Uh, the US Justice Department appears to agree with you, he has not been charged. this article agrees. The real reason he won't turn himself in is that it would be embarrassing to walk away from the yawn.
I don't think any of the bulk encoders are susceptible. It's just sharing of keys and verification of identity that won't work. I do realize that these are not minor issues.
The US. When I transfer money between accounts it takes 4 days and the money is in neither account for two or three of them. There is no technological reason for this. Given the incredibly low interest rates, I really don't get the reason for it.
We "upgraded" some Xeon workstations to i7 and had to basically pitch the machines. The Xeon's couldn't handle multitasking. Basically, with out setup, on the Xeon you could run software and code at the same time and with the i7s you had to choose one.
Yawn, other than tests that the chip has coprocessors designed specifically to run quickly, have there been improvements in processors over the last 5 years?
How you know the stimulus was effective? The Republicans wouldn't let Obama do more of it. If they thought it was ineffective they would have let him keep doing it.
Uh, Carrier did move most of the jobs. Ford never was going to. While those were large numbers of jobs, you do realize that about 85,000 people lose their jobs each week day, right? So the 800 Carrier jobs would be 1% of a single day of job losses. this is why presidents typically don't track down jobs here and there, they need to setup the system and let the chips fall, correcting the larger system when they can--but the invisible hand does most of the doing.
but, my original question was, "Can you explain to me why they shouldn't they move the jobs abroad?" and you said, "... they are selling a product ("an education") in which the very promise is vocational advancement. Yet their own actions demonstrate they are selling a product which doesn't actually do what it claims." I replied, "I don't get the scam thing. I'd say a system that relies on employing your own students is far more of a scam. I'd love to see universities employ the best person for the job, regardless of nation of origin." and you came back with "This isn't about the University not wanting to hire its own graduates, its about the University wanting to hire cheap foreigners for careers it trains students in." Would this be just as scandalous if Stanford hired MIT grads? What is wrong with foreigners wanting to have a job?
I don't get it. Do universities have accountant geniuses who can hide a huge loss as a huge gain for athletics or are they total morons and can't figure out that some dean is building an empire of ditch diggers / fillers in?
I don't get the scam thing. I'd say a system that relies on employing your own students is far more of a scam. I'd love to see universities employ the best person for the job, regardless of nation of origin.
If their students don't get hired, I'd say it is on the prospective students to notice that. No, I'd support helping them see that, but that's where I think you're most likely to see a good response to low employment outcomes.
As for cost cutting, as a student or parent I appreciate a university trying to recuse its costs--they cost way too much. If there are other opportunities, they should take advantage of all of them. But athletics are a huge revenue source for universities. It's the #1 source for my state's biggest university, ahead of the state itself.
I don't get your internal empire comment. Are you saying that they lose money on them? Because I highly doubt that but I'd be open to seeing information about that. If they make money on them, then, presumably, you see that they would have less money after cutting them.
Hi, I've asked about H1-B issues before and gotten a similarly low quality of responses. I appreciate your taking the time to give me a thoughtful response on a question I have had. I like your policy proposals as well.
On the other hand, the US can't afford to not give free health care. European countries that offer it pay half what the US does, per capita, and have lower infant mortality rates. If you think infants are to blame for something or need to be taught a lesson by diving, you'll have to explain that to me in a pretty detailed way because I'm going to have a hard time following your logic.
In other news, countries with more people have more tax payers too (funny that), so the n size is irrelevant.
It's a good idea for you to get pedantic because your comment is besides the point.
If there is a sick baby, on what basis do you deny the child care? What about a person who has worked hard all their life, gets sick, and then loses their employer sponsored heath care? Before Obamacare, they were basically left for dead. This is not an argument I'd want to take your side on.
Medicare is not free, you pay a premium and then you pay coinsurance. Go get scraped up in another country and see if they ask if you have paid the premium (have your card) or come after you for the coinsurance.
The most frequent criticism of the French system is that everyone gets everything that they want. But they pay less for their care than we do--by half. That is, at least partly, because they don't have to pay for someone to sit at a desk denying claims the first four times to make sure you really want it covered, 20 companies negotiating with each hospital on the rate for every procedure a hospital can possibly perform, and generally throwing in a middle man that offers no actual medical care. In slashdot terms, if you ran a debugger on the medical system, you would cutout the insurance company.
If you have been or had a family member who has been very sick there is a pretty good chance that you would realize that our system is far from perfect. And we pay twice what everyone else does for an imperfect system.
Why not take half off and stop making people pay for things that are not their fault?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, the US Justice Department appears to agree with you, he has not been charged. this article agrees. The real reason he won't turn himself in is that it would be embarrassing to walk away from the yawn.
I don't think any of the bulk encoders are susceptible. It's just sharing of keys and verification of identity that won't work. I do realize that these are not minor issues.
The Feds are either capable of anything or total losers. It just changes based on what is convenient for the current story.
The US. When I transfer money between accounts it takes 4 days and the money is in neither account for two or three of them. There is no technological reason for this. Given the incredibly low interest rates, I really don't get the reason for it.
ah, but how is it worse than a bank?
We "upgraded" some Xeon workstations to i7 and had to basically pitch the machines. The Xeon's couldn't handle multitasking. Basically, with out setup, on the Xeon you could run software and code at the same time and with the i7s you had to choose one.
Thanks, that was helpful
Yawn, other than tests that the chip has coprocessors designed specifically to run quickly, have there been improvements in processors over the last 5 years?
I'm not guessing, it was a stated goal.
How you know the stimulus was effective? The Republicans wouldn't let Obama do more of it. If they thought it was ineffective they would have let him keep doing it.
Why wouldn't he have taken another job? The money never showed up and so he would need money.
Right, but you trust our voting machines because they are made by the people who make ATMs, right?
And spiral shaped aluminum chips? http://www.citizensleuths.com/...
Uh, Carrier did move most of the jobs. Ford never was going to. While those were large numbers of jobs, you do realize that about 85,000 people lose their jobs each week day, right? So the 800 Carrier jobs would be 1% of a single day of job losses. this is why presidents typically don't track down jobs here and there, they need to setup the system and let the chips fall, correcting the larger system when they can--but the invisible hand does most of the doing.
Is that a terrible thing to be?
In my view society includes foreigners and we are all one people.
but, my original question was, "Can you explain to me why they shouldn't they move the jobs abroad?" and you said, "... they are selling a product ("an education") in which the very promise is vocational advancement. Yet their own actions demonstrate they are selling a product which doesn't actually do what it claims." I replied, "I don't get the scam thing. I'd say a system that relies on employing your own students is far more of a scam. I'd love to see universities employ the best person for the job, regardless of nation of origin." and you came back with "This isn't about the University not wanting to hire its own graduates, its about the University wanting to hire cheap foreigners for careers it trains students in." Would this be just as scandalous if Stanford hired MIT grads? What is wrong with foreigners wanting to have a job?
I don't get it. Do universities have accountant geniuses who can hide a huge loss as a huge gain for athletics or are they total morons and can't figure out that some dean is building an empire of ditch diggers / fillers in?
Who says they failed? Maybe their grads have better options.
hmm, I'm not seeing it.
I don't get the scam thing. I'd say a system that relies on employing your own students is far more of a scam. I'd love to see universities employ the best person for the job, regardless of nation of origin.
If their students don't get hired, I'd say it is on the prospective students to notice that. No, I'd support helping them see that, but that's where I think you're most likely to see a good response to low employment outcomes.
As for cost cutting, as a student or parent I appreciate a university trying to recuse its costs--they cost way too much. If there are other opportunities, they should take advantage of all of them. But athletics are a huge revenue source for universities. It's the #1 source for my state's biggest university, ahead of the state itself.
I don't get your internal empire comment. Are you saying that they lose money on them? Because I highly doubt that but I'd be open to seeing information about that. If they make money on them, then, presumably, you see that they would have less money after cutting them.
Hi, I've asked about H1-B issues before and gotten a similarly low quality of responses. I appreciate your taking the time to give me a thoughtful response on a question I have had. I like your policy proposals as well.
Does it? Depends on what the laid off people do.
I'd go so far as to argue that birth isn't a determination either.
The fourteenth amendment says that it is. It was necessary to enforce the thirteenth (ending slavery).
The US cannot afford to give free health care.
On the other hand, the US can't afford to not give free health care. European countries that offer it pay half what the US does, per capita, and have lower infant mortality rates. If you think infants are to blame for something or need to be taught a lesson by diving, you'll have to explain that to me in a pretty detailed way because I'm going to have a hard time following your logic.
In other news, countries with more people have more tax payers too (funny that), so the n size is irrelevant.
It's a good idea for you to get pedantic because your comment is besides the point.
If there is a sick baby, on what basis do you deny the child care? What about a person who has worked hard all their life, gets sick, and then loses their employer sponsored heath care? Before Obamacare, they were basically left for dead. This is not an argument I'd want to take your side on.
Medicare is not free, you pay a premium and then you pay coinsurance. Go get scraped up in another country and see if they ask if you have paid the premium (have your card) or come after you for the coinsurance.
The most frequent criticism of the French system is that everyone gets everything that they want. But they pay less for their care than we do--by half. That is, at least partly, because they don't have to pay for someone to sit at a desk denying claims the first four times to make sure you really want it covered, 20 companies negotiating with each hospital on the rate for every procedure a hospital can possibly perform, and generally throwing in a middle man that offers no actual medical care. In slashdot terms, if you ran a debugger on the medical system, you would cutout the insurance company.
If you have been or had a family member who has been very sick there is a pretty good chance that you would realize that our system is far from perfect. And we pay twice what everyone else does for an imperfect system.
Why not take half off and stop making people pay for things that are not their fault?