Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not really a surprise.... (Score -1) 100

by roman_mir (#47427609) Attached to: After NSA Spying Flap, Germany Asks CIA Station Chief to Depart

Yes, but also this is a meaningless move by Germany in the real sense of the world, because it is still not demanding that all of its gold is returned by the USA immediately.

Of-course the German central bank authorities decided a couple of weeks back that it is better to pretend that the USA still has German gold and not raise any noise than to make it clear that its gold is gone. Germany requested the USA Fed to return its gold about 2 years ago, USA came out saying that it will return half of the gold within 7 year period but in 2 years only returned 1/100th of what it was supposed to, actually the numbers can be found here. In any case if Germany truly wanted to make a statement it would insist on the return of its gold, with the correct serial numbers on the bars and everything.

If Germany simply wanted to get the gold back it also has a choice of selling the gold in the market and getting dollars back, which the Fed could easily provide by creating them out of thin air as it always does, so that then Germany could buy the gold back in the market (of-course fewer tons could be bought since the prices would go up, but at least it wouldn't be a total loss as it is now). Any of this would be better than a useless symbolic gesture.

Comment: Re: yes but (Score -1) 297

by roman_mir (#47424529) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

Your meta comments stopped making sense even during the last post, here:

In this case which would you support, the freedom of the employees to make their own choices or the freedom of HL to try to dictate those choices for them?

- what kind of logic is this? The 2 statements have nothing to do with each other.

Would I support freedom of employees or freedom of HL "to dictate"? You have squarely placed your bias into that very statement.

I support freedom of the individual AND I disagree with your premise that HL 'dictates' anything to anybody! Government dictates to HL AND to the employees by getting between them and changing the rules of the private contract.

As to 'sock puppet' nonsense, either you want to hear my answer to your comment or you do not. If you do not then state so clearly and I will not answer. If you do however want to have an answer, then you will have to accept that I can only leave 2 comments in 24 hour period on my main account and I have no choice but to use my backup account (which also can only be used twice in a day) and it should not matter to you how I left the comment, but it seems it does, which means you are not actually discussing anything here.

Comment: Re:yes but (Score 1) 297

by Loki_1929 (#47413201) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

What an interesting perspective. Pray tell, once the baby is born, but still attached via the umbilical cord, is it still a parasite you can destroy at will? I don't actually care one way or another about abortion, but I do care about consistency. From a medical standpoint, there are some specific events such as fertilization, implantation, birth, etc which could be used as a basis for drawing the line between a non-human thing (which one might describe - as you did - as a "parasite") and a human being. Thus far, the only group that seems to define that line at a medically objective point are the religious crowd (who use fertilization as their starting point). Again, consistency.

Comment: Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score 1) 297

by Loki_1929 (#47413183) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

Why are certain beliefs privileged?

Because the people who founded this country came here seeking relief from religious oppression. Thus, when they created their own government (the one we have today), they ensured that the highest law of the land specifically restrained the government from doing to future generations what the Crown had done to them. If you don't think religious beliefs deserve special consideration, feel free to propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating so.

Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?

That would be a more challenging case to prove. The benefit of belonging to a popular religious group is that the tenants are widely known. As such, one must only then demonstrate that one actually belongs to that group (and even so, only minimally; stating as much without evidence to the contrary would typically be enough) to gain protection from government policy, law, or action which would violate that group's religious beliefs. In the Hobby Lobby case, there were 4 specific methods of birth control out of 20 which the owners maintained violated their core beliefs. In essence, they viewed those 4 specific methods as murder, but raised no objection to the other 16. The SCOTUS found those beliefs to be sincere and reasonable, and found that there was no interest at stake compelling enough to override the protections afforded to the owners of Hobby Lobby by the US Constitution. This was found in no small part due to the multitude of other options available for those seeking to attain the goals of the underlying legislation.

It's actually a pretty mundane case and shouldn't get people this riled up, but it does because the ACA and the President are attached to it. If this case involved any other law but the President's signature legislation, nobody but SCOTUS buffs would have heard a word about it.

Comment: Re:yes but (Score 1) 297

by Loki_1929 (#47413167) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:

- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.

- This birth control is part of that healthcare.

Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.

We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (HL) don't like/agree/approve of it.

I tend to wonder if you'd feel the same way if you owned a business and the Federal government passed a law stating you had to pay for female genital mutilation procedures for young girls and "straight camps" for gays.

Not advocating a side, just seeking consistency. Out of 20 different birth control methods, the SCOTUS ruling continues to require HL and others like them to provide coverage for 16. There were 4 specific methods which the owners found to be abhorrent to their religious convictions. In essence, they consider those 4 specific methods to be murder. The other 16 are covered without objection and if the employees just have to use those four specific methods, there's nothing in the SCOTUS ruling stating that they can't; they'll just have to bankroll them on their own.

This doesn't strike me as a case where the concept of birth control or 'reproductive health' as a whole are under attack. Rather, this seems to be a legitimate situation wherein reasonable religious conviction clashed with law passed by Congress. The impact is quite limited and thus, the SCOTUS correctly provided reasonable latitude to the religious beliefs over the law.

People on the right are blowing this case way out of proportion because they see it as a victory against the ACA. People on the left are blowing this case way out of proportion because they either don't understand what actually happened or they're convinced it's a victory against the ACA. The reality is that it isn't any such thing; rather it's a fairly mundane case which wouldn't make it to page 4 below the fold if it weren't tied to the ACA and the President. In other words, relax, it's really no big deal.

Comment: Re:yes but (Score -1) 297

by roman_mir (#47410915) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

This case should not have anything to do with religion in the first place, people that run businesses must not be abused by the government and having their freedoms revoked just because they are running a business.

Government must not have any authority to dictate to people what type of compensation the employer and the employee agree upon. Government must not have any authority to dictate that compensation must be provided in a form of insurance or contraceptives or in form of any other product or currency that goes against the agreement between the actual 2 parties involved - a person buying labour and a person selling labour.

This is a win for freedom but not completely, because it mentions religion in the first place. Religion has nothing to do with this, it's about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

Comment: no rest no peace (Score 1) 65

These 3D whizmos, like for example LEAP motion (incredibly cool), all work great.... for about 20 minutes. Then you put them in the drawer because they require too much muscle coordination and energy to operate. in contrast when you REST your finger on a scroll wheel or REST your hand on a mouse it is not merely not moving, it is at rest in 3 dimensions. it only takes a small effort to move it, but you are not having to run a whole lot of muscles in coordination to keep the hand or finger in a constant position. it's hard to poise your hand in empty space. In the old days, good typists could do this with hands poised over the KB and fingers hovering above the keys. Most people now days use palm rests or put pressure on the keys. those old time secretarial pool typists had to sit up straight and brace their feet on the floor to pull that off. Girdles probably helped!

the first successful mouse replacement will have that feature. Perhaps something with haptic feedback to support your finger a little till you really want to move it.

personally I suspect the some sort of eye motion or maybe a joystick like thing will be the first 3D controller that people can use for long periods.

Comment: Re:The goal of 1st world countries (Score -1) 398

by roman_mir (#47402577) Attached to: No Shortage In Tech Workers, Advocacy Groups Say

Have government provide a basic income

- government doesn't have anything "to provide", it can only take away from somebody in order to subsidise somebody else, it doesn't produce anything and has nothing to give to anybody for free. If you are talking about government stealing even more resources from those, who are already being stolen from in order to provide bread and circuses to those, who are already on welfare anyway, then all you will achieve will be more corruption, even less production, as those producing, will be moving their productive capacity out of the country even faster.

Comment: Re:The goal of 1st world countries (Score -1, Troll) 398

by roman_mir (#47396249) Attached to: No Shortage In Tech Workers, Advocacy Groups Say

...the other red herring argument was age discrimination...

The reality is that USA (and many others, like the Canadian or European) workers are much more expensive than workers from countries that do not have the insane socialist labour laws that raise the cost of doing business just enough for companies not to hire in those places any longer. This is not about an hourly wage, even if the hourly wage was exactly the same in USA and in India it still would not make sense to hire Americans. This is about the insane labour laws, the insane government agenda of running welfare / socialist / fascist states, where the individual is subservient to the government. It is too expensive to deal with big government where you cannot even pay a simple cash bribe for the government to go away and not come back.

Comment: Re:We can thank corporate America (Score 1) 279

by Loki_1929 (#47392163) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Often Should You Change Jobs?

I think it depends a lot on your management. If you can get them to recognize your value to the company (assuming you're providing that value) and make yourself especially difficult to replace (due to skillset and work ethic, not sabotage and self-niching), you have some more leverage where you are. I've found it fairly effective to engage on the subject in a more cooperative - rather than adversarial - manner. For instance, making it about what your fair market value is versus what your pay is, rather than an issue about raises not being high enough, or that your lifestyle is exceeding your means. When you can show that your paycheck isn't reflecting your fair market value, it removes a lot of the emotion from the conversation. At that point, you have a couple of ways to deal with it: adversarial (which largely consists of holding your management hostage by threatening to leave or by getting and showing written offers for more money) and cooperative (convincing your management to find a way to get you what you're worth as quickly as possible without an overt or heavily implied threat of leaving).

Ultimately, it doesn't have to get personal and it won't if both parties can avoid making it personal. You're an asset that's worth $x in the market. If the company is paying you .75x and the company doesn't feel it's in their interests to pay you $x, you should work elsewhere. If the company does feel it's in their interests to pay you $x, they can choose to find a way to make that happen. If they don't, there's no reason to be personally offended when the asset finds and accepts a better offer.

Needless to say, it won't always work this way. Some people (on both sides of the table) are just children and will make it all very personal. If you find yourself working for children who can't have adult conversations in an adult manner, you should be seeking additional compensation to account for that and you should leave if it doesn't come. You're only a supplicant if you allow yourself to be one. That doesn't mean be a controlling jerk; it means ensuring you're a valuable asset and only working at places which recognize you as such.

Comment: Re:Job Hopping (Score -1) 279

by roman_mir (#47388957) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Often Should You Change Jobs?

For 9 years I was a contractor, doing what needed to be done for many different clients. 1 year? My longest contract (with all the extensions) lasted for 5 years, and I left that one to start my own business. My shortest contract was about 2 weeks, I came to do what the client needed, did it and went on.

Comment: Re:What about range on this smaller car? (Score 2) 245

by Loki_1929 (#47384765) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

You can fill your car in 5 minutes and go another 600KM. You can battery swap a Model S in 90 seconds and go another 500KM. Or you can wait 20 minutes and get a supercharge that will get you 250KM for zero cost.

Seems like the electric car not only meets your expectations, but rather exceeds them.

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin