You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.
Yes, I do realize that. However, Google doesn't share the info they have either, yet they're still being challenged. That was my point - Google is being attacked not for *sharing* the information - apparently for simply *collecting* it.
Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.
No kidding? That sucks. Where's 'we', incidentally? Is this thing state-run?
Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.
Incidentally, I have seen my credit report. Those guys keep a record of every account you've ever had. They can figure out which ones are mortgages and car loans (that's what I mean by purchases, they don't care about your grocery bill). They know your spending habits and balance on every line of credit you have. They know about every late payment you've ever made. All in all, that's *quite* a lot of information, and I maintain my general point that this information is much more dangerous to consumers (identity theft, anyone?) than what Google can glean of your search history. So again, if you invalidate the merger, shut down the credit bureaus. If we're uncomfortable with companies collecting information on consumers, let's apply the standard universally.
I understand that the Russians are essentially harassing countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, most notably they have been trying to interfere with the Ukraine. I wonder if they have anything to do with this DOS attack on Estonia's government network.
The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
If that's enough to tank the merger, then Experian, Transunion, and Equifax should be disbanded. Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made, everwhere you've ever lived, etc. And the information isn't hard to get.
If the FTC doesn't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with Google+Doubleclick.
That and the L3 and R3 buttons are too easy to hit.
Are they ever. Fortunately most good game developers are smart about it and either put non-critical functions there, or functions that aren't active when using the analog stick.
My favorite is GTA putting the horn on the steering stick. Whenever I turn really hard, I inadvertently hit the horn. Seems appropriate.
Biology majors will drag down the average quite a bit. I'm in the DFW area and I knew a few biology majors with good grades making $10-$12/hour. I know people in the environmental testing industry where BS chemists tend to CAP OUT around $40K. All the physics people I knew were going to grad school. Geology is doing well lately because of oil, but I knew geology majors ten years ago or so who were in the similar boat as biology majors. I know an actuary that makes about $125K without bonus, sometimes $150K with bonus, but he travels alot.
That sounds about right. In the wrong area, bio majors with no particular areas of expertise really can make crappy money, and the batch testing business isn't all that lucrative. That said, my experience (and naturally that's not all encompassing) is that the more talented people didn't end up relegated to those jobs, and the more 'mathy' majors make good money. Not to be overly elitist, but in my experience, the ability level of bio majors varied...widely.
One other point - the baseline of 'teachers' seems to be used because it's "common knowledge" they're underpaid. I believe one of the posts in this thread mentioned an 8% raise year-over-year, which seems to indicate more that Texas is deciding to value education highly more than anything. So if teachers are making more money to work 9 months a year...go teach!
The average starting salary for a new teacher is $32,266,
That I'll buy. $40k sounded high for a state average for newbies.
The average starting salary in districts with more than 10,000 students is $39,457, an 8.5-percent increase from last year.
For those sorts of urban and technical areas (such as Houston, DFW, and Austin), I'd be surprised to see BS scientists starting less than $40k. Especially the oil industry should be buying up geography, chemistry, geology, and related disciplines. Physics, math, and CS types should find decent money around Austin with the baby Silicon Valley thing they have going on there.
For what it's worth, my fellow scientists who were going to industry after getting the BS were starting in the mid $40s, almost 10 years ago, and in a much more rural area. So I'd be surprised to see evidence of salaries of between $35-$40k going to newly degreed scientists in urban areas of Texas. I'm certainly open to evidence to that effect, but I'd be surprised to see it.
Where are the high paying jobs for those who are good in math and science? I've heard about math and science shortages for almost two decades now, and I was wondering what high salary/high demand jobs have resulted from these shortages. Most science majors I know actually make less than teachers (in Texas teachers make $38-40K to start for nine months of work
Huh? I've yet to see a new science-degreed grad make less than a starting teacher in the same geographical region. Make sure you're comparing entry level for both, I'd be shocked to see a first-year Texas schoolteacher making $40K.
The other responders are basically right, with a BS science degree you'll start out doing some rather unglamorous work, I'd imagine. From there you can work your way up, and can get an MS or PhD at some point.
Science pays fairly well, although it depends what you specifically do. For instance, generic biology doesn't necessarily sell, but bioinformatics (bio+math) does. Math pays quite well, but it'll be applied math.
arguing that $16,000 can never equate to the amount of work/expertise required to find and exploit a hole in the six targeted technologies. Clearly, the so called experts aren't aware of the multitudes of enterprising folks living outside the inflated Western wage spectrum. For someone a little more eastbound, that's a nice chunk of change.
Not only that, but I'm assuming that claiming the prize and the advertising that goes with it - advertising your skills, that is - is the more valuable part. I'm imagining that the type of person who could claim the prize is interested in doing this sort of thing anyway. The prize would be a nice cash reward and a fantastic thing to put on a resume.
When does a piece of cake stop being a piece of cake?
If I eat half a cake and give you the other half, wouldn't you call your piece half a cake?
Continue on, eat half your piece and pass the rest to me, I'll eat half of that and pass the rest on to you.
Trick question: who eats the last piece of cake (assuming fair play, of course)?
Super-trick question: if you would repeat this experiment many times, what would be the distribution of the outcomes?
Morale of this story: you cant have your cake and eat it, too.
Not sure about philosophically, but of course when you start splitting hadrons to cut the cake, you've practically found your limit;)
As for an ultimate answer, I'd say it's when either the shortest dimension or overall mass drops to the Planck length/mass.
Whether or not the RIAA manage to drown out the technical side of the argument in legal noise.
I think that legal 'snow' effect usually works better from the defense's standpoint (moreso in criminal trials, but still effective). It seems that if the jury can't figure out what's going on, they might not be inclined to award a judgement.
How would, excess idle be the issue? When driving in the city the very thing that you do a lot is idle (unless you run red lights, traffic jams, etc). Indeed much of the time is really spent starting, stopping, idling, speeding up, swearing, etc. All of which reduces gas mileage. Unless they leave the cars idling for days it makes no sense to me that this would be the core issue.
Yup. I'm wondering if there was some lobbying pressure here. Hell, they should add a new 'traffic jam' category, or they should add more idling time to the 'city' driving part to reflect the realities of modern traffic. Watch the Prius stay at 50 mpg while regular cars go to 10.
This is the false dichotomy. You do not need to make that choice on a wiki. You can have different articles on the same subject or different sections in the same article for different audiences. Witness Evolution and Introduction to evolution.
As long as one is OK with having parallel articles for the same topic, then it's not a dichotomy (which I mentioned in my original post, I'll add). I would, however, maintain that there will be more complicated subjects for which it's basically pointless to attempt to bring it down to the average person's level, outside of a one-paragraph summary. As I also pointed out, it's possible to structure an article to get progressively more complicated, letting laypeople bail when they start getting lost. So yes, there are many options, but without care there is a risk of making the result bloated and difficult to navigate, which is a frequent result on Wiki.
Beyond that, there are a few qusetions. 1) Who's going to be motivated to write the "Idiot's guide to " [insert obscure graduate-level topic here]? 2) Is it the lack of layman-available material that's the problem, or the presence of imposing "expert" material?
For what it's worth, I find the discussion irrelevant to the actual passages mentioned in the article. Those are, for the most part, flat-out badly written. At any level. One need not start an entry with a 5-line sentence with an introductory phrase, a dependent clause, two appositives, and a participle phrase.
This thread is a false dichotomy. Wiki should not have to lean towards one extreme or the other - the only reason to do so is because of lack of space
Depends on the topic. At some point, for a given entry one needs to make an editorial decision, whether to make the content high level or low level. For instance, some mathematical topics simply require calculus to fully understand. Do you dumb down the article to conceptual level so that a relative layperson might understand it or not?
Most well written articles start out general and conceptual for a summary, and then have technical portions that are, well, technical. I think that's a good format - the layperson reads what is effectively an 'executive summary'; the expert keeps reading.
Another option is to have a sort of 'moron babelfish' with parallel entries for a given story, with a link that replaces the 'hard parts' with less technical sections.
And, speaking of Katrina, some scientists studying global warming believe that it is responsible for the more-active-than-usual hurricane seasons of the past few years. Which makes sense since the main cause of hurricanes is -- wait for it -- heat. Who paid these shills?
Is it also responsible for last year's dead hurricane season? Really, these things are far too complicated to generalize in that manner. While I do believe global warming is anthropogenic, I don't think it serves any purpose to use half-baked, unreasearched theories to blame everything short of a supernova on global warming.
Still more can be found here, on Damn Interesting, which provides an entertaining read on the things he claims to have done, and the efforts to debunk them. From what I've read, they haven't ALL been debunked.
Technically, neither has Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and I'll put about the same probability of truth on each.
You suggest an interesting baseline (2001), considering most large-size hybrids same to market in 2005. Without spending too much time on Google, it seems large hybrids account for 10-25% of the hybrid market, so you are correct, small cars do dominate the hybrid market.
I chose 2001 because that's when the US Prius was introduced. Probably over 90% of those are still on the road, so if we're characterizing hybrids on the road, the population is those sold since 2001.
I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm simply suggesting that hybrids should be argued for on their general merits (green sensibilities, fuel economy), not on correlations (small cars have a small turning radius and greater maneuverability in traffic).
Ah, but the devil's in the correlations. To me, 'green sensibilities' is a 'put your money where your mouth is' kind of thing. Those larger hybrids get worse fuel economy than a regular sedan in most cases; as such, I don't even consider them in the same conversation with cars like the Prius. So for true 'green' hybrids, we're talking small and nimble. Not to mention which, those are nearly all of the market anyway at this point.
In general, I'm an empiricist. On a Venn diagram, if there's a 90% overlap between two classes A and B, I consider them generally synonymous unless there's a compelling reason to separate them. In this case, if you see a hybrid on the road, 90% chance it's small and gets 50 mpg.
You were doing fine up to the last sentence, where you confuse "hybrid" with "small car". As evidenced by hybrid SUVs, they aren't the same thing.
Check actual sales since 2001 - the Prius and similar-sized cars are still dominating the market. This may change in the future, but for now, hybrid generally equals small car.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obvious that this girl is interested -- otherwise, why else would she switch to Ubuntu?...Go get some.
Maybe one of us should write a nice graphical lesson for him on blogspot.
I can't decide, what do people think, 65 years is basically a life sentence. Is that excessive?
No, but 65 years of being another man's girlfriend is.
You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.
Yes, I do realize that. However, Google doesn't share the info they have either, yet they're still being challenged. That was my point - Google is being attacked not for *sharing* the information - apparently for simply *collecting* it.
Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.
No kidding? That sucks. Where's 'we', incidentally? Is this thing state-run?
Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.
Incidentally, I have seen my credit report. Those guys keep a record of every account you've ever had. They can figure out which ones are mortgages and car loans (that's what I mean by purchases, they don't care about your grocery bill). They know your spending habits and balance on every line of credit you have. They know about every late payment you've ever made. All in all, that's *quite* a lot of information, and I maintain my general point that this information is much more dangerous to consumers (identity theft, anyone?) than what Google can glean of your search history. So again, if you invalidate the merger, shut down the credit bureaus. If we're uncomfortable with companies collecting information on consumers, let's apply the standard universally.
I understand that the Russians are essentially harassing countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, most notably they have been trying to interfere with the Ukraine. I wonder if they have anything to do with this DOS attack on Estonia's government network.
Enjoy your Polonium soup, Anonymous Comrade.
The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
If that's enough to tank the merger, then Experian, Transunion, and Equifax should be disbanded. Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made, everwhere you've ever lived, etc. And the information isn't hard to get.
If the FTC doesn't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with Google+Doubleclick.
Idiots. If the point was to reduce viewing of the video, this ain't the way.
This is one of the most creative ideas I've heard all year. Human-based distributed computing with captchas? Awesome!
That and the L3 and R3 buttons are too easy to hit.
Are they ever. Fortunately most good game developers are smart about it and either put non-critical functions there, or functions that aren't active when using the analog stick.
My favorite is GTA putting the horn on the steering stick. Whenever I turn really hard, I inadvertently hit the horn. Seems appropriate.
Biology majors will drag down the average quite a bit. I'm in the DFW area and I knew a few biology majors with good grades making $10-$12/hour. I know people in the environmental testing industry where BS chemists tend to CAP OUT around $40K. All the physics people I knew were going to grad school. Geology is doing well lately because of oil, but I knew geology majors ten years ago or so who were in the similar boat as biology majors. I know an actuary that makes about $125K without bonus, sometimes $150K with bonus, but he travels alot.
That sounds about right. In the wrong area, bio majors with no particular areas of expertise really can make crappy money, and the batch testing business isn't all that lucrative. That said, my experience (and naturally that's not all encompassing) is that the more talented people didn't end up relegated to those jobs, and the more 'mathy' majors make good money. Not to be overly elitist, but in my experience, the ability level of bio majors varied...widely.
One other point - the baseline of 'teachers' seems to be used because it's "common knowledge" they're underpaid. I believe one of the posts in this thread mentioned an 8% raise year-over-year, which seems to indicate more that Texas is deciding to value education highly more than anything. So if teachers are making more money to work 9 months a year...go teach!
The average starting salary for a new teacher is $32,266,
That I'll buy. $40k sounded high for a state average for newbies.
The average starting salary in districts with more than 10,000 students is $39,457, an 8.5-percent increase from last year.
For those sorts of urban and technical areas (such as Houston, DFW, and Austin), I'd be surprised to see BS scientists starting less than $40k. Especially the oil industry should be buying up geography, chemistry, geology, and related disciplines. Physics, math, and CS types should find decent money around Austin with the baby Silicon Valley thing they have going on there.
For what it's worth, my fellow scientists who were going to industry after getting the BS were starting in the mid $40s, almost 10 years ago, and in a much more rural area. So I'd be surprised to see evidence of salaries of between $35-$40k going to newly degreed scientists in urban areas of Texas. I'm certainly open to evidence to that effect, but I'd be surprised to see it.
Where are the high paying jobs for those who are good in math and science? I've heard about math and science shortages for almost two decades now, and I was wondering what high salary/high demand jobs have resulted from these shortages. Most science majors I know actually make less than teachers (in Texas teachers make $38-40K to start for nine months of work
Huh? I've yet to see a new science-degreed grad make less than a starting teacher in the same geographical region. Make sure you're comparing entry level for both, I'd be shocked to see a first-year Texas schoolteacher making $40K.
The other responders are basically right, with a BS science degree you'll start out doing some rather unglamorous work, I'd imagine. From there you can work your way up, and can get an MS or PhD at some point.
Science pays fairly well, although it depends what you specifically do. For instance, generic biology doesn't necessarily sell, but bioinformatics (bio+math) does. Math pays quite well, but it'll be applied math.
A 2.97 in High School just means that you show up to class most of the time.
And occasionally sober.
arguing that $16,000 can never equate to the amount of work/expertise required to find and exploit a hole in the six targeted technologies. Clearly, the so called experts aren't aware of the multitudes of enterprising folks living outside the inflated Western wage spectrum. For someone a little more eastbound, that's a nice chunk of change.
Not only that, but I'm assuming that claiming the prize and the advertising that goes with it - advertising your skills, that is - is the more valuable part. I'm imagining that the type of person who could claim the prize is interested in doing this sort of thing anyway. The prize would be a nice cash reward and a fantastic thing to put on a resume.
Good thinking. I mean, if they were launching the disk without the drive (or even the other way round) it would be a lot less likely to succeed.
Yeah, that would be like a game company shipping a console before any games are available for it. Err...wait...
When does a piece of cake stop being a piece of cake? If I eat half a cake and give you the other half, wouldn't you call your piece half a cake? Continue on, eat half your piece and pass the rest to me, I'll eat half of that and pass the rest on to you. Trick question: who eats the last piece of cake (assuming fair play, of course)? Super-trick question: if you would repeat this experiment many times, what would be the distribution of the outcomes? Morale of this story: you cant have your cake and eat it, too.
Not sure about philosophically, but of course when you start splitting hadrons to cut the cake, you've practically found your limit ;)
As for an ultimate answer, I'd say it's when either the shortest dimension or overall mass drops to the Planck length/mass.
Whether or not the RIAA manage to drown out the technical side of the argument in legal noise.
I think that legal 'snow' effect usually works better from the defense's standpoint (moreso in criminal trials, but still effective). It seems that if the jury can't figure out what's going on, they might not be inclined to award a judgement.
How would, excess idle be the issue? When driving in the city the very thing that you do a lot is idle (unless you run red lights, traffic jams, etc). Indeed much of the time is really spent starting, stopping, idling, speeding up, swearing, etc. All of which reduces gas mileage. Unless they leave the cars idling for days it makes no sense to me that this would be the core issue.
Yup. I'm wondering if there was some lobbying pressure here. Hell, they should add a new 'traffic jam' category, or they should add more idling time to the 'city' driving part to reflect the realities of modern traffic. Watch the Prius stay at 50 mpg while regular cars go to 10.
This is the false dichotomy. You do not need to make that choice on a wiki. You can have different articles on the same subject or different sections in the same article for different audiences. Witness Evolution and Introduction to evolution.
As long as one is OK with having parallel articles for the same topic, then it's not a dichotomy (which I mentioned in my original post, I'll add). I would, however, maintain that there will be more complicated subjects for which it's basically pointless to attempt to bring it down to the average person's level, outside of a one-paragraph summary. As I also pointed out, it's possible to structure an article to get progressively more complicated, letting laypeople bail when they start getting lost. So yes, there are many options, but without care there is a risk of making the result bloated and difficult to navigate, which is a frequent result on Wiki.
Beyond that, there are a few qusetions. 1) Who's going to be motivated to write the "Idiot's guide to " [insert obscure graduate-level topic here]? 2) Is it the lack of layman-available material that's the problem, or the presence of imposing "expert" material?
For what it's worth, I find the discussion irrelevant to the actual passages mentioned in the article. Those are, for the most part, flat-out badly written. At any level. One need not start an entry with a 5-line sentence with an introductory phrase, a dependent clause, two appositives, and a participle phrase.
This thread is a false dichotomy. Wiki should not have to lean towards one extreme or the other - the only reason to do so is because of lack of space
Depends on the topic. At some point, for a given entry one needs to make an editorial decision, whether to make the content high level or low level. For instance, some mathematical topics simply require calculus to fully understand. Do you dumb down the article to conceptual level so that a relative layperson might understand it or not?
Most well written articles start out general and conceptual for a summary, and then have technical portions that are, well, technical. I think that's a good format - the layperson reads what is effectively an 'executive summary'; the expert keeps reading.
Another option is to have a sort of 'moron babelfish' with parallel entries for a given story, with a link that replaces the 'hard parts' with less technical sections.
And, speaking of Katrina, some scientists studying global warming believe that it is responsible for the more-active-than-usual hurricane seasons of the past few years. Which makes sense since the main cause of hurricanes is -- wait for it -- heat. Who paid these shills?
Is it also responsible for last year's dead hurricane season? Really, these things are far too complicated to generalize in that manner. While I do believe global warming is anthropogenic, I don't think it serves any purpose to use half-baked, unreasearched theories to blame everything short of a supernova on global warming.
Based on the article, it doesn't seem like the guy was demoted. I think he was "promoted out of the way."
Weellll...technically he *was* CEO, so any involuntary change from that would be a demotion.
I have to figure out how to do that...
OK. Here you go.
See? Easy!
Still more can be found here, on Damn Interesting, which provides an entertaining read on the things he claims to have done, and the efforts to debunk them. From what I've read, they haven't ALL been debunked.
Technically, neither has Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and I'll put about the same probability of truth on each.
You suggest an interesting baseline (2001), considering most large-size hybrids same to market in 2005. Without spending too much time on Google, it seems large hybrids account for 10-25% of the hybrid market, so you are correct, small cars do dominate the hybrid market.
I chose 2001 because that's when the US Prius was introduced. Probably over 90% of those are still on the road, so if we're characterizing hybrids on the road, the population is those sold since 2001.
I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm simply suggesting that hybrids should be argued for on their general merits (green sensibilities, fuel economy), not on correlations (small cars have a small turning radius and greater maneuverability in traffic).
Ah, but the devil's in the correlations. To me, 'green sensibilities' is a 'put your money where your mouth is' kind of thing. Those larger hybrids get worse fuel economy than a regular sedan in most cases; as such, I don't even consider them in the same conversation with cars like the Prius. So for true 'green' hybrids, we're talking small and nimble. Not to mention which, those are nearly all of the market anyway at this point.
In general, I'm an empiricist. On a Venn diagram, if there's a 90% overlap between two classes A and B, I consider them generally synonymous unless there's a compelling reason to separate them. In this case, if you see a hybrid on the road, 90% chance it's small and gets 50 mpg.
You were doing fine up to the last sentence, where you confuse "hybrid" with "small car". As evidenced by hybrid SUVs, they aren't the same thing.
Check actual sales since 2001 - the Prius and similar-sized cars are still dominating the market. This may change in the future, but for now, hybrid generally equals small car.