No, it's an indication that corporations are lazy and incapable of evaluating prospective employees, and it's easier to come up with an arbitrary filter so you can throw 90% of the applications in the bin and spend the rest of the day in a meeting or on the golf course.
Nah, the rich can never be happy, because they're always comparing themselves to someone even richer. It's not about how much you have, but how much you have compared to your neighbour. When you're rich, you live with other rich people, so you have to keep buying the expensive cars, giant TVs etc so you're not the peasant of the gated community. It's called lifestyle inflation, and it's why people who could retire work 100 hours a week just to keep up.
It's been proven that past a certain point (which is actually quite low), a higher income doesn't make you any happier. I almost feel sorry for them.
Makes sense. When you dedicate your life solely to the acquisition of wealth, and still find yourself miserable, then you try to justify your lifestyle by splashing out on various gadgets you don't actually need because you think they'll make you happy.
Actually, the increased competition will remove economies of scale, making it more expensive and less efficient. Imagine you have a street with twenty houses. As it stands, one postman walks up and delivers the mail to all twenty houses. Now imagine there are four competing companies. Four vans drive up, four postmen get out with a bag that's only a quarter full, they all walk up the street, each delivering to five houses.
You've taken four times as many man hours, and four times the transport infrastructure to deliver the same amount of mail. How does this increase efficiency and reduce costs?
They stopped giving a damn about "their people" at least 5 years ago. For instance, last month, as the old fiscal year ended, they pulled all the soda cases from every office - replaced with vending machines. That's 1 year after they stopped all the regular food-service and snack items.
Oh noes, not the free junk food! Out of all the things to whine about, is fizzy sugar water really too expensive for someone on an IT salary?
Multiple private competitors wouldn't have the economies of scale to match nationalised postal services. if you got Sunday delivery you'd be paying close to Fedex or UPS rates. And forget getting decent service outside of major conurbations. And forget simply going down to the post office to collect a parcel, these private companies make you go twenty miles to an industrial estate in the middle of no-where.
Paying for your externalities is not an artificial cost, not paying for them is an artificial subsidy. If I make money by dumping chemicals into a lake, and don't pay for it, I'm being subsidised by everyone who suffers from it.
What makes you think that being a bigger company makes them better to work for? Many of these big firms expect long hours, and they've shot their IPO loads already so the financial rewards aren't that great either.
And gaming companies? Those are notoriously bad places to work.
Wow - the biggest criteria of them all - typical salary - isn't even on the list.
Past a certain income point, way below that of the sort of jobs we're talking about here, extra money ceases to make you any happier. It doesn't even improve your living standards, it just gives you slightly higher grades of the same luxuries, which you get used to so lose their lustre anyway.
So in fact, not only is salary not the most important point, it's not important at all.
When you're on a high-end IT salary, stuff like 'free food' isn't a perk. One problem with working for Google is that you'll end up being paid several orders of magnitude less than people no more talented or hard-working who just got in at the right time and were showered in options. That's got to cause a lot of resentment when you're writing brilliant new algorithms and have less money than the toilet cleaner.
Reduce people's AC costs and they'll just spend the money on something else that's even more polluting. The only way to solve carbon emissions is to charge for externalities. And not just for carbon but for all externalities in the economy. If course this ironically will have the free-marketers bleating about losing their de facto subsidies.
To add further empirical fuel to my argument, look at which economies in the G7 are recovering the fastest, Japan, Canada, and Australia. What do those three have in common that other countries do not?
Two of them have vast national resources, and the other has stagnated for decades, I'm not sure of the relevance. The UK has a 'flexible' labour market and it's not done an awful lot of good.
Insane cab drivers kill people. He just chose to use guns. As witnessed by recent mass killings in China, he could have easily used a knife
How does a drive-by knifing work again?
Sadly people in England are (A) disarmed and (B) pacified to the point where they expect the government to save them
Yeah it's almost as if we want to live in a civilised society rather than the Wild West.
Are you honestly saying that the people of Cumbria should have to walk around armed at all times in case they're attacked by mad gunmen? Sounds like America is a pretty horrible place if that's how you have to live.
How would an armed population have helped anyway? Once someone blasts you in the face with a shotgun, you're not going to fight back no matter what weapon you have.
Except the TV rights are sold years in advance, and the advertisers can't pressure the TV companies as the TV companies don't run the tournament. Lower advertising revenue might mean lower bids for TV rights, but that might not affect anything until 2018 or later, and this is the only tournament which has these horns.
Most of EU still has not realized that high taxes kill entrepreneurship, and thus kill the economy. lowering taxes grows the economy and thus increases the tax base -- but having a sizeable tax base is not nearly as important as having a sizeable economy, so better to err on the side of caution and cut taxes and entitlements where possible.
That's your personal opinion. Many would question the value of a sizeable economy if there isn't enough government taxation to ensure everyone benefits from it, rather than all the economic produce being sucked up by a wealthy elite like in the US.
Too bad I can't hire my own government services (or not, as I choose and can afford). I'd probably hire more polite public servants. It'd be great if there were cooperatives I could join (or not, if I chose not to) that would provide roads, schools, security, libraries, etc. Even better if those cooperatives competed with each other for my business. Kind of like a Home Owner's Association in the U.S. or something like that.
Great, all our public services run by the sorts of housewife nazis who run US HOAs. I wonder how road cooperatives would work. If I couldn't afford to join the coop that ran the road outside my house, does that mean I couldn't leave my house? Private schools, security etc. would just lead to the sort of ghettoisation you see in the US and Brazil. Gated communities, armed guards everywhere, rich kids going to great schools and poor kids going to crumbling buildings where they learn nothing, further entrenching class divisions, stifling social mobility, and leading to the crime, inequality and general malaise you see over the Atlantic.
Actually Britain didn't use slave labour, and in fact many of the developments of the industrial revolution were designed to replace skilled labour with cheaper unskilled labour.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like Blizzard don't have form. World of Warcraft burnt out my GTS 250 even on medium settings.
I thought it was the opposite way round, that most programmes lose money trying to keep up with a small elite.
You then also have the problem of classes being full of 'athletes' who are there on a football scholarship rather than for academic purposes.
No, it's an indication that corporations are lazy and incapable of evaluating prospective employees, and it's easier to come up with an arbitrary filter so you can throw 90% of the applications in the bin and spend the rest of the day in a meeting or on the golf course.
Nah, the rich can never be happy, because they're always comparing themselves to someone even richer. It's not about how much you have, but how much you have compared to your neighbour. When you're rich, you live with other rich people, so you have to keep buying the expensive cars, giant TVs etc so you're not the peasant of the gated community. It's called lifestyle inflation, and it's why people who could retire work 100 hours a week just to keep up.
It's been proven that past a certain point (which is actually quite low), a higher income doesn't make you any happier. I almost feel sorry for them.
Makes sense. When you dedicate your life solely to the acquisition of wealth, and still find yourself miserable, then you try to justify your lifestyle by splashing out on various gadgets you don't actually need because you think they'll make you happy.
I don't get the ex-con bit, is someone with a criminal conviction not supposed to have a job?
Actually, the increased competition will remove economies of scale, making it more expensive and less efficient. Imagine you have a street with twenty houses. As it stands, one postman walks up and delivers the mail to all twenty houses. Now imagine there are four competing companies. Four vans drive up, four postmen get out with a bag that's only a quarter full, they all walk up the street, each delivering to five houses.
You've taken four times as many man hours, and four times the transport infrastructure to deliver the same amount of mail. How does this increase efficiency and reduce costs?
So what you like about Crysis is that it justifies spending all that money on hardware?
Oh noes, not the free junk food! Out of all the things to whine about, is fizzy sugar water really too expensive for someone on an IT salary?
Yeah, how dare the government want to make children healthier.
Perhaps your rage would be better reserved for the fast food companies who use similar tactics to influence kids to eat shit.
Because there's a market for a range of products. Not everyone can cherry-pick the high-margin, latté-drinking market.
For a car analogy: they all drive really expensive cars. And run over old women for fun. Probably.
You think using obscure words makes you an intellectual?
Multiple private competitors wouldn't have the economies of scale to match nationalised postal services. if you got Sunday delivery you'd be paying close to Fedex or UPS rates. And forget getting decent service outside of major conurbations. And forget simply going down to the post office to collect a parcel, these private companies make you go twenty miles to an industrial estate in the middle of no-where.
Paying for your externalities is not an artificial cost, not paying for them is an artificial subsidy. If I make money by dumping chemicals into a lake, and don't pay for it, I'm being subsidised by everyone who suffers from it.
What makes you think that being a bigger company makes them better to work for? Many of these big firms expect long hours, and they've shot their IPO loads already so the financial rewards aren't that great either.
And gaming companies? Those are notoriously bad places to work.
Past a certain income point, way below that of the sort of jobs we're talking about here, extra money ceases to make you any happier. It doesn't even improve your living standards, it just gives you slightly higher grades of the same luxuries, which you get used to so lose their lustre anyway.
So in fact, not only is salary not the most important point, it's not important at all.
When you're on a high-end IT salary, stuff like 'free food' isn't a perk. One problem with working for Google is that you'll end up being paid several orders of magnitude less than people no more talented or hard-working who just got in at the right time and were showered in options. That's got to cause a lot of resentment when you're writing brilliant new algorithms and have less money than the toilet cleaner.
Reduce people's AC costs and they'll just spend the money on something else that's even more polluting. The only way to solve carbon emissions is to charge for externalities. And not just for carbon but for all externalities in the economy. If course this ironically will have the free-marketers bleating about losing their de facto subsidies.
Two of them have vast national resources, and the other has stagnated for decades, I'm not sure of the relevance. The UK has a 'flexible' labour market and it's not done an awful lot of good.
People will just run it longer, or leave their windows and doors open all the time, to make up for the energy savings.
How does a drive-by knifing work again?
Yeah it's almost as if we want to live in a civilised society rather than the Wild West.
Are you honestly saying that the people of Cumbria should have to walk around armed at all times in case they're attacked by mad gunmen? Sounds like America is a pretty horrible place if that's how you have to live.
How would an armed population have helped anyway? Once someone blasts you in the face with a shotgun, you're not going to fight back no matter what weapon you have.
Except the TV rights are sold years in advance, and the advertisers can't pressure the TV companies as the TV companies don't run the tournament. Lower advertising revenue might mean lower bids for TV rights, but that might not affect anything until 2018 or later, and this is the only tournament which has these horns.
That's your personal opinion. Many would question the value of a sizeable economy if there isn't enough government taxation to ensure everyone benefits from it, rather than all the economic produce being sucked up by a wealthy elite like in the US.
Great, all our public services run by the sorts of housewife nazis who run US HOAs. I wonder how road cooperatives would work. If I couldn't afford to join the coop that ran the road outside my house, does that mean I couldn't leave my house? Private schools, security etc. would just lead to the sort of ghettoisation you see in the US and Brazil. Gated communities, armed guards everywhere, rich kids going to great schools and poor kids going to crumbling buildings where they learn nothing, further entrenching class divisions, stifling social mobility, and leading to the crime, inequality and general malaise you see over the Atlantic.
Actually Britain didn't use slave labour, and in fact many of the developments of the industrial revolution were designed to replace skilled labour with cheaper unskilled labour.