Would you rather hire someone with a high school diploma and 10 years of experience, or a college degree and 5 years of experience? Unemployment statistics make it very clear what most companies prefer.
Given the statistics, are you saying that most high tech companies have incorrect hiring practices?
Do all the bean counters who measure productivity not have any influence in who gets hired?
OR do employees with both education and experience outperform those with experience only?
It seems obvious that somebody with 5 years of experience, is going to outperform someone with 5 years of education and no direct experience, at least in the short term. Once you start making longer term bets on people and caring about long term results, you might find that with 1 or 2 years of experience, those graduates outperform the un-educated.
It works for me; it'll be years before those people can do real work at any reasonable rate; in the interval, we always outperform them.
Yep, focusing on short term results gets better short term results.
You do realize this conversation is about people who are hiding their wealth in offshore accounts, to illegally make their tax liability appear lower than it actually is? Tax fraud and freeloading go hand in hand.
Explain to me how hiding your money in offshore accounts so it can't be seen by the govt, for the express purpose of dodging the legally required taxation of that money, is legal?
This is the most fundamental of economic arguments, and why "King Lud" smashed the looms and formed the luddite anti-technology movement. You are thinking about the low-wage jobs that are lost, but completely ignoring that the same parking garage will now need to hire a high-wage computer technician to manage the system and keep it running.
Might as well convert the water into mist and throw it into the sky and let the wind move it around. The energy required to pump billions of gallons uphill is significant.
As someone who has worked with several major processors and manages millions of credit/debit transactions per year, I'd consider that extraordinarily unlikely. It would take several years to implement, and would cripple the current infrastructure if attempted.
I think the difference is that libertarians usually acknowledge the negative impacts, but provide a weighted argument that the overall freedom is worth the cost. Are the feminists acknowledging the negative impacts of imposing censorship on broad segments of the populace?
I think that explains it pretty well. A few weeks before the Iraq war started, the world saw the largest coordinated protest in history across hundreds of cities, with millions upon millions of people calling for peace. The end result: Nothing. The largest action of its kind in human history, and it did absolutely nothing.
Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested? How many laws have changed? What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow?
And now the GP wonders, why aren't people protesting more? Why aren't people making a big protest against the president's claim to kill political dissidents? It's ridiculous to claim that partisan politics are what stand in the way. It didn't prevent OWS from happening did it?
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.
I've seen a girl get arrested after her car was broken into. She called the cops, but was super pissed about her purse getting stolen and essentially didn't treat him with respect. He put up with it for a while, but then went into angry cop mode, and when she didnt comply, she got arrested. I tried to diffuse the situation, and almost got arrested myself. The other cops joked and called it a PoP violation. "Pissed off police".
I imagine he's probably being confined in a less "permanent" location right now, which will probably be moderately more comfortable
So I guess you haven't heard about the human rights complaints about the conditions he is being held in? Probably haven't heard that he testified about being stripped naked every night, had his eyeglasses taken away, held in a cold room and wasn't allowed to have sheets or blankets on the bed. He isn't allowed to talk to anybody, isn't allowed to exercise, has to request toilet paper and soap on a per use basis which is sometimes granted and sometimes not.
The United Nations special rapporteur on torture (the top anti-torture official in the world) accused the United States of torture, cruelty, inhumane and degrading treatment specifically in this case. So, I'd say that no, he isn't very comfortable where he is...
I'm not trying to suggest that you would be subject to criminal penalties for not following Visa rules. I AM suggesting that Visa cares deeply about the rules it has in place and violating those rules will absolutely endanger your ability to accept Visa as a payment method. Visa is under no "contractual obligation" to transfer money from a customer, to you, just as you are under no obligation to follow the rules they made up.
Q: What is defined as ‘cardholder data’?
A: Cardholder data is any personally identifiable data associated with a cardholder. This could be an account number, expiration date, name, address, social security number, etc. All personally identifiable information associated with the cardholder that is stored, processed, or transmitted is also considered cardholder data.
Email address is personally indentifiable, ergo, it is cardholder data. The problem isn't as big a deal for individual merchants, but it is a big problem for Google.
Actually the small team of lawyers in this case are often considered the kings of copyright trolling, responsible for pursuing legal action against upwards of one hundred thousand people in just a few years.
Lets assume they've been doing this for 3 years, and work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. That gives them 374400 minutes of time spent, suing lets say 100k people. That gives us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.74 minutes of discovery and case-building per person sued (not to mention time spent in court). Exactly how much effort and attention do you think they are putting into making sure they are suing the right person? How much "seemingly valid evidence" do you think they have? If I spend a whole 4 minutes making a case against you, can I seize your computer?
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
It's harder to feed the world without them, but not impossible.
In the US:
91% of the soybean crop is GMO.
88% of the corn crop is GMO.
Yield differences can be significant.
Estimates are that over 1 billion people have been saved from starvation due to GMO crops over the past 40 years. The population of the planet is increasing. There is almost no practical way to feed the planet without them.
The "problem" with the paleo diet is that it excludes whole grains. Grains account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% of the worlds calories, and is the foundation of the human diet. Paleo is at the very top of the food chain. If the entire world was forced to switch to such a diet (for whatever made up reason), it would mean starvation for roughly 80% of the worlds population. It is healthy and fine for the 1% of people that can afford the diet, but advocating for widespread conversion to the diet is the same as advocating widespread starvation. The math simply does not work.
Aside from that, since every fad diet would be unworkable on a grand scale, every single civilization in the history of the world has been founded on agriculture and grain. Can you name a single successful modern hunter-gatherer society? What about going back 1000 years? 50,000 years? If paleo diets are so successful and healthy, look at any society or tribe that has been practising it for centuries, and how are they doing when compared to other humans? For an individual human, it can work. For a group of humans, it makes a weaker society than agriculture.
But I'm biased because of a farming background, congrats on it working for you.
PCI applies if you handle "cardholder data", which explicitly includes every single piece of information that google is sending to the developer. According to PCI regulations, google is a "Service Provider" and the developers are "Merchants".
Did you realize getting any kind of personal information means you MUST be PCI compliant? This means quarterly scans by a licensed 3rd party company of your entire network infrastructure among other things. There are a host of rules that must be followed, and if you fail to follow them, and say publicly divulge that information, or get hacked and lose that information, there are massive fines involved (up to $100,000 USD). I'm betting Google didn't tell you that...
This is a huge deal. As the credit processor, google needs to remain PCI complaint. Passing on "Cardholder Data", which includes the credit card number and ANY personally identifiable information, such as name, home address, & email, makes them a Service Provider according to PCI-DSS. Anybody receiving that data must also be PCI compliant, which is a big deal.
Google is passing secure data to entities that they basically know are not PCI compliant, and likely not warning the developers that they need to be follow PCI rules for this data. This could potentially mean terminating Google's ability to process credit cards, entirely. For google, those rules will be ignored, because there's too much money to be made. But the rules for smaller business would basically mean shutting that business down since it can no longer accept ANY form of non-cash payment. The fines for accidental breaches can be massive, up to $100,000 per incident. This is an intentional breach.
The right to life liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to party, and the right to wifi!
Why should anyone sacrifice and have to endure the terrible burden of having to use a cord, simply in the name of scientific advancement.
Next thing you'll tell me is that I'm not allowed to setup my own transmitters and blast white noise across commerical radio frequencies.
IMNSHO, being in the "wrong" neighborhood at the "wrong" time is sufficient reason for the cops to speak to you. Not be jackbooted jackasses, but just *speak* and use their experience.
So you think institutional racism is reasonable? Wow. The extrapolation is that a black person who is driving around in a predominantely white neighborhood should be pulled over, and has to give valid reasons for his presence? (I.e. he has committed the crime of "Driving-while-black") Luckily, most people disagree with you.
Being stopped by cops, questioned, and being delayed from getting where you are going for no reason is harrasment, plain and simple. If I am acting suspicious, or if there was a recent crime reported, or any other valid reason that is one thing, but being harassed purely for skin color isn't something I support my tax dollars being used for.
Getting stopped as a young white male in a black neighborhood, means they thought you were buying drugs. I'm surprised they didn't search you. I had a friend who lived in a poor black neighborhood. I was afraid to drive there at night, not because of the neighbors, but because of the cops. Being spotted by cops would mean getting pulled over, being questioned, and my car searched with a fine toothed comb while waiting with hands on hood.
I didn't get all pissy and offended, but was glad that the deputies were out and about instead of eating doughnuts.
You do realize that this happened because they had nothing better to do except hang out in a minority neighborhood and harass random citizens, right?
You should be offended since they were racially profiling you and had no reason whatsoever to detain you, except the color of your skin. (But acting pissy and offended is another thing, that leads to arrest.)
Slashdot Mirror
Would you rather hire someone with a high school diploma and 10 years of experience, or a college degree and 5 years of experience? Unemployment statistics make it very clear what most companies prefer.
Given the statistics, are you saying that most high tech companies have incorrect hiring practices?
Do all the bean counters who measure productivity not have any influence in who gets hired?
OR do employees with both education and experience outperform those with experience only?
It seems obvious that somebody with 5 years of experience, is going to outperform someone with 5 years of education and no direct experience, at least in the short term. Once you start making longer term bets on people and caring about long term results, you might find that with 1 or 2 years of experience, those graduates outperform the un-educated.
It works for me; it'll be years before those people can do real work at any reasonable rate; in the interval, we always outperform them.
Yep, focusing on short term results gets better short term results.
You do realize this conversation is about people who are hiding their wealth in offshore accounts, to illegally make their tax liability appear lower than it actually is? Tax fraud and freeloading go hand in hand.
Explain to me how hiding your money in offshore accounts so it can't be seen by the govt, for the express purpose of dodging the legally required taxation of that money, is legal?
1) These calls happen just as frequently (if not more) over cell. (My cell phone usually gets several per day)
2) People have been saying this exact same thing for 30+ years, yet the robocallers are still here.
This is the most fundamental of economic arguments, and why "King Lud" smashed the looms and formed the luddite anti-technology movement. You are thinking about the low-wage jobs that are lost, but completely ignoring that the same parking garage will now need to hire a high-wage computer technician to manage the system and keep it running.
Might as well convert the water into mist and throw it into the sky and let the wind move it around. The energy required to pump billions of gallons uphill is significant.
Join a credit union. You'll save tens of thousands of dollars on major purchases by spending 30 minutes a month maintaining a credit record.
As someone who has worked with several major processors and manages millions of credit/debit transactions per year, I'd consider that extraordinarily unlikely. It would take several years to implement, and would cripple the current infrastructure if attempted.
I think the difference is that libertarians usually acknowledge the negative impacts, but provide a weighted argument that the overall freedom is worth the cost. Are the feminists acknowledging the negative impacts of imposing censorship on broad segments of the populace?
I think that explains it pretty well. A few weeks before the Iraq war started, the world saw the largest coordinated protest in history across hundreds of cities, with millions upon millions of people calling for peace. The end result: Nothing. The largest action of its kind in human history, and it did absolutely nothing.
Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested? How many laws have changed? What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow?
And now the GP wonders, why aren't people protesting more? Why aren't people making a big protest against the president's claim to kill political dissidents? It's ridiculous to claim that partisan politics are what stand in the way. It didn't prevent OWS from happening did it?
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.
I've seen a girl get arrested after her car was broken into. She called the cops, but was super pissed about her purse getting stolen and essentially didn't treat him with respect. He put up with it for a while, but then went into angry cop mode, and when she didnt comply, she got arrested. I tried to diffuse the situation, and almost got arrested myself. The other cops joked and called it a PoP violation. "Pissed off police".
I imagine he's probably being confined in a less "permanent" location right now, which will probably be moderately more comfortable
So I guess you haven't heard about the human rights complaints about the conditions he is being held in? Probably haven't heard that he testified about being stripped naked every night, had his eyeglasses taken away, held in a cold room and wasn't allowed to have sheets or blankets on the bed. He isn't allowed to talk to anybody, isn't allowed to exercise, has to request toilet paper and soap on a per use basis which is sometimes granted and sometimes not.
The United Nations special rapporteur on torture (the top anti-torture official in the world) accused the United States of torture, cruelty, inhumane and degrading treatment specifically in this case. So, I'd say that no, he isn't very comfortable where he is...
Because no one could ever dream of an attack on an airplane where 4 or 5 people were acting in concert, right?
I'm not trying to suggest that you would be subject to criminal penalties for not following Visa rules. I AM suggesting that Visa cares deeply about the rules it has in place and violating those rules will absolutely endanger your ability to accept Visa as a payment method. Visa is under no "contractual obligation" to transfer money from a customer, to you, just as you are under no obligation to follow the rules they made up.
The data google gives is considered "cardholder data".
From: http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php#12
Q: What is defined as ‘cardholder data’?
A: Cardholder data is any personally identifiable data associated with a cardholder. This could be an account number, expiration date, name, address, social security number, etc. All personally identifiable information associated with the cardholder that is stored, processed, or transmitted is also considered cardholder data.
Email address is personally indentifiable, ergo, it is cardholder data. The problem isn't as big a deal for individual merchants, but it is a big problem for Google.
There is no copyright troll involved here either.
Actually the small team of lawyers in this case are often considered the kings of copyright trolling, responsible for pursuing legal action against upwards of one hundred thousand people in just a few years.
Lets assume they've been doing this for 3 years, and work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. That gives them 374400 minutes of time spent, suing lets say 100k people. That gives us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.74 minutes of discovery and case-building per person sued (not to mention time spent in court). Exactly how much effort and attention do you think they are putting into making sure they are suing the right person? How much "seemingly valid evidence" do you think they have? If I spend a whole 4 minutes making a case against you, can I seize your computer?
But wait... is this really fair?
Are you kidding me?
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
It's harder to feed the world without them, but not impossible.
In the US: 91% of the soybean crop is GMO.
88% of the corn crop is GMO.
Yield differences can be significant.
Estimates are that over 1 billion people have been saved from starvation due to GMO crops over the past 40 years. The population of the planet is increasing. There is almost no practical way to feed the planet without them.
The "problem" with the paleo diet is that it excludes whole grains. Grains account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% of the worlds calories, and is the foundation of the human diet. Paleo is at the very top of the food chain. If the entire world was forced to switch to such a diet (for whatever made up reason), it would mean starvation for roughly 80% of the worlds population. It is healthy and fine for the 1% of people that can afford the diet, but advocating for widespread conversion to the diet is the same as advocating widespread starvation. The math simply does not work.
Aside from that, since every fad diet would be unworkable on a grand scale, every single civilization in the history of the world has been founded on agriculture and grain. Can you name a single successful modern hunter-gatherer society? What about going back 1000 years? 50,000 years? If paleo diets are so successful and healthy, look at any society or tribe that has been practising it for centuries, and how are they doing when compared to other humans? For an individual human, it can work. For a group of humans, it makes a weaker society than agriculture.
But I'm biased because of a farming background, congrats on it working for you.
PCI applies if you handle "cardholder data", which explicitly includes every single piece of information that google is sending to the developer. According to PCI regulations, google is a "Service Provider" and the developers are "Merchants".
Did you realize getting any kind of personal information means you MUST be PCI compliant? This means quarterly scans by a licensed 3rd party company of your entire network infrastructure among other things. There are a host of rules that must be followed, and if you fail to follow them, and say publicly divulge that information, or get hacked and lose that information, there are massive fines involved (up to $100,000 USD). I'm betting Google didn't tell you that...
This is a huge deal. As the credit processor, google needs to remain PCI complaint. Passing on "Cardholder Data", which includes the credit card number and ANY personally identifiable information, such as name, home address, & email, makes them a Service Provider according to PCI-DSS. Anybody receiving that data must also be PCI compliant, which is a big deal.
Google is passing secure data to entities that they basically know are not PCI compliant, and likely not warning the developers that they need to be follow PCI rules for this data. This could potentially mean terminating Google's ability to process credit cards, entirely. For google, those rules will be ignored, because there's too much money to be made. But the rules for smaller business would basically mean shutting that business down since it can no longer accept ANY form of non-cash payment. The fines for accidental breaches can be massive, up to $100,000 per incident. This is an intentional breach.
The right to life liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to party, and the right to wifi!
Why should anyone sacrifice and have to endure the terrible burden of having to use a cord, simply in the name of scientific advancement.
Next thing you'll tell me is that I'm not allowed to setup my own transmitters and blast white noise across commerical radio frequencies.
IMNSHO, being in the "wrong" neighborhood at the "wrong" time is sufficient reason for the cops to speak to you. Not be jackbooted jackasses, but just *speak* and use their experience.
So you think institutional racism is reasonable? Wow. The extrapolation is that a black person who is driving around in a predominantely white neighborhood should be pulled over, and has to give valid reasons for his presence? (I.e. he has committed the crime of "Driving-while-black") Luckily, most people disagree with you.
Being stopped by cops, questioned, and being delayed from getting where you are going for no reason is harrasment, plain and simple. If I am acting suspicious, or if there was a recent crime reported, or any other valid reason that is one thing, but being harassed purely for skin color isn't something I support my tax dollars being used for.
Getting stopped as a young white male in a black neighborhood, means they thought you were buying drugs. I'm surprised they didn't search you. I had a friend who lived in a poor black neighborhood. I was afraid to drive there at night, not because of the neighbors, but because of the cops. Being spotted by cops would mean getting pulled over, being questioned, and my car searched with a fine toothed comb while waiting with hands on hood.
I didn't get all pissy and offended, but was glad that the deputies were out and about instead of eating doughnuts.
You do realize that this happened because they had nothing better to do except hang out in a minority neighborhood and harass random citizens, right? You should be offended since they were racially profiling you and had no reason whatsoever to detain you, except the color of your skin. (But acting pissy and offended is another thing, that leads to arrest.)