how about a pot sitting on a gas stove (whose flames can also be "over a thousand degrees F")?
I'm not an engineer, but this does not appear to me to accurately model a house fire. I think that there is going to be a difference between being engulfed in 1000+ degree heat vs being over a 1000+ degree heat source.
By way of example, let's say that you have a 22 quart canning pot filled with water and you were to suspend it over a Bunsen burner. That burner can reach a temperature of 2000+ degrees F at the tip of its inner cone, but how long do you think it will take that 2000+ degree burner to boil 10 quarts of water? Perhaps it will never boil?
I think that a house fire would transfer significantly more heat to the bucket of water than a gas stove would. I frankly have no idea how long it would take for water in a bucket to boil off in a house fire, but I am confident that it would be faster than sticking a pot of boiling water on a gas range.
Another issue with the "disk in a bucket" plan is that in dry climates, much care must be taken to maintain the water level of the bucket, because significant water loss would be expected via evaporation.
As always, the best way to keep data safe during a fire is for the data not to be in the fire.
Absolutely not. But it will be very expensive to replace me.
Will they suddenly be unable to see a doctor, or pay the mortgage, or be unable to find work due to the fact that they were fired or are currently unemployed?
If I were to separate from my client, it would not affect doctors, mortgages, or finding work. I am not an employee, so I don't not obtain my health insurance through my client. My mortgage payment is will within my means, and I have never had difficulty finding work. I'm not the worlds foremost expert in my field or anything like that, but I'm good enough at what I do that I'm not concerned.
As a consultant, I've been let go many times before and really, I'm telling you, it's not a big deal. It's not a catastrophe--it's just how the business goes. I'm not supposed to be a permanent fixture, although it's kind of become that lately.
Your employer has a much greater ability to trash your entire lifestyle than you do to take the business down
My client could not trash my lifestyle if they tried, and I have precisely zero interest in behaving unprofessionally. I certainly have zero interest in trying to "take the business down"! I'm here to be helpful, and if I'm no longer adding value, then it only makes sense for me to move on to some other organization.
I understand that many people don't have the luxury of not worrying about their job. But with proper expense management and a bit of good fortune, it's definitely possible to position yourself so that a job loss is a "no big deal" type of event.
Employee finds a new job. Employee gives two weeks notice (or more, sometimes). Employer escorts employee off the premises immediately and pays them for two weeks of "vacation".
For what it's worth, I've never had that happen to me. I've always worked my last 2 weeks doing knowledge transfer.
However, it's tilted in the employer's favor because most of the time losing a job is much worse for the employee than it is for the employer.
This really depends on the situation. A key employee with a lot of domain knowledge about the employer's business, process, and systems is worth a lot. He or she can demand to be compensated well for that, and build up enough of a cushion to weather any storm.
I'm in a situation like that with my current client. I've been with them so long that I am very valuable to them and I charge accordingly. And this isn't through any nefarious action on my part--everything I do and know, I document in the client's wiki--but it would take a new person a long ramp-up time to digest all of that documentation. My client can let me go with no notice, and I assume that they will someday, but that will be a weighty decision on their part due to what it will cost to replace me. On the other hand, from my point of view, I keep 6 months worth of expenses just sitting in cash, plus I have a HELOC, plus a wife who is also highly-compensated, plus a decent net worth should the previously-mentioned sources of sustenance prove insufficient to weather the storm.
In other words, if/when my client lets me go, I will just shrug my shoulders and go find my next gig, but my client will have to invest heavily in my replacement.
To my knowledge most states requirements for "highly qualified" teachers is that for "core subjects" they hold at least a bachelor's degree in that field.
That's not a federal requirement. At the federal level, the teacher needs a bachelor's degree, state licensure, and to demonstrate competency in the subject matter that they teach.
Teachers will. You don't need brilliant computer programmers to teach kids programming. In fact, they might be the least qualified to teach kids since their specialty is programming, not teaching.
We see this in other fields. Your high school chemistry teacher was a teacher, not a chemist. Perhaps he/she could have made more money in chemical engineering, but that is a different field.
Teachers learn enough math to teach kids basic algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. They can learn enough programming to teach kids basic coding.
I don't really remember for sure, honestly. If I really cared that much about this story I would just Google it and get the answer. You could do the same if you are so inclined.
In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media.
It also diminishes the issue. I don't give a shit if the government gets a look at my dick. That is the absolute least of my concerns with the NSA spying.
What I do care about is the government building a profile on me of everyone that I communicate with and storing all of those communications. If one of my facebook friends teams up with one of my cellphone contacts and goes all rogue crockpot bombing Islamic terrorist, I don't want to get roped into that by association.
If memory serves, the story in this case was that the couple had both suffered job loss at roughly the same time and were long-term unemployed. The Mercedes was already paid for from back when the happy couple had jobs. In order to "look the part" of being poor, they would have had to have replaced the Mercedes for a beater that almost certainly would have been more expensive to maintain than the 'Benz. That would not have been a sound financial decision.
I understand the perceived inconsistency of someone pulling up to the welfare office in a Mercedes, but it also seems that some people are a little eager to rush to judgment.
People with STEM degrees have lower unemployment, and higher salaries. To say there is a "glut" relative to humanities is silly.
This really depends on what part of STEM you studied.
I have some colleagues with PhDs in either Chemistry or Physics, and they all tell me the same thing: if you go for a career in one of those two sciences, you should gear up for going through PhD level and then several minimum wage post-docs and then pray to your deity of choice that you are hired for a teaching position or something in industry because if you are not, you have become so specialized that you are unemployable.
I may have missed a few details, but the refrain is the same: some people do very well in those fields but most people are chewed up and spat out with very little to show for it. People with the brains to get to those level in those fields would be well-advised to choose some other field if they care about their future career.
As for me, I have a "lowly" degree in the Social Sciences and I'm happy with my career progression.
College is for many kids the first time you will live away from home, with all the distractions and temptations of the real world - but without losing your job and ending up homeless if you get too drunk and are too hung over to go to class the next day.
Oh, right, because nobody in high-pressure professions would ever, ever get shitfaced drunk all the time!
The only difference between my drinking during college and my drinking after college was that after college, I got fucked up on good alcohol because I could afford to no longer drink swill!
I'm probably older than you, my friend. I've had contracts end. Whatever, it's just business. I don't really care if I get notice or not. My rates are based on working only 9 months out of the year. If they want knowledge transfer sessions, they give me notice. If not, no skin off my back.
companies in the US no longer DESEVE 2 weeks notice. the rules are no longer valid; they won't give YOU notice. don't give them any courtesy they won't give you.
Most companies do pay a severance package, and it's normally more than 2 weeks' pay.
Comments like this leaving me wondering why anyone should bother giving two weeks notice. Just tell the company at the end of the day, "I'm leaving and not coming back."
I've been around the block a few times, and I have many times seen the situation where someone leaves a position and later comes back to work for the same employer. For better or for worse, not giving your 2 weeks is considered "burning the bridge".
Besides, what do you lose by giving 2 weeks? Worst that happens is you get 2 weeks' pay for doing no work.
Maybe, it depends on how you define consumption. If you use a narrow definition that sort of tax would be incredibly regressive.
I'm not in favor of a straight up consumption tax, but I'll point out that there are ways around the regressivity of it.
For instance, you could exempt necessities like groceries and clothing items that cost less than a winter coat from the tax. Or you could just exempt the first $x of consumption tax by giving out a cash payment to everyone in the amount of $x.
If they restrict reviews to paying customers (customers who paid through Amazon's), I think that would make it too expensive to game the system on a large scale. How much would you be willing to pay for the privilege of writing a fake review?
I can't see how they could get any service provider to sign up for that unless they are providing more business than the provider can handle. Who would sign up for Amazon if they have to give Amazon 10-20% and only be ~50% utilization? That's a big ask.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't give a shit. When I told them that I was considering switching to cable modem, they told me to go for it. So I did.
how about a pot sitting on a gas stove (whose flames can also be "over a thousand degrees F")?
I'm not an engineer, but this does not appear to me to accurately model a house fire. I think that there is going to be a difference between being engulfed in 1000+ degree heat vs being over a 1000+ degree heat source.
By way of example, let's say that you have a 22 quart canning pot filled with water and you were to suspend it over a Bunsen burner. That burner can reach a temperature of 2000+ degrees F at the tip of its inner cone, but how long do you think it will take that 2000+ degree burner to boil 10 quarts of water? Perhaps it will never boil?
I think that a house fire would transfer significantly more heat to the bucket of water than a gas stove would. I frankly have no idea how long it would take for water in a bucket to boil off in a house fire, but I am confident that it would be faster than sticking a pot of boiling water on a gas range.
Another issue with the "disk in a bucket" plan is that in dry climates, much care must be taken to maintain the water level of the bucket, because significant water loss would be expected via evaporation.
As always, the best way to keep data safe during a fire is for the data not to be in the fire.
I'd rather have vacuum.sucks
If your vacuum sucks... is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Now look you went and made my brain hurt!
I KNEW IT! I always knew that Emacs sucks ass! Long live vim! Death to the infidels!
But who will register .sucks.sucks?
Will they go out of business if you leave?
Absolutely not. But it will be very expensive to replace me.
Will they suddenly be unable to see a doctor, or pay the mortgage, or be unable to find work due to the fact that they were fired or are currently unemployed?
If I were to separate from my client, it would not affect doctors, mortgages, or finding work. I am not an employee, so I don't not obtain my health insurance through my client. My mortgage payment is will within my means, and I have never had difficulty finding work. I'm not the worlds foremost expert in my field or anything like that, but I'm good enough at what I do that I'm not concerned.
As a consultant, I've been let go many times before and really, I'm telling you, it's not a big deal. It's not a catastrophe--it's just how the business goes. I'm not supposed to be a permanent fixture, although it's kind of become that lately.
Your employer has a much greater ability to trash your entire lifestyle than you do to take the business down
My client could not trash my lifestyle if they tried, and I have precisely zero interest in behaving unprofessionally. I certainly have zero interest in trying to "take the business down"! I'm here to be helpful, and if I'm no longer adding value, then it only makes sense for me to move on to some other organization.
I understand that many people don't have the luxury of not worrying about their job. But with proper expense management and a bit of good fortune, it's definitely possible to position yourself so that a job loss is a "no big deal" type of event.
Employee finds a new job. Employee gives two weeks notice (or more, sometimes). Employer escorts employee off the premises immediately and pays them for two weeks of "vacation".
For what it's worth, I've never had that happen to me. I've always worked my last 2 weeks doing knowledge transfer.
However, it's tilted in the employer's favor because most of the time losing a job is much worse for the employee than it is for the employer.
This really depends on the situation. A key employee with a lot of domain knowledge about the employer's business, process, and systems is worth a lot. He or she can demand to be compensated well for that, and build up enough of a cushion to weather any storm.
I'm in a situation like that with my current client. I've been with them so long that I am very valuable to them and I charge accordingly. And this isn't through any nefarious action on my part--everything I do and know, I document in the client's wiki--but it would take a new person a long ramp-up time to digest all of that documentation. My client can let me go with no notice, and I assume that they will someday, but that will be a weighty decision on their part due to what it will cost to replace me. On the other hand, from my point of view, I keep 6 months worth of expenses just sitting in cash, plus I have a HELOC, plus a wife who is also highly-compensated, plus a decent net worth should the previously-mentioned sources of sustenance prove insufficient to weather the storm.
In other words, if/when my client lets me go, I will just shrug my shoulders and go find my next gig, but my client will have to invest heavily in my replacement.
The summary said that they were only preventing negotiation during the hiring process.
You need a masters in education to teach.
[citation needed]
To my knowledge most states requirements for "highly qualified" teachers is that for "core subjects" they hold at least a bachelor's degree in that field.
That's not a federal requirement. At the federal level, the teacher needs a bachelor's degree, state licensure, and to demonstrate competency in the subject matter that they teach.
Who will teach the students?
Teachers will. You don't need brilliant computer programmers to teach kids programming. In fact, they might be the least qualified to teach kids since their specialty is programming, not teaching.
We see this in other fields. Your high school chemistry teacher was a teacher, not a chemist. Perhaps he/she could have made more money in chemical engineering, but that is a different field.
Teachers learn enough math to teach kids basic algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. They can learn enough programming to teach kids basic coding.
I don't really remember for sure, honestly. If I really cared that much about this story I would just Google it and get the answer. You could do the same if you are so inclined.
In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media.
It also diminishes the issue. I don't give a shit if the government gets a look at my dick. That is the absolute least of my concerns with the NSA spying.
What I do care about is the government building a profile on me of everyone that I communicate with and storing all of those communications. If one of my facebook friends teams up with one of my cellphone contacts and goes all rogue crockpot bombing Islamic terrorist, I don't want to get roped into that by association.
Has this guy seen Detroit? You can't distinguish it from a missile strike.
I love how this got an "Insightful" mod instead of a "Funny"!
Conservative friend here. (Well, I'm someone's conservative friend. Maybe not OP's conservative friend.)
If memory serves, the story in this case was that the couple had both suffered job loss at roughly the same time and were long-term unemployed. The Mercedes was already paid for from back when the happy couple had jobs. In order to "look the part" of being poor, they would have had to have replaced the Mercedes for a beater that almost certainly would have been more expensive to maintain than the 'Benz. That would not have been a sound financial decision.
I understand the perceived inconsistency of someone pulling up to the welfare office in a Mercedes, but it also seems that some people are a little eager to rush to judgment.
People with STEM degrees have lower unemployment, and higher salaries. To say there is a "glut" relative to humanities is silly.
This really depends on what part of STEM you studied.
I have some colleagues with PhDs in either Chemistry or Physics, and they all tell me the same thing: if you go for a career in one of those two sciences, you should gear up for going through PhD level and then several minimum wage post-docs and then pray to your deity of choice that you are hired for a teaching position or something in industry because if you are not, you have become so specialized that you are unemployable.
I may have missed a few details, but the refrain is the same: some people do very well in those fields but most people are chewed up and spat out with very little to show for it. People with the brains to get to those level in those fields would be well-advised to choose some other field if they care about their future career.
As for me, I have a "lowly" degree in the Social Sciences and I'm happy with my career progression.
College is for many kids the first time you will live away from home, with all the distractions and temptations of the real world - but without losing your job and ending up homeless if you get too drunk and are too hung over to go to class the next day.
Oh, right, because nobody in high-pressure professions would ever, ever get shitfaced drunk all the time!
The only difference between my drinking during college and my drinking after college was that after college, I got fucked up on good alcohol because I could afford to no longer drink swill!
I'm probably older than you, my friend. I've had contracts end. Whatever, it's just business. I don't really care if I get notice or not. My rates are based on working only 9 months out of the year. If they want knowledge transfer sessions, they give me notice. If not, no skin off my back.
companies in the US no longer DESEVE 2 weeks notice. the rules are no longer valid; they won't give YOU notice. don't give them any courtesy they won't give you.
Most companies do pay a severance package, and it's normally more than 2 weeks' pay.
Comments like this leaving me wondering why anyone should bother giving two weeks notice. Just tell the company at the end of the day, "I'm leaving and not coming back."
I've been around the block a few times, and I have many times seen the situation where someone leaves a position and later comes back to work for the same employer. For better or for worse, not giving your 2 weeks is considered "burning the bridge".
Besides, what do you lose by giving 2 weeks? Worst that happens is you get 2 weeks' pay for doing no work.
If a single person can take down a company - beware what an unsolicited virus/malware can do!
A disgruntled individual with knowledge of the company's business systems can do way more damage than generalized malware could.
Maybe, it depends on how you define consumption. If you use a narrow definition that sort of tax would be incredibly regressive.
I'm not in favor of a straight up consumption tax, but I'll point out that there are ways around the regressivity of it.
For instance, you could exempt necessities like groceries and clothing items that cost less than a winter coat from the tax. Or you could just exempt the first $x of consumption tax by giving out a cash payment to everyone in the amount of $x.
If they restrict reviews to paying customers (customers who paid through Amazon's), I think that would make it too expensive to game the system on a large scale. How much would you be willing to pay for the privilege of writing a fake review?
I can't see how they could get any service provider to sign up for that unless they are providing more business than the provider can handle. Who would sign up for Amazon if they have to give Amazon 10-20% and only be ~50% utilization? That's a big ask.