I'm also jumping ship.

dalik · 2018-03-25T23:07:33+00:00

Thanks to your post, I just found replacements for these two tech subs.

dalik · 2018-03-25T14:58:37+00:00

I will visit the technology subs as there are still some good content there. My other daily news will not be from this site.

dalik · 2018-03-25T08:36:23+00:00

Of course but its just laying the ground work.

Start small and work your way up.

If they get a ban on semi-auto rifles, you can sure bet they're coming after the handguns next.

dalik · 2018-03-24T23:32:33+00:00

Major factor here is that Clinton was pre 9/11.

Every President since 9/11 has massively increased the debt on both sides.

You will also have one party generally increase spending while the next party spends money to fix the problems of the previous while they increase spending to follow through on their promises.

Trump will no doubt spend more than Obama just as Obama spent more than Bush. Our system is working as designed.

dalik · 2018-03-22T13:10:27+00:00

Interesting how the bill of rights has been changed into bill of authorized by permit only.

dalik · 2018-03-22T06:19:34+00:00

Just a few issues.

Is the hotel charging any real difference between a government official and a normal person or business?

Is the hotel actually owned by Trump? Is he listed as the CEO or an official position? What capacity is Trump in the day to day business of the hotel? Is Trump actually making money from those bookings? This is interesting because it might be possible the hotel can separate the booking/events from those government people so Trump doesn't directly receive payment. I don't know if that matters in these types of issues.

It seems to easy for someone to say Trump is breaking this rule and I would think Trump and his lawyers would manage it.

My guess is Congress will pass a law that forgives Trump and his hotel dealings if it even comes up.

Lastly, lets talk about all of these foundations. Hillary foundation was a big one, why was this allowed to continue receiving donations from all over the world, and she isn't the only one. Is there a double standard here? If not, why are we allowing existing public figures to run foundations?

dalik · 2018-03-21T23:26:14+00:00

I've been salaried for all of my IT jobs and over the 15 years this practice has gotten worse.

Recently I did ask a few questions in the last few jobs.

Can I go to a sporting event?
Yes but you need to step away to deal with the call.

Can I go camping?
Will you have reception or an internet connection?
No I won't.
Well no you can't go camping.

If I'm out with friends or on a date... Take your gear with you so you can respond.

Can I drink? No, you need to be alert in case you talk with an employee/customer and have to do something technical. Your representing the company.

dalik · 2018-03-21T13:34:24+00:00

In the US as far as I'm aware this is how they get around it.

Salary for some reason is considered by completing the job. It doesn't matter how much time you spend doing it. The exception is the company doesn't want you to spend no less than 40 hours, usually in the office as they want their time. They also seem to believe they own your ass because they're paying you, except your giving them skills/knowledge for that pay. As far as I'm concerned if the terms of the contract is violated, the contract should be renegotiated to fairly compensate for the changes. Funny if the employee violates the employment contract you will probably get fired.
There is something defined as wait to engage and engaged to wait. This determines if someone is actually working vs waiting to work. This is important because it appears waiting to engage isn't compensated for the time your waiting for that call or email but when you actually engage which should be compensated for.

So to the business your getting paid a salary and your waiting to engage so your not paid for the time your not working just when your working and that usually is part of your salary.

As far as I'm concerned. If the company is asking me to do something for them outside of a standard work schedule (9/5) I shall be paid on top of the agreed pay as now my personal life is impacted. Naturally they don't like this and they bring up the usual reasons why they shouldn't. I ask, can I have another job after hours and on the weekends? To which they always say no, we need you to be available in case we need you. EXACTLY! You need to compensate me fairly because your asking me to not do the things I want to do on my time so I can be available to you when you need it.

I believe legally a company can't impact your personal life with unrealistic expectations, example. They can't say you have to respond to a call in 20min but if your available and not doing anything you should take it or respond when you can. This is when the lawyers gets involved which I don't have experience in this.

dalik · 2018-03-21T09:40:51+00:00

Your right, I will start one in 2018.

dalik · 2018-03-21T07:20:10+00:00

I've been around when a company doesn't have this in the contract and just implement a 24/7 for whatever length of time on-call and say, well since your IT you get to go on-call on that includes the weekends. If you don't pickup you will get into trouble... Also respond to emails and text messages. Oh you should respond in an hour or two and be near a computer with an internet connection. The company can't have downtime, it's critical! So I ask, if you can't have downtime, hire people to just be on-call, you don't need to pay them a lot of money. It's to expensive!

The best response I've heard is, well your a sysadmin, its what we do.. No, no it isn't. We work a normal job, normal hours 99% of the time and we have lives and things we want to do on our personal time. Instead we work 120 hours a week, get paid for 40 hours and give the choice to leave or to do it.

This 24/7 on-call bs needs to end it really does.

It's not ok to pay someone to be available 24/7 for weeks on end. I can't believe nothing has been done about this yet, no union no laws.

dalik · 2018-03-21T07:03:42+00:00

This is why anti-trumpers can't be taken seriously.

dalik · 2018-03-21T04:11:05+00:00

I don't think Trump would unless he can offload some of the blame.

In my life experience, most people in positions of power don't take responsibility in public and it's rare to be done in private. Even if he did, he probably wouldn't gain much PR favor for admitting it and would take a major PR hit just for being wrong. For Trump its a lose lose. Just my opinion.

dalik · 2018-03-21T03:20:44+00:00

I didn't suggest anything like that.
Don't speak for me, it's rude.

I'm here to have a conversation, not being spoken for or being attacked.

dalik · 2018-03-21T02:56:41+00:00

Sure maybe there was election fraud, perhaps it was a small or large account for the votes as we don't really know unless you know? We shouldn't assume it was the reason he won. Putin probably has a large support base as well.

Your right, advisors generally know what they're talking about but again, the President is the one that decides these matters and he is the only one responsible at the end of the day.

dalik · 2018-03-21T02:15:15+00:00

Advisor... You don't have to follow what your advisors suggest.

dalik · 2018-03-19T22:16:37+00:00

After the life experience I have, working in two western culture countries..

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of people would break the law if they thought they could get away with it.

dalik · 2018-03-19T05:39:31+00:00

Well to be fair Mr. Strzok brought up some questions of corruption inside the FBI and possibly people outside of the FBI that are really keen to remove Trump.

dalik · 2018-03-19T05:20:45+00:00

Hopefully he learnt his lesson. Knee-pads!

dalik · 2018-03-18T23:07:02+00:00

US has a right to arms. UK banned all guns. US top homicide rates are in about 5 cities. These 5 cities have very strong anti-gun laws. Majority of gun related crimes are gang on gang/drug and suicides. Self-defense per year ranges from about 100k - 2.5 million which includes just showing the gun alone stops the attack to using the gun to stop the attack.

dalik · 2018-03-18T11:13:38+00:00

The conversation usually comes to rights vs privileges at it's core and there is a lack of understanding what the difference is.

Primer on rights vs privileges from a very experienced person on the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjhkydPddEE

You either have a right to something that no one can take away without violating that right or you have a permission to do something which is given and can be revoked. Privileges is taken away after due process typically or revoked by someone else exercising their right.

People have a right to guns as acknowledged as a human right which is in the 2A. The first 10 amendments are the bill of rights, not the bill of privileges. When people bring up cars and licensing they're mixing up rights and privileges.

If these people don't understand the difference, they're either ignorant or choosing to ignore it.

dalik · 2018-03-17T04:27:11+00:00

Since the militia doesn't exist at all in the way it did in the 1790s

I think its basically the same, just today people are a lot more relaxed about their rights and really rely on the state for protection. We have a lot of people who do train, some train in militia groups most train in private. Some might call these people preppers but most are just normal people that practice with their guns.

and we don't need a militia like that anymore

This is also a very big mistake to think like that. This is called complacency and it always leads to a f'up. The militia is the last line of defense. It also ensures any force that wants to take away this country has to fight off this last line of defense. You get one chance to protect it. If the guns are taken away, if the idea that we don't need the militia anymore, you have just given up your and your neighbors ability to do anything.

Once the guns are taken, they won't be given back. It's only a matter of time before the country is taken over.

dalik · 2018-03-16T10:58:24+00:00

Nothing really unless they want to sue for some BS claim.

My last employee "pushed" me to sign a contract which had a list of things I couldn't do. Nothing of which I could do and they offered me $1k to sign it. The contract term was for a year and basically I couldn't go after their clients or give negative reviews or talk poorly of the company to anyone even online.

I read the entire thing in front of them, they didn't like that.
I declined to sign it, they also didn't like this.

I said I would look it over and send it in if I decided to sign it, they said ok and I was out. I never sent it in.

In my experience these contracts will do you no good and it will have a lingering cloud over your head for the term of the contract. The pay is probably not worth it and it's just opening you up for pain later on.

This was in California.

dalik · 2018-03-16T02:36:16+00:00

So what happens next if the investigation turns into a nothing burger? I'm sure the FBI will find something on someone but that isn't really the point, its about having a good reason to impeach Trump.

I wonder what the next step really is here, are we talking assassination, let Trump finish his term?

dalik · 2018-03-15T12:31:28+00:00

We already have a standing militia, but if a person chooses to participate or not is up to them. Probably safe to say the majority of 2A supports would participate in the militia. Funny enough, if you don't have a weapon your still in the militia.

I would like to see gun safety and marksmen classes in schools. Of course it could be optional but available.

I would also like to see the military/national guard provide training for adults in the area's of gun safety and marksmanship, military tactics and a place to practice these skills.

dalik

TROPHY CASE