JakeAl

What you said. Why would anyone not set up a real account and use their app? I think Scottrade, which is the entry-level broker, only has a $500 minimum balance and they provide real tools as well as educational resources.

Investing or trading on margin is intended to allow you to trade while you are waiting for previous trades to settle. It's not meant to be a loan, but it is exploited that way by both banks and traders at their own risk. It's simple enough to fix, only allow margin to cover the amount of money waiting to be settled. In other words if a trade hasn't settled then the funds are not available for trading.

I think they are fine. The way I look at it one just needs to get educated before they become a pattern day trader. Ideally that means they grow their account to $25K and have experience before they are put into a position where they can screw up bad enough that it affects others. Of course people don't do that, but at least there's some incentive.

In the end margin is irrelevant if you only trade with money that is actually available. Robinhood is for traders that know even less than the twits on StockTwits. I'm sure it's fine for investing but I'd bet that the vast majority of the people that use the app don't know what the difference is, just like StockTwits.

Check out the Facebook Purity add-on. It gives you the control to filter out just about anything if you use a web browser to access Facebook.

http://www.fbpurity.com

And people say that like it's a bad thing. Cable can tell a lot about it's viewers. So can your TV hardware itself. The issue is how and whether they use that data in a way that is consumer-friendly. I'd say anything that takes the control away from the consumer is bad. I would prefer my curation, aggregation and recommendation tools be isolated and give me control over who knows what about me and exactly how it's used. I have no problem opting in for advertising and marketing from specific companies I support, but unfortunately no one gives me that option. I block ads because I have no control over how the third party ad networks use and distribute my data. I don't use paid services for that same reason.

Just have to point out as Haidt says, predisposed does not mean predetermined. Our ability to control and choose our individual behavior is what distinguishes us from animals as a species.

And I have yet to hear an argument regarding exactly how PBS is still necessary. Once it was, but not since anyone with a cel phone can record and upload content accessible to the entire world.

They are addressed -- by watching videos streamed from Apps, YouTube, Minds, Periscope, etc.

I'd say PBS is no longer necessary thanks to YouTube, Periscope, Minds, Kickstarter and hundreds of other sources of content actually created by the public. And I actually know several VPs who work there. You mention the financial model to be emulated - that would be Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Patreon, etc. The best argument for why PBS funding should be cut is because the amount of government funding that goes to running their operations is small in comparison to the non-government funding. Defunding PBS is a direct shift of power from institutions directly to the people. People can still fund PBS if they so choose, or they can simply fund the projects they deem worthy through the many sites mentioned above.

And the timeframe of the ban was based on the ability of those nations to bring their vetting process into compliance. 6/7 of those nations were failed states, meaning there is no assurance of government/legal accountability, and 1 (Iran) is the world's largest source of funding for terrorist organizations. No it was not about Muslims, as nations with 1.1B Muslims were not affected and only nations with 200M Muslims were.

Others think wow, we really need to bring citizens up to par with those we import.

Which is a great point. The NEED for immigration and how to address it should be balanced with the NEED to develop the knowledge, skills and training of citizens. Importing labor because it's lacking doesn't address the problem of why it's lacking.

Walls don't impact legal immigration. They only only impact the proportion of illegal immigrants that sneak across the border.

Even if the data says women are paid less, it doesn't say why. Correlation does not show causation. The implication is that there is gender discrimination. Research by women into the gender wage gap has explored a large number (but not all) reasons for this and shown the actual gender wage gap when taking into account actual reasons is only as high as 8%, with more research and experimentation underway to account for additional reasons. This is the most current objective research on the subject I am aware of.

Summary with a link to the research paper, which is really good science as demonstrated with experimentation and doesn't try to sell a narrative, BTW. Worth the read. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-resea...

"New research by ILR School professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn finds an eight percent gender wage gap that cannot be accounted for, even after controlling for observable variables that influence workers’ pay.

Gender discrimination in the workplace COULD be a cause, they suggest."

When you are basing your prejudice on the color of one's skin it's racism. As it relates to hiring, it's unconstitutional and illegal in the US. People say "cultural fit" when it means they are discriminating based on age, sex, race, religion, personal beliefs or behavior that have nothing to do with being qualified to perform the work, which is what equal opportunity laws were established to prevent.

And the number of cars sold were down from the previous year. Doesn't sound like growth to me.

How the Government Measures Unemployment https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Beyond the unemployed there are separate numbers published by BLS for those not in the labor force. This number is at about 95 Million.

Who is not in the labor force? https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf

The numbers https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Do you assume to know what the ethics of all MBAs are? It's often misconstrued that the goals of the manager or organization are the goals of the individual employee. Individual employees are at the bottom of the food chain because they have the greatest weaknesses when it comes to management and leadership. If they didn't they could prove themselves through success and level up. An employee is hired to do a job. If an employees goals and ideals are not in alignment with the origanization that needs to be corrected through effective leadership or that employee needs to find another job. That applies to all levels of an organization from individual contributor, to manager, to leadership roles.

A disgruntled employee indicates a problem that is not being addressed and solved by managers and leaders. That doesn't mean the employee is right or wrong or that the manager is right or wrong. Weaknesses are in individuals and occur at all levels of business. A poor employee just lacks self-awareness, knowledge acumen and the correct strategy for solving the problems, whatever they may be, at whatever level they are. This is what effective leaders address.

My advice to all is to keep an eye on the ball and understand where you are and where you expect to be every five years and have a plan. If you plan on being just an expert or individual contributor when you are 40 or 50, then expect to have to compete with those in their 20s. Not too easy when a 25 year old has fewer responsibilities at home (like teen-aged children) and can spend their spare time learning the latest fringe technology to make it more mainstream. Also not too easy to fit in culturally unless you have the developmental maturity of a 25 year old. (See my note about The Stakes at the bottom.) Adults with no responsibilities can drop acid and go to Burning Man without consequences. Responsible adults cannot without the risks they take impacting others. (in response to a poster's comment) That's what separates the men from the boys, to coin a phrase. No offense to ladies or others.

What I am not hearing in all of these discussions is talk of developing leadership fundamentals. They apply not just to one's job/career but to the individual and all aspects of their life.

There's 5 levels of leadership:

I. Individual Contributor Self-leadership. Responsible for producing work and getting along with others.

II. Expert/Manager Expert Best at what they do. Work on more complex projects. Display a special talent. Design a plan for new products. Further develop their craft. Innovate on projects. Demonstrate readiness to tackle more challenges

Manager Managers are tactical, focus on the short term. Lead individual contributors and experts. Develop staff. Focus is on improving upon weaknesses necessary to succeed at being more than an individual contributor or expert. Navigate organizational structures. Maximize talent of team. Think strategically about how team contributes to organization goals.

III. Leader of Leaders Leaders are strategic, focus on the long term. Focus shifts to training level IIs on their managing weaknesses. Training and developing (mentoring) experts and managers. Role is critical to the success of an organization. Poor managers have a huge and damaging impact because they leave high turnover and disengagement as well as low morale and productivity in their wake. Refined communication skills up and down the organization, acting as a reliable conduit for information to flow up and down. Develop business acumen. Develop organizational strategy. Develop new leadership opportunities.

IV. Leader of Functions/Divisions Maximize the contributions of all groups within the function/division. Strategize the development of the function for the future of the whole organization. Builds a competitive strategy. Ensures long term growth. Mentor and engage direct reports. Build key relationships outside organization. Deepen their intimate knowledge of other functions. Attune to industry and market shaping factors (sector acumen).

V. Leader of Organization Manages all functional leaders. Sets the vision and strategy. Ensures future success. CEO Build a team of differing strengths. Empower functional/division leaders. Create a motivating culture. Share the vision of the future. Position to be at front of trends.

As you move up 3 things change: - Scope of your view - The Stakes/impact of your decisions - Proportion of management and leadership

What skills do you need to maximize your potential? What skills do you need to develop for the next level?

Leveling up is growing up. If you don't like or want to be a manager or leader, figure out why not, starting with understanding your emotions and managing your stress and anxiety. This is usually what stifles one's development.

Don't forget the oft-overlooked poor stress coping mechanisms and the associated psychological and personality disorders; and "privilege deficits" such the lack of healthy social support systems, the inability to build healthy relationships that increase knowledge, self-awareness, and expand skills that promote personal, social and economic growth.

But what's their reason for not presenting evidence?

I highly recommend you take an hour and a half to watch this Lynda.com video on Leadership Fundamentals. It's focus is business, but first and foremost we are all leaders of our own lives and the lessons apply as much to personal as professional development. It may serve as a good refresher as to what you once learned makes for good leadership as a manager and help you identify your strengths and weaknesses as a leader of your life as well as in your organization. They have a ten day free trial and there are many videos you can watch after this one that will help you no matter what path you choose to follow. It is well worth the 90 minutes. It helped me understand and resolve a lot about myself and my dissatisfaction with own career, my organization, and what was wrong with both.

https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/Leadership-F...

Pay particular attention to the segments on emotional intelligence, motivation, engagement/disengagement(!), and professional development. It'll not only help you understand what is affecting your motivation and disengagement, but you may also realize your greatest strength is that you are motivated to solve these problems not just for yourself but others in your organization. Understanding the way things should be could just cause you to double down as a PM and master the challenges of the role while further developing your skills to advance your career.

Good leadership focuses on the health (and happiness) and growth of the individual as much as the organization. Maybe you are just in a poorly run organization or one that has poor leaders. Discontent is usually a pretty good indicator this is the case, because even if an individual is the problem, a good leader has the awareness to recognize this and have a good relationship with their staff that enables them to make the staff member aware of their strengths and weaknesses and the source of their discontent so it can addressed be remedied.

It sounds to me like you want to more authority and control, or at least more challenges and your organization's leadership is not addressing that. Without that your growth and personal development is limited. Being a coordinator is little more being an admin that tracks status and doesn't require much tactical or strategic decision making. Your manager should understand this and being stretching your abilities in every area little by little until they trust you to make those decisions. They should always be preparing you for the next level up. Maybe you aren't aware of your weaknesses and they are not identifying them and working on them with you. Maybe your desire to quit and become an individual contributor is just an Escape Coping mechanism for dealing with stress instead of a Control Coping mechanism which is positive and proactive. Or maybe they just have poor leadership skills.

It would be terrible if you quit your job and lost the opportunity where you are to address your weaknesses and strengthen all of your skills in an attempt to start over because you feel it would give you more control over your happiness, especially given all of the capital you have built up in that role over the years. Besides, if the problem is your desire to leave is a just an unhealthy response to stress or a challenging situation, it won't solve anything.

Just a thought, but one from someone who has been there.

What did I do in your situation? It took me a while but I watched that video, combined my awareness from it with formal knowledge of PMP (Head First PMP is good start) as a reminder of what project management is all about and what my organization did wrong as leaders of a functional versus projectized organization (a weak matrixed organization), and then I studied stress management to help me understand my own (unhealthy) responses to my situation.

If I had done that while still at my organization I would have not only felt empowered by the evidence and knowledge, but challenged to work on myself and the organization at the same time, and could have been perceived as someone with greater leadership potential that would have allowed me to level up. Even if I still decided to leave, I could have improved my skills while there to prepare for a move to a healthier organization that I would have been better equipped to recognize and excel at.

FYI I strongly considered a Masters in Data Science which would have had a narrow focus either as a developer, data analyst, or data scientist, but at the risk of competing with people who were younger and/or smarter, and rooted in those disciplines from an earlier age. I decided I should master my management and leadership skills instead, leveraging and building upon my knowledge and experience at a better organization. I am unemployed and working on that now. Once I get a job, even if it's a contract position, I can still take the online courses to get that masters degree from a top university and also take advantage of being around people in the industry that do what I aspire to do as mentors.

I sincerely hope this helps.

>You've been duped.

Not if you were simply voting against Hillary.

I believe what he said is "they let me do it because I am a star". I've seen perfectly reasonable women let guys with money and status do things they would say were unacceptable and outrageous if it was anyone else. I've also seen intelligent women go bonkers for low knuckle dragging men that treated them like crap and cheated on them and they knew it. Who am I to judge, relationships are personal business.

And here's the thing -- we all have equal protection under the law. If Trump ever did anything that a female acquaintance considers assault she has recourse under the law and should have gone to the police and not a newspaper 30 years later. Police will investigate the validity of your claims and whether or not your story has holes or inconsistencies. It's their job. If you move on without pursuing legal action then it cannot be said it was not acceptable because you accepted it.

His book: http://lucifersbanker.com/

As secretary of state, in an unusual move Hillary Clinton intervened with UBS to help it out with the IRS and DOJ. He seems to imply that Hillary brokered the treaty to release the 52,000 names -- a deal which they backed out of citing Swiss law after only providing 4,500 names -- because of the global corporate elites tied to our government, politicians from all over the globe and CIA who would be implicated. He notes that the CIA funneled the money from Iran-Contra through a Swiss bank account, and the plane used to deliver the 400 million in unmarked cash to Iran came from Geneva. He also thinks it was the CIA that leaked the Panama Papers, selectively exposing names.

After Hillary's deal, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

There is no evidence of any link between Hillary's involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons' private and political activities overlap.

It should also be noted that in 2011 the Clinton Foundation announced a partnership with UBS on the CEO-UBS Small Business Advisory Program which connects "small businesses" with - One-on-one pro-bono strategic financial and business counseling - Access to the entire suite of UBS's resources, including senior leaders within the firm's marketing, human resources, operations and Investment Banking divisions - Opportunities to network with industry influencers and major decision makers in both the private and public sectors.

The ten small businesses enrolled in the program had average annual revenues of $8.44 million in 2010 and together employed a total of 400 people at the end of 2010. The entrepreneurs and their companies who participated are: Julie Azuma, Different Roads to Learning, Inc.; Dinesh and Josh Boaz, Direct Agents, Inc.; K.Y. Chow, GM Printing; Richelieu Dennis, Sundial Creations; Kenny Lao, Rickshaw Dumpling Bar; Tamara Mangum-Thomas, Sharpened Image, Inc.; Mike DiMarino, Linda Tool; Marjorie Perry, MZM Construction & Management Company, Inc.; Jeffrey Smalls, Smalls Electrical Construction, Inc.; and Larry Velez, Sinu.

It means power -- power to the people in the interest of constitutional equality and liberty, not a tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, or bad democracy.

Aristotle said there are 6 kinds of government, 3 good ones and 3 bad ones. The bad ones are where the ruler rules in their own interest. The good ones are where the ruler rules in the public interest. How many people rule: In Tyranny - 1 person rules in their own interest Monarchy - 1 person rules in the public interest (a good tyrant is a monarch) Aristocracy - a few people rule in the public interest Oligarchy - a few people rule in their own interest Democracy - all people rule in the public interest Bad Democracy - all people rule in the interest of the majority and oppress the minority

I've had the same problem with a small minority of women, who while not always physically aggressive are equally persistent. I don't have the luxary or privilege of a male-only events alternative though.

When you become a manager expect to train as a supervisor first. Ask or accept a salary hike as a supervisor that is half of what you expect as a full blown manager. Work your way to manager because if you don't have management experience on resume by the time you are 40 expect nothing but freelance work over the age 40 if you lose your job. Management experience is what separate the expendable labor from the non-expendable staff. Management sucks, I mean having authority is great but having to hire and fire sucks. It's a great deal of responsibility and needs to be taken seriously and to be good you really need to work hard at being empathetic, unemotional, and balancing risk versus reward at the risk of your own career. To not do so just means you are a riding a paycheck and not contributing a whole lot. I made the mistake of going for the job of doing things I enjoy, worked on a lot of really cool incredible projects for well known companies and found myself unemployed over the age of 40 without the ability to get an interview despite my knowledge and experience all because I was a go to guy who got the most complex jobs done but was not a manager. Don't be me. Be humble, tell your superiors you want to work your way up to management and spend time as asupervisor first so you can train in the role as someone who must manage people and deal with HR issues while not being a manager first. Set goals and mnilestones alonga timeline and make sure they are checked off as accomplishments in your reviews. You need to train as someone who has to get your staff to do what you want despite their personalities but not make decisions about the company. Being a manager means both. Once you become numb to taking a chance on employees and learning how to communicate or have crucial converstions (read the book Crucial Conversations) it becomes second nature to make business decisions and not get hung up on the risk. I'd say set a goal of being an entry elevel manager at the age of 35. By 40 tha would make you a skilled intermediate to entry level senior manager that every one repects because you've learned to master the skills.

"Females were actually more likely to engage in delinquent acts if they reported higher levels of emotional intelligence."

The research is referenced by the article. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/dark-side-of-emotional-...

and here's a PDF link to the paper:

Sex differences in the relationship between sensation seeking, trait emotional intelligence and delinquent behaviour https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264956539_Sex_diffe...

Great list. I'd add this one.

Billy Corgan Warns of Weaponized Zombies - Full Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojAXUqL--mY