"Honestly what do you think would happen to the US if china decided to stop exporting goods. What if all the asian countries got together and stopped exporting goods? No more electronics thats for sure."
Maybe not a whole lot. I mean, we have plently already. Our trade deficit would plummet. People would probably save a lot more. Oh, yeah, and a lot of Asian economies would implode. Which means it probably wouldn't happen.
I'd be more worried about Asian countries threatening to stop buying US treasury bonds or otherwise investing in the US. That could be bad. At least in the short run.
"Why smuggle them in during unrest, when all transports are carefully monitored..."
Thanks, I needed a laugh. If you think all transports would be carefully monitored in times of unrest, ever, I some land to sell you. That would require people and time. Both costs money, to the taxpayer and business. Not going to happen.
The only reason a ship/vehicle/plan would be closely monitored is if we had intelligence indicating it should.
As to your other ideas, yeah, you are probably just paranoid. Happens to everyone from time to time:)
How exactly do you secure the border with Mexico and Canada (and the coasts too)? And not go bankrupt?
How do you propose to force business to make stuff in this country?
In regard to nuclear weapons. We would prefer nonproliferation. But that is not realistic. But we would really prefer that countries that don't like us not have them. Pakistan and India certainly are not our best allies. But they have them, so you deal with them. And, btw, India has probably had nuclear weapons for over 30 years. The proliferation is part of the reason we are testing antiballistic missile weapons. Not a cure all. But better than nothing.
There are always going to be problems. We used to worry about the Soviet Union nuking us. You deal with them the best you can and move on.
"I've nothing against americans, just don't force your culture on others."
I don't believe we do. Of course your definition of force and mine may be different. Good or bad, a heck of a lot of people want to be like the US. And that really scares a lot of people in power.
Ultimately the media gives the people what they want. Unfortunately, it isn't quality. As they say, there is no accounting for taste....
"Education is not about hard work, it is about understanding."
Really? So I don't have to work hard, just understand it? Well, for a lot of people, the hard work leads to understanding. Much of what is done in education (and life) requires hard work more than innate intelligence. Those who work hard will almost always do better. To really generalize, a hard working person of average intelligence will probably do better than a bright lazy person.
Interesting points. To generalize to students of any nationality-if you spend a lot of time relative to others in the lab (or elsewhere) you had better produce more or better stuff. Otherwise that strongly implies you aren't very good at what you do. The students who impressed me the most who could do their work, be employed, and have a social life. THAT was impressive. And rare.
A bit more correct would be the statement "What mom and pop THINK they need is Quickbooks". How many of those programs are really used to any significant extent? And what couldn't be accomplished by GNUCash? I don't really know.
All I really know is that I certainly WANT the newest version of Photoshop but frankly PS LE 5.0 does far more than I need. If this applies to me, it certainly applies to your "typical" computer user. It's just that Photoshop is THE image editing software so everybody NEEDS it. Even if they wouldn't use the full capabilities of an etch-a-sketch....
"I now interview candidates weekly, and I am completely underwhelmed with the quality of interview candidates we have been getting the last few years."
Do you ever consider one of the reasons for the poor quality of candidates may be staring you in the mirror? I don't mean you personally, but perhaps the company. Or perhaps you have a different viewpoint than you did years ago (more knowledge, maturity, etc). Remember the one constant in this process is the company doing the hiring. Are you doing everything you can to get the best candidates and just not the ones that get past the gatekeepers?
"The best candidates we seem to get are coming from other companies and already have experience..."
You know, I think you just solved your problem. You obviously don't want inexperienced employees. Your company isn't set up to deal with them for whatever reason. So why waste your time interviewing them?
"Lying on a resume? You expect me to trust someone who makes his first impression by lying to me?"
Really? Like the companies that say "If you meet our qualifications we will get back to you". Yeah, right.... There is a simple reason why so many people lie on resumes. It works. Sure, you may flame out in the interview, but there is no way of getting a job without one. Resumes will become honest documents when job postings become the same.
And remember it is only lying if your intent is to deceive. They may be operating under a different definition of an "expert". The term "expert" has become the equivalent of "knowledgable about"-in other words, it is greatly overused by job seekers and job posters. Precious few employers want, require, and/or are truly willing to pay for an expert when they include that statement.
"Either people weren't listening (likely) or they severely overestimated their C++ coding abilities (just as likely, probably more so). I would hear "8" an awful lot."
Is that really surprising? I mean, if someone came into an interview and said they were average or below average would they expect to have a chance in hell of getting the job? Resumes and interviews are more a marketing vehicle than a way to determine quality. Heck, you are basically told to NEVER put yourself in a negative light during this process. So why expect otherwise?
People may also not have a good idea of their skills compared to other people. Or to what is needed in your job. The second is ENTIRELY the companies fault. If they want an entry level person, hire an entry level person. Post an accurate description of what is wanted/needed. Or don't complain. I rarely see useful or accurate job descriptions.
Finally, if you want to hire known quantities, then you have to use interns/co-ops. They will know you, you will know them. Because in the end, a one page resume and even extensive interviews are fairly worthless....
"I've gotten angry calls. You wouldn't believe how irate recruiters and HR people are if you don't meet their artificial (and often silly) prerequisites."
Well, at least you are getting calls:) Frankly, if they are willing to call you to chastise you for applying while not meeting the requirements, they must be desperate. Others would just ignore you (real easy to hit the delete key). Too bad they won't get a clue....
"If MS really does hire the "best minds", why is it that they cannot write good software?"
I wouldn't call their software bad. It really isn't any worse than a lot of other stuff out there. But you make a very good point. Hiring the best minds might be great for a research institution. But a business needs more than creative people to create excellent products. Imagine hiring great chefs to run all aspects of a restaurant. One suspects the dining experience might not be the greatest....
"You would rather believe Microsoft stifles innovation and hires idiots."
You know, I really want to believe that MS hires very bright and creative people. I imagine they do. I suspect they also hire very bright and creative marketers too. The goal of the people who run the corporation is profit. Guess who wins.
MS products are good enough. And certainly not innovative.
"A few minutes is a lifetime (or the end of one) when someone's not breathing."
So, how if the FCC going to mandate that the service be up 24/7? Do they do that for landlines? For cell phones? Because let me assure you ALL phones can fail for some reason at some point.
Look, she obviously didn't know the local police/medical numbers. Sounds like she just wants someone to blame that isn't her...
If someones life depended on it, I imagine I could get access to a phone before they suffered brain damage due to lack of oxygen. It takes more than a couple of minutes. Assuming I was near someones residence. You either break in and use the phone or the commotion brings aid. I mean, what's a little property damage to save someones life?
"If you maintain a totally horrendous credit rating, no one can steal your identity..."
No, they DON'T WANT to steal your identity. And if they steal it by accident, maybe they will return it.:) Subtle but important difference. Hmm, maybe I'll test the theory....
"Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine."
Ahh, yes, but we wouldn't want you to become addicted. Thank the fucking DEA. Most doctors are deathly afraid to prescribe medications that work because some become addicted. But if you need them, you don't become addicted. You tend to be really screwed if you have a high pain tolerance....
Ah, yes. One of the primary reasons to have insurance is to get the "discount" rate".
Ever wonder why there are so many bankruptcies due to medical bills? Of course, I imagine they would cut you a discount if you agreed to pay. After all, they could get nothing....
On a side note, I was constantly amazed at the number of students who said my (former) University's health care was expensive and sucked. They obviously never had to pay for it themselves-heck it was better (and cheaper) than some of the STATE worker health care....
Yep. Clinical research is never going to find all of the problems. At least while keeping drugs somewhat cost effective.
And don't forget, drugs tend to be tested on white, young (working adults) and healthy people. After all, you don't want people to DIE in your clinical trials. That would be BAD. The result is less than useful information. Especially if you are different. And the really wierd side effects tend not to happen to the "normal" people. Of course, if you aren't normal, you'll find out:)
"Doctors are like help desk technicians - you come to them with a problem, they have tests they can perform, and in the end they try to help you fix whatever's ailing you."
Interesting. But they also have an advantage. Probably why they intentionally or unintentionally blow off a lot of patients. Most (or at least a heck of a lot of) people get better on their own. No matter what they do. I have found this to be a problem with serious medical conditions. Did X fix the problem? Or did the problem just abate on its own? Until it returns, you never know....
That's also the reason that "treatments" that have no scientific reason to work seem to work. They don't. Some patients just get better. And if they think X did it, there is no way to convince them otherwise....
"It depends on how obscure your condition is, and how much your doctor is a specialist in the field."
I second that. For the chronic medical conditions that I have, GP's are worthless. Well, except for the fact that they write prescriptions. They have no useful information to add. Even "specialists", such as neurologists know less than I do. I would have to go to pretty rare doctors to find any that had any useful information.
Remember, the best experts will admit that they don't know everything. The best patients will realize that doctors have a lot of training and experience. And the field of medicine isn't unlike that of programming. There are a hell of a lot of bad practioners. Also, medicine is like a hell of a lot of other fields, there is a basic flowchart. You assume the simple things first then move on from there. Which sucks if you happen to be one of the freaks....
"I always get a kick out of employees who constantly complain about no loyality left in the work place, and how bad they are always treated."
Well, as near as I can tell, the employers expect loyalty but often offer very little in return. If you want me to work extra hours, go "above and beyond", etc. then I expect the same courtesy in return. It is rarely there (and the exceptions pretty much prove the rule.....) For instance, an employer can generally fire me without notice but if I don't give notice, I am seen as unprofessional. Those are valid things to complain about.
Granted, those who complain the loudest are often the most worthless employees. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point.
"A paper came out shortly after the Nov '04 election showing how exit poll data differend from official tallies in Florida, Ohio & Pennsylvania...."
Big effing deal. Using opinion polls to prove or imply election fraud is hard in the best of cases. It is worthless when the actual differences are small and the goal of the organizations (media) is profit (or at least minimizing cost) above accuracy.
After all, marketing and advertising is based in large part on opinion polls and we know how that never fails....
"Funny how Diebold ATMs print a paper reciept and have a paper tape inside the machine to physically record every single transaction for both the customer and the bank."
Hate to break this to you, but unless it's changed, the paper receipt isn't designed to record the transaction for the bank. They don't get a paper copy. Unless they print out the electronic record at the bank....
And I suspect it wouldn't hold much weight in a dispute-after all, it doesn't record anything important about the transaction. I mean, we THINK it does, but it doesn't really. I have seen a customer get a receipt for four pieces of paper instead of $20 dollar bills. The machine happily printed a receipt with date, transaction information, number, etc.... It's only when they are $80 short when balancing that they can determine the transaction failed with some degree of certainty.:)
The use of a paper receipt also adds cost to the machine-mechanical things break, people have to restock it, etc. Many machines give you the option to decline a receipt for that very reason.
Slashdot Mirror
"Honestly what do you think would happen to the US if china decided to stop exporting goods. What if all the asian countries got together and stopped exporting goods? No more electronics thats for sure."
Maybe not a whole lot. I mean, we have plently already. Our trade deficit would plummet. People would probably save a lot more. Oh, yeah, and a lot of Asian economies would implode. Which means it probably wouldn't happen.
I'd be more worried about Asian countries threatening to stop buying US treasury bonds or otherwise investing in the US. That could be bad. At least in the short run.
"Why smuggle them in during unrest, when all transports are carefully monitored..."
:)
Thanks, I needed a laugh. If you think all transports would be carefully monitored in times of unrest, ever, I some land to sell you. That would require people and time. Both costs money, to the taxpayer and business. Not going to happen.
The only reason a ship/vehicle/plan would be closely monitored is if we had intelligence indicating it should.
As to your other ideas, yeah, you are probably just paranoid. Happens to everyone from time to time
Don't forget, it may also misfire resulting in the deaths of many former presidents in southern California :)
No, I don't think they are. Realistic, yes.
How exactly do you secure the border with Mexico and Canada (and the coasts too)? And not go bankrupt?
How do you propose to force business to make stuff in this country?
In regard to nuclear weapons. We would prefer nonproliferation. But that is not realistic. But we would really prefer that countries that don't like us not have them. Pakistan and India certainly are not our best allies. But they have them, so you deal with them. And, btw, India has probably had nuclear weapons for over 30 years. The proliferation is part of the reason we are testing antiballistic missile weapons. Not a cure all. But better than nothing.
There are always going to be problems. We used to worry about the Soviet Union nuking us. You deal with them the best you can and move on.
"I've nothing against americans, just don't force your culture on others."
I don't believe we do. Of course your definition of force and mine may be different. Good or bad, a heck of a lot of people want to be like the US. And that really scares a lot of people in power.
Ultimately the media gives the people what they want. Unfortunately, it isn't quality. As they say, there is no accounting for taste....
"Education is not about hard work, it is about understanding."
Really? So I don't have to work hard, just understand it? Well, for a lot of people, the hard work leads to understanding. Much of what is done in education (and life) requires hard work more than innate intelligence. Those who work hard will almost always do better. To really generalize, a hard working person of average intelligence will probably do better than a bright lazy person.
Interesting points. To generalize to students of any nationality-if you spend a lot of time relative to others in the lab (or elsewhere) you had better produce more or better stuff. Otherwise that strongly implies you aren't very good at what you do. The students who impressed me the most who could do their work, be employed, and have a social life. THAT was impressive. And rare.
"What mom and pop want is Quickbooks."
A bit more correct would be the statement "What mom and pop THINK they need is Quickbooks". How many of those programs are really used to any significant extent? And what couldn't be accomplished by GNUCash? I don't really know.
All I really know is that I certainly WANT the newest version of Photoshop but frankly PS LE 5.0 does far more than I need. If this applies to me, it certainly applies to your "typical" computer user. It's just that Photoshop is THE image editing software so everybody NEEDS it. Even if they wouldn't use the full capabilities of an etch-a-sketch....
"I now interview candidates weekly, and I am completely underwhelmed with the quality of interview candidates we have been getting the last few years."
Do you ever consider one of the reasons for the poor quality of candidates may be staring you in the mirror? I don't mean you personally, but perhaps the company. Or perhaps you have a different viewpoint than you did years ago (more knowledge, maturity, etc). Remember the one constant in this process is the company doing the hiring. Are you doing everything you can to get the best candidates and just not the ones that get past the gatekeepers?
"The best candidates we seem to get are coming from other companies and already have experience..."
You know, I think you just solved your problem. You obviously don't want inexperienced employees. Your company isn't set up to deal with them for whatever reason. So why waste your time interviewing them?
"Lying on a resume? You expect me to trust someone who makes his first impression by lying to me?"
Really? Like the companies that say "If you meet our qualifications we will get back to you". Yeah, right.... There is a simple reason why so many people lie on resumes. It works. Sure, you may flame out in the interview, but there is no way of getting a job without one. Resumes will become honest documents when job postings become the same.
And remember it is only lying if your intent is to deceive. They may be operating under a different definition of an "expert". The term "expert" has become the equivalent of "knowledgable about"-in other words, it is greatly overused by job seekers and job posters. Precious few employers want, require, and/or are truly willing to pay for an expert when they include that statement.
"Either people weren't listening (likely) or they severely overestimated their C++ coding abilities (just as likely, probably more so). I would hear "8" an awful lot."
Is that really surprising? I mean, if someone came into an interview and said they were average or below average would they expect to have a chance in hell of getting the job? Resumes and interviews are more a marketing vehicle than a way to determine quality. Heck, you are basically told to NEVER put yourself in a negative light during this process. So why expect otherwise?
People may also not have a good idea of their skills compared to other people. Or to what is needed in your job. The second is ENTIRELY the companies fault. If they want an entry level person, hire an entry level person. Post an accurate description of what is wanted/needed. Or don't complain. I rarely see useful or accurate job descriptions.
Finally, if you want to hire known quantities, then you have to use interns/co-ops. They will know you, you will know them. Because in the end, a one page resume and even extensive interviews are fairly worthless....
"I've gotten angry calls. You wouldn't believe how irate recruiters and HR people are if you don't meet their artificial (and often silly) prerequisites."
:) Frankly, if they are willing to call you to chastise you for applying while not meeting the requirements, they must be desperate. Others would just ignore you (real easy to hit the delete key). Too bad they won't get a clue....
Well, at least you are getting calls
"If MS really does hire the "best minds", why is it that they cannot write good software?"
I wouldn't call their software bad. It really isn't any worse than a lot of other stuff out there. But you make a very good point. Hiring the best minds might be great for a research institution. But a business needs more than creative people to create excellent products. Imagine hiring great chefs to run all aspects of a restaurant. One suspects the dining experience might not be the greatest....
"You would rather believe Microsoft stifles innovation and hires idiots."
You know, I really want to believe that MS hires very bright and creative people. I imagine they do. I suspect they also hire very bright and creative marketers too. The goal of the people who run the corporation is profit. Guess who wins.
MS products are good enough. And certainly not innovative.
"A few minutes is a lifetime (or the end of one) when someone's not breathing."
So, how if the FCC going to mandate that the service be up 24/7? Do they do that for landlines? For cell phones? Because let me assure you ALL phones can fail for some reason at some point.
Look, she obviously didn't know the local police/medical numbers. Sounds like she just wants someone to blame that isn't her...
If someones life depended on it, I imagine I could get access to a phone before they suffered brain damage due to lack of oxygen. It takes more than a couple of minutes. Assuming I was near someones residence. You either break in and use the phone or the commotion brings aid. I mean, what's a little property damage to save someones life?
"If you maintain a totally horrendous credit rating, no one can steal your identity..."
:) Subtle but important difference. Hmm, maybe I'll test the theory....
No, they DON'T WANT to steal your identity. And if they steal it by accident, maybe they will return it.
"Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine."
Ahh, yes, but we wouldn't want you to become addicted. Thank the fucking DEA. Most doctors are deathly afraid to prescribe medications that work because some become addicted. But if you need them, you don't become addicted. You tend to be really screwed if you have a high pain tolerance....
Ah, yes. One of the primary reasons to have insurance is to get the "discount" rate".
Ever wonder why there are so many bankruptcies due to medical bills? Of course, I imagine they would cut you a discount if you agreed to pay. After all, they could get nothing....
On a side note, I was constantly amazed at the number of students who said my (former) University's health care was expensive and sucked. They obviously never had to pay for it themselves-heck it was better (and cheaper) than some of the STATE worker health care....
Yep. Clinical research is never going to find all of the problems. At least while keeping drugs somewhat cost effective.
:)
And don't forget, drugs tend to be tested on white, young (working adults) and healthy people. After all, you don't want people to DIE in your clinical trials. That would be BAD. The result is less than useful information. Especially if you are different. And the really wierd side effects tend not to happen to the "normal" people. Of course, if you aren't normal, you'll find out
"Doctors are like help desk technicians - you come to them with a problem, they have tests they can perform, and in the end they try to help you fix whatever's ailing you."
Interesting. But they also have an advantage. Probably why they intentionally or unintentionally blow off a lot of patients. Most (or at least a heck of a lot of) people get better on their own. No matter what they do. I have found this to be a problem with serious medical conditions. Did X fix the problem? Or did the problem just abate on its own? Until it returns, you never know....
That's also the reason that "treatments" that have no scientific reason to work seem to work. They don't. Some patients just get better. And if they think X did it, there is no way to convince them otherwise....
"It depends on how obscure your condition is, and how much your doctor is a specialist in the field."
I second that. For the chronic medical conditions that I have, GP's are worthless. Well, except for the fact that they write prescriptions. They have no useful information to add. Even "specialists", such as neurologists know less than I do. I would have to go to pretty rare doctors to find any that had any useful information.
Remember, the best experts will admit that they don't know everything. The best patients will realize that doctors have a lot of training and experience. And the field of medicine isn't unlike that of programming. There are a hell of a lot of bad practioners. Also, medicine is like a hell of a lot of other fields, there is a basic flowchart. You assume the simple things first then move on from there. Which sucks if you happen to be one of the freaks....
"I always get a kick out of employees who constantly complain about no loyality left in the work place, and how bad they are always treated."
Well, as near as I can tell, the employers expect loyalty but often offer very little in return. If you want me to work extra hours, go "above and beyond", etc. then I expect the same courtesy in return. It is rarely there (and the exceptions pretty much prove the rule.....) For instance, an employer can generally fire me without notice but if I don't give notice, I am seen as unprofessional. Those are valid things to complain about.
Granted, those who complain the loudest are often the most worthless employees. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point.
"Just so that you know, in some large IT companies, you don't have to be the asshole - that is exactly how everybody is treated."
And the amusing part is, if you were really important and a critical task depended upon you, they just sabotaged themselves....
"A paper came out shortly after the Nov '04 election showing how exit poll data differend from official tallies in Florida, Ohio & Pennsylvania...."
Big effing deal. Using opinion polls to prove or imply election fraud is hard in the best of cases. It is worthless when the actual differences are small and the goal of the organizations (media) is profit (or at least minimizing cost) above accuracy.
After all, marketing and advertising is based in large part on opinion polls and we know how that never fails....
"Funny how Diebold ATMs print a paper reciept and have a paper tape inside the machine to physically record every single transaction for both the customer and the bank."
:)
Hate to break this to you, but unless it's changed, the paper receipt isn't designed to record the transaction for the bank. They don't get a paper copy. Unless they print out the electronic record at the bank....
And I suspect it wouldn't hold much weight in a dispute-after all, it doesn't record anything important about the transaction. I mean, we THINK it does, but it doesn't really. I have seen a customer get a receipt for four pieces of paper instead of $20 dollar bills. The machine happily printed a receipt with date, transaction information, number, etc.... It's only when they are $80 short when balancing that they can determine the transaction failed with some degree of certainty.
The use of a paper receipt also adds cost to the machine-mechanical things break, people have to restock it, etc. Many machines give you the option to decline a receipt for that very reason.