Unions can be a victim of the Iron law. The people who put their energy into furthering the goals of the union are almost always politically out-muscled and displaced by the people who preserve the union itself. So at the end, only those who preserve the union are left.

Imagine person A is lobbying for things that will actually make a difference for fellow workers. While Person A is lobbying, person B is figuring out how get the union to grow and get stronger. Person B is making political connections and becoming more powerful while person A is in the trenches fighting for the workers causes. Its no surprise that it is Person B that ends up rising to the top.

So at the end of the day, unions can be a double edged sword. They have the potential to make meaningful changes, but as they grow in size, there is a potential to begin focusing on doing things that keep the union in existence/power instead of doing what is best for the workers.

Does this mean that companies have to report the breach after it actually occurs or when they "notice/detect" that it occurred.
Keep in mind there can be a significant gap between when something happens, it is noticed, and when it is "officially" reported by the company.

Warren Buffet refers to it as the "Ovarian Lottery"

What about the Microsoft transition from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer or Apple and its transition to John Sculley? Oh wait, bad examples.

I think this is what Netflix is doing well at. Specifically, producing their own content (i.e. House of cards) and allowing people to watch the content without having to subscribe to packages the cable company forces you to.

Online courses can be a viable alternative to the traditional University experience,but it does not replace the University Experience. If for whatever reason, you aren't able to attend a brick & mortar course, the best alternative is to take it online. Much of the learning that happens taking traditional courses happens outside the classroom. It is when you are working with others on projects and sharing ideas that really expands your knowledge set. It is being able to interact with professors and visit them during office hours where you really get to push your knowledge frontier.

If you look at the extraordinarily successful people, it wasn't just what they knew that got them to where they are, it was who they knew/know. The traditional university has tremendous resources that are dedicated to facilitating networking between students, their peers, the faculty, and industry.

But everyone knows that the last author is the one who funded the research and will credit for the idea....the research adviser

I've seen quite a few posts telling the OP to apply to the big companies such as Google, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, etc.....

It could be worth a shot to do this. However, now you are now competing with a large pool of very qualified applicants who may have conducted research in the specific areas that the job is in. The odds of landing a position at a big Tech company may be slim with a PhD in a research area outside of the companies interest area.

Although the PhD, your research, and your experience could add significant value to the company, it may be difficult for prospective employers to see/appreciate this value. Like other posters have said, consider starting at the bottom (volunteer, low paying position, startup, self-employed)

Heck, one of the greatest physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, spent 9 years after he graduated trying to get the job that he actually wanted. Four of those years were after he had written four papers in 1905 that would revolutionize physics. During the interim period between graduating and landing a professorship, he took a tutoring job, worked as a patent clerk, and taught classes pro-bono at a local university.

My perspective as potential employee
I'm a PhD candidate (Computer Engineering) at a top 5 engineering school, and I would say that through the process of looking for full-time employment, the opposite has been happening to me.

Employers see the PhD and their expectations rise exponentially; they expect you to walk on water and work miracles during the interview process even though the position you have applied for only requires a MS. Ironically, an MS graduate would have an easier time getting the same job that I applied to.

Employer perspective
I do understand things from the employers' perspective. Employers are concerned about retention and not just about at the company, but at the position you applied for at the company. They worry that if they pay you below fair market value for PhD salary, that you may jump ship when an opportunity comes along for you to get a PhD salary at some other position and/or some other company. Also, a PhD can signal to the employer that you are very ambitious and really like to learn. Above average ambition and appetite/ability to learn can be a risk factor for them because you may get bored of your current position and jump ship

Who would have thought, since the bad guys can test their malware against the most up-to-date popular av software to ensure that the malware does not get detected

People buy based on how products are marketed to them, not how they'll actually use it.

They sell you there resources, connections,network, and reputation. Very difficult to get your foot in the door for a job if all you have is knowledge and skill.

Why? It takes work for companies to actually spend the time and effort to evaluate each potential candidate for a job and figure out the candidate's actual knowledge and skill set.

The easiest thing for an employer to do to filter out resumes/applicants is to trust the brand name. It is the same thing that people do in a grocery store when they want to choose a product that is produced by many companies. It is a heuristic to conserve mental energy and a way of life.

You can add napster as another case example. Did the legal battle on music piracy really change anything? No. What ended up happening was a handful of individuals were fined ridiculous amounts of money that they would never would make in their life time.

You know what changed everything? Having a legitimate alternative to being forced to pay $20 for an album with maybe only 2 or 3 descent songs on it. Cue itunes.

mod up

Faith and science need not compete with each other.; they can coexist. In other words, people treat the two as a false dichotomy.

A person's faith should not prevent them from believing in science. Conversely, a person's belief in science should prevent them from having faith.

If one could prove one's faith, it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called science.

There are scientific ideas that we believe to be true, but cannot yet prove. A long standing example was fermats last theorem. People had for a long time felt it was true, but until recent time, they were unable to prove it. A modern day example could be NP vs P. Many scientists suspect that an NP complete problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, but no one has a proof.

The main point is that even in science, there are things that we cannot yet prove. There are some things that we may never be able to prove. We have our beliefs about what we feel is true. Our faith in our belief guides us in our attempt to answer the as yet unanswerable questions. The fact that we may not have an answer to a scientific question,but only beliefs about the answer, does not prevent us from being scientific.