She shouldn't be hiring managers who would fault someone for initiating negotiations. I, for example, begin to have second doubts about anyone who doesn't do so. What are the odds that I would start with the exact highest amount I was willing to pay? I certainly want employees (engineers in particular) who use logic and probability in their reasoning and recognize that.
I also want employees that are good enough to have other options. First, it helps confirm that they may be good employees. Second, they tend not to hang around and become deadwood that I have to deal with when they are unhappy, instead they move on which benefits everyone if their desired growth path and what the company has to offer eventually don't intersect.
Once I've made an offer, I expect the candidate to figure out that there's nothing to lose by negotiating -- the worst I can say is "I'm sorry, that's the best I can do". It's extremely rare for an offer to be withdrawn because of a reasonable and ethical attempt at negotiation.
Indeed, sometimes my hands are tied by pay ranges -- but if the candidate brings a specific offer they got from another company and negotiates, I can sometimes bend these or at least get creative with a hiring bonus. Without such an offer, I can't justify it - esp. if their current pay is low for some reason.
(Although, I've never responded to counteroffers from current employers and usually tell the candidate something like "Well, it's good to hear you're happy where you are and that you were just unhappy with your salary which has now been rectified. I wish you the best of luck". I don't actually withdraw the offer, but I hope they reject it and I certainly won't negotiate any further. I like employees which are decisive and stand up for themselves and those who play games like that are likely weak on both points.)
Is this because woman are unable to negotiate as hard? Because they are unwilling to? Because they are too stupid to? What is her explanation? Is it hormonal? Does it have to do with having different body mass distribution? Inquiring minds want to know.
If it's to their advantage to negotiate hard and men and women are indistinguishable professionally, women obviously are just as able to negotiate hard (and, given negotiations I've been in, I have no reason to doubt they are not just as capable at this art).
Pao is really insulting women by saying this.
This really opens a Pandora's box. If she thinks women, by virtue of being female, are not as good at this important aspect of professional life, one wonders what other parts of their professional lives women are not as good at. She should give us a complete list - who knows what might be on it.
I wonder what would happen if she ran a purchasing organization or a sales organization. Usually the willingness and capability to negotiate effectively (and, therefore, hard) are basic job requirements for these positions. Would she refuse to hire women because, as she has stated, they are not as good at negotiating hard (ouch, there's a sexual discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen)? Would she refuse to negotiate salary and lose the very people who would negotiate effectively on behalf of her company? In reality, negotiation is always a part of almost any senior job -- you have to negotiate for headcount, resources, approval for projects, even convincing a customer that they don't need something is "negotiating".
Perhaps she has realized that she (the individual, not the gender) is not good at negotiating and this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging this reality.
Perhaps she doesn't realize that no party to a successful negotiation goes away unhappy - does she lack confidence in herself and her own staff being able to negotiate successfully?
If Reddit has a candidate they really want and offers them $180K and they get an offer from another company for $200K (assuming similar fringe benefits and option valuations), how is it good for the company to walk away from the candidate instead of negotiate? Both $180K and $200K may be "fair" offers. Just because her company didn't happen to guess precisely what the FMV was for the person will she really stubbornly refuse to negotiate and start over from ground zero in trying to fill the position (which will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars in staff time and more tens of thousands of dollars in delay in filling the opening)?
I also assume that if the board offers, unwisely, to keep her on as permanent CEO and she wants a better offer than they gave her, she will understand when she when the board says "sorry, we don't negotiate and since you don't appear happy with our offer and we want a CEO who is happy with their situation, we retract the offer -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".
If the prosecutor was absolutely sure they could get convictions on enough counts to insure that the defendant would get life w/o ever being released, they would have little motivation to make such a deal.
One reason to make a deal would be to save money on the initial trial and appeals. However, this would be balanced against arguments for seeking the death penalty. These arguments might include a higher deterrent value of a death sentence, better closure for victims and their families (esp. if some of them expressed a desire for the death sentence), and political motivations for prosecutor (or, really, their bosses) to be "tough on crime and terrorism". In the grand scheme of Federal prosecutions, the cost of the trial and appeals is loose change.
Doing it this way pretty much removes it as an issue in the next Presidential election. If the death penalty had not been sought, it could only create problems for the Democrat candidate who would have to support that decision (losing some mushy middle voters) or distance themselves from it (losing some enthusiasm from the liberal wing of the party). Easier to do it this way.
You might want to read up on Judy Clark, his attorney. She isn't some schmuck - indeed, she has represented some of the highest profile death penalty eligible cases in the country over the past twenty years.
If the evidence is overwhelming, as it was in this case, it is NOT a good defense to "throw BS" at the jury - the prosecution will simply tear up your defense and leave the jury with a very bad impression of your client.
The "bad impression" part is important when the penalty phase, decided by the same jury, comes up. Ms. Clark was preparing for the penalty phase, hoping to make the jury sympathetic to her client so they would just sentence him to life in prison rather than the death penalty. She, quite correctly, understood a conviction was impossible to avoid on most charges because the evidence shows her client is guilty beyond all rational doubt -- well beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard. Ms. Clark, effectively, used the guilt/innocence phase of the trial to start her argument in the penalty phase.
"having at least a STEM education" means little as the bar is so low to get such a degree. There are no national standards/licensing of graduates. Those of mediocre skills and/or limited enthusiasm are a drag, not a help, to a development environment. I suspect almost everyone reading this who has worked in software development would be/has been completely frustrated when having to work on a development project with two other people who both are from the "bottom third" of the skill level among people who have managed to acquire a Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Software Engineering, or similar BSc from some four year school somewhere.
Over my career, I have reviewed the resumes of thousands of applicants, phone screened hundreds of applicants, and interviewed hundreds more (those that passed my phone screen and those that other groups brought in for an interview cycle). Probably over 98 percent of these applicants had at least a BSc in a directly related technical area. Of all of these, I have recommended making or have made offers to probably around 100 - the rest just were not worth it (even if they would work for free). The vast majority of these applicants were simply unqualified in spite of their degree (even from decent schools).
I wouldn't trade any of those that I didn't make an offer to for almost any of the H1Bs that I have worked with and in some cases gone to significant expense and effort to hire. I've never paid an employee on an H1B less than I paid similarly skilled/experienced developers that didn't require an H1B. However, it cost me a lot more time, and the company more money, to acquire and sponsor the H1Bs but when I need good developers (which includes not being a self-entitled prick who expects an award for "showing up"), it's the only feasible route sometimes.
Abuse of the H1B system should be squashed, but highly qualified workers should be encouraged to join the workforce in the US and hopefully become full time citizens and raise kids in an environment that values education and achievement. These families can help serve a role models for other families who may be open to the idea of education but not really strong believers in it.
One possible part of a solution to clean the system up would be to charge a substantial tax on employers for each H1B they employee to make sure it's not cheaper to hire an H1B. Another option would be to auction off the H1B slots -- highest bidding employer gets them and the proceeds go to the US Government and, if the auction price is higher than some amount, run another round with more H1Bs. Perhaps each auctioned slot would be a three year license for one full time H1B employee and these licenses could be transferred on the open market (so a company who over estimated their needs could potentially recoup some of their expenses). All the other (weak) "requirements" for H1Bs could remain in place.
Of course, it would be ideal to reshape the culture in the US by promoting and rewarding education (even to the point of charging parents with child abuse and taking their children away to safer environments if they don't encourage the education of their children just as we do if they don't feed their children or if they lock them in a closet w/o sanitary facilities for weeks on end). However, the effects of even a Herculean effort along those lines wouldn't be visible in the workplace for at least fifteen years (if a child has made it to fifth grade and still doesn't understand basic math, there's little hope they will ever catch up -- the brain's plasticity declines over time and they are already behind) and substantial effects would probably take a couple generations to be very significant -- until then, we should selfishly import as many highly qualified workers for productive jobs as we can (and let the "source" countries worry about "brain drain").
I think we are seeing the stage being set for a similar situation with drones.
If the FAA rules allow private drones to fly at low altitudes over private property without consent of the person controlling the property and the legislators don't pass laws restricting this (the FAA doesn't make rules about privacy - safety is their charter), the expectation of privacy will be reduced as more and more private citizens fly drones at the lower altitudes. Then, police will be free to do so as well and peer into your skylight without a warrant (just as they can look in your windows from the street without a warrant).
(Of course, they can probably do everything they need to do with a helicopter from a higher altitude and a good camera/lens anyway.)
Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.
By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.
Sorry, I was really responding to your office with a door observation. It's incredibly important and directly related to work. I'd trade all the 'non-work' perks, except salary, for that. I don't mind the non-work stuff, but not at the expense of work stuff or salary.
Amen. Pay me well. Give me an office with a door so I can concentrate on the details of whatever I'm going to foist on our customers (who, in the end, pay me). Provide up-to-date technology tools. Cut out bureaucracy.
Skip the ping-pong table and the pinball machine. If practical, have a credible onsite cafeteria as a timesaver, but no need to make it free.
Seems that if they can push a 2 Gigs for a few hundred dollars, I could get at least get 50Mbit for what I'm paying now.
The ISP's cost of delivering service includes network upgrades, network maintenance, customer service, and bandwidth costs (plus others such as marketing and G&A costs).
The network upgrades are generally not "per customer" but "per area" so if you have the higher speed available, the ISP has already paid the costs of the network upgrades and you just are not yet buying that service but they are hoping you will. You, of course, are using that upgraded network (perhaps resulting in better latency and reliability even though you don't buy additional speed). If the ISP makes the lower tiers cheaper, less people will switch to the higher tiers. Human nature is to be resist large price jumps and accept small ones -- for example, someone who is paying $80 for 150MBPS is probably more likely to jump to paying $120 for 1GBPS service as "it's only 50% more cost" while someone who was paying $30 for 40MBPS service would experience 400% increase in cost to move to $1GBPS and that's an enormous jump. Until they start losing customers to some competitor who is offering 40MBPS for $30, they have little motivation to offer that deal.
Customer service costs are probably about the same for 5MBPS customers as 2GBPS customers -- both complain vocally when their service is down and both require a truck roll to fix a lot of problems.
Bandwidth costs, of course, are probably higher for customers with high bandwidth service, but that isn't probably the main cost to the ISP.
Of course users SHOULD care but most don't or at least don't have the time/inclination to learn.
Why should they care? They should expect the web site provider to Do The Right Thing just as they don't think they should need to be concerned if the process used to grow the material used in the turbine blades of the jet engine on the plane they are flying on was correctly monitored.
"Some" was the key word - first word in the first sentence.
Agreed though, a lot of small businesses don't seem to care (or perhaps know to care) -- and for those, it's may actually be safer because if they are so unaware of security risks that the cloud doesn't give them some cause for concern, they probably would fail miserably at managing their in-house systems securely and reliably.
In general, another factor in the equation is what tax revenue would have been generated on the land consumed by the DC if the DC hadn't been built. In an area where land is plentiful, the land might be (under)utilized for the next five years by something that would generate less net tax revenue.
Some businesses are not comfortable putting their documents in the hands of another party due to security concerns. Some also are hesitant to rely on a service that may go away with relatively short notice.
Google Docs would require additional training as well if they are already using Word/Excel and legacy documents would need to be maintained somewhere.
Google Docs does not import a lot of Word and Excel documents adequately. I've rarely had it import a Word document with sufficient fidelity that I didn't find it necessary to at least touch it up. With Excel documents, I almost always have to do a lot more than "touch up" work to make it whole again. Therefore, it's likely switching to Google Docs would require a lot of effort if some of these documents are "living" documents that change from time to time.
To be fair, you do probably have to disconnect the wiring from the flooded generators as you don't want the electricity from the temporary generators shorting to ground through the flooded generators. And, you do need to connect the temporary generators somehow and, if that contingency was not considered in the existing wiring, you probably need to do some "rewiring".
So, some rewiring may consist of bolt cutters while some may consist of clamping existing cables to the cables of the temporary generators. Neither should be a big deal for on-site electricians though.
Of course, if the United States has nine or more nuclear power plants, nine of them will be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" -- even if those plants have a exemplary record and exceed every safety requirement. If the United States had exactly nine nuclear power plants, each of them would be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" AND "among nine of the bestperforming nuclear plants"
It might hurt Intel though because they would end up hiring less qualified people OR end up extra unqualified people to fill quota. If Intel hires less qualified people, it makes it harder for Intel to win and easier for others in the industry to win. If Intel just hires extra people who are 'diverse', but less qualified, these people will cost Intel money in salary, benefits, and other employee costs without sufficient return and Intel will need to figure out a way to keep them from distracting and/or interfering with the more qualified employees (perhaps Intel could open an entire campus for 'diversity hires' and isolate them to prevent this though).
Obviously I didn't see last night's talking heads examples.
However, too often in the past when I went back and found the complete interview or presentation from which Jon Stewart had extracted his talking heads segments, his editing had taken something way out of context to match his meme of the day. Sometimes, of course, they were funny, but the presentation certainly wasn't the work of a "newsman".
Some of my acquaintances seem to watch Fox news and believe it is balanced and accurate, some seem to watch The Daily Show and believe it is balanced and accurate, some listen to NPR/watch PBS news shows and believe they are balanced and accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
She shouldn't be hiring managers who would fault someone for initiating negotiations. I, for example, begin to have second doubts about anyone who doesn't do so. What are the odds that I would start with the exact highest amount I was willing to pay? I certainly want employees (engineers in particular) who use logic and probability in their reasoning and recognize that.
I also want employees that are good enough to have other options. First, it helps confirm that they may be good employees. Second, they tend not to hang around and become deadwood that I have to deal with when they are unhappy, instead they move on which benefits everyone if their desired growth path and what the company has to offer eventually don't intersect.
Once I've made an offer, I expect the candidate to figure out that there's nothing to lose by negotiating -- the worst I can say is "I'm sorry, that's the best I can do". It's extremely rare for an offer to be withdrawn because of a reasonable and ethical attempt at negotiation.
Indeed, sometimes my hands are tied by pay ranges -- but if the candidate brings a specific offer they got from another company and negotiates, I can sometimes bend these or at least get creative with a hiring bonus. Without such an offer, I can't justify it - esp. if their current pay is low for some reason.
(Although, I've never responded to counteroffers from current employers and usually tell the candidate something like "Well, it's good to hear you're happy where you are and that you were just unhappy with your salary which has now been rectified. I wish you the best of luck". I don't actually withdraw the offer, but I hope they reject it and I certainly won't negotiate any further. I like employees which are decisive and stand up for themselves and those who play games like that are likely weak on both points.)
Yes, but then the women she hires will sue when they don't make partner (or VP or whatever).
Is this because woman are unable to negotiate as hard? Because they are unwilling to? Because they are too stupid to? What is her explanation? Is it hormonal? Does it have to do with having different body mass distribution? Inquiring minds want to know.
If it's to their advantage to negotiate hard and men and women are indistinguishable professionally, women obviously are just as able to negotiate hard (and, given negotiations I've been in, I have no reason to doubt they are not just as capable at this art).
Pao is really insulting women by saying this.
This really opens a Pandora's box. If she thinks women, by virtue of being female, are not as good at this important aspect of professional life, one wonders what other parts of their professional lives women are not as good at. She should give us a complete list - who knows what might be on it.
I wonder what would happen if she ran a purchasing organization or a sales organization. Usually the willingness and capability to negotiate effectively (and, therefore, hard) are basic job requirements for these positions. Would she refuse to hire women because, as she has stated, they are not as good at negotiating hard (ouch, there's a sexual discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen)? Would she refuse to negotiate salary and lose the very people who would negotiate effectively on behalf of her company? In reality, negotiation is always a part of almost any senior job -- you have to negotiate for headcount, resources, approval for projects, even convincing a customer that they don't need something is "negotiating".
Perhaps she has realized that she (the individual, not the gender) is not good at negotiating and this is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging this reality.
Perhaps she doesn't realize that no party to a successful negotiation goes away unhappy - does she lack confidence in herself and her own staff being able to negotiate successfully?
If Reddit has a candidate they really want and offers them $180K and they get an offer from another company for $200K (assuming similar fringe benefits and option valuations), how is it good for the company to walk away from the candidate instead of negotiate? Both $180K and $200K may be "fair" offers. Just because her company didn't happen to guess precisely what the FMV was for the person will she really stubbornly refuse to negotiate and start over from ground zero in trying to fill the position (which will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars in staff time and more tens of thousands of dollars in delay in filling the opening)?
I also assume that if the board offers, unwisely, to keep her on as permanent CEO and she wants a better offer than they gave her, she will understand when she when the board says "sorry, we don't negotiate and since you don't appear happy with our offer and we want a CEO who is happy with their situation, we retract the offer -- don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".
The prosecutor likely refused to make a deal.
If the prosecutor was absolutely sure they could get convictions on enough counts to insure that the defendant would get life w/o ever being released, they would have little motivation to make such a deal.
One reason to make a deal would be to save money on the initial trial and appeals. However, this would be balanced against arguments for seeking the death penalty. These arguments might include a higher deterrent value of a death sentence, better closure for victims and their families (esp. if some of them expressed a desire for the death sentence), and political motivations for prosecutor (or, really, their bosses) to be "tough on crime and terrorism". In the grand scheme of Federal prosecutions, the cost of the trial and appeals is loose change.
Doing it this way pretty much removes it as an issue in the next Presidential election. If the death penalty had not been sought, it could only create problems for the Democrat candidate who would have to support that decision (losing some mushy middle voters) or distance themselves from it (losing some enthusiasm from the liberal wing of the party). Easier to do it this way.
You might want to read up on Judy Clark, his attorney. She isn't some schmuck - indeed, she has represented some of the highest profile death penalty eligible cases in the country over the past twenty years.
If the evidence is overwhelming, as it was in this case, it is NOT a good defense to "throw BS" at the jury - the prosecution will simply tear up your defense and leave the jury with a very bad impression of your client.
The "bad impression" part is important when the penalty phase, decided by the same jury, comes up. Ms. Clark was preparing for the penalty phase, hoping to make the jury sympathetic to her client so they would just sentence him to life in prison rather than the death penalty. She, quite correctly, understood a conviction was impossible to avoid on most charges because the evidence shows her client is guilty beyond all rational doubt -- well beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard. Ms. Clark, effectively, used the guilt/innocence phase of the trial to start her argument in the penalty phase.
"having at least a STEM education" means little as the bar is so low to get such a degree. There are no national standards/licensing of graduates. Those of mediocre skills and/or limited enthusiasm are a drag, not a help, to a development environment. I suspect almost everyone reading this who has worked in software development would be/has been completely frustrated when having to work on a development project with two other people who both are from the "bottom third" of the skill level among people who have managed to acquire a Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Software Engineering, or similar BSc from some four year school somewhere.
Over my career, I have reviewed the resumes of thousands of applicants, phone screened hundreds of applicants, and interviewed hundreds more (those that passed my phone screen and those that other groups brought in for an interview cycle). Probably over 98 percent of these applicants had at least a BSc in a directly related technical area. Of all of these, I have recommended making or have made offers to probably around 100 - the rest just were not worth it (even if they would work for free). The vast majority of these applicants were simply unqualified in spite of their degree (even from decent schools).
I wouldn't trade any of those that I didn't make an offer to for almost any of the H1Bs that I have worked with and in some cases gone to significant expense and effort to hire. I've never paid an employee on an H1B less than I paid similarly skilled/experienced developers that didn't require an H1B. However, it cost me a lot more time, and the company more money, to acquire and sponsor the H1Bs but when I need good developers (which includes not being a self-entitled prick who expects an award for "showing up"), it's the only feasible route sometimes.
Abuse of the H1B system should be squashed, but highly qualified workers should be encouraged to join the workforce in the US and hopefully become full time citizens and raise kids in an environment that values education and achievement. These families can help serve a role models for other families who may be open to the idea of education but not really strong believers in it.
One possible part of a solution to clean the system up would be to charge a substantial tax on employers for each H1B they employee to make sure it's not cheaper to hire an H1B. Another option would be to auction off the H1B slots -- highest bidding employer gets them and the proceeds go to the US Government and, if the auction price is higher than some amount, run another round with more H1Bs. Perhaps each auctioned slot would be a three year license for one full time H1B employee and these licenses could be transferred on the open market (so a company who over estimated their needs could potentially recoup some of their expenses). All the other (weak) "requirements" for H1Bs could remain in place.
Of course, it would be ideal to reshape the culture in the US by promoting and rewarding education (even to the point of charging parents with child abuse and taking their children away to safer environments if they don't encourage the education of their children just as we do if they don't feed their children or if they lock them in a closet w/o sanitary facilities for weeks on end). However, the effects of even a Herculean effort along those lines wouldn't be visible in the workplace for at least fifteen years (if a child has made it to fifth grade and still doesn't understand basic math, there's little hope they will ever catch up -- the brain's plasticity declines over time and they are already behind) and substantial effects would probably take a couple generations to be very significant -- until then, we should selfishly import as many highly qualified workers for productive jobs as we can (and let the "source" countries worry about "brain drain").
When building walls inside your garage is outlawed, only outlaws will...
I think we are seeing the stage being set for a similar situation with drones.
If the FAA rules allow private drones to fly at low altitudes over private property without consent of the person controlling the property and the legislators don't pass laws restricting this (the FAA doesn't make rules about privacy - safety is their charter), the expectation of privacy will be reduced as more and more private citizens fly drones at the lower altitudes. Then, police will be free to do so as well and peer into your skylight without a warrant (just as they can look in your windows from the street without a warrant).
(Of course, they can probably do everything they need to do with a helicopter from a higher altitude and a good camera/lens anyway.)
In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES , the Supreme Court held in 2001 that:
in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.
By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.
In the state I live in, it's sufficient to hand them to the person but if they don't take them, to just drop them on the ground at their feet.
Sorry, I was really responding to your office with a door observation. It's incredibly important and directly related to work. I'd trade all the 'non-work' perks, except salary, for that. I don't mind the non-work stuff, but not at the expense of work stuff or salary.
Amen. Pay me well. Give me an office with a door so I can concentrate on the details of whatever I'm going to foist on our customers (who, in the end, pay me). Provide up-to-date technology tools. Cut out bureaucracy.
Skip the ping-pong table and the pinball machine. If practical, have a credible onsite cafeteria as a timesaver, but no need to make it free.
The ISP's cost of delivering service includes network upgrades, network maintenance, customer service, and bandwidth costs (plus others such as marketing and G&A costs).
The network upgrades are generally not "per customer" but "per area" so if you have the higher speed available, the ISP has already paid the costs of the network upgrades and you just are not yet buying that service but they are hoping you will. You, of course, are using that upgraded network (perhaps resulting in better latency and reliability even though you don't buy additional speed). If the ISP makes the lower tiers cheaper, less people will switch to the higher tiers. Human nature is to be resist large price jumps and accept small ones -- for example, someone who is paying $80 for 150MBPS is probably more likely to jump to paying $120 for 1GBPS service as "it's only 50% more cost" while someone who was paying $30 for 40MBPS service would experience 400% increase in cost to move to $1GBPS and that's an enormous jump. Until they start losing customers to some competitor who is offering 40MBPS for $30, they have little motivation to offer that deal.
Customer service costs are probably about the same for 5MBPS customers as 2GBPS customers -- both complain vocally when their service is down and both require a truck roll to fix a lot of problems.
Bandwidth costs, of course, are probably higher for customers with high bandwidth service, but that isn't probably the main cost to the ISP.
Why should they care? They should expect the web site provider to Do The Right Thing just as they don't think they should need to be concerned if the process used to grow the material used in the turbine blades of the jet engine on the plane they are flying on was correctly monitored.
"Some" was the key word - first word in the first sentence.
Agreed though, a lot of small businesses don't seem to care (or perhaps know to care) -- and for those, it's may actually be safer because if they are so unaware of security risks that the cloud doesn't give them some cause for concern, they probably would fail miserably at managing their in-house systems securely and reliably.
In general, another factor in the equation is what tax revenue would have been generated on the land consumed by the DC if the DC hadn't been built. In an area where land is plentiful, the land might be (under)utilized for the next five years by something that would generate less net tax revenue.
Some businesses are not comfortable putting their documents in the hands of another party due to security concerns. Some also are hesitant to rely on a service that may go away with relatively short notice.
Google Docs would require additional training as well if they are already using Word/Excel and legacy documents would need to be maintained somewhere.
Google Docs does not import a lot of Word and Excel documents adequately. I've rarely had it import a Word document with sufficient fidelity that I didn't find it necessary to at least touch it up. With Excel documents, I almost always have to do a lot more than "touch up" work to make it whole again. Therefore, it's likely switching to Google Docs would require a lot of effort if some of these documents are "living" documents that change from time to time.
To be fair, you do probably have to disconnect the wiring from the flooded generators as you don't want the electricity from the temporary generators shorting to ground through the flooded generators. And, you do need to connect the temporary generators somehow and, if that contingency was not considered in the existing wiring, you probably need to do some "rewiring".
So, some rewiring may consist of bolt cutters while some may consist of clamping existing cables to the cables of the temporary generators. Neither should be a big deal for on-site electricians though.
Of course, if the United States has nine or more nuclear power plants, nine of them will be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" -- even if those plants have a exemplary record and exceed every safety requirement. If the United States had exactly nine nuclear power plants, each of them would be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" AND "among nine of the best performing nuclear plants"
It might not hurt the industry much.
It might hurt Intel though because they would end up hiring less qualified people OR end up extra unqualified people to fill quota. If Intel hires less qualified people, it makes it harder for Intel to win and easier for others in the industry to win. If Intel just hires extra people who are 'diverse', but less qualified, these people will cost Intel money in salary, benefits, and other employee costs without sufficient return and Intel will need to figure out a way to keep them from distracting and/or interfering with the more qualified employees (perhaps Intel could open an entire campus for 'diversity hires' and isolate them to prevent this though).
"less white" might be correct -- maybe AC meant that darker complexioned, i.e. "less white", males should/would be hired.
To clarify - some of my friends and some of my acquaintances appear to watch Fox news at last sometimes.
Obviously I didn't see last night's talking heads examples.
However, too often in the past when I went back and found the complete interview or presentation from which Jon Stewart had extracted his talking heads segments, his editing had taken something way out of context to match his meme of the day. Sometimes, of course, they were funny, but the presentation certainly wasn't the work of a "newsman".
Indeed. And anyone considering performers on either to be "newsmen" are, IMHO, seriously misguided.
Where did I say all? And where did I say friends?
Some of my acquaintances seem to watch Fox news and believe it is balanced and accurate, some seem to watch The Daily Show and believe it is balanced and accurate, some listen to NPR/watch PBS news shows and believe they are balanced and accurate.