Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:yet more engineer bashing (Score 1) 494

If he said that, which I doubt, it would fly in the face of his stated position on gun rights. He's been criticized by the other candidates for being a moderate on gun control. Senator sanders has stated on many occasions that he favors a "middle-ground" approach to gun laws, supporting expanded background checks and restrictions on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines. However, he also voted to protect gun manufacturers from liability for gun violence. To say "Bernie Sanders wants to take your guns" is factually and demonstrably incorrect. Vermont, where he has been a senator for approximately 5000 years, is considered to be gun-friendly, and also boasts the lowest rate of gun violence in the country.

I have only ever heard of one elected representative at the federal level who has ever said anything approaching "gun-grabbing", and that was Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Interestingly, the NRA currently gives Senator Sanders an 8% rating; apparently being a moderate on gun issues is unthinkable to those maniacs.

Comment Re:I would like to say for the record... (Score 1) 494

You'd be trading shitty co-workers for shitty patients, shitty administrators, shitty insurance companies, and (at least at the beginning) shitty pay. I'd think about getting another job where there's fewer zealots instead of wondering if you should have chosen another field; the former you can do, while the latter can't be done.

Comment Re:Actually, the certification requirements. (Score 2) 116

When "install the latest Windows update" comes with a $261,388 fee to re-certify, any business is going to reject that idea unless they are required to do it.

And this is where the anti-regulation assholes drop in and start whining about the free market and the burdens of regulation, etc etc etc.

Hint: For-profit companies don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts. Until it starts to cost them money (fines for violating the regs) they do not give a single fuck. If people start dying, they'll just do a cost/benefit analysis based on how much they'd have to settle for with the dead person's family when they inevitably sue them vs. the cost of following the rules.

Comment Re:The real issue (Score 1) 363

I'll sell any of them to you, if you'd like. Because if you really think that the department heads are selecting that book because it's the best on the market, or because that's the way they think the subject should be taught, instead of because they make money, then you are so monumentally naive that I'm amazed you still have a computer to post to Slashdot on, and haven't had it swindled away from you yet.

Comment Re:But let's look at the big picture, shall we? (Score 1) 500

Yeah, the New York Times disagrees with you.

But any plan that has the potential, as Mr. Price has put it, to “set the world on fire,” is bound to make some people squirm. Leah Brajcich, who oversees sales at Gravity, fielded complaints from several customers who accused her boss of communist or socialist sympathies that would drive up their own employees’ wages and others who felt it was a public relations stunt. A few were worried that fees would rise or service would fall off. “What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked. Putting in 80-hour weeks after the announcement, she called the mistrustful clients, stopping by their offices or stores, and invited them to visit Gravity to see for themselves the employees’ dedication. She said she eventually lured most back.

Emphasis mine.

Not nonsense. It's a symptom of just how offensive people find the idea of their employees getting higher salaries. Gravity went through a period where their customers were reluctant to keep working with them because they thought the raises were a "political statement'. They saw that as a bad thing, because if it got traction, their own workers were going to start expecting higher salaries, and that eats into the profits, which we absolutely can't have, the world would explode if that happened.

This person had to work harder because of the minimum salary. That is going to happen, and in my opinion, that is important work, as unless that work gets done, salaries are going to continue to stagnate while corporate profits are growing exponentially. The fact that most people would stop reading after the first part is a symptom of the myopia that is pervasive among American companies; it's all about RIGHT NOW, when their customers were bitching that they started treating their people better. (Apparently paying your people more makes you a communist. These folks are so blinded by greed and selfishness that anything that disturbs their worldview has to be called names immediately lest it gain traction.) But, a year, 18 months down the line, those customers are back, when they realized that paying your people more is not the same as jumping off a cliff; a company can do that and survive, even thrive.

Comment Re:SO when you pay people... (Score 1) 500

That's tuition, fees, room and board. Students are required to live on-campus for the first two years; after that they can move to off-campus housing if they choose. They do this so students can't establish residency and therefore pay in-state tuition.

Well, technically, you're only required to PAY for room/board for two years, they don't do bed checks or anything.

Comment Re:SO when you pay people... (Score 5, Insightful) 500

I'll forgo the obvious "get off my lawn" jokes..

No, you don't have to buy the lifted truck. No, you don't have to buy a house (but if you do, $2400 a month is not ridiculous - especially compared with rents in that area that are more than that), but if you want to go to a four-year college, you will be paying $100,000. My state university charges $24,000 a year. For in-state students.

No, you don't have to have a smart phone, or a house with a bunch of land, or travel for vacation. You can live like a monk and be happy with the impenetrable amount of smug you have surrounding you, while your landlord fails AGAIN to fix your toilet. These things are not necessary, but they improve your quality of life. And that's really all people want, they want a salary that allows them to have a life that they enjoy outside of work.. and for there to be an "outside of work" where you won't get fired if you don't answer the phone from some idiot VP at 9PM harassing you because you're not still at work.

For so long, we've just accepted the fact that your corporate masters are living off the sweat of your brow, leaving you with little to show for it other than massive debt (which they also make money on by investing.) It's been so long that we don't recognize what an equitable work arrangement looks like anymore - the "social contract" that used to exist between a worker and his/her employer has been demonized as socialism and laziness. Wages stagnate while productivity and profits rise, and anyone that points out this fact is immediately attacked for being greedy, lazy and/or socialist.

The Millenials don't want anything that wasn't considered reasonable 40 years ago. They want a salary that they can live on, and they want to share in the success of their employer. These are not unreasonable things. Things have gotten so twisted that the dude offering this $70k minimum salary was repeatedly harassed by his peers in the business community - one of them actually said to him "If you pay your people that much, what incentive do they have to work hard?" The whole concept of getting what you pay for when you hire workers has completely fallen off the radar, because it would eat into the profits. No, these folks think that the less you pay someone, the harder they'll work. Which is bullshit. It should be the other way around, but we've all been convinced that this needs to continue so companies can be "competitive" (read: the CEO's third mistress wants another Porsche.)

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling