It's basically for recruiters to find you (and vice versa). It's a decent job board and a good site with plenty of potential and some solid revenue streams. It's a pretty sure thing that it's worth some money.
Now, whether it's $9 billion (or more) worth of company + potential is another thing. The $4 billion offering price was already pretty ambitious; a $9 billion price assumes all the best-case growth scenarios for years to come. It's still possible that it's a bet that will pay off! But it's a risky one, and the aphorism in question here is: when in doubt, assume that you're underpricing the risk.
Yeah; in the southeast, where I went to school, they don't just have snow storms (which disrupt travel but are otherwise relatively gentle on the infrastructure) but they have ice storms: freezing rain that accumulates on trees and power lines. It's not a question of whether the power will go out, but how long it will be out for.
(Also, unlike snow, you can't just plow the ice off the road.)
On a related note, FriendFinder Networks is filing for an IPO.
Dealt with a couple of interview candidates who had worked there (they apparently use Perl). I don't think any of them really appreciated the time they spent there, though.
California had an economy; I thought they just had a clusterfuck.
Don't get me wrong, California has one of those too, but it also has Silicon Valley technology businesses, which is pretty much the brightest spot of the American economy today. Once you're on the wrong side of the Bay, though, things start go downhill.
Of course, there's only two options: perpetual ignorance and this. Julian Assange couldn't possibly consider exercising any discretion in his release of documents. None at all. And why not? Because he hates America. No, seriously, I mean, he's said as much: We're a "corrupt regime" and he'd like to see us taken down. He's really interested in striking out at America's government and this influences his leak handling, for the worse.
See, I appreciate some of what Wikileaks is doing as an organization to effect justice and bring about more transparency in the world order, but this isn't the sort of release that seems to be the most productive.
That the gender studies and the dance majors should be paying the way for the STEM majors. After all, only one group will contribute to the economy after graduation.
So the people who won't make any money should pay for the people who will? I mean, value judgements on the merit of the respective fields aside, that just sounds economically implausible. STEM majors can make money after graduation, and can thus afford to pay student loans. And good professors are probably more expensive, since the university has to compete for them with the likes of Google. If the students can afford to pay more, they probably will.
Don't worry about the colleges. They'll just lobby Congress to make more grants and loans available, to "make college affordable" for another five minutes or so before they raise tuition again.:)
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
UCLA Newsroom (note the hilarious "beyond reproach" comment indicating the writer of the article has never heard of this premise before.) This is mostly the one I was looking at because they were kind enough to actually give you a number (7 years) which helps to quantify things. (The number itself is probably a lot shakier than the general premise, though.)
For more information on the opinions of economists at large on this and other matters, check out a paper "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions" by Robert Whaples.
Speaking of FDR, FWIW, despite all the hype, many economists say that he fucked up the economy worse than it fucked up itself while trying to fix it (prolonging it by about 7 years, according to some UCLA dudes; consult your local economist for more opinions). And no, I'm not talking things like Social Security... I'm talking things like the boneheaded Agricultural Adjustment Act and freakish levels of price controls.
You might not need money to live, but if you want an economy much beyond subsistence agriculture, you do need a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account, which are the three roles of money.
Anyway. Just because it's a system a bunch of people made up doesn't mean it's not real. If you don't think it's real, try going down to a grocery store and buying yourself some food. That's pretty real.
TFA discusses that they're not sure how well it will operate in an environment with radiation present (it does no good if it stops working in the middle of the plant because the electronics got zapped). It sounds like they haven't figured out all the logistics about keeping it from spreading radioactive materials around, either. (Presumably it needs to come out of the plant at some point, if only for refueling/maintenance).
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 0
It's very much like calling carbon dioxide "pollution" when the atmosphere is already awash in more of it than humankind ever put out. It's not quite entirely wrong, but it misses an important sense of something being acutely dangerous. Being next to a factory outputting carbon dioxide isn't actually going to do you much harm; being next to one spewing soot and lead and ozone and sulfuric acid is a different story.
(I live near San Francisco, and I'm occasionally subjected to hilarious comparisons between pollution in China and America which seem to somehow miss this difference.)
This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting.
America has no science reporting. It has sciency reporting, in the Steven-Colbert "truthiness" sense. Now consider that the media is the main way that "climate change" gets communicated to the people of America. The media... and politicians. Is there any surprise that lots of people are insanely skeptical of it? I'd even say that with those inputs, calling it all a load of nonsense is a very rational response.
Um, you don't pay interest on spending. You pay interest on debt. And the debt that you've been left from prior deficit spending is a sunk cost, so while it's all well and good to blame it on prior military expenditure (or entitlements, if you prefer) it's hardly economically sound to account for that in the present budget.
(And by "economically sound" I mean "introductory economics class lecture number one" where you learn about how rational maximizers make decisions... not any of that controversial macroeconomics junk.)
Yeah; if he's saying "it could afford to be more open" it sounds like he has a little bit of an agenda there which may not be aligned with the current direction Apple is going or its shareholder's best interests. So, despite other qualifications, he might not be the best guy for the job.
Why is the campus allowing students to put their own WiFi routers on the school network, anyway?
I mean, I might be biased because part of my job is to work on a product designed to detect that and alert administrators so they can shut it down (complete with pretty maps of where the device is).
But I was under the impression that unauthorized wireless on your network was Widely Considered a Bad Thing. (What, do the students have a third-party internet connection or something??)
The alternative to the "revolving door between government and industry" seems to mostly be regulators who don't know anything about what they're regulating. Fun stuff either way!:)
It's reasonable to worry about global warming and similar effects, and it's all well and good to complain about "climate change deniers and proud of it", but to visit the other extreme is also an affront to reason. To wit: changing weather patterns may affect the world economy to the tune of trillions of dollars, but your "uber-winter" scenario sounds like something out of The Day After Tomorrow. As such, I believe that your worries have transcended reason and are now firmly in the realm of paranoid delusion.
Please come back. I assure you there's still plenty of room to be rationally concerned about the world, and (outside of a circle that already embraces the notion) you're really undermining the global warming cause.
Right, because breaking out the guillotines and slicing the heads off of a bunch of rich jerks will is totally an effective strategy for improving the day to day lives of these people. Hope they enjoy themselves. Myself, though, I think I'll wander off somewhere else before anyone decides it's time to start purging the intellectuals, and would advise most of Slashdot to do the same.
Yeah; you don't really need a lot of wireless bandwidth for a dinky little yes/no vote. Your users aren't doing anything serious like streaming video. You don't need to let them onto the Internet at large. So 54 Mbps can go a long way. You just need a couple of real enterprise-grade APs that won't fall over when they have more than ten people connected to them. If instantaneous bandwidth really is still an issue, perhaps you can write a JavaScript web UI that introduces random delays (0-N seconds) before submitting?
Also, have you considered supplementing the wifi with Ethernet cables? It would help blunt the load somewhat. You can get basic 10/100 switches pretty cheap.
I would recommend a particular vendor's APs, since they're kinda designed for denser deployments, but I work for them, so I'll abstain from mentioning them by name here.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, whether it's $9 billion (or more) worth of company + potential is another thing. The $4 billion offering price was already pretty ambitious; a $9 billion price assumes all the best-case growth scenarios for years to come. It's still possible that it's a bet that will pay off! But it's a risky one, and the aphorism in question here is: when in doubt, assume that you're underpricing the risk.
(Also, unlike snow, you can't just plow the ice off the road.)
On a related note, FriendFinder Networks is filing for an IPO.
Dealt with a couple of interview candidates who had worked there (they apparently use Perl). I don't think any of them really appreciated the time they spent there, though.
Don't get me wrong, California has one of those too, but it also has Silicon Valley technology businesses, which is pretty much the brightest spot of the American economy today. Once you're on the wrong side of the Bay, though, things start go downhill.
Of course, there's only two options: perpetual ignorance and this. Julian Assange couldn't possibly consider exercising any discretion in his release of documents. None at all. And why not? Because he hates America. No, seriously, I mean, he's said as much: We're a "corrupt regime" and he'd like to see us taken down. He's really interested in striking out at America's government and this influences his leak handling, for the worse.
See, I appreciate some of what Wikileaks is doing as an organization to effect justice and bring about more transparency in the world order, but this isn't the sort of release that seems to be the most productive.
So the people who won't make any money should pay for the people who will? I mean, value judgements on the merit of the respective fields aside, that just sounds economically implausible. STEM majors can make money after graduation, and can thus afford to pay student loans. And good professors are probably more expensive, since the university has to compete for them with the likes of Google. If the students can afford to pay more, they probably will.
Don't worry about the colleges. They'll just lobby Congress to make more grants and loans available, to "make college affordable" for another five minutes or so before they raise tuition again. :)
Think of the undergraduates!
UCLA Newsroom (note the hilarious "beyond reproach" comment indicating the writer of the article has never heard of this premise before.) This is mostly the one I was looking at because they were kind enough to actually give you a number (7 years) which helps to quantify things. (The number itself is probably a lot shakier than the general premise, though.)
For more information on the opinions of economists at large on this and other matters, check out a paper "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions" by Robert Whaples.
Speaking of FDR, FWIW, despite all the hype, many economists say that he fucked up the economy worse than it fucked up itself while trying to fix it (prolonging it by about 7 years, according to some UCLA dudes; consult your local economist for more opinions). And no, I'm not talking things like Social Security... I'm talking things like the boneheaded Agricultural Adjustment Act and freakish levels of price controls.
You might not need money to live, but if you want an economy much beyond subsistence agriculture, you do need a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account, which are the three roles of money.
Anyway. Just because it's a system a bunch of people made up doesn't mean it's not real. If you don't think it's real, try going down to a grocery store and buying yourself some food. That's pretty real.
"Neat"? Come on, sir. It's wizard. It's smashing. It's keen.
There's a good chance the state will come after you for some sort of a fuel tax if you're doing something like this. :)
TFA discusses that they're not sure how well it will operate in an environment with radiation present (it does no good if it stops working in the middle of the plant because the electronics got zapped). It sounds like they haven't figured out all the logistics about keeping it from spreading radioactive materials around, either. (Presumably it needs to come out of the plant at some point, if only for refueling/maintenance).
It's very much like calling carbon dioxide "pollution" when the atmosphere is already awash in more of it than humankind ever put out. It's not quite entirely wrong, but it misses an important sense of something being acutely dangerous. Being next to a factory outputting carbon dioxide isn't actually going to do you much harm; being next to one spewing soot and lead and ozone and sulfuric acid is a different story.
(I live near San Francisco, and I'm occasionally subjected to hilarious comparisons between pollution in China and America which seem to somehow miss this difference.)
The problem is, as our US Supreme Court identified, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and you get on very shaky ground very quickly.
America has no science reporting. It has sciency reporting, in the Steven-Colbert "truthiness" sense. Now consider that the media is the main way that "climate change" gets communicated to the people of America. The media... and politicians. Is there any surprise that lots of people are insanely skeptical of it? I'd even say that with those inputs, calling it all a load of nonsense is a very rational response.
Um, you don't pay interest on spending. You pay interest on debt. And the debt that you've been left from prior deficit spending is a sunk cost, so while it's all well and good to blame it on prior military expenditure (or entitlements, if you prefer) it's hardly economically sound to account for that in the present budget.
(And by "economically sound" I mean "introductory economics class lecture number one" where you learn about how rational maximizers make decisions... not any of that controversial macroeconomics junk.)
Yeah; if he's saying "it could afford to be more open" it sounds like he has a little bit of an agenda there which may not be aligned with the current direction Apple is going or its shareholder's best interests. So, despite other qualifications, he might not be the best guy for the job.
But I was under the impression that unauthorized wireless on your network was Widely Considered a Bad Thing. (What, do the students have a third-party internet connection or something??)
How about that. The US is sending robots to Japan. For our next trick, we will sell coal to Newcastle.
The alternative to the "revolving door between government and industry" seems to mostly be regulators who don't know anything about what they're regulating. Fun stuff either way! :)
It's reasonable to worry about global warming and similar effects, and it's all well and good to complain about "climate change deniers and proud of it", but to visit the other extreme is also an affront to reason. To wit: changing weather patterns may affect the world economy to the tune of trillions of dollars, but your "uber-winter" scenario sounds like something out of The Day After Tomorrow. As such, I believe that your worries have transcended reason and are now firmly in the realm of paranoid delusion.
Please come back. I assure you there's still plenty of room to be rationally concerned about the world, and (outside of a circle that already embraces the notion) you're really undermining the global warming cause.
Right, because breaking out the guillotines and slicing the heads off of a bunch of rich jerks will is totally an effective strategy for improving the day to day lives of these people. Hope they enjoy themselves. Myself, though, I think I'll wander off somewhere else before anyone decides it's time to start purging the intellectuals, and would advise most of Slashdot to do the same.
It's not the end of the Internet, just the end of the World Wide Web.
Yeah; you don't really need a lot of wireless bandwidth for a dinky little yes/no vote. Your users aren't doing anything serious like streaming video. You don't need to let them onto the Internet at large. So 54 Mbps can go a long way. You just need a couple of real enterprise-grade APs that won't fall over when they have more than ten people connected to them. If instantaneous bandwidth really is still an issue, perhaps you can write a JavaScript web UI that introduces random delays (0-N seconds) before submitting?
Also, have you considered supplementing the wifi with Ethernet cables? It would help blunt the load somewhat. You can get basic 10/100 switches pretty cheap.
I would recommend a particular vendor's APs, since they're kinda designed for denser deployments, but I work for them, so I'll abstain from mentioning them by name here.