Government coercion was effective enough to eliminate one or two dread diseases.
I'm not a big fan of government coercion as the solution to everything, but vaccinations are a public health issue where you are affecting more than yourself whenever you sneeze. That means your refusal to vaccinate your child or yourself might condemn people to death who currently have no choice to avoid interacting with you, and no idea if you're someone they should stay away from.
We could suggest that those against vaccines go live in a quarantined compound somewhere and not have to have vaccines, but that would seem to be counterproductive for everyone.
Past outbreaks of diseases currently vaccinated against have probably killed billions of children in the past. There was no home remedy or frontier method of survival. They either somehow fought off diseases like smallpox or measles and possibly were scarred for life, or they simply died. I am not certain what philosophical view, other than some sort of odd Darwinism, would make a return to that scenario attractive.
The crowd is skeptical because we're being told by everyone, including the researchers, that this should be scrutinized closely because while this might be entirely new science, that is a very high bar to jump over for a reason.
Humanity clearly doesn't know everything about physics, but we know enough that we've done some fairly amazing practical things with it. Recent scientists are not banging rocks together to get sparks, or even walking around poking radium in 19th Century dresses. That means we pretty much know where we think we need to look for new science, and until recently, this was not one of those places.
So yes, being skeptical is a good idea here, although dismissing it outright seems to be unwarranted at the moment.
Well it is certainly going to be a novel device, but whether it is merely a parlor trick based on a clever application of known principles or entirely new science, is up in the air.
The problem is that we now have devices that seem to do the thing the first one did, but we still don't know that the device truly works on the principle suggested. There could still be something making it *seem* like it works that way, but it was something else all along.
True, but of course, since the EM drive would not have that limitation, it would be able to theoretically attain those stupendous speeds because it will never need to worry about running out of reaction mass and would be able to accelerate for much longer.
Of course, I do think energy will be the limiting factor and will probably stop this from being an accelerate forever drive. Solar is fine and all, but is probably not going to recharge a ship on an interstellar trip enough to refill the batteries needed. You'll need a reactor and nuclear fuel to make a trip like that. Still much better than gigantic tanks of fuel, or massive amounts of solid fuel. Not to mention a lot less complex of a system.
So, it would be a big deal... if it's real. I have to admit, I didn't think it would get this far, but it's still a long way to go before this has a solid theory behind it, let alone becoming a fully operational device. I'm still hopeful but extremely skeptical.
True, but this means your source of energy can be very compact and efficient.
For instance, you can employ a nuclear reactor. Still somewhat heavy and complex, but a lot lighter, and much more efficient than having to carry your reaction mass with you just so you can shoot it out the back. If we got reactor design compact and advanced enough, it could actually be fairly simple to operate.
Previously, the only way to make use of nuclear power was to basically accelerate the ship by throwing nuclear bombs out the back. A reactor isn't as dramatic, and doesn't accelerate as drastically, but is significantly more efficient, and reusable (not to mention it isn't a proliferation risk).
That would make it possible for the ship to reach higher velocities as well, since the ship would have less mass, or alternately, be able to have more non-propulsion mass which would be handy in dealing with the other issues with long range spaceflight.
It's a good argument for ensuring you don't have half-assed vaccines, which is a legitimate concern.
It's the same problem as those people who are prescribed antibiotics and don't finish their full course: that's how you get antibiotic resistant bacteria. You half-assed the treatment, now the surviving bacteria are the individuals with adaptations that were best able to resist the antibiotic. Usually, the disease would progress where the antibiotic vulnerable bacteria would compete. With the help of the incompletely used antibiotic, there's now only resistant bacteria left to infect a new host.
This is not an anti-vaxxer argument, as those fools think that the vaccine causes problems unrelated to what it is supposed to be preventing (like autism), rather than this case being that the vaccine was simply too weaksauce to do the job right, so it made the problem worse by selecting out the bacteria more likely to succumb to the vaccine-adjusted immune system.
Trump is a populist and an agitator. Those sorts tend to only be "conservative" in the sense that tend to appeal to people who want to keep things the way they are, rather than deal with change.
Which is too bad because conservatives aren't required to like the status quo, although when they want to change it they are defined by being inclined toward graduated, thoughtful change.
I feel a conservative could very easily accept things like non-punitive immigration reform and more regulation of businesses, but they will always shy away from radical change which could do as much damage as simply having letting things go on the way they were. That's why many quite reasonable conservatives do not like the rhetoric of blaming classes of people for the country's problems and don't like the idea that we suddenly need to embrace underpaid illegal immigrant workers when we are facing unemployment of current citizens.
It is important to point out that there are times where radical changes end up working out all right. Liberal, progressive, or conservative does not mean "right" or "wrong". There are many times when you just have to do *something*, because nothing is worse than all possible other options.
However, I am extremely wary of people who preach "change" or revolution constantly, as if everything is a problem that can only be solved by figurative or literal bloodshed. Or people who agitate for anything *NOW*. Most solutions are better off considered as a consistently run, long term, and gradual program, and other changes may be better off not being made at all.
To my mind, the Trumps of the world are just the other side of the coin from the class warfare agitator. Both are applying a deep seated unease with a whole class of people to help them get to power. And Trump might be worse because he's pretty much in this for his own ego.
Seriously? She's making a promise with the implication that she's totally going to do it. There will be no qualifications or restatements during the campaign. Those will start on January 21st.
This isn't about trying, this is about the usual crap where candidates polish up some promises that sound really good to their constituency and make it sound like they have a real plan, when they don't.
I am pretty sure that Clinton actually has an idea what she really wants to do, and she may touch on some of it towards the end of her theoretical term in office. However, she'll mostly do what her party platform is pushing in the meantime. And that plan is both already well known, and won't be touted anywhere because it will be significantly more practical, and significantly less idealistic, than anything you'll hear during the campaign.
Ayn Rand at least, was forced to pay into that fund. Why should she surrender her money just because she opposes the program?
It is up for debate whether Ayn Rand could have taken the money that she'd have gotten back in her SS checks and have done better with investing that money or not. The thing is, she had no choice in the matter and it is always supposed to have been her money. It wasn't some sort of government largess, you know.
That's like saying that someone who opposed Communism that waited in a food line in the Soviet Union was hypocritical for taking food from the government while opposing it.
I suppose they have the option of starving themselves to death to make a point, but suicide isn't actually required for you to sincerely believe in something.
We're not okay with campaign spending. I don't think anyone is, but how else do you reach 300+ million people?
And the bigger and more involved the Federal government gets in everyone's daily life, the worse it is going to get. There are people out there who want the government to get even bigger and responsible for more things, yet oddly cannot understand why billions of dollars are pumped into Federal campaigns.
Tax breaks or subsidies for oil have nothing to do with enriching oil companies. They exist very simply to keep gas prices down so that the government doesn't get lynched when gas suddenly costs 12 dollars a gallon.
I agree that these industries should pay their own way, and they probably could, but allowing oil and gas to become more price volatile would be political suicide, for Democrats as much as for Republicans.
You won't see those subsidies go away until you have been able to get electric cars and possibly trucks on the road in force.
At this point, I'd steer well away from those subsidies if you want to raid something for more alternative power spending. You'll never get it except maybe under Bernie, and hopefully even Bernie isn't dumb enough to try that.
I couldn't care less what hours the people on my team do per week as long as they are around to help each other out and complete the tasks set for us. Generally, where I work, everyone checks their email at some point at night, so yelling at someone for leaving 30 minutes early is hardly something I am going to do. Besides, if you're going to be working for me, I prefer you not be panicking about having to pick your kids up from school when they missed the bus or some shit. Just pick them up and figure out how you'll catch up when they're tucked into bed or something.
I'm in IT, like many of you. In this world we communicate to executives the amount of time it takes for us to complete tasks and they schedule the roadmap based on that. Sometimes they ask us to prioritize or try to do a stretch goal, but don't think the managers aren't pushing back if that gets out of control. Bear in mind, though, competition is a bitch. If company X eats our lunch on features, we're dogmeat. And if we're dogmeat, people lose their jobs. Execs aren't actually driven by dollar signs, they have golden parachutes. They are personally driven to get shit done and win because that's their personality type. So, yeah, they get a little intense, but even they're not as insane as you think... usually.
Of course, when the tasks are set and the time is allocated, then we do have deadlines. Those are unavoidable. However, if we've done a good job estimating the work, you'll work as much as you feel you can, and the task will get done.
There are only two normal reasons I care about hours. I care about you being there for core hours so that you can interact with your team and anyone else in the company who needs your help. You can't spend all your time working with your Mtn Dew at midnight by yourself in your Mom's basement. You're being paid for your experience as a team player and you need to share.
The second reason is time off. Unfortunately, that is tracked in hours. Don't expect me to be a rigorous jerk about that. It is important that you aren't pulling one over on me, but if you work hard and do a good job, I don't fucking care if you took an extra hour here or there. Just don't falsify shit to the point that it can't be ignored.
And let's be clear. I don't pay badly, and sometimes I pay very, very well. This is IT, not McDonalds. The point is, sometimes people's hands get tied by circumstances, but none of my peers is motivated to grind you down. I'm sure those sorts of sadists exist, they may even be common, but sometimes I simply just can't give you any more.
Please negotiate, by all means, but there's always a ceiling that no one can go above, and that rises and falls based on the bottom line, not based on the merit of the applicant. And it is never personal or done with the purpose of cheating you. Sometimes they may complain when I ask for more for a candidate, but they have never thanked me for saving them money. So what is in it for me to cheat you? Absolutely nothing.
I don't recall ever enabling this feature and I've seen in in Chrome for awhile now. Perhaps I've forgotten doing it, but I rarely change the Chrome flags, and usually only for a very specific reason based on debugging or something.
True, although I should point out that to make a shot at about a mile away, you need to be very, very good at that anti-vehicle rifle. Of course, there are people who can, but they are very serious business types of former military snipers.
The SS does check angles to ensure that the President is not rolling up on somewhere that you could get a one mile shot on a target. And when they can't they make sure of that, they try to make sure that no one knows the exact drop off points well enough to plan to be in such a place ahead of time.
Are you sure about that? You know, serious business types of threats like foreign intelligence or maybe pro terrorists may be using encryption, but there are plenty of people who go out and kill people who post YouTube videos and make posts about it. Lack of operational security isn't always an indicator of whether a threat is real, it just means they have a higher chance of being caught if someone is paying attention. The Secret Service is trying to pay attention.
It could be, if you are doing so competitively. I just don't think it would be a very popular sport.
Again sports != athletics.
A name for old time gunslinger/gamblers in the Old West who played poker and bet on horses for a living was they were "sporting men". While you can certainly admire the reflexes of a gunfighter, they were actually called sporting men because of their livelihood as professional gamblers, and there is no need for any sort of athleticism for that job description.
Adderall is meant to allow ADHD minded individuals able to cope better with life in general. Their disability, if disability it is, happens to be with the larger picture of living, maintaining a job, etc. That is what they have Adderall for.
That disability has little to do with video gaming, as games tend to be short and very engrossing. That means that someone who *needs* Adderall, may still derive just as much of an enhancement from it as someone who doesn't need Adderall to deal with life in general.
Think of it being like Viagra. Viagra was originally to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, and if you take it for that, it is a fully medical use to treat a real illness.
However, your use for it's originally-intended medical purpose doesn't mean that you wouldn't get an erection just like everyone else. After all, that's how they discovered that side effect.
I'm not sure that is true. Yes, people with ADD will probably be attracted to video games enough to enjoy them and thereby get enough skill and practice in to become a pro at it.
However, you don't gain anything from being twitchy and inattentive when actually in competition. You want fast reflexes, especially in a shooter, but if you're playing a team game, you need to know what is going on with your team and focus on your task. Something like Adderall can probably help with that.
As a hiring manager, I'm given a number and that's what I get to hire someone with. If someone asks for more, I can usually try to accommodate, but if you want 100K and I can only give you 80K, then it comes down to whether you want the job or not.
As for rewarding your work... equity can certainly come into play, but if the principle is that I have to pay you what other people are making, then perhaps I just can't hire you to begin with. Some people would say that maybe I should not hire you if I can't pay you the same as someone else. I don't know if I agree, but I can see that argument. Still, I'm out a worker that I could really use to unburden everyone else on the team.
If you are willing to work for 80K, I am happy to give you bigger merit raises than your peers if you worked extra hard, but if you walk in the door unhappy with your base salary, should I cut into the bonus pool of others just so you can get a massive raise to make your salary equal to theirs? Didn't they deserve their raise too? Or do they deserve less simply because their base number is higher than yours?
Of course, there are policies like equity raises that some businesses have which ensure that people do get on that sort of footing, but that's often a separate pool and not all places can afford it.
What I don't think is that you should consider what someone else makes to be a reflection on what the company thinks of *you*. If you're capable, you may start lower, but I'd probably be happy to see you become a manager or advanced individual contributor where that other guy will never get higher than he is today. You'll start at 80K, but you'll someday get to 150K whereas the other guy will never see the other side of 110. Alternately, you could be selected for more training opportunities or given more interesting work. All of that turns into more money too, either at that work place or at another place you move to later.
The problem is that it is very hard to do what is fair because the conditions in which "fair" are measured in can change. If we're making hundreds of millions of dollars, then its hard to justify giving you low pay, but if we're not, then I can't afford to give you the same higher pay that would be fair when we were doing well. Fairness is a very subjective concept unless you very strictly define what you are talking about.
I'd say that leverage in negotiations sort of comes into play, but consider that I may have hired a person for 100K and I was told that I can hire someone else, but I only get 80K this time because that's all that can be justified with the number of accounts we have. So, I hire someone at 80K.
If Ms. 100K and Mr. 80K start talking, there are all sorts of possible problems, but in the end, though, I was only given 80K to hire someone. If you didn't accept that, I can't hire you. Would you prefer to have not gotten the job? That will depend on if you were in demand, I suppose, but I'd usually say that if 80K was acceptable to you, then you're not losing out.
That's why you probably shouldn't talk to other people. You might well be convinced you should be making 100K, but if you'd insisted on that number, I couldn't hire you, so you'd probably not have a job. Also, Ms. 100K may have been hired while the company was doing very well and was able to be generous. Instead of dropping her salary or laying her off in a slump, we kept her on. We can't afford 100K people anymore, but we want to be fair to her and maintain our word when it comes to what she makes. Should we have instead laid her off or knocked 20K off her salary so that you could feel better about yours?
You need to find a number that works for you, and you need to insist on it. If you get it, you should be able to do everything you wanted to do with that salary. Don't worry what other people make, someone is always going to make more than you. Understand what you are happy with and get that. If you need to adjust, then it should come from your own needs and not a comparison between you and someone else except in the most basic of fashion (such as salary research for your job description) to get a basis for what is reasonable.
Your salary and compensation is personal information and your company should never share without your permission. (Unless there is a public reporting requirement, of course).
However, I don't see why you can't choose to share your own salary information. My only concern would be that there could become some sort of pressure group so that everyone has to do so.
I think it is a bad idea to share salaries except in the most anonymous of manners. I don't mind someone knowing how much a person with my job title makes on average, but its a big deal if someone knows exactly what I make. There are lots of considerations that go into salary numbers, and those can't be adequately assessed by simply sharing the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Government coercion was effective enough to eliminate one or two dread diseases.
I'm not a big fan of government coercion as the solution to everything, but vaccinations are a public health issue where you are affecting more than yourself whenever you sneeze. That means your refusal to vaccinate your child or yourself might condemn people to death who currently have no choice to avoid interacting with you, and no idea if you're someone they should stay away from.
We could suggest that those against vaccines go live in a quarantined compound somewhere and not have to have vaccines, but that would seem to be counterproductive for everyone.
Past outbreaks of diseases currently vaccinated against have probably killed billions of children in the past. There was no home remedy or frontier method of survival. They either somehow fought off diseases like smallpox or measles and possibly were scarred for life, or they simply died. I am not certain what philosophical view, other than some sort of odd Darwinism, would make a return to that scenario attractive.
The crowd is skeptical because we're being told by everyone, including the researchers, that this should be scrutinized closely because while this might be entirely new science, that is a very high bar to jump over for a reason.
Humanity clearly doesn't know everything about physics, but we know enough that we've done some fairly amazing practical things with it. Recent scientists are not banging rocks together to get sparks, or even walking around poking radium in 19th Century dresses. That means we pretty much know where we think we need to look for new science, and until recently, this was not one of those places.
So yes, being skeptical is a good idea here, although dismissing it outright seems to be unwarranted at the moment.
More likely a novel application of known principles than a scam. That or a faulty ethernet cable.
Well it is certainly going to be a novel device, but whether it is merely a parlor trick based on a clever application of known principles or entirely new science, is up in the air.
The problem is that we now have devices that seem to do the thing the first one did, but we still don't know that the device truly works on the principle suggested. There could still be something making it *seem* like it works that way, but it was something else all along.
The CMB is 3 Kelvin, there's got to be somewhere that it's only 2 K, right? Right? ;)
True, but of course, since the EM drive would not have that limitation, it would be able to theoretically attain those stupendous speeds because it will never need to worry about running out of reaction mass and would be able to accelerate for much longer.
Of course, I do think energy will be the limiting factor and will probably stop this from being an accelerate forever drive. Solar is fine and all, but is probably not going to recharge a ship on an interstellar trip enough to refill the batteries needed. You'll need a reactor and nuclear fuel to make a trip like that. Still much better than gigantic tanks of fuel, or massive amounts of solid fuel. Not to mention a lot less complex of a system.
So, it would be a big deal... if it's real. I have to admit, I didn't think it would get this far, but it's still a long way to go before this has a solid theory behind it, let alone becoming a fully operational device. I'm still hopeful but extremely skeptical.
True, but this means your source of energy can be very compact and efficient.
For instance, you can employ a nuclear reactor. Still somewhat heavy and complex, but a lot lighter, and much more efficient than having to carry your reaction mass with you just so you can shoot it out the back. If we got reactor design compact and advanced enough, it could actually be fairly simple to operate.
Previously, the only way to make use of nuclear power was to basically accelerate the ship by throwing nuclear bombs out the back. A reactor isn't as dramatic, and doesn't accelerate as drastically, but is significantly more efficient, and reusable (not to mention it isn't a proliferation risk).
That would make it possible for the ship to reach higher velocities as well, since the ship would have less mass, or alternately, be able to have more non-propulsion mass which would be handy in dealing with the other issues with long range spaceflight.
It's a good argument for ensuring you don't have half-assed vaccines, which is a legitimate concern.
It's the same problem as those people who are prescribed antibiotics and don't finish their full course: that's how you get antibiotic resistant bacteria. You half-assed the treatment, now the surviving bacteria are the individuals with adaptations that were best able to resist the antibiotic. Usually, the disease would progress where the antibiotic vulnerable bacteria would compete. With the help of the incompletely used antibiotic, there's now only resistant bacteria left to infect a new host.
This is not an anti-vaxxer argument, as those fools think that the vaccine causes problems unrelated to what it is supposed to be preventing (like autism), rather than this case being that the vaccine was simply too weaksauce to do the job right, so it made the problem worse by selecting out the bacteria more likely to succumb to the vaccine-adjusted immune system.
Trump is a populist and an agitator. Those sorts tend to only be "conservative" in the sense that tend to appeal to people who want to keep things the way they are, rather than deal with change.
Which is too bad because conservatives aren't required to like the status quo, although when they want to change it they are defined by being inclined toward graduated, thoughtful change.
I feel a conservative could very easily accept things like non-punitive immigration reform and more regulation of businesses, but they will always shy away from radical change which could do as much damage as simply having letting things go on the way they were. That's why many quite reasonable conservatives do not like the rhetoric of blaming classes of people for the country's problems and don't like the idea that we suddenly need to embrace underpaid illegal immigrant workers when we are facing unemployment of current citizens.
It is important to point out that there are times where radical changes end up working out all right. Liberal, progressive, or conservative does not mean "right" or "wrong". There are many times when you just have to do *something*, because nothing is worse than all possible other options.
However, I am extremely wary of people who preach "change" or revolution constantly, as if everything is a problem that can only be solved by figurative or literal bloodshed. Or people who agitate for anything *NOW*. Most solutions are better off considered as a consistently run, long term, and gradual program, and other changes may be better off not being made at all.
To my mind, the Trumps of the world are just the other side of the coin from the class warfare agitator. Both are applying a deep seated unease with a whole class of people to help them get to power. And Trump might be worse because he's pretty much in this for his own ego.
Seriously? She's making a promise with the implication that she's totally going to do it. There will be no qualifications or restatements during the campaign. Those will start on January 21st.
This isn't about trying, this is about the usual crap where candidates polish up some promises that sound really good to their constituency and make it sound like they have a real plan, when they don't.
I am pretty sure that Clinton actually has an idea what she really wants to do, and she may touch on some of it towards the end of her theoretical term in office. However, she'll mostly do what her party platform is pushing in the meantime. And that plan is both already well known, and won't be touted anywhere because it will be significantly more practical, and significantly less idealistic, than anything you'll hear during the campaign.
Ayn Rand at least, was forced to pay into that fund. Why should she surrender her money just because she opposes the program?
It is up for debate whether Ayn Rand could have taken the money that she'd have gotten back in her SS checks and have done better with investing that money or not. The thing is, she had no choice in the matter and it is always supposed to have been her money. It wasn't some sort of government largess, you know.
That's like saying that someone who opposed Communism that waited in a food line in the Soviet Union was hypocritical for taking food from the government while opposing it.
I suppose they have the option of starving themselves to death to make a point, but suicide isn't actually required for you to sincerely believe in something.
We're not okay with campaign spending. I don't think anyone is, but how else do you reach 300+ million people?
And the bigger and more involved the Federal government gets in everyone's daily life, the worse it is going to get. There are people out there who want the government to get even bigger and responsible for more things, yet oddly cannot understand why billions of dollars are pumped into Federal campaigns.
Tax breaks or subsidies for oil have nothing to do with enriching oil companies. They exist very simply to keep gas prices down so that the government doesn't get lynched when gas suddenly costs 12 dollars a gallon.
I agree that these industries should pay their own way, and they probably could, but allowing oil and gas to become more price volatile would be political suicide, for Democrats as much as for Republicans.
You won't see those subsidies go away until you have been able to get electric cars and possibly trucks on the road in force.
At this point, I'd steer well away from those subsidies if you want to raid something for more alternative power spending. You'll never get it except maybe under Bernie, and hopefully even Bernie isn't dumb enough to try that.
I couldn't care less what hours the people on my team do per week as long as they are around to help each other out and complete the tasks set for us. Generally, where I work, everyone checks their email at some point at night, so yelling at someone for leaving 30 minutes early is hardly something I am going to do. Besides, if you're going to be working for me, I prefer you not be panicking about having to pick your kids up from school when they missed the bus or some shit. Just pick them up and figure out how you'll catch up when they're tucked into bed or something.
I'm in IT, like many of you. In this world we communicate to executives the amount of time it takes for us to complete tasks and they schedule the roadmap based on that. Sometimes they ask us to prioritize or try to do a stretch goal, but don't think the managers aren't pushing back if that gets out of control. Bear in mind, though, competition is a bitch. If company X eats our lunch on features, we're dogmeat. And if we're dogmeat, people lose their jobs. Execs aren't actually driven by dollar signs, they have golden parachutes. They are personally driven to get shit done and win because that's their personality type. So, yeah, they get a little intense, but even they're not as insane as you think... usually.
Of course, when the tasks are set and the time is allocated, then we do have deadlines. Those are unavoidable. However, if we've done a good job estimating the work, you'll work as much as you feel you can, and the task will get done.
There are only two normal reasons I care about hours. I care about you being there for core hours so that you can interact with your team and anyone else in the company who needs your help. You can't spend all your time working with your Mtn Dew at midnight by yourself in your Mom's basement. You're being paid for your experience as a team player and you need to share.
The second reason is time off. Unfortunately, that is tracked in hours. Don't expect me to be a rigorous jerk about that. It is important that you aren't pulling one over on me, but if you work hard and do a good job, I don't fucking care if you took an extra hour here or there. Just don't falsify shit to the point that it can't be ignored.
And let's be clear. I don't pay badly, and sometimes I pay very, very well. This is IT, not McDonalds. The point is, sometimes people's hands get tied by circumstances, but none of my peers is motivated to grind you down. I'm sure those sorts of sadists exist, they may even be common, but sometimes I simply just can't give you any more.
Please negotiate, by all means, but there's always a ceiling that no one can go above, and that rises and falls based on the bottom line, not based on the merit of the applicant. And it is never personal or done with the purpose of cheating you. Sometimes they may complain when I ask for more for a candidate, but they have never thanked me for saving them money. So what is in it for me to cheat you? Absolutely nothing.
I don't recall ever enabling this feature and I've seen in in Chrome for awhile now. Perhaps I've forgotten doing it, but I rarely change the Chrome flags, and usually only for a very specific reason based on debugging or something.
True, although I should point out that to make a shot at about a mile away, you need to be very, very good at that anti-vehicle rifle. Of course, there are people who can, but they are very serious business types of former military snipers.
The SS does check angles to ensure that the President is not rolling up on somewhere that you could get a one mile shot on a target. And when they can't they make sure of that, they try to make sure that no one knows the exact drop off points well enough to plan to be in such a place ahead of time.
Are you sure about that? You know, serious business types of threats like foreign intelligence or maybe pro terrorists may be using encryption, but there are plenty of people who go out and kill people who post YouTube videos and make posts about it. Lack of operational security isn't always an indicator of whether a threat is real, it just means they have a higher chance of being caught if someone is paying attention. The Secret Service is trying to pay attention.
It could be, if you are doing so competitively. I just don't think it would be a very popular sport.
Again sports != athletics.
A name for old time gunslinger/gamblers in the Old West who played poker and bet on horses for a living was they were "sporting men". While you can certainly admire the reflexes of a gunfighter, they were actually called sporting men because of their livelihood as professional gamblers, and there is no need for any sort of athleticism for that job description.
His mom is Kate Upton?
Adderall is meant to allow ADHD minded individuals able to cope better with life in general. Their disability, if disability it is, happens to be with the larger picture of living, maintaining a job, etc. That is what they have Adderall for.
That disability has little to do with video gaming, as games tend to be short and very engrossing. That means that someone who *needs* Adderall, may still derive just as much of an enhancement from it as someone who doesn't need Adderall to deal with life in general.
Think of it being like Viagra. Viagra was originally to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, and if you take it for that, it is a fully medical use to treat a real illness.
However, your use for it's originally-intended medical purpose doesn't mean that you wouldn't get an erection just like everyone else. After all, that's how they discovered that side effect.
I'm not sure that is true. Yes, people with ADD will probably be attracted to video games enough to enjoy them and thereby get enough skill and practice in to become a pro at it.
However, you don't gain anything from being twitchy and inattentive when actually in competition. You want fast reflexes, especially in a shooter, but if you're playing a team game, you need to know what is going on with your team and focus on your task. Something like Adderall can probably help with that.
My company would be stuck on a number because small businesses have to care about 20K and the percentage of that you tack on to it for benefits.
As a hiring manager, I'm given a number and that's what I get to hire someone with. If someone asks for more, I can usually try to accommodate, but if you want 100K and I can only give you 80K, then it comes down to whether you want the job or not.
As for rewarding your work... equity can certainly come into play, but if the principle is that I have to pay you what other people are making, then perhaps I just can't hire you to begin with. Some people would say that maybe I should not hire you if I can't pay you the same as someone else. I don't know if I agree, but I can see that argument. Still, I'm out a worker that I could really use to unburden everyone else on the team.
If you are willing to work for 80K, I am happy to give you bigger merit raises than your peers if you worked extra hard, but if you walk in the door unhappy with your base salary, should I cut into the bonus pool of others just so you can get a massive raise to make your salary equal to theirs? Didn't they deserve their raise too? Or do they deserve less simply because their base number is higher than yours?
Of course, there are policies like equity raises that some businesses have which ensure that people do get on that sort of footing, but that's often a separate pool and not all places can afford it.
What I don't think is that you should consider what someone else makes to be a reflection on what the company thinks of *you*. If you're capable, you may start lower, but I'd probably be happy to see you become a manager or advanced individual contributor where that other guy will never get higher than he is today. You'll start at 80K, but you'll someday get to 150K whereas the other guy will never see the other side of 110. Alternately, you could be selected for more training opportunities or given more interesting work. All of that turns into more money too, either at that work place or at another place you move to later.
The problem is that it is very hard to do what is fair because the conditions in which "fair" are measured in can change. If we're making hundreds of millions of dollars, then its hard to justify giving you low pay, but if we're not, then I can't afford to give you the same higher pay that would be fair when we were doing well. Fairness is a very subjective concept unless you very strictly define what you are talking about.
I'd say that leverage in negotiations sort of comes into play, but consider that I may have hired a person for 100K and I was told that I can hire someone else, but I only get 80K this time because that's all that can be justified with the number of accounts we have. So, I hire someone at 80K.
If Ms. 100K and Mr. 80K start talking, there are all sorts of possible problems, but in the end, though, I was only given 80K to hire someone. If you didn't accept that, I can't hire you. Would you prefer to have not gotten the job? That will depend on if you were in demand, I suppose, but I'd usually say that if 80K was acceptable to you, then you're not losing out.
That's why you probably shouldn't talk to other people. You might well be convinced you should be making 100K, but if you'd insisted on that number, I couldn't hire you, so you'd probably not have a job. Also, Ms. 100K may have been hired while the company was doing very well and was able to be generous. Instead of dropping her salary or laying her off in a slump, we kept her on. We can't afford 100K people anymore, but we want to be fair to her and maintain our word when it comes to what she makes. Should we have instead laid her off or knocked 20K off her salary so that you could feel better about yours?
You need to find a number that works for you, and you need to insist on it. If you get it, you should be able to do everything you wanted to do with that salary. Don't worry what other people make, someone is always going to make more than you. Understand what you are happy with and get that. If you need to adjust, then it should come from your own needs and not a comparison between you and someone else except in the most basic of fashion (such as salary research for your job description) to get a basis for what is reasonable.
Your salary and compensation is personal information and your company should never share without your permission. (Unless there is a public reporting requirement, of course).
However, I don't see why you can't choose to share your own salary information. My only concern would be that there could become some sort of pressure group so that everyone has to do so.
I think it is a bad idea to share salaries except in the most anonymous of manners. I don't mind someone knowing how much a person with my job title makes on average, but its a big deal if someone knows exactly what I make. There are lots of considerations that go into salary numbers, and those can't be adequately assessed by simply sharing the numbers.