An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
It goes both ways (across the Atlantic). Americans come here to get cheap government subsidized university education instead of shelling out thousands of dollars in your expensive schools. Then they can quite easily get jobs because they have international experience and generally speak English very well. I really can't see how anyone is getting shafted by this arrangement.
I think you have a point but for some topics the difference in how google ranks results work out worse. For example there are about a dozen sites all archiving as many guitar tabs as possible and any search for guitar tabs will bring up those sites. However, those tab collections are mostly mirroring tabs posted on usenet groups, they don't contain any original information and the tabs are generally of low quality.
Then there are people who write high quality, detailed tabs that they publish in their own small tab collections. On butt ugly pages hosted on geocities with irrelevant gif animations and the whole early 90:s style kit. It is impossible to find those pages these days because all the big sites are much better adapted for seo so the only way to find them is to stumble on them by pure chance.
Asking about benefits is comparable to a car sales person asking the prospective buyer about his capability to afford the car. (In other words, you would only do it as a "qualifying question", if you seriously doubted the company's capability to meet your requirements.) Good car sales people get you wanting the car, and sell features of the car before talking details of the offer.
Your car example contradicts the rest of your advice. One of the most potent way for a salesman to increase customer interest is to tell him that he cannot afford it. It signals confidence in the product and its value. The car salesman implies that he doesn't need the customers business, there's plenty of other people he can sell the car to.
It is exactly that kind of confidence you want to display at a job interview which is why you want to talk about benefits and show that you have high standards. You are the car salesman and the interviewer is your customer. All that matters is the feeling, the feeling the car customer gets about the card and the feeling the interviewer gets about you. That is why confidence is crucial.
So how many times were you laid this month, Mr Niceguy?:) You talk about "feeling good" something which is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of evolutionary things. Assholes can often mitigate their reputation loss by moving from one altruistic group to a new one in which they are unknown. It is not easy to explain why there still are altruistic people and why not everyone is using the assholish strategy.
Hopefully they will realize that tax breaks is a futile race to the bottom. For every state that gives a rebate there is another one that can undercut you. In the long run it is not sustainable and just wastes tax payer money for everyone.
Example: Altruism.
It actually seems pretty obvious -- a community which was altruistic would, in the long run, have a higher chance of survival than a community which wasn't.
But it isn't obvious. Ask yourself this, what is the best way for an individual to live in an altruistic society? Answer: to be a selfish asshole that takes advantage of all the altruistic suckers. That tension between what is best for an individual and the common good creates many paradoxical situations and is much more involved than what you seem to think.
If I spent $100k on a college education am I now more deserving of a job than she is? What if I go to a community college and only spend $20k? Am I less deserving?
If you did that on the hope of landing a job, which you didn't, you would also understand that something is wrong. Do you realize how insane and how dangerous it is for society that education has gone from being a safe investment to financially one of the most stupid decisions a person can make?
Every generation says that. Kids look at their parents enjoying their mid/late years and think they had it easy. Parents look at their kids and think they're ruining the world. Everyone's convinced that the world is in a downward spiral.
At the risk of sounding prematurely old (Get off my lawn!), I'd suggest that most of the problems these days stem from kids feeling entitled and being unwilling to actually work for anything. But, I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about my generation too...
You know, these days we have statistics which allows us to read up on the facts instead of listening to old farts whining. Real wages and disposable income has decreased markedly since the 1970s, unemployment and poverty has increased (even discounting the current business cycle). Number of hours worked has increased (men work the same as then, women significantly more). The trend is clear even if the government repeatedly has tried to obfuscate the statistics by changing how the numbers are counted. Oh and it's not only in the US, the situation is the same in the whole Western World even if it has been worsening at a faster pace in the US than anywhere else.
The womans education record would have been considered stellar 30 years ago but today is only average. Fact is that the current younger generation is putting in much more work today than what the previous generations did and is getting much less in return.
Bull. There has never been trouble getting a job. There has always been trouble getting a job you want.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true. My friends brother is a manager at McDonald's. They had 500+ applications last time they had a vacancy. Which is for a job with a wage a single person barely can live on. The myth of the easy to get jobs is just that, a myth.
Whatever her GPA is, she has worked hard for four years, spent $70k on it and is very willing and able to work. I don't know how many bachelor degree holders there is, but she likely has more education than 70% of the population. And she can't get a job.
It just is not fair. Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over. The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then, especially not for college graduates. Things have gone quite a bit downhill since then.
Maybe technology has advanced since last I played console games.. But wouldn't cheating be a huge issue? Cheaters were annoying when you just played fps games for fun, annoying but tolerable. Now if you are betting money and you suspect that your opponents cheat, then you would be pissed.
They assume that alien civilizations would grow exponentially like humanity. To maintain exponential growth the civilization would inevitably have to colonize other planets, other solar systems and even other galaxies. So if it only takes 50 million years to colonize the whole Milky Way then there can't be that many other intelligent life forms in the galaxy because we would have seen evidence of them.
See this wikipedia article. Yes nuclear power is profitable, but it seems not much more so than clean energy sources such as hydro power or wind. Note also that the companies you refer to are partially or fully owned by the state and so the investments and the risks will taken with tax payer money anyway. They play on different terms than normal private companies which is why nuclear power investments makes sense for them. And even in Sweden the waste disposal problem is still unsolved.
If you think there are no issues with the byproducts from the composites that are used for wind-turbines then you are fooling yourself.
Oh enlightened one, please enlighten us. No I don't think there are any issues with the byproducts from the composites from wind turbines. Turbines have been produced for over a century and no one has yet raised any complaint about "byproducts from composites from wind turbines." Or are you just hand waiving?
That's a bad analogy. It's like instead of the most beautiful woman you two slightly more ugly ones at once. Plus, you get to Bing and Yahoo! them instead of merely Googling. I could be a nice tradeoff.
It's both. Both the muscles in the eye and neuron path ways in the brain have not developed enough at birth for the baby to actually "see" anything in any meaningful way. Full eyesight has not developed before the baby is about two years old. Google has more information.
Considering that newborn babies are virtually blind at birth, the studies you refer to have me skeptical. Maybe babies one year of age has good enough vision to determine if a man has a well-developed jaw line, but three month old babies definitely don't.
What the Industry sometimes fails to realize is that it is IT people who make or break the products. From the majority of/, readers responses to all these Cloud Computing posts, the main concerns are reliability and security. Reliability may be solved soon, but I feel security will always be a neverending list of crackers and incompetence on the part of the cloud utility. Too many stories of losing usb keys, laptops, security passes, passwords, etc, on the part of large "no fail" companies that should know better. Most businesses will be very very adverse to giving up control of their data, and somehow I don't see that ever changing, even when they claim the risk is almost 0%.
When the cloud utility is Google, IBM, Amazon or some other mega corporation there is no way in hell that the security or reliability will be any worse than what a small company can muster on their own. The writing's been on the wall for a long time now, but many techies that love dealing with server infrastructure doesn't want to give up control of what they have, or aren't able to admit that someone else can do their job better. It is the same thinking which is why some people still insist on building their own servers by assembling the hardware components themselves and running Gentoo instead of buying something pre-packaged. Economies of scale doesn't work out very well for those.
Why not let the free market sort out the risk factor? Require each reactor to be insured in case of a catastrophic failure or a major accident. It wouldn't be to hard for an insurance company to quantify the risk. Let's say the worst that can happen is fallout that makes a whole city of 100,000 uninhabitable. What is the cost of rebuilding the city and providing shelter for the refugees? What is the geopolitical cost of al-qaeida getting hold of some nuclear waste which enables them to build a dirty bomb?
While the above scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, the payout to the insurance taker would be enormous so the insurance premiums has to be huge too. I believe that is the reason why almost no nuclear power plants are being built. When factoring in the insurance costs it just is not profitable anymore.
Not really. In the US people are much more car bound than in Europe. The average American spends roughly twice as much time per day in a car than a European. So naturally the resistance to laws that limit what you can do in your car is stronger in the US. It is for the same reason while drunk driving laws used to be much less strict than in Europe.
Wrong. The theoretical basis for the Rorschach test might be bogus, but a theoretical basis isn't needed: the test's validity can be empirically verified by correlating its results to other and unrelated tests (that's how the IQ tests were developed, comparing IQ test results with academic success). Which has, of course, happened. People need to do research to get research grants after all. So we get papers like this:
IQ tests are a pretty poor example as no study has found any relation between academic success and IQ. The book "Outliers: The Story of Success" references one very large study in which no relation at all between IQ and success was found (I forgot the name of the study). The available evidence works against your theory.
Did you read the link in my previous post? There are Judaist religious texts which say the opposite [wikipedia.org] - that Jews are not to return to Israel!
And the Koran says not to kill. Details like that has never stopped fundamentalists.
Have you considered that part of the difference is that Israel was responding (arguably with disproportionate force) to a military attack of a hostile terrorist group on its civilian population, while Iran cracked down on unarmed peaceful protestors after rigged elections? Can you truly not see the difference?
Which in one case ended up with a number of protestors locked up, in the other case with 1200 civilians killed. Can YOU truly not see the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
It goes both ways (across the Atlantic). Americans come here to get cheap government subsidized university education instead of shelling out thousands of dollars in your expensive schools. Then they can quite easily get jobs because they have international experience and generally speak English very well. I really can't see how anyone is getting shafted by this arrangement.
I think you have a point but for some topics the difference in how google ranks results work out worse. For example there are about a dozen sites all archiving as many guitar tabs as possible and any search for guitar tabs will bring up those sites. However, those tab collections are mostly mirroring tabs posted on usenet groups, they don't contain any original information and the tabs are generally of low quality.
Then there are people who write high quality, detailed tabs that they publish in their own small tab collections. On butt ugly pages hosted on geocities with irrelevant gif animations and the whole early 90:s style kit. It is impossible to find those pages these days because all the big sites are much better adapted for seo so the only way to find them is to stumble on them by pure chance.
Asking about benefits is comparable to a car sales person asking the prospective buyer about his capability to afford the car. (In other words, you would only do it as a "qualifying question", if you seriously doubted the company's capability to meet your requirements.) Good car sales people get you wanting the car, and sell features of the car before talking details of the offer.
Your car example contradicts the rest of your advice. One of the most potent way for a salesman to increase customer interest is to tell him that he cannot afford it. It signals confidence in the product and its value. The car salesman implies that he doesn't need the customers business, there's plenty of other people he can sell the car to.
It is exactly that kind of confidence you want to display at a job interview which is why you want to talk about benefits and show that you have high standards. You are the car salesman and the interviewer is your customer. All that matters is the feeling, the feeling the car customer gets about the card and the feeling the interviewer gets about you. That is why confidence is crucial.
How nice of you to let one random, anonymous slashdotter asking a stupid question stand as a spokesperson for all green movements.
So how many times were you laid this month, Mr Niceguy? :) You talk about "feeling good" something which is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of evolutionary things. Assholes can often mitigate their reputation loss by moving from one altruistic group to a new one in which they are unknown. It is not easy to explain why there still are altruistic people and why not everyone is using the assholish strategy.
Hopefully they will realize that tax breaks is a futile race to the bottom. For every state that gives a rebate there is another one that can undercut you. In the long run it is not sustainable and just wastes tax payer money for everyone.
Example: Altruism. It actually seems pretty obvious -- a community which was altruistic would, in the long run, have a higher chance of survival than a community which wasn't.
But it isn't obvious. Ask yourself this, what is the best way for an individual to live in an altruistic society? Answer: to be a selfish asshole that takes advantage of all the altruistic suckers. That tension between what is best for an individual and the common good creates many paradoxical situations and is much more involved than what you seem to think.
If I spent $100k on a college education am I now more deserving of a job than she is? What if I go to a community college and only spend $20k? Am I less deserving?
If you did that on the hope of landing a job, which you didn't, you would also understand that something is wrong. Do you realize how insane and how dangerous it is for society that education has gone from being a safe investment to financially one of the most stupid decisions a person can make?
Every generation says that. Kids look at their parents enjoying their mid/late years and think they had it easy. Parents look at their kids and think they're ruining the world. Everyone's convinced that the world is in a downward spiral. At the risk of sounding prematurely old (Get off my lawn!), I'd suggest that most of the problems these days stem from kids feeling entitled and being unwilling to actually work for anything. But, I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about my generation too...
You know, these days we have statistics which allows us to read up on the facts instead of listening to old farts whining. Real wages and disposable income has decreased markedly since the 1970s, unemployment and poverty has increased (even discounting the current business cycle). Number of hours worked has increased (men work the same as then, women significantly more). The trend is clear even if the government repeatedly has tried to obfuscate the statistics by changing how the numbers are counted. Oh and it's not only in the US, the situation is the same in the whole Western World even if it has been worsening at a faster pace in the US than anywhere else.
The womans education record would have been considered stellar 30 years ago but today is only average. Fact is that the current younger generation is putting in much more work today than what the previous generations did and is getting much less in return.
Bull. There has never been trouble getting a job. There has always been trouble getting a job you want.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true. My friends brother is a manager at McDonald's. They had 500+ applications last time they had a vacancy. Which is for a job with a wage a single person barely can live on. The myth of the easy to get jobs is just that, a myth.
Whatever her GPA is, she has worked hard for four years, spent $70k on it and is very willing and able to work. I don't know how many bachelor degree holders there is, but she likely has more education than 70% of the population. And she can't get a job.
It just is not fair. Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over. The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then, especially not for college graduates. Things have gone quite a bit downhill since then.
Maybe technology has advanced since last I played console games.. But wouldn't cheating be a huge issue? Cheaters were annoying when you just played fps games for fun, annoying but tolerable. Now if you are betting money and you suspect that your opponents cheat, then you would be pissed.
They assume that alien civilizations would grow exponentially like humanity. To maintain exponential growth the civilization would inevitably have to colonize other planets, other solar systems and even other galaxies. So if it only takes 50 million years to colonize the whole Milky Way then there can't be that many other intelligent life forms in the galaxy because we would have seen evidence of them.
See this wikipedia article. Yes nuclear power is profitable, but it seems not much more so than clean energy sources such as hydro power or wind. Note also that the companies you refer to are partially or fully owned by the state and so the investments and the risks will taken with tax payer money anyway. They play on different terms than normal private companies which is why nuclear power investments makes sense for them. And even in Sweden the waste disposal problem is still unsolved.
If you think there are no issues with the byproducts from the composites that are used for wind-turbines then you are fooling yourself.
Oh enlightened one, please enlighten us. No I don't think there are any issues with the byproducts from the composites from wind turbines. Turbines have been produced for over a century and no one has yet raised any complaint about "byproducts from composites from wind turbines." Or are you just hand waiving?
That's a bad analogy. It's like instead of the most beautiful woman you two slightly more ugly ones at once. Plus, you get to Bing and Yahoo! them instead of merely Googling. I could be a nice tradeoff.
It's both. Both the muscles in the eye and neuron path ways in the brain have not developed enough at birth for the baby to actually "see" anything in any meaningful way. Full eyesight has not developed before the baby is about two years old. Google has more information.
Considering that newborn babies are virtually blind at birth, the studies you refer to have me skeptical. Maybe babies one year of age has good enough vision to determine if a man has a well-developed jaw line, but three month old babies definitely don't.
Oh grow up. 95% of ALL computer users uses Windows.
What the Industry sometimes fails to realize is that it is IT people who make or break the products. From the majority of /, readers responses to all these Cloud Computing posts, the main concerns are reliability and security. Reliability may be solved soon, but I feel security will always be a neverending list of crackers and incompetence on the part of the cloud utility. Too many stories of losing usb keys, laptops, security passes, passwords, etc, on the part of large "no fail" companies that should know better. Most businesses will be very very adverse to giving up control of their data, and somehow I don't see that ever changing, even when they claim the risk is almost 0%.
When the cloud utility is Google, IBM, Amazon or some other mega corporation there is no way in hell that the security or reliability will be any worse than what a small company can muster on their own. The writing's been on the wall for a long time now, but many techies that love dealing with server infrastructure doesn't want to give up control of what they have, or aren't able to admit that someone else can do their job better. It is the same thinking which is why some people still insist on building their own servers by assembling the hardware components themselves and running Gentoo instead of buying something pre-packaged. Economies of scale doesn't work out very well for those.
Why not let the free market sort out the risk factor? Require each reactor to be insured in case of a catastrophic failure or a major accident. It wouldn't be to hard for an insurance company to quantify the risk. Let's say the worst that can happen is fallout that makes a whole city of 100,000 uninhabitable. What is the cost of rebuilding the city and providing shelter for the refugees? What is the geopolitical cost of al-qaeida getting hold of some nuclear waste which enables them to build a dirty bomb?
While the above scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, the payout to the insurance taker would be enormous so the insurance premiums has to be huge too. I believe that is the reason why almost no nuclear power plants are being built. When factoring in the insurance costs it just is not profitable anymore.
Not really. In the US people are much more car bound than in Europe. The average American spends roughly twice as much time per day in a car than a European. So naturally the resistance to laws that limit what you can do in your car is stronger in the US. It is for the same reason while drunk driving laws used to be much less strict than in Europe.
Why do you believe most banks sites requires javascript?
Wrong. The theoretical basis for the Rorschach test might be bogus, but a theoretical basis isn't needed: the test's validity can be empirically verified by correlating its results to other and unrelated tests (that's how the IQ tests were developed, comparing IQ test results with academic success). Which has, of course, happened. People need to do research to get research grants after all. So we get papers like this:
IQ tests are a pretty poor example as no study has found any relation between academic success and IQ. The book "Outliers: The Story of Success" references one very large study in which no relation at all between IQ and success was found (I forgot the name of the study). The available evidence works against your theory.
Did you read the link in my previous post? There are Judaist religious texts which say the opposite [wikipedia.org] - that Jews are not to return to Israel!
And the Koran says not to kill. Details like that has never stopped fundamentalists.
Have you considered that part of the difference is that Israel was responding (arguably with disproportionate force) to a military attack of a hostile terrorist group on its civilian population, while Iran cracked down on unarmed peaceful protestors after rigged elections? Can you truly not see the difference?
Which in one case ended up with a number of protestors locked up, in the other case with 1200 civilians killed. Can YOU truly not see the difference?