I applied for several a few years ago when I was a junior in college.
Many payed 10-12$ an hour doing crap work. Others payed the better part of $20 and were still crap work. Really depends on the company and the level of student they expect to get in.
I was 2.5 years in my college degree when I applied at a computer shop as an intern, this was in 2007. They offered me $4 an hour, UNDER THE TABLE. I laughed, grabbed my resume back out of the bosses hands and walked out. That was half of what minimum wage was.
That's because internships are similar to slave labor. Yes, you may gain experience or at the very least can list job experience on your resume, but the reality is that company A or University B is really paying on the cheap. If you don't think your time is more valuable, no one else will either. Even for an internship or starting position.
Even if it isn't man made, continued rising global temperatures will eventually trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is catastrophic to our survival as a species and we need to do something to stop it or come up with alternatives for our survival.
Due to Man's skills and adaptation capabilities, Man will more likely survive many rapid and violent changes Earth throws our way. However, it would just as likely be in the same context or numbers as there are today. Unless it is a global killer asteroid, some of Man will survive somewhere. There are quite enough of us to play those odds in Mans survival.
Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.
I say to start with population control globally as one primary objective. Tough problem to tackle in many countries. In many modern countries there is no reason for folks to have more then two kids. Yet population control always seems to be publicized as an issue in nations that are currently battling for their own resources (China and India come to mind first) when it should be an issue for all Nations.
Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.
I don't think there is just one root cause to the changes we are seeing. Yes, population at a high level will use more resources and should there be a drop of say 3 billion people due to some rouge virus or asteroid, then conservation would go out the window. But then there would be other issues with reduction of population, some good, some not so good. What do you do with all the extra food animals running around? Let nature take it's course with them? The planet will warm if we want it to or not. If humans are at fault is not a big concern either. The real question with all of these changes (natural or otherwise) is how much the human species can adapt to these changes. That's the challenge. When humans decide that the sun is going to burn out, or the Earth's core is going cold, what then? Yes a question for future generations, but if they decide to leave this rock (if possible), are they going to take all the animals with them ala Noah? I don't think so. I say let nature take it's own course, it will adapt, with or without us.
Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow. This doesn't seem right. The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics."
All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.
That is because news does not inform, news generates profits now days. Having CNN/FOXNews/MSMBC/etc force feed people an opinion that is associated with a fact is irresponsible IMO.
I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand. I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week. My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare. The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up.
My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general. I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.
So you are saying that next winter, you will be researching the affects of friction on pack snow due to multiple passes of skis with your newly gained tenure? Good job!
I really don't know why this concept is so hard for people. My mother told me once when I was very young something very simple. "If you don't want someone to read it don't write it down." was what she said.
You know she was right. Its completely fool prof, nobody can find your not so well hidden diary, nobody can guess your cipher key that is weaker than you imagined, nobody can crack you later found to be flawed cipher, nobody can reproduce it in the clear accidentally or otherwise.
If its truly private it does not belong on the Network at all Facebook or anyplace else encrypted or not.
And don't forget about the best kept secret. It is the one that you keep totally to yourself. You think you have trust in another. Sure for a while, but change in relationships do happen and then the cat is out of the bag. Much like having personal info entrusted to a bank/hospital/company. What happens when that institution goes out of business? Where is your data now? Laws governing handling of that data are great, but really worthless once the personal data is compromised.
And yes, I too warn all folks about what they are really putting on social sites. Aside from the number of FB programmers out there ( 950k +/- ), I think it's funny how many of them use their pets/childs names or birth year as passwords to their on-line bank account.
Fact is that the SOIL is public. That means that the SOIL is YOURS. Now would you like to be charged for living into your house? I doubt it.
Ever heard of property/real estate tax?
Every year I do. Technically, you never truly 'own' property. You do own the rights to the property, but it's never "yours" as in say "I paid for some clothes and they are mine forever to do with what I wish." So to keep the rights, you have to pay a tax to the real property owner, the Government. Don't think so, skip out on your property taxes enough and the Government will take it. And don't forget about Eminent domain. (aka compulsory purchase in the UK).
Here's the thing I hate about sci-fi plots. Humans have the ability to fly half way across the galaxy, can engineer biological hybrids, can link those hybrids to a humans mind, but the simple act of reconnecting a spinal cord back together in order to cure paralysis is still beyond their reach?
I guess Health Care Reform didn't work in this sci-fi.
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.
I dunno. I mean the Government collects taxes and they better spend it. What a better way to spend it by giving it to small companies. And was there a mention of how long the contract was? Or how many folks are involved? I think there are more then just a couple of web developers pushing this product.
If she's so motivated to sue someone because "she doesn't get what she wants," why doesn't she use her business degree and start her own business. Find a niche and go with it. It will be more rewarding. The downside, based upon her attitude, is that the only person she could blame then is herself. Unless she sues the customers of the world for not buying her product/service.
...and we haven't been back since. Beyond the question of how long it would take a motivated civilization to expand throughout the galaxy, there's the question of "would they bother?". We don't seem to be bothering.
Well, humans are procrastinators. So even though it's known that a goal is to leave this rock since it will be gone someday, very little is being done to execute that task. Yes, there are many other issues going on now before leaving can be tackled in any form: i.e. getting along with one another, tech advancement, etc... However, that is not to say that another civilization doesn't have a more motivated mindset of 'go forth and conquer.' But then again, only in the last hundred years or so has our technology really started to advance at any kind of accelerated rate. It will probably be 10k or more years before humans can successfully traverse the solar system, let alone the milky way.
Gasoline? Internal combustion engines? They are terribly wasteful of both fuel, and energy. Even a very efficient gas burning engine pumps fuel out the tail pipe, which is the reason catalytic converters are required on vehicles in the US. If a laser can set off a more thorough, more efficient ignition, that burns ALL of the gasoline in the cylinder, fuel mileage will increase, for certain.
Modern gasoline engines already burn something like 95%+ of the fuel that is pumped in so there really isn't that much room for improvement. I suppose any improvement is better than none at all but don't expect any miracles. FWIW this is one of the reasons those gasoline additives that claim to improve efficiency are mostly BS, even if they did cause the fuel to burn 100% it would be hard to even measure the difference in mpg.
I would argue that burning all the fuel is not what makes it efficient or not. I would say energy return from an internal combustion engine isn't that high. According to the wiki:
"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[7][8] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios."
Yes, it has gotten much better. Now if there was a way to capture all of that heat and turn that into some useful energy, like say you have an internal combustion engine wrapped with coils to trap the heat which would turn a turbine to capture more energy, then there may be something there. But as an ROI for energy extraction, I still think that the internal combustion engine is not that efficient.
Most of your time IS worth nothing. But people are too arrogant to admit it.
My time is highly valuable. To me that is. I could care less if it's valuable to you or anyone else. I don't feel that is arrogance. If I don't value my own time, how can I appreciate/value other folks time? Or who would value my time if I don't value it myself first?
You mean people are dishonest and misleading? Next thing you'll tell me is that politicians lie.
Technically, it's part of the risk of writing OSS. You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat. If you feel that is the case and it bothers you, change the license and charge for the product. And when an OSS is used, I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that can't be solved by any existing product. When that comes into play, whatever code I needed to add/change, I submit it back to the OSS developer.
Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.
I really wonder why you would even think this. This is really based upon the person. I know tech folks in their 60's who I want working on the more complex tasks because of their experience and they are quick to learn the "new things" you speak of. Seeing a new problem always takes longer to solve then seeing it the second time around. Also, having a true grasp on how all things tie into one another only comes from years of working in tech. I want these folks who know as much as possible about the network, system, code, interfaces, etc.... All of it. Not some of it. All of it. Now that's a valuable problem solver.
Slashdot Mirror
Interships really vary in pay.
I applied for several a few years ago when I was a junior in college.
Many payed 10-12$ an hour doing crap work. Others payed the better part of $20 and were still crap work.
Really depends on the company and the level of student they expect to get in.
I was 2.5 years in my college degree when I applied at a computer shop as an intern, this was in 2007. They offered me $4 an hour, UNDER THE TABLE. I laughed, grabbed my resume back out of the bosses hands and walked out. That was half of what minimum wage was.
That's because internships are similar to slave labor. Yes, you may gain experience or at the very least can list job experience on your resume, but the reality is that company A or University B is really paying on the cheap. If you don't think your time is more valuable, no one else will either. Even for an internship or starting position.
Even if it isn't man made, continued rising global temperatures will eventually trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is catastrophic to our survival as a species and we need to do something to stop it or come up with alternatives for our survival.
Due to Man's skills and adaptation capabilities, Man will more likely survive many rapid and violent changes Earth throws our way. However, it would just as likely be in the same context or numbers as there are today. Unless it is a global killer asteroid, some of Man will survive somewhere. There are quite enough of us to play those odds in Mans survival.
Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.
I say to start with population control globally as one primary objective. Tough problem to tackle in many countries. In many modern countries there is no reason for folks to have more then two kids. Yet population control always seems to be publicized as an issue in nations that are currently battling for their own resources (China and India come to mind first) when it should be an issue for all Nations.
This all could have long grown out of war treaties from WWII perhaps?
Aquaculture still doesn't solve it. You still have to catch all the fish you need to feed the Tuna.
Humans should stop eating meat altogether, but if people can't manage that then at least stop eating top level carnivores.
So squirrel and nutria are back on the menu then? Yummy!
Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is ... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.
I don't think there is just one root cause to the changes we are seeing. Yes, population at a high level will use more resources and should there be a drop of say 3 billion people due to some rouge virus or asteroid, then conservation would go out the window. But then there would be other issues with reduction of population, some good, some not so good. What do you do with all the extra food animals running around? Let nature take it's course with them? The planet will warm if we want it to or not. If humans are at fault is not a big concern either. The real question with all of these changes (natural or otherwise) is how much the human species can adapt to these changes. That's the challenge. When humans decide that the sun is going to burn out, or the Earth's core is going cold, what then? Yes a question for future generations, but if they decide to leave this rock (if possible), are they going to take all the animals with them ala Noah? I don't think so. I say let nature take it's own course, it will adapt, with or without us.
Let's say its any other commentator, for example, Rachel Maddow. This doesn't seem right. The argument on here goes "Well, Glenn Beck uses the same tactics."
All the partisans on the 24 hour cable news networks use these tactics.
That is because news does not inform, news generates profits now days. Having CNN/FOXNews/MSMBC/etc force feed people an opinion that is associated with a fact is irresponsible IMO.
I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand. I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week. My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare. The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up.
My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general. I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.
So you are saying that next winter, you will be researching the affects of friction on pack snow due to multiple passes of skis with your newly gained tenure? Good job!
Give him a chance. He'll remove the DOD to a shell of it's former self soon enough.
She probably has a medical bracelet.
I really don't know why this concept is so hard for people. My mother told me once when I was very young something very simple. "If you don't want someone to read it don't write it down." was what she said.
You know she was right. Its completely fool prof, nobody can find your not so well hidden diary, nobody can guess your cipher key that is weaker than you imagined, nobody can crack you later found to be flawed cipher, nobody can reproduce it in the clear accidentally or otherwise.
If its truly private it does not belong on the Network at all Facebook or anyplace else encrypted or not.
And don't forget about the best kept secret. It is the one that you keep totally to yourself. You think you have trust in another. Sure for a while, but change in relationships do happen and then the cat is out of the bag. Much like having personal info entrusted to a bank/hospital/company. What happens when that institution goes out of business? Where is your data now? Laws governing handling of that data are great, but really worthless once the personal data is compromised.
And yes, I too warn all folks about what they are really putting on social sites. Aside from the number of FB programmers out there ( 950k +/- ), I think it's funny how many of them use their pets/childs names or birth year as passwords to their on-line bank account.
Fact is that the SOIL is public. That means that the SOIL is YOURS. Now would you like to be charged for living into your house? I doubt it.
Ever heard of property/real estate tax?
Every year I do. Technically, you never truly 'own' property. You do own the rights to the property, but it's never "yours" as in say "I paid for some clothes and they are mine forever to do with what I wish." So to keep the rights, you have to pay a tax to the real property owner, the Government. Don't think so, skip out on your property taxes enough and the Government will take it. And don't forget about Eminent domain. (aka compulsory purchase in the UK).
Here's the thing I hate about sci-fi plots. Humans have the ability to fly half way across the galaxy, can engineer biological hybrids, can link those hybrids to a humans mind, but the simple act of reconnecting a spinal cord back together in order to cure paralysis is still beyond their reach?
I guess Health Care Reform didn't work in this sci-fi.
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.
I dunno. I mean the Government collects taxes and they better spend it. What a better way to spend it by giving it to small companies. And was there a mention of how long the contract was? Or how many folks are involved? I think there are more then just a couple of web developers pushing this product.
If she's so motivated to sue someone because "she doesn't get what she wants," why doesn't she use her business degree and start her own business. Find a niche and go with it. It will be more rewarding. The downside, based upon her attitude, is that the only person she could blame then is herself. Unless she sues the customers of the world for not buying her product/service.
...and we haven't been back since. Beyond the question of how long it would take a motivated civilization to expand throughout the galaxy, there's the question of "would they bother?". We don't seem to be bothering.
Well, humans are procrastinators. So even though it's known that a goal is to leave this rock since it will be gone someday, very little is being done to execute that task. Yes, there are many other issues going on now before leaving can be tackled in any form: i.e. getting along with one another, tech advancement, etc... However, that is not to say that another civilization doesn't have a more motivated mindset of 'go forth and conquer.' But then again, only in the last hundred years or so has our technology really started to advance at any kind of accelerated rate. It will probably be 10k or more years before humans can successfully traverse the solar system, let alone the milky way.
Gasoline? Internal combustion engines? They are terribly wasteful of both fuel, and energy. Even a very efficient gas burning engine pumps fuel out the tail pipe, which is the reason catalytic converters are required on vehicles in the US. If a laser can set off a more thorough, more efficient ignition, that burns ALL of the gasoline in the cylinder, fuel mileage will increase, for certain.
Modern gasoline engines already burn something like 95%+ of the fuel that is pumped in so there really isn't that much room for improvement. I suppose any improvement is better than none at all but don't expect any miracles. FWIW this is one of the reasons those gasoline additives that claim to improve efficiency are mostly BS, even if they did cause the fuel to burn 100% it would be hard to even measure the difference in mpg.
I would argue that burning all the fuel is not what makes it efficient or not. I would say energy return from an internal combustion engine isn't that high. According to the wiki:
"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[7][8] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios."
Yes, it has gotten much better. Now if there was a way to capture all of that heat and turn that into some useful energy, like say you have an internal combustion engine wrapped with coils to trap the heat which would turn a turbine to capture more energy, then there may be something there. But as an ROI for energy extraction, I still think that the internal combustion engine is not that efficient.
Most of your time IS worth nothing. But people are too arrogant to admit it.
My time is highly valuable. To me that is. I could care less if it's valuable to you or anyone else. I don't feel that is arrogance. If I don't value my own time, how can I appreciate/value other folks time? Or who would value my time if I don't value it myself first?
You mean people are dishonest and misleading? Next thing you'll tell me is that politicians lie.
Technically, it's part of the risk of writing OSS. You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat. If you feel that is the case and it bothers you, change the license and charge for the product. And when an OSS is used, I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that can't be solved by any existing product. When that comes into play, whatever code I needed to add/change, I submit it back to the OSS developer.
Beside the large box containing the Arc of the Covenant.
I still dig the moon videos though. It is nice to see what Man can do when driven not by dollars, but by a quest. My how times have changed.
Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.
I really wonder why you would even think this. This is really based upon the person. I know tech folks in their 60's who I want working on the more complex tasks because of their experience and they are quick to learn the "new things" you speak of. Seeing a new problem always takes longer to solve then seeing it the second time around. Also, having a true grasp on how all things tie into one another only comes from years of working in tech. I want these folks who know as much as possible about the network, system, code, interfaces, etc.... All of it. Not some of it. All of it. Now that's a valuable problem solver.
Don't you mean to wrap a wet towel around your head?
Also, a more fuel efficient car would mean a lighter car and thus less harmful to the roadbed and bridges. It is proportional.
Lowest bidder always gets these results.
I dunno, I'm sure some of their resumes are stocked full of skills that some countries would be interested in.