Link - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... goes through cancer diagnosis rates in Japan. For ages 30-34 Leukemia diagnosis rates at between 2.5 & 3 per 100,000. For all age range males it is between 4.5 & 10.6 per 100,000.
According to here - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... the highest incidence rate recorded in Japan for Leukemia was 10.6 cases per 100,000 which occurred in men in 2010. Over the prior 25 years it ranged from 4.5 to the peak of 10.6 but interestingly all the lower counts are early in the records. So either instances of Leukemia have doubled or instances of diagnosis have double (or combination of course).
So realistically we would expect to see between 2 and around 5 cases of Leukemia in the given population. Once you get above 5-6 per year you would definitely argue that there had been an impact.
That would be for the site based roles. But there are a lot of office based roles as well. Geophysicists, reservoir engineers, production engineers, geologists etc which don't go out to the sites that much. Quite a few of them are based in Houston even though their sites might be on the other side of the country. There aren't enough of those people in the country to fill those roles, let alone the ones which require tough working conditions.
You also see the same in things like civil infrastructure engineering. If a large program of works is signed off then there is often a shortage of people like structural engineers or detail designers. It is one of the major challenges for design consultancies is that they can only grow their workforce to meet the base load work that comes out of governments and councils. So when there is a big capital injection for new roads or land development or water treatment then they often do not have access to people to do the work.
As for H1Bs causing unemployment in O&G fields it simply isn't true. Firstly you need to make sure that you have the right type of geological experience. Most of the cheaper areas of the world have carbonates deposits where as shale is almost exclusively clastic in nature. This means that you can't bring the experience in from places like India because it simply doesn't transfer. You are limited to places like Australia & Canada which aren't known for their cheap labour.
Then on top of that you have small teams of highly experienced people dealing with very large budgets. Keeping that team working well together is critical. If you are importing people from OS you always run the risk of importing cultural problems. Again if we stick to the Indian sub-continent for source people you can get caste issues which people in the west simply don't understand or perceive.
Don't take this though as me saying the H1Bs are not abused. They clearly are and the US set up for immigration is fucked. There are too many loop holes in one area and too extreme in others. The system needs to be simpler, clearer and more easily policed. The penalties for gaming the system should also be so severe the company would never consider it.
That said I would have thought that if you allowed foreign students into the country, they attended US universities at full cost, and then got high level degrees that these are the type of people you would want to stay in the country. Being highly educated they are likely to be above the average in income and hence tax payers, and because they paid for their education themselves without subsidy they are low cost. Perhaps I am missing something but keeping your post grads seems to me to be a good thing.
Actually there are lots and lots of jobs where a particular skillset won't exist in the local market. This often comes about when an industry expands rapidly. One example would be the shale gas growth in the US. While there were people who had experience mapping the reservoirs locally there would have been a ridiculous shortage of people who would be genuinely able to do the work at the level required. It simply was impossible for the local market to supply those people as they weren't needed at all 10 years ago.
It's not even a case that if I offer more money I can get one. It is the case that there are 100 jobs but only 75 people who can do it. And if it takes 20 years to be able to do that job it doesn't matter how much money I offer there will still be 25 jobs un-filled.
This actually happens a lot more than you might think.
No because of the reasonableness part of the clause. An employee must make themselves reasonably available, taking time off from your current employer would fail any reasonableness test imposed by a court. However if they asked you to pop in after work on a Tuesday for an hour you would be hard pressed to say it was unreasonable.
This. I have seen similar type clauses for senior engineering roles. Usually it is when a particular function is no longer required though rather than an outsourcing. For example I have seen geophysicists let go once the exploration to production phase is completed. They are given a bonus and a lump payment to come back in if required. Usually this would happen if something goes pear shaped with the models later, or if they are required to do more analysis for a compliance issue.
However in those cases they are also usually paid a consulting rate. The bonus / payout figure was a keep you happy amount.
No it didn't. Nobody was hurt by Skylab debris. It landed in the middle of nowhere, specifically the Great Australian Desert. Yes the esperence council fined NASA for littering but it was done as a publicity stunt and it was NEVER paid by NASA. It was paid by funds raised by a radio show host in 2009.
Well where I live they are always building new roads and tunnels to keep traffic moving. So there is a budget there. And they also seem quite keen on making lanes transit lanes where you have to have a minimum of 2 or 3 people in the car to use them. They don't build extra lanes to do this. They re-purpose existing lanes. And mapping a road way in high resolution is significantly cheaper than digging a big ass tunnel.
And you are right, the funding will come from the general tax payer. The same tax payer who may not even own a car at all. This is how government works so I'm not sure what your point is... I pay taxes for buses I never use....
Lets say self drive cars came out today, fully working. They will be hugely expensive and most people wont have them. Then in 5 years time a large number of new luxury models will have self drive. 10 years after that it will be most mainstream cars will have it. 10 years after that it will simply be standard in all cars. Give it another 10 and there will be almost no cars without self drive on the road.
Once AV becomes a developed system the costs will become negligible. Think about it. How many old PCs do you have lying around that even though they are perfectly functional you can't even give away? Electronics are cheap once they become mass produced. When you are talking about 90 million units per year your cost per item will be low.
It's there as a potential. But cars don't hit 100% of people now. I would suggest the benefits far out weigh the negatives and it will be a gradual process anyway so I'm hoping they will be ready for close to everywhere use when I'm past retirement.
So what if driving skills are lost. How many people can genuinely start a fire without a match, lighter or some other ready to go ignition device? How about those people who can actually remember the composition of gunpowder, and if they can know a way to actually get those ingredients? Ok, now about how to skin an animal, how to hunt, how to build shelter?
If driving a car goes the way of riding horses then skills are lost to the general public and only retained by those with a particular interest in them. And you know what? Nothing of value was lost.
Initially they don't need to. They will still be human driven at that stage. But you will drive yourself down your pot holed drive way, along the never graded dirt track until you get to state route 7, which has been mapped by the council. Then the car will take over and you can spin your chair around and sit on your laptop.
Then 2 mins from where you need to exit off the mapped network, the car will alert you to get your shit together, back into your chair, looking forward and ready to take over. You will come off the exit and IF you have responded, acknowledged the car, given your go ahead to take over the car will switch off autopilot. If you haven't responded the car will pull into a parking area and start zapping you through your chair till you wake up.
The reason why these will become wanted is the amount of traffic that will be able to be carried on the main roads will be orders of magnitude higher if all the cars are autonomous.
Also I see autonomous vehicles being staged in their deployment. Self-driving vehicles are a traffic and transport engineers wet dream, they will dramatically increase traffic flows on existing roads. So there will be a significant incentive to municipalities to get sections of their roads "AI" ready.
My prediction is that trunk roads will be the first ones to go autonomous with councils actively contributing to the mapping of the roads. Essentially you will get into your car, drive yourself through the back streets till you get to your main road and at that point the car takes over. Initially you will be mixed in with human driven cars, but then over time priority lanes and pathing will be given to the self driving cars until finally, once self driving cars hit critical mass the trunk roads will be self drive only.
You will still have to be able to drive, in fact a % of every drive will be driven by a human. But the main roads with the bulk traffic will be autonomous.
Of course this is possible. But it isn't likely. It is much more likely, as you posted later, that the risk comes from someone known to my family. My thoughts are that there is probably an even distribution of predators in a population and the internet is likely to remove initial interest in geography. Later if someone did become particularly obsessed with my kids the odds are the they will be somewhere a long way away as the majority of the worlds population live a long way away. It isn't zero risk but it is very low, especially when combined with the already very low risk.
Do you have no friends? None that you don't get to see on a regular basis?
Posting photos online, particularly facebook, is a way to feel connected to people you may not be able to see IRL as much as you would like. Also facebook tends to cause group conversations, where multiple people contribute to a subject and often not the original person you intended the photo for. It is also a great way, when you have kids, to find out that a friends kid has a similar hobby and that you should push to organise a play date.
I guess I don't see that kids are that hard to find anyway. And while I think my daughters are the most special of snowflakes in the world I completely realise that it is only me that thinks that and to everyone else they are just another kid. So, call it safety of the herd, but the chances of it being my daughter that is singled out, tracked, and snatched is so vanishingly small that I am willing to take that risk because the costs of living a solitary life are worse.
As for the argument made by JMJimmy you quoted I'm not sure totally agree because social media does not require you to post every thing that passes through your head or thing you fantasise about doing. Yes if you write on a public facebook page that you have just done 300kph through the city complete with a video you probably are going to face ridicule, ostracization or limitation. But seriously don't post that video. If you like doing drugs don't post a picture with a needle hanging out of your arm and no one will know. And when you make the comment about other people posting that information, those people were always going to be the blabbermouth that got you in trouble.
It frankly is a stupid mindset. I would be far more concerned about the creepy guy who keeps doing the slow drive by of the school then some random on the inter-tubes. It makes me wonder what kind of life these kids lead that things like facebook are their biggest vector for coming in contact with strangers. Are they seriously that wrapped up in cotton wool that they have no interaction with the outside world???
This is totally illogical. If I post a picture of my daughter in her ballet costume and someone finds it turns them on it doesn't make me someone who produces child porn. No jury would convict based on that.
Then why limit it to photos of children? FFS people "Check In" to places which is basically I am not home now come rob me. I'm sure you could work out a pretty good schedule for my kids if you had access to my wife's facebook page. But I don't see it as a real risk and less of a risk then her being targetted by someone she passes by every day.
So someone gets a bit interested in a photo. Lets say they even get obsessed with one of my girls. For them to be a risk they would actually need to be able to get near her and chances are this person doesn't even live in the same country. No I am far more concerned with the people she may actually come in contact with IRL, not some random basement dweller living 15,000km away.
I know I know metric but hey I can't think in ft....
But anyway roughly 3m x 3m of clear space is still a big space. Especially in a bedroom that will contain a bed, a book case a desk and quite often a wardrobe (Which TFA comments on). My gaming PC is in a dedicated room and I don't have that amount of space behind me.
So honestly I question their results as I don't believe that people really have that amount of space they could dedicate to VR. A more realistic figure would be 1.5m deep by 2m wide.
Slashdot Mirror
Flexget can be configured to handle them.
It's not the cost I have the issue with. It is the 100 different interfaces. It's the "is this on Netflix? Hulu? HBO? Damn I can't remember."
Link - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... goes through cancer diagnosis rates in Japan. For ages 30-34 Leukemia diagnosis rates at between 2.5 & 3 per 100,000. For all age range males it is between 4.5 & 10.6 per 100,000.
According to here - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... the highest incidence rate recorded in Japan for Leukemia was 10.6 cases per 100,000 which occurred in men in 2010. Over the prior 25 years it ranged from 4.5 to the peak of 10.6 but interestingly all the lower counts are early in the records. So either instances of Leukemia have doubled or instances of diagnosis have double (or combination of course).
So realistically we would expect to see between 2 and around 5 cases of Leukemia in the given population. Once you get above 5-6 per year you would definitely argue that there had been an impact.
That would be for the site based roles. But there are a lot of office based roles as well. Geophysicists, reservoir engineers, production engineers, geologists etc which don't go out to the sites that much. Quite a few of them are based in Houston even though their sites might be on the other side of the country. There aren't enough of those people in the country to fill those roles, let alone the ones which require tough working conditions.
You also see the same in things like civil infrastructure engineering. If a large program of works is signed off then there is often a shortage of people like structural engineers or detail designers. It is one of the major challenges for design consultancies is that they can only grow their workforce to meet the base load work that comes out of governments and councils. So when there is a big capital injection for new roads or land development or water treatment then they often do not have access to people to do the work.
As for H1Bs causing unemployment in O&G fields it simply isn't true. Firstly you need to make sure that you have the right type of geological experience. Most of the cheaper areas of the world have carbonates deposits where as shale is almost exclusively clastic in nature. This means that you can't bring the experience in from places like India because it simply doesn't transfer. You are limited to places like Australia & Canada which aren't known for their cheap labour.
Then on top of that you have small teams of highly experienced people dealing with very large budgets. Keeping that team working well together is critical. If you are importing people from OS you always run the risk of importing cultural problems. Again if we stick to the Indian sub-continent for source people you can get caste issues which people in the west simply don't understand or perceive.
Don't take this though as me saying the H1Bs are not abused. They clearly are and the US set up for immigration is fucked. There are too many loop holes in one area and too extreme in others. The system needs to be simpler, clearer and more easily policed. The penalties for gaming the system should also be so severe the company would never consider it.
That said I would have thought that if you allowed foreign students into the country, they attended US universities at full cost, and then got high level degrees that these are the type of people you would want to stay in the country. Being highly educated they are likely to be above the average in income and hence tax payers, and because they paid for their education themselves without subsidy they are low cost. Perhaps I am missing something but keeping your post grads seems to me to be a good thing.
Actually there are lots and lots of jobs where a particular skillset won't exist in the local market. This often comes about when an industry expands rapidly. One example would be the shale gas growth in the US. While there were people who had experience mapping the reservoirs locally there would have been a ridiculous shortage of people who would be genuinely able to do the work at the level required. It simply was impossible for the local market to supply those people as they weren't needed at all 10 years ago.
It's not even a case that if I offer more money I can get one. It is the case that there are 100 jobs but only 75 people who can do it. And if it takes 20 years to be able to do that job it doesn't matter how much money I offer there will still be 25 jobs un-filled.
This actually happens a lot more than you might think.
Here you go! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No because of the reasonableness part of the clause. An employee must make themselves reasonably available, taking time off from your current employer would fail any reasonableness test imposed by a court. However if they asked you to pop in after work on a Tuesday for an hour you would be hard pressed to say it was unreasonable.
This. I have seen similar type clauses for senior engineering roles. Usually it is when a particular function is no longer required though rather than an outsourcing. For example I have seen geophysicists let go once the exploration to production phase is completed. They are given a bonus and a lump payment to come back in if required. Usually this would happen if something goes pear shaped with the models later, or if they are required to do more analysis for a compliance issue.
However in those cases they are also usually paid a consulting rate. The bonus / payout figure was a keep you happy amount.
No it didn't. Nobody was hurt by Skylab debris. It landed in the middle of nowhere, specifically the Great Australian Desert. Yes the esperence council fined NASA for littering but it was done as a publicity stunt and it was NEVER paid by NASA. It was paid by funds raised by a radio show host in 2009.
Well where I live they are always building new roads and tunnels to keep traffic moving. So there is a budget there. And they also seem quite keen on making lanes transit lanes where you have to have a minimum of 2 or 3 people in the car to use them. They don't build extra lanes to do this. They re-purpose existing lanes. And mapping a road way in high resolution is significantly cheaper than digging a big ass tunnel.
And you are right, the funding will come from the general tax payer. The same tax payer who may not even own a car at all. This is how government works so I'm not sure what your point is... I pay taxes for buses I never use....
Lets say self drive cars came out today, fully working. They will be hugely expensive and most people wont have them. Then in 5 years time a large number of new luxury models will have self drive. 10 years after that it will be most mainstream cars will have it. 10 years after that it will simply be standard in all cars. Give it another 10 and there will be almost no cars without self drive on the road.
Once AV becomes a developed system the costs will become negligible. Think about it. How many old PCs do you have lying around that even though they are perfectly functional you can't even give away? Electronics are cheap once they become mass produced. When you are talking about 90 million units per year your cost per item will be low.
It's there as a potential. But cars don't hit 100% of people now. I would suggest the benefits far out weigh the negatives and it will be a gradual process anyway so I'm hoping they will be ready for close to everywhere use when I'm past retirement.
So what if driving skills are lost. How many people can genuinely start a fire without a match, lighter or some other ready to go ignition device? How about those people who can actually remember the composition of gunpowder, and if they can know a way to actually get those ingredients? Ok, now about how to skin an animal, how to hunt, how to build shelter?
If driving a car goes the way of riding horses then skills are lost to the general public and only retained by those with a particular interest in them. And you know what? Nothing of value was lost.
Initially they don't need to. They will still be human driven at that stage. But you will drive yourself down your pot holed drive way, along the never graded dirt track until you get to state route 7, which has been mapped by the council. Then the car will take over and you can spin your chair around and sit on your laptop.
Then 2 mins from where you need to exit off the mapped network, the car will alert you to get your shit together, back into your chair, looking forward and ready to take over. You will come off the exit and IF you have responded, acknowledged the car, given your go ahead to take over the car will switch off autopilot. If you haven't responded the car will pull into a parking area and start zapping you through your chair till you wake up.
The reason why these will become wanted is the amount of traffic that will be able to be carried on the main roads will be orders of magnitude higher if all the cars are autonomous.
Also I see autonomous vehicles being staged in their deployment. Self-driving vehicles are a traffic and transport engineers wet dream, they will dramatically increase traffic flows on existing roads. So there will be a significant incentive to municipalities to get sections of their roads "AI" ready.
My prediction is that trunk roads will be the first ones to go autonomous with councils actively contributing to the mapping of the roads. Essentially you will get into your car, drive yourself through the back streets till you get to your main road and at that point the car takes over. Initially you will be mixed in with human driven cars, but then over time priority lanes and pathing will be given to the self driving cars until finally, once self driving cars hit critical mass the trunk roads will be self drive only.
You will still have to be able to drive, in fact a % of every drive will be driven by a human. But the main roads with the bulk traffic will be autonomous.
Of course this is possible. But it isn't likely. It is much more likely, as you posted later, that the risk comes from someone known to my family. My thoughts are that there is probably an even distribution of predators in a population and the internet is likely to remove initial interest in geography. Later if someone did become particularly obsessed with my kids the odds are the they will be somewhere a long way away as the majority of the worlds population live a long way away. It isn't zero risk but it is very low, especially when combined with the already very low risk.
I was working on the 8.5' x 9' measurement that it claimed most respondents would give to VR. Which is closer to 2.5m x 2.75m but I rounded it up.
Do you have no friends? None that you don't get to see on a regular basis?
Posting photos online, particularly facebook, is a way to feel connected to people you may not be able to see IRL as much as you would like. Also facebook tends to cause group conversations, where multiple people contribute to a subject and often not the original person you intended the photo for. It is also a great way, when you have kids, to find out that a friends kid has a similar hobby and that you should push to organise a play date.
I guess I don't see that kids are that hard to find anyway. And while I think my daughters are the most special of snowflakes in the world I completely realise that it is only me that thinks that and to everyone else they are just another kid. So, call it safety of the herd, but the chances of it being my daughter that is singled out, tracked, and snatched is so vanishingly small that I am willing to take that risk because the costs of living a solitary life are worse.
As for the argument made by JMJimmy you quoted I'm not sure totally agree because social media does not require you to post every thing that passes through your head or thing you fantasise about doing. Yes if you write on a public facebook page that you have just done 300kph through the city complete with a video you probably are going to face ridicule, ostracization or limitation. But seriously don't post that video. If you like doing drugs don't post a picture with a needle hanging out of your arm and no one will know. And when you make the comment about other people posting that information, those people were always going to be the blabbermouth that got you in trouble.
It frankly is a stupid mindset. I would be far more concerned about the creepy guy who keeps doing the slow drive by of the school then some random on the inter-tubes. It makes me wonder what kind of life these kids lead that things like facebook are their biggest vector for coming in contact with strangers. Are they seriously that wrapped up in cotton wool that they have no interaction with the outside world???
This is totally illogical. If I post a picture of my daughter in her ballet costume and someone finds it turns them on it doesn't make me someone who produces child porn. No jury would convict based on that.
Then why limit it to photos of children? FFS people "Check In" to places which is basically I am not home now come rob me. I'm sure you could work out a pretty good schedule for my kids if you had access to my wife's facebook page. But I don't see it as a real risk and less of a risk then her being targetted by someone she passes by every day.
So someone gets a bit interested in a photo. Lets say they even get obsessed with one of my girls. For them to be a risk they would actually need to be able to get near her and chances are this person doesn't even live in the same country. No I am far more concerned with the people she may actually come in contact with IRL, not some random basement dweller living 15,000km away.
I was working on the 8.5' x 9' measurement that it claimed most respondents would give to VR. Which is closer to 2.5m x 2.75m.
ooooooo a flame bait mod! Sorry if the policy that worked in another country gets your blood boiling!
I know I know metric but hey I can't think in ft....
But anyway roughly 3m x 3m of clear space is still a big space. Especially in a bedroom that will contain a bed, a book case a desk and quite often a wardrobe (Which TFA comments on). My gaming PC is in a dedicated room and I don't have that amount of space behind me.
So honestly I question their results as I don't believe that people really have that amount of space they could dedicate to VR. A more realistic figure would be 1.5m deep by 2m wide.