www.ditl.org

IanKennedy wrote:Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that. I wholly dislike the concept that people can do what they want and just blame it on societal pressure. People do what they want, and can afford to do. Anything else is just an excuse.

Agreed on that, but the sheeple over here literally trample people to death to get a bargain on TVs. Idiocy is the norm.

IanKennedy wrote:Other options are available, for example heres's a cheap knockoff for £13.

Again, fair enough. I need to keep an eye on those if desktops are not a viable option in the future.

IanKennedy wrote:iPad has a 10" screen, iPhone smaller. I've watched a movie on an iPhone before now. It's wasn't the best experience in the world but it filled a couple of hours on a rainy day when we had nothing else to do.

What a complete waste of time. Like I said, I wouldn't be able to see anything going on on a screen that small. I'd rather read a book.

IanKennedy wrote:No not at all. One was a 6'6" Dutch guy and the other a dumpy little American that probably weighed 250lbs. I will point out that the iPad has a 10" screen again, they keyboard is actually quite large. Not all iThingies are the same.

Any keyboard that doesn't have raised keys is a nightmare for typing quickly. Virtual keyboards are crap for writing anything other than short texts.

IanKennedy wrote:Over here we have a social conscience and a 'welfare' system. If you are unemployed for a short time you get unemployment benefit after a while it switches to 'Social Security' which basically means you don't starve but can't afford to do anything else.

Over here we have a 'screw the poor' system (unless you meet certain... qualifications). We spend ten times more on welfare than the UK does for it's military, but none of it is designed to help the poor rise from poverty. Again, things are very different on this side of the pond; a lot more different than you guys realize.

IanKennedy wrote:There are plenty of tablet type devices that cost an awful lot less than computers do. This for example is £120 a lot cheaper than the $200 computers you where talking about. It would certainly allow you to apply for jobs, work with email etc.

Well, point again. If they can come down to a reasonable price and be functional for more than apps and texting, then that's great.

IanKennedy wrote:I very much doubt that you have a state law that requires landlords to evict people if their electricity is cut off.

Well, whether you doubt it or not means approximately jack shit; it's in the renter's rights laws in this state. Failure to pay utilities is a forfeiture of any lease agreement in Texas. They can and will evict you. Welcome to 21st century America.

IanKennedy wrote:My definition of poverty is not limited to the homeless and I can't see anything I've said that could lead you to that conclusion. We were definitely in poverty when we had a place to stay (at least for the time being) and little income provided by the state. We had a mortgage on a house, no electric and no phone at one point. Our gas was still connected as their is a law in the UK that says that they can't cut you off if it's your only way of cooking. We where about 2 years behind on the mortgage payments and in the process of being kicked out of the house.

We have some state laws that disallow utilities from cutting people off during the hottest or coldest months, depending on the state. Soon as it warms up or cools down though, screw you.

IanKennedy wrote:That said I would certainly not agree that if your only problem is that you can't afford a computer then you qualify for being in poverty. I find it an utterly ridiculous statement. What next those who cannot afford a car are in poverty, after all you've just said that there's no public transport so they can't get to work.

Clearly, this is a matter of perspective. The idea that a person without a car and computer is not in poverty is a ridiculous statement to me, unless they have a lot of money and choose to live that way. I'll reiterate; you cannot get anywhere without a car here. Period. End of line.

IanKennedy wrote:I refuse to believe this of all but the largest of companies. Big multinationals may be doing that but I'm sure the local shops and businesses aren't.

You "refuse to believe" this? Well, good for you. Reality disagrees with you. "Local shops"? What planet are you living on? There are a few local shops and businesses left over here, which have already filled their staff positions with family and friends. Computer resume scans are the norm.

Here's one: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/08/146585368 ... e-oblivion

Two:http://www.articlesbase.com/resumes-art ... 39490.html

And, three: http://www.eduers.com/resume/Computer_S ... esumes.htm

This is the norm in America.

Things are a lot different than when you were a kid, or myself, Ian. The 21st century in America at least, is not the same as the world we remember.

The only place near my house that still provides and accepts paper applications is Stewart's (gas station and convenience store chain). Even the small shops are going online, because it is cheaper to have a website and email address than to print all that paper.
And none of the places I have seen will bother interviewing without an application put in.

Now in my area, we could walk most places or take the bus and then walk (close enough to NYC that we have decent public transportation) however I have been places where it is several miles between houses, with no public transportation at all. Without vehicle access in those areas (either owning or having a friend who does), your are as good as dead (or an off the grid bow hunter/farmer who found a way not to pay taxes).

So weird. My employer wont accept anything other than a paper application form that you collect (or print) and hand/send back into the store.

It is weird. I hate turning people away at my job when they come in looking for work, "You have to apply online. Sorry."

Irritates the hell out of me.