Maybe you missed the part about holding everything else equal.
"all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350"
So I would presume they would compare across the same schools and adjust accordingly.
Ah, I see you ignored where I pointed out that the hiring managers like yourself are demanding 5+ years experience for an entry level position. Then there's the fact that the salary offered is significantly less than it was pre-recession as well. That would be called "taking advantage of the bad economy". Is it illegal? No. Should it be illegal? Again, no. However, it is reprehensible behavior.
Again, please ernt a clue. Nowhere did I demand five years for an entry level position. I demanded none, put got folks ranging up to 25 years experience.
You are clueless.
someone with 12 years experience what you would normally pay someone with 0 years of experience is not only screwing over the experienced person, but it's screwing over the inexperienced person by taking away their only advantage in the job market (costing companies less money).
The person applying for the job walks in with their eyes wide open. I even posted the pay range in the job description. I love how you assume I should protect people from themselves.
As someone who has a few years experience after graduating college, getting laid off due to budget cuts, and recently finding a new job, I can say that the hiring managers like you are horribly taking advantage of the bad economy
Please rent a clue.
Actually, you DON'T know that. He sent you a resume that said "I had a job for 12 years" - nothing in that proves that he's smarter, more capable, or a harder worker than those college grads with no experience.
I ran the interviews. That is part of what you find out. No, you don't just look at a resume and presume what iy says is accurate. You probe to find out what you need to know.
I'm not against capitalism - I'm all for it. However, nothing about capitalism says that you have to be an asshole and take advantage of people who are down on their luck due to a crappy economy. I'm sure you'd look at it differently if you were the one getting turned down for an entry level job because you didn't have 5+ years experience or if you could only get a job paying 1/3 of what you had been making.
If you have someone with more experience why in the hell WOULDN'T you hire him? If I do, then I would have someone else bitching about me not hiring people because they are overqualified.
Frankly as clueless as you are, I can see why you didn't survive the budget cut.
Right now is a really hard time to try to get your foot in the door. As a manager, I posted for an entry level position and ended up with a ton of candidates with a strong background. I don't believe in the whole "overqualified" paradigm, so I ended up getting the best candidate -- over twelve years of experience pertinent to my business, glowing reviews from previous employers and excellent interpersonal skills.
I got a ton of resumes from college students. Several sounded promising, and I would have loved to give them a chance. But when I have someone with a proven track record who I KNOW will not require only minimal supervision and will bring more to the table... why should I waste my time and money?
Is it fair? Maybe not. When I was in this position almost 15 years ago it sucked. But with 10%+ unemployment it is very hard for the entry level candidate to get his foot in the door.
My solution.... if you are still in school... get a fricking internship. It may not put you at the same level as those I did end up interviewing... but it will help/
If you have a couple hundred people running business apps, it ain't all that difficult. Generally you will get spikes of CPU utilization that last a few seconds mashed between many minutes, or even hours of very low CPU utilization. A powerful server can handle dozens or even hundreds of virtual desktops in this type of environment.
Data deduplication is huge in virtualized environments. Four virtual servers with identical OS's running on one host server? Deduplicate the data and save a lot of space.
This is even bigger in the virutulized desktop envirornment where you could literally have hundreds of PCs virtualized on the same physical box.
Ah, yes...I was waiting for someone to bring up the "spin-off" technology argument.
Despite your tone, I will ask this civilly.
1) Do you really think that money had to be spent going to the moon to get this spin off technology?
2) Could research funds be better directed to areas that would provide a bigger and more focused benefit? I'd MUCH rather see 3% of GDP going to solar research than trying to put someone on Mars.
3) How much of the spinoff technology would have been there even if we didn't have the highly expensive space program?
These are the questions you must answer if you want to make the case for a space program "paying for itself" through spinoff technology. Most of the time the numbers are smoke and mirrors.
Yet you then quote the VERY reason goverments, yes pluaral, would drive to be there. The us doesn't want the communists there first. The chinese don't want anyone else there first,..ect ad naseum.
So "to control ones' neighbors seems like a dam good reason to me.
You have a valid point. I wish you were logged in so you'd be more likely to see my response:)
Anyhow, as you say, we don't want the "Commies" up there controlling space, and they don't want to see the "U.S. Imperialists" up there. This is true. Does this translate into manned flight? Space stations? Colonization?
I tend to think not. The best I can see coming out of the latest space race is MAYBE slightly lowered cost of launches, miniturization, improved optics, better weapons... but I don't see manned flight being part of the equation.
But you are right... external threat is what motivates governments... not a nebulous payback that could be better spent reqarding constituents who grease your palms.
Please cite a source for the Louisiana Purchase costing 3% of GDP.
And getting back to the original point: This purchase was a way to get more resources to exploit (as well as control ones neighbors... we didn't want the Spanish there). Going to space gets us nothing as far as resources to exploit.
So, whole point to the thread.... governments tend to have very short attention spans for projects that do not have an economic benefit. If we can find a way to make money by visiting space, we will find that we visit more frequently, less expensively and most importantly this will be a sustained industry.
We landed on the moon to show we had a bigger penis than the Commies. On a dollar spent basis we got virtually nothing out of it. More than we got out of Iraq for sure. But still a misguided spending of dollars.
Doubtful. The Louisianna purchase cost us around $15 Million, and a good part of that was cancelling French debt (so not a hard dollar expenditure). It doubled the size of our nation at that time. Considering out national debt at the time was around 90 Million, 15 million more was a drop in the bucket.
Note that this exploration was really a way of finding more natural resources to exploit. It is doubtful that any space exploration will get us that in the next several decades.
Nonsense. The problem with the space race is that it was unsustainable. There was no way any nation would maintain that kind of spending for an extended period of time. We were spedning around three percent of GDP... for something with intangible payback.
Now, we have the chance at sustainable flights into space. If this actually succeeds, and we have many flights going up every month... and if we actually get more than one company in this game... we will see gradual improvements. Instead of being a money pit, it will be a money generator. And that is where real progress is at.
1) The numbers are all over the place because there are different types of tests. Depending on the quality of the test you could easily get to billions to one against a duplicate match.
2) The birthday paradox has NOTHING to do with this. You are selecting one set of DNA and seeing if someone else matches. You are not picking the full population to see how many have the identical signature
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you missed the part about holding everything else equal.
"all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350"
So I would presume they would compare across the same schools and adjust accordingly.
I don't think you donate just one. I think itis $35K per procedure.
Anyone familiar with what is involved with "donating" these eggs?
If they offer you $35,000 for all of your eggs, take the offer.
Please rent a clue.
Ah, I see you ignored where I pointed out that the hiring managers like yourself are demanding 5+ years experience for an entry level position. Then there's the fact that the salary offered is significantly less than it was pre-recession as well. That would be called "taking advantage of the bad economy". Is it illegal? No. Should it be illegal? Again, no. However, it is reprehensible behavior.
Again, please ernt a clue. Nowhere did I demand five years for an entry level position. I demanded none, put got folks ranging up to 25 years experience.
You are clueless.
someone with 12 years experience what you would normally pay someone with 0 years of experience is not only screwing over the experienced person, but it's screwing over the inexperienced person by taking away their only advantage in the job market (costing companies less money).
The person applying for the job walks in with their eyes wide open. I even posted the pay range in the job description. I love how you assume I should protect people from themselves.
As someone who has a few years experience after graduating college, getting laid off due to budget cuts, and recently finding a new job, I can say that the hiring managers like you are horribly taking advantage of the bad economy
Please rent a clue.
Actually, you DON'T know that. He sent you a resume that said "I had a job for 12 years" - nothing in that proves that he's smarter, more capable, or a harder worker than those college grads with no experience.
I ran the interviews. That is part of what you find out. No, you don't just look at a resume and presume what iy says is accurate. You probe to find out what you need to know.
I'm not against capitalism - I'm all for it. However, nothing about capitalism says that you have to be an asshole and take advantage of people who are down on their luck due to a crappy economy. I'm sure you'd look at it differently if you were the one getting turned down for an entry level job because you didn't have 5+ years experience or if you could only get a job paying 1/3 of what you had been making.
If you have someone with more experience why in the hell WOULDN'T you hire him? If I do, then I would have someone else bitching about me not hiring people because they are overqualified.
Frankly as clueless as you are, I can see why you didn't survive the budget cut.
Well, if he was only looking for a paycheck, he did a good job BSing me :)
Follow up with me in six months and we will see how things went!
Right now is a really hard time to try to get your foot in the door. As a manager, I posted for an entry level position and ended up with a ton of candidates with a strong background. I don't believe in the whole "overqualified" paradigm, so I ended up getting the best candidate -- over twelve years of experience pertinent to my business, glowing reviews from previous employers and excellent interpersonal skills.
I got a ton of resumes from college students. Several sounded promising, and I would have loved to give them a chance. But when I have someone with a proven track record who I KNOW will not require only minimal supervision and will bring more to the table... why should I waste my time and money?
Is it fair? Maybe not. When I was in this position almost 15 years ago it sucked. But with 10%+ unemployment it is very hard for the entry level candidate to get his foot in the door.
My solution.... if you are still in school... get a fricking internship. It may not put you at the same level as those I did end up interviewing... but it will help/
If you have a couple hundred people running business apps, it ain't all that difficult. Generally you will get spikes of CPU utilization that last a few seconds mashed between many minutes, or even hours of very low CPU utilization. A powerful server can handle dozens or even hundreds of virtual desktops in this type of environment.
Data deduplication is huge in virtualized environments. Four virtual servers with identical OS's running on one host server? Deduplicate the data and save a lot of space.
This is even bigger in the virutulized desktop envirornment where you could literally have hundreds of PCs virtualized on the same physical box.
If you are going AFK to use Typing Tutor, we may have discovered your problem....
Crap. Let me rephrase:
"with virtually any chat room software? I don't see the need for special equipment.
If it is just speed an rythm, wouldn't you be able to tell this in virtually any chat room?
No, I didn't RTFA. There may be nuances to this left out of the summary.
I am sure this is foolproof! Sign me up!
Ah, yes...I was waiting for someone to bring up the "spin-off" technology argument.
Despite your tone, I will ask this civilly.
1) Do you really think that money had to be spent going to the moon to get this spin off technology?
2) Could research funds be better directed to areas that would provide a bigger and more focused benefit? I'd MUCH rather see 3% of GDP going to solar research than trying to put someone on Mars.
3) How much of the spinoff technology would have been there even if we didn't have the highly expensive space program?
These are the questions you must answer if you want to make the case for a space program "paying for itself" through spinoff technology. Most of the time the numbers are smoke and mirrors.
Yet you then quote the VERY reason goverments, yes pluaral, would drive to be there. The us doesn't want the communists there first. The chinese don't want anyone else there first, ..ect ad naseum.
So "to control ones' neighbors seems like a dam good reason to me.
You have a valid point. I wish you were logged in so you'd be more likely to see my response :)
Anyhow, as you say, we don't want the "Commies" up there controlling space, and they don't want to see the "U.S. Imperialists" up there. This is true. Does this translate into manned flight? Space stations? Colonization?
I tend to think not. The best I can see coming out of the latest space race is MAYBE slightly lowered cost of launches, miniturization, improved optics, better weapons... but I don't see manned flight being part of the equation.
But you are right... external threat is what motivates governments... not a nebulous payback that could be better spent reqarding constituents who grease your palms.
Please cite a source for the Louisiana Purchase costing 3% of GDP.
And getting back to the original point: This purchase was a way to get more resources to exploit (as well as control ones neighbors... we didn't want the Spanish there). Going to space gets us nothing as far as resources to exploit.
So, whole point to the thread.... governments tend to have very short attention spans for projects that do not have an economic benefit. If we can find a way to make money by visiting space, we will find that we visit more frequently, less expensively and most importantly this will be a sustained industry.
Are you arguing AGAINST that point?
We landed on the moon to show we had a bigger penis than the Commies. On a dollar spent basis we got virtually nothing out of it. More than we got out of Iraq for sure. But still a misguided spending of dollars.
Doubtful. The Louisianna purchase cost us around $15 Million, and a good part of that was cancelling French debt (so not a hard dollar expenditure). It doubled the size of our nation at that time. Considering out national debt at the time was around 90 Million, 15 million more was a drop in the bucket.
YouTube link.
Note that this exploration was really a way of finding more natural resources to exploit. It is doubtful that any space exploration will get us that in the next several decades.
Please see this post for the answer.
Nonsense. The problem with the space race is that it was unsustainable. There was no way any nation would maintain that kind of spending for an extended period of time. We were spedning around three percent of GDP... for something with intangible payback.
Now, we have the chance at sustainable flights into space. If this actually succeeds, and we have many flights going up every month... and if we actually get more than one company in this game... we will see gradual improvements. Instead of being a money pit, it will be a money generator. And that is where real progress is at.
For an extra $50k, I am sure they would be willing to push you out into open space.
Who wants to start the collection?
... this kind of stuff give me REAL wood.
1) The numbers are all over the place because there are different types of tests. Depending on the quality of the test you could easily get to billions to one against a duplicate match.
2) The birthday paradox has NOTHING to do with this. You are selecting one set of DNA and seeing if someone else matches. You are not picking the full population to see how many have the identical signature