The point is to know *why* you are worth a certain amount... and if you are offered anything below that, you can objectively present your case on that, and the salary negotiation lasts exactly one exchange. If they do not match it, then they can find somebody else, thank them for taking the time to interview you and move on to the next job interview. You don't have to make it sound like an ultimatum either... as I said, if you are objectively worth $X, you should be able to present that point factually and clearly to a prospective employer. If they won't pay you that amount on some claimed idea that it represents too much of a raise for you, then you know that the employer didn't really believe your objective evaluation on why you were worth that amount in the place, because if they had, they would have agreed to pay it. And if they didn't believe it, then they wouldn't have wanted to pay it even if your previous salary had been high enough that it wouldn't have represented a big raise, and if you actually did get the higher offer, you'd be that much more likely to be the first person on the chopping block to go as soon as any hard times come along because your salary is more than what they really want to pay.
In those games, however, the rules actually do exist... they directly limit the things that can occur in the game.
There are no actual rules governing the behavior of the universe. We are the ones who made those rules up based only on what we happen to have seen, and whenever we see something that contradicts those rules, we are aware that we need to revise the rules to encompass the observed phenonemon (and we have done so, repeatedly, throughout history).
This is actually the fundamental reason why an even so-called omnipotent God couldn't break any actual laws of physics... because we define what those laws of physics are with respect to the reality that we observe and experience. Anything that a so-called omnipotent God might do within the universe would therefore always be seen as encompassed by and consistent with the laws of physics, even if exactly which laws it appeared to be following were not actually known to us at the time.
No, it isn't, Those so-called rules don't actually exist in any real sense the way that rules do in a game, they are simply generalizations that we have made about our observations in the universe around us which appear to offer predictive power to determine how things will be at a later time. The universe happens to obey the laws of physics not because the laws of physics are in some way limiting its behavior, as game rules would limit player behavior, but because we define the laws of physics to be how we observe the universe to operate.
The brain is a physical entity, obeying physical laws of chemistry and physics, and these laws are fairly well understood and can be simulated by a computer.
The only thing stopping us from having intelligent machines right now is the fact that we don't have the technology to make enough processing power to dedicate to performing such simulations in any time scale that would be remotely practical, so we are searching for a shortcut.
.... he breaks everything. If there's a hole in it where there shouldn't be, he's probably responsible. In his defense, he probably didn't really mean to do it, but was afraid to tell anyone because he thought he'd get in trouble.
Then telling them that an offer that they make which might be only slightly more than your previous salary and less than what you were hoping for shouldn't be a problem for you, should it?
Well then, at least you know who did it.... it makes filing that police report a whole lot easier.
It would be in amazon's interest to require constant gps tracking for all such drivers and a requirement that they stream a video recording directly to Amazon (which is retained by Amazon for a period for reference) on a wearable camera whenever they get out of their vehicle. If the driver steals something, there will be video proof of on Amazon's servers. If the driver's camera isn't on at the time they should be delivering the product (which can be verified based on gps info and the time that they were there), then that's incriminating for them as well.
It won't matter....after 2030, all you'd be able to buy (brand new) is an electric car. Gasoline vehicles will become fewer and fewer as the years go by, It will probably be about another 50 to 60 years before they are fully gone.
It doesn't... but it doesn't hurt either... I'm not saying you should volunteer the information without being asked, but if they ask, there's no harm in giving that info out as long as they are paying fairly. Sure your previous salary is going to serve as a kind of baseline for whatever the employer is ultimately going to offer, but that doesn't mean the employer is going to want to try and rip you off or take advantage of you.
If you are being paid fairly for the work you are doing, what difference should it make that an employer might have paid you more if they hadn't known how much you made in the past? While I get having more money is nice, it's selfish to expect that an employer should have to pay more than what doing a job is reasonably worth... and if the job *IS* reasonably worth $10k more than what you were making, then if they only offer $5k more, you are in a position to make a reasonable counteroffer. If they aren't going to match that based on what the job duties are reasonably worth, then you wouldn't have been paid fairly by them anyways, even if the subject of your previous salary hadn't ever been brought up.
That's a lot of supposition you are making.. IF they are thinking.... then they MIGHT.... they *PROBABLY*....
While it's true that your previous salary is going to reflect a baseline for whatever the employer that asks about it is going to offer, it's as unfair for you to assume that that they are necessarily thinking of paying you unfairly for the work that you will be expected to do than for the employer to assume that you would be willing to accept a wage below what is considered fair. If 45K/year is fair, even if the employer *MIGHT* have paid 50k to somebody else, then what's so bad about getting 45K instead of 50k?
Or are you saying that expect that an employer should have to pay you *MORE* than what you should legitimately be entitled to for your work?
The fact that you'd only be asked for password in those situations is not sufficient to be sure it would not be a problem.
If I were the so inclined to try and exploit this so-called "flaw", I would write my application so that the malicious code does not execute for the first 30 days (and thus should not be noticed by those that are performing an app-store eligibility review), and then one day after that, and entirely at random, upon invoking some in-app purchase, the faked dialog pops up instead of the real one. The user enters their credentials, and a brief moment later, they are given the same message that would show up if a user happened to lose their network connectivity just after they got the dialog (I don't know what sort of notification this is for the iphone, so I can't say for sure that I know what it would it would be... maybe the app just says it lost connection to the store, or whatnot. I don't know). Anyways, after is has done this exactly once for a given user, it would not ever do it again.
I expect that most users would retry, and at this point the app would proceed normally via a real itunes purchase, while their password was still stored by the app in the first popup.
At some later point, this username and password combo could be sent to some home base by the application, perhaps as part of a request that retrieves high scores for other players, and the user would not necessarily ever know about it unless they were practically being voyeurs for every network packet their device sends and receives.
I'm honestly not sure what it says about my ethical standards that I would have taken the time to even think of this.
Your position appears to be heavily derived from an innate distrust of an employer to treat their employees or would-be employees fairly. If you expect them to want to underpay you, then why do you think they suddenly wouldn't just because you didn't tell them how much you made at your last job?
I think you've omitted a scenario that would cover a heck of a lot of people: an employee outgrows their current position and applies for a job that *should* pay much, much better.
And what does that have to do with bieng reluctant to disclose their previous salary? As I said, if the job they are applying for has more responsibilities, it's fair to mention that almost immediately in the context of discussing your previous salary. Also, what you are saying is strongly indicative of lacking the confidence in one's own abilities and skills to realize they may actually be worth what they expect the position they are applying for could actually pay.
If you weren't making enough at your previous job to meet your expectations, then why did you stay it at it long enough that it would even be an issue? If you were making good money for what you were doing, and are applying for a similar role, it's fair to mention, when answering a question about your previous salary, that you'd expect to be making about the same amount. If the job entails more responsibilities, then it's fair to instead say you'd expect to be making somewhat more than what you were making before because of that.
It's my experience, however, that most people who are reluctant to share their previous salaries either don't have enough self confidence to believe they are worth as much as what they believe the job they are applying for should reasonably pay (which tells the employer they could probably underpay them anways), or else they have unrealistic ideas about what their skills are actually even worth, which means they wouldn't be satisfied with a reasonable offer anyways so the company is probably better off hiring someone else.
Not necessarily.. your credit score is a gross assessment of your general credit risk, but does not tell one anything about your ability to pay back loans of a given size, and while a paystub can confirm to many that you are presently employed, it says absolutely nothing about how long you've actually been employed, and how stable that income actually is.
You can have a huge innovation with some specific pre-imagined utility, although such utility is often substantially narrower in scope than what will ultimately happen if the innovation is big enough.
The telephone comes to mind as one thing that was invented with a very specific utility imagined for it before it was created.
The theoretical *MINIMUM* reaction time to a witnessed event is the time that it takes the signal to propogate from the retina to the visual cortex, be processed analytically by the brain, and then a signal sent to the appropriate nerves in the extremities to direct a response action.
This is, even allowing for ZERO brain processing time (which would never happen), a process that will still take no less than tens of milliseconds, and all by itself is certainly no less than a couple of orders of magnitude longer than the time it would take a computer controlled mechanism to do likewise.
I agree we have a long way to go before computers can reliably perform entirely autonomously for driving, but human senses and rapid motor control are the shits compare to what is possible for an electronic system.
Presumedly, putting the device into "airplane mode" will probably disable those services, although it will also disable pretty much everything else you might need for communication.
If putting the device into airplane mode does not disable those services, then unless Apple fixes the issue real soon, I expect that the TSA is going to be banning iphones on all passenger flights any time now.
Slashdot Mirror
wysiwyg is highly overrated... largely because it is usually wysiayg (what you see is *all* you get).
The point is to know *why* you are worth a certain amount... and if you are offered anything below that, you can objectively present your case on that, and the salary negotiation lasts exactly one exchange. If they do not match it, then they can find somebody else, thank them for taking the time to interview you and move on to the next job interview. You don't have to make it sound like an ultimatum either... as I said, if you are objectively worth $X, you should be able to present that point factually and clearly to a prospective employer. If they won't pay you that amount on some claimed idea that it represents too much of a raise for you, then you know that the employer didn't really believe your objective evaluation on why you were worth that amount in the place, because if they had, they would have agreed to pay it. And if they didn't believe it, then they wouldn't have wanted to pay it even if your previous salary had been high enough that it wouldn't have represented a big raise, and if you actually did get the higher offer, you'd be that much more likely to be the first person on the chopping block to go as soon as any hard times come along because your salary is more than what they really want to pay.
In those games, however, the rules actually do exist... they directly limit the things that can occur in the game.
There are no actual rules governing the behavior of the universe. We are the ones who made those rules up based only on what we happen to have seen, and whenever we see something that contradicts those rules, we are aware that we need to revise the rules to encompass the observed phenonemon (and we have done so, repeatedly, throughout history).
This is actually the fundamental reason why an even so-called omnipotent God couldn't break any actual laws of physics... because we define what those laws of physics are with respect to the reality that we observe and experience. Anything that a so-called omnipotent God might do within the universe would therefore always be seen as encompassed by and consistent with the laws of physics, even if exactly which laws it appeared to be following were not actually known to us at the time.
No, it isn't, Those so-called rules don't actually exist in any real sense the way that rules do in a game, they are simply generalizations that we have made about our observations in the universe around us which appear to offer predictive power to determine how things will be at a later time. The universe happens to obey the laws of physics not because the laws of physics are in some way limiting its behavior, as game rules would limit player behavior, but because we define the laws of physics to be how we observe the universe to operate.
The brain is a physical entity, obeying physical laws of chemistry and physics, and these laws are fairly well understood and can be simulated by a computer.
The only thing stopping us from having intelligent machines right now is the fact that we don't have the technology to make enough processing power to dedicate to performing such simulations in any time scale that would be remotely practical, so we are searching for a shortcut.
.... he breaks everything. If there's a hole in it where there shouldn't be, he's probably responsible. In his defense, he probably didn't really mean to do it, but was afraid to tell anyone because he thought he'd get in trouble.
That would make the driver an accomplice to the crime... and you'd even know exactly who to press charges against.
I'm pretty sure that there won't be 2 billion automobiles in the Netherlands by 2030.
Then telling them that an offer that they make which might be only slightly more than your previous salary and less than what you were hoping for shouldn't be a problem for you, should it?
Well then, at least you know who did it.... it makes filing that police report a whole lot easier.
It would be in amazon's interest to require constant gps tracking for all such drivers and a requirement that they stream a video recording directly to Amazon (which is retained by Amazon for a period for reference) on a wearable camera whenever they get out of their vehicle. If the driver steals something, there will be video proof of on Amazon's servers. If the driver's camera isn't on at the time they should be delivering the product (which can be verified based on gps info and the time that they were there), then that's incriminating for them as well.
It won't matter....after 2030, all you'd be able to buy (brand new) is an electric car. Gasoline vehicles will become fewer and fewer as the years go by, It will probably be about another 50 to 60 years before they are fully gone.
It doesn't... but it doesn't hurt either... I'm not saying you should volunteer the information without being asked, but if they ask, there's no harm in giving that info out as long as they are paying fairly. Sure your previous salary is going to serve as a kind of baseline for whatever the employer is ultimately going to offer, but that doesn't mean the employer is going to want to try and rip you off or take advantage of you.
If you are being paid fairly for the work you are doing, what difference should it make that an employer might have paid you more if they hadn't known how much you made in the past? While I get having more money is nice, it's selfish to expect that an employer should have to pay more than what doing a job is reasonably worth... and if the job *IS* reasonably worth $10k more than what you were making, then if they only offer $5k more, you are in a position to make a reasonable counteroffer. If they aren't going to match that based on what the job duties are reasonably worth, then you wouldn't have been paid fairly by them anyways, even if the subject of your previous salary hadn't ever been brought up.
That's a lot of supposition you are making.. IF they are thinking.... then they MIGHT.... they *PROBABLY*....
While it's true that your previous salary is going to reflect a baseline for whatever the employer that asks about it is going to offer, it's as unfair for you to assume that that they are necessarily thinking of paying you unfairly for the work that you will be expected to do than for the employer to assume that you would be willing to accept a wage below what is considered fair. If 45K/year is fair, even if the employer *MIGHT* have paid 50k to somebody else, then what's so bad about getting 45K instead of 50k?
Or are you saying that expect that an employer should have to pay you *MORE* than what you should legitimately be entitled to for your work?
You exaggerate. The even richest 1% only control about 35% of the total wealth.
The fact that you'd only be asked for password in those situations is not sufficient to be sure it would not be a problem.
If I were the so inclined to try and exploit this so-called "flaw", I would write my application so that the malicious code does not execute for the first 30 days (and thus should not be noticed by those that are performing an app-store eligibility review), and then one day after that, and entirely at random, upon invoking some in-app purchase, the faked dialog pops up instead of the real one. The user enters their credentials, and a brief moment later, they are given the same message that would show up if a user happened to lose their network connectivity just after they got the dialog (I don't know what sort of notification this is for the iphone, so I can't say for sure that I know what it would it would be... maybe the app just says it lost connection to the store, or whatnot. I don't know). Anyways, after is has done this exactly once for a given user, it would not ever do it again.
I expect that most users would retry, and at this point the app would proceed normally via a real itunes purchase, while their password was still stored by the app in the first popup.
At some later point, this username and password combo could be sent to some home base by the application, perhaps as part of a request that retrieves high scores for other players, and the user would not necessarily ever know about it unless they were practically being voyeurs for every network packet their device sends and receives.
I'm honestly not sure what it says about my ethical standards that I would have taken the time to even think of this.
Your recourse is to collect employment insurance benefits that you would otherwise not be able to collect at all.
Your position appears to be heavily derived from an innate distrust of an employer to treat their employees or would-be employees fairly. If you expect them to want to underpay you, then why do you think they suddenly wouldn't just because you didn't tell them how much you made at your last job?
And what does that have to do with bieng reluctant to disclose their previous salary? As I said, if the job they are applying for has more responsibilities, it's fair to mention that almost immediately in the context of discussing your previous salary. Also, what you are saying is strongly indicative of lacking the confidence in one's own abilities and skills to realize they may actually be worth what they expect the position they are applying for could actually pay.
If you weren't making enough at your previous job to meet your expectations, then why did you stay it at it long enough that it would even be an issue? If you were making good money for what you were doing, and are applying for a similar role, it's fair to mention, when answering a question about your previous salary, that you'd expect to be making about the same amount. If the job entails more responsibilities, then it's fair to instead say you'd expect to be making somewhat more than what you were making before because of that.
It's my experience, however, that most people who are reluctant to share their previous salaries either don't have enough self confidence to believe they are worth as much as what they believe the job they are applying for should reasonably pay (which tells the employer they could probably underpay them anways), or else they have unrealistic ideas about what their skills are actually even worth, which means they wouldn't be satisfied with a reasonable offer anyways so the company is probably better off hiring someone else.
Not necessarily.. your credit score is a gross assessment of your general credit risk, but does not tell one anything about your ability to pay back loans of a given size, and while a paystub can confirm to many that you are presently employed, it says absolutely nothing about how long you've actually been employed, and how stable that income actually is.
It's less of an employer's business and more the business of someone you are getting a loan from or obtaining a line of credit.
You can have a huge innovation with some specific pre-imagined utility, although such utility is often substantially narrower in scope than what will ultimately happen if the innovation is big enough.
The telephone comes to mind as one thing that was invented with a very specific utility imagined for it before it was created.
The theoretical *MINIMUM* reaction time to a witnessed event is the time that it takes the signal to propogate from the retina to the visual cortex, be processed analytically by the brain, and then a signal sent to the appropriate nerves in the extremities to direct a response action.
This is, even allowing for ZERO brain processing time (which would never happen), a process that will still take no less than tens of milliseconds, and all by itself is certainly no less than a couple of orders of magnitude longer than the time it would take a computer controlled mechanism to do likewise.
I agree we have a long way to go before computers can reliably perform entirely autonomously for driving, but human senses and rapid motor control are the shits compare to what is possible for an electronic system.
... I am *NOT* going to read TFA, although in this case mostly as a matter of protest, because it would require me to follow a link.
Presumedly, putting the device into "airplane mode" will probably disable those services, although it will also disable pretty much everything else you might need for communication.
If putting the device into airplane mode does not disable those services, then unless Apple fixes the issue real soon, I expect that the TSA is going to be banning iphones on all passenger flights any time now.