Most recruiters don't understand the technology. They only look at the buzzwords on your resume. When you see a job you are interested in try to make your resume come as close to possible of what they are looking for. That doesn't mean that you need to lie, just emphasize the parts of your experience that match the technology specs they are listing in the ad
Most recruiters will go down a buzzword checklist and try to get as many matches as possible.Even though you may not be the perfect candidate if you have roughly half of the skills they are requesting you still have a chance at getting the position. From there you can learn the other half.
I want a boycott of all remakes, reboots, and ripoffs of every decent movie made in the last 30 years. How about Hollywood coming up with something original for a change?
Do yourself a favor sometime. Go to any University bookstore and browse through the textbooks for Electrical Engineering and Elementary Education. Then come back and tell me why they should pay equally.
The reason why nobody learns anything at these for profit schools is that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for their student body. You can have the best teachers in the world along with first class facilities but if the students are unmotivated it won't make a bit of difference. If you took the students out of ITT and put them into any decent college the vast majority would likely flunk out within a year.
The problem with constantly spending more money on education is that education only works for those who desire to be educated. The best students can get a better education from home taking MOOCs than the poor students will get even with the best instructors.
I got up to the register at the grocery store and when the cashier told me the groceries cost $35.50, I told her that I would pay $20 and I was not willing to negotiate. I walked out with an empty basket.
You have the right idea but appear to be a little foggy on the details. Here is how it would work:
As the broadcast TV business begins to wither Comcast can begin to remove channels from its lineup. With the bandwidth saved from these deleted channels it can create a private intranet with > 1 GB of bandwidth. This network will be limited only to the last mile and not access the public Internet. For access to the Internet customers will continue to use their current connection.
Comcast can then use the private Intranet and all of this dedicated bandwidth for its own streaming service. If another service like Netflix or Hulu wish to have access to this domain then Comcast can require them to rent space in their headends for streaming servers. This way the content will not be streamed from the Internet but only through Comcast's private network subverting the net neutrality regulations.
In an ideal world they would not get bailed out. Detroit should not have been bailed out of the mess they created but the reality is that bailouts happen for numerous reasons. First of all if the town was completely insolvent then the retired civil workers would lose most if not all of their pensions. Crime would spike in the town and this would spill over into the surrounding areas. Let's not forget the racial undercurrents of allowing a majority African American town to simply die off. Bottom line is that the bondholders know they will get paid back by somebody even if it is not this town.
If the service is not profitable then it does not benefit the local economy, it is just shifting money from the taxpayers to employees that may or may not reside in that town. If the people who currently live in that town do not have sufficient technical skills then the town cannot hire them for these jobs because the system would fail and they would lose more subscribers and revenue.
The purpose of a government is not to make the best infrastructure possible it is to provide sufficient infrastructure to provide for the needs of the community without wasting taxpayer dollars. Should the town build and maintain an eight lane highway when four lanes are more than sufficient? No, that is spending money just to benefit a few well connected people.
Where is the evidence that this money will produce any kind of return much less 28 million dollars worth? I fail to see it. This will turn out to be an enormous white elephant.
I highly doubt that they had 28 million dollars lying around waiting to be spent. What most likely happened is that they issued municipal bonds to pay for this with the expectation that it would generate enough new tax revenue from new business in the area to cover its costs. There is no evidence of any economic benefit from this project so the town is likely to be stuck with this cost.
Seeing how this is a relatively low income area it is almost certain they are going to ask the state for some kind of bailout or wind up defaulting on the bonds. If this happens the other citizens of the state get stuck with this bill or they can default and drag down the credit rating of the surrounding communities in the process. This is why states are trying to prevent cities and towns from going into the broadband business. Its like somebody asking to borrow $10,000 dollars from you to play the lottery. If they win they will pay you back but if they don't you won't be able to collect.
I'm all for high speed Internet but this town spent $1500 per household for gigabit Internet. This town has a mean income of 36K and one out of four residents lives below the poverty line. The service has only achieved a 33% penetration rate in the town.
People think that ultra high speed Internet is a magic elixir for all of economic problems of an area but that isn't true. It is no different when they rushed to put computers in every school to bridge the so-called "digital divide". Computers are just tools that allow good students to do better the same as can be said for a faster Internet connection. They can also be used to waste classroom time and distract weaker students from concentrating on their studies.
Given the cheap high speed Internet the town now offers you would expect employers to flock to this area, wouldn't you? Isn't that one of the selling points behind this? Have any new technology companies moved in? No, because they understand that having great tools is meaningless if you don't have the people who can use them to great advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and George Stephanopolus gave Hillary Clinton 75K for her "charity" without telling anybody. Amazing how nobody here was unhappy about that.
Most recruiters don't understand the technology. They only look at the buzzwords on your resume. When you see a job you are interested in try to make your resume come as close to possible of what they are looking for. That doesn't mean that you need to lie, just emphasize the parts of your experience that match the technology specs they are listing in the ad
Most recruiters will go down a buzzword checklist and try to get as many matches as possible.Even though you may not be the perfect candidate if you have roughly half of the skills they are requesting you still have a chance at getting the position. From there you can learn the other half.
I want a boycott of all remakes, reboots, and ripoffs of every decent movie made in the last 30 years. How about Hollywood coming up with something original for a change?
Do yourself a favor sometime. Go to any University bookstore and browse through the textbooks for Electrical Engineering and Elementary Education. Then come back and tell me why they should pay equally.
Maybe hire some writers so the show could actually be funny again.
The reason why nobody learns anything at these for profit schools is that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for their student body. You can have the best teachers in the world along with first class facilities but if the students are unmotivated it won't make a bit of difference. If you took the students out of ITT and put them into any decent college the vast majority would likely flunk out within a year.
The problem with constantly spending more money on education is that education only works for those who desire to be educated. The best students can get a better education from home taking MOOCs than the poor students will get even with the best instructors.
I suggest Space Oddity
-Judge Smails
He was probably an education major.
It wouldn't affect business one way or the other. People will still watch the games and buy the tickets.
He is bringing relief to the poor people stuck in a book desert.
4. You're a fan of Christian Laettner and want to watch the documentary about him 25 times in one week.
Netflix loses money on streaming. The DVD side of the business subsidies the streaming side.
The writing has been on the wall for quite a while now. I think it was first discovered written underneath "As I sit here all brokenhearted..."
I got up to the register at the grocery store and when the cashier told me the groceries cost $35.50, I told her that I would pay $20 and I was not willing to negotiate. I walked out with an empty basket.
Can't have those robots leave and take their AI to the competition.
You wouldn't want to actually form an independent opinion. That would require putting some thought into the matter.
Maybe they feel they are worth more money because the White House tells them that there are 545,000 unfilled positions.
But I guess if they are dumb enough to believe the President then they are not worth hiring.
Is there any place where one could hide from zombie stories?
"Now you actually have a chance to have a decent internet service without massively overpaying for it in US"
The good news is that you get cheap, fast Internet.
The bad news is that your property taxes will double to pay for it.
You have the right idea but appear to be a little foggy on the details. Here is how it would work:
As the broadcast TV business begins to wither Comcast can begin to remove channels from its lineup. With the bandwidth saved from these deleted channels it can create a private intranet with > 1 GB of bandwidth. This network will be limited only to the last mile and not access the public Internet. For access to the Internet customers will continue to use their current connection.
Comcast can then use the private Intranet and all of this dedicated bandwidth for its own streaming service. If another service like Netflix or Hulu wish to have access to this domain then Comcast can require them to rent space in their headends for streaming servers. This way the content will not be streamed from the Internet but only through Comcast's private network subverting the net neutrality regulations.
In an ideal world they would not get bailed out. Detroit should not have been bailed out of the mess they created but the reality is that bailouts happen for numerous reasons. First of all if the town was completely insolvent then the retired civil workers would lose most if not all of their pensions. Crime would spike in the town and this would spill over into the surrounding areas. Let's not forget the racial undercurrents of allowing a majority African American town to simply die off. Bottom line is that the bondholders know they will get paid back by somebody even if it is not this town.
If the service is not profitable then it does not benefit the local economy, it is just shifting money from the taxpayers to employees that may or may not reside in that town. If the people who currently live in that town do not have sufficient technical skills then the town cannot hire them for these jobs because the system would fail and they would lose more subscribers and revenue.
The purpose of a government is not to make the best infrastructure possible it is to provide sufficient infrastructure to provide for the needs of the community without wasting taxpayer dollars. Should the town build and maintain an eight lane highway when four lanes are more than sufficient? No, that is spending money just to benefit a few well connected people.
Where is the evidence that this money will produce any kind of return much less 28 million dollars worth? I fail to see it. This will turn out to be an enormous white elephant.
I highly doubt that they had 28 million dollars lying around waiting to be spent. What most likely happened is that they issued municipal bonds to pay for this with the expectation that it would generate enough new tax revenue from new business in the area to cover its costs. There is no evidence of any economic benefit from this project so the town is likely to be stuck with this cost.
Seeing how this is a relatively low income area it is almost certain they are going to ask the state for some kind of bailout or wind up defaulting on the bonds. If this happens the other citizens of the state get stuck with this bill or they can default and drag down the credit rating of the surrounding communities in the process. This is why states are trying to prevent cities and towns from going into the broadband business. Its like somebody asking to borrow $10,000 dollars from you to play the lottery. If they win they will pay you back but if they don't you won't be able to collect.
I'm all for high speed Internet but this town spent $1500 per household for gigabit Internet. This town has a mean income of 36K and one out of four residents lives below the poverty line. The service has only achieved a 33% penetration rate in the town.
People think that ultra high speed Internet is a magic elixir for all of economic problems of an area but that isn't true. It is no different when they rushed to put computers in every school to bridge the so-called "digital divide". Computers are just tools that allow good students to do better the same as can be said for a faster Internet connection. They can also be used to waste classroom time and distract weaker students from concentrating on their studies.
Given the cheap high speed Internet the town now offers you would expect employers to flock to this area, wouldn't you? Isn't that one of the selling points behind this? Have any new technology companies moved in? No, because they understand that having great tools is meaningless if you don't have the people who can use them to great advantage.