In London? The total package here is 150k for a senior dev and I recently had a developer poached away from me (after a verbal agreement after the interview) for £200k. The going rate for a node/python developer is at least £600 a day (£120k pa assuming 200 days) and a java/c# guy in a bank can be £750 plus (£150k pa assuming 200 days). I've been turned down by a grad for offering £60k a year.
Having said that, I won't hire people that live more than an hour away as I want them to keep a reasonable work life balance and that is not possible spending 3-4 hours on a train every day.
Them : I have a great customer...
Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
Alternatively, I have a team of 4 developers (including me) and our hr person is basically just a part time employee that processes payroll. I have neither the time or the aptitude to spend days trawling through LinkedIn or whatever you think I should be doing with my time instead of building my product. However I have a reasonable amount of cash and I'm willing to pay someone else to do the web trawling.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you...
Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
In an ideal world, absolutely. Certainly, most of the best candidates I've interviewed were people I've interviewed from hackernews. However, the worst CVs were also from there. In my experience, you want to give yourself the best openings to get the right candidate and that means recommendations, meet ups, hackernews and recruiters.
Them : We're hiring 17 great people for a project...
Me : Good luck! You're attempting to build a team without any real knowledge of how they will work together as a team. You're actually throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some will stick. If you're hiring 17 more or less random people for a project, most of those people are basically just desperate and if I were there, I'd have to do all their jobs for them. You'd be better off hiring two or three known assets and have them bring their own people in. In reality, if you're hiring 17 people at once, you should actually be outsourcing the project.
Any project that starts with hiring 17 people will probably never get delivered. A lot of these kind of postings, at least where I live (London), are for contract bodies at banks, which is generally well-paid but incredibly boring maintenance work, so take that or leave it
One of the problems with your theory that you should be able to build a large team from recommendations is this though. I have a team of 3 other people. They are the best people I have worked with over the last 3 or 4 years - that is why I brought them in. Who are they going to have worked with in that period that is outside of the same group? You need a way of bringing in new blood
Running a correlation on the numbers you gave (table 3) gives a correlation of -0.08 on gun ownership to total murders and -0.09 on gun ownerships to gun murders.
The first table (gun deaths) also includes suicides. This has an extremely high correlation with gun ownership (+0.69).
So no, gun violence is usually LOWER in areas with high gun ownership rates according to your own source. Please stop lying.
You realise, of course, that the Shah was the one that was put in power by the British and US agencies? The guy that did the modernising? The Iranian revolution was a counter to that by the local hardliners it wasn't engineered by the CIA.
This chart is thoroughly misleading, at least from my perspective. I live in the UK and my taxation is as follows:
Marginal Income Tax (includes National Insurance which is our Social Security) - 62%
Student Loan (which thankfully I have nearly paid off) - 10%
Sales tax - 20%
That means, assuming I spend 30% of my income on stuff I'm paying 78p in tax on every additional pound I earn.
That's well over twice the number suggested in the chart.
As a note, my US colleagues (who actually earn significantly more than me) pay less than half the effective tax rate that I do.
Since 1996 Australia's homicide rate has decreased by 39%. So far so good, maybe banning guns does work!
However, since 1996 USA's homicide rate has decreased by 40%. That btw, is without banning guns, as I'm sure you're aware.
100 children die every year in the US from guns (your source) and there are 310 million guns in the US.
700 children die every year in the US from swimming pools (source: CDC) and there are less than 10 million pools in the US.
Clearly therefore, a swimming pool is 217 times or 21600% more dangerous than a gun! A swimming pool also has no real crime prevention use!
Demonstrably, we must ban swimming pools long before we even talk about banning guns. I hope you will write to your congressman immediately, and demand the immediate banning swimming pools. It's easy for them to do, swimming pools don't even have constitutional protection!
His 2:1 is also not from Sussex University as he claimed (which is a reasonably reputable establishment) but from the University of brighton according to his own [a href=http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/Press%20Coverage/media3.gif]source[/a]. This is an ex-polytechnic - the equivalent of a community college in the US.
Its the difference between proper nouns and and improper nouns. The "the" indicates that your referring to a specific instance of a word that is not specific. It has nothing to do with the differing uses of Netherlands (where you are actually getting confused between the normal use of Holland and the Netherlands). Netherlands means low countries. The Netherlands is a specific use (the Kingdom of Netherlands). You don't say "the France" despite the existence of French Guiana do you?
Its not a hugely complicated grammatical construct, but it seems a little harsh to judge someones English, given that you, an English speaker natively, don't know the correct reasoning/application
That's not bad, I've seen worse, but I do this sort of thing professionally. You could streamline that down hugely just by working through it with a flow chart, maybe using references. Most of the vlookups are duplicated serveral times. Vlookups are also less efficient (and less useful) than match/offset combos. I bet right now I could break that down into four or five cells and have it running 100x faster. You guys should hire someone to do this professionally if this is the kind of thing that gets used for important calculations.
I'm not sure where this came from. Speaking as an oil trader, the spike was entirely the result of Boehner's speech offering a temporary debt increase. I do have several twitter feeds open to guage news sentiment, but the IDF's isnt one of them. Did the Israelis find a ton of oil i was otherwise unaware of?
50% tax is acceptable? OK lets run with that on the average income. Social security is 4.2%. State income tax is somewhere greater than 5% for the average income, depending on state. So right now, we are at a 60% tax merely on income. The average income is 36 thousand. That means you are taking home roughly $14400, on average. As a comparison, the poverty line is currently at a net income of 16k. So you have just have put the average American in poverty! Definitely mention that in your campaign speeches, I'd vote for you.
Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which raises prices past the point that its customers can pay will see itself bankrupt and broken in the very short term
Obviously they aren't spending enough on education because you seem unable to read breakdowns.
2011:
DoD budget: 740 billion
DoHS budget: 48 billion
The remainder of defense spending is on veteran affairs (141 billion). I think we can treat that as justified, even if you would have chosen there not to be veterans.
Total tax receipts: 2300 billion
Of which is for social security: 820 billion
Total spendable tax reciepts: 1480 billion
Total spending: 3600 billion
Of which is for social security: 725 billion
Total spend: 2875 billion.
Total deficit:1395 billion
So we can clearly see that the defense budge comes nowhere near to filling the deficit. We could get rid of it all, sell all of the equipment to the saudis and next year, there would still be a budget deficit of 610 billion dollars. That's two thirds of all income tax raised.
To cover that we could of course put the federal income tax up on the average income from 23% to 40% (while ignoring the laffer curve). Yeah I'm sure everyone would love that. Use your head. Yes the defense budget is bloated and out of control, but damn it, so is everything else!
Sorry, but this is simply misinformed. The UK would not have become a Nazi satellite. The terrain is extremly defensible given the military the UK had (strongest navy in the world, joint strongest air force). The UK would have been extremly unlikely to fall - the Germans never had the material advantage necessary to maintain the necessary naval advantage to create a beach head in the UK.
This is not to say that the US wasn't important - supplies of food certainly helped out and without them, the war would necessarily have degnerated into a stalemate (the UK being completly unable of pushing onto the continent with its weak army). However during this time, the Soviet Union would have recovered from the Purges and swept them off the map - the far more likely option would be a communist UK than a fascist one.
Don't flatter yourself. You helped the British, but Germany never had the capability of conquering the UK after they lost the battle of Britatin. Seelow was always a failure. Thanks for helping us keep out the Russians though, not to mention helping us keep some kind of edible food on the table.
Actually there is a very good reason for 120 fps. As you've pointed out, film is shot at all of 24fps, 20fps and 30 fps depending on the source. You will thus notice that 120fps is the first refresh rate that will succesfully show all 3 forms of video. That is why 120 fps is important. 240 fps is for 3d - each eye is broadcast the 120fps, interlaced. Please think about it a little before you go off on a poorly informed rant.
You do realise that while clock speeds have remained similar (and in fact decreased on average since the peak of the p4 days), speed has dramatically increased right?
Per clock instructions and core numbers have gone up massively. Try benching your shit-tastic p4 and then compare it to, say, an atom chip (which will also consume a microscopic amount of power in comparison), and prepare to be amazed.
Please, please upgrade your chip. Unless you use that chip to heat your house, you're simply wasting huge amounts of power. Your investment will be recouped in a matter of months, you will have a far better system and you will no longer be the major contributor to global warming.
If current copyright law was used by everyone at every point in time, the best possible outcome would be every piece of art ever produced would be under the control of giant media conglomerates. There would be no public domain, or any works derived from it. Can you think of a single modern work that wouldn't be ruled out as derivative? Cultural output would almost completely stop. The current system of copyright is thus clearly immoral and certainly incapable of attaining the goal to which it aspires.
If that was the case, it would still be completly illegal. You may have heard of a little thing called the Geneva Convention? It explicitly protects prisoners of war from things like torture.
Slashdot Mirror
In 2013 there were 73,505 firearm related injuries and 33,636 deaths.
64% of these are deliberately self inflicted, so:
When 107,000 US citizens are violently attacked with firearms every year, gun control is common sense.
Doesn't follow from this at all. I guess honesty is a little too much to ask.
The actual gun murder number is 8,775, out of the original 33,636 deaths. Stop lying and distorting statistics to support your agenda.
Actually misread that, you are right for the last couple of years.
Germany, yes, but according to the EU's website France contributes less.
https://english.eu.dk/en/faq/n...
In London? The total package here is 150k for a senior dev and I recently had a developer poached away from me (after a verbal agreement after the interview) for £200k. The going rate for a node/python developer is at least £600 a day (£120k pa assuming 200 days) and a java/c# guy in a bank can be £750 plus (£150k pa assuming 200 days). I've been turned down by a grad for offering £60k a year.
Having said that, I won't hire people that live more than an hour away as I want them to keep a reasonable work life balance and that is not possible spending 3-4 hours on a train every day.
Them : I have a great customer... Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
Alternatively, I have a team of 4 developers (including me) and our hr person is basically just a part time employee that processes payroll. I have neither the time or the aptitude to spend days trawling through LinkedIn or whatever you think I should be doing with my time instead of building my product. However I have a reasonable amount of cash and I'm willing to pay someone else to do the web trawling.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you... Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
In an ideal world, absolutely. Certainly, most of the best candidates I've interviewed were people I've interviewed from hackernews. However, the worst CVs were also from there. In my experience, you want to give yourself the best openings to get the right candidate and that means recommendations, meet ups, hackernews and recruiters.
Them : We're hiring 17 great people for a project... Me : Good luck! You're attempting to build a team without any real knowledge of how they will work together as a team. You're actually throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some will stick. If you're hiring 17 more or less random people for a project, most of those people are basically just desperate and if I were there, I'd have to do all their jobs for them. You'd be better off hiring two or three known assets and have them bring their own people in. In reality, if you're hiring 17 people at once, you should actually be outsourcing the project.
Any project that starts with hiring 17 people will probably never get delivered. A lot of these kind of postings, at least where I live (London), are for contract bodies at banks, which is generally well-paid but incredibly boring maintenance work, so take that or leave it
One of the problems with your theory that you should be able to build a large team from recommendations is this though. I have a team of 3 other people. They are the best people I have worked with over the last 3 or 4 years - that is why I brought them in. Who are they going to have worked with in that period that is outside of the same group? You need a way of bringing in new blood
That doesn't show you what you think it does.
Running a correlation on the numbers you gave (table 3) gives a correlation of -0.08 on gun ownership to total murders and -0.09 on gun ownerships to gun murders.
The first table (gun deaths) also includes suicides. This has an extremely high correlation with gun ownership (+0.69).
So no, gun violence is usually LOWER in areas with high gun ownership rates according to your own source. Please stop lying.
Did you make these statistics up? They are completely different from the ones listed on wikipedia above.
He's also at a university ranked ~200th in the world so he started with a lie right from the off.
Try being a cossack in the Soviet Union and then tell me what the difference is.
You realise, of course, that the Shah was the one that was put in power by the British and US agencies? The guy that did the modernising? The Iranian revolution was a counter to that by the local hardliners it wasn't engineered by the CIA.
This chart is thoroughly misleading, at least from my perspective. I live in the UK and my taxation is as follows:
Marginal Income Tax (includes National Insurance which is our Social Security) - 62%
Student Loan (which thankfully I have nearly paid off) - 10%
Sales tax - 20%
That means, assuming I spend 30% of my income on stuff I'm paying 78p in tax on every additional pound I earn.
That's well over twice the number suggested in the chart.
As a note, my US colleagues (who actually earn significantly more than me) pay less than half the effective tax rate that I do.
Only 3 screens? Awww http://i.imgur.com/slP7Eje.jpg
Since 1996 Australia's homicide rate has decreased by 39%. So far so good, maybe banning guns does work! However, since 1996 USA's homicide rate has decreased by 40%. That btw, is without banning guns, as I'm sure you're aware.
100 children die every year in the US from guns (your source) and there are 310 million guns in the US.
700 children die every year in the US from swimming pools (source: CDC) and there are less than 10 million pools in the US.
Clearly therefore, a swimming pool is 217 times or 21600% more dangerous than a gun! A swimming pool also has no real crime prevention use!
Demonstrably, we must ban swimming pools long before we even talk about banning guns. I hope you will write to your congressman immediately, and demand the immediate banning swimming pools. It's easy for them to do, swimming pools don't even have constitutional protection!
Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?!?!!
His 2:1 is also not from Sussex University as he claimed (which is a reasonably reputable establishment) but from the University of brighton according to his own [a href=http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/Press%20Coverage/media3.gif]source[/a]. This is an ex-polytechnic - the equivalent of a community college in the US.
Its the difference between proper nouns and and improper nouns. The "the" indicates that your referring to a specific instance of a word that is not specific. It has nothing to do with the differing uses of Netherlands (where you are actually getting confused between the normal use of Holland and the Netherlands). Netherlands means low countries. The Netherlands is a specific use (the Kingdom of Netherlands). You don't say "the France" despite the existence of French Guiana do you?
Its not a hugely complicated grammatical construct, but it seems a little harsh to judge someones English, given that you, an English speaker natively, don't know the correct reasoning/application
That's not bad, I've seen worse, but I do this sort of thing professionally. You could streamline that down hugely just by working through it with a flow chart, maybe using references. Most of the vlookups are duplicated serveral times. Vlookups are also less efficient (and less useful) than match/offset combos. I bet right now I could break that down into four or five cells and have it running 100x faster. You guys should hire someone to do this professionally if this is the kind of thing that gets used for important calculations.
I'm not sure where this came from. Speaking as an oil trader, the spike was entirely the result of Boehner's speech offering a temporary debt increase. I do have several twitter feeds open to guage news sentiment, but the IDF's isnt one of them. Did the Israelis find a ton of oil i was otherwise unaware of?
50% tax is acceptable? OK lets run with that on the average income. Social security is 4.2%. State income tax is somewhere greater than 5% for the average income, depending on state. So right now, we are at a 60% tax merely on income. The average income is 36 thousand. That means you are taking home roughly $14400, on average. As a comparison, the poverty line is currently at a net income of 16k. So you have just have put the average American in poverty! Definitely mention that in your campaign speeches, I'd vote for you.
Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which raises prices past the point that its customers can pay will see itself bankrupt and broken in the very short term
Obviously they aren't spending enough on education because you seem unable to read breakdowns.
2011:
DoD budget: 740 billion
DoHS budget: 48 billion
The remainder of defense spending is on veteran affairs (141 billion). I think we can treat that as justified, even if you would have chosen there not to be veterans.
Total tax receipts: 2300 billion
Of which is for social security: 820 billion
Total spendable tax reciepts: 1480 billion
Total spending: 3600 billion
Of which is for social security: 725 billion
Total spend: 2875 billion.
Total deficit :1395 billion
So we can clearly see that the defense budge comes nowhere near to filling the deficit. We could get rid of it all, sell all of the equipment to the saudis and next year, there would still be a budget deficit of 610 billion dollars. That's two thirds of all income tax raised.
To cover that we could of course put the federal income tax up on the average income from 23% to 40% (while ignoring the laffer curve). Yeah I'm sure everyone would love that. Use your head. Yes the defense budget is bloated and out of control, but damn it, so is everything else!
Sorry, but this is simply misinformed. The UK would not have become a Nazi satellite. The terrain is extremly defensible given the military the UK had (strongest navy in the world, joint strongest air force). The UK would have been extremly unlikely to fall - the Germans never had the material advantage necessary to maintain the necessary naval advantage to create a beach head in the UK.
This is not to say that the US wasn't important - supplies of food certainly helped out and without them, the war would necessarily have degnerated into a stalemate (the UK being completly unable of pushing onto the continent with its weak army). However during this time, the Soviet Union would have recovered from the Purges and swept them off the map - the far more likely option would be a communist UK than a fascist one.
Don't flatter yourself. You helped the British, but Germany never had the capability of conquering the UK after they lost the battle of Britatin. Seelow was always a failure. Thanks for helping us keep out the Russians though, not to mention helping us keep some kind of edible food on the table.
Actually there is a very good reason for 120 fps. As you've pointed out, film is shot at all of 24fps, 20fps and 30 fps depending on the source. You will thus notice that 120fps is the first refresh rate that will succesfully show all 3 forms of video. That is why 120 fps is important. 240 fps is for 3d - each eye is broadcast the 120fps, interlaced. Please think about it a little before you go off on a poorly informed rant.
You do realise that while clock speeds have remained similar (and in fact decreased on average since the peak of the p4 days), speed has dramatically increased right? Per clock instructions and core numbers have gone up massively. Try benching your shit-tastic p4 and then compare it to, say, an atom chip (which will also consume a microscopic amount of power in comparison), and prepare to be amazed. Please, please upgrade your chip. Unless you use that chip to heat your house, you're simply wasting huge amounts of power. Your investment will be recouped in a matter of months, you will have a far better system and you will no longer be the major contributor to global warming.
If current copyright law was used by everyone at every point in time, the best possible outcome would be every piece of art ever produced would be under the control of giant media conglomerates. There would be no public domain, or any works derived from it. Can you think of a single modern work that wouldn't be ruled out as derivative? Cultural output would almost completely stop. The current system of copyright is thus clearly immoral and certainly incapable of attaining the goal to which it aspires.
If that was the case, it would still be completly illegal. You may have heard of a little thing called the Geneva Convention? It explicitly protects prisoners of war from things like torture.