Yep. A year and half ago, I interviewed with a Boston-area company. They offered $65K for an coding & program management position to me, a prospective employee with 8 years experience and two masters degrees. I suggested that the cost of living is rather high in Boston, so then they firmly emphasized that all their employees must be local to Boston, so I passed up the job. Too little offered for too big of a hellhole.
Of course companies have the urge to set up business in a growing area like Greater Boston, the SF Bay Area, etc. On the other hand, those places are already freakin' full. To make matters worse, they're full of way too many crappy bankrupt startups. In the US, businesses can get away with all sorts of mischief while individuals are considered expendable. Maybe I'm too jaded, but it actually makes sense to hire H1B's in high cost of living areas. The guest workers are typically from poor crowded countries already, accustomed to the squalor, and plus as non-citizens they're less likely to travel to other parts of the US that don't suffer from such conditions.
A family that's engaged in a child's development to the point that they voluntarily choose private school, is probably also a family that has raised a smart, well-balanced kid.
Had a few friends in (public) high school who transferred in starting in 9th grade, having previously attended a K-8 parochial school. They were way ahead of the average public school kid, though nuns are not inherently better teachers. It had to do with smaller class sizes and more motivation to learn.
Am strongly considering Montessori type grade school for my future children.
Investing in more capacity means a linear increase in customers and profits. Investing in network anti-neutrality, OTOH, means new and lucrative pricing structures for various services. They're just putting money where it stands to return the greater profit.
Encryption is a good idea, but ISPs can still detect undesirable content by the handshaking and unencrypted header info. Maxwell Smart's communications might be ultra-secure, but nearby KAOS agents still hear whenever his shoe rings, y'know?
Indeed. On a related note, China and the U.S. could even be considered allies in some hypothetical situations. For instance, a war on the Korean peninsula.
China's still a threat, though. Just as they're ensuring independence from US GPS, other powers are no doubt ensuring that Beidou can be made to go away at the press of a button, should the need arise.
Looks like they've ranked workplaces according to this rubrik: 1) Proximity to bay area. 2) Superfluous amenities such as office fridge stocked with beer and milk*, free haircuts, sex swing chairs, steampunk decor, etc. 3) Is a trendy Web 2.0 company. Sorry non-interweb employers, you're out of luck.
* Who the hell drinks milk at work anyway? Flatulence ahoy!
Maybe this only applies to "known criminals" that exist outside of the FTC's jurisdiction, like foreigners. For example, the FTC wants you to think twice before you sell your laptop to a Nigerian scammer, even though the FTC can't touch the scammer.
If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's. How would checking the customer list help? As far as I know, I'm not a known criminal or terrorist.
Unless your name happens to be Robert Johnson or Dan Brown. The TSA has wisely identified all persons having those names to be complete terrorists.;)
Exactly. The FTC needs to clearly define the penalties for doing business with "criminals". If I do business with Comcast (presumably, a known criminal entity) just what, exactly, am I liable for? Can I still buy a Sony PS3, or will there be additional fines for having done business with an criminal organization?
At first this sounds like an incentive for businesses not to conduct transactions with criminals. Take identity theft, for example. I don't want vendors consorting with thieves, should somebody steal my credit card info. But how should vendors know it's a thief and not me? It's not reasonable.
Worst case scenario: this turns out to be another vague No-Fly list that persecutes the innocent while doing little to no actual good. In any case, it will be more work and more liability for vendors.
So your qualm isn't so much that laser pointers might be misused, but that poor people have access to them? I didn't realize crime was a privilege of the wealthy.
Well, since it's acceptable for you to ban laser pointers on behalf of the 0.001% of users who use them inappropriately, let's also ban airplanes. Here in the US, we've had a problem with a very small portion of airplanes crashing into large buildings.
You're probably the type of driver who stares directly into oncoming headlamps at night, then bitches that it's hard to see the road. Don't stare. It's a miracle you haven't blinded yourself looking at the sun already.
Your earlier post seemed to imply that robots would have the same relationship to Asimov's Three Laws that humans have to speed limits.
Yes, I'd agree with that. Asimov's laws are not inviolable in the same sense as Newton's, and like speed limits a robot would have to take care to operate within their limits.
They are self-consistent, and served as the basis for a sustained community for a very long time. Obviously, they have some merit in the sense of practical application, which is certainly a form of rationality.
Have to agree there, too. The laws of Leviticus aren't harmful, nor to my knowledge are they self-contradictory. They may not be the most practical rules around, but observing them appears to do no harm. I may be at fault for lumping them in with weird old stuff like II Kings, e.g.:
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. A year and half ago, I interviewed with a Boston-area company. They offered $65K for an coding & program management position to me, a prospective employee with 8 years experience and two masters degrees. I suggested that the cost of living is rather high in Boston, so then they firmly emphasized that all their employees must be local to Boston, so I passed up the job. Too little offered for too big of a hellhole.
Of course companies have the urge to set up business in a growing area like Greater Boston, the SF Bay Area, etc. On the other hand, those places are already freakin' full. To make matters worse, they're full of way too many crappy bankrupt startups. In the US, businesses can get away with all sorts of mischief while individuals are considered expendable. Maybe I'm too jaded, but it actually makes sense to hire H1B's in high cost of living areas. The guest workers are typically from poor crowded countries already, accustomed to the squalor, and plus as non-citizens they're less likely to travel to other parts of the US that don't suffer from such conditions.
A family that's engaged in a child's development to the point that they voluntarily choose private school, is probably also a family that has raised a smart, well-balanced kid.
Had a few friends in (public) high school who transferred in starting in 9th grade, having previously attended a K-8 parochial school. They were way ahead of the average public school kid, though nuns are not inherently better teachers. It had to do with smaller class sizes and more motivation to learn.
Am strongly considering Montessori type grade school for my future children.
I don't know. Back in the day, IE for Solaris was a pretty decent alternative to Netscape.
Why that's the second best idea I've ever heard. Good thinking!
Investing in more capacity means a linear increase in customers and profits. Investing in network anti-neutrality, OTOH, means new and lucrative pricing structures for various services. They're just putting money where it stands to return the greater profit.
Encryption is a good idea, but ISPs can still detect undesirable content by the handshaking and unencrypted header info. Maxwell Smart's communications might be ultra-secure, but nearby KAOS agents still hear whenever his shoe rings, y'know?
I guess a handful of these would beat a hojillion racks full commodity servers running pf+altq, but how does the cost really add up?
Indeed. On a related note, China and the U.S. could even be considered allies in some hypothetical situations. For instance, a war on the Korean peninsula.
China's still a threat, though. Just as they're ensuring independence from US GPS, other powers are no doubt ensuring that Beidou can be made to go away at the press of a button, should the need arise.
Looks like they've ranked workplaces according to this rubrik:
1) Proximity to bay area.
2) Superfluous amenities such as office fridge stocked with beer and milk*, free haircuts, sex swing chairs, steampunk decor, etc.
3) Is a trendy Web 2.0 company. Sorry non-interweb employers, you're out of luck.
* Who the hell drinks milk at work anyway? Flatulence ahoy!
The enemy's quidditch goal is down?
The PDF on arxiv is really rough, yes. Hopefully they'll typeset it properly before it gets wider review.
Maybe this only applies to "known criminals" that exist outside of the FTC's jurisdiction, like foreigners. For example, the FTC wants you to think twice before you sell your laptop to a Nigerian scammer, even though the FTC can't touch the scammer.
Yeah, really. Are they going to fine everybody who buys Martha Stewart stuff online?
If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's. How would checking the customer list help? As far as I know, I'm not a known criminal or terrorist.
;)
Unless your name happens to be Robert Johnson or Dan Brown. The TSA has wisely identified all persons having those names to be complete terrorists.
Exactly. The FTC needs to clearly define the penalties for doing business with "criminals". If I do business with Comcast (presumably, a known criminal entity) just what, exactly, am I liable for? Can I still buy a Sony PS3, or will there be additional fines for having done business with an criminal organization?
At first this sounds like an incentive for businesses not to conduct transactions with criminals. Take identity theft, for example. I don't want vendors consorting with thieves, should somebody steal my credit card info. But how should vendors know it's a thief and not me? It's not reasonable.
Worst case scenario: this turns out to be another vague No-Fly list that persecutes the innocent while doing little to no actual good. In any case, it will be more work and more liability for vendors.
Theres no good reason to be carrying a knife.
Sorry. Gonna have to call bullshit on that one.
No. It's perfectly legal in civilized countries. If your government doesn't trust you with a pocketknife, you ought to do something about it.
If you want to live in a nanny state, do it on your own private property. The nation as a whole, however, will not have its liberties infringed.
Thank you. Finally, someone with common sense is writing here.
So your qualm isn't so much that laser pointers might be misused, but that poor people have access to them? I didn't realize crime was a privilege of the wealthy.
Well, since it's acceptable for you to ban laser pointers on behalf of the 0.001% of users who use them inappropriately, let's also ban airplanes. Here in the US, we've had a problem with a very small portion of airplanes crashing into large buildings.
You're probably the type of driver who stares directly into oncoming headlamps at night, then bitches that it's hard to see the road. Don't stare. It's a miracle you haven't blinded yourself looking at the sun already.
Top coders prefer using assertions.
The rest run unit tests before submitting.
Sorry. Next time I'll take a shot at Taekwondo-Hinduism. ;)
Yes, I'd agree with that. Asimov's laws are not inviolable in the same sense as Newton's, and like speed limits a robot would have to take care to operate within their limits.
They are self-consistent, and served as the basis for a sustained community for a very long time. Obviously, they have some merit in the sense of practical application, which is certainly a form of rationality.
Have to agree there, too. The laws of Leviticus aren't harmful, nor to my knowledge are they self-contradictory. They may not be the most practical rules around, but observing them appears to do no harm. I may be at fault for lumping them in with weird old stuff like II Kings, e.g.: