Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1568

by johnlcallaway (#46772213) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

So .. legal and responsible gun owners have to give up their guns that have never killed anyone because a very small minority of people use them badly?? Is that the extent of your argument?

I suppose you are also in favor of making rope, razors, and prescription pain killers illegal, because having those things sure make suicide a lot easier also. Probably have to eliminate cars, since people have driven themselves off of cliffs. After all, when you make one thing far more difficult to do, statistically, the other methods move up a notch. Are you going to continue to go after whatever is at the top of the list?? Wouldn't your efforts be better served to address the root cause of suicide than the end result?? Because that person that wants to kill themselves still does. Same with violent crime, those people out there with guns robbing and raping and murdering are still going to be out there. But now, they won't worry about breaking into a house.

What a moronic argument to use to justify taking guns away from people that have never used them to hurt someone. But my guess is that you don't have any, and don't want any. That you are afraid of them and don't know how to use them. That you have never gone to a gun range, learned how to use one, and enjoyed putting holes into targets. That you have never taken your family out into the desert and spent an afternoon shooting paper targets and water filled bottles, then picking up your trash and going home.

And, as the UK discovered, making them illegal didn't make them go away. How many times have caches of guns been discovered because someone didn't turn them in??

It's easy to justify taking things away from other people that you don't have, don't like, and are scared of. People can find all kinds of statistics and mis-characterize them to prove a point. I could come up with the argument that I think surfboards should be outlawed, because people have died from it, and I don't think it's safe. I don't do it myself and think that those that are passionate about it are really stupid. I'm sure I could mis-characterize all types of statistics that show how dangerous it is, and in order to protect the children it should be banned.

The facts are that people are far more likely to be killed or injured in car crashes, both accidental and intentional, than are caused by guns. That more people are killed by knives than are killed by assault rifles. But people who don't have guns and don't care if they are taken away from other people don't worry about statistics except when they can be twisted to suit their own purpose.

Comment: You don't need a college degree .. (Score 2) 286

by johnlcallaway (#46747345) Attached to: Bachelor's Degree: An Unnecessary Path To a Tech Job

... to be a computer programmer or sys admin or DBA. Many short-sighted companies may not hire you, but why do you want to work for a company that cares more about a piece of paper than the abilities of it's staff. Be willing to start at the bottom so you can spend 4 years having someone else train you. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for it yourself.

After several years as in those fields, you won't need a degree to become an engineer or architect. Anything you might have learned 10 years earlier is out of date anyway. And you will know how things really work, instead of just how they are supposed to work.

I know many people who are some of the top 'go-to' people in their companies in these fields that have never gotten a degree, or taken any significant number of college courses. They know how to read, and they learn by doing, either on their own or by taking on tasks that other people are unwilling to because they don't know how to do it.

Your guidance councilor is lying to you. The only thing that stands between you and a job is your own willingness to learn, and how smart you are.

By all means, if you are not that smart, go into debt and get that piece of paper that suggests you know something so you can get a job and have your co-workers hate working with you.

If you have the cash and the time, by all means attend college. College is a great place to learn if you want to take too much time and spend a lot of money.

But don't accept the lie that you have to do that to earn a decent living. And don't accept the lie that those that go to college make more money.

Smart, self-motivated, hard working people make more money than almost everyone else.

Comment: Re:At least someone appreciates work-life balance (Score 1) 477

by johnlcallaway (#46715749) Attached to: New French Law Prohibits After-Hours Work Emails

In my job in the US, I get paid a set amount to do my job regardless of how many hours I work. I don't get paid by the hour. If I get a call from my work at 2am, I answer it. If I don't, they can fire me and hire someone who will. If I don't like the number of times I'm getting woken up at 2am, I'll find another job.

When I take a new job, I ask what amount of 'off-the-clock' work is expected and negotiate a salary based on that. Asking me to check emails and take calls after work isn't taking advantage of me since I negotiated my rate of pay based on it.

It is none of the government's business what the company I choose to work for and I negotiate for payment for my services rendered. If they want to set rules about taking taxes out and making sure I get paid on a regular basis and other rules regarding discrimination, that's fine. If they want to set rules to make sure people get paid for their work when they are hourly, that's fine.

But stay out of telling me what I am willing to work for and what I'm not willing to work for. I feel sympathy for those that don't have skills in demand that have to take tough jobs, like I had to do my 20s and 30s. Since then, I've improved my skills and expect to be able to reap the reward from doing so.

So now companies in France will have to hire more people to provide after-hours support, meaning their costs will go up, and their products will become more expensive. So fewer and fewer people will buy them.

But that's OK with me, I don't know if much I own now that is marked 'Fabriqué en France'.

Comment: Re:The new Hitlers (Score 1) 564

by johnlcallaway (#46713567) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

I don't find the supporters of 'straight only' marriage hypocritical, they admit they want special rights. I find them misguided in what they are trying to accomplish though, to force their moral values onto others through something that doesn't stop a lifestyle, i.e. two people living together and having sex.

Interesting you used the word 'hate'. I reread the above and don't understand why you would use that word except for the 'hypocrites' line. Probably should have worded that one phrase a little better (i.e. arguments are hypocritical, not people). I didn't say it anywhere, about hating anyone, meant to state an opinion of what I feel their argument is (i.e. hypocritical).

Maybe if more people used reason instead of emotion, this issue could get resolved. Instead, those that disagree are labeled 'haters' and 'homophobes', vile words that denigrate and divide. Terms that are divisive are often used by someone when they run out of valid points to make.

As for marriage-like benefits not being extended, they already are. Many companies now offer 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' benefits. None of those state that a couple have to be romantically involved. In fact, there is *NOTHING* in marriage benefits that say people have to be paired romantically. There have been many marriages of convenience that were very legal. Those 'domestic partner'-like benefits were extended by people putting pressure on specific items, not trying to force their moral beliefs or attacking people as haters. They used their wallets to go elsewhere if they could.

Since romance,sex, and love have nothing to do with whether or not a couple are recognized as married by the government, the benefits attached to the concept should also not be linked to those things. The governments of the US has a lot of silly laws about marriage. In Maine, a marriage between second cousins is allowed as long as they attend genetic counseling, regardless whether or not they are interested or capable of having children. In Tennessee, a 14 year old can get married if there is a court order.

Eliminate the government concept of marriage and reduce it to what the government really should be helping with .. contract law. Divorce laws should be applicable to any couple (or more) who have willingly entered into financial interdependence. Child support and visitation laws already apply without a marriage contract.

If someone wants to get married .. go right ahead. Have the ceremony you dreamed about in front of your friends and relatives. Have a religious figure denote you as officially married. Even include signing a legal document stating you want to be recognized as a financially interdependent couple in front of everyone.

Or don't have the ceremony, and just go to the courthouse.

See .. nothing has changed. People can still do whatever they want. The only difference is the government has non-gender, relationship neutral rules surrounding what that is. Rules like living together and being financially interdependent.

And all the hate speech fostered by the gay-marriage and straight marriage activists can finally go away.

Comment: Re:The new Hitlers (Score 0, Troll) 564

by johnlcallaway (#46669701) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different. The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have. Personally, I don't give a crap who someone has sex with. I just find it repulsive when people who don't feel the same way are called names like 'homophobe'. The name callers are no different than those who call people who want legalized abortion to remain legal murders, narrow minded and unwilling to even try and look at the other side of the discussion. Or carry on a real conversation for fear they might just be wrong.
It seems to me that allowing gay people to marry only creates even more discrimination. It's adding another group into the married pool that gets special privileges just because they sign a piece of paper. There is nothing about being legally accepted as married that is different from living together, except government benefits and some company benefits. Nothing. Nada. It's all about a very small group of people wanting to get the same extra privileges that a larger group enjoy because the acquiesce to the government's attempt to force social behaviors. I knew a couple that didn't want to be married because of student loan issues (they didn't want his income to be included in the calculations), so they had a 'joining' ceremony and lived together for years. Everyone treated them as married, EXCEPT the government. Which was exactly what they wanted.

Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Name one benefit afforded to a married couple that shouldn't also be afforded to any two people just living together, that have agreed to create a financial interdependence. Why can't two sisters who have lived together their entire lives get the same social security and tax benefits as a married couple, simply because they don't get married. Why should two roommates, no matter what sex they are, be denied those same benefits simply because they don't want to have sex with each other. In fact, name one reason why two roommates, who don't have sex, can't get 'married' and get the same benefits. Isn't that sexual discrimination??? How long will it be before people start to figure that out. All gay marriage laws do is dilute the term 'marriage' (which barely means anything anymore anyway), reducing it to a simple 'give me my entitlement' statement.

My mother and brother lived together for many years until she passed away. He was an independent truck driver and only needed a place to sleep on the weekends. She was retired and did his paperwork (there is a lot of paperwork for truck drivers) and scheduled his loads. Why couldn't they get the same tax benefits of 'married, filing jointly' as anyone else. Why shouldn't he be able to name her as his social security beneficiary. If he passed away suddenly, my mother was just as financially dependent on him as she would have been to a husband and would have found it difficult to manage without his income.

Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married. Tax laws could be changed to allow for household incomes to be used. Social Security survivor-ship benefits could be simply modified to allow for one person to receive them, and set several rules (such as living together for a number of years while working and paying social security taxes). Divorce laws can be changed to recognize civil unions so those wishing protection without getting married can be afforded it.

Many insurance companies and private businesses already allow for 'domestic partners' when it comes to insurance, I don't see any requirement there that those partners be having sex.

Rules regarding who sees whom in a hospital are decided by the hospital, not the government. Every hospital can modify those rules as they see fit, they have just chosen to take the easy way out and say family only in some cases.

If the gay community and it's supporters put as much effort into really creating equality for all, instead of selfishly grabbing benefits for themselves, they would probably find a lot more support and eliminate a lot of the divisive tones that fight their desire to get the same entitlements current married couples have.

Comment: Re:Tesla (Score 1) 394

by johnlcallaway (#46573711) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model S Pedal Placement A Safety Hazard?

I've stepped on the brake and gas pedals at the same time in both a Jeep Liberty and Toyota FJ. The correct term for this is 'the driver putting his foot in the wrong place'. The first time it happened, I had no idea what was going on at first, the engine was racing and I wasn't slowing down. Lifted my foot and did it again, but managed to just hit the brake pedal. Thought about it afterward and realized what I did. I have been driving for years, both manual and automatic transmissions. I have no idea why I did it, other than I just put my foot in the wrong place.

The second time I did it, and shifted my foot immediately. Haven't done it since.

This adaptation technique is called 'learning how to drive your car'.

Comment: Misuse of statistics (Score 1) 281

by johnlcallaway (#46505749) Attached to: Eric Schmidt On Why College Is Still Worth It

'On average' is not an indication of actual future personal return. It's difficult to measure effectively since a person can't go back in time, go to college (or not go), and see the difference. So we are left with studies which have to take hundreds of factors into account (social, economic, intelligence, motivation, etc) to even begin to match up people to see if one group does better than another. And since they can't we are left with flawed analytics that people use to justify their own opinions in many cases.

And it's a BS goal anyway. Who goes to college to get a return?? Either you want to go to learn something, or you don't. As long as you can earn a decent living afterward either with or without the debt, who gives a flying fuck how much it cost. Just be smart about it and either don't go into debt at all, or only go into debt enough that it doesn't impact your life afterward.

The facts do tell us that many people have gone to college and not seen any return. Many people have not gone to college and done very well. And many people have gone to college and done well. So there is ample evidence to suggest, in my opinion, that the person has more to do with getting a return or not that the institution itself. I've also known enough mart people with and without degrees, and enough stupid people with doctorates, to know not to trust a piece of paper. Or even use it as a filter.

In my experience, smart, motivated people really don't need to go to college to do well. Average students need to in order to get that paper that claims they can at least learn something and are trained to some degree (as was pointed out in the article). Everyone can learn something, it's all a question of how much that piece of paper is worth to you. You know, that piece of paper that shows you know how to kiss up to your professors and give them the answers they want instead of the right answer, and take tests. And don't give me that crap about how it makes you well rounded. Nothing makes you more well rounded than actually working around people from different backgrounds.

In my opinion, there are far too many ways to go to college over time to risk large debt over questionable future potential. The best fix for the system is for the government to stop handing out money so colleges have an incentive to attract students, instead of seeing a tide of people with dollars available that were lied to by some guidance councilor who told them that they have to go to college to make a decent living.

The best way, in my opinion, is to get a freakin' job and go part time. Live at home, and go to a community college for a couple of years. Save money and get grants or scholarships instead of loans.

Don't want to work at McDonalds or in a call center?? Think it's beneath you?? Then don't come to me asking for a job, your attitude sucks. I'm looking for someone who is willing to do what it takes to get what they want, but are smart enough to know that huge piles of debt isn't a smart way to begin a career. Attitude and some business sense are just as important as how smart or trained someone is.

Comment: Wrong target (Score 0, Troll) 295

Continue to hold the student accountable. They're the ones that were too stupid to go to a college and get a degree for a job good enough to pay it off. And too stupid to figure out debt v/s income ratios. And maybe their parents if they were involved in the stupid decision to send their kids to college without a means to pay for it.

That's the problem with so many people today .. it's always someone else who is the problem.

But, to be fair, the government *IS* the problem. What accounts for free money with no responsibility has resulted in sky rocketing college costs. The tuition cost of Arizona State University, in a span of 7 years, has more than doubled. Yet inflation has been almost nil. Why does it rise?? Because they are still filling the classrooms with students and can. It's amazing how motivating it is to cut costs when you don't have an endless supply of people with the ability to pay whatever you charge.

And yet, there are people like my daughter who graduates this year at the age of 28 with a 4 year degree in biology, and heavy into genetic engineering. She is interning at the Mayo clinic and involved in cancer research and genetic engineering and will graduate with zero debt, except for a house payment. No car loan, no credit cards, no student loans. She got a job in high school, saved money, then got another job when she got out of high school that paid a lot better (yes .. they do exist.) Then she went to work part time, and later full time as she was able to increase her income. I only paid for one semester, and I think her grandmother paid for a couple more. To be fair, I offered to pay for one semester a year, but she wouldn't ask for it after the first one. She was determined to pay for it herself.

When she started going, tuition was only a couple grand a semester. And she lived at home. She got married a couple of years ago, and she and her husband (who also has no college debt and is due to graduate this year with his doctorate) were able to buy a house and pay less than most would for rent.

If the college experience means going tens of thousands into debt, maybe we are sending the wrong message. Just living at home could cut 50% off of student loans.

It is possible to go to college without getting loans. Maybe we should only let people smart enough to figure it out go to college.

Comment: The difference in the two numbers ... (Score 3, Informative) 491

by johnlcallaway (#46345051) Attached to: Do We Really Have a Shortage of STEM Workers?

... is the word 'qualified'. I've never interviewed so many stupid smart people ever in my life the last 10 years. People who just got out of college and expect to pull down 6 figure salaries for work they've never done before and have no proof of how good they could be. And people that think they are much better than they really are, but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. My prior job hired a self-described 'Java programmer' that wrote some of the most horrid code I've ever seen, it didn't even come close to working. Yet he sold himself as a Java expert to the company owner (who had no IT skills), and somehow convinced him to hire him. The only thing it appeared he knew how to do was talk a good talk and use SSIS. Shortly after I left, he managed to completely obliterate a very important production database. That they had to contract with me to recover.

I now work with some really good developers because the company is choosy about who they hire. But time and time again, they lament about a shortage out there of really good developers. They get plenty of resumes, just no one worth hiring.

And attitudes ... such a bunch of spoiled babies. It's not just skills either, it's a good work ethic. Sorry .. we do have a dress code where we work. If someone can't manage to wear clean clothes that include long pants and a collared shirt every day because it's a little too restraining, they can't work here. We pay enough, I know they can afford it If someone can't manage to understand that we have standards and security requirements and they can't just write whatever they want and shove it into production, they can't work here.

So I guess if someone wants mediocrity or less, there is plenty to choose from.

Comment: Re:This is something that's bugged me about mobile (Score 1) 333

by johnlcallaway (#46339061) Attached to: How Mobile Apps Are Reinventing the Worst of the Software Industry

I use this thing on my Android called 'folders'. It allows me to arrange apps by category (i.e. Internet, Social, Shopping, Finance, Games) and only have to look at 4-16 icons. I then arrange the icons in the folder based on their frequency of use so that the one I use the most is in the upper left. And I still have room left for a couple of really heavily used apps that I don't want in folders.

Then there are multiple pages, I use only two. I use one for folders and the other for miscellaneous, like weather, shortcuts to call and text my wife, and my music.

So I have access to 52 apps and four widgets with no more than a swipe, tap, and tap .. depending on which page I need to go to. Things I use the most are just one tap.

The problem isn't the proliferation of apps, it's people being too lazy to manage them. My wife used to drive me crazy with the tablet because she insisted on letting every new app install it's icon on the screen, and she wouldn't delete apps she didn't like. So now she has her own.

My phone never tells me an app needs to update, I've turned that notification off. And turned on auto-update. For those apps that don't auto-update due to permissions, or those people that are paranoid and don't want auto-update, only do it once a week or month. I've found that most apps work just fine if even they aren't updated.

And most mobile web sites have a 'full site' link at the bottom. Click it. Sorry it took you an extra click to get somewhere. I think people need to google the word 'patience' and stop demanding everything NOW NOW NOW NOW!!! What do folks need the extra 3 seconds for, play more angry birds??? (Oh wait .. that's old school. What is it now, flappy bird??? Oh wait , wasn't that pulled??? I can't keep up with this crap.)

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 627

by johnlcallaway (#46332959) Attached to: Does Relying On an IDE Make You a Bad Programmer?

It's easier to learn the language when assisted by an IDE. Qt Creator is my favorite, followed by NetBeans.

'Easier' rarely makes a 'better' product. I've seen all the 'next big things' come and go, and all the problems 'easier' has always prompted. Which is why one should start with the basics and learn them first. I use IDEs, but I've also been programming for over 30 years. I learned the dirty little details about assembler and COBOL and FORTRAN and C and C++ and perl and Java and who knows how many others by using text editors.

Now .. I don't think we need to go all the way back to assembler (although it would be nice of Java programs understood memory utilization a bit better and stopped writing code that stored a bunch of useless information in memory just because it's easier .. but I digress).

Because of that experience, when something doesn't work in Java the way I expect, I can read the generated code and understand it. I can take that code, modify it, and make it work the way I want it to instead of having to accept the way the IDE does it. I understand the consequences of misplaced parenthesis and braces, writing 'if' statements without an else, or 'try .. catch' blocks without a finally. I know when it's OK and when it's not.

Because I've made mistakes and had to fix them instead of some machine making my code perfect every time.

I can evaluate Groovy not just based on a reduction in the amount of written code, but because I understand why those things that make Java a little bit wordy exist and decide whether or not it's a good thing. And when I do use it, what I have to watch out for because a bunch of code is now missing.

Go ahead, depend on your IDE. And other things that make programming easier.

And when you can't figure something out behind the scenes, call someone who learned how to not depend on them.

Comment: Re:tl;dr (Score 2) 712

by johnlcallaway (#46299145) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

I guess when you get to be so good people are willing to pay you that much, you will politely refuse it. But you will still put in 7 day work weeks, never get an uninterrupted vacation and be willing to away from your family for long periods because you are just such a nice guy.

Or is it because you will never get to be that good at anything, you feel that you have some right to tell other people how to spend their money.

That 'compensation package worth 88mil' isn't all cash, so dropping it to 50mil doesn't translate into necessarily being able to hire more workers. If the company tanks, all of the stock options in the package are worthless. Their compensation is very much tied to the company's success.

I suppose you are also in favor of getting rid of multi-million dollar sports player salaries and high-priced actors also, especially since they don't really earn it. For that matter, how about we limit the ability of people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to make billions also. Let's just put a cap of 50mil/year max for everyone.

That should make it much better for companies .. they won't have to pay as much and can lower their prices. They'll still lay off people, since NOT SELLING ENOUGH STUFF IS USUALLY THE REASON PEOPLE GET LAID OFF YOU IDIOT!

Comment: Attacking the right problem -- societal pressures (Score 1) 597

by johnlcallaway (#46247811) Attached to: Financing College With a Tax On All Graduates

My daughter and son-in-law are both graduating this year, at the age of 28, with zero debt except for a $500/month house payment. They also have a 1 year old child, and they own a house. He will receive his PhD in engineering, she will receive a BA in molecular biology. Both already have job prospects. Well paying job prospects. They will be able to go to just about any part of the US to work that they want to because their skills are in demand. But, to be fair, they don't need high paying jobs because they don't have any debt and already own part of a home. It's amazing how little money one needs when one doesn't have car payments, credit card payments, expensive internet bills, and a host of other luxury items.

No .. their parents aren't rich, although family members did contribute when they could. They did this thing called 'saving' and used things called 'scholarships'. They went to a state school instead of spending money they didn't have to go out of state. Then they did this thing called 'living with their parents' before they got married, and waited until they could afford a house to get married. During this time, they did this thing called 'only going to school when I have the money to go to school, even if it's part time'. They also did this thing called 'work', my daughter worked part-time at PetSmart for a year until she got into their dog grooming programing where THEY trained her in exchange for 2 years of work. She made pretty good money and continued grooming part-time on her own after she left there. All while going to college part time.

The problem isn't with finding funding for school. The problem is with a society that has brain-washed us into thinking that one has to go to college right out of high school, one has to live on campus for the 'experience', and one has to go full time. Sorry .. that's all just bull shit. My ex works as an RN (2 year vocational training) and only has to work 4 days a week because her home is paid off, I am a systems engineer with a 6 figure salary and never took more than a handful of post-high school classes, My wife is a book keeper with only one semester under her belt. Yet all of us seem to make a pretty darn good living. I'm not jetting off to Europe every summer, but we manage to enjoy our lives and not live paycheck to paycheck.

My daughter was convinced she wanted to be a vet. Fortunately, because she was working at PetSmart, she got a chance to see what all that was like and changed to something more to her liking.

I'm not against college, colleges are one source of knowledge. Some people can't learn without someone standing in front of them making them do homework and study for tests. I'm not against spending large sums of money to go to a private college if one can afford it. I am against going into debt for things that aren't worth it (i.e. living on campus) or because some self-righteous high school councilor is convinced that people can't possible succeed in life unless they go to college right out of high school.

If someone wants to go to college, they should be smart enough to figure out how to do it without going into debt. Or figure out if they go into debt, how they are going to pay for it. If they can't figure either of those things out, maybe they just aren't smart enough to go to college.

And one thing I've noticed is the smarter and more self-motivated someone is, the less they need a college education to succeed.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...