He is no longer a government employee, and frankly was never the guy to understand this stuff anyway. I'm fairly sure this is a "hey look at me!" situation.
Given the level of understanding you displayed, it'd probably be best to not vote until you've spent more time understanding politics. If someone is telling you political information, it is skewed. Seek it out for yourself, such as both candidates stance on war, specifically Iran. You may find they are both masterfully playing their hands without actually wanting to bomb them.
The problem is bad HR, which I have had the privilege of working with good HR. One of the first things good HR does is to not reject a candidate for superfluous reasons.
And given their culture, it's probably a relative's criminal record that is giving him trouble. So it's Google's job to circumvent cultural bias at every turn.
I'm not sure about Canada, but the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (the unreasonable search and seizure clause) only applies to the government. Perhaps Canada's fundamental rules apply differently, but when it's a corporate entity doing something like this, it comes down to contract and employment law. These rules are usually much less definite, especially if you're in a "right to work" state. However, we do recognize that there are some items that an employer is never allowed to use to judge a prospective employee. This is probably not one of them yet, but a good lawyer in our civil court system could probably overcome that hurdle.
All of your examples could more readily be explained by market forces. Oil companies do not set price, in reality it all comes down to interrelated contracts made between suppliers and large buyers/resellers. They lead to the price at the pump, which our dollars are just not big enough to dent. But you may notice that the large buyers and resellers _do_ want a lower price, as it increases their profits, and as such really do fight for every drop of oil. Also notice that the suppliers of refined gasoline are buyers of unrefined oil, so while Exxon is trying to sell high to Holiday gas stations and Delta Airlines, they are trying to buy low from those who extract the raw material, whether it be a Pennsylvania tycoon or OPEC. So even if Exxon controls everything from oil pump to gas pump, they have a seller on one side and a buyer on the other. OPEC came about because the Exxons and BPs of the world were paying novelty prices for foreign oil. It is one of the major counters to the vertical oil company. Also, there are several vertical oil companies and many others in the chain besides. If any one of these entities goes rogue and tries to corner the market, the other parts go crazy and find a different source. Ever wonder why gas prices usually vary by location and not supplier? Because at the local level, gas pumps must play by the local markets. So if Exxon tries to up prices to maximize profit, we just drive an extra block to a non-Exxon supplied station while OPEC sells oil fields to Shell. Add to all of this the effects of futures and speculation, and the market is highly antagonistic.
So no, no one entity can control price. And the equilibrium price is effectively non-existent because the whole market is so complex. My own belief is that the competing laws of limited supply and limitless demand mean that equilibrium could only be reached given alternatives that we have yet perfected. Unfortunately, if those alternatives require a complex supply chain, the economics will be the same.
Face it, we've exported our desirable lifestyle to the world, and now we're going to have to compete for resources we've taken for granted for decades.
Don't diminish the democratic process just because your ideology is unpopular. I'm no libertarian, but all things considered global markets for fuel products is the fairest mechanism available. There is no conspiracy and speculators have an important and necessary job to do. In fact, they are the reason that the GP's list does affect short term prices. Consider them our control module for prices. Without speculation we would have larger mins and maxs with steeper slopes, destabilizing one of the most fundamental units of modern life.
Get the necessary gear for an IP Phone. Your cell bill will thank you.
More than your cell bill, it will ensure that business calls route to the business phone, not your personal cell phone. If necessary, use call forwarding to your cell. I've learned from experience that there's nothing worse than passing a personal cell number around the office.
You have a degree and if you actually know CS, you are probably more qualified than a CS major. A smart shop will understand that you are competent in two domains, both highly relevant at any Tech Firm. In my software development shop, there are roughly 50 technical jobs, 30 qa positions, and 20 supporting staff. With your skill set you are able to fill probably 75 of the 100 roles. Given that you opted for the psych degree rather than CS in the first place, you probably enjoy helping techies do their work more than doing the work yourself. TBH there is such a need for staff who can communicate with the business, the code, and techies, you'll do well going that direction. For instance, if our business analysts could speak in the code's Objective terms and understand psuedo-code, the entire department's efficiency would skyrocket.
Yes, we want journalism to have as much integrity as science. If we can't fact check, we can corroborate. We really do trust our journalists a lot, which is testament to the prestige and integrity of established journalists. Unfortunately, producers have little incentive to fact-check. There are many scenarios where this would not have caused anyone headaches, given that the story ran the same.
Radical is such a strong word. And if elected he'll be completely at the mercy of the GOP establishment, especially if they win the Senate. Weakest of the 3 contenders by quite a margin. His electability seems to be based on not taking stands on any policy issue and plugging Christian Right values as often as possible.
Unfortunately that is how American policy usually works. It has become very normative. I think most Americans would agree that after putting heart and soul into something and then not achieving, give up.
Also the people who don't like this outcome, but voted for these guys because they were better than the rest. Unfortunately we don't get to vote for our ideals, only the candidates on the ballot.
There is a significant portion of the US population that believes if objects of vice are removed, so go the vices themselves. Removing all kiddy porn real or fake will decrease child sex abuse. I find this completely specious, but it's so difficult to disprove that any attempts to argue otherwise seems to embolden these believers.
You may not believe me, but it works as well as it currently can. The exact same tactic is how Al Capone was finally put into prison. That it can be used against non-criminals in this way is abhorrent. Unfortunately no one has ever found a legal system that catches Al Capone but repays this guy for lost time, money, and prestige. And none of us have the ability to try something new. Your best bet is to find a place that wants your help, and give it your all. You may not be changing the world, but you can be changing _someones_ world.
Slashdot Mirror
He is no longer a government employee, and frankly was never the guy to understand this stuff anyway. I'm fairly sure this is a "hey look at me!" situation.
Also, we expect our corporations to do their own espionage.
Given the level of understanding you displayed, it'd probably be best to not vote until you've spent more time understanding politics. If someone is telling you political information, it is skewed. Seek it out for yourself, such as both candidates stance on war, specifically Iran. You may find they are both masterfully playing their hands without actually wanting to bomb them.
Nice temptation with the link, but it blew your cover.
Why would that matter? Correlation equals legal jurisdiction?
The problem is bad HR, which I have had the privilege of working with good HR. One of the first things good HR does is to not reject a candidate for superfluous reasons.
And given their culture, it's probably a relative's criminal record that is giving him trouble. So it's Google's job to circumvent cultural bias at every turn.
I'm not sure about Canada, but the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (the unreasonable search and seizure clause) only applies to the government. Perhaps Canada's fundamental rules apply differently, but when it's a corporate entity doing something like this, it comes down to contract and employment law. These rules are usually much less definite, especially if you're in a "right to work" state. However, we do recognize that there are some items that an employer is never allowed to use to judge a prospective employee. This is probably not one of them yet, but a good lawyer in our civil court system could probably overcome that hurdle.
All of your examples could more readily be explained by market forces. Oil companies do not set price, in reality it all comes down to interrelated contracts made between suppliers and large buyers/resellers. They lead to the price at the pump, which our dollars are just not big enough to dent. But you may notice that the large buyers and resellers _do_ want a lower price, as it increases their profits, and as such really do fight for every drop of oil. Also notice that the suppliers of refined gasoline are buyers of unrefined oil, so while Exxon is trying to sell high to Holiday gas stations and Delta Airlines, they are trying to buy low from those who extract the raw material, whether it be a Pennsylvania tycoon or OPEC. So even if Exxon controls everything from oil pump to gas pump, they have a seller on one side and a buyer on the other. OPEC came about because the Exxons and BPs of the world were paying novelty prices for foreign oil. It is one of the major counters to the vertical oil company. Also, there are several vertical oil companies and many others in the chain besides. If any one of these entities goes rogue and tries to corner the market, the other parts go crazy and find a different source. Ever wonder why gas prices usually vary by location and not supplier? Because at the local level, gas pumps must play by the local markets. So if Exxon tries to up prices to maximize profit, we just drive an extra block to a non-Exxon supplied station while OPEC sells oil fields to Shell. Add to all of this the effects of futures and speculation, and the market is highly antagonistic.
So no, no one entity can control price. And the equilibrium price is effectively non-existent because the whole market is so complex. My own belief is that the competing laws of limited supply and limitless demand mean that equilibrium could only be reached given alternatives that we have yet perfected. Unfortunately, if those alternatives require a complex supply chain, the economics will be the same.
Face it, we've exported our desirable lifestyle to the world, and now we're going to have to compete for resources we've taken for granted for decades.
FTFY
Don't diminish the democratic process just because your ideology is unpopular. I'm no libertarian, but all things considered global markets for fuel products is the fairest mechanism available. There is no conspiracy and speculators have an important and necessary job to do. In fact, they are the reason that the GP's list does affect short term prices. Consider them our control module for prices. Without speculation we would have larger mins and maxs with steeper slopes, destabilizing one of the most fundamental units of modern life.
Get the necessary gear for an IP Phone. Your cell bill will thank you.
More than your cell bill, it will ensure that business calls route to the business phone, not your personal cell phone. If necessary, use call forwarding to your cell. I've learned from experience that there's nothing worse than passing a personal cell number around the office.
You have a degree and if you actually know CS, you are probably more qualified than a CS major. A smart shop will understand that you are competent in two domains, both highly relevant at any Tech Firm. In my software development shop, there are roughly 50 technical jobs, 30 qa positions, and 20 supporting staff. With your skill set you are able to fill probably 75 of the 100 roles. Given that you opted for the psych degree rather than CS in the first place, you probably enjoy helping techies do their work more than doing the work yourself. TBH there is such a need for staff who can communicate with the business, the code, and techies, you'll do well going that direction. For instance, if our business analysts could speak in the code's Objective terms and understand psuedo-code, the entire department's efficiency would skyrocket.
Yes, we want journalism to have as much integrity as science. If we can't fact check, we can corroborate. We really do trust our journalists a lot, which is testament to the prestige and integrity of established journalists. Unfortunately, producers have little incentive to fact-check. There are many scenarios where this would not have caused anyone headaches, given that the story ran the same.
Thank you! That was the explanation we all needed about 20 posts back.
Radical is such a strong word. And if elected he'll be completely at the mercy of the GOP establishment, especially if they win the Senate. Weakest of the 3 contenders by quite a margin. His electability seems to be based on not taking stands on any policy issue and plugging Christian Right values as often as possible.
Unfortunately that is how American policy usually works. It has become very normative. I think most Americans would agree that after putting heart and soul into something and then not achieving, give up.
To me, that is a much worse legal system. Al Capone in particular was not in danger of vigilante justice.
Also the people who don't like this outcome, but voted for these guys because they were better than the rest. Unfortunately we don't get to vote for our ideals, only the candidates on the ballot.
There is a significant portion of the US population that believes if objects of vice are removed, so go the vices themselves. Removing all kiddy porn real or fake will decrease child sex abuse. I find this completely specious, but it's so difficult to disprove that any attempts to argue otherwise seems to embolden these believers.
You may not believe me, but it works as well as it currently can. The exact same tactic is how Al Capone was finally put into prison. That it can be used against non-criminals in this way is abhorrent. Unfortunately no one has ever found a legal system that catches Al Capone but repays this guy for lost time, money, and prestige. And none of us have the ability to try something new. Your best bet is to find a place that wants your help, and give it your all. You may not be changing the world, but you can be changing _someones_ world.
Bah, meant to check that acronym...CBLDF...it's even in the url...
Most importantly, donate to the CBDL to help pay the bills! http://cbldf.org/
Hamsters could afford an Apple II? My family really was poor...
mod_parent++;