Quite apart from the fact that filter feeders of all kinds ingest these small plastic fragments in large quantities along with plankton and it clogs up their intestines. The problem is not jut limited to filter feeders, all kinds of fish and other marine animals swallow bits of plastic after mistaking them for prey items. Nanoplastics have been found to cause brain damage in fish and what's more they have been found in fish eaten by humans. This means that as humans eat organism whose flesh contains plastic fragments these will enter the human body and there is a real chance they will accumulate and that humans will suffer damage to their health as a result. I just don't see any reason why somebody would be against cleaning up, and ending the dumping of, large amounts of plastic garbage. The stuff does not belong in nature and we can change our consumption patterns to eliminate the problem without it bringing about the downfall of human civilisation as we know it.
All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview.
So you got an interview and you're complaining? Did you show up for the interview only to find it wasn't on?
Useless as people may be the only thing worse is to treat these people like a vindicitive arsehole. It's one of the fastest ways society can go down the tubes. (Not the internet just a bunch of tubes either, the ones that move shit around).
Just getting any old interview is not enough, it has to be for a job that I have a reasonable chance of getting. My criticism is that in years past I all to often I found myself being sent to interviews by recruiters and HR that are long shots and long shots are a waste of my time. I’d rather get from a recruiter two well targeted interviews for positions I’m likely to get than 20 interviews for jobs where I can see a couple of minutes into the interview by the expression on the interviewers faces that this interview is a waste of my time. What most recruiters don’t seem to get is that in their line of work quality beats quantity. The reason I think most recruiters are useless is that most of them do not have the domain knowlede to judge whether a developer is suitable for the position (also applies to other highly skilled workers ) so they just send anybody who broadly fits the bill to the company HR who then pressures the department head responsible into an interview.
These bozos deserve everything they get. Corporations and bankers only ever learn by losing money and in cases like this the perfect learning mechanism is being slapped with great big massive fines. One good thing to come out of VW's shenanigans, however, is that the 'using fossil fuels is patriotism' and 'there should be an environmentalist hunting season' crowd has been purged from VW leadership and replaced with people who are sinking EUR 34 billion into electric vehicle technology and are planning to take that to EUR 72 billion by 2022. Same is probably true for a whole other bunch of car companies that didn't get caught but did notice the massive fines VW got. I'm no fan of the VW leadership but at least this is a move in the right direction.
Ive seen this way too much. Ive been a full stack web developer for over fifteen years. There are lots of parts to that. This comes with rapid change and growth personally. No one is plug and play. Most places have some odd technology combination that youll have to learn to be competent, so I dont expect a perfect match nor do most employers.
It is still amazing how, once in a while, you get an interview offer from some outfit that just lost a programmer, call him John, who knew C++ and <insert long and rare combination of tools and APIs> and they turn you down because they are looking for an exact John replacement who knows all the tools and APIs John knew and was working on a very similar project to the one they are working on.
That being the case, Ive avoided for better or worse Microsoftâ(TM)s stack.
Anyways, given that, I find it weird getting calls from people about senior c# positions. Are they nuts? I know Java, Golang, PHP, JavaScript, Python, etc. I do not know c#. I dislike the oddity that is TSQL. Iâ(TM)ve never written beyond hello world, 15-20 years ago, in ASP.NET.
I was sent to an interview only to find out it was for backend
Yeah, I get that regularly when I'm between jobs. I'm C/C++/Java all the way, I can also do PHP/Ruby/Python and web stuff, but I regularly get calls for C#.NET jobs. Now, I'm not one of those passionate Microsoft haters but I react the same way as if I'd got an offer to be a bulldozer repairman. I tell them that I know zip, zero, nothing, about.NET. The odd thing is that when you tell them you know nothing abut the tools they want you to use they still insist on interviewing you. It always ends up the same way with them telling you what you told them at the beginning of the interaction in a tone of voice people only use whey they are trying to let somebody down gently: "Unfortunately you don't have the skill set needed for this job". I did a couple of these interviews years ago before just settling for saying no thanks right off the bat and repeating it, very politely, until they got the message.
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
You are right, respect is a two-way street. But in many cases this is a three way transaction between you, the employer and the recruiter. If a recruiter behaves badly, you might want to take this up with the potential employer, stating that due to past experiences you will not work with that recruiter/recruiting firm in the future and state the reason. This shows that you are still interested in that particular employer for future job openings, but that you want your application to be treated seriously, and that this recruiter/recruiting firm is doing a poor job of representing the employers business and interests.
As you say, paying out of your own pocket to travel to a interview far away only to discover that a recruiter have no idea who you are despite them having your CV is extremely poor form. Those recruiters should be outed and lose any future assignments.
That would be nice but there is usually no way to contact the perspective employer and this is by design. The only thing you can do most of the time is to add the recruiter and the agency he works for to your 'never deal with these a**holes again' list and create an e-mail rule that forwards any mails from their domain to the wast basket. I have never had problems finding work without the help of recruiters and I will never use their services if I can avoid it. This goes double for those agencies where you don't actually working for your employer. You end up working for the recruiting agency who hires you out as a contractor and takes a hefty commission out of your paycheck for the privilege while you get no benefits, worker protection does not apply to you and there are no paid vacations while the employer spends a year or two mulling over whether to offer you a permanent position. Another shitty trick that I have encountered is being sent to an interview (sometimes more that one with the same company) getting told they want to hire you only to get a phone call at the last minute informing you that it will come to nothing due to changes in company budgeting. By then you have turned down a bunch of other offers expecting to get this job. Companies feel entitled to do stuff like this and then they have the temerity to complain people are not showing up at interviews? Tough!!
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
I'd have to second that. The vast majority of recruiters is utterly, utterly, utterly useless. All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview. Half the time they even call the HR person at the company and get their approval before sending you on an interview for a job you are only theoretically qualified for but realistically are certain not to get. Something like an experienced.NET GUI programmer guy being sent on an interview for an position requiring an experienced C++ system programmer with lots of low level network programming knowledge, or vice versa. Those are totally different areas of expertise, programmers are not an entirely fungible type of employee, you can't just replace a C programmer with a Java web developer even though they both have a BSc in Comp. Sci. and are experienced each in their own field. So I'd add that a large proportion of HR people are also utterly, utterly, utterly useless
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU; pity they left it till now as the UK is just leaving.
Yeah, you must really miss the good old days before the EU put a stop to people being ripped off with excessive mobile roaming charges. Maybe you'll get the extortionate roaming charges back after Brexit? Hope springs eternal...
To hell with ads, I already get plenty of stuff from Netflix per E-mail as well as the built in notifications system in their app. I would gladly watch some of their other stuff, particularly French, Spanish and Asian movies and series if they'd dub then in English. I usually do work while watching TV and I like to keep track of what's happening by listening while I work and pause to watch when something interesting is happening on screen and then continue working. I can't do that if I'm forced to stare at the TV screen throughout, reading subtitles so I tend not to watch this material all that much. It would also be nice if they'd list the available audio languages in the description.
Yeah - the florida governor is able to control oceanic currents. These algae blooms happen. Ever hear of the Red Sea? Yeah - it's been called that since 2500BC for the same reasons as this algae bloom, well before any Republicans got your panties in a twist. Take off your hippie hat for a few seconds and try to think rationally.
No but the Florida governor is able to encourage his legislature to use regulations, inspections and fines to control the agricultural runoff that severely aggravates algae bloom. But then again, being a free market fundamentalist like most other right wing-nuts, he's probably waiting for the free market to solve this problem or maybe he's waiting for the free market to expose it as a Chinese hoax? Whichever it is, I'm not holding my breath. As for the name of the Red Sea being due to the algae bloom, that explanation is disputed. In some oriental languages the cardinal directions are associated with colours, so Red stands for South just like black stands for North, as in Black Sea. Herodotus, for example, used the the terms 'Southern Sea' and 'Red Sea' interchangeably.
Yup, tucked away in a special room on a special computer desk like a statue of the Buddha in one of those little temples in the Japanese countryside. Who didn't? Most gamers I know still have a little shrine in their domicile where they keep their 'gaming rig'.
Of course you can ban a naturally occuring material, you're just taking a literalist approach to what banning actually entails.
As Russia mines 55% of the worlds asbestos minerals (followed by China), this will come as a great boon to Russian industry.
I think the notoriousness of Asbestos will ensure that most people are well aware of how dangerous it is and will steer clear of anybody peddling products featuring 'Asbestos!! The new miracle material of the future' although there may be a few particularly passionate right-wingers who may actually make it their material of choice for insulating their homes as a way of sticking it to the 'liberal elites'. Plus, I kind of doubt that the asbestos mining industry is crucial to the bottom line of Russian industry as a whole so Russia is not particularly likely to experience a complete economic reversal of fortune as a result of any boost its Asbestos miners derive from this development.
...The bigger the boat gets, the more damage is done...
***Cringe*** A boat is a small to medium size vessel that stops being a boat and becomes a ship at a displacement of about 500 tons, larger than that and it's a ship. As a rule of thumb a ship can carry a boat, a boat cannot carry a ship and this does not count, a destroyer is a 'warship' not a 'warboat'. In fact some modern destroyers should probably be re-classified as light cruisers so the are most definitely not 'boats'. In the Navy they also apply the word "boat" to very large submersibles and even then only for reasons having to do with naval tradition. So please stop pointing at a huge half kilometre long oil tanker or an aircraft carrier with a crew of several thousand and several squadrons of aircraft on board and calling it a big boat, they are both really, really huge ships.
Then I'd like to hear what is the answer. Think quickly because the clock is ticking.
Wind, solar and grid storage have already trashed coal and are in the process of out competing natural gas. Meanwhile Nuclear is expensive and extremely unpopular. You are never going to be able to sell a solution that is more expensive than the cheapest alternative fossil fuel source, that needs massive amounts of subsidies and is regarded suspiciously by the public (fairly or not) as a potential ticking time bomb. Until you can come up with a technology that is universally applicable, as opposed to hydro and geothermal for example, which are limited by geography, and that comprehensively beats the cheapest fossil fuel energy source you are fighting a hopeless battle. Currently natural gas is the cheapest fossil fuel alternative and wind and solar combined with grid storage are the only alternative that looks capable of beating natural gas in the short term which is what we are talking about here. Oh, and before somebody starts ranting on about lithium batteries begin expensive, lithium batteries are not the only option for grid storage by a long shot.
No other auto maker will be able to mass produce an EV in the next 5 years (BWM is the closest and won't be there for about 4 1/2 years at the earliest). The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries. Also, they don't have secured supplies for the Li and other rare earth metals they need. Finally, they don't have the knowledge of the battery chemistry to make those batteries efficient enough to sell them (or the EVs that contain them) at a profit.
It's not that Tesla is the only company that has any knowledge of battery chemistry, or that US companies have a monopoly on battery chemistry tech, not even close. There are plenty of batter manufacturers in Asia and Europe who can compete there. It's more that there has been a race to secure the existing Li supply and the early birds (like Tesla) got the worm. People who decided to "wait and see if this electric vehicle fad leads to anything" are now having trouble obtaining Li for battery production. Estimates I've seen are that it will take something like 10 years to *begin* ramping up mining operations to extract the amounts of Li required to supply an electric vehicle (and grid storage/battery wall) duck curve. Those who made long term contracts for Li supplies have a huge head start.
None. But they're dirt cheap and their batteries don't explode.
Yes, sadly that's enough to beat the two leading cellphone makers...
So basically Huawei is also a Juggernaut is dead in the water and running on inertia.... come to think of it, as far as I am concerned, so are Microsoft, Google, Intel, Nividia,... long, long list.
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
So what game changing revolutionary new products had Huawei brought to the mobile market recently?... or to the Tech market in general?
Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip. They created only limited religious writing. All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization. I say this as a Catholic, so don't imagine some offense. It is just that history and reality are different than you know.
Exclusively?? That is quite simply not true. While there have always been book burning morons among the Christians like in any other religion they never dominated for any length of time and were fiercely opposed by scholastically minded people within the church. Large numbers of manuscripts were copied and preserved in Christian monasteries by monks and nuns. In fact we owe a big debt to both Arab scholars and religious figures as well as their Christian counterparts for the preservation of much of the surviving ancient literature and scientific writings. In fact Arab books were translated into western languages during the middle ages, that includes the Quaran which was translated into Latin by monks as early as the 11th and 12th centuries and scientific works such as the famous medical encyclopaedias written by Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna to medieval Europeans) which became well known reference works in Europe of the Middle Ages. The worst we can accuse Christian monks, Arab religious figures and scholars of both cultures of is that they did not have the time or capacity to save everything. That being said we are still finding ancient works in monastic collections that were thought to have been lost.
Only crap public schools which are either underfunded, or run by a bunch of locals according to their religious preferences (which goes back to the church again).
Many of us attended public schools that taught us critical thinking skills and prepared us for university. Then came along a multi-decade effort by religious conservatives to underfund public schools, close them, and replace them with for-profit "charter" schools and home "schooling," with the results we see today: only a tiny minority know how to think critically, the rest just buy into whatever propoganda (usually right-wing, but not exclusively so) that is put before them.
Where I come from public schools hand out scientifically sound information, churches hand out information based on the writings of ancient mystics. Thankfully the churches here mind their own business for the most part and don't give much credence to the more loony things written in their scriptures. Given the choice I'll trust the public school but then I don't live in the big convoluted mess of a society that you are describing.
How about using the space for the useless second sim card for a real headphone jack?
There was a business report on Apple talking about the slowdown with their phones, and how Apple was smart and foresaw that and pushed harder for their online streaming revenues. Nice. People are getting tired of their hardware, and they know it.
In reality, though, little gimmicks like this aren't intended to actually entice users - it's just intended to keep them in the news. It's advertising.
This is getting spooky! Every time anybody starts a discussion about mobile phones, irrespective of topic, an audiophile appears in a puff of smoke and starts complaining in a high pitched whiny tone of voice about missing the missing headphone jack.
You're a lying jackass. $4,000 will get you a system that powers a small shack with a dozen lightbulbs and a TV. Anything beyond that is pure fantasy. Minimum cost for me would be $20,000 and that's if I do most of the work myself. Subsidies would offset some of that, but far less than half. Even if subsidies were high enough to bring it down to $4,000 that wouldn't make it a $4,000 system; it would make it a $20,000 system which was paid for mostly by other people.
In the UK Ikea is charging ~$5600 for a basic solar package, throw in battery storage it comes in at ~$9000. These prices will only fall and the panels will only become more efficient over the next couple of decades at least.
Slashdot Mirror
The plastic polymer may be inert, but that does not apply to the additives that are mixed in with it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
Quite apart from the fact that filter feeders of all kinds ingest these small plastic fragments in large quantities along with plankton and it clogs up their intestines. The problem is not jut limited to filter feeders, all kinds of fish and other marine animals swallow bits of plastic after mistaking them for prey items. Nanoplastics have been found to cause brain damage in fish and what's more they have been found in fish eaten by humans. This means that as humans eat organism whose flesh contains plastic fragments these will enter the human body and there is a real chance they will accumulate and that humans will suffer damage to their health as a result. I just don't see any reason why somebody would be against cleaning up, and ending the dumping of, large amounts of plastic garbage. The stuff does not belong in nature and we can change our consumption patterns to eliminate the problem without it bringing about the downfall of human civilisation as we know it.
All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview.
So you got an interview and you're complaining? Did you show up for the interview only to find it wasn't on?
Useless as people may be the only thing worse is to treat these people like a vindicitive arsehole. It's one of the fastest ways society can go down the tubes. (Not the internet just a bunch of tubes either, the ones that move shit around).
Just getting any old interview is not enough, it has to be for a job that I have a reasonable chance of getting. My criticism is that in years past I all to often I found myself being sent to interviews by recruiters and HR that are long shots and long shots are a waste of my time. I’d rather get from a recruiter two well targeted interviews for positions I’m likely to get than 20 interviews for jobs where I can see a couple of minutes into the interview by the expression on the interviewers faces that this interview is a waste of my time. What most recruiters don’t seem to get is that in their line of work quality beats quantity. The reason I think most recruiters are useless is that most of them do not have the domain knowlede to judge whether a developer is suitable for the position (also applies to other highly skilled workers ) so they just send anybody who broadly fits the bill to the company HR who then pressures the department head responsible into an interview.
These bozos deserve everything they get. Corporations and bankers only ever learn by losing money and in cases like this the perfect learning mechanism is being slapped with great big massive fines. One good thing to come out of VW's shenanigans, however, is that the 'using fossil fuels is patriotism' and 'there should be an environmentalist hunting season' crowd has been purged from VW leadership and replaced with people who are sinking EUR 34 billion into electric vehicle technology and are planning to take that to EUR 72 billion by 2022. Same is probably true for a whole other bunch of car companies that didn't get caught but did notice the massive fines VW got. I'm no fan of the VW leadership but at least this is a move in the right direction.
Ive seen this way too much. Ive been a full stack web developer for over fifteen years. There are lots of parts to that. This comes with rapid change and growth personally. No one is plug and play. Most places have some odd technology combination that youll have to learn to be competent, so I dont expect a perfect match nor do most employers.
It is still amazing how, once in a while, you get an interview offer from some outfit that just lost a programmer, call him John, who knew C++ and <insert long and rare combination of tools and APIs> and they turn you down because they are looking for an exact John replacement who knows all the tools and APIs John knew and was working on a very similar project to the one they are working on.
That being the case, Ive avoided for better or worse Microsoftâ(TM)s stack.
Anyways, given that, I find it weird getting calls from people about senior c# positions. Are they nuts? I know Java, Golang, PHP, JavaScript, Python, etc. I do not know c#. I dislike the oddity that is TSQL. Iâ(TM)ve never written beyond hello world, 15-20 years ago, in ASP.NET.
I seriously think that even given a resumé and a job description in front of them, many recruiters couldnâ(TM)t match the requirements. They donâ(TM)t know tech.
I was sent to an interview only to find out it was for backend
Yeah, I get that regularly when I'm between jobs. I'm C/C++/Java all the way, I can also do PHP/Ruby/Python and web stuff, but I regularly get calls for C# .NET jobs. Now, I'm not one of those passionate Microsoft haters but I react the same way as if I'd got an offer to be a bulldozer repairman. I tell them that I know zip, zero, nothing, about .NET. The odd thing is that when you tell them you know nothing abut the tools they want you to use they still insist on interviewing you. It always ends up the same way with them telling you what you told them at the beginning of the interaction in a tone of voice people only use whey they are trying to let somebody down gently: "Unfortunately you don't have the skill set needed for this job". I did a couple of these interviews years ago before just settling for saying no thanks right off the bat and repeating it, very politely, until they got the message.
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
You are right, respect is a two-way street. But in many cases this is a three way transaction between you, the employer and the recruiter. If a recruiter behaves badly, you might want to take this up with the potential employer, stating that due to past experiences you will not work with that recruiter/recruiting firm in the future and state the reason. This shows that you are still interested in that particular employer for future job openings, but that you want your application to be treated seriously, and that this recruiter/recruiting firm is doing a poor job of representing the employers business and interests.
As you say, paying out of your own pocket to travel to a interview far away only to discover that a recruiter have no idea who you are despite them having your CV is extremely poor form. Those recruiters should be outed and lose any future assignments.
That would be nice but there is usually no way to contact the perspective employer and this is by design. The only thing you can do most of the time is to add the recruiter and the agency he works for to your 'never deal with these a**holes again' list and create an e-mail rule that forwards any mails from their domain to the wast basket. I have never had problems finding work without the help of recruiters and I will never use their services if I can avoid it. This goes double for those agencies where you don't actually working for your employer. You end up working for the recruiting agency who hires you out as a contractor and takes a hefty commission out of your paycheck for the privilege while you get no benefits, worker protection does not apply to you and there are no paid vacations while the employer spends a year or two mulling over whether to offer you a permanent position. Another shitty trick that I have encountered is being sent to an interview (sometimes more that one with the same company) getting told they want to hire you only to get a phone call at the last minute informing you that it will come to nothing due to changes in company budgeting. By then you have turned down a bunch of other offers expecting to get this job. Companies feel entitled to do stuff like this and then they have the temerity to complain people are not showing up at interviews? Tough!!
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
I'd have to second that. The vast majority of recruiters is utterly, utterly, utterly useless. All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview. Half the time they even call the HR person at the company and get their approval before sending you on an interview for a job you are only theoretically qualified for but realistically are certain not to get. Something like an experienced .NET GUI programmer guy being sent on an interview for an position requiring an experienced C++ system programmer with lots of low level network programming knowledge, or vice versa. Those are totally different areas of expertise, programmers are not an entirely fungible type of employee, you can't just replace a C programmer with a Java web developer even though they both have a BSc in Comp. Sci. and are experienced each in their own field. So I'd add that a large proportion of HR people are also utterly, utterly, utterly useless
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
FYI, together with improved repairability, banning roaming charges makes two good things to come out of the EU and they are not the only ones.
This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU; pity they left it till now as the UK is just leaving.
Yeah, you must really miss the good old days before the EU put a stop to people being ripped off with excessive mobile roaming charges. Maybe you'll get the extortionate roaming charges back after Brexit? Hope springs eternal...
To hell with ads, I already get plenty of stuff from Netflix per E-mail as well as the built in notifications system in their app. I would gladly watch some of their other stuff, particularly French, Spanish and Asian movies and series if they'd dub then in English. I usually do work while watching TV and I like to keep track of what's happening by listening while I work and pause to watch when something interesting is happening on screen and then continue working. I can't do that if I'm forced to stare at the TV screen throughout, reading subtitles so I tend not to watch this material all that much. It would also be nice if they'd list the available audio languages in the description.
Yeah - the florida governor is able to control oceanic currents. These algae blooms happen. Ever hear of the Red Sea? Yeah - it's been called that since 2500BC for the same reasons as this algae bloom, well before any Republicans got your panties in a twist. Take off your hippie hat for a few seconds and try to think rationally.
No but the Florida governor is able to encourage his legislature to use regulations, inspections and fines to control the agricultural runoff that severely aggravates algae bloom. But then again, being a free market fundamentalist like most other right wing-nuts, he's probably waiting for the free market to solve this problem or maybe he's waiting for the free market to expose it as a Chinese hoax? Whichever it is, I'm not holding my breath. As for the name of the Red Sea being due to the algae bloom, that explanation is disputed. In some oriental languages the cardinal directions are associated with colours, so Red stands for South just like black stands for North, as in Black Sea. Herodotus, for example, used the the terms 'Southern Sea' and 'Red Sea' interchangeably.
Did You Have a Shared Family Computer Growing Up?
Yup, tucked away in a special room on a special computer desk like a statue of the Buddha in one of those little temples in the Japanese countryside. Who didn't? Most gamers I know still have a little shrine in their domicile where they keep their 'gaming rig'.
Of course you can ban a naturally occuring material, you're just taking a literalist approach to what banning actually entails. As Russia mines 55% of the worlds asbestos minerals (followed by China), this will come as a great boon to Russian industry.
I think the notoriousness of Asbestos will ensure that most people are well aware of how dangerous it is and will steer clear of anybody peddling products featuring 'Asbestos!! The new miracle material of the future' although there may be a few particularly passionate right-wingers who may actually make it their material of choice for insulating their homes as a way of sticking it to the 'liberal elites'. Plus, I kind of doubt that the asbestos mining industry is crucial to the bottom line of Russian industry as a whole so Russia is not particularly likely to experience a complete economic reversal of fortune as a result of any boost its Asbestos miners derive from this development.
...The bigger the boat gets, the more damage is done...
***Cringe*** A boat is a small to medium size vessel that stops being a boat and becomes a ship at a displacement of about 500 tons, larger than that and it's a ship. As a rule of thumb a ship can carry a boat, a boat cannot carry a ship and this does not count, a destroyer is a 'warship' not a 'warboat'. In fact some modern destroyers should probably be re-classified as light cruisers so the are most definitely not 'boats'. In the Navy they also apply the word "boat" to very large submersibles and even then only for reasons having to do with naval tradition. So please stop pointing at a huge half kilometre long oil tanker or an aircraft carrier with a crew of several thousand and several squadrons of aircraft on board and calling it a big boat, they are both really, really huge ships.
There are still people who imagine that Brexit was a bad thing.
Right, because Brexit has to become a synonym for FUBAR.
Nuclear isn't the answer.
Then I'd like to hear what is the answer. Think quickly because the clock is ticking.
Wind, solar and grid storage have already trashed coal and are in the process of out competing natural gas. Meanwhile Nuclear is expensive and extremely unpopular. You are never going to be able to sell a solution that is more expensive than the cheapest alternative fossil fuel source, that needs massive amounts of subsidies and is regarded suspiciously by the public (fairly or not) as a potential ticking time bomb. Until you can come up with a technology that is universally applicable, as opposed to hydro and geothermal for example, which are limited by geography, and that comprehensively beats the cheapest fossil fuel energy source you are fighting a hopeless battle. Currently natural gas is the cheapest fossil fuel alternative and wind and solar combined with grid storage are the only alternative that looks capable of beating natural gas in the short term which is what we are talking about here. Oh, and before somebody starts ranting on about lithium batteries begin expensive, lithium batteries are not the only option for grid storage by a long shot.
The US drop in emissions is a one-time bonus from replacement of coal by natural gas. It's a good start, but just a start.
And a small one at that, a really good first step will come when Solar, Wind and new grid tech will out compete and replace natural gas on prices.
No other auto maker will be able to mass produce an EV in the next 5 years (BWM is the closest and won't be there for about 4 1/2 years at the earliest). The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries. Also, they don't have secured supplies for the Li and other rare earth metals they need. Finally, they don't have the knowledge of the battery chemistry to make those batteries efficient enough to sell them (or the EVs that contain them) at a profit.
It's not that Tesla is the only company that has any knowledge of battery chemistry, or that US companies have a monopoly on battery chemistry tech, not even close. There are plenty of batter manufacturers in Asia and Europe who can compete there. It's more that there has been a race to secure the existing Li supply and the early birds (like Tesla) got the worm. People who decided to "wait and see if this electric vehicle fad leads to anything" are now having trouble obtaining Li for battery production. Estimates I've seen are that it will take something like 10 years to *begin* ramping up mining operations to extract the amounts of Li required to supply an electric vehicle (and grid storage/battery wall) duck curve. Those who made long term contracts for Li supplies have a huge head start.
None. But they're dirt cheap and their batteries don't explode.
Yes, sadly that's enough to beat the two leading cellphone makers...
So basically Huawei is also a Juggernaut is dead in the water and running on inertia .... come to think of it, as far as I am concerned, so are Microsoft, Google, Intel, Nividia, ... long, long list.
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
So what game changing revolutionary new products had Huawei brought to the mobile market recently? ... or to the Tech market in general?
Never mind the fact that AAPL is about to be the first trillion-dollar company selling basically one phone, everyone on /. is convinced they're dead.
They are all members of "The venerable order of the bee in the bonnet" and Michael Dell is their Grand Poobah.
Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip. They created only limited religious writing. All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization. I say this as a Catholic, so don't imagine some offense. It is just that history and reality are different than you know.
Exclusively?? That is quite simply not true. While there have always been book burning morons among the Christians like in any other religion they never dominated for any length of time and were fiercely opposed by scholastically minded people within the church. Large numbers of manuscripts were copied and preserved in Christian monasteries by monks and nuns. In fact we owe a big debt to both Arab scholars and religious figures as well as their Christian counterparts for the preservation of much of the surviving ancient literature and scientific writings. In fact Arab books were translated into western languages during the middle ages, that includes the Quaran which was translated into Latin by monks as early as the 11th and 12th centuries and scientific works such as the famous medical encyclopaedias written by Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna to medieval Europeans) which became well known reference works in Europe of the Middle Ages. The worst we can accuse Christian monks, Arab religious figures and scholars of both cultures of is that they did not have the time or capacity to save everything. That being said we are still finding ancient works in monastic collections that were thought to have been lost.
Or a public school...
Only crap public schools which are either underfunded, or run by a bunch of locals according to their religious preferences (which goes back to the church again).
Many of us attended public schools that taught us critical thinking skills and prepared us for university. Then came along a multi-decade effort by religious conservatives to underfund public schools, close them, and replace them with for-profit "charter" schools and home "schooling," with the results we see today: only a tiny minority know how to think critically, the rest just buy into whatever propoganda (usually right-wing, but not exclusively so) that is put before them.
Where I come from public schools hand out scientifically sound information, churches hand out information based on the writings of ancient mystics. Thankfully the churches here mind their own business for the most part and don't give much credence to the more loony things written in their scriptures. Given the choice I'll trust the public school but then I don't live in the big convoluted mess of a society that you are describing.
How about using the space for the useless second sim card for a real headphone jack?
There was a business report on Apple talking about the slowdown with their phones, and how Apple was smart and foresaw that and pushed harder for their online streaming revenues. Nice. People are getting tired of their hardware, and they know it.
In reality, though, little gimmicks like this aren't intended to actually entice users - it's just intended to keep them in the news. It's advertising.
This is getting spooky! Every time anybody starts a discussion about mobile phones, irrespective of topic, an audiophile appears in a puff of smoke and starts complaining in a high pitched whiny tone of voice about missing the missing headphone jack.
You're a lying jackass. $4,000 will get you a system that powers a small shack with a dozen lightbulbs and a TV. Anything beyond that is pure fantasy. Minimum cost for me would be $20,000 and that's if I do most of the work myself. Subsidies would offset some of that, but far less than half. Even if subsidies were high enough to bring it down to $4,000 that wouldn't make it a $4,000 system; it would make it a $20,000 system which was paid for mostly by other people.
In the UK Ikea is charging ~$5600 for a basic solar package, throw in battery storage it comes in at ~$9000. These prices will only fall and the panels will only become more efficient over the next couple of decades at least.