Reroute the data to a cloud service have the PCs remote into virtual workstations and have the radio fed through the same system.
Imagine making the call to your HOA: "do you mind if I install a primary and secondary radar system on the rooftop of the apartment building? Yeah, I need that for work. Ok, thanks, bye"
Licensing technology developed on the public dime seems like a rather responsible thing to do, just like negotiating for maximum compensation for oil on public land is the smart thing to do.
You're conveniently omitting the fact that oil on the public land has not already been paid by the taxpayer.
In your world, the taxpayer pays twice for procuring the technology. First for the development, then for the licensing.
Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs
No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).
The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.
Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.
This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.
you committed to being a world expert in one particular realm of knowledge
Yes, a theoretical expert. I've worked with PhDs in a hands-on environment. They were completely and utterly useless to get things done.
Great thinkers, and excellent in solving complex theoretical problems. But nothing usable in a hands-on world of coding, linux administration or network configuration.
As weird as it may sound, this may help. You write yourself:
get rejected after an overly technical question
Advertising a PhD may come across as advertising that you think you're good. You may not mean it that way, but it will most certainly be received like that. I've performed many technical interviews and when I prepare myself for a candidate, I go over their resume (their ad). If the candidate advertises knowledge of a specific topic, he or she better know it.
The rejections you got may not have been because you didn't know a specific answer to a very technical question. Nobody knows everything. You may have been rejected because of the answer that you gave, and let me explain.
When I interview, I will make sure there is one topic with a couple of questions that I don't expect you to know from the top of your head. I will get online and get the answers if needed. I will ask the question (if we get to it) and see the response. If you get the answer right: well done, you will have my vote. If you don't then this is where the psychology comes in. I'll be looking for you to be honest. Don't make up answers, don't come up with a bullshit reply. If I get bullshit, no matter how good you were, you will fail the interview. If you bullshit me, you'll bullshit a customer, manager or anyone else when you're in the hot seat.
Don't underestimate the importance of attitude and honesty in an interview.
We're more like european countries with Free School for all, Free Healthcare for all, lots of social services and support for our vulnerable population.
I fled one of those countries. If you'r old enough to know what TANSTAAFL means, this is your classic example. Your "Free" education, "Free" healthcare and the Social Security State are being funded by who? An anonymous philanthropist? No they're not. They're being funded by you, the taxpayer.
Which (in my former home country) was achieved by a 52% income tax and a 21% sales tax. So that's 73% in total, going straight to Mother Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H State, who will make sure it gets spent on Revolutionary things like bailing out Greece, redistributing my hard-earned cash to people who refuse to work, Eastern European thugs coming to pickpocket and pay the master thieves of the EU.
An aspect of this, is the government spending a LOT of money developing artists, book/movie production houses, etc. This conflict between Netflix and the CRTC is tied to that. Other broadcaster have to chip money into the pot for, yes, our socialist approach to fostering local arts. Many Canadians *support* this idea
See, you even agree with me. Basically Canada should be returned to the Russians to be part of the new Soviet Ukrain Canadian Union. American companies are NOT socialist. So get your commie ass back to Russia or stop whining.
No I'm not. I was forced out of San Jose because of the high housing prices. I'm not even going to try Palo Alto, Menlo Park or San Francisco. I'm way south of the Bay. Definitely not elite, even though I'd like to think of myself as someone skilled in network engineering.
you work in an ivory tower with the great unwashed baying at the gate
You could not be further from the truth. I encourage anyone, from the janitor to the security guards, to take an interest in computer science and network engineering. I remind them that I never took any classes that are relevant to my job. If I can do it, they can do it. So can everyone else who is interested. I got to where I am today because I threw Windows 95 from my PC and installed Linux. That led me down a path of systems administrator, network administrator to the JNCIE that I am today. My formal education did nothing whatsoever to get me here. Nothing 31337 about that.
If you're even remotely presentable and capable of basic human interaction, you cannot not have a job in the Bay area, even if you're completely freaking clueless.
Actually, I kind of have to agree with you here. Yesterday I had a friend over who worked in the same team as I did for a large vendor of telecommunications equipment. For years (at least 5), there was one guy who was completely and utterly useless, did not perform and could not even complete the most basic tasks by himself. I always thought he had some compromising images of his boss or something similar that prevented him from being fired.
Turns out the guy was hired by a startup recently. I thought that would be unimaginable, but then I realized that I was mistaken. He is very well-spoken, has a nice personality and if you don't have to work with him, he is generally a good guy to have a beer with. It's just that he is useless as a tech worker IMHO. Oh, and if you read this: no offense:)
In the specific case of Facebook, it is not about driving wages down. Facebook pays decent wages, even for Silicon Valley standards. It is about not increasing wages.
What Facebook et al need is a way to ensure that they'll be able to fill their positions without creating too much of a jobseekers market so they won't be forced to lure employees away from the competition. All those sign-on bonuses, recruiter fees and salary increases (usually roughly 10% if you jump ship) will add up quickly.
Truth of the matter is, in the SF Bay Area, it is hard to be unemployed if you're a properly skilled tech worker, citizen, green-card holder or otherwise. That doesn't mean I condone the way that the H1-B program often is being abused today. I've seen abuse, and we'll always see that. But this is only made possible due to the ridiculous limits on permanent resident visas vs the amount of H1-B visas, as I pointed out in this comment.:
There is disconnect between the amount of H1-B visas (which are not limited per country) and amount of greencards (which are limited per country). We all know which country I'm talking about: the folks from India, however you may feel about their presence, are hitting this the most: For each EB category (EB1, EB2, EB3 in general), there are 265 greencards available per month. That's a little over 9500 per year. On the other side is the number of H1-B (and L-1) visa that get allocated to workers chargeable to India. Just for H1-B, that number comes close to 170,000 just for FY2012 (source [uscis.gov]). Then there are the L1 visa holders, which are uncapped.
So, you end up having ~10k greencards, vs ~200k influx, just for India alone. This means that there is a huge waiting list for people with approved I-140s, but not eligible to file for AOS. What are you going to do with them? Sent them back? Politics chose to let them stay by renewing their H1-B every 1 to 3 years, even after the 6th year.
It's "without permission" and "the right" part (among other things) that makes taxation and theft two different things.
See, this is the interesting part. I think we'll both agree that the permission part depends on me giving permission, so we won't need to discuss that. The next part is more difficult.
I have a two year old. We're weaning her off the pacifier, but occasionally, she manages to slip into her bedroom and finds a pacifier. When we ask her who gave her the pacifier, the reply is "I gave it to myself!".
The government is doing the same thing. It's the government that grants itself permission to take away my property. Putin gave himself permission to enter Ukraine.
In my first year of law school, I learned that legal scholars define something they call a "social contract", which says that in a civilized society, everyone has a contract with each other to "do the right thing". So again, I'm not debating whether or not we should pay taxes. I'm simply saying that the way things are going today, are open for improvement (to be very British).
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force
The government is taking my property without my permission, and it gives itself the right to do so. The government partially does it secretly, and if I don't comply I will go to jail.
But you took my words out of context. I am talking about "general forms of tax". For example income tax, sales tax and all taxes that have no specific purpose. Buy an airline ticket? You pay security tax. Fine, fair and square. I choose to buy an airplane ticket and the government has to provide security, ATC etc. So I pay taxes for it. But why the F should I pay income taxes to the government can bail out "Too big to fail" crooks?
I am not opposed to paying taxes in general, I'm just opposed to that "we're taking your money and put it in our wallet, and we'll see later what we'll do with it. But trust us, it's in your interest" crap. You want my money, I want to see (and preferably have a voice as to) what you're doing with it.
General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.
Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money.
If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.
When disaster comes, what else is going to work anyway?
I have my handheld aviation radio. Tune in to 121.5 and someone is going to listen. I also have CB radio as a backup. Plus of course, said AM radio (but most people will have AM, even if they don't know it: just get into your car).
Who are you going to believe, Snowden or the NSA? Keep in mind that one has been caught red handed lying to Congress and the media over and over and over again.
While the other violated his NDAs and is now wanted for treason.
the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.
I guess this hits the nail with the hammer
In the end, religion is like having a penis. It's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But if you're going to take it out and attempt to shove it down my throat, we are going to have a bit of a problem.
My great-grandma was a remarkable woman, practical, restrained & wise.
Same can't be said for most of the occupants of the Oval Office for the past 40 years.
The difference is that the occupants of the Oval Office were elected, and could be thrown out every 4 years. Same can't be said for the great-grandma that rules Great Britain.
Slashdot Mirror
nice car analogy, moron
How about you look at the difference in luxury and space? I'm no MS fan in any way but your comment is a bit over the top.
Reroute the data to a cloud service have the PCs remote into virtual workstations and have the radio fed through the same system.
Imagine making the call to your HOA: "do you mind if I install a primary and secondary radar system on the rooftop of the apartment building? Yeah, I need that for work. Ok, thanks, bye"
Licensing technology developed on the public dime seems like a rather responsible thing to do, just like negotiating for maximum compensation for oil on public land is the smart thing to do.
You're conveniently omitting the fact that oil on the public land has not already been paid by the taxpayer.
In your world, the taxpayer pays twice for procuring the technology. First for the development, then for the licensing.
The NSA has done a lot of things over the years, most of them
Funded by the taxpayer already.
Now if companies are paying the NSA to get access to their research, they're paying twice: once as a taxpayer, and now as a "customer".
If the technology can be declassified, the information should be public property, as its research was funded by the taxpayer.
It might be a shitty platform. but you are a shitty programmer.
Apply water to burned area.
Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs
No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).
The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.
Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.
This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.
you committed to being a world expert in one particular realm of knowledge
Yes, a theoretical expert. I've worked with PhDs in a hands-on environment. They were completely and utterly useless to get things done.
Great thinkers, and excellent in solving complex theoretical problems. But nothing usable in a hands-on world of coding, linux administration or network configuration.
Also, hide the PhD.
As weird as it may sound, this may help. You write yourself:
get rejected after an overly technical question
Advertising a PhD may come across as advertising that you think you're good. You may not mean it that way, but it will most certainly be received like that. I've performed many technical interviews and when I prepare myself for a candidate, I go over their resume (their ad). If the candidate advertises knowledge of a specific topic, he or she better know it.
The rejections you got may not have been because you didn't know a specific answer to a very technical question. Nobody knows everything. You may have been rejected because of the answer that you gave, and let me explain.
When I interview, I will make sure there is one topic with a couple of questions that I don't expect you to know from the top of your head. I will get online and get the answers if needed. I will ask the question (if we get to it) and see the response. If you get the answer right: well done, you will have my vote. If you don't then this is where the psychology comes in. I'll be looking for you to be honest. Don't make up answers, don't come up with a bullshit reply. If I get bullshit, no matter how good you were, you will fail the interview. If you bullshit me, you'll bullshit a customer, manager or anyone else when you're in the hot seat.
Don't underestimate the importance of attitude and honesty in an interview.
We're more like european countries with Free School for all, Free Healthcare for all, lots of social services and support for our vulnerable population.
I fled one of those countries. If you'r old enough to know what TANSTAAFL means, this is your classic example. Your "Free" education, "Free" healthcare and the Social Security State are being funded by who? An anonymous philanthropist? No they're not. They're being funded by you, the taxpayer.
Which (in my former home country) was achieved by a 52% income tax and a 21% sales tax. So that's 73% in total, going straight to Mother Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H State, who will make sure it gets spent on Revolutionary things like bailing out Greece, redistributing my hard-earned cash to people who refuse to work, Eastern European thugs coming to pickpocket and pay the master thieves of the EU.
An aspect of this, is the government spending a LOT of money developing artists, book/movie production houses, etc. This conflict between Netflix and the CRTC is tied to that. Other broadcaster have to chip money into the pot for, yes, our socialist approach to fostering local arts. Many Canadians *support* this idea
See, you even agree with me. Basically Canada should be returned to the Russians to be part of the new Soviet Ukrain Canadian Union. American companies are NOT socialist. So get your commie ass back to Russia or stop whining.
YOU are a member of an elite
No I'm not. I was forced out of San Jose because of the high housing prices. I'm not even going to try Palo Alto, Menlo Park or San Francisco. I'm way south of the Bay. Definitely not elite, even though I'd like to think of myself as someone skilled in network engineering.
you work in an ivory tower with the great unwashed baying at the gate
You could not be further from the truth. I encourage anyone, from the janitor to the security guards, to take an interest in computer science and network engineering. I remind them that I never took any classes that are relevant to my job. If I can do it, they can do it. So can everyone else who is interested. I got to where I am today because I threw Windows 95 from my PC and installed Linux. That led me down a path of systems administrator, network administrator to the JNCIE that I am today. My formal education did nothing whatsoever to get me here. Nothing 31337 about that.
Who was the first troll?
The God that created the Big Fart of course...
If you're even remotely presentable and capable of basic human interaction, you cannot not have a job in the Bay area, even if you're completely freaking clueless.
Actually, I kind of have to agree with you here. Yesterday I had a friend over who worked in the same team as I did for a large vendor of telecommunications equipment. For years (at least 5), there was one guy who was completely and utterly useless, did not perform and could not even complete the most basic tasks by himself. I always thought he had some compromising images of his boss or something similar that prevented him from being fired.
:)
Turns out the guy was hired by a startup recently. I thought that would be unimaginable, but then I realized that I was mistaken. He is very well-spoken, has a nice personality and if you don't have to work with him, he is generally a good guy to have a beer with. It's just that he is useless as a tech worker IMHO. Oh, and if you read this: no offense
You think there is something funny about this?
At least he has the cajones to admit his mistakes, with his username, COWARD.
Drive down wages
In the specific case of Facebook, it is not about driving wages down. Facebook pays decent wages, even for Silicon Valley standards. It is about not increasing wages.
What Facebook et al need is a way to ensure that they'll be able to fill their positions without creating too much of a jobseekers market so they won't be forced to lure employees away from the competition. All those sign-on bonuses, recruiter fees and salary increases (usually roughly 10% if you jump ship) will add up quickly.
Truth of the matter is, in the SF Bay Area, it is hard to be unemployed if you're a properly skilled tech worker, citizen, green-card holder or otherwise. That doesn't mean I condone the way that the H1-B program often is being abused today. I've seen abuse, and we'll always see that. But this is only made possible due to the ridiculous limits on permanent resident visas vs the amount of H1-B visas, as I pointed out in this comment.:
There is disconnect between the amount of H1-B visas (which are not limited per country) and amount of greencards (which are limited per country). We all know which country I'm talking about: the folks from India, however you may feel about their presence, are hitting this the most: For each EB category (EB1, EB2, EB3 in general), there are 265 greencards available per month. That's a little over 9500 per year. On the other side is the number of H1-B (and L-1) visa that get allocated to workers chargeable to India. Just for H1-B, that number comes close to 170,000 just for FY2012 (source [uscis.gov]). Then there are the L1 visa holders, which are uncapped.
So, you end up having ~10k greencards, vs ~200k influx, just for India alone. This means that there is a huge waiting list for people with approved I-140s, but not eligible to file for AOS. What are you going to do with them? Sent them back? Politics chose to let them stay by renewing their H1-B every 1 to 3 years, even after the 6th year.
I know everybody talks about encryption, but the word itself is just the tip of security.
Rknpgyl gung. "Rapelcgrq" qbrf abg nyjnlf zrna "Frpherq".
Space "exploration", such as it is, is a hobby.
Space exploration may prove the only way for our species to survive an ELE.
It's "without permission" and "the right" part (among other things) that makes taxation and theft two different things.
See, this is the interesting part. I think we'll both agree that the permission part depends on me giving permission, so we won't need to discuss that. The next part is more difficult.
I have a two year old. We're weaning her off the pacifier, but occasionally, she manages to slip into her bedroom and finds a pacifier. When we ask her who gave her the pacifier, the reply is "I gave it to myself!".
The government is doing the same thing. It's the government that grants itself permission to take away my property. Putin gave himself permission to enter Ukraine.
In my first year of law school, I learned that legal scholars define something they call a "social contract", which says that in a civilized society, everyone has a contract with each other to "do the right thing". So again, I'm not debating whether or not we should pay taxes. I'm simply saying that the way things are going today, are open for improvement (to be very British).
Taxation is not theft.
Well, the dictionary disagrees with your:
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force
The government is taking my property without my permission, and it gives itself the right to do so. The government partially does it secretly, and if I don't comply I will go to jail.
But you took my words out of context. I am talking about "general forms of tax". For example income tax, sales tax and all taxes that have no specific purpose. Buy an airline ticket? You pay security tax. Fine, fair and square. I choose to buy an airplane ticket and the government has to provide security, ATC etc. So I pay taxes for it. But why the F should I pay income taxes to the government can bail out "Too big to fail" crooks?
I am not opposed to paying taxes in general, I'm just opposed to that "we're taking your money and put it in our wallet, and we'll see later what we'll do with it. But trust us, it's in your interest" crap. You want my money, I want to see (and preferably have a voice as to) what you're doing with it.
General forms of taxes are legalized theft anyway. When the government just takes money away for their "general bucket", it is nothing more than stealing.
Instead, tax-per-use: road tax, school tax, environmental tax, so the tax-payer knows what happens to their money.
If governments would be more transparent, less people would have problems paying taxes.
Out of mod points when I need them the most. Mod parent up.
When disaster comes, what else is going to work anyway?
I have my handheld aviation radio. Tune in to 121.5 and someone is going to listen. I also have CB radio as a backup. Plus of course, said AM radio (but most people will have AM, even if they don't know it: just get into your car).
"At least the NSA can be voted out of office." Explain how.
Congress funds the NSA. All you need to do is vote for representatives that will cut the funding.
Who are you going to believe, Snowden or the NSA? Keep in mind that one has been caught red handed lying to Congress and the media over and over and over again.
While the other violated his NDAs and is now wanted for treason.
At least the NSA can be voted out of office.
the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.
I guess this hits the nail with the hammer
In the end, religion is like having a penis. It's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But if you're going to take it out and attempt to shove it down my throat, we are going to have a bit of a problem.
My great-grandma was a remarkable woman, practical, restrained & wise. Same can't be said for most of the occupants of the Oval Office for the past 40 years.
The difference is that the occupants of the Oval Office were elected, and could be thrown out every 4 years. Same can't be said for the great-grandma that rules Great Britain.