Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 461

First your comprehension is a bit rusty. I claimed nothing about what the compound interest would be other than to take the $15k that you actually saved and turn it into anything substantial in 30 years would take luck that is... suspect. I figured anyone could run some math an see where it could take them. Obviously I was wrong so lets start with a goal. Figure your goal is to buy a house worth $150,000 in 30 years. Saving $10 a week means you would need a >12% annually compounded interest rate every year to make it. This is obviously silly, unless you have some connection somewhere (read illicit dealings) you can get 2%-7% pretty reliably. Anything more appears to be luck (ya sure), and soon followed by the other kind of luck that wipes you out.

I will not 'slashdot' any of my local banks but I can tell you that I have an account with a $5 minimum, no fees (if you take e-statements), and if I have set up auto-deposit, and use my debit card a few times a month I get 2-3% on up to $15,000. This was attractive when I was a starving collage kid and its still attractive now that I am doing better. So they exist I would suggest looking around your local banks to see what they offer.

Yes, if someone has no money that is not locked down they have no options in regards to savings. If this is the case why would you even care what interest rates you could get as they won't do you any good. This sounds more like parroting someones talking points then real concerns. If this is your situation the name of the game then is reduction of costs and short-term boosts in earnings. If someone can put back $10 a week it would help them weather emergencies better and that is far more important than getting interest on a bank account anyway (3% interest earned isn't anything compared to your >15% interest you will pay on the credit card you use to bail your ass out of a jam).

Yes, I read your collage rant. Yes I responded to parts of it by telling you how people can succeed. Yes, everything is easier when you haven't dug yourself into a hole (hmm.. prety sure I already said that). Few holes are bigger than caring for another life for 18 years. You discount that collage is doable while looking out from the bottom of a large debt (what having kids should be considered). If you haven't made some really bad choices you can work your way through collage, I did, recently. So in general yes, collage is good and affordable if you are willing to work for it. If you are 70 years old with a mountain of dept then collage wont help you a bit.

Yes, I read your post more than once. Perhaps you should consider that you discount advice too rapidly and respond like your case is the general case everyone runs into. You move into attacking people because they are unable to provide you with magic faerie dust that fixes your particular situation. People get pissed at me because I don't offer the worthless 'you did all you could' crap that is so common now. My friends bring real financial concerns to me and we talk about strategies of dealing with them. They don't come to me for a shoulder to cry on, that would be my wife's department. Empathy is for end of life situations and breakups. Everything else deserves careful consideration and an action plan.

Other points
- Mandatory dorms - read about community collages, no dorms, cheep
- Interest rates - don't take loans unless you really have to
- Interest on 20 years of school loans - This I didn't touch as it seemed obvious. Get a decent degree when you have few costs, it shouldn't be that expensive. Even if you had to take loans to cover the whole cost your talking sub $30k. Increase in earnings should cover this in a few years. Pay it off BEFORE you increase your life style. Get a degree in something desired, not basket weaving.

Perhaps people get tired of trying to help because suggestions to a general problem are always shot down with specifics from someone who has already spent a large portion of their life getting themselves into trouble. The base suggestion to 'I have committed financial suicide what do I do.' is not the same as one for 'I want a better life where do I start'. If you are that bad off then you need to look into bankruptcy and serious minimizing of expenses. I would suggest that you can probably get by much better if you move to a medium sized city with low cost of living.

I WILL say going into debt is a problem. It may or may not be your particular problem at this moment. If you go into debt for silly reasons (anything but the most well thought out reason is silly here) then debt is a problem. Collage can be a good reason, if you go into it with your eyes wide open. If you don't its a crap shoot and you will probably lose your shirt.

Ok, at the point all I am getting is what my dear old mother would call Ameri-can't out of your post. So, you have a degree, but are bitching about the price of collage. You have a degree and can't even set aside $10 a week. You have no savings, but you are bitching about your inability to find good interest rates unless you have lots of money. My guess is that you bitch about anyone offering ideas because you have already decided there is no way you are willing to take and we should all just feel sorry for you.

Oh, the motorcycle was a stupid move. You should have started work and continue to live like a collage student for a little while to build up your resources instead of blowing money on something that it sounds like you can't afford.

I will end with no part of life is simple. It seems to get less simple the further you go along. If you trade your younger years for temporary pleasures your elder years are going to be tougher. If you think life is hard now and you are not taking actions to make it better then it is probably going to get worse. I know people making $150k that live paycheck to paycheck. I know people making $25k who have good savings. From what I can tell, in general, the person tends to make their conditions as they go through life.

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 461

I am not sure I follow you.

People get angry because that is what they have been told they are supposed to do. Despite deplorable conditions peasants in medieval settings were not as unhappy as you would think they should be...
http://www.voxeu.org/article/h...

As for being insulted that is not any of my concern. If you find your life in a deplorable state and you find someone offering suggestions as insulting then you are probably not motivated enough to fix your life so all I can say is that I am sorry I caused you pain by helping you see your options. Please move your bitching into the worthless Empathy Line to the left and we we know not to help out any more.

The $10 a week at 3% thing is pretty bad advice on face and I can only presume only the mathematically challenged would buy into it. That is like $520 saved a year or $15,600 over 30. To parley that into riches would take Hillary style luck (read corruption). So the whole thing is stupid on face.

That being said your, 'no investments for the poor person' line just just as silly. A quick search of the internet shows banks in my area offering things like 'rewards checking' that (comes with a couple minor stipulations like having direct deposit set up) but offer in the 2%-3% range on up to some mid-level amount of cash ($10,000-$20,000). That should easily get you started.

As for collage I love how you mix 'got myself into bad financial straights' with collage is unfavorable. Yes, if you have already got yourself in a hole anything you do will (at least temporarily) make the whole deeper. What you should be doing is looking for things that might make it worse in the short term but have long term payouts.

Looking again at my local area a 2 year community collage degree is about $6k. Many of them transfer to my local 'real' collage and are equivalent of the first two years of a four year degree (I know as this is what I did). So if you haven't already dug yourself into a hole this is really not that bad. If you have dug yourself into a hole then you look into loans, grants, or companies that offer tuition help to employees.

Again just in my local area a 2 year degree is good for some low level technical job. Probably talking $25k-$35k for a helpdesk/operations position. Most of these companies with cover some tuition reimbursement so if you want to do better the $21k (and two more years) to get a BS isn't that hard.

Yes, you are talking about 2-4 years of hard work and little leisure time. That being said compared to work even 100 years ago it really isn't 'hard' work.

Now, I know there are other paths. If you are fit and/or good with dirty jobs I have a friend who swears by sanitation worker positions. I have a relative who has done really well using the military as a stepping stone to being a mechanic. There are a million ways to success but all of them take some discipline.

Your 'right time' argument is true but doesn't look at the whole picture. Life is compound. Every good thing you do makes your life easier, every bad thing makes it harder. So the sooner you make good choices the better off you will be.

As for the 'road blocks' I can only be insulting and channel Yoda 'There is no try, there is only dew.' or wait was that a commercial... Seriously don't buy into the anger and hopelessness. Remember in the richest country in the world 10% of those born into the lowest 20% of earners makes their way to the highest 20% of earners. Your life is yours to make better!

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 461

*sigh* I think you have that wrong. Those born into situations where people tell them they have no choices tend to get angry when you try to help them out by pointing out paths that they could use to better themselves. Parties that rely on keeping said people angry or content do their best to keep it that way.

No matter what you have been lead to believe by your echo chamber (and yes we all have an echo chamber) there are many people that live good lives without the internet. Don't let a tool become your life, its still just a tool.

Some people will not get by, the only way to tell if it is in their control or not is to push them to (or off) the brink. Arguments revolving around proving someone doesn't have the will to do 'X' are inherently worthless unless you are willing to prove it. The only way to help everyone get by is to take choices away from those who fail to get by.

So, given all this I have a moral solution for you. Anyone that can't get by should be given a free small plot of land, a reasonable set of tools, one year of food and the freedom to make their choices in life.

Comment Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this (Score 1) 819

Lets see, person does 'X' and gets 'Y' punishment for doing it. Yep that would be a legal question. Unless you want to make some argument that 'X' is inevitable then 'X' would be the cause not the process by which you get from 'X' to 'Y'.

Should society have the ability to tell me to/notTo use product 'A' because they do/don't like it? Well, I wish the answer was no but as there is almost no part of the population of the USA that agrees with me I see recreational drugs as no worse a topic than many others.

Are there misguided laws that should be overturned? Sure, most laws in my opinion. Hell, classify all drugs (like antibiotics) in with this and I think you even have a topic that matters.

Comment Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this (Score 1) 819

Interesting, I know I guy who lost his license, which lead to him losing his job, his wife and basically his whole life. Now I don't claim that puritanical speed limits created by overzealous busybodies destroyed his life. He was an idiot who flaunted the rules of the road and got what was the appropriate punishment.

That being said I don't have a problem with these laws being challenged and changed. I just don't think that destroying my concept of cause and effect is an appropriate reaction.

Comment Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this (Score -1, Troll) 819

Not the guy but I will chime in...

Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.

Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?

Great example, who care? What I care about is performance. If you are a slack-jawed idiot on pot or just a slack-jawed idiot by nature makes no difference to me. If you have to take medications to survive and they cause you performance problems that is not my concern. I should not be chained to your problems just because you feel you should be protected. I agree with the GP in that I tend to find people consuming mind altering drugs tend to cause problems.

Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?

Again, you have some concept that I am responsible for curing all of the worlds ills. I deal with people in an open an honorable way. Convincing people that they function better than they do does nothing but force a false perception of reality on them. I will not be responsible for doing this to another human.

My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.

I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.

I would hope the GP would be fine with this. I tend not to get along with people who use sudo-scientific babble like "emotional intelligence" so I would feel better if we didn't work very closely so I like the idea. I value progress, scientific discovery and insight. I find that people who complain about "emotional manipulations" and "undermining others" tend to really be complaining that they are held accountable for real results.

Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.

The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.

Yep, lets see can we get the "Group Hug Officer" to come out and make all the bad feelings go away? I actively avoid people who spend too much time in self analysis.

You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.

Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?

Good point, I tend to heavily use caffeine. It has some minor side-effects but can help me stay focused long after I normally would space out. While it is possible I am self-delusional I think it brings way more positives effects. As for smokers they should force them and the idiots wearing excessive perfume to take showers before entering the building. As for the breaks I find all social media wildly more disruptive, ditch that pile of garbage before you worry about the time people take to use the bathroom, eat or smoke.

Of course the big one is alcohol, not only impairment but the violence that goes along with it. These people may not be drunk at work, but they are perfect assholes when they are sober.

The boundaries defined by tolerance and a good nature are they key to whether you help them or show them the door.

Why? The boundary should be are they doing more good than harm (at least it is at companies I tend to enjoy working at). I have a guy at work that I personally detest but he is by far the best systems operator that I have ever seen. We have a tense relationship. That being said we are both grownups and we can work to get stuff done. Sorry, I am not some shrinking flower that needs to be protected.

What I want to do is not spend my time dealing with giggling assholes that fuck up everything they touch.

Consuming recreational drugs at work isn't appropriate however the issue with drug tests is that they (as the article pointed out) extend beyond immediacy and several days previous. People should not be impared at work, especially if there is a safety issue at hand.

However drug testing that extends beyond what happens at work is an ethical issue, because it is not ethical to test someone for illegal substances if they are not impared at that time as it can lead to criminal charges. This is tantamount to an illegal search of one's person without a warrant and people should be free to do what they will in their own homes if they aren't harming others. This is a clear breach of many countries constitutional rights and it is right to walk away from employers who do this.

If employers want drug testing then they should be arguing for the legalization of the drugs they want to test for.

Highly regulated substances have wide ranging effects. Unregulated ones have even more problems. Many continue to do odd things to you for long periods of time. I would rather people focus on real performance instead of mushy place holders like drug use but we seem to be unable to do that so you have to make do with the things you are allowed to do. Ethically I see nothing wrong with requiring a search as condition of employment. The employer is not the government there is no illegal search. (Yes, I know in some places they pass laws the vastly restrict the things I believe employers should be allowed to do).

The pothead arguments bore me. I've heard all of them before and I hold this opinion.

I see this more as an issue of personal freedom than an issue of drugs. It should not matter what people do at home as long as they bring their game to work. After all they aren't imposing their will on you for your foibles.

People who have a "drug problem" usually have a lot of other personal issues they are trying to cope with and generally if you support them, show them empathy and understanding whilst defining very solid boundaries it results in a person who either leaves on good terms (and you don't have to worry about them coming back with a grudge to settle) OR a rehabilitated person who is also very loyal which is more difficult to achieve than a drug free environment.

The biggest rule I have at work is I won't work with assholes.

Back to, why should I care? If I saw a truly exceptional programmer that had junked his brain for pot I might try to help him out if I thought I could get a good employee out of it. That is to help me, not to help him. Empathy (the act of caring without thought) has to be one of the most troubling concepts people are trying to push these days. It is an exceptionally loathsome version of altruism that requires nothing from person practicing it and can actively hurt the person you are practicing it on.

Surprise me. Tell me something I haven't heard before or confirm my bias.

Evidence suggests that William Shakespere was a pothead and it's hard to deny that he had a positive impact on the world.

You pull an appeal to authority and use.. Shakespeare? Yes there are some painters that are barely functional idiots too. What does this have to do with jobs that people reading slashdot would usually be involved in?

Comment Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this (Score 2) 819

Ya, and killed over an Ice-Tea and skittles.

Seriously, "people have been put in prison and had their lives ruined" because they broke the law and got caught not because of a "misguided drug policy". I have no horse in this race, I don't care if they are legal or illegal as I value my mind in it's current state and so I would not engage in any activity specifically designed to alter it without a very compelling reason. What I do care about is that everyone is held to the same standard which you obviously don't care about.

Personally the best middle ground I have been able to find is these tenants.
1. Legalize all drugs
2. Make giving someone a drug without consent a capital offense.
3. Make all actions taken while under a drug count, taken with your consent, count as premeditated.

This way everyone gets what they hate and what they want. I get accountability which is what I want but (in my opinion) an on average lower the class of people I will end up dealing with. Moralists get punishment for real crimes but are not allowed to tell people what to do with their bodies. Druggies get to \\doWhateverDruggiesDo\\ but if they break laws they get to pay for it.

Comment Re:The Purpose of a Phone (Score 1) 197

Yep, I understand and my apologies if I came off as hash. I actually used to use a combination of old andriod phones, an asterisk server and google voice as my home phone for a while before I got fed up with it.

While I don't read German I let google translate it and it looks like SIPGate is just a telephony gateway provider. The problem here is that you have a call going from your handset via POTS to your cisco device. Then on your network over IP to this SIPGate place. They then translate it probably to TDM (generic term covers all of the business/carrier style phone lines) to place the actual calls out to your destination.

Presuming you are trying to dial other people connected to the POTS then your solution is probably about the best you are going to get. If you were wanting to see better quality a direct computer to computer connection via SIP, with a headset mic could provide you with much better audio but given its limited scope I doubt it would be worth it in your case.

I am hoping that in the next couple years webRTC will make this type of thing much more wide-spread as you remove all the middle men.

hope it helps,

Comment Re:The Purpose of a Phone (Score 3, Interesting) 197

Let me help you a bit.

1. SIP really is just the command channel protocol. What you are probably talking about when you say SIP is the combination of the SIP control channel and a RTP audio payload.
2. SIP can and does run as both UDP and TCP. There is a popular Microsoft SIP stack that actually gave up on the UDP side of SIP as there were too many issues with it in a home (AKA poorly maintained) environments.
3. RTP runs as UDP (well I know of some related TCP projects but the whole concept is just stupid) as TCP is wildly unsuited for a real-time connection protocol.
4. Studies show that unbuffered jitter greater than 2ms or latency of greater than 100ms rapidly make phone calls unmanageable for human users. There is a direct trade-off (via buffering) between jitter and latency, however TCP makes both worse which is why nobody would use it like this.
5. If you want to see quality compare SIP with the G.729 codex (probably what you are using) vs the POTS system (normal telephony) vs a wide-band SIP codex like G.722. If you can spare the bandwidth it really is impressive how nice it sounds.

So, any communication method that relies on low latency and reliable delivery with the "other side of the planet" is going to suck. I would suggest that you move to video as some studies have shown that people tend to be happier with video calls when there are technical glitches as they are able to correct some of it with the associated visual queues.

 

Comment Re: This is why America needs President Trump (Score 1) 284

There have always been those that that push this (educators to be paid, elitists to divide the world and true believers to have someone to brainwash). It has always seemed like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I mean seriously how is the proverbial "Russian Lit" degree really going to help anyone be successful (maybe some chance at translator work)?

However, I think you overstate that everyone pushes people that way. There is quite a movement to tell kids that they don't need College to be successful. There was quite a bit of debate a few years ago when I was in college about the real worth of it. Hell, I remember reading about the top 10 CEOs and how the majority thought that current college degrees were pretty worthless.

Further, I would say that either they are children in which case we shouldn't allow them to enter into binding contracts, or they are adults and yes it is fair to hold them to the consequences of their choices.

As for the trade school argument I don't think it will work. There would be a rush of cash as the government started to support it, they would lay down a bunch of insane requirements. The costs would go up just like it has for your standard university and you would be right back in the same place. The only way to control this is to force people to realize their choices have consequences that they will have to live with and then give them enough information to make good choices.

Comment Re: This is why America needs President Trump (Score 1) 284

Cooked numbers show whatever you want them to. Unemployment, under-employment, discouraged workers and labor participation.There are a thousand ways to slice this and each one shows something different.Add in who's to blame President, House, Senate and States now you have a hodgepodge that is impossible to untangle. As far as I can tell its just a religion on both sides.

Comment Re: This is why America needs President Trump (Score 1) 284

Sorry for the language but, BS.

1. Nobody forces young adults to take on huge debt. At best stupid people propagate a debtor lifestyle by teaching it to their kids to party now and pay sometime in the future. It is not hard to make it through without debt. It just takes a little planning and work.I know, I did it only a few short years ago.

2. At least you got part of this right. People who blow their money on silly things tend not to have disposable income. If it wasn't this type of debt it would be credit-card debt for something else. Debtors will find things to put themselves in debt for.

3. Yes, primary/secondary education is very expensive, ~$12k/year/student. No, we don't tend to get a lot for it. We still have rather high dropout rates. We still have people graduating with little to no understanding of math, science and dubious literacy skills. I suspect the problem is nature as anyone with even a small drive to learn seems to do just fine. I have no solution to this but I suspect some people would just be happier if we left them alone.

4. As for the rich I have the solution there. Make personal long-term transactions illegal. The average person is not mature enough to sell their future self into virtual slavery. If you get rid of this inexhaustible well of stupidity, that even the modestly bright can tap into, you should have little problem with the current batch of family wealth or bubble rich. The bubble rich won't happen because nobody stupid enough to buy in will have the money. The family wealth will dwindle when they no longer have easy targets to perpetuate themselves on. Once that is cleared up those who are left rich deserve to be and if you want to continue your current 'eat the rich' tune all I can do is wish that you too get eaten when someone else decides they want what you have.

Or that is just my opinion,

Slashdot Top Deals

The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.

Working...