Make a polite phone call to the person who made the original offer and tell them what happened. Maybe they can straighten things out. If they can't fix it, or they don't admit they promised it, you have learned something useful about a possible future employer with no risk to yourself or reputation.
That's exactly the right response. Chances are somebody just didn't inform the other what was going on, and it will all be straightened out in 15 minutes if they really want to hire you.
I had this happen once, I was offered a salary by the hiring manager and then showed up to sign paperwork with the HR folks. The salary on my paperwork was 75% of what i was told. I said that it was incorrect, we called the manager and he'd just forgotten to let HR know that my salary requirements were higher than his estimate, but that it was fine for their budget.
They also did a nice job with my relocation package, though again there was confusion in the reimbursement office over some expenses just because they were atypical to be covered for my position. Just because you're a good negotiator or are offered something unusually good doesn't mean everyone who contradicts it is out to screw you, they just don't want to get fired for signing off on an unusually large check until they know for sure it is okay.
Yes, because military coups always work out so well....
The Turkish military has staged several coups to restore democracy and remove religious and sectarian zealotry from national politics. Of course, they have Ataturk as a national role model, who was basically Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, FDR and Patton rolled into one.
This would be incredibly tricky, as there is no data format to speak of that the brain uses - program and data are all bound together in one messy lump.
That's the clearest evidence against Intelligent Design I've heard all week. Everybody knows that a real God would have used a Model-View-Controller architecture.
While on the one hand it sounds useful to have the extra manipulative ability, on the other hand you'd have to redesign clothes and cars and many things we interact with to take advantage of it. On the gripping hand, you would FINALLY HAVE A GRIPPING HAND!
Cuba has a large, thriving and internationally recognized cutting-edge pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry. They specialize in developing and distributing drugs to the 99% of planet Earth that can't afford $5/day to get harder erections. They generally research based on the commonality and severity of particular diseases, and then try to find exceptionally low-cost ways to solve them better. Ironically enough, it's quite profitable since selling tens of millions of pills to entire continents at 1% profit can add up pretty quickly.
the french resistance didn't go around blowing up wine shops with no german soldiers around and yell, "that will teach them germans!".
The French resistance most certainly did kill other French they believed were collaborators. The same way the IRA killed Irish collaborators and the Union killed Northerners working with the Confederacy and vice-versa. The US Civil War was rich with unarmed civilians being killed by military forces, civilians killing civilians, and civilians killing soldiers.
You know you're doing a lousy job of fighting a war when the best defense you can muster is that the other side isn't fighting fair.
But how much from a security standpoint is changing on those systems? You might be better off just leaving them as-is, since the versions of everything on there are old enough that few folks are targeting it anymore. I know our WinNT4 IIS3 server was wonderful despite never having updates available, because IIS3 didn't have any of the features that constantly get attacked!
Well, he also blames Apple. He gives the example of eMusic, which sells a lot of music from independent labels without DRM (and that of course with the labels agreement). The same music is sold by Apple in the iTunes Store with their fairplay DRM. It seems that in theses cases Apple's assertion that "we have to use DRM, otherwise the labels would not allow us to sell the music" is not true.
But that ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that most distribution agreements like iTMS has contain "most favored nation" clauses, which say basically that whatever terms iTMS offers in a contract to any other company has to be offered to the contractee. This is, ultimately a form of contractual price-fixing disguised as something similar to a first right of refusal. The ultimate effect of such contract terms is that everyone gets the exact same contract, and the exact same terms, because any deviation could lead to a huge mess of issues.
So yes, iTMS no doubt is contractually obligated to do things for one company that company really doesn't care about, and vice-versa. The one part of the iTMS where everything is free -- the podcasts -- Apple happily distributes files without any DRM because there is no significant obligation in either direction, either party could walk away tomorrow and delete the existing files and databases with no recourse.
I've been seeing these kinds of comments a lot lately. Why is it hard for some people to accept that this is a mobile version of OS X?
I don't get it, either. It wouldn't take more than a few hours with the source code to strip Mac OS X down to a 100-200 MB install if you knew exactly what hardware it's going on and what few apps it needs to run. This is not some crazy impossible task, the CPU in these phones is as powerful as any of the NeXT boxes the OS was originally built for, and the graphics chip handles all the tough Core stuff that would be necessary for the modern UI. Obviously they're going to go through and optimize a lot of low-level stuff specific to the device, so it's a non-trivial programming task from a performance standpoint, but there's no reason whatsoever to think they'd reinvent the wheel like MS did with WinCE. Heck, MS was developing CE back when 8MB of ROM was $200+, Apple has the luxury of not sweating every byte or processor clock cycle.
"Violence" happens because a person decides to do violent things. It's not a "likelihood", it's a decision. It's not determined by uncontrollable factors. It's 100% controllable by the perpetrator in every case (except insanity).
While 100% correct, your statement has no bearing on what you were replying to. The author said "likelihood", and in that he's 100% correct. You can argue about the proximate causes and motivations of violence all you want, but I assure you the 10,000 poor people with pitchforks and torches don't care very much when they're storming the Bastille. Keeping income disparity in a reasonable range is a case of enlightened self-interest for any wealthy person or group, because poor people will always outnumber the rich.
There is no requirement to have an ID when you're a passenger in a car, or just walking down the street.
True, but most states will allow the police to detain you until your identity can be verified. So while you aren't required to have it, you can be treated like a criminal when you're caught without it. That's one of the favorite ways our local police force uses to harass bicyclists and pedestrians in Austin.
Wish that ratio'd sites would take thafact into account - the older the torrent, the less likely it'll be downloaded by new people and the harder it is for seed to keep their ratio. Not everyone can bittorrent at work and refresh every 5 minutes...
One thing I like about torrential.kicks-ass.org is that they give "points" every hour for seeding a file that nobody is downloading. So it does encourage people to seed old/less common files as much as they can, since the points can be traded for decent amounts of upload credit.
That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?
Free speech is not unlimited, nor should it be.
With the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court clearly said that any information that is of genuine news value can be published, regardless of what government programs or policies it hurts. Protecting government programs and opinions is not, in and of itself, sufficient cause to override freedom of the press to print something of genuine interest to the public.
If someone from the NYT got a list of protected witnesses and in the course of reviewing it discovered there was some huge flaw in the entire system of witness protection, then they should responsibly disclose that to the proper authorities. But if the authorities do nothing, like any security vulnerability it may be proper to release the information necessary to prove that the program itself is not functioning as we are told. We cannot oversee the government if anytime something is broken we're prevented from having anyone with first-hand knowledge discuss the flaws. Then you wind up with a situation where the only people able to criticize are ones who have no hard evidence, and they can be easily dismissed as crackpots or tree-hugging liberals.
Suppose the average population's household income is 10$/year and they pay on average $1/year, but a certain individual X in the population makes $100/year and is taxed $80/year. Is person X benefitting from the government, or paying more because of the government?
Both -- benefiting from the government and paying more are not mutually exclusive. That's the whole principle behind progressive taxation, that if you are benefiting more then you should also be paying more. Because despite paying more, person X is still better off in an absolute financial sense than the average person. The main question is how the effect of diminishing returns and incentives for hard work intersect -- how much better off than average does his return need to be if he's doing better than average work that benefits society?
Suppose another individual Y doesn't make any money per year, and has in fact never had an income, but inherited $1,000,000, and annually pays $1000 in wealth taxes. Can it be said that person Y is benefitting from the current government?
Of course -- if he inherited $1,000,000 then he benefits dramatically! He got free money out of the blue, and the government is going to protect it (and him) in numerous ways, from stable currency to banking oversight to criminal prosecution of thieves. Someone who has $50 isn't benefiting from any of those things to anywhere near the same financial degree as our lucky inheritor. And if you postulate what would happen if he lived under a communist government, he would lose all $1,000,000. I'm not saying it would be impossible for any other government to benefit him more, only that someone who has wealth is inherently benefiting from the government he DOES live under, to some degree commensurate with his wealth. You simply cannot become wealthy in a system that is antagonistic to your means of profit, and in order to become wealthy you must live in a system that is at least neutral to your chosen method of profit. For anyone who is wealthy, it is more beneficial to maintain the current system (where they have obviously succeeded) then to change to another system that may or may not be an improvement -- it is, after all, easier to lose money than make it.
This is not rocket science. Regardless of the good or bad of the situation, or the details or sustainability of such a system, people who are wealthy are benefiting more from such a system. That is true of ANY system, whether it is communism or capitalism -- the ones who are wealthiest are obviously benefiting most from they system in which they live. The politburo were wealthy and powerful and benefited most from Soviet communism and thus had the most stake in maintaining it -- the average serf working a farm probably didn't give a damn about communism as he certainly wasn't benefiting from it. An industrialist in the US who is able to sell shares of a venture using stock markets, is able to purchase and sell materials, products and labor is obviously benefiting more from the system he is in than some guy working at McDonalds is. The industrialist might or might not be wealthy in the Soviet system. The serf might or might not be wealthy in a market system. It's all beside the point -- the people, whoever they are, who are wealthiest in a society are the ones who are by definition benefiting most from the specific rules and structures of that society. The wealthy by definition have the most to lose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be wealthy. Risk is one of the fundamental market forces, and changes in government (in any direction) increase risk in the short term, so the wealthy have good reason to maintain the existing system they are in, whatever that system is.
It may be accurate to say that wealthy people are currently benefitting from the (US) government as a matter of (unofficial but rampant) *policy*... but policies can be changed.
Well, that's no different from what I'm saying. "Wealthy people" are not a fixed class of people who are benefiting from government regulation. But in a country that has a government, if there are wealthy people and unwealthy people, the ones who are wealthy are by definition the ones who are benefiting most (financially) from the existing system. If that system changes, then of course a different group of people will become wealthy and they will be the ones benefiting from the system. But without a system in place to protect and respect private property and allow the accumulation of capital, there would be very little "wealth" that wasn't directly protected by the owner's use of force. So yes, wealthy people are, by definition, benefiting from the existing system. I'm not claiming it to be a bad thing, simply an economic truism.
If not for government regulation, wealthy people would enslave poor people, and wealthy corporations would eliminate small companies. Wealthy people rely far less on police protection, as they can hire their own protection. They depend far less on military protection, since they have the means of leaving the country if necessary. Trade negotiations and banking regulations (if they're good) benefit everyone equally by protecting the economy, the latter at the expense of wealthy bank owners who would make greater profits otherwise.
"Wealth" is not some abstract concept, it relies on private property and capital being protected by societal custom, banks, militaries, and police. The poor would be (and have been) barbarian hordes simply sacking the "wealthy" and taking what they want. The people who benefit most from the concept of private property are those who -- surprise! -- own the property.
They don't "consume" more, but they do, by definition, benefit more financially from the existing government -- banking regulations, military protection, police enforcement, trade negotiations, etc. As they are benefiting more in a material way from the existing government, they should be expected to contribute more in a material way to maintaining that government.
Poor people, by definition, are not benefiting as much and shouldn't be expected to want to maintain or support the existing system very much.
You'll see that business and religious groups are the "norm" in the culture (i.e. - The are not remarkable). Now how many gender-rights, ethnic-rights, gay-rights, or enviromental groups did you find during your stroll through town? Likely none. The prominence of such groups (typically identified as leftist) at universities is a good indication that university culture is different from the larger culture.
I would argue that you only notice them at the University precisely because they are just as unusual, and that they are no more represented at the university than they are in (urban) society at large for that age group. They may be more vocal than their numbers suggest, but most advocacy groups are. I doubt you could find any large state university where business students don't outnumber women's studies majors by several hundred to 1 or more.
It is no secret that major universities are basically immersed in left-wing culture both at the official level (such as having ethnic or women's studies departments, speech codes, etc) and at the unofficial level (such as student protest groups)
So does the existence of a Business school and Christian Students Union prove that a college is immersed in right-wing culture?
What came before the big bang? That question is meaningless, as time did not exist. So you have a few options, only one of them feasible.
WTF? You ask a question, admit the question is meaningless, and then go on for several paragraphs saying that because we can't provide an answer, that proves God exists.
Whatever it was, it had to be, without argument: ETERNAL
Um, why? "Eternal" is not a basic axiom of evolutionary or cosmological theories. Your entire argument is based on a rather lousy premise. Only religions require that God has always been and always will be. Science is completely compatible with the possibility of non-eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the right response. Chances are somebody just didn't inform the other what was going on, and it will all be straightened out in 15 minutes if they really want to hire you.
I had this happen once, I was offered a salary by the hiring manager and then showed up to sign paperwork with the HR folks. The salary on my paperwork was 75% of what i was told. I said that it was incorrect, we called the manager and he'd just forgotten to let HR know that my salary requirements were higher than his estimate, but that it was fine for their budget.
They also did a nice job with my relocation package, though again there was confusion in the reimbursement office over some expenses just because they were atypical to be covered for my position. Just because you're a good negotiator or are offered something unusually good doesn't mean everyone who contradicts it is out to screw you, they just don't want to get fired for signing off on an unusually large check until they know for sure it is okay.
The Turkish military has staged several coups to restore democracy and remove religious and sectarian zealotry from national politics. Of course, they have Ataturk as a national role model, who was basically Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, FDR and Patton rolled into one.
That's the clearest evidence against Intelligent Design I've heard all week. Everybody knows that a real God would have used a Model-View-Controller architecture.
While on the one hand it sounds useful to have the extra manipulative ability, on the other hand you'd have to redesign clothes and cars and many things we interact with to take advantage of it. On the gripping hand, you would FINALLY HAVE A GRIPPING HAND!
Cuba has a large, thriving and internationally recognized cutting-edge pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry. They specialize in developing and distributing drugs to the 99% of planet Earth that can't afford $5/day to get harder erections. They generally research based on the commonality and severity of particular diseases, and then try to find exceptionally low-cost ways to solve them better. Ironically enough, it's quite profitable since selling tens of millions of pills to entire continents at 1% profit can add up pretty quickly.
The French resistance most certainly did kill other French they believed were collaborators. The same way the IRA killed Irish collaborators and the Union killed Northerners working with the Confederacy and vice-versa. The US Civil War was rich with unarmed civilians being killed by military forces, civilians killing civilians, and civilians killing soldiers.
You know you're doing a lousy job of fighting a war when the best defense you can muster is that the other side isn't fighting fair.
But how much from a security standpoint is changing on those systems? You might be better off just leaving them as-is, since the versions of everything on there are old enough that few folks are targeting it anymore. I know our WinNT4 IIS3 server was wonderful despite never having updates available, because IIS3 didn't have any of the features that constantly get attacked!
Yeah, I had the turbo switch fixed and everything...
But that ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that most distribution agreements like iTMS has contain "most favored nation" clauses, which say basically that whatever terms iTMS offers in a contract to any other company has to be offered to the contractee. This is, ultimately a form of contractual price-fixing disguised as something similar to a first right of refusal. The ultimate effect of such contract terms is that everyone gets the exact same contract, and the exact same terms, because any deviation could lead to a huge mess of issues.
So yes, iTMS no doubt is contractually obligated to do things for one company that company really doesn't care about, and vice-versa. The one part of the iTMS where everything is free -- the podcasts -- Apple happily distributes files without any DRM because there is no significant obligation in either direction, either party could walk away tomorrow and delete the existing files and databases with no recourse.
I don't get it, either. It wouldn't take more than a few hours with the source code to strip Mac OS X down to a 100-200 MB install if you knew exactly what hardware it's going on and what few apps it needs to run. This is not some crazy impossible task, the CPU in these phones is as powerful as any of the NeXT boxes the OS was originally built for, and the graphics chip handles all the tough Core stuff that would be necessary for the modern UI. Obviously they're going to go through and optimize a lot of low-level stuff specific to the device, so it's a non-trivial programming task from a performance standpoint, but there's no reason whatsoever to think they'd reinvent the wheel like MS did with WinCE. Heck, MS was developing CE back when 8MB of ROM was $200+, Apple has the luxury of not sweating every byte or processor clock cycle.
While 100% correct, your statement has no bearing on what you were replying to. The author said "likelihood", and in that he's 100% correct. You can argue about the proximate causes and motivations of violence all you want, but I assure you the 10,000 poor people with pitchforks and torches don't care very much when they're storming the Bastille. Keeping income disparity in a reasonable range is a case of enlightened self-interest for any wealthy person or group, because poor people will always outnumber the rich.
True, but most states will allow the police to detain you until your identity can be verified. So while you aren't required to have it, you can be treated like a criminal when you're caught without it. That's one of the favorite ways our local police force uses to harass bicyclists and pedestrians in Austin.
One thing I like about torrential.kicks-ass.org is that they give "points" every hour for seeding a file that nobody is downloading. So it does encourage people to seed old/less common files as much as they can, since the points can be traded for decent amounts of upload credit.
With the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court clearly said that any information that is of genuine news value can be published, regardless of what government programs or policies it hurts. Protecting government programs and opinions is not, in and of itself, sufficient cause to override freedom of the press to print something of genuine interest to the public.
If someone from the NYT got a list of protected witnesses and in the course of reviewing it discovered there was some huge flaw in the entire system of witness protection, then they should responsibly disclose that to the proper authorities. But if the authorities do nothing, like any security vulnerability it may be proper to release the information necessary to prove that the program itself is not functioning as we are told. We cannot oversee the government if anytime something is broken we're prevented from having anyone with first-hand knowledge discuss the flaws. Then you wind up with a situation where the only people able to criticize are ones who have no hard evidence, and they can be easily dismissed as crackpots or tree-hugging liberals.
Both -- benefiting from the government and paying more are not mutually exclusive. That's the whole principle behind progressive taxation, that if you are benefiting more then you should also be paying more. Because despite paying more, person X is still better off in an absolute financial sense than the average person. The main question is how the effect of diminishing returns and incentives for hard work intersect -- how much better off than average does his return need to be if he's doing better than average work that benefits society?
Of course -- if he inherited $1,000,000 then he benefits dramatically! He got free money out of the blue, and the government is going to protect it (and him) in numerous ways, from stable currency to banking oversight to criminal prosecution of thieves. Someone who has $50 isn't benefiting from any of those things to anywhere near the same financial degree as our lucky inheritor. And if you postulate what would happen if he lived under a communist government, he would lose all $1,000,000. I'm not saying it would be impossible for any other government to benefit him more, only that someone who has wealth is inherently benefiting from the government he DOES live under, to some degree commensurate with his wealth. You simply cannot become wealthy in a system that is antagonistic to your means of profit, and in order to become wealthy you must live in a system that is at least neutral to your chosen method of profit. For anyone who is wealthy, it is more beneficial to maintain the current system (where they have obviously succeeded) then to change to another system that may or may not be an improvement -- it is, after all, easier to lose money than make it.
This is not rocket science. Regardless of the good or bad of the situation, or the details or sustainability of such a system, people who are wealthy are benefiting more from such a system. That is true of ANY system, whether it is communism or capitalism -- the ones who are wealthiest are obviously benefiting most from they system in which they live. The politburo were wealthy and powerful and benefited most from Soviet communism and thus had the most stake in maintaining it -- the average serf working a farm probably didn't give a damn about communism as he certainly wasn't benefiting from it. An industrialist in the US who is able to sell shares of a venture using stock markets, is able to purchase and sell materials, products and labor is obviously benefiting more from the system he is in than some guy working at McDonalds is. The industrialist might or might not be wealthy in the Soviet system. The serf might or might not be wealthy in a market system. It's all beside the point -- the people, whoever they are, who are wealthiest in a society are the ones who are by definition benefiting most from the specific rules and structures of that society. The wealthy by definition have the most to lose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be wealthy. Risk is one of the fundamental market forces, and changes in government (in any direction) increase risk in the short term, so the wealthy have good reason to maintain the existing system they are in, whatever that system is.
Well, that's no different from what I'm saying. "Wealthy people" are not a fixed class of people who are benefiting from government regulation. But in a country that has a government, if there are wealthy people and unwealthy people, the ones who are wealthy are by definition the ones who are benefiting most (financially) from the existing system. If that system changes, then of course a different group of people will become wealthy and they will be the ones benefiting from the system. But without a system in place to protect and respect private property and allow the accumulation of capital, there would be very little "wealth" that wasn't directly protected by the owner's use of force. So yes, wealthy people are, by definition, benefiting from the existing system. I'm not claiming it to be a bad thing, simply an economic truism.
"Wealth" is not some abstract concept, it relies on private property and capital being protected by societal custom, banks, militaries, and police. The poor would be (and have been) barbarian hordes simply sacking the "wealthy" and taking what they want. The people who benefit most from the concept of private property are those who -- surprise! -- own the property.
They don't "consume" more, but they do, by definition, benefit more financially from the existing government -- banking regulations, military protection, police enforcement, trade negotiations, etc. As they are benefiting more in a material way from the existing government, they should be expected to contribute more in a material way to maintaining that government.
Poor people, by definition, are not benefiting as much and shouldn't be expected to want to maintain or support the existing system very much.
Just as many as the Iraqi insurgency and Somalian warlords. But we have MANY more electronic components, tool shops, and chemistry books.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week! Try the fish.
I would argue that you only notice them at the University precisely because they are just as unusual, and that they are no more represented at the university than they are in (urban) society at large for that age group. They may be more vocal than their numbers suggest, but most advocacy groups are. I doubt you could find any large state university where business students don't outnumber women's studies majors by several hundred to 1 or more.
So does the existence of a Business school and Christian Students Union prove that a college is immersed in right-wing culture?
WTF? You ask a question, admit the question is meaningless, and then go on for several paragraphs saying that because we can't provide an answer, that proves God exists.
Um, why? "Eternal" is not a basic axiom of evolutionary or cosmological theories. Your entire argument is based on a rather lousy premise. Only religions require that God has always been and always will be. Science is completely compatible with the possibility of non-eternity.