Or you could put the effin' smart phone away until you get to your destination.
I was wondering how far down I'd need to scroll to find a comment about how this would benefit people who can't leave their phones alone while they're behind the wheel of a car. As it turned out... not very far at all.
Seems a much cheaper solution to distracted drivers (at least by cell phones) would be a $10 chip that simply blocks cell phone reception. If it is illegal to talk and text while driving a vehicle, then block the signal. If you want/need to talk or text, pull over. Or, instead of putting a chip in each vehicle, it could be built into the phone. It seems smart phones are pretty good at telling where you are, what direction you are going and even your speed. If your speed appears to be over 5 or 10mph, it automatically goes into "car mode" which would be similar to airplane mode. The difference being, it can still receive calls and texts, they would just automatically go to voicemail (for calls) and not alert you for texts, until you fall below the speed threshhold, then you have your choice to pull over and do something. (And for those thinking that fine, at a stop light, start using your phone again, as soon as your speed goes above the threshhold, it turns into a receiver only device again).
Seems that would be a lot simpler than waiting for everybody to purchase cars that will drive themselves.
Are you saying that the loser should pay the winner's cost there?
Yes, of course. You seem to suggest, that, despite the court's decision to the contrary, the loser was really in the right... That, for example, an employee bringing up a harassment case against their employer can not possibly be wrong — even if the lose their case, there must've been "something in there"...
No, it seems best, to let the court determine what is an equitable allocation of the costs
"Equitable allocation"? Am I conversing with a lawyer (concerned, perhaps, that their source of income might dwindle?). Never mind...
Yes, if you read carefully, my proposal still allows the court to decide. What would be different is the default... If currently the winner needs to explicitly ask the court to tack their expenses to the judgement (sometimes even having to file a wholly separate suit to recoup legal fees), my way this would be automatic — unless the loser presents a compelling argument against it.
whoever has the most money to throw into lawyers while the case is going on will win
That disparity is exactly the situation today. My proposal will, at least, help the less-monied side avoid bankruptcy if they win — which all too often is a real danger today. Worse, such guaranteed financial loss, even if you win, often forces people to give up on perfectly valid complaints — allowing various abuses to go on:
— Yes, you have a good case, but the maximum judgement would be X, which is not going to cover the attorney fees.
Sounds familiar?
It would appear that you are only focusing on the frivolous suits, but if you would check, you would find that there are many, many suits where somebody who has been wronged brings suit, even if they don't have a very strong case. Often these are people who have been taken advantage of by big corporations or powerful people. Putting the burden of having to pay the legal fees of the person they are suing on top of their own legal fees if they don't win would mean most of those cases will not ever make it to court. That's great if you are the person who wronged the other, but sucks if you were the one victimized. This is the same reason why somebody who is innocent of a crime still accepts a plea because having to go before a jury is not a guarantee and if you lose, a long prison term is far worse.
Maybe the payment system should be left alone, unless the court determines that the suit was without merit, which is different than somebody simply losing. And, no, I am not a lawyer, but I do care about a corrupt legal system. Besides, a lawyer gets paid either way, so , it really wouldn't matter.
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default. Currently the court may make them responsible, but the winner typically needs to specifically ask for it — and it should be the opposite. In all cases: civil and criminal (if the accused is acquitted, the prosecuting office needs to cough up).
At least, this should apply (whether the subject is patent or not), when the losing the side is the one, that initiated the proceedings in the first place.
Accept that sometimes, there really are legitimate things to be decided by the courts, where both sides have compelling positions as to why they are right. Take a dispute over breach of contract, where a court is needed to determine a vague interpretation. Are you saying that the loser should pay the winner's cost there? Or take a civil rights or harassment case? Are you saying that if you bring such a suit and you lose, you should have to pay the employer's costs, too? That would pretty much eliminate all of those suits out of fear of the plaintiff going bankrupt, would it not.
No, it seems best, to let the court determine what is an equitable allocation of the costs based on the facts and nature of the case instead of mandating it by law. Doing that usually guarantees whoever has the most money to throw into lawyers while the case is going on will win and they will recoup those costs after the verdict is rendered. That hardly sounds like a real justice system.
The industry where patentability standards are currently overly lax is precisely the industry where a small-time inventor has means to produce at least the reference implementation of an invention. Namely: software.
And also to be in violation of somebody else's patent. Namely: software.
I see a lot of complaining but not a lot of doing. If you're serious about changing this, you can start by making a donation (time/effort or money) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They're the most significant group I'm aware of that actively works to fight crap like this (there are others, but their scope and focus may differ; the EFF specifically focuses on fighting issues that threaten internet freedom).
Washington doesn't listen to the EFF. They are in bed with the media conglomerates and unless you are going to outspend them, it won't change. OTOH, since groups like mediacom are behind this, a grassroots boycot of their services will send a wakeup call (not just internet but cable, too). If even 10% of current subscribers quit cancelled their subscriptions because of these lobbying efforts, mediacom would lose far more than they could gain from the caps. Granted, the various phone companies and their DSL aren't any better, but you have to start somewhere.
Yes, let's cap bandwidth in the US and fall further behind Europe and other countries. Caps aren't good for the consumer, but they are good for the shareholders. Caps, are really nothing more than artificial price controls used to support an antiquated model. Usually, however, a government employes them against foreign entities, not their own citizens.
For that proof to work, wouldn't you need to test both sides of the hypothesis -- the entangled observer AND the god-like observer? While the work is impressive, it doesn't actually show what it claims. Doesn't this just confirm that we see entanglement because we are part of the system and not outside it?
The math may work, but that doesn't mean the model is correct. Back when the world view was that the earth was the center of the universe, there were complex formulas that described the motion of the planets in the sky. The math was correct, even if the model was at fault. To fully test this model, at least as proposed, one would need both an entangled observer and the god-like observer.
My favorite Windows 8 app is either a previous copy of Windows 7 or any number of different Linux Distros. One of those is the first thing I always install on a new Windows 8 device. I'm pretty sure the Xbox One won't be running my favorite Windows 8 app any time soon, at least without voiding some warranty or other agreement with Microsoft.
Obama calls it "Obamacare." That's good enough for me to call it Obamacare.
I'd also call it "broken" and "in desperate need of repeal," but that's because I live in Massachusetts and already watched Romneycare flame out. Enjoy repeating the process, rest of the nation. It was a nice experiment here, too bad it didn't work.
How can it be broken if it hasn't even started yet? One thing everybody agrees on is that the system prior to the ACA was broken. The ACA is far from perfect, but with all of these GOP attempts to repeal it, where are the GOP solutions to fix the original broken system? Maybe if they came up with a plan to fix the original broken system, they'd have a better chance at repealing the ACA.
The Republicans started calling it Obamacare and they meant it as an insult. However, when people pay word games like this, it's best to just embrace it which is what Obama did do... he's fine with the term and taking credit for the law (the good and the bad).
Yeah, the surest way to defuse is the derogatory nature of the term Obamacare is for its supporters to grab hold of it and use it for their own purposes. Whether one approves of the ACA or Obama or not, you have to admit that was pretty shrewd.
Turd or not, it is really called the Affordable Care Act (actually Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Nowhere in the congressional record will you see a bill called Obamacare or the GOP trying to amend Obamacare. However, you will find plenty of citations to the PPACA.
You're right about the first part, but wrong about the second part.
H.R.132 : ObamaCare Repeal Act H.R.1005 : Defund Obamacare Act H.R.2087 : Protecting Taxpayer Dollars and Identity under Obamacare Act H.R.2125 : No IRS Implementation of Obamacare Act H.R.2443 : Safeguarding Children Harmed by Obamacare's Onerous Levies Act H.R.2682 : Defund Obamacare Act of 2013 H.R.3067 : No Obamacare Subsidies for Members of Congress Act of 2013 S.177 : ObamaCare Repeal Act S.1292 : Defund Obamacare Act of 2013 S.1497 : No Exemption for Washington from Obamacare Act
Those are short or working titles, not actual titles for instance HR 132's full title is "To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010." It makes sense, really. If you are going to repeal or otherwise amend a previous "Act" you actually have to officially name the Act you are going to repeal or amend. Working titles and short titles are just so when talking about it they don't have to pronounce the full title, but the full title is the official title.
The best development groups I have worked in had some people that were focused on the technology, others that knew the business, and everyone having an understanding that it is all important with a willingness to share. I have seen a lot of projects fail because someone highly technical does not respect the less technical team members who bring the business knowledge to the table.
Exactly! While not to diminish the importance of technical skills, it is also just as important not to diminish soft skills. I've lost track of the number of times that a non-technical person asked a question that led to a line of discussion that ultimately led to a much better solution.
It is common to hear "think outside the box" but often, team members from different backgrounds have an advantage because they were never "in the box" to begin with! When we hire, our primary focus is for team players. We can always provide training to improve technical skills, but the greatest technical skills are worthless (to us, anyway), if that person can't work with the team.
Have to agree. Self direction, initiative, mixed with curiosity and some intelligence is what makes for a good IT worker. Most IT degrees are junk anyways. (STEM) degrees are a good indicator that the person can solve problems but since IT isn't rocket science the STEM degree isn't needed.
When I was on the advisory board for a local Technical college, with regards to their IT programs, we would always recommend they add course or two in general business, public speaking and the like. As 99% of their graduates were going to work in corporate America, it was important that not only did the graduates know their stuff, but also be able to lead teams, conduct meetings, give presentations,etc. This was all on a two year associate degree, but even on four year degrees CS degrees, often graduates may have great technical skills but they can't translate into good workplace skills.
Because, you don't really need one to do the job.. Duhhh!
There is more truth in that statement than many would want to believe. While I was employed at a large government agency that was involved with collecting government taxes from individuals and corporations, instead of hiring programmers, we would take individuals who were familiar with the various tax systems and train them to program. It was our experience that it was easier to train those who were experienced in their field and had an aptitude for development to be programmers than it was to train programmers in all of the intricacies tax laws. I imagine there are a lot of other business and corporate areas where that would be applicable, too.
I hold two CompSci degrees (BA, MA) from two reputable universities, and I can tell you this: some of best developers I've ever met have come from non-CompSci fields: geology, physics, and (building) architecture.
The keys to being a good developer are much the same as in any other field: being able to learn, and being able to apply what you've learned, and giving a crap about what you do.
One other thing, often overlooked, is that when coming from non-traditional fields, you tend to approach problems differently.
Not at all. My expectations are usually along these lines: "Hey, Person J says her computer keeps locking up. Can you go figure out what's going on?"
Good IT: "Sure." "Turns out she had installed a toolbar that kept popping up a hidden prompt for her to click on. It's all cleaned up now, and she is good to go."
Bad IT: "Sure." "The screen seems frozen. What do I do?" "Ok, I hit alt+tab, and there seems to be a prompt. What do I do?" etc.
Real IT Person: "That's against company policy to unfreeze this computer"
Real IT Person: "Did you try turning it off and back on again?"
The HR drone hiring you prefers schooling over education.
That is probably true for most fields other than IT. The proof would be in the summary and the article itself which points out that most IT workers don't have an IT related degree. If you think about it, the majority of IT related jobs are not with tech companies but in business and government. Having a business degree with CS related courser work or skills on your resume is more enticing to a prospective employer than a computer degree.
We see stories on slashdot all the time about individuals with IT credentials stuck in a programming or networking job and wanting to move up by going back to school and almost always the response is instead of taking more computer courses, take business courses. There's a reason for that.
If your goal is to work for Google or Microsoft or one of the big software engineering firms, then yes, get a computer science degree. If you goal is to work in the business world in the various IT related fields, then get a business degree, but by all means, take some computer courses as electives.
Amazing how the public dialog is now "how to fix socialized medicine" when just a short time ago it was more like "should we have socialized medicine?" Well played, Mr Obama.
Since most of the world has socialized medicine, and it works quite well, you probably will only find sympathy from US readers where it is fashionable to make a profit on other people being sick. Sounds like a great system. BTW, my aunt from the US was visiting here and fell and broke her hip. Our socialized medicine took very good care of her. Total bill to her, since she doesn't pay taxes here was $2,000, including ambulance, surgeons fees, etc.. She's resting comfortably back home in the States now.
It's funny, really, you have everybody pay a little, so your business people can fly for cheap, but ask them all to pay a little so sick people can be helped and you would think you asked them to cut off their arm or something.
Nice to keep beating the 'ACA' drum, but it's really Obamacare. You can't polish a turd.
Turd or not, it is really called the Affordable Care Act (actually Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Nowhere in the congressional record will you see a bill called Obamacare or the GOP trying to amend Obamacare. However, you will find plenty of citations to the PPACA.
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
That's probably why he's boasting. If his crop wasn't destroyed and most of everybody else's was, then of course he is going to get top dollar. What is at play there is simple economics of supply and demand. Because of the recent cattle deaths in South Dakota, this should be a good year for cattle farmers, too. Unless, that is, you live in South Dakota.
155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa
That would mean there are more scientists and universities in Iowa than there are in the country I currently live, which is one of the more civilized in Europe. Now I may have been sleeping for all those years, yet....
According to Wiki, there are 60 colleges and universities in Iowa. While one can question what exactly is a scientist, whatever the definition, it's not hard to imagine that there might be an average of 3 of them per college and university. At the University of Iowa itself, there are probably at least that many, without counting the medical school, if you include just the physics, chemistry, biology, and various agriculture disciplines.
You don't mention what country you currently live in, but if what you state is true and one values higher education opportunities and research, then maybe one should consider moving to Iowa.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could put the effin' smart phone away until you get to your destination.
I was wondering how far down I'd need to scroll to find a comment about how this would benefit people who can't leave their phones alone while they're behind the wheel of a car. As it turned out... not very far at all.
Seems a much cheaper solution to distracted drivers (at least by cell phones) would be a $10 chip that simply blocks cell phone reception. If it is illegal to talk and text while driving a vehicle, then block the signal. If you want/need to talk or text, pull over. Or, instead of putting a chip in each vehicle, it could be built into the phone. It seems smart phones are pretty good at telling where you are, what direction you are going and even your speed. If your speed appears to be over 5 or 10mph, it automatically goes into "car mode" which would be similar to airplane mode. The difference being, it can still receive calls and texts, they would just automatically go to voicemail (for calls) and not alert you for texts, until you fall below the speed threshhold, then you have your choice to pull over and do something. (And for those thinking that fine, at a stop light, start using your phone again, as soon as your speed goes above the threshhold, it turns into a receiver only device again).
Seems that would be a lot simpler than waiting for everybody to purchase cars that will drive themselves.
Yes, of course. You seem to suggest, that, despite the court's decision to the contrary, the loser was really in the right... That, for example, an employee bringing up a harassment case against their employer can not possibly be wrong — even if the lose their case, there must've been "something in there"...
"Equitable allocation"? Am I conversing with a lawyer (concerned, perhaps, that their source of income might dwindle?). Never mind...
Yes, if you read carefully, my proposal still allows the court to decide. What would be different is the default... If currently the winner needs to explicitly ask the court to tack their expenses to the judgement (sometimes even having to file a wholly separate suit to recoup legal fees), my way this would be automatic — unless the loser presents a compelling argument against it.
That disparity is exactly the situation today. My proposal will, at least, help the less-monied side avoid bankruptcy if they win — which all too often is a real danger today. Worse, such guaranteed financial loss, even if you win, often forces people to give up on perfectly valid complaints — allowing various abuses to go on:
Sounds familiar?
It would appear that you are only focusing on the frivolous suits, but if you would check, you would find that there are many, many suits where somebody who has been wronged brings suit, even if they don't have a very strong case. Often these are people who have been taken advantage of by big corporations or powerful people. Putting the burden of having to pay the legal fees of the person they are suing on top of their own legal fees if they don't win would mean most of those cases will not ever make it to court. That's great if you are the person who wronged the other, but sucks if you were the one victimized. This is the same reason why somebody who is innocent of a crime still accepts a plea because having to go before a jury is not a guarantee and if you lose, a long prison term is far worse.
Maybe the payment system should be left alone, unless the court determines that the suit was without merit, which is different than somebody simply losing. And, no, I am not a lawyer, but I do care about a corrupt legal system. Besides, a lawyer gets paid either way, so , it really wouldn't matter.
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default. Currently the court may make them responsible, but the winner typically needs to specifically ask for it — and it should be the opposite. In all cases: civil and criminal (if the accused is acquitted, the prosecuting office needs to cough up).
At least, this should apply (whether the subject is patent or not), when the losing the side is the one, that initiated the proceedings in the first place.
Accept that sometimes, there really are legitimate things to be decided by the courts, where both sides have compelling positions as to why they are right. Take a dispute over breach of contract, where a court is needed to determine a vague interpretation. Are you saying that the loser should pay the winner's cost there? Or take a civil rights or harassment case? Are you saying that if you bring such a suit and you lose, you should have to pay the employer's costs, too? That would pretty much eliminate all of those suits out of fear of the plaintiff going bankrupt, would it not.
No, it seems best, to let the court determine what is an equitable allocation of the costs based on the facts and nature of the case instead of mandating it by law. Doing that usually guarantees whoever has the most money to throw into lawyers while the case is going on will win and they will recoup those costs after the verdict is rendered. That hardly sounds like a real justice system.
The industry where patentability standards are currently overly lax is precisely the industry where a small-time inventor has means to produce at least the reference implementation of an invention. Namely: software.
And also to be in violation of somebody else's patent. Namely: software.
I see a lot of complaining but not a lot of doing. If you're serious about changing this, you can start by making a donation (time/effort or money) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They're the most significant group I'm aware of that actively works to fight crap like this (there are others, but their scope and focus may differ; the EFF specifically focuses on fighting issues that threaten internet freedom).
Washington doesn't listen to the EFF. They are in bed with the media conglomerates and unless you are going to outspend them, it won't change. OTOH, since groups like mediacom are behind this, a grassroots boycot of their services will send a wakeup call (not just internet but cable, too). If even 10% of current subscribers quit cancelled their subscriptions because of these lobbying efforts, mediacom would lose far more than they could gain from the caps. Granted, the various phone companies and their DSL aren't any better, but you have to start somewhere.
Yes, let's cap bandwidth in the US and fall further behind Europe and other countries. Caps aren't good for the consumer, but they are good for the shareholders. Caps, are really nothing more than artificial price controls used to support an antiquated model. Usually, however, a government employes them against foreign entities, not their own citizens.
For that proof to work, wouldn't you need to test both sides of the hypothesis -- the entangled observer AND the god-like observer? While the work is impressive, it doesn't actually show what it claims. Doesn't this just confirm that we see entanglement because we are part of the system and not outside it?
The math may work, but that doesn't mean the model is correct. Back when the world view was that the earth was the center of the universe, there were complex formulas that described the motion of the planets in the sky. The math was correct, even if the model was at fault. To fully test this model, at least as proposed, one would need both an entangled observer and the god-like observer.
My favorite Windows 8 app is either a previous copy of Windows 7 or any number of different Linux Distros. One of those is the first thing I always install on a new Windows 8 device. I'm pretty sure the Xbox One won't be running my favorite Windows 8 app any time soon, at least without voiding some warranty or other agreement with Microsoft.
I was employed at a large government agency that was involved with collecting government taxes from individuals and corporations
You could've just said IRS. We don't judge.
Except it wasn't
Obama calls it "Obamacare." That's good enough for me to call it Obamacare.
I'd also call it "broken" and "in desperate need of repeal," but that's because I live in Massachusetts and already watched Romneycare flame out. Enjoy repeating the process, rest of the nation. It was a nice experiment here, too bad it didn't work.
How can it be broken if it hasn't even started yet? One thing everybody agrees on is that the system prior to the ACA was broken. The ACA is far from perfect, but with all of these GOP attempts to repeal it, where are the GOP solutions to fix the original broken system? Maybe if they came up with a plan to fix the original broken system, they'd have a better chance at repealing the ACA.
The Republicans started calling it Obamacare and they meant it as an insult.
However, when people pay word games like this, it's best to just embrace it which is what Obama did do... he's fine with the term and taking credit for the law (the good and the bad).
Yeah, the surest way to defuse is the derogatory nature of the term Obamacare is for its supporters to grab hold of it and use it for their own purposes. Whether one approves of the ACA or Obama or not, you have to admit that was pretty shrewd.
Turd or not, it is really called the Affordable Care Act
It should be called the UHA , Unaffordable Healthcare act . . .
That would first have to be demonstrated. As it stands now, the affordability of it is still not decided.
Turd or not, it is really called the Affordable Care Act (actually Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Nowhere in the congressional record will you see a bill called Obamacare or the GOP trying to amend Obamacare. However, you will find plenty of citations to the PPACA.
You're right about the first part, but wrong about the second part.
H.R.132 : ObamaCare Repeal Act
H.R.1005 : Defund Obamacare Act
H.R.2087 : Protecting Taxpayer Dollars and Identity under Obamacare Act
H.R.2125 : No IRS Implementation of Obamacare Act
H.R.2443 : Safeguarding Children Harmed by Obamacare's Onerous Levies Act
H.R.2682 : Defund Obamacare Act of 2013
H.R.3067 : No Obamacare Subsidies for Members of Congress Act of 2013
S.177 : ObamaCare Repeal Act
S.1292 : Defund Obamacare Act of 2013
S.1497 : No Exemption for Washington from Obamacare Act
Those are short or working titles, not actual titles for instance HR 132's full title is "To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010." It makes sense, really. If you are going to repeal or otherwise amend a previous "Act" you actually have to officially name the Act you are going to repeal or amend. Working titles and short titles are just so when talking about it they don't have to pronounce the full title, but the full title is the official title.
The best development groups I have worked in had some people that were focused on the technology, others that knew the business, and everyone having an understanding that it is all important with a willingness to share. I have seen a lot of projects fail because someone highly technical does not respect the less technical team members who bring the business knowledge to the table.
Exactly! While not to diminish the importance of technical skills, it is also just as important not to diminish soft skills. I've lost track of the number of times that a non-technical person asked a question that led to a line of discussion that ultimately led to a much better solution.
It is common to hear "think outside the box" but often, team members from different backgrounds have an advantage because they were never "in the box" to begin with! When we hire, our primary focus is for team players. We can always provide training to improve technical skills, but the greatest technical skills are worthless (to us, anyway), if that person can't work with the team.
Have to agree. Self direction, initiative, mixed with curiosity and some intelligence is what makes for a good IT worker. Most IT degrees are junk anyways. (STEM) degrees are a good indicator that the person can solve problems but since IT isn't rocket science the STEM degree isn't needed.
When I was on the advisory board for a local Technical college, with regards to their IT programs, we would always recommend they add course or two in general business, public speaking and the like. As 99% of their graduates were going to work in corporate America, it was important that not only did the graduates know their stuff, but also be able to lead teams, conduct meetings, give presentations,etc. This was all on a two year associate degree, but even on four year degrees CS degrees, often graduates may have great technical skills but they can't translate into good workplace skills.
Because, you don't really need one to do the job.. Duhhh!
There is more truth in that statement than many would want to believe. While I was employed at a large government agency that was involved with collecting government taxes from individuals and corporations, instead of hiring programmers, we would take individuals who were familiar with the various tax systems and train them to program. It was our experience that it was easier to train those who were experienced in their field and had an aptitude for development to be programmers than it was to train programmers in all of the intricacies tax laws. I imagine there are a lot of other business and corporate areas where that would be applicable, too.
I just thought it was a new acronym for a new type of developer like Bio Engineering System Technical developer!
I hold two CompSci degrees (BA, MA) from two reputable universities, and I can tell you this: some of best developers I've ever met have come from non-CompSci fields: geology, physics, and (building) architecture.
The keys to being a good developer are much the same as in any other field: being able to learn, and being able to apply what you've learned, and giving a crap about what you do.
One other thing, often overlooked, is that when coming from non-traditional fields, you tend to approach problems differently.
Not at all. My expectations are usually along these lines:
"Hey, Person J says her computer keeps locking up. Can you go figure out what's going on?"
Good IT:
"Sure." "Turns out she had installed a toolbar that kept popping up a hidden prompt for her to click on. It's all cleaned up now, and she is good to go."
Bad IT:
"Sure." "The screen seems frozen. What do I do?" "Ok, I hit alt+tab, and there seems to be a prompt. What do I do?" etc.
Real IT Person: "That's against company policy to unfreeze this computer"
Real IT Person: "Did you try turning it off and back on again?"
The HR drone hiring you prefers schooling over education.
That is probably true for most fields other than IT. The proof would be in the summary and the article itself which points out that most IT workers don't have an IT related degree. If you think about it, the majority of IT related jobs are not with tech companies but in business and government. Having a business degree with CS related courser work or skills on your resume is more enticing to a prospective employer than a computer degree.
We see stories on slashdot all the time about individuals with IT credentials stuck in a programming or networking job and wanting to move up by going back to school and almost always the response is instead of taking more computer courses, take business courses. There's a reason for that.
If your goal is to work for Google or Microsoft or one of the big software engineering firms, then yes, get a computer science degree. If you goal is to work in the business world in the various IT related fields, then get a business degree, but by all means, take some computer courses as electives.
Amazing how the public dialog is now "how to fix socialized medicine" when just a short time ago it was more like "should we have socialized medicine?" Well played, Mr Obama.
Since most of the world has socialized medicine, and it works quite well, you probably will only find sympathy from US readers where it is fashionable to make a profit on other people being sick. Sounds like a great system. BTW, my aunt from the US was visiting here and fell and broke her hip. Our socialized medicine took very good care of her. Total bill to her, since she doesn't pay taxes here was $2,000, including ambulance, surgeons fees, etc.. She's resting comfortably back home in the States now.
It's funny, really, you have everybody pay a little, so your business people can fly for cheap, but ask them all to pay a little so sick people can be helped and you would think you asked them to cut off their arm or something.
Nice to keep beating the 'ACA' drum, but it's really Obamacare. You can't polish a turd.
Turd or not, it is really called the Affordable Care Act (actually Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Nowhere in the congressional record will you see a bill called Obamacare or the GOP trying to amend Obamacare. However, you will find plenty of citations to the PPACA.
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
That's probably why he's boasting. If his crop wasn't destroyed and most of everybody else's was, then of course he is going to get top dollar. What is at play there is simple economics of supply and demand. Because of the recent cattle deaths in South Dakota, this should be a good year for cattle farmers, too. Unless, that is, you live in South Dakota.
Too cold, too hot, too much rain, too little rain, it's all the fault of that evil Bogeyman climate change.
The long term trend is warmer, wetter, greener, which has overall been good for food production.
Unless you live in the Southwest or most of the Western US.
155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa
That would mean there are more scientists and universities in Iowa than there are in the country I currently live, which is one of the more civilized in Europe. Now I may have been sleeping for all those years, yet....
According to Wiki, there are 60 colleges and universities in Iowa. While one can question what exactly is a scientist, whatever the definition, it's not hard to imagine that there might be an average of 3 of them per college and university. At the University of Iowa itself, there are probably at least that many, without counting the medical school, if you include just the physics, chemistry, biology, and various agriculture disciplines.
You don't mention what country you currently live in, but if what you state is true and one values higher education opportunities and research, then maybe one should consider moving to Iowa.