1) All 3 of the salaries for an IT degree listed are 60k or above.
2) There are people making less than that who are paid even less. entry/mid level managers, accountants, etc, etc, etc that have access to sensitive information.
Are you saying IT works are more untrustworthy than any of the other degrees? If you really think honest people will steal data if you pay them slightly less than 6 figures--that says more about you than other people.
When an Indian screener decides a video MAY need to be removed, the video is sent to a more skilled, normally paid screener working in the US. This US screener decides if the video warrants deletion.
Yes, I agree. Youtube does not need to filter videos at all. They can wait for the DMCA take down notice, and comply with that.
I have no idea why they would ever agree to filter videos and pay for it out of their own pocket, and risk being sued if they remove the wrong video for copyright infringement.
Youtube is NOT there to enforce your rights. That's what courts are for. A private business is not there to determine if your video is legal or not.
They are free to decide what they think is acceptable. If Youtube does not want videos that display violence, radical speech, etc, etc -- it is free to do so, even if that video is legal.
Youtube is not the court system, it is not there to enforce your rights, it is not there to decide what is fair use, and it's judgement does not need to stand up to Supreme Court analysis.
Youtube is for posting videos which Google can use to display ads.
That's it. Nothing else.
If Youtube wants to screen content, then they can train their employees to delete what they find unacceptable.
The article says only judges are qualified to screen content, and the average judge in Silicon Valley gets paid $177,454
So let's see: 1) Judges are not required. You can TRAIN people. 2) and those people you train can be ANYWHERE -- including INDIA where Facebook's screeners are 3) and those Indian screeners definitely do NOT expect $177,000/year 4) and you can use software to help screen content, which Youtube already does to block content it has removed from being re-uploaded.
The article did get one thing right: the analysis is absurd
Yes, we are a representative democracy... and a republic.
You are correct about the definition of republic, unless you're American. When the term is used to refer to America, republic == representative democracy.
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[53]
The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic.
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [54]
Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[55] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.
A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[56] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[57]
Yes, thunderbird does block all remote content (not just images). It's a very standard feature. I checked outlook, outlook express, gmail, hotmail/windows live mail, and apple mail--- every single one blocks ALL remote content.
The vast majority of bills introduced could be boiled down to a handful of simple yes or no questions. The really complicated stuff, should just be immediately canned. There isn't any need for it.
So we make the bills simpler, try to boil everything down to a few sentences, and ignore anything more complicated? Yes, this sounds like a great idea </sarcasm>
BTW, if congress writes a simple bill that says the government will carry out task X. Guess who's responsible for doing that? The executive branch/the President.
Just because you write a simple bill does not mean the complexity has gone away. And if the bill does not specify HOW to do X, then the President will decide how that is done.
In other words, you have turned the president into a super-representative. You've concentrated power in the President.
If you have an opinion (strongly or not) on a piece of pending legislation, you can CALL or WRITE your representative.
So even if your rep chooses not to solicit your opinion on an issue, if enough people write and call to voice their opinion, the rep may choose to change his vote, so that he doesn't risk losing the next election on an issue people feel so strongly about.
Isn't that cool? It's like some smart people over the last 200 years have thought out a thing or two about our system.
This guy clearly doesn't understand the job he's applying for. We live in a REPUBLIC.. which means we elect people to vote on our behalf for/against proposed laws.
Our founders knew that people did not have the time to read, understand, and vote on each and every issue.
Do you really think technology changes that? In the 2009-2010 congress, there were: 9239 proposed bills, 998 acted on by the congress, 26 failed, and 366 enacted = 10629 bills.
Each one hundreds or even thousands of pages long.
So seriously ask yourself: do you have time to read a several hundred page law, filled with legalese and references to other laws, 29 times per day every day of the year?
There's a reason why our REPRESENTATIVES have dozens of staff.
I have no doubt they say they work longer... but it's more likely they just feel like they are working longer.
With no separation between work and home, it can feel like you are always working, even when you're not. And that is what keeps them up at night.. the stress from never being able to wind-down.
So unless math has changed and 12 x 16million equals 14.6 billion... No, they could not have "averted their recent financial woes by auctioning off their addresses".
Slashdot Mirror
1) All 3 of the salaries for an IT degree listed are 60k or above.
2) There are people making less than that who are paid even less. entry/mid level managers, accountants, etc, etc, etc that have access to sensitive information.
Are you saying IT works are more untrustworthy than any of the other degrees? If you really think honest people will steal data if you pay them slightly less than 6 figures--that says more about you than other people.
Missed one.. #10 is system engineering.
So that's 4 out of the top 10
You left out low salaries. It amazes me how little companies are paying their IT workers
Or maybe IT workers have an unrealistic idea of their self worth.
10 highest paid bachelor degrees in 2011:
3. Computer Engineering
5. Computer Science
6. Software Engineering
Only Petroleum Engineering and Chemical Engineering pay more.
How much exactly do you think your skills are worth? You work with a computer.. you don't create gold from thin air.
XKCD: Computer Problems
I seriously doubt Indian employees making $1/hour get $2/hour in benefits.
Yes, internet business must do all of their business in Silicon Valley. That's the way the internet works, right?
They'll be watching youtube for 12+ hours a day, filled with music videos, and clips of TV shows. What more immersion would they need?
The only danger would be basing them in a country so close to Afghanistan. Once they go insane from watching Youtube...
No, stick with the $1/hour Indian screeners.
When an Indian screener decides a video MAY need to be removed, the video is sent to a more skilled, normally paid screener working in the US. This US screener decides if the video warrants deletion.
This is Facebook's standard practice.
Yes, I agree. Youtube does not need to filter videos at all. They can wait for the DMCA take down notice, and comply with that.
I have no idea why they would ever agree to filter videos and pay for it out of their own pocket, and risk being sued if they remove the wrong video for copyright infringement.
* You signed up knowing they were going to data mine your video and user data.
* They have a legal duty to worry about their shareholders above all other parties
* There's nothing illegal with data mining
So what's the problem?
$10,000/year?! That's way over the standard pay. Facebook pays $1/hour
So that's $2000/year (assuming 40/hour weeks.. even though you could probably have the Indian employees work 12+ hours/day)
Youtube is NOT there to enforce your rights. That's what courts are for. A private business is not there to determine if your video is legal or not.
They are free to decide what they think is acceptable. If Youtube does not want videos that display violence, radical speech, etc, etc -- it is free to do so, even if that video is legal.
Why do they have to be paid $20,000? Why do they have to be American? Facebook pays it's Indian screeners $1/hour.
Youtube is not the court system, it is not there to enforce your rights, it is not there to decide what is fair use, and it's judgement does not need to stand up to Supreme Court analysis.
Youtube is for posting videos which Google can use to display ads.
That's it. Nothing else.
If Youtube wants to screen content, then they can train their employees to delete what they find unacceptable.
The article says only judges are qualified to screen content, and the average judge in Silicon Valley gets paid $177,454
So let's see:
1) Judges are not required. You can TRAIN people.
2) and those people you train can be ANYWHERE -- including INDIA where Facebook's screeners are
3) and those Indian screeners definitely do NOT expect $177,000/year
4) and you can use software to help screen content, which Youtube already does to block content it has removed from being re-uploaded.
The article did get one thing right: the analysis is absurd
Yes, we are a representative democracy... and a republic.
You are correct about the definition of republic, unless you're American. When the term is used to refer to America, republic == representative democracy.
Dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
Wikipedia explains (first paragraph.. the rest included because it's interesting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
United States
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[53]
The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic.
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [54]
Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[55] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.
A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[56] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[57]
Wow, you mean I can go a whole 1/2 day with my phone?! That's amazing. Clearly there is no battery problem.
Yes, thunderbird does block all remote content (not just images). It's a very standard feature. I checked outlook, outlook express, gmail, hotmail/windows live mail, and apple mail--- every single one blocks ALL remote content.
and you even have your mail viewer set to not download images
the setting is not "do not download images".. it's "do not download external references".
In thunderbird it is "Allow remote content. "
In outlook it is "Block images and other external content in HTML e-mail. "
What programmer would be stupid enough to stop images, but not other remote content? Not only is it a privacy issue, it is also a security issue.
So I have a hard time believing you really understand how email tracking works.
The vast majority of bills introduced could be boiled down to a handful of simple yes or no questions. The really complicated stuff, should just be immediately canned. There isn't any need for it.
So we make the bills simpler, try to boil everything down to a few sentences, and ignore anything more complicated? Yes, this sounds like a great idea </sarcasm>
BTW, if congress writes a simple bill that says the government will carry out task X. Guess who's responsible for doing that? The executive branch/the President.
Just because you write a simple bill does not mean the complexity has gone away. And if the bill does not specify HOW to do X, then the President will decide how that is done.
In other words, you have turned the president into a super-representative. You've concentrated power in the President.
How is that better than 400+ people deciding?
If you like dictators, you're welcome to leave.
We have something even better than that...
If you have an opinion (strongly or not) on a piece of pending legislation, you can CALL or WRITE your representative.
So even if your rep chooses not to solicit your opinion on an issue, if enough people write and call to voice their opinion, the rep may choose to change his vote, so that he doesn't risk losing the next election on an issue people feel so strongly about.
Isn't that cool? It's like some smart people over the last 200 years have thought out a thing or two about our system.
This guy clearly doesn't understand the job he's applying for. We live in a REPUBLIC.. which means we elect people to vote on our behalf for/against proposed laws.
Our founders knew that people did not have the time to read, understand, and vote on each and every issue.
Do you really think technology changes that? In the 2009-2010 congress, there were: 9239 proposed bills, 998 acted on by the congress, 26 failed, and 366 enacted = 10629 bills.
Each one hundreds or even thousands of pages long.
So seriously ask yourself: do you have time to read a several hundred page law, filled with legalese and references to other laws, 29 times per day every day of the year?
There's a reason why our REPRESENTATIVES have dozens of staff.
Past 3 years you say? Hmm... I seem to remember something about a recession... maybe starting in 2008.
Nah.. that can't be right.. Buffett probably is just senile.
Worked from home for the past 10 years...
I have no doubt they say they work longer... but it's more likely they just feel like they are working longer.
With no separation between work and home, it can feel like you are always working, even when you're not. And that is what keeps them up at night.. the stress from never being able to wind-down.
Ford was profitable in 09, 10, and 11.
So by "recent" I assume you mean 2008, when it lost 14.6 billion.
From TFA, each address is worth about $12.
So unless math has changed and 12 x 16million equals 14.6 billion... No, they could not have "averted their recent financial woes by auctioning off their addresses".
I completely agree... anyone who complains about IPv6 is a troll.. 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf is incredibly easy to remember.