Also in direct contradiction to your statement, I'd say that always having people higher up the ladder do the interviewing is one of the causes of hiring bad managers, and having direct reports participate in the process is part of a good solution the problem.
It's good not to just improve the evaluation process, but to start with buy in for the direct reports.
Really? Because I thought that the Legislative branch could still pass legislation contrary to whatever decision SCOTUS makes.
Yes. People should remember that statutory damages were *passed by the legislature*, not imposed by evil right wing corporatist judges twirling their mustaches. They're unlikely to substitute their preferences for the laws passed by the legislature, but that's a good thing if you believe in the rule of law.
Don't be angry with Google for following laws that allow them to pay less in taxes than you think they should, be angry at the lawmakers that craft the laws that allow them to do so.
But mainly be angry at those who support ever the expanding regulatory state that guarantees unaccountable government in the first place.
Don't blame those who game the system - blame those who demand a system that can be gamed.
A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand. Big problem for the US. You can always have the best equipment, but you're also always helping your enemies to catch up.
In 20 years, total college population has grown from ~13.5k to ~16.3k. ~17% increase In 10 years, total college population has grown from ~14.9k to ~16.3k. ~9.4% over the last decade.
I don't see a tsunami of students. Why don't you compare these numbers to tuition increases and total college spending.
Right, because there never was a movement such as Russian style Communism where a tremendous number of people who didn't believe in a personal afterlife were willing to die because of the projected benefits to future generations.
Were all those people in the Gulag willing to die, or made to die? How about the Ukrainian Genocide?
To add to the loan/subsidy issue, I will bring up student debt.
To elaborate, much of "social welfare" spending is just crony capitalism masquerading as help for individual consumers.
The government makes loans available for education, which allows schools to drive up their costs, because you're not really paying for the education, you're paying for the networking opportunities with the other students, at institutions with inelastic supplies of slots for students.
Similarly, all this medical spending can hardly be said to benefit consumers. We have an unfree market in healthcare in every way - cartelized service provider licensing, prescription laws, manufacturing licensing, speech licensing. Then after driving up prices 10000%, The gummint will "give" health care to those who can't afford the 10000% markup. How helpful of them.
I'm sure a number of people hoovered up some of that money before it was pissed away.
That's the oldest business model around. Create business story, grease politicians, lobby for handouts, create shell of a company for plausible deniabilitiy while diverting as much money as you can, Profit!
But the mold isn't progressing before you break the seal. You delay the start of the clock. I'll take it. I'm single and through out half of most loafs.
Plenty of Ayn Rands fans in the valley. I have yet to meet the first one in favor of the patent system.
Am I missing something ?
"Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind."
Though it may surprise you, not all Ayn Rand fans agree with everything she said.
If anything, the questioning of "intellectual property", i.e., government monopoly on ideas, is more prevalent among Ayn Rand fans than the general population - who for the most part just accept it as a given.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.
John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.
Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?
Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
Most everyone supports police power directed at criminals.
Fewer support police power for a "show us your papers" society, tracking our lawful actions and transactions, and harassing the law abiding with costs and regulations, turning them into criminals when they don't properly fill out the required paperwork.
Whenever a crisis is reported or a catastrophe looming, never believe it! It's just made up by the media and stirred up by the government to grab more power.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying! Glad you're on board!
Getting divorced on favorable terms is completely different.
Indeed it is. So your original comment would have been better written as:
Seriously, the one guy I know that managed to get out of a marriage like that had to wait until she tried gutting him with a busted liqueur bottle *to get favorable terms in the divorce*.
A mistake is a miscalculation or a failure to properly execute a choice. 2+2=5 is a mistake. Breaking a glass while washing it is a mistake.
One doesn't mistakenly give someone else a blow job. "Ooopsie, my mouth accidentally started sucking on your dick."
As for your recent study, it's best not to take sociological studies at face value. The relevant question is what data they use to justify that claim. It's not that people are blind - it's often that they choose not to say, or chose not to admit. Most women know when a man is interested. There are many reasons to deny it.
Every supposed crisis is an opportunity for a government power grab. If you want to promote government power, you want to generate crises. By a strange coincidence, crises are also good for the media.
Slashdot Mirror
That is awesome. A Head of State acting like a human being. Surely, that is a sign of the Apocalypse.
Also in direct contradiction to your statement, I'd say that always having people higher up the ladder do the interviewing is one of the causes of hiring bad managers, and having direct reports participate in the process is part of a good solution the problem.
It's good not to just improve the evaluation process, but to start with buy in for the direct reports.
Really? Because I thought that the Legislative branch could still pass legislation contrary to whatever decision SCOTUS makes.
Yes. People should remember that statutory damages were *passed by the legislature*, not imposed by evil right wing corporatist judges twirling their mustaches. They're unlikely to substitute their preferences for the laws passed by the legislature, but that's a good thing if you believe in the rule of law.
Don't be angry with Google for following laws that allow them to pay less in taxes than you think they should, be angry at the lawmakers that craft the laws that allow them to do so.
But mainly be angry at those who support ever the expanding regulatory state that guarantees unaccountable government in the first place.
Don't blame those who game the system - blame those who demand a system that can be gamed.
A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand. Big problem for the US. You can always have the best equipment, but you're also always helping your enemies to catch up.
I invite you to try again using the census bureau numbers.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/239_school_enrollment_with_projections.html
1989 10,578 2,961
1999 11,602 3,279
2009 12,715 3,621
In 20 years, total college population has grown from ~13.5k to ~16.3k. ~17% increase
In 10 years, total college population has grown from ~14.9k to ~16.3k. ~9.4% over the last decade.
I don't see a tsunami of students. Why don't you compare these numbers to tuition increases and total college spending.
I use skype.
You go ahead and rig up efficient receivers and call us when you get it done
Right, because there never was a movement such as Russian style Communism where a tremendous number of people who didn't believe in a personal afterlife were willing to die because of the projected benefits to future generations.
Were all those people in the Gulag willing to die, or made to die? How about the Ukrainian Genocide?
To add to the loan/subsidy issue, I will bring up student debt.
To elaborate, much of "social welfare" spending is just crony capitalism masquerading as help for individual consumers.
The government makes loans available for education, which allows schools to drive up their costs, because you're not really paying for the education, you're paying for the networking opportunities with the other students, at institutions with inelastic supplies of slots for students.
Similarly, all this medical spending can hardly be said to benefit consumers. We have an unfree market in healthcare in every way - cartelized service provider licensing, prescription laws, manufacturing licensing, speech licensing. Then after driving up prices 10000%, The gummint will "give" health care to those who can't afford the 10000% markup. How helpful of them.
First, the US government has no particular expertise in this area. The private market simply is far better for funding this sort of thing.
Sure they do! Who's better at forcibly extracting money and giving it to cronies than the Government?
If you can't get your fucking "winning business idea" funded, then your idea is not a "winning business idea."
But A123 did get themselves funded - by the government. Sucking money from the government is a "winning business idea".
Also, you might compare those numbers to the gross sales of the businesses involved, or better, their aggregate taxes.
Good, to whom?
I'm sure a number of people hoovered up some of that money before it was pissed away.
That's the oldest business model around. Create business story, grease politicians, lobby for handouts, create shell of a company for plausible deniabilitiy while diverting as much money as you can, Profit!
But the mold isn't progressing before you break the seal. You delay the start of the clock. I'll take it. I'm single and through out half of most loafs.
Faster than incandescents.
Plenty of Ayn Rands fans in the valley. I have yet to meet the first one in favor of the patent system.
Am I missing something ?
"Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind."
Though it may surprise you, not all Ayn Rand fans agree with everything she said.
If anything, the questioning of "intellectual property", i.e., government monopoly on ideas, is more prevalent among Ayn Rand fans than the general population - who for the most part just accept it as a given.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.
John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.
Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?
Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.
Just to be clear, then, do you agree that the state has an obligation to act in this case since people really are being robbed?
They have an obligation to act *against the criminals involved in an actual crime*, and an obligation to leave law abiding people alone.
The problem with the stated "solution" is that it doesn't leave law abiding people alone.
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
Most everyone supports police power directed at criminals.
Fewer support police power for a "show us your papers" society, tracking our lawful actions and transactions, and harassing the law abiding with costs and regulations, turning them into criminals when they don't properly fill out the required paperwork.
Whenever a crisis is reported or a catastrophe looming, never believe it! It's just made up by the media and stirred up by the government to grab more power.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying! Glad you're on board!
And if policing has an "overall" benefit, how does that justify the *particular* regulations promoted here?
Getting divorced on favorable terms is completely different.
Indeed it is. So your original comment would have been better written as:
Seriously, the one guy I know that managed to get out of a marriage like that had to wait until she tried gutting him with a busted liqueur bottle *to get favorable terms in the divorce*.
A mistake is a miscalculation or a failure to properly execute a choice. 2+2=5 is a mistake. Breaking a glass while washing it is a mistake.
One doesn't mistakenly give someone else a blow job. "Ooopsie, my mouth accidentally started sucking on your dick."
As for your recent study, it's best not to take sociological studies at face value. The relevant question is what data they use to justify that claim. It's not that people are blind - it's often that they choose not to say, or chose not to admit. Most women know when a man is interested. There are many reasons to deny it.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Every supposed crisis is an opportunity for a government power grab. If you want to promote government power, you want to generate crises. By a strange coincidence, crises are also good for the media.