Oh, I think the chance of EuroBitcoin accounts happening is quite small, but still higher than the 0.0% chance of FDIC-Insured Bitcoin accounts.
Very very few of those banks actually fail. Instead, the FDIC says "things don't look that good right now for your bank, so we're just taking it from you and giving the customers and assets to someone we like better" long before the bank actually fails. It works pretty well as a system, and keeps the FDIC payouts quite low (you can see in that list only a couple of banks that failed with "no acquirer"). However, it's a system ripe for government abuse as well - for now the government still merely aspires to be as abusive as banks, so it's a good system.
The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search.
Everyone's guilty of something, and if the police can't pick something on the spot, you probably look like someone who was guilty of something. If the cops really want to arrest you, they'll find an excuse.
Police are trained to use lies and intimidation to get their way.
Well, that's hardly surprising: the lesson for a decade now has been "don't run what most people run". If Win8 had been successful, this would have been an IE11 exploit. In a few years, it will all be Chrome exploits.
Was it a shotgun wedding? (I grew up in the Appalachians, so that's not a rhetorical question.) If not, yeah, choose your life partners carefully. And like the second half of that sentence said "sometimes life kicks you in the fork". (The housing bubble was quite predictable, BTW, though sadly many of the consequences couldn't be avoided even if you did see it coming.)
This is not 2004. IE 11 is fine, as a browser, with the main problem being that adblock isn't free. What's surprising is that IE would be targeted when Chrome has the market share now (you can buy vulnerabilities for old versions of any browser, so attackers generally pick what will affect the most people).
Maybe this is Chrome's auto-update-without-asking paying off? IE does that now (finally!), but not across major versions: hopefully this will be an object lesson.
Another possibility is that you need to hire people and train them yourself so that they have the qualifications you need.
Did you read his post? Like every company I've ever worked for, he's looking for people who are "smart and willing to learn".
In software development, for entry level positions, you already have to give up the notion that a new hire will have any useful technical skills. You look for people who demonstrate that they can code at all and who seem interested in the work and eager to learn.
And it is hard to find people (which may or may not indicate a shortage): a software-related degree is only marginally predictive that someone will show the most basic competence, but you have to screen student resumes on something to get the density of good candidates up high enough to be worth the time required for phone screenings.
Raising how much you pay is a great way to get people who want to work for you.
For engineers this only works if your pay is subpar. Once you're paying well, respecting you people and treating them like professionals goes much farther in hiring and retention than stacking up pay (and is cheaper, too).
The "center of mass" for software development would just be elsewhere. The companies form where it's easiest to start a company and find people. For a long time that was Silly Valley. I'm not sure how long that will continue, though.
You have to just accept that your first job will be a crap job, unless you're quite lucky with your interships. My first coding job paid less than you can hire developers for in India today (well, inflation-adjusted it's about the same). 3 years later I was making twice that. That ramp is quite common in professional jobs.
It's not about how much you make this year! (That being said, avoid unpaid internships if at all possibl: entry-level pay, not scam pay.)
There was a strong societal expectation that feudal lords would take care of their serfs. The main thing serfs lacked was freedom, and the "lords" and their staff could get away with fairly arbitrary and capricious treatment (though the church helped limit that, and vice versa). But it was definitely expected that the lord help feed his serfs through hard winters, provide physical protection against bandits/invaders and so on. Not an equitable arrangement, but there were obligations going both ways.
Not that it's relevant to the discussion at hand - there's nothing morally objectionable to paying a strange foreign, brown-skinned person instead of a right-thinking American. My greed wants the job to go to the American, to be sure, but that's not a moral argument.
Aside from the whole H1-B fiasco, immigrants become citizens. Those jobs, eventually, are thus filled by citizens.
I'm happy to compete with anyone who lives near me, regardless of citizenship status - we all have the same costs of living to deal with. Far, far better competing with immigrants that the same person, doing the same job in his home country, where $30k is a great professional salary.
The more degrees you have, the less you will make (outside of public sector jobs). Isn't that common knowledge? With a few year's experience, and hiding all advanced degrees on the resume, she should be fine. pharma research, especially, is a nice top-dollar field (as engineers go), with much the same deal as software development (so you do have to go where the jobs are).
Well, we all face the results of our life choices, to be sure, and sometimes life kicks you in the fork. And it's unlikely one is set for life in his 40s as an engineer. But I don't care about small changes in pay, or the risk that my job will vanish and I'll have to find a new one. If you're seriously living paycheck-to-paycheck in middle age as a salaried professional, man, you screwed up, and you need serious changes in the way you live.
It's much more likely that banks will offer uninsured BTC-denominated accounts, giving you safety from theft but not from bank collapse. Banks have a history of doing this with foreign currencies to avoid reserve requirements. Back when inflation was 10+% and US savings accounts were legally capped at 5.25%, you could put your money in a European bank and get real interest, but no insurance: "Eurodollars". That sort of account is called "EuroFoo" now, so EuroBitcoin accounts really wouldn't be all that different.
The upside of that arrangement is: it's still a regulated bank! Banks fail far less frequently than home-made BtC exchanges in recent decades. (OTOH, when the sovereign debt bubble bursts: look out below!)
No, that's really not what "inciting to violence" is. I think people who object to the restriction are imagining cases where the law simply doesn't apply.
Stupid, yes, but illegal? I don't see it. The congress is free to give money to whomever it feels like, but in return they stand for election every 2 years. The simple fact is, the voters put up with it, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I think there are so many people thinking "as long as my government check comes every month, I'm no going to rock the boat" that it will end in tears.
"Many years ago, you came to me for help and I said you would owe me a favor. This is the favor. Someone needs do make an example of Bob." Not a direct quid pro quo, but still.
"Won't somebody rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Sometimes you only need to make the desire clear.
"These Jews own the justice system, and the only way we'll get justice is if we take it ourselves. Those smug bastards are just down the block. Who's with me!"
"I saw Jim plain as day, ogling my daughter, and now shes afraid to even go outside" she said, "ain't one of you man enough to find a rope and a lamp post?" There was a time in the South where those words would kill a man as sure as pulling a trigger.
"Fighting words" are one of the specific exceptions to free speech in US law. It doesn't come up much these days, because people are more restrained, but it used to be a big deal. Saying something that "everyone knows" will provoke violence means, legally, you started the fight, even though the other guy threw the first punch.
You also don't have the right to speak though a bullhorn outside your neighbor's window at 2 AM. It's not the content of the speech, it's the time, place, and manner.
Again again, this isn't about publication and censorship, but only about very direct speech -> violence here and now.
Wow, really, not both? Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way. Sounds iffy to me. I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them (hmmm, when I put it that way, I guess that's feudalism, so it has been tried!).
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Again, this isn't about publication and censorship, it's about something far more direct.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I think the chance of EuroBitcoin accounts happening is quite small, but still higher than the 0.0% chance of FDIC-Insured Bitcoin accounts.
Very very few of those banks actually fail. Instead, the FDIC says "things don't look that good right now for your bank, so we're just taking it from you and giving the customers and assets to someone we like better" long before the bank actually fails. It works pretty well as a system, and keeps the FDIC payouts quite low (you can see in that list only a couple of banks that failed with "no acquirer"). However, it's a system ripe for government abuse as well - for now the government still merely aspires to be as abusive as banks, so it's a good system.
The person who was arrested was arrested in connection with a street robbery, not for denying to the search.
Everyone's guilty of something, and if the police can't pick something on the spot, you probably look like someone who was guilty of something. If the cops really want to arrest you, they'll find an excuse.
Police are trained to use lies and intimidation to get their way.
Well, that's hardly surprising: the lesson for a decade now has been "don't run what most people run". If Win8 had been successful, this would have been an IE11 exploit. In a few years, it will all be Chrome exploits.
Was it a shotgun wedding? (I grew up in the Appalachians, so that's not a rhetorical question.) If not, yeah, choose your life partners carefully. And like the second half of that sentence said "sometimes life kicks you in the fork". (The housing bubble was quite predictable, BTW, though sadly many of the consequences couldn't be avoided even if you did see it coming.)
This is not 2004. IE 11 is fine, as a browser, with the main problem being that adblock isn't free. What's surprising is that IE would be targeted when Chrome has the market share now (you can buy vulnerabilities for old versions of any browser, so attackers generally pick what will affect the most people).
Maybe this is Chrome's auto-update-without-asking paying off? IE does that now (finally!), but not across major versions: hopefully this will be an object lesson.
Another possibility is that you need to hire people and train them yourself so that they have the qualifications you need.
Did you read his post? Like every company I've ever worked for, he's looking for people who are "smart and willing to learn".
In software development, for entry level positions, you already have to give up the notion that a new hire will have any useful technical skills. You look for people who demonstrate that they can code at all and who seem interested in the work and eager to learn.
And it is hard to find people (which may or may not indicate a shortage): a software-related degree is only marginally predictive that someone will show the most basic competence, but you have to screen student resumes on something to get the density of good candidates up high enough to be worth the time required for phone screenings.
Raising how much you pay is a great way to get people who want to work for you.
For engineers this only works if your pay is subpar. Once you're paying well, respecting you people and treating them like professionals goes much farther in hiring and retention than stacking up pay (and is cheaper, too).
The "center of mass" for software development would just be elsewhere. The companies form where it's easiest to start a company and find people. For a long time that was Silly Valley. I'm not sure how long that will continue, though.
You have to just accept that your first job will be a crap job, unless you're quite lucky with your interships. My first coding job paid less than you can hire developers for in India today (well, inflation-adjusted it's about the same). 3 years later I was making twice that. That ramp is quite common in professional jobs.
It's not about how much you make this year! (That being said, avoid unpaid internships if at all possibl: entry-level pay, not scam pay.)
We were talking about engineers. What's an "analyst"? Sounds like someone with a business degree.
There was a strong societal expectation that feudal lords would take care of their serfs. The main thing serfs lacked was freedom, and the "lords" and their staff could get away with fairly arbitrary and capricious treatment (though the church helped limit that, and vice versa). But it was definitely expected that the lord help feed his serfs through hard winters, provide physical protection against bandits/invaders and so on. Not an equitable arrangement, but there were obligations going both ways.
Not that it's relevant to the discussion at hand - there's nothing morally objectionable to paying a strange foreign, brown-skinned person instead of a right-thinking American. My greed wants the job to go to the American, to be sure, but that's not a moral argument.
No, U6 is specifically the one that counts underemployment! The real numbers are bad enough without "made up shadow numbers".
Aside from the whole H1-B fiasco, immigrants become citizens. Those jobs, eventually, are thus filled by citizens.
I'm happy to compete with anyone who lives near me, regardless of citizenship status - we all have the same costs of living to deal with. Far, far better competing with immigrants that the same person, doing the same job in his home country, where $30k is a great professional salary.
The more degrees you have, the less you will make (outside of public sector jobs). Isn't that common knowledge? With a few year's experience, and hiding all advanced degrees on the resume, she should be fine. pharma research, especially, is a nice top-dollar field (as engineers go), with much the same deal as software development (so you do have to go where the jobs are).
Well, we all face the results of our life choices, to be sure, and sometimes life kicks you in the fork. And it's unlikely one is set for life in his 40s as an engineer. But I don't care about small changes in pay, or the risk that my job will vanish and I'll have to find a new one. If you're seriously living paycheck-to-paycheck in middle age as a salaried professional, man, you screwed up, and you need serious changes in the way you live.
It's much more likely that banks will offer uninsured BTC-denominated accounts, giving you safety from theft but not from bank collapse. Banks have a history of doing this with foreign currencies to avoid reserve requirements. Back when inflation was 10+% and US savings accounts were legally capped at 5.25%, you could put your money in a European bank and get real interest, but no insurance: "Eurodollars". That sort of account is called "EuroFoo" now, so EuroBitcoin accounts really wouldn't be all that different.
The upside of that arrangement is: it's still a regulated bank! Banks fail far less frequently than home-made BtC exchanges in recent decades. (OTOH, when the sovereign debt bubble bursts: look out below!)
"Giving orders" is still a war crime, though, right? RIght?
No, that's really not what "inciting to violence" is. I think people who object to the restriction are imagining cases where the law simply doesn't apply.
Stupid, yes, but illegal? I don't see it. The congress is free to give money to whomever it feels like, but in return they stand for election every 2 years. The simple fact is, the voters put up with it, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I think there are so many people thinking "as long as my government check comes every month, I'm no going to rock the boat" that it will end in tears.
So you're really in support of all those cases? Can't tell if you're trolling, but man, you should be.
"Many years ago, you came to me for help and I said you would owe me a favor. This is the favor. Someone needs do make an example of Bob." Not a direct quid pro quo, but still.
"Won't somebody rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Sometimes you only need to make the desire clear.
"These Jews own the justice system, and the only way we'll get justice is if we take it ourselves. Those smug bastards are just down the block. Who's with me!"
"I saw Jim plain as day, ogling my daughter, and now shes afraid to even go outside" she said, "ain't one of you man enough to find a rope and a lamp post?" There was a time in the South where those words would kill a man as sure as pulling a trigger.
"Fighting words" are one of the specific exceptions to free speech in US law. It doesn't come up much these days, because people are more restrained, but it used to be a big deal. Saying something that "everyone knows" will provoke violence means, legally, you started the fight, even though the other guy threw the first punch.
You also don't have the right to speak though a bullhorn outside your neighbor's window at 2 AM. It's not the content of the speech, it's the time, place, and manner.
Again again, this isn't about publication and censorship, but only about very direct speech -> violence here and now.
Wow, really, not both? Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way. Sounds iffy to me. I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them (hmmm, when I put it that way, I guess that's feudalism, so it has been tried!).
Nah, that's the Penny Arcade game, not the South Park game (the Mime Pope is an important boss fight in that game).
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Again, this isn't about publication and censorship, it's about something far more direct.