>But buying oil at $100 a barrel and holding to sell it at $100 a barrel doesn't make >as much profit as some people think.
In fact that would be a loss, since there are brokerage fees to consider.
Do you have any data to indicate that oil is being "hoarded?" Are you talking about futures options? Holding futures contracts isn't really "hoarding."
What your media earpiece is calling "specluators" this week are more accurately called "futures traders." You might even BE one of them. Check your mutual funds, say, in your 401(k) account. Any of them invested in "the energy sector"? There are some common hedges that may make you a "speculator" (investor in oil futures). You might have even made some money on it. Oil futures are traded on very competitive, very transparent markets.
Anything else you traded that showed gains like oil would have you celebrating. So why is high oil value perceived as such a catastrophe?
>Clinton "selectively observed" a distinction between intercourse and oral sex because >he did not want to get in trouble with his wife.
Clinton carefully asked the court for a definition of the term "sexual relations", and his answer was correct in that context. The committee could have given a more comprehensive definition. If Clinton "selectively observed" a distinction, it's because his accusers did also.
I'm not convinced of that, actually. We don't all choose a path that makes us "employer" and not "employee", but I believe that most have opportunities.
>I'd love to know how many people have been accidentally crushed in that kind of shelving. It's probably not zero.
Most designs have an interlock to prevent this. The real problem is that in areas with seismic activity, the tracks warp. This can be a serious nuisance.
Individual stores have different inventory policies, especially when it comes to what used to be "Force Feed" items. In days gone by, Tandy's inventory control was very rigid, and the store was required to stock certain things based on sales history. It was actually a fairly complex system, that was tied in with the Loss Prevention system in some surprising ways.
Now the management of Tandy Corp. is somewhat more decentralized. Individual store managers have more authority than they had, say, in the 1980s.
I know too much about this:-) I spent time as a Radio Shack store manager, and one of my best friends, to this day, works in marketing at Tandy Center in Fort Worth Texas. My god, he's worked for Tandy for 28 years.
>This is exactly what I was thinking. You are essentially setting yourself up with the equipment of a Freshmen EE lab
I've skimmed the posts, and there is some good info. But what I don't see is a recommendation to go to a local college and take an introductory circuits course (for credit or not).
I realize that quality varies, but the first year of circuits in my school seems to be pretty comprehensive and thorough, judging by the interns we've gotten in my shop (a university lab where one of the things we do is design and build electronic gadgets for remote sensing - we even do surface mount.)
>you sure as heck aren't going to tell somebody about your work if it's labeled classified (which it likely is).
Pretty much everything I touched when I worked in litigation was and is still privileged. I can't talk about it. I can still say in general terms what I did. What people are suggesting is that working for the CIA means you will have the equivalent of a years-long gap because you can't even tell people who you worked for or what your position was. That's plainly false. The idea is to discourage people from working for government agencies, using a faulty premise.
The argument is that working for the CIA excludes you from any future employment because you will be struck dumb any time you need to answer any question.
So let's hear from ex-CIA folks who are out of work, huh? Or are they not allowed to tell us about it, ROFL.
>Uh, yeah. That's how the rule of law works. What you seem to be advocating (behind your thin veil of snide) is called "taking the law into your own >hands" and is, in many cases, a crime.
Not at all. I'm saying that if you really had evidence of a crime, you would not find it so difficult to get a hearing. The problem is, you don't have evidence, but you still seem to want a hearing to take place.
>I had to piss in a cup and pass an FBI background check (WTFever that means) in order just to get a job at a tribal casino.
They checked your arrest records in all 50 states and probably INTERPOL. That's nothing compared to what they do for "security clearance" jobs. People will interview your parents, your parent's neighbors, co-workers for your entire career, people from your colleges, from your military unit, ex-spouses, ex-girlfriends, people you have bought things from, sold things to, you name it. They spend *months* on this. It costs about $30,000 to do. I've been on the interviewee side (background checks for others) and it is simply *amazing* the depth they go into.
The NSA and the CIA both routinely recruit grad students in certain sciences (and also linguistics majors.) What's interesting is how laughably 'normal' and open the whole process is for general employment. As for "not being able to tell anyone", that's just ridiculous, somebody is making excuses. It's a bit of a grandiose delusion to expect that you're going to be some kind of spy, because the CIA or the NSA recruits you for an IT or engineering career... Do people think the FBI is like the X-Files too?
Why is a (loooooong retired) WWII pilot any kind of authority on this? That also comes from an ignorant, delusional point of view.
>I've seen a story of someone who worked for the CIA and when the interviewer asked her what she did for the CIA she responded that she couldn't say. >The interviewer said "Thank you." and never called her back thinking she was full of shit.
I tend to agree with the interviewer here. Hint: The CIA isn't *quite* what a comic book worldview makes it out to be. Very few CIA employees are "spies." Everybody has a publicly verifiable position description, compensation report, benefits history, and supervisory contacts, just like any other federal employee, even for the (really rare) situation where all that is a cover story.
What bothers me about your post is that the speaker seems to know what's going in the mind of the interviewer. Sounds speculative and fabricated to me.
>How do you handle that if you've done super double secret stuff for the Government and you want to go into private industry?
"I come to the table with a security clearance that will take another candidate at least six months and cost you between sixty and eighty thousand dollars to obtain."
Your resumé can still say "what you know and what you can do", and your CV can still say what degrees you hold, what you've published, what research you've done, etc.
>Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Because most people in the business world don't take that kind of juvenile, cynical view of such things.
You take stories from defectors (or fallout). Often, people who leave a workplace that had not been a good fit for them, speak harshly of it. Rarely do they take personal responsibility for the experience. Meanwhile there are people for whom it has worked out, who are perfectly satisfied. Talk to somebody who quit after two years. Then talk to somebody who worked there, let's say, into an equity position on the retirement plan. See how their stories differ.
When a (governmental or private) institution actually tries to manage things like "transparent accountability" people at the bottom tend to scream about "bureaucratic nonsense from the idiots in charge." Why is it so rare that these entry-level geniuses jump a few rungs on the ladder then?
I always enjoy these threads. People always want to blame others for what are essentially failures in their own careers. They are always "smarter than the morons in charge of them." They rarely tell the story of how they used that superior knowledge, intelligence, and insight to get to a career level where they can "fix it."
Take some damn responsibility for once. I work in a research capacity for a (state) government, and I could also take that tack (that idiots in charge of the bureaucracy are the reason things can't get done) but if I did that, guess what? Nothing would get done, and this chapter of my career might be a failure too.
Slashdot Mirror
>But buying oil at $100 a barrel and holding to sell it at $100 a barrel doesn't make
>as much profit as some people think.
In fact that would be a loss, since there are brokerage fees to consider.
Do you have any data to indicate that oil is being "hoarded?" Are you talking about futures options? Holding futures contracts isn't really "hoarding."
What your media earpiece is calling "specluators" this week are more accurately called "futures traders." You might even BE one of them. Check your mutual funds, say, in your 401(k) account. Any of them invested in "the energy sector"? There are some common hedges that may make you a "speculator" (investor in oil futures). You might have even made some money on it. Oil futures are traded on very competitive, very transparent markets.
Anything else you traded that showed gains like oil would have you celebrating. So why is high oil value perceived as such a catastrophe?
>This was just the final version.
The final draft consisted of nothing but an E-mail?
You sure they didn't publish in the Federal Register first?
>Clinton "selectively observed" a distinction between intercourse and oral sex because
>he did not want to get in trouble with his wife.
Clinton carefully asked the court for a definition of the term "sexual relations", and his answer was correct in that context. The committee could have given a more comprehensive definition. If Clinton "selectively observed" a distinction, it's because his accusers did also.
>We can't all be entrepreneurs.
I'm not convinced of that, actually. We don't all choose a path that makes us "employer" and not "employee",
but I believe that most have opportunities.
>I'd love to know how many people have been accidentally crushed in that kind of shelving. It's probably not zero.
Most designs have an interlock to prevent this. The real problem is that in areas with seismic activity, the tracks
warp. This can be a serious nuisance.
Why are people with university degrees "looking for jobs?" These are the people who should be *creating* jobs.
>Stuff like FL Studio
I use FLStudio to do classical piano and flute.
Don't blame the tools please.
>If Wayne Gretsky was denied membership in the Hockey Hall of Fame, it wouldn't diminish his stature one bit.
If Wayne Gretsky told the Hokey Hall of Fame to take a walk, it might diminish the Hall's stature a bit.
If Hawking turned down a knighthood, that's the equivalent of giving the middle finger to the Queen.
>b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not
b!!!!
I'm excited about the prospect of this amazing authority being handed over to President Obama, aren't you?
I'd consider making a midibox64. If nothing else, the PIC programmer and the MIDI I/O is pretty useful.
http://www.ucapps.de/midibox64.html
Individual stores have different inventory policies, especially when it comes to what used to be "Force Feed" items.
In days gone by, Tandy's inventory control was very rigid, and the store was required to stock certain things based
on sales history. It was actually a fairly complex system, that was tied in with the Loss Prevention system in some
surprising ways.
Now the management of Tandy Corp. is somewhat more decentralized. Individual store managers have more authority than
they had, say, in the 1980s.
I know too much about this :-) I spent time as a Radio Shack store manager, and one of my best friends, to this day,
works in marketing at Tandy Center in Fort Worth Texas. My god, he's worked for Tandy for 28 years.
>You'll learn best when you wonder "what if..."
"Sort of a 'zzzzzt' sound, and a little smoke?"
>This is exactly what I was thinking. You are essentially setting yourself up with the equipment of a Freshmen EE lab
I've skimmed the posts, and there is some good info. But what I don't see is a recommendation to go to a local college and take an introductory circuits course (for credit or not).
I realize that quality varies, but the first year of circuits in my school seems to be pretty comprehensive and thorough, judging by the interns we've gotten in my shop (a university lab where one of the things we do is design and build electronic gadgets for remote sensing - we even do surface mount.)
>you sure as heck aren't going to tell somebody about your work if it's labeled classified (which it likely is).
Pretty much everything I touched when I worked in litigation was and is still privileged. I can't talk about it. I can still say in general terms what I did. What people are suggesting is that working for the CIA means you will have the equivalent of a years-long gap because you can't even tell people who you worked for or what your position was. That's plainly false. The idea is to discourage people from working for government agencies, using a faulty premise.
The argument is that working for the CIA excludes you from any future employment because you will be struck dumb any time you need to answer any question.
So let's hear from ex-CIA folks who are out of work, huh? Or are they not allowed to tell us about it, ROFL.
>Uh, yeah. That's how the rule of law works. What you seem to be advocating (behind your thin veil of snide) is called "taking the law into your own
>hands" and is, in many cases, a crime.
Not at all. I'm saying that if you really had evidence of a crime, you would not find it so difficult to get a hearing.
The problem is, you don't have evidence, but you still seem to want a hearing to take place.
>Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it.
The first man on Mars might be someone who volunteered for a one-way-trip.
You speak of "management" as a "them."
Why is that?
Why have you failed to parlay your superior plan into an improved position, with authority?
>I had to piss in a cup and pass an FBI background check (WTFever that means) in order just to get a job at a tribal casino.
They checked your arrest records in all 50 states and probably INTERPOL. That's nothing compared to what they do for "security clearance" jobs.
People will interview your parents, your parent's neighbors, co-workers for your entire career, people from your colleges, from your military unit, ex-spouses, ex-girlfriends, people you have bought things from, sold things to, you name it. They spend *months* on this. It costs about $30,000 to do. I've been on the interviewee side (background checks for others) and it is simply *amazing* the depth they go into.
>The process is so intrusive and debasing that many people take one look at the paperwork and simply walk away.
It's also very expensive and time consuming for the company/institution.
And today, a civilian is competing with any number of Iraq war vets who are much cheaper to obtain clearance for.
The NSA and the CIA both routinely recruit grad students in certain sciences (and also linguistics majors.) What's interesting is how laughably 'normal' and open the whole process is for general employment. As for "not being able to tell anyone", that's just ridiculous, somebody is making excuses. It's a bit of a grandiose delusion to expect that you're going to be some kind of spy, because the CIA or the NSA recruits you for an IT or engineering career... Do people think the FBI is like the X-Files too?
Why is a (loooooong retired) WWII pilot any kind of authority on this? That also comes from an ignorant, delusional point of view.
>I've seen a story of someone who worked for the CIA and when the interviewer asked her what she did for the CIA she responded that she couldn't say.
>The interviewer said "Thank you." and never called her back thinking she was full of shit.
I tend to agree with the interviewer here. Hint: The CIA isn't *quite* what a comic book worldview makes it out to be.
Very few CIA employees are "spies." Everybody has a publicly verifiable position description, compensation report, benefits history, and supervisory contacts, just like any other federal employee, even for the (really rare) situation where all that is a cover story.
What bothers me about your post is that the speaker seems to know what's going in the mind of the interviewer. Sounds speculative and fabricated to me.
>How do you handle that if you've done super double secret stuff for the Government and you want to go into private industry?
"I come to the table with a security clearance that will take another candidate at least six months and cost you between sixty and eighty thousand dollars to obtain."
Your resumé can still say "what you know and what you can do", and your CV can still say what degrees you hold, what you've published, what research you've done, etc.
>Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Because most people in the business world don't take that kind of juvenile, cynical view of such things.
You take stories from defectors (or fallout). Often, people who leave a workplace that had not been a good
fit for them, speak harshly of it. Rarely do they take personal responsibility for the experience. Meanwhile
there are people for whom it has worked out, who are perfectly satisfied. Talk to somebody who quit after two
years. Then talk to somebody who worked there, let's say, into an equity position on the retirement plan.
See how their stories differ.
When a (governmental or private) institution actually tries to manage things like "transparent accountability" people at the bottom tend to scream about "bureaucratic nonsense from the idiots in charge." Why is it so rare that these entry-level geniuses jump a few rungs on the ladder then?
>bureaucratic nonsense
I always enjoy these threads. People always want to blame others for what are essentially failures in their own careers.
They are always "smarter than the morons in charge of them." They rarely tell the story of how they used that superior
knowledge, intelligence, and insight to get to a career level where they can "fix it."
Take some damn responsibility for once. I work in a research capacity for a (state) government, and I could also take
that tack (that idiots in charge of the bureaucracy are the reason things can't get done) but if I did that, guess what?
Nothing would get done, and this chapter of my career might be a failure too.