Generally speaking I tend to learn more towards the conservative party in Australian than the Labor party. But everytime I go to the US I come back a little more left wing. The amount of poverty and people who are just lost is terrifying. For a country that are smart about so many things their social structure is just broken.
Unfortunately having been hit by a full size Semi-Trailer, the driver of which was later charged with "driving without due care and attention" there are accidents that are the truck drivers fault.
I would be surprised if it is that the sum of liabilities had to be lower than value of assets. If you took a loan for $1 million and then bought equipment that equipment is immediately lower in value the second you bought it. This would mean you have a liability of 1 million and an asset worth say 700k. Which would run you afoul of what you described.
More likely it is that your available assets exceed current liabilities. Usually current liabilities are those that come due in this financial year.
Companies must have the ability to meet their liabilities as they become due otherwise they are trading insolvent. Put simply if Tesla had reached pay day and been unable to make the payment then it would have been insolvent and it would have been illegal for them to continue trading.
However I would suggest there is absolutely no chance of that statement being true as you don't get paid for your contracts immediately so there must have been some other finance mechanism in place.
Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to
more than 400,000 doctor visits, more than 200,000 emergency room visits, 55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and 20 to 60 deaths.
It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.
What the fuck is intussusception? a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine
Treatment? The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.
So to summarise Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
In Europe, North America, Australia and NZ I know that asking about family status, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, union membership, race or ethnicity is not allowed.
And wow Chilonim, never heard that term before so I had to google it. Interesting concept that there is a grouping for non-religious Jews and that it is a recognised way of considering them. They way you put it "even amongst the Chilonim" could, and I stress could not that I am, be used to imply that non-Chilonim people are more family orientated.
Then if you had two potential employees, 1 Chilonim & 1 not, both equally qualified and experienced and both with families which would you choose if your role had long hours or lots of travel? Do you decide to hire the Chilonim candidate because they are likely to care less about their family?
This is the problem when non technical considerations are used to make a hiring decision. People's stereotypes become too major a factor. You can't stop people using their stereotypes but you can try to reduce its prevalence.
No worries. I'm surprised you have to fill out these application forms for each job. I'm guessing the employment market is still not great over there because we don't see those type of things outside of Government jobs. As a general rule people won't fill them in here.
Actually there has been a revival of that type of music. The same with Glam-Metal. Five finger death punch for the guitars, Black Veil Brides for you glam-metal.
The other band that has made a really good comeback with their new stuff is Korn.
You gave the reason in the interview, where you were able to talk it through and answer any questions that came up. (I've been there myself having come into the office with all my stuff in a box).
If that had been written on your CV though it potentially would have cause you problems.
Assuming you haven't been unemployed for an extended period then the say reason applies with the added. "I decided it was a good time to take a period off. I had a number of personal projects I wanted to complete and am now keen for my next challenge" or some variation of this.
If you have been long term unemployed and desperate to work then this becomes much more difficult.
Reason for leaving should NEVER be stated on a CV. It can always be misconstrued no matter what you write. "moved for a better opportunity" "approached by old manager" " poached by agent" no matter what there will be someone who reads that negatively. About the only thing that is ok is "Contract / Project completed"
If you are asked in an interview what the reasons for leaving were then you should treat it exactly the same way you treat the "So what are your weaknesses question" give them an answer which doesn't give them a reason to discount you and if you can manage it spin it into a quasi-positive.
If it was the case that your boss was a wanker and you had to get out, spin it into something like "I had spent a decent length of time there and I believe I accomplished all that I was going to. I felt that it was the right time for me to look for new opportunities and hence here I am. In particular I am keen to work on (whatever they just told you about)."
Nothing there is a lie. If your boss was a jerk you probably weren't going to go any further in that role.
It may be a US centric hatred. I'm in Aus and it is pretty much irrelevant.
As for people putting that stuff on their CV, yeah they really really do (and I get enough US based CVs to know people there do it as well). And like the US in Australia you can't discriminate on age, gender, race, marital status, religion or politics. That doesn't stop me getting a CV with everything from the kids names, to their passport number.
The other thing I see a lot is: July 2008 to Aug 2013 - Senior Developer I did blah blah blah blah I have awesome skills.
Reason for leaving: My boss was an absolute cock and one day I had enough and I quit with no notice.
For some reason people don't seem to think this will raise questions about them.
I do work in tech recruitment. But also I don't provide a persons contact details to a company until they have already had a first stage interview. So a persons email address isn't available to the company as a selection criteria.
When I am determining whether I will represent someone to a company I care about their work experience, what they have done, and who they have done it for. I then interview them to determine whether I think the culture will be a fit.
My experience is that often in technical spaces people can be very unaware of how certain things may portray them. People put photos on their CV, they put their marital status, how many kids they have, where the attend church, whole paragraphs about their hobbies, all sorts of weird things. Quite often the more techie they are the weirder the stuff they put on their CV.
Part of my role is to help people portray their skills and experience in the way that will get them an interview. From where I sit, if having an @aol address is a bad thing, it ranks very very low on the list of things that will cause you a problem.
The first case was not a non-poaching agreement it was a non-hiring agreement. You work for google then apple won't hire you. It isn't about tempting someone to change jobs.
The second case is you have an agreement not to solicit another companies employees. Nothing stopping you from hiring them. Everything stopping you from calling them up and saying "what do I have to do to get you to quit your job and come work for me"
Non-Compete clauses are hard to enforce unless the employee left demonstrates certain behaviours that show them operating in poor faith. The type of thing would be calling all your old clients and saying "I did this for you at A123 for $x, now I'm with Apple I will do it for $y where y is less than x"
Other enforceable clauses are the non-solicitation clauses. In particular the courts frown on knowingly breaching the non-solicitation clauses to entice other employees. It is considered again operating in bad faith.
I understand that you are able to do all of these things. I had just never heard the "you look like a dinosaur cause your email address is AOL" before and I work in recruitment.....
To me it seems insane that that would be a consideration.
You want to come work for me you are absolutely more than welcome. In fact I would LOVE you to come work for me. I have no restrictions on hiring you at all. As long as you make the first move.
What I have is an agreement with your current employer that I wont walk up to you and say "So TomPaulco, what is it going to take for you to leave your current work and come over to me?"
As I said there is nothing stopping you coming and working for me, nothing stopping you from your rights to pursue happiness. The restriction is on my ability to tempt you to come work for me.
But then you still have two email addresses you are giving out. Why bother? It's not like you wont get email if you use AOL.
Nothing I have seen gives a reason to change away from a service that is working for you. Gmail/other may be better at lots of things, but if you don't care about any other those things why change? This is especially true if your old email address is first.last@aol.com and the gmail suggestions are first793976.last63789534987435987@gmail.com
Seriously? That is the dumbest criteria I have ever heard.
So someone who decides that consistency in their contact details over extended periods is a good thing doesn't get an interview? So the person who managed to get first.last@yahoo.com but could only get first.last351y6742wety7@gmail.com should use gmail as their preferred professional email address?
Christ they may have gmail auto-getting their yahoo or aol mail anyway, have 250 email addresses pulled into a central gmail location and use an email they think is the best one for a particular circumstance.
Or that they have had the same email address for 20 years. Have hundreds of clients that have that email address and that sending a spam email to 5000 people saying "here is my new email address" is stupid and likely to cause them to lose business.
No but you can have agreements to not approach employees of another company to come work for you. This is different to "We will not employ your staff" which is what Apple got in trouble for previously.
You see "do not poach" clauses as a regular component of contracts where two companies are working very closely on a project together. The no-poach agreement usually runs for the duration of the project plus a period of time (usually 6 or 12 months)
For this to work A123 would have to successfully argue that Apple had a binding non-compete, common for companies that work together, and that poaching those staff was specifically to compete with A123.
I'm not a lawyer but I work in recruitment & employment, it is no uncommon for one company to poach a large part of a team from another. Generally you start with the leader and then work your way through the best people in the team.
There is a compensation system. The properties are bought from them at an agreed market price. In Australia there is a slight premium put on the figure in order to add to the compensation. But homes are often worth more to the owner than just a dollar amount.
For example I got married on our property. That emotional aspect won't be taken into consideration when doing a valuation.
That said I believe that resumption of properties for infrastructure is a necessity. It is one of those prices of living in a society, in that sometimes society has to come first. The real problems seem to kick in when person interests, either through money or popular protests, manage to shift the policies to far from the ideal.
Agreed. You want rail to go to your high density areas, have the smallest number of bends possible and keep your gradient as flat as possible. The problem with this is it tends to go straight over lots of expensive realestate.
People lobby the governments, government changes the design to a crappier option. Rinse and repeat, until the solution you have has so many design changes that it doesn't solve any problems.
If you have ever been to Moscow they have ring roads that are centred on the Kremlin. They manage to carry a huge amount of traffic and they are almost perfectly concentric. The only reason they exist is Stalin just bull dosed anything in the way. Great infrastructure now, terrible for anyone who lost their home of business at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally speaking I tend to learn more towards the conservative party in Australian than the Labor party. But everytime I go to the US I come back a little more left wing. The amount of poverty and people who are just lost is terrifying. For a country that are smart about so many things their social structure is just broken.
Unfortunately having been hit by a full size Semi-Trailer, the driver of which was later charged with "driving without due care and attention" there are accidents that are the truck drivers fault.
I would be surprised if it is that the sum of liabilities had to be lower than value of assets. If you took a loan for $1 million and then bought equipment that equipment is immediately lower in value the second you bought it. This would mean you have a liability of 1 million and an asset worth say 700k. Which would run you afoul of what you described.
More likely it is that your available assets exceed current liabilities. Usually current liabilities are those that come due in this financial year.
Companies must have the ability to meet their liabilities as they become due otherwise they are trading insolvent. Put simply if Tesla had reached pay day and been unable to make the payment then it would have been insolvent and it would have been illegal for them to continue trading.
However I would suggest there is absolutely no chance of that statement being true as you don't get paid for your contracts immediately so there must have been some other finance mechanism in place.
Ummmm I think you are talking crap.
http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...
Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to
more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.
Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.
What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine
Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.
So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
In Europe, North America, Australia and NZ I know that asking about family status, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, union membership, race or ethnicity is not allowed.
And wow Chilonim, never heard that term before so I had to google it. Interesting concept that there is a grouping for non-religious Jews and that it is a recognised way of considering them. They way you put it "even amongst the Chilonim" could, and I stress could not that I am, be used to imply that non-Chilonim people are more family orientated.
Then if you had two potential employees, 1 Chilonim & 1 not, both equally qualified and experienced and both with families which would you choose if your role had long hours or lots of travel? Do you decide to hire the Chilonim candidate because they are likely to care less about their family?
This is the problem when non technical considerations are used to make a hiring decision. People's stereotypes become too major a factor. You can't stop people using their stereotypes but you can try to reduce its prevalence.
No worries. I'm surprised you have to fill out these application forms for each job. I'm guessing the employment market is still not great over there because we don't see those type of things outside of Government jobs. As a general rule people won't fill them in here.
Actually there has been a revival of that type of music. The same with Glam-Metal. Five finger death punch for the guitars, Black Veil Brides for you glam-metal.
The other band that has made a really good comeback with their new stuff is Korn.
You gave the reason in the interview, where you were able to talk it through and answer any questions that came up. (I've been there myself having come into the office with all my stuff in a box).
If that had been written on your CV though it potentially would have cause you problems.
Assuming you haven't been unemployed for an extended period then the say reason applies with the added. "I decided it was a good time to take a period off. I had a number of personal projects I wanted to complete and am now keen for my next challenge" or some variation of this.
If you have been long term unemployed and desperate to work then this becomes much more difficult.
No see following post - Do not put a reason for leaving on your CV. That is something to discuss in interview.
Reason for leaving should NEVER be stated on a CV. It can always be misconstrued no matter what you write. "moved for a better opportunity" "approached by old manager" " poached by agent" no matter what there will be someone who reads that negatively. About the only thing that is ok is "Contract / Project completed"
If you are asked in an interview what the reasons for leaving were then you should treat it exactly the same way you treat the "So what are your weaknesses question" give them an answer which doesn't give them a reason to discount you and if you can manage it spin it into a quasi-positive.
If it was the case that your boss was a wanker and you had to get out, spin it into something like "I had spent a decent length of time there and I believe I accomplished all that I was going to. I felt that it was the right time for me to look for new opportunities and hence here I am. In particular I am keen to work on (whatever they just told you about)."
Nothing there is a lie. If your boss was a jerk you probably weren't going to go any further in that role.
It may be a US centric hatred. I'm in Aus and it is pretty much irrelevant.
As for people putting that stuff on their CV, yeah they really really do (and I get enough US based CVs to know people there do it as well). And like the US in Australia you can't discriminate on age, gender, race, marital status, religion or politics. That doesn't stop me getting a CV with everything from the kids names, to their passport number.
The other thing I see a lot is:
July 2008 to Aug 2013 - Senior Developer
I did blah blah blah blah I have awesome skills.
Reason for leaving: My boss was an absolute cock and one day I had enough and I quit with no notice.
For some reason people don't seem to think this will raise questions about them.
I do work in tech recruitment. But also I don't provide a persons contact details to a company until they have already had a first stage interview. So a persons email address isn't available to the company as a selection criteria.
When I am determining whether I will represent someone to a company I care about their work experience, what they have done, and who they have done it for. I then interview them to determine whether I think the culture will be a fit.
My experience is that often in technical spaces people can be very unaware of how certain things may portray them. People put photos on their CV, they put their marital status, how many kids they have, where the attend church, whole paragraphs about their hobbies, all sorts of weird things. Quite often the more techie they are the weirder the stuff they put on their CV.
Part of my role is to help people portray their skills and experience in the way that will get them an interview. From where I sit, if having an @aol address is a bad thing, it ranks very very low on the list of things that will cause you a problem.
The first case was not a non-poaching agreement it was a non-hiring agreement. You work for google then apple won't hire you. It isn't about tempting someone to change jobs.
The second case is you have an agreement not to solicit another companies employees. Nothing stopping you from hiring them. Everything stopping you from calling them up and saying "what do I have to do to get you to quit your job and come work for me"
These are not opposite sides of the same coin.
Non-Compete clauses are hard to enforce unless the employee left demonstrates certain behaviours that show them operating in poor faith. The type of thing would be calling all your old clients and saying "I did this for you at A123 for $x, now I'm with Apple I will do it for $y where y is less than x"
Other enforceable clauses are the non-solicitation clauses. In particular the courts frown on knowingly breaching the non-solicitation clauses to entice other employees. It is considered again operating in bad faith.
I understand that you are able to do all of these things. I had just never heard the "you look like a dinosaur cause your email address is AOL" before and I work in recruitment.....
To me it seems insane that that would be a consideration.
No sorry you misunderstand.
You want to come work for me you are absolutely more than welcome. In fact I would LOVE you to come work for me. I have no restrictions on hiring you at all. As long as you make the first move.
What I have is an agreement with your current employer that I wont walk up to you and say "So TomPaulco, what is it going to take for you to leave your current work and come over to me?"
As I said there is nothing stopping you coming and working for me, nothing stopping you from your rights to pursue happiness. The restriction is on my ability to tempt you to come work for me.
But then you still have two email addresses you are giving out. Why bother? It's not like you wont get email if you use AOL.
Nothing I have seen gives a reason to change away from a service that is working for you. Gmail/other may be better at lots of things, but if you don't care about any other those things why change? This is especially true if your old email address is first.last@aol.com and the gmail suggestions are first793976.last63789534987435987@gmail.com
Seriously? That is the dumbest criteria I have ever heard.
So someone who decides that consistency in their contact details over extended periods is a good thing doesn't get an interview? So the person who managed to get first.last@yahoo.com but could only get first.last351y6742wety7@gmail.com should use gmail as their preferred professional email address?
Christ they may have gmail auto-getting their yahoo or aol mail anyway, have 250 email addresses pulled into a central gmail location and use an email they think is the best one for a particular circumstance.
Or that they have had the same email address for 20 years. Have hundreds of clients that have that email address and that sending a spam email to 5000 people saying "here is my new email address" is stupid and likely to cause them to lose business.
No but you can have agreements to not approach employees of another company to come work for you. This is different to "We will not employ your staff" which is what Apple got in trouble for previously.
You see "do not poach" clauses as a regular component of contracts where two companies are working very closely on a project together. The no-poach agreement usually runs for the duration of the project plus a period of time (usually 6 or 12 months)
For this to work A123 would have to successfully argue that Apple had a binding non-compete, common for companies that work together, and that poaching those staff was specifically to compete with A123.
I'm not a lawyer but I work in recruitment & employment, it is no uncommon for one company to poach a large part of a team from another. Generally you start with the leader and then work your way through the best people in the team.
There is a compensation system. The properties are bought from them at an agreed market price. In Australia there is a slight premium put on the figure in order to add to the compensation. But homes are often worth more to the owner than just a dollar amount.
For example I got married on our property. That emotional aspect won't be taken into consideration when doing a valuation.
That said I believe that resumption of properties for infrastructure is a necessity. It is one of those prices of living in a society, in that sometimes society has to come first. The real problems seem to kick in when person interests, either through money or popular protests, manage to shift the policies to far from the ideal.
Agreed. You want rail to go to your high density areas, have the smallest number of bends possible and keep your gradient as flat as possible. The problem with this is it tends to go straight over lots of expensive realestate.
People lobby the governments, government changes the design to a crappier option. Rinse and repeat, until the solution you have has so many design changes that it doesn't solve any problems.
If you have ever been to Moscow they have ring roads that are centred on the Kremlin. They manage to carry a huge amount of traffic and they are almost perfectly concentric. The only reason they exist is Stalin just bull dosed anything in the way. Great infrastructure now, terrible for anyone who lost their home of business at the time.