Mod parent up – and Hawaii has some specific issues.
Hawaii has basically hit the saturation point of renewable energy until a decent storage system is developed. Renewables output tends to be erratic.
That's a key problem to address and not just in Hawaii; it's just that Hawaii's geography puts it further along in solar adoption while at the same time having a grid that is small and isolated. Load dispatchers are trying to balance supply and demand over the grid and having supplies cut in and out unpredictably makes that very difficult. It's not so much an issue when a small fraction of the generation is solar but as its total generation increases it becomes a problem. It also effects other users as well; some customers have uninterruptible loads, such as hospitals, or pay extra for it such as some industrial plants where losing power risks severe damage to the plant. Grid operators want to ensure they can continue to ensure grid reliability and it's not unreasonable to take sets to do so. That doesn't mean there aren't other "save our company" issues at play but that doesn't negate the concerns over the grid. I could see a solution where solar installations need to have some way of allowing utilities to dial down their output remotely either with some sort of shade that reduces the amount of sunlight the cells see or requiring batteries to divert production when it is not needed. In the ned, if you are sending power to the grid you need to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the grid's reliability.
They mainly have coal plants which take hours to take off / bring online. A few days of good wind and low demand meant there was nowhere for the electric to go.
I think part of the challenge in Hawaii would be finding an affordable suitable location with 80 or so square miles alongside a mountain and ensuring enough storage capacity to account for the projected increase in solar installation capacity. Otehrwise, in a few years your back to where you started.
Each user is coming in with a set of experiences that has conditioned them to prefer one way over the other. Someone who has used a CLI a lot may simply prefer it because they are familiar with it and can do things quickly vs. learning a new way to do things with a GUI. They are predisposed to think their way is better; just as a GUI user is towards their preferred interface. to that end:
1. Don't assume that the CLI is always better, even if you can do something faster or easier. If the GUI gets the job done without frustrating the student or taking a long time, let them use the GUI.
2. For instances where the CLI is clearly a better choice; have them use both and let them draw their own conclusions.
In the end, unless one way causes a lot of extra work or cannot accomplish the task neither is inherently better; just different ways to do the same thing.
Of course, if they only truly hire A players then their talent pool will be a worthwhile one for other companies to poach. So unless they find a way to lock in their talent so it can't leave.
The have an answer for that: Their approach is to pay every employee the amount they would be willing to pay to keep that employee from leaving for a better offer. They don't wait for an employee to threaten to leave to pay that much; they give large raises to keep pay at that market rate. As a result, Netflix pay is way above average. But they also try to maximize the value of that level of pay by evaluating whether each employee is really worth that... and by adjusting pay DOWNWARD (or just letting them go) if their performance no longer matches that level of compensation.
True, paying at the top of market pay scales will keep employees but then you've also increased your expenses so their productivity must match the extra costs. That's what Netflix is trying to do; and so far seems to succeed.
I'm not saying such an environment is for everyone (and they're very open about it to prospective employees), but they have chosen a particular approach that has its pros and cons, and I'm glad it exists somewhere at least to demonstrate whether it works. From Netflix's continued success at being extremely competitive operations-wise and continuing to innovate even as it grows, I'd say it's working in that respect. Whether it's the only approach that works, or if other approaches that also work have fewer downsides, I really don't know.
True, they certainly have the right to compensate as they see fit. Time will tell if their model is sustainable or superior to others.
You want more H1B's? Fine, but change the rules so after say 6 months they can freely quit if they have another offer?
Why after 6 months? Why not immediately? Competition's good, isn't it?
Of course, if you're offering a legally binding 6-month prior notice of termination under all circumstances to your employees, then fair's fair.
While I am all in favor of competition I think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where people can't jump ship simply to avoid situations where X does all the paperwork and pays the fees only to have the person immediately jump to Y when the visa comes through. In the end, I would change the economics of the visa so employers take on more risk and are forced to decide if it is really worth it to hire H1B's or find other sources of the talent they need. If they really are paying prevailing wages then this change should be a no brainer.
So you probably also think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where companies can't dump an employee. That would make you almost unique among H1B supporters...
Certainly - for the same period the employee is bound; with the caveat either side is released form the contract in the event the other grossly misrepresented themselves of did something illegal.
You want more H1B's? Fine, but change the rules so after say 6 months they can freely quit if they have another offer?
Why after 6 months? Why not immediately? Competition's good, isn't it?
Of course, if you're offering a legally binding 6-month prior notice of termination under all circumstances to your employees, then fair's fair.
While I am all in favor of competition I think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where people can't jump ship simply to avoid situations where X does all the paperwork and pays the fees only to have the person immediately jump to Y when the visa comes through. In the end, I would change the economics of the visa so employers take on more risk and are forced to decide if it is really worth it to hire H1B's or find other sources of the talent they need. If they really are paying prevailing wages then this change should be a no brainer.
This has been my experience as well. The best teams and companies are those who have a good mix of people, and who know how to utilize talent. For example, I've worked with an old geezer who was rather over the hill as a designer / analyst. A "D" player at best in his assigned role. However he had a ton of knowledge about the company, projects and people, and in some ways he was the department's "memory". He also had good ideas about how to organise teams and company processes, and he was a brilliant coach. He wasn't good at actual management jobs, so... they left him where he was, and where he was perfectly happy. Adding a ton of value to the company on a daily basis. Freely organizing around problems is exactly what he did.
That's not to say you don't need the right mix of people and skill levels to be successful. A-teams are probably as likely to contain the right mix, and in my experience about as likely to recognize it. Unless of course you stack the deck by saying that your A-team also has an A team lead who knows everything about this, but I've never seen this in practise.
That's the problem with identifying an A player - defining what is really valuable to the company. Some things are easy to see , such as sales figures, system reliability etc; even if they really don't necessarily measure what you think they measure. Other things, such as the ability to navigate the company's organizational and power structure are equally valuable but much harder to notice; often they are noticed after the fact when it is to late. So in the end, it becomes a bunch of senior executives crowing about how the have the A-Team while they systematically destroy the things that make the organization function well. I pity the fools...
"Continuing her Scrooge-worthy tale, McCord adds that firing a once-valuable employee instead of finding another way for her to contribute yielded another aha! moment for Netflix: 'If we wanted only "A" players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been.'"
Sounds like the epitome of short-term planning.
Congratulations, Netflix. Good (or not so) to know you. Really sorry to see you let it go to your head.
Of course, if they only truly hire A players then their talent pool will be a worthwhile one for other companies to poach. So unless they find a way to lock in their talent so it can't leave; such as hiring foreign talent under H1B and other visa programs that restrict job mobility. Oh wait...
You want more H1B's? Fine, but change the rules so after say 6 months they can freely quit if they have another offer? After all, if you pay market wages and offer the type of job that is worth keeping then no one will steal your A players whom you paid a lot of money for their visas, right?
The Defense Media Activity (DMA) is the headquarters responsible for several operations within the Department of Defense that creates, broadcasts, manages archives, and stores media. The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of DMA. The mission of DVI is to operate as the DoDs central visual information (VI) management and proponency office. The DIMOC integrates and synchronizes DoD imagery capabilities and centrally manages and archives current and historical visual information media in support of the Department and the National Archives and Records Administration. DIMOC serves as the official DoD VI Records Center for the storage and preservation of original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed VI records depicting the DoDs heritage and current activities.
In FY 2012, DIMOC was presented with a model used by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g. documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost model permitted a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for providing the National Archives digitized copies. This period of exclusive rights allowed the contractor to generate revenue via sales of the digitized records. After this period of time, the digital copies would become public domain via the National Archives. This process assists NARA in accomplishing their mission to increase the public accessibility of Federal Records far quicker than their capability to digitize there and resources would allow.
With DIMOCs similar mission to the National Archives to collect, preserve and increase accessibility, DIMOC is attempting to adopt a variant of the NARA no-cost model. DIMOC used this model to solicit requests for proposals, and even held an industry day to gauge the feasibility to complete this mass digitization and storage for free for the Government. The industry day consensus was for the Government to share some of the up-front costs as a sign of good faith and viability for the contracts success. A clear message, that this project was not going to be feasible for industry without Government funding, was sent when only three RFPs were submitted post- industry day. Subsequently DIMOC is proposing a cost-share variant to the NARA no-cost model.
II. OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this contract is to provide for the digitization, storage and retrieval of still imagery, motion and audio recordings for the Defense Imagery Management Operations Center. DIMOC recognizes there is value to this content being made readily available accessible, and as such, we are soliciting industry proposals for providing the Government digitization, storage and retrieval in exchange for the opportunity to monetize immediate access to Department of Defense visual information material (during an exclusive period for up to 10 years).
The Government intends to solicit a one-year base period with four full option years of performance. The total five-year period will permit a contractor time to digitize DIMOCs vast holdings and help realize a return on investment. The option years will allow for assessment each year on the success of the contract as determined by the contractor and the Government.
The Government realizes the cost burden of digitizing and storing this content is on the vendor despite the contract award off-setting some of the costs. Accordingly the Government is allowing a period of exclusivity for 10 years for marketing and commercial sales of Government content digitized during the previous 5-year cost share term of the contract. Note that the additional five- year period of exclusivity is beyond the cost-share based contract. However, it is expected that the period of exclusivity for years 6 - 10 will be performed at no cost
If these images are then provided for money, does that have implications for requiring model releases for any photos with recognizable individuals in them?
Excellant question. DoD has limits on the use of their material, will they apply to this material as well? More to the point, will the originals be available for copying form DoD even if they have been digitized?
Inasmuch as there is any "inherent" value in anything (hint, there isn't), Bitcoin has its distributed irreversible transaction ledger. It may be worth a little more than you think.
Actually, currency that has value has an inherent value - trust. People trust it as a reasonably secure, convertible and stable store of value and thus useful as a medium of exchange; which is why you can get mortgages in dollars or euros or whatever but not Bitcoins or corn futures or tulips. Right now, people are betting that Bitcoin will continue to go up and making a speculative bet on a volatile commodity. Will the nature of Bitcoin prove to be valuable in the future? Perhaps; but its lack of an irreproducible advantage makes it vulnerable to replacement by the next big thing.
There are a ton of "me too" bitcoin-clone currencies out there already. None of them substantially improve the bitcoin protocol. I don't see why any specific one would reach critical mass and overtake bitcoin. All of the bitcoin-clones split the vote between the people who want to jump from Bitcoin.
For the same reason Bitcoin took off - speculation. If people think there is more money to be made in a competing commodity they will move to it and dump Bitcoins. Since Bitcoin has no inherent value underlying it it's a pure speculative play right now..
This design is built primarily off site, which should greatly reduce construction costs. In addition, a standard design would reduce O&M as well.
Its modular design allows refueling of a plant while the other continue to operate, which could yield large savings since you could refuel during light load periods and stagger the refueling throughout the year.
Turbine design would be interesting - do you build a turbine for max anticipated load or for installed laid and then upgrade?
So it's OK for the cop to not have some understanding of the crime he is charging someone with?
No, he understands the crime he just does not know how serious it is. A reasonable DA, unless there is some other factors not mentioned, would drop the charges.
It's not the management company that's motivating this, it's the non-pet-owning tenants not wanting to be confrontational about it and demanding that the management "do something".
I doubt they will actually do this for enforcement.. It's an attention grabber instead. Here's why:
1) $60 to do the test is really expensive. A determined malefactor could financially break the system by just "seeding" the grounds with many targets. Targets composed of material from multiple sources.
2) I doubt they're using a collection system with legally enforceable traceability. Heck, law enforcement doesn't always do this right. Joe or Jane Doe groundskeeper sure isn't going to worry about it.
3) I doubt the DNA testing company is willing to certify their test results to the needed level. I have friends who have sent their dog's DNA in multiple times for breed identification and come back with different results (same saliva, same lab, etc.).
The first time an attorney with some spare time on his hands gets a "dog poop ticket", he or she will have a field day. So, Acme DNA labs, can we see your certified accuracy testing? Did you run a blank? How do you calibrate your equipment. The lab will have wisely put in their contract that they won't respond to this, so it's back to the management company and a he said/he said argument.
No management company wants to get in the middle of a tenant/tenant dispute, and they will quickly disengage and let the tenants fight it out among themselves.
Make it part of the leasing contract. If the dog is yours, you pay the test costs plus the fine.This isn't a criminal case, it's civil at best; and the standard is preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. The real issue is how do you identify the actual dog? It's not like you will have a sample of each dog on file, nor will it necessarily identify a breed let alone an actual individual pet. Although going to a dog park and collecting "samples" and seeding them has a lot of humor potential. How about sample storm a zoo as well?
If I store my wallet offline and create an exact copy, how does someone know which is real? If someone stole one wallet what's to stop transactions from a backup?
I know because I don't know. What I mean is, the ammount of uncertainty in BTC is much, much higher than in dollars.
Really? I actually don't know that at all. In fact the value of USD could go haywire in a lot of ways, in case you hadn't noticed the price of metals like gold and platinum has skyrocketed, meaning a lot of other people think so too.
Actually, gold is way off its Sep 11 peak (down by about a third) and trading roughly where it was a little more than 3 years ago. Anybody who bought over the last few years and held it has pretty much taken a beating. I would not be surprised to see many of the "We buy gold" places close shop as they lose money on the price drop between purchase and sale or start offering way below spot for purchases. One jeweler I know has slow chis purchase simply because he didn't want the downside risk.
***UNLESS I CAN SEE IT PLACED IN MY $$$ BANK ACCOUNT IN REAL TIME***
Which goes to show you are missing the point of using it as a currency. A real currency is something you hold onto, not exchange at first opportunity.
You hold onto a real currency because you are confident it will retain its value over time. As a result, there is no pressing need to get rid of it because what costs a dollar today will probably cost the same tomorrow. When the value of currency is uncertain, such as the hyper inflation some countries experienced or when governments limit liquidity, people generally dump the currency as fat as they can.
You only think you need to do that because you think the exchange rate of BitC against some other currency is too high. Why? Are you SURE about that? Because lots of people were saying the same thing all along, at much lower values. What if BitC doubles in value again? Then you would have been an idiot to exchange it away.
What you are describing is not a currency but an investment. People buy it because they think it will increase in value and hold on to it; not because they can use it to buy stuff. Th problem is Bitcoins are thinly traded and not very liquid. If you decide you want to dump a million dollars worth it is not as easy as putting in a market order for a stock and knowing you can sell it because market makers keep the market liquid.
As with currency, investments require a degree of trust in the system. Scams such as occurred in China or the recent thefts damage that trust and will ultimately drive people form the market, making Bitcoin even less liquid.
That's not tos ay Bitcoin can't succeed or find its niche long term; just that there are serious issues it needs to address before it will become a real, viable currency.
Given that you apparently know nothing about Bitcoin, you could have at least read the comment you were replying to, which already states what you should already know by now (unless, of course, you like having discussions about subjects you know nothing about):
NEWSFLASH! Bitcoin transactions are NOT anonymous (if anything, they're pseudonymous).
NEWSFLASH #2! Their (supposed) anonymity is NOT the reason why people use them (it can't be, since anonymity is NOT a property of the Bitcoin system).
mkay? cheers.
However, Bitcoins themselves are since they use a key encryption system to verify transactions. Unless you know the owner of the key you can't tie the coins to a person; unlike a bank where ownership is known and thus not anonymous. I suspect, despite your post as an AC, you don't really understand the concept of anonymity.
Bitcoin, as he alludes, is really a form of barter and not currency. Unlike currency, it is not very liquid. Having a million dollars in Bitcoin can't be converted in one fell swoop to dollars.
Maybe something didn't click in your head... Bitcoin is a currency. Dollars are just the middlemen here. If you earn Bitcoin and spend Bitcoin, where do dollars enter the picture?
No, Bitcoin is merely a tool for barter. A currency is very liquid and accepted as legal tender where it is issued. Bitcoin is neither. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a way to engage in commerce; but many things can be used the same way that are not currency.
The author doesn't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. He seems to think that some mysterious computer programmer is the "issuer" of the currency. He says that governments will "take control", without explaining any mechanism for them to do so. His grasp of economics is questionable as well. He says that governments have always controlled currency. But prior to the American Civil War, private currency circulated.
Your misrepresenting what he said. His position is not that there never was private currency; rather that publicly issued currency inevitably replace them because of greater trust in government backed money as a store of value. As for governments taking control, not stating how doesn't mean they can't or won't do it. In fact, probably the best way to "take control" is destroy users' trust in them as an anonymous and secure way to conduct business. Attack the users, not the system.
His claim that governments are better at protecting us from "monetary excess" made me laugh. Bitcoin may fail, but not because of the reasons he gives. But he hedges in his last paragraph, and says bitcoin will thrive "until the authorities do better", which means it may be around forever.
Bitcoin, as he alludes, is really a form of barter and not currency. Unlike currency, it is not very liquid. Having a million dollars in Bitcoin can't be converted in one fell swoop to dollars. You can do it in stages, but sudden redemptions of large amounts by a lot of people will cause its value to drop and probably result in a lot of people unable to swap Bitcoin for cash. People are willing to accept it because they can trade it for something of value, but there is no assurance it will have any specified value nor that any particular person will accept it. Right now, it has value because people are willing to speculate in it and some people will accept it as payment. In addition, there is nothing to stop someone from creating Bitcoin2 and offering it up; unlike a government who has a monopoly on printing real money. If people have greater trust in it then Bitcoin will fade away.
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
No. Your point was about people who CREATED the company. At the point of giving stocks and options to employed CEOs, that is part of a rewards package, which can and should be counted as salary. Creators of the company get their ownership when the company is still worth zero, and thus isn't relevant to wage caps.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
I don't know the details of the Swiss proposal, nor care that it was voted down. The question is whether legislation of this sort is a good idea: To limit the differential between the ordinary workers and the top execs. The implementation details are complicated and may be different from the Swiss proposal.
Since my original comment was relevant to those who got large payouts as the result of early involvement in a company, not just the founders then would you say only the persons who actually started the company, not anyone who joined later, should be fee of caps? As far as wether the idea of pay caps is a good idea, or even a workable idea, we'll just have to have differing opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up – and Hawaii has some specific issues.
Hawaii has basically hit the saturation point of renewable energy until a decent storage system is developed. Renewables output tends to be erratic.
That's a key problem to address and not just in Hawaii; it's just that Hawaii's geography puts it further along in solar adoption while at the same time having a grid that is small and isolated. Load dispatchers are trying to balance supply and demand over the grid and having supplies cut in and out unpredictably makes that very difficult. It's not so much an issue when a small fraction of the generation is solar but as its total generation increases it becomes a problem. It also effects other users as well; some customers have uninterruptible loads, such as hospitals, or pay extra for it such as some industrial plants where losing power risks severe damage to the plant. Grid operators want to ensure they can continue to ensure grid reliability and it's not unreasonable to take sets to do so. That doesn't mean there aren't other "save our company" issues at play but that doesn't negate the concerns over the grid. I could see a solution where solar installations need to have some way of allowing utilities to dial down their output remotely either with some sort of shade that reduces the amount of sunlight the cells see or requiring batteries to divert production when it is not needed. In the ned, if you are sending power to the grid you need to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the grid's reliability.
They mainly have coal plants which take hours to take off / bring online. A few days of good wind and low demand meant there was nowhere for the electric to go.
They should consider doing something like the Bath County Pumped Storage Station in Virginia where:
I imagine this would work in Hawaii too...
I think part of the challenge in Hawaii would be finding an affordable suitable location with 80 or so square miles alongside a mountain and ensuring enough storage capacity to account for the projected increase in solar installation capacity. Otehrwise, in a few years your back to where you started.
Each user is coming in with a set of experiences that has conditioned them to prefer one way over the other. Someone who has used a CLI a lot may simply prefer it because they are familiar with it and can do things quickly vs. learning a new way to do things with a GUI. They are predisposed to think their way is better; just as a GUI user is towards their preferred interface. to that end:
1. Don't assume that the CLI is always better, even if you can do something faster or easier. If the GUI gets the job done without frustrating the student or taking a long time, let them use the GUI.
2. For instances where the CLI is clearly a better choice; have them use both and let them draw their own conclusions.
In the end, unless one way causes a lot of extra work or cannot accomplish the task neither is inherently better; just different ways to do the same thing.
Of course, if they only truly hire A players then their talent pool will be a worthwhile one for other companies to poach. So unless they find a way to lock in their talent so it can't leave.
The have an answer for that: Their approach is to pay every employee the amount they would be willing to pay to keep that employee from leaving for a better offer. They don't wait for an employee to threaten to leave to pay that much; they give large raises to keep pay at that market rate. As a result, Netflix pay is way above average. But they also try to maximize the value of that level of pay by evaluating whether each employee is really worth that... and by adjusting pay DOWNWARD (or just letting them go) if their performance no longer matches that level of compensation.
True, paying at the top of market pay scales will keep employees but then you've also increased your expenses so their productivity must match the extra costs. That's what Netflix is trying to do; and so far seems to succeed.
I'm not saying such an environment is for everyone (and they're very open about it to prospective employees), but they have chosen a particular approach that has its pros and cons, and I'm glad it exists somewhere at least to demonstrate whether it works. From Netflix's continued success at being extremely competitive operations-wise and continuing to innovate even as it grows, I'd say it's working in that respect. Whether it's the only approach that works, or if other approaches that also work have fewer downsides, I really don't know.
True, they certainly have the right to compensate as they see fit. Time will tell if their model is sustainable or superior to others.
Why after 6 months? Why not immediately? Competition's good, isn't it?
Of course, if you're offering a legally binding 6-month prior notice of termination under all circumstances to your employees, then fair's fair.
While I am all in favor of competition I think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where people can't jump ship simply to avoid situations where X does all the paperwork and pays the fees only to have the person immediately jump to Y when the visa comes through. In the end, I would change the economics of the visa so employers take on more risk and are forced to decide if it is really worth it to hire H1B's or find other sources of the talent they need. If they really are paying prevailing wages then this change should be a no brainer.
So you probably also think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where companies can't dump an employee. That would make you almost unique among H1B supporters...
Certainly - for the same period the employee is bound; with the caveat either side is released form the contract in the event the other grossly misrepresented themselves of did something illegal.
Why after 6 months? Why not immediately? Competition's good, isn't it?
Of course, if you're offering a legally binding 6-month prior notice of termination under all circumstances to your employees, then fair's fair.
While I am all in favor of competition I think it is reasonable to have some legally binding period where people can't jump ship simply to avoid situations where X does all the paperwork and pays the fees only to have the person immediately jump to Y when the visa comes through. In the end, I would change the economics of the visa so employers take on more risk and are forced to decide if it is really worth it to hire H1B's or find other sources of the talent they need. If they really are paying prevailing wages then this change should be a no brainer.
This has been my experience as well. The best teams and companies are those who have a good mix of people, and who know how to utilize talent. For example, I've worked with an old geezer who was rather over the hill as a designer / analyst. A "D" player at best in his assigned role. However he had a ton of knowledge about the company, projects and people, and in some ways he was the department's "memory". He also had good ideas about how to organise teams and company processes, and he was a brilliant coach. He wasn't good at actual management jobs, so... they left him where he was, and where he was perfectly happy. Adding a ton of value to the company on a daily basis. Freely organizing around problems is exactly what he did. That's not to say you don't need the right mix of people and skill levels to be successful. A-teams are probably as likely to contain the right mix, and in my experience about as likely to recognize it. Unless of course you stack the deck by saying that your A-team also has an A team lead who knows everything about this, but I've never seen this in practise.
That's the problem with identifying an A player - defining what is really valuable to the company. Some things are easy to see , such as sales figures, system reliability etc; even if they really don't necessarily measure what you think they measure. Other things, such as the ability to navigate the company's organizational and power structure are equally valuable but much harder to notice; often they are noticed after the fact when it is to late. So in the end, it becomes a bunch of senior executives crowing about how the have the A-Team while they systematically destroy the things that make the organization function well. I pity the fools...
"Continuing her Scrooge-worthy tale, McCord adds that firing a once-valuable employee instead of finding another way for her to contribute yielded another aha! moment for Netflix: 'If we wanted only "A" players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been.'"
Sounds like the epitome of short-term planning. Congratulations, Netflix. Good (or not so) to know you. Really sorry to see you let it go to your head.
Of course, if they only truly hire A players then their talent pool will be a worthwhile one for other companies to poach. So unless they find a way to lock in their talent so it can't leave; such as hiring foreign talent under H1B and other visa programs that restrict job mobility. Oh wait...
You want more H1B's? Fine, but change the rules so after say 6 months they can freely quit if they have another offer? After all, if you pay market wages and offer the type of job that is worth keeping then no one will steal your A players whom you paid a lot of money for their visas, right?
Rev#3
DIMOC Digitization and Storage
The Defense Media Activity (DMA) is the headquarters responsible for several operations within the Department of Defense that creates, broadcasts, manages archives, and stores media. The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of DMA. The mission of DVI is to operate as the DoDs central visual information (VI) management and proponency office. The DIMOC integrates and synchronizes DoD imagery capabilities and centrally manages and archives current and historical visual information media in support of the Department and the National Archives and Records Administration. DIMOC serves as the official DoD VI Records Center for the storage and preservation of original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed VI records depicting the DoDs heritage and current activities.
In FY 2012, DIMOC was presented with a model used by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g. documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost model permitted a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for providing the National Archives digitized copies. This period of exclusive rights allowed the contractor to generate revenue via sales of the digitized records. After this period of time, the digital copies would become public domain via the National Archives. This process assists NARA in accomplishing their mission to increase the public accessibility of Federal Records far quicker than their capability to digitize there and resources would allow.
With DIMOCs similar mission to the National Archives to collect, preserve and increase accessibility, DIMOC is attempting to adopt a variant of the NARA no-cost model. DIMOC used this model to solicit requests for proposals, and even held an industry day to gauge the feasibility to complete this mass digitization and storage for free for the Government. The industry day consensus was for the Government to share some of the up-front costs as a sign of good faith and viability for the contracts success. A clear message, that this project was not going to be feasible for industry without Government funding, was sent when only three RFPs were submitted post- industry day. Subsequently DIMOC is proposing a cost-share variant to the NARA no-cost model.
II. OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this contract is to provide for the digitization, storage and retrieval of still imagery, motion and audio recordings for the Defense Imagery Management Operations Center. DIMOC recognizes there is value to this content being made readily available accessible, and as such, we are soliciting industry proposals for providing the Government digitization, storage and retrieval in exchange for the opportunity to monetize immediate access to Department of Defense visual information material (during an exclusive period for up to 10 years).
The Government intends to solicit a one-year base period with four full option years of performance. The total five-year period will permit a contractor time to digitize DIMOCs vast holdings and help realize a return on investment. The option years will allow for assessment each year on the success of the contract as determined by the contractor and the Government.
The Government realizes the cost burden of digitizing and storing this content is on the vendor despite the contract award off-setting some of the costs. Accordingly the Government is allowing a period of exclusivity for 10 years for marketing and commercial sales of Government content digitized during the previous 5-year cost share term of the contract. Note that the additional five- year period of exclusivity is beyond the cost-share based contract. However, it is expected that the period of exclusivity for years 6 - 10 will be performed at no cost
If these images are then provided for money, does that have implications for requiring model releases for any photos with recognizable individuals in them?
Excellant question. DoD has limits on the use of their material, will they apply to this material as well? More to the point, will the originals be available for copying form DoD even if they have been digitized?
Inasmuch as there is any "inherent" value in anything (hint, there isn't), Bitcoin has its distributed irreversible transaction ledger. It may be worth a little more than you think.
Actually, currency that has value has an inherent value - trust. People trust it as a reasonably secure, convertible and stable store of value and thus useful as a medium of exchange; which is why you can get mortgages in dollars or euros or whatever but not Bitcoins or corn futures or tulips. Right now, people are betting that Bitcoin will continue to go up and making a speculative bet on a volatile commodity. Will the nature of Bitcoin prove to be valuable in the future? Perhaps; but its lack of an irreproducible advantage makes it vulnerable to replacement by the next big thing.
There are a ton of "me too" bitcoin-clone currencies out there already. None of them substantially improve the bitcoin protocol. I don't see why any specific one would reach critical mass and overtake bitcoin. All of the bitcoin-clones split the vote between the people who want to jump from Bitcoin.
For the same reason Bitcoin took off - speculation. If people think there is more money to be made in a competing commodity they will move to it and dump Bitcoins. Since Bitcoin has no inherent value underlying it it's a pure speculative play right now..
Why not just modify the code to return goatsx instead of blocking the ability to turn on the camera?
Chuck Norris was a full contact Karate champion before he was a movie star.
Citation?
Ironically and yet predictably and also pathetically for you, Wikipedia provides the citation. Unless an edit war has broken out.
Woosh...
This design is built primarily off site, which should greatly reduce construction costs. In addition, a standard design would reduce O&M as well.
Its modular design allows refueling of a plant while the other continue to operate, which could yield large savings since you could refuel during light load periods and stagger the refueling throughout the year.
Turbine design would be interesting - do you build a turbine for max anticipated load or for installed laid and then upgrade?
Chuck Norris was a full contact Karate champion before he was a movie star.
Citation?
So it's OK for the cop to not have some understanding of the crime he is charging someone with?
No, he understands the crime he just does not know how serious it is. A reasonable DA, unless there is some other factors not mentioned, would drop the charges.
It's not the management company that's motivating this, it's the non-pet-owning tenants not wanting to be confrontational about it and demanding that the management "do something".
I doubt they will actually do this for enforcement.. It's an attention grabber instead. Here's why:
1) $60 to do the test is really expensive. A determined malefactor could financially break the system by just "seeding" the grounds with many targets. Targets composed of material from multiple sources. 2) I doubt they're using a collection system with legally enforceable traceability. Heck, law enforcement doesn't always do this right. Joe or Jane Doe groundskeeper sure isn't going to worry about it. 3) I doubt the DNA testing company is willing to certify their test results to the needed level. I have friends who have sent their dog's DNA in multiple times for breed identification and come back with different results (same saliva, same lab, etc.).
The first time an attorney with some spare time on his hands gets a "dog poop ticket", he or she will have a field day. So, Acme DNA labs, can we see your certified accuracy testing? Did you run a blank? How do you calibrate your equipment. The lab will have wisely put in their contract that they won't respond to this, so it's back to the management company and a he said/he said argument.
No management company wants to get in the middle of a tenant/tenant dispute, and they will quickly disengage and let the tenants fight it out among themselves.
Make it part of the leasing contract. If the dog is yours, you pay the test costs plus the fine.This isn't a criminal case, it's civil at best; and the standard is preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. The real issue is how do you identify the actual dog? It's not like you will have a sample of each dog on file, nor will it necessarily identify a breed let alone an actual individual pet. Although going to a dog park and collecting "samples" and seeding them has a lot of humor potential. How about sample storm a zoo as well?
If I store my wallet offline and create an exact copy, how does someone know which is real? If someone stole one wallet what's to stop transactions from a backup?
I know because I don't know. What I mean is, the ammount of uncertainty in BTC is much, much higher than in dollars.
Really? I actually don't know that at all. In fact the value of USD could go haywire in a lot of ways, in case you hadn't noticed the price of metals like gold and platinum has skyrocketed, meaning a lot of other people think so too.
Actually, gold is way off its Sep 11 peak (down by about a third) and trading roughly where it was a little more than 3 years ago. Anybody who bought over the last few years and held it has pretty much taken a beating. I would not be surprised to see many of the "We buy gold" places close shop as they lose money on the price drop between purchase and sale or start offering way below spot for purchases. One jeweler I know has slow chis purchase simply because he didn't want the downside risk.
***UNLESS I CAN SEE IT PLACED IN MY $$$ BANK ACCOUNT IN REAL TIME***
Which goes to show you are missing the point of using it as a currency. A real currency is something you hold onto, not exchange at first opportunity.
You hold onto a real currency because you are confident it will retain its value over time. As a result, there is no pressing need to get rid of it because what costs a dollar today will probably cost the same tomorrow. When the value of currency is uncertain, such as the hyper inflation some countries experienced or when governments limit liquidity, people generally dump the currency as fat as they can.
You only think you need to do that because you think the exchange rate of BitC against some other currency is too high. Why? Are you SURE about that? Because lots of people were saying the same thing all along, at much lower values. What if BitC doubles in value again? Then you would have been an idiot to exchange it away.
What you are describing is not a currency but an investment. People buy it because they think it will increase in value and hold on to it; not because they can use it to buy stuff. Th problem is Bitcoins are thinly traded and not very liquid. If you decide you want to dump a million dollars worth it is not as easy as putting in a market order for a stock and knowing you can sell it because market makers keep the market liquid.
As with currency, investments require a degree of trust in the system. Scams such as occurred in China or the recent thefts damage that trust and will ultimately drive people form the market, making Bitcoin even less liquid.
That's not tos ay Bitcoin can't succeed or find its niche long term; just that there are serious issues it needs to address before it will become a real, viable currency.
anonymous and secure way to conduct business
Given that you apparently know nothing about Bitcoin, you could have at least read the comment you were replying to, which already states what you should already know by now (unless, of course, you like having discussions about subjects you know nothing about):
NEWSFLASH! Bitcoin transactions are NOT anonymous (if anything, they're pseudonymous).
NEWSFLASH #2! Their (supposed) anonymity is NOT the reason why people use them (it can't be, since anonymity is NOT a property of the Bitcoin system).
mkay? cheers.
However, Bitcoins themselves are since they use a key encryption system to verify transactions. Unless you know the owner of the key you can't tie the coins to a person; unlike a bank where ownership is known and thus not anonymous. I suspect, despite your post as an AC, you don't really understand the concept of anonymity.
Maybe something didn't click in your head... Bitcoin is a currency. Dollars are just the middlemen here. If you earn Bitcoin and spend Bitcoin, where do dollars enter the picture?
No, Bitcoin is merely a tool for barter. A currency is very liquid and accepted as legal tender where it is issued. Bitcoin is neither. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a way to engage in commerce; but many things can be used the same way that are not currency.
The author doesn't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. He seems to think that some mysterious computer programmer is the "issuer" of the currency. He says that governments will "take control", without explaining any mechanism for them to do so. His grasp of economics is questionable as well. He says that governments have always controlled currency. But prior to the American Civil War, private currency circulated.
Your misrepresenting what he said. His position is not that there never was private currency; rather that publicly issued currency inevitably replace them because of greater trust in government backed money as a store of value. As for governments taking control, not stating how doesn't mean they can't or won't do it. In fact, probably the best way to "take control" is destroy users' trust in them as an anonymous and secure way to conduct business. Attack the users, not the system.
His claim that governments are better at protecting us from "monetary excess" made me laugh. Bitcoin may fail, but not because of the reasons he gives. But he hedges in his last paragraph, and says bitcoin will thrive "until the authorities do better", which means it may be around forever.
Bitcoin, as he alludes, is really a form of barter and not currency. Unlike currency, it is not very liquid. Having a million dollars in Bitcoin can't be converted in one fell swoop to dollars. You can do it in stages, but sudden redemptions of large amounts by a lot of people will cause its value to drop and probably result in a lot of people unable to swap Bitcoin for cash. People are willing to accept it because they can trade it for something of value, but there is no assurance it will have any specified value nor that any particular person will accept it. Right now, it has value because people are willing to speculate in it and some people will accept it as payment. In addition, there is nothing to stop someone from creating Bitcoin2 and offering it up; unlike a government who has a monopoly on printing real money. If people have greater trust in it then Bitcoin will fade away.
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
No. Your point was about people who CREATED the company. At the point of giving stocks and options to employed CEOs, that is part of a rewards package, which can and should be counted as salary. Creators of the company get their ownership when the company is still worth zero, and thus isn't relevant to wage caps.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
I don't know the details of the Swiss proposal, nor care that it was voted down. The question is whether legislation of this sort is a good idea: To limit the differential between the ordinary workers and the top execs. The implementation details are complicated and may be different from the Swiss proposal.
Since my original comment was relevant to those who got large payouts as the result of early involvement in a company, not just the founders then would you say only the persons who actually started the company, not anyone who joined later, should be fee of caps? As far as wether the idea of pay caps is a good idea, or even a workable idea, we'll just have to have differing opinions.