe enough as you have a fair idea of how the company is doing and have a feeling about how important you are to the company."
This is sometimes true and it sometimes isn't. I've been in the dark about how well the company is actually doing. It happened at my last job: They kept assuring us that the company was still profitable and everything was fine. Two weeks later, I got laid off.
In the end, it was actually positive, because I used it as an opportunity to start my own company. I was always on the treadmill of a 9-5 and it was tough to really get anywhere.
"Regarding contracts, this is why it is very important to read your contract before signing. I have turned down a number of jobs due to unrealistic non-compete agreements and the potential employer owning discoveries I make in my own time."
Very true. However, most of the big tech companies require this (Microsoft, Google, Facebook).
That will work until your employer makes the wrong business decision and the company goes out of business or there are budget cuts and you get laid off.
Oh yeah, and if you work for any technology company and have a side project, you better check any contract you signed. Most say that anything you work in your off time is company property.
I've been working as a developer for the past 10 years and I've come to a point where I'm tired of working for other people. Your path is in their hands and many times, you will be forced down a path you don't want to take. I've seen many companies go down the toilet because of decisions that were beyond my control. It has made me despise my passion.
I would rather toil my life away on something that will make me rich rather than someone else.
yes, and they stand for open source software too. Open source is devaluing developers in the long run. With all of the free open source software being released, many companies don't need software engineers because all of the hard work is already completed. Many only really need software mechanics, which tinker with the already existing code and add features. As more and more owners realize this, salaries for developers will slowly drop.
I've already seen this at a few companies. Instead of hiring a team of developers to work on something, the company hired one developer and used an open source app. You don't really need a college education for this type of work.
Which technically is fraud. Another word that can be used when they actually go to the bank, etc.
I'm waiting for another GNU license violation story to come out, because when a company uses source code in a proprietary app and doesn't follow the license, people here throw around the word "theft" even though there's no actual stealing going on. A good example is the Thesis Theme.