Every internship I've ever heard of is paid. Paid far less than the full time job, but paid. It is illegal for a company in the US to pay less than minimum wage, even for internships. Only non-profits can have unpaid internships. Anyone else is breaking the law.
From your own link:
Not all internships are paid. Nearly all interns working in the United States must be paid, and at least the minimum wage, for their work in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In the US college and university are synonyms. We use them interchangeably. So that doesn't quite parse to US ears, and may make you rethink what some of these other posts have said.
He's talking about a technical college, which is basically a business that sells degrees with minimal to no oversight. Usually the people teaching the classes barely know what's going on (or don't know). Pretty much it's the equivalent of not going to school at all.
Agreed. The absolute best way is either a bit of theory followed by a bit of practical, or a bit of practical (where they expect you to fail), followed by theory (this is why you should do it this way and why it works), followed by doing it right.
However, CS is a unique field where you can do the practical on your own. You own a computer, so you can always write an app to practice what you've learned. Take the initiative, don't wait for them to spoon feed you.
That's a decade ago. Times change. The ideal of the high school dropout being a genius coder is dead (and good riddance). These days you need the degree, or you need years of experience. Getting that first job is nearly impossible if you don't have the degree, and it will be a shit job- doing boring, repetitive work on mind numbing apps that are just like the one you wrote last. And you'll be stuck there, because nobody is going to offer you anything better until you have 4 or 5 years experience.
Why? Because people without the degree and without experience generally don't know what they're doing. There's exceptions of course, but the percentage is low enough that they're not worth looking for. For that matter, I find even with experience those without the degree don't know the fundamentals of their trade. And quite frankly it does make a difference in salary. You're earning almost 6 figures, a decade after the dot com crash? I've made that much at cash strapped startups during this most recent depression- and they raised me to well over as soon as they could afford it. Unless you're living in the ass end of nowhere, senior devs get a decent amount over 6 figures. And damn near all of them have degrees, because the people without degrees rarely have the understanding of how things actually work to rise up the technical ranks.
You realize that a company can't accept that offer, right? They'd see their company sued into oblivion. They have to pay at least minimum wage. Nor would any company ever respect someone willing to make an offer like that.
His best bet is to get a real degree. Work nights, work weekends. Apply to every scholarship and form of financial aid he can find. You *can* get a job in programming without one, but it will be a shit job at a bad company that's lowballing wages. And you'll be there for most of a decade, because nobody who isn't looking for minimum skill cogs is going to hire someone without a degree or 4-5 years experience. The odds they don't know what he's doing are far too great, and a programmer who doesn't know what he's doing will cost them more (via wasting senior talents time) than they gain.
I rarely had it work in the first 10. Literally, it will pick articles that I read once a year prior over webpages I look at every day. It is the absolute worst implementation of autocomplete I've seen in my life. I just tried it again for shits and giggles- it STILL is bringing up an almost 2 year old article rather than a website that begins with "ki".
Or if they hadn't done a time travel plot at all. I hate alternate history timelines. I love Next Generation- that crew no longer even exists. If you want to show a prequel of Star Trek with how the crew gets together, fine. Use new actors for the old roles. Or do a story from somewhere else in the timeline they lived. Don't rewrite the entire history and change the personalities of everyone we loved. I wouldn't want to watch a series based on that, that version of Kirk and Spock have no interest to me.
I said I want security updates (just nothing else). But in my experience, frequent updates are just an excuse for the devs to get careless about acceptance testing, so on average they cause more bugs than they fix. It does probably depend on the length you consider "frequent" to be though. If frequent is less than a month, I stand by my claim. If frequent is more than a month, then you might have time to decently test a release.
I don't know about you, but when I'm using a graphical program like a web browser, my right hand is on the mouse, not the keyboard. The vast majority of the time I'm reading, not typing. Also, backspace to go back is a horrendous mistake in browser design- for every time I've used it and meant it, there's been 3 times where I hit it accidentally while typing a post somewhere and lost all my content.
A frequent upgrade cycle is always a bad thing, it introduces bugs. I want to decide when (or if) their feature set has improved to the point of an upgrade being worth the hassle. I want to upgrade much less frequently than they do unless there's a security bug.
And there's a multitude of UI issues in the latest firefox. Lets start with the fact the URL bar and the search are two different bars, which wasn't the case for most of a decade and is a pointless annoyance. Then lets move onto the "awesome bar" itself. It has the worst autocomplete known to man. Just this morning I tried going to a favorite website. I typed the first two letters- ki. SeaMonkey did sane autocomplete and brought up my website. I tried it on firefox. It brought up some newspaper article I read a year ago about a killer. Yeah, not thanks.
The navigation bar isn't that big, and can be minimized. But really the amount of screen space you save is negligible and I want that bar open- the back button is something I use every few minutes. The icons could probably be made a bit smaller, but eh, why bother?
Something different/new isn't the point of SeaMonkey. The point is *not* integrating all of the new fluff of Firefox/Chrome/Opera on the outside and keeping the same UI that's been working for 15 years. It's a browser for those of us who are sick of changes for the sake of change.
Because it is. Mozilla Suite was Netscape. SeaMonkey is the old Mozilla Suite. So the lineage is direct (although stuff has obviously been added). The question in my mind is what would you want out of a browser GUI that wasn't in Netscape/Mozilla? I haven't seen a single feature that's worth adding in any of the newer browsers, UI wise.
It doesn't have the asinine upgrade cycle of Firefox, it doesn't have the horrible GUI of firefox, and it's UI is stable. And that's what I want- I've been using a web browser for almost 2 decades, I don't want it to change unless there's a HUGE benefit. The last time that happened was tabs. Oh, and it crashes less, uses less memory, and seems to be more responsive. I see no reason for Firefox to even exist when SeaMonkey is such a better project, except that it keeps the idiots in charge of Mozilla busy.
Nope, I don't trust Google enough to use Chrome. I'm a SeaMonkey fan- also known as Firefox without the insane release cycle and with a decent UI. Amsuingly enough, I don't even use the rest of the programs it comes bundled with.
You're doing a halfassed job of writing your flagship browser at the moment. There's no way in hell I'm using your app store or your OS. This type of wasted effort, useless featuritis, and loss of focus is why you're losing ground.
THe market opening lower the next morning has nothing to do with after hour trading. The market opens lower the next morning if the bid and ask prices are lower. What it sold for overnight has no effect on that, unless people looked at those prices and adjusted theirs accordingly. But the "open" is no more than the first purchase made at whatever people had previously ordered.
True. But the big exchanges don't allow that, you do that by trading off exchange. Basically, the government never made selling stock off the exchanges illegal, so people use that as a workaround. So the only after hours rule doesn't stop everything. However, after hours trading is a fraction of what happens during the day. So the rule isn't perfect, but does help. Also, after hours trading doesn't always predict what will happen correctly- after Jobs died, APL was down after hours, but went up on open.
The big deal is announcing during the day. You're supposed to announce when its closed, so people can react at the same time the next morning. That's a big fuck up that could bring the SEC down with fines.
He implemented what he could get through Congress. I do think he made a major misstep- he should have started with a more left wing position, and then compromised to a reasonable middle like a public option plan. He started from there and was forced to move further right. But he still managed to do something the left wing has failed at for 50 years. It will now be easier to fix it than it would be to implement it for the first time.
Sure, the same could be said. I just happen to be biased pro-left wing. So to me that's a positive.
He implemented fucking health care. Something we've been trying to do for 50 years. It wasn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what we had. That's a big left wing position right there. He's gone to bat for others, but as long as the filibuster exists its nearly impossible to get much progress when you need 60 votes and the other party is scary in how much they toe the party line and how little individual thought they have.
Because most of the people in 3rd parties aren't practical, they're philosophers. They have a point of view and anything that doesn't 100% conform to it is wrong. Pushing that point of view is more important than any other problem that may be looming, and solutions to all problems will be looked at in terms of that philosophy and how the solution can push it.
Philosophers make horrible politicians. They're usually unable to compromise, dogmatic, and tend to scare off the middle ground voters. They're valuable for a party to have, but not running in a competitive race.
Practical people realize that the two party system is here for a while in the US. They evaluate the two, and choose whichever is closer (dems for green, reps for libertarians). Then they try to change the party from the inside, bowing to party demands on less important issues in order to use political capital on big ones. These people actually get things done.
With a few exceptions, most of the Libertarians I've known have been anarchists, with a nod to maybe having a court system- but that could be privatized too. So yes, they most definitely have a problem with a government.
I'd also point out that any government as small and powerless as the libertarians want would be useless, hamstrung, and by no means functioning. But I'll avoid the argument as libertarianism is more of a religion than a political party, they just won't listen if it doesn't fit their worldview.
But Romney would be beholden to that wing of the party for future votes and for money for his re-election. So you can be sure he'd give them what they want if he could at all swing it. Better be safe and not have the religious extremists control the presidency.
Slashdot Mirror
Every internship I've ever heard of is paid. Paid far less than the full time job, but paid. It is illegal for a company in the US to pay less than minimum wage, even for internships. Only non-profits can have unpaid internships. Anyone else is breaking the law.
From your own link:
Not all internships are paid. Nearly all interns working in the United States must be paid, and at least the minimum wage, for their work in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In the US college and university are synonyms. We use them interchangeably. So that doesn't quite parse to US ears, and may make you rethink what some of these other posts have said.
He's talking about a technical college, which is basically a business that sells degrees with minimal to no oversight. Usually the people teaching the classes barely know what's going on (or don't know). Pretty much it's the equivalent of not going to school at all.
Agreed. The absolute best way is either a bit of theory followed by a bit of practical, or a bit of practical (where they expect you to fail), followed by theory (this is why you should do it this way and why it works), followed by doing it right.
However, CS is a unique field where you can do the practical on your own. You own a computer, so you can always write an app to practice what you've learned. Take the initiative, don't wait for them to spoon feed you.
That's a decade ago. Times change. The ideal of the high school dropout being a genius coder is dead (and good riddance). These days you need the degree, or you need years of experience. Getting that first job is nearly impossible if you don't have the degree, and it will be a shit job- doing boring, repetitive work on mind numbing apps that are just like the one you wrote last. And you'll be stuck there, because nobody is going to offer you anything better until you have 4 or 5 years experience.
Why? Because people without the degree and without experience generally don't know what they're doing. There's exceptions of course, but the percentage is low enough that they're not worth looking for. For that matter, I find even with experience those without the degree don't know the fundamentals of their trade. And quite frankly it does make a difference in salary. You're earning almost 6 figures, a decade after the dot com crash? I've made that much at cash strapped startups during this most recent depression- and they raised me to well over as soon as they could afford it. Unless you're living in the ass end of nowhere, senior devs get a decent amount over 6 figures. And damn near all of them have degrees, because the people without degrees rarely have the understanding of how things actually work to rise up the technical ranks.
You realize that a company can't accept that offer, right? They'd see their company sued into oblivion. They have to pay at least minimum wage. Nor would any company ever respect someone willing to make an offer like that.
His best bet is to get a real degree. Work nights, work weekends. Apply to every scholarship and form of financial aid he can find. You *can* get a job in programming without one, but it will be a shit job at a bad company that's lowballing wages. And you'll be there for most of a decade, because nobody who isn't looking for minimum skill cogs is going to hire someone without a degree or 4-5 years experience. The odds they don't know what he's doing are far too great, and a programmer who doesn't know what he's doing will cost them more (via wasting senior talents time) than they gain.
Thank you.
I rarely had it work in the first 10. Literally, it will pick articles that I read once a year prior over webpages I look at every day. It is the absolute worst implementation of autocomplete I've seen in my life. I just tried it again for shits and giggles- it STILL is bringing up an almost 2 year old article rather than a website that begins with "ki".
Or if they hadn't done a time travel plot at all. I hate alternate history timelines. I love Next Generation- that crew no longer even exists. If you want to show a prequel of Star Trek with how the crew gets together, fine. Use new actors for the old roles. Or do a story from somewhere else in the timeline they lived. Don't rewrite the entire history and change the personalities of everyone we loved. I wouldn't want to watch a series based on that, that version of Kirk and Spock have no interest to me.
I'd rather have trek dead that that abomination. It's time for some new series anyway. It was great, but it's time is past.
I said I want security updates (just nothing else). But in my experience, frequent updates are just an excuse for the devs to get careless about acceptance testing, so on average they cause more bugs than they fix. It does probably depend on the length you consider "frequent" to be though. If frequent is less than a month, I stand by my claim. If frequent is more than a month, then you might have time to decently test a release.
I don't know about you, but when I'm using a graphical program like a web browser, my right hand is on the mouse, not the keyboard. The vast majority of the time I'm reading, not typing. Also, backspace to go back is a horrendous mistake in browser design- for every time I've used it and meant it, there's been 3 times where I hit it accidentally while typing a post somewhere and lost all my content.
A frequent upgrade cycle is always a bad thing, it introduces bugs. I want to decide when (or if) their feature set has improved to the point of an upgrade being worth the hassle. I want to upgrade much less frequently than they do unless there's a security bug.
And there's a multitude of UI issues in the latest firefox. Lets start with the fact the URL bar and the search are two different bars, which wasn't the case for most of a decade and is a pointless annoyance. Then lets move onto the "awesome bar" itself. It has the worst autocomplete known to man. Just this morning I tried going to a favorite website. I typed the first two letters- ki. SeaMonkey did sane autocomplete and brought up my website. I tried it on firefox. It brought up some newspaper article I read a year ago about a killer. Yeah, not thanks.
The navigation bar isn't that big, and can be minimized. But really the amount of screen space you save is negligible and I want that bar open- the back button is something I use every few minutes. The icons could probably be made a bit smaller, but eh, why bother?
Something different/new isn't the point of SeaMonkey. The point is *not* integrating all of the new fluff of Firefox/Chrome/Opera on the outside and keeping the same UI that's been working for 15 years. It's a browser for those of us who are sick of changes for the sake of change.
Because it is. Mozilla Suite was Netscape. SeaMonkey is the old Mozilla Suite. So the lineage is direct (although stuff has obviously been added). The question in my mind is what would you want out of a browser GUI that wasn't in Netscape/Mozilla? I haven't seen a single feature that's worth adding in any of the newer browsers, UI wise.
It doesn't have the asinine upgrade cycle of Firefox, it doesn't have the horrible GUI of firefox, and it's UI is stable. And that's what I want- I've been using a web browser for almost 2 decades, I don't want it to change unless there's a HUGE benefit. The last time that happened was tabs. Oh, and it crashes less, uses less memory, and seems to be more responsive. I see no reason for Firefox to even exist when SeaMonkey is such a better project, except that it keeps the idiots in charge of Mozilla busy.
Nope, I don't trust Google enough to use Chrome. I'm a SeaMonkey fan- also known as Firefox without the insane release cycle and with a decent UI. Amsuingly enough, I don't even use the rest of the programs it comes bundled with.
You're doing a halfassed job of writing your flagship browser at the moment. There's no way in hell I'm using your app store or your OS. This type of wasted effort, useless featuritis, and loss of focus is why you're losing ground.
THe market opening lower the next morning has nothing to do with after hour trading. The market opens lower the next morning if the bid and ask prices are lower. What it sold for overnight has no effect on that, unless people looked at those prices and adjusted theirs accordingly. But the "open" is no more than the first purchase made at whatever people had previously ordered.
True. But the big exchanges don't allow that, you do that by trading off exchange. Basically, the government never made selling stock off the exchanges illegal, so people use that as a workaround. So the only after hours rule doesn't stop everything. However, after hours trading is a fraction of what happens during the day. So the rule isn't perfect, but does help. Also, after hours trading doesn't always predict what will happen correctly- after Jobs died, APL was down after hours, but went up on open.
The big deal is announcing during the day. You're supposed to announce when its closed, so people can react at the same time the next morning. That's a big fuck up that could bring the SEC down with fines.
He implemented what he could get through Congress. I do think he made a major misstep- he should have started with a more left wing position, and then compromised to a reasonable middle like a public option plan. He started from there and was forced to move further right. But he still managed to do something the left wing has failed at for 50 years. It will now be easier to fix it than it would be to implement it for the first time.
Sure, the same could be said. I just happen to be biased pro-left wing. So to me that's a positive.
He implemented fucking health care. Something we've been trying to do for 50 years. It wasn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what we had. That's a big left wing position right there. He's gone to bat for others, but as long as the filibuster exists its nearly impossible to get much progress when you need 60 votes and the other party is scary in how much they toe the party line and how little individual thought they have.
Because most of the people in 3rd parties aren't practical, they're philosophers. They have a point of view and anything that doesn't 100% conform to it is wrong. Pushing that point of view is more important than any other problem that may be looming, and solutions to all problems will be looked at in terms of that philosophy and how the solution can push it.
Philosophers make horrible politicians. They're usually unable to compromise, dogmatic, and tend to scare off the middle ground voters. They're valuable for a party to have, but not running in a competitive race.
Practical people realize that the two party system is here for a while in the US. They evaluate the two, and choose whichever is closer (dems for green, reps for libertarians). Then they try to change the party from the inside, bowing to party demands on less important issues in order to use political capital on big ones. These people actually get things done.
With a few exceptions, most of the Libertarians I've known have been anarchists, with a nod to maybe having a court system- but that could be privatized too. So yes, they most definitely have a problem with a government.
I'd also point out that any government as small and powerless as the libertarians want would be useless, hamstrung, and by no means functioning. But I'll avoid the argument as libertarianism is more of a religion than a political party, they just won't listen if it doesn't fit their worldview.
But Romney would be beholden to that wing of the party for future votes and for money for his re-election. So you can be sure he'd give them what they want if he could at all swing it. Better be safe and not have the religious extremists control the presidency.