The supply of hydrogen available for fusion is so ridiculously large that the concern you have won't be a serious issue for something like a hundred billion years. And at that point, we'll be struggling to figure out what to do about the heat death of the universe anyway, hydrogen exhaustion will be the least of our civilizations' problems.
A significant cost involved in running hospitals and smaller offices is power for lights, devices, etc. Subtract that out of the equation, and healthcare gets cheaper.
On the other hand, I live in CA, and don't have cancer, and therefore get to laugh snarkily whenever I hear about some kid who has cancer in some other state begging make-a-wish to give him a nice day.
Statistically they're right though... you can't count on that, and you can't make it happen. You can work really hard, and you might be the one in ten-thousand applicant who catches their fancy. But don't mistake that luck for having made it happen, when you only made it possible.
I don't know what studies you're reading. The ones I've read reach nearly the opposite conclusion. So at best we could chalk this up to 'science in the field is unclear'.
That would be unconscionable and illegal, voiding the EULA on both counts. What about using your GPU to generate data would be either unconscionable or illegal?
It's uncertain what complexity class factorization in, but the best known techniques are not in P. P=NP therefore implies there is indeed a 'better' factorization algorithm. And so, you can crack encryption faster.
Why... I : a) wouldn't take the risk b) have heard human tastes terrible, and nothing like chicken c) am no danger to you because while I would eat your corpse if I were hungry enough, wouldn't kill you to get it. d) could stand to lose ten pounds anyway. I'll try to wait out the rescue.
The courts are required to do so. A lawsuit is brought, it has to go through the process. The court can fine the lawsuit bringer to recover costs if the suit is unwarranted, but since the evidence of injury has already passed the judge that seems highly unlikely.
I think the key is that they haven't just chosen. They've colluded to do something collectively that they cannot do individually. It's the same as all the gas stations in your area getting together to set the price of gas a dollar higher. If they all sign an agreement to do it, they make a lot more money (and to be clear: this is illegal too). But if they have no agreement, they can't fix the prices. This is the same thing. They can't do price fixing without the agreements. Unilateral action just means they lose the competition for the best employees.
I'm fine with the unilateral action. I'm not fine with price fixing collusion.
If I'm ready to pursue a new job, then I follow the same path. But jobs do come looking for me also. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Zynga, have all tried to recruit me away from my current employer. Their main point of leverage is salary. They have big bucks, and can throw them away on excessive salaries in cases where those skills are fairly hard to acquire. This is the market into which these agreements enter: an arms race between a number of companies with big war chests who need to hire highly specialized employees who are relatively rare. It becomes a rapidly escalating salary battle. My personal salary has been up a little over 9% year over year for more than a decade as a result. These companies are tired of paying those levels of raises, and want to do a better job of holding down salary costs. So they enter into these agreements.
The main point where we seem to depart is on the facts. And there is indeed no point in arguing when the facts themselves, rather than the interpretation of those facts, is in dispute.
A no cold call policy is going to slow him down by increasing the level of effort for him to find and pursue that job. People with comfy jobs can be lazy about the job search. They may not even realize from one month to the next that the fair price for their labor in the market has jumped 25%, and that their current employer hasn't given them a raise to match.
If this strategy were truly impotent I suppose it wouldn't be evil. But then, neither would it be used.
Google can put into place whatever policy they want. No external calls from unknown numbers? Fine. Require applicants to have their work history anonymized? Fine.
They can take those actions independently just fine. It's only when they collude with others that the problem arises. In isolation, those actions are (significant!) competitive disadvantages. In collusion, they are winning strategies. It's the collusion element that turns it from an acceptable choice to evil.
Because the skill that the career politicians have developed is taking money from powerful interests and suckering voters? Who wouldn't want their leadership less competent at that?
It's not the policy itself. If you want to act that way individually, fine. In fact, I'd find that somewhat admirable, as you'd be at a competitive disadvantage against all the employers who DO use cold calls. It's the collusion that strays into evil territory: the negotiated agreement with your competitors to interfere with the employment market to hold down wages.
I'm not sure I understand your question about the anonymous linked-in profiles. They aren't anonymous because the employees choose not to be anonymous there. Which leaves them open to 'poaching' by interested parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Europe is a place that looks to have figured out how to make government work all right. Let's take our clues from them.
The supply of hydrogen available for fusion is so ridiculously large that the concern you have won't be a serious issue for something like a hundred billion years. And at that point, we'll be struggling to figure out what to do about the heat death of the universe anyway, hydrogen exhaustion will be the least of our civilizations' problems.
A significant cost involved in running hospitals and smaller offices is power for lights, devices, etc.
Subtract that out of the equation, and healthcare gets cheaper.
Well, factually, it would knock something like 10-20% off the healthcare costs for the country (assuming it could drive power costs down 90%).
It was a joke. Apparently no one got it.
On the other hand, I live in CA, and don't have cancer, and therefore get to laugh snarkily whenever I hear about some kid who has cancer in some other state begging make-a-wish to give him a nice day.
Statistically they're right though ... you can't count on that, and you can't make it happen. You can work really hard, and you might be the one in ten-thousand applicant who catches their fancy. But don't mistake that luck for having made it happen, when you only made it possible.
Absolutely true, though I've yet to see an example of this turn up in reality (and that might reflect some other unknown law of mathematics).
I don't know what studies you're reading. The ones I've read reach nearly the opposite conclusion. So at best we could chalk this up to 'science in the field is unclear'.
That would be unconscionable and illegal, voiding the EULA on both counts. What about using your GPU to generate data would be either unconscionable or illegal?
It's uncertain what complexity class factorization in, but the best known techniques are not in P. P=NP therefore implies there is indeed a 'better' factorization algorithm. And so, you can crack encryption faster.
Intelligence is largely controlled by early childhood educational opportunity, so it would be unsurprising if the 4 smartest were white.
Why ... I :
a) wouldn't take the risk
b) have heard human tastes terrible, and nothing like chicken
c) am no danger to you because while I would eat your corpse if I were hungry enough, wouldn't kill you to get it.
d) could stand to lose ten pounds anyway. I'll try to wait out the rescue.
I don't care to cite myself. That's a lot of work to put down a troll. You can take my word for it or not.
If your problem with Gacy and Lector is the cannibalism, you have a serious problem. How about start with the serial murder?
Or to put it another way, if they had dug up dead bodies and eaten them and nothing else, would they still hold the same kind of horror?
The courts are required to do so. A lawsuit is brought, it has to go through the process. The court can fine the lawsuit bringer to recover costs if the suit is unwarranted, but since the evidence of injury has already passed the judge that seems highly unlikely.
I think the key is that they haven't just chosen. They've colluded to do something collectively that they cannot do individually. It's the same as all the gas stations in your area getting together to set the price of gas a dollar higher. If they all sign an agreement to do it, they make a lot more money (and to be clear: this is illegal too). But if they have no agreement, they can't fix the prices. This is the same thing. They can't do price fixing without the agreements. Unilateral action just means they lose the competition for the best employees.
I'm fine with the unilateral action. I'm not fine with price fixing collusion.
If I'm ready to pursue a new job, then I follow the same path. But jobs do come looking for me also. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Zynga, have all tried to recruit me away from my current employer. Their main point of leverage is salary. They have big bucks, and can throw them away on excessive salaries in cases where those skills are fairly hard to acquire. This is the market into which these agreements enter: an arms race between a number of companies with big war chests who need to hire highly specialized employees who are relatively rare. It becomes a rapidly escalating salary battle. My personal salary has been up a little over 9% year over year for more than a decade as a result. These companies are tired of paying those levels of raises, and want to do a better job of holding down salary costs. So they enter into these agreements.
The main point where we seem to depart is on the facts. And there is indeed no point in arguing when the facts themselves, rather than the interpretation of those facts, is in dispute.
A no cold call policy is going to slow him down by increasing the level of effort for him to find and pursue that job. People with comfy jobs can be lazy about the job search. They may not even realize from one month to the next that the fair price for their labor in the market has jumped 25%, and that their current employer hasn't given them a raise to match.
If this strategy were truly impotent I suppose it wouldn't be evil. But then, neither would it be used.
Google can put into place whatever policy they want. No external calls from unknown numbers? Fine. Require applicants to have their work history anonymized? Fine.
They can take those actions independently just fine. It's only when they collude with others that the problem arises. In isolation, those actions are (significant!) competitive disadvantages. In collusion, they are winning strategies. It's the collusion element that turns it from an acceptable choice to evil.
They are probably going to have to look for a different one.
In practice, ruler for life has for some reason turned out to be a frequently abused position.
Because the skill that the career politicians have developed is taking money from powerful interests and suckering voters? Who wouldn't want their leadership less competent at that?
It's not the policy itself. If you want to act that way individually, fine. In fact, I'd find that somewhat admirable, as you'd be at a competitive disadvantage against all the employers who DO use cold calls. It's the collusion that strays into evil territory: the negotiated agreement with your competitors to interfere with the employment market to hold down wages.
I'm not sure I understand your question about the anonymous linked-in profiles. They aren't anonymous because the employees choose not to be anonymous there. Which leaves them open to 'poaching' by interested parties.