A few years ago, I used LinkedIn to locate recruiters at a large tech company. I cold emailed those recruiters, and that led to an interview which led to a job. These days, I am contacted by recruiters at other large tech companies once every few months via LinkedIn.
YMMV, of course. But I continue to find LinkedIn very valuable. I know that when I decide to move on from my current company, LinkedIn will make it much easier to do so.
The subject's title is, "Engineers Say 'No Thanks' to Silicon Valley Recruiters, Citing Ethical Concerns." And then the article calls out 4 companies: Amazon, Google, Facebook, & Microsoft. 2 of those 4 are headquartered in the Seattle area, not Silicon Valley. How about some simple fact checking?
I'd never heard of Prager U until I read this post. I began searching for more info about it, and after a few minutes I ran into the Twitter page of Dennis Prager, the creator of Prager U. Yesterday, he tweeted:
"The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does."
After reading that, it kind of makes it hard for me to take seriously anything else he says or produces.
I noticed her Twitter feed is limited only to her latest non-violent and nice posts. I wonder why that is?
During the gamergate fiasco, she posted some of the most abhorrent, violent, and childish things I've ever seen. Especially against men.
I would hope her political opponents will bring this up and destroy her.
She is not mentally fit or mature enough to run a small gaming company, let alone a district.
If only posting abhorrent and childish things on Twitter were enough to disqualify one from seeking political office...
From his Wikipedia page: "Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)."
When the FCC chairman used to be a lobbyist for the companies he's now regulating... well, what did we expect would happen? It shouldn't be surprising that he'd be in favor of pushing through regulations that are more favorable to his cronies.
What a strange article to post on Slashdot. I wasn't aware that a fairly basic "this is what tablets do, and here's a brief buying guide" article qualifies as "News for Nerds."
This result was expected based on what happened on Friday. It was reported that the underwriting investment banks were propping up Facebook's share price on Friday to keep it above the IPO price of $38, so as to help their clients avoid losing money on the first day. Now that we're past day 1, the banks have stopped buying shares at the apparently overvalued price, which makes sense -- after all, if the banks are buying at $38, then they stand to lose money when they sell at a lower price in the future. In other words, Facebook should've already been trading at something less than $38 on Friday, but it wasn't because the banks wouldn't let it.
This is _exactly_ the same process people need to go through to visit the Schengen countries if they need a visa. Except that for most countries, one actually has to travel to a consulate rather than being able to send the application through mail.
Grad students studying in the US have been buying & selling "International Edition" textbooks for ages. When I studied in a masters program some years ago, a majority of Chinese students used International Edition books that they had presumably purchased from another international student within the US who no longer needed the book anymore. These books were generally of lower quality than the regular edition US textbooks (i.e., soft cover, sometimes black and white instead of color, etc.), but the words & graphs were all the same, and for a huge discount you couldn't go wrong. After seeing so many of my classmates using these international editions, I began purchasing them myself (and selling them when I finished the course).
It never occurred to me that selling these could possibly be grounds for a major fine. To me, this is just as bad an idea as region coding on DVD's or disallowing Americans from purchasing pharmaceuticals abroad.
It's an interesting point. But the reason is that to my knowledge, there _wasn't_ any price fixing prior to ebooks. I believe that publishers have always sold physical books to retailers using the wholesale model, and then leave it up to the retailers to set the price paid by customers. As long as the publishers didn't conspire to set those wholesale prices collectively, then there's no price fixing. There may have been some 'tacit' collusion (in that they don't formally agree upon prices, but that they follow each other like airlines), but that's generally not illegal in the US.
The issue in this case is that there _is_ evidence that the publishers collectively decided to adhere to the same pricing scheme. That is illegal.
This was such a blatant price-fixing scheme among the publishers that it's surprising to me that it took the DOJ this long to take action. That said, based on what I've read I'm not completely convinced of the extent to which Apple was involved in this. Yes, they agreed to the new agency pricing model, but it seems to me that they could try to argue, "Hey -- the publishers came to us with this idea. We didn't know they wanted to go that route to reduce competition and put pressure on Amazon! Honest!" But if there's a paper trail mentioning Amazon, I think Apple is toast.
And regardless, I hope the publishers get crushed on this one. While I won't go so far as to suggest that they don't serve any useful purpose anymore (as some people do), they _are_ dinosaurs and need to be dragged into 21st century competition. This should do it.
Please explain to me how having an MBA implies "customer-unfriendly." There are quite a few companies out there who hire lots of MBA's and who are customer-friendly.
If you meant accounting/finance/bean-counter types, then I see your argument.
With all the problems Best Buy has been having recently, it's hard to believe that they think this will solve anything.
A customer who knows they can't return a defective item at Best Buy will simply go shopping somewhere else like Walmart, Target, or Amazon, who have more lenient return policies and/or are just more customer-friendly altogether.
I don't expect this particular decision will hurt too much, but with these kinds of stupid decisions Best Buy will be out of business within 5 years.
They barely look out the front window. Seriously, most people should not be allowed to pilot a car. It's a deadly projectile and yet people drive like they're in a video game.
If they drive like they're playing Carmageddon, that's a serious problem.
However, if they drive like they're playing Super Mario Kart... no problem! Except for when you drop a banana peel. That could really screw over a pedestrian walking behind you.
It makes me sad every time Microsoft does something to distance itself from the Zune brand.
I own 2 Zunes. I've been using them to listen to music at work nearly every day for the past 3 years. I've found them to be very high-quality pieces of hardware. I'm not a huge fan of the Zune software, but I don't think it's any worse than iTunes. Yet most of the time when I tell co-workers that I listen to music on a Zune, I have to endure ridicule for not using an Apple product. I have even heard from ex-MS colleagues that by-and-large, MS employees don't think very highly of the Zune.
What gives? Did I totally miss the boat on this and the Zune actually sucks? Am I just destined to be forever uncool by being associated with a failed MS product? I just never understood the hate, and somehow it seems to be worse now than ever. And now MS is apparently trying to distance itself from Zune as much as possible.
Keep your chin up, Zune. You still have a few fans out there.
Guys, we really need to start ganging up on Japan. They're finishing the space elevator soon. Once they launch their Alpha Centauri colony, they'll win!
I'm not even close to the income range that would be affected by this tax, and in general I'm in favor of increasing taxes, but...
Something about the whole 'progressive tax' thing just seems unfair to me. Some info about me:
- I grew up in a solidly middle-class family. My parents owned a small house and we never went hungry, but we certainly were not wealthy, or even close to it.
- I attended public schools throughout K-12.
- I attended and graduated from a public university. I ended up with a fair amount of debt.
- I then got two graduate degrees, both of which built up some debt as well.
In short, there's nothing extraordinary about my background. At the same time, I feel fortunate to be where I am and recognize things could've been a lot tougher for me. I've played by the rules, saved as much as I could, put off starting a family until later in life, etc., and am now reaping the rewards.
All that said: why should I pay a higher marginal tax rate than a hypothetical person who had the exact same opportunities I had, but is now in a lower-paying job than I am? While I agree that I have a higher -ability- to pay, I have trouble understanding why it's 'fair' that I should. That person could have waited to start a family as well. Or she could have chosen to study a subject where it was easier to get a higher-paying job. Whatever the case, it's hard for me to rationalize that two people with the same opportunities should end up with different outcomes.
I understand how it's different with people who grew up with all of the advantages -- wealthy family, exclusive boarding schools, Ivy League universities, etc. But not for someone who worked their way up the socioeconomic ladder.
I'm not trolling in the least. Please enlighten me.
Slashdot Mirror
A few years ago, I used LinkedIn to locate recruiters at a large tech company. I cold emailed those recruiters, and that led to an interview which led to a job. These days, I am contacted by recruiters at other large tech companies once every few months via LinkedIn.
YMMV, of course. But I continue to find LinkedIn very valuable. I know that when I decide to move on from my current company, LinkedIn will make it much easier to do so.
The subject's title is, "Engineers Say 'No Thanks' to Silicon Valley Recruiters, Citing Ethical Concerns." And then the article calls out 4 companies: Amazon, Google, Facebook, & Microsoft. 2 of those 4 are headquartered in the Seattle area, not Silicon Valley. How about some simple fact checking?
I'd never heard of Prager U until I read this post. I began searching for more info about it, and after a few minutes I ran into the Twitter page of Dennis Prager, the creator of Prager U. Yesterday, he tweeted:
"The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does."
After reading that, it kind of makes it hard for me to take seriously anything else he says or produces.
I noticed her Twitter feed is limited only to her latest non-violent and nice posts. I wonder why that is? During the gamergate fiasco, she posted some of the most abhorrent, violent, and childish things I've ever seen. Especially against men. I would hope her political opponents will bring this up and destroy her. She is not mentally fit or mature enough to run a small gaming company, let alone a district.
If only posting abhorrent and childish things on Twitter were enough to disqualify one from seeking political office...
From his Wikipedia page: "Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)."
When the FCC chairman used to be a lobbyist for the companies he's now regulating... well, what did we expect would happen? It shouldn't be surprising that he'd be in favor of pushing through regulations that are more favorable to his cronies.
What a strange article to post on Slashdot. I wasn't aware that a fairly basic "this is what tablets do, and here's a brief buying guide" article qualifies as "News for Nerds."
Forgot to add: "Good day, sir!"
The only thing that was resolved today was which company gets to appeal the decision. And I suspect Samsung has a lot of grounds on which to appeal.
Bullshit. $180,000? Dream on.
Here's the thing: Bitcoins are nothing and nothing is worth exactly that.
Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme, plane and simple.
Ok, you made your point. But these former customers have a right to line up and demand a solid answer to their complaints.
This result was expected based on what happened on Friday. It was reported that the underwriting investment banks were propping up Facebook's share price on Friday to keep it above the IPO price of $38, so as to help their clients avoid losing money on the first day. Now that we're past day 1, the banks have stopped buying shares at the apparently overvalued price, which makes sense -- after all, if the banks are buying at $38, then they stand to lose money when they sell at a lower price in the future. In other words, Facebook should've already been trading at something less than $38 on Friday, but it wasn't because the banks wouldn't let it.
This is _exactly_ the same process people need to go through to visit the Schengen countries if they need a visa. Except that for most countries, one actually has to travel to a consulate rather than being able to send the application through mail.
It never occurred to me that selling these could possibly be grounds for a major fine. To me, this is just as bad an idea as region coding on DVD's or disallowing Americans from purchasing pharmaceuticals abroad.
The issue in this case is that there _is_ evidence that the publishers collectively decided to adhere to the same pricing scheme. That is illegal.
And regardless, I hope the publishers get crushed on this one. While I won't go so far as to suggest that they don't serve any useful purpose anymore (as some people do), they _are_ dinosaurs and need to be dragged into 21st century competition. This should do it.
If you meant accounting/finance/bean-counter types, then I see your argument.
A customer who knows they can't return a defective item at Best Buy will simply go shopping somewhere else like Walmart, Target, or Amazon, who have more lenient return policies and/or are just more customer-friendly altogether.
I don't expect this particular decision will hurt too much, but with these kinds of stupid decisions Best Buy will be out of business within 5 years.
Hey Cary: the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!"
They barely look out the front window. Seriously, most people should not be allowed to pilot a car. It's a deadly projectile and yet people drive like they're in a video game.
If they drive like they're playing Carmageddon, that's a serious problem.
However, if they drive like they're playing Super Mario Kart... no problem! Except for when you drop a banana peel. That could really screw over a pedestrian walking behind you.
I own 2 Zunes. I've been using them to listen to music at work nearly every day for the past 3 years. I've found them to be very high-quality pieces of hardware. I'm not a huge fan of the Zune software, but I don't think it's any worse than iTunes. Yet most of the time when I tell co-workers that I listen to music on a Zune, I have to endure ridicule for not using an Apple product. I have even heard from ex-MS colleagues that by-and-large, MS employees don't think very highly of the Zune.
What gives? Did I totally miss the boat on this and the Zune actually sucks? Am I just destined to be forever uncool by being associated with a failed MS product? I just never understood the hate, and somehow it seems to be worse now than ever. And now MS is apparently trying to distance itself from Zune as much as possible.
Keep your chin up, Zune. You still have a few fans out there.
Guys, we really need to start ganging up on Japan. They're finishing the space elevator soon. Once they launch their Alpha Centauri colony, they'll win!
Could someone provide a car analogy to explain?
It makes it sound like a homicide. Fix it, please.
Something about the whole 'progressive tax' thing just seems unfair to me. Some info about me:
- I grew up in a solidly middle-class family. My parents owned a small house and we never went hungry, but we certainly were not wealthy, or even close to it.
- I attended public schools throughout K-12.
- I attended and graduated from a public university. I ended up with a fair amount of debt.
- I then got two graduate degrees, both of which built up some debt as well.
In short, there's nothing extraordinary about my background. At the same time, I feel fortunate to be where I am and recognize things could've been a lot tougher for me. I've played by the rules, saved as much as I could, put off starting a family until later in life, etc., and am now reaping the rewards.
All that said: why should I pay a higher marginal tax rate than a hypothetical person who had the exact same opportunities I had, but is now in a lower-paying job than I am? While I agree that I have a higher -ability- to pay, I have trouble understanding why it's 'fair' that I should. That person could have waited to start a family as well. Or she could have chosen to study a subject where it was easier to get a higher-paying job. Whatever the case, it's hard for me to rationalize that two people with the same opportunities should end up with different outcomes.
I understand how it's different with people who grew up with all of the advantages -- wealthy family, exclusive boarding schools, Ivy League universities, etc. But not for someone who worked their way up the socioeconomic ladder.
I'm not trolling in the least. Please enlighten me.
Thanks, Patrick! :)
I guess I'm a little late to the party, but if anyone has one to spare, I'd love an invite as well. I'm cunningham.d.a (at) gmail Thanks in advance!