Pay more for the background check, apparently. They shouldn't take a long time, especially since they're mostly worthless.

No, paying more doesn't help.

I know of several background check companies. One of them checks everything in your resume - they verify that yes, you attended College U. between those dates you claimed, and that yes, you were in the right department (that information's mostly public). They even go and verify your past employers. When you hire people from other countries, it takes even longer (the larger companies have scouts in other countries).

Then there are ones that check your references, and they have to give a couple of weeks for responses as well. I got fed up doing so many of those I just answer basic questions so it takes no longer than 2 minutes. Because the only information they need is the start date and end date. I'm not going to divulge salary information to a third party, nor am I going to offer opinions or judgements. The last two require ME to do work, and sorry, you didn't pay me to answer your questions.

And what's with them doing it in the most obnoxious way possible? I get an email with a word document or HTML file, and they want me to FAX IT BACK?! I didn't bother with the ones who couldn't even be courteous enough to give me a toll free number.

Perhaps those background check companies need to look at themselves first and realize that the people they're checking are busy folks too, and if they want answers, making it as frictionless as possible to answer would go a long way to getting better responses. Hell, mail me a letter, enclose a $5 gift card, and I'll be more than happy to spend 10 minutes doing your thing. And if you're doing that, SASE please, so all I have to do is drop it in the mailbox.

Show you did some effort (even if it was Bob in the mailroom whose job is to take a printout of your forms, stuff in a gift card and a return envelope into a bigger envelope, and drop it in the mailbox).

I still wonder how could Google access these files, if CRC does not allow this.

The same way other companies like "expert sex change" (.com, if you must) used to show up in the rankings, but if you go there, you see paywall after paywall.

Basically the sites look for the Googlebot user-agent and adjust their results slightly - by exposing the entire content of the page. So all of it is nicely indexed by Google, and when you search, they show up. But the answer (which Google got to see) is hidden away through logins because you're not Google.

You used to be able to see it through the cache links, and I think Google is actually cracking down on people who try to SEO by targeting the bot (you don't see expert sex change on the list anymore).

But sites like CRC did the same - if you were Google, you got more access. You might want to try browsing the web as Googlebot...

He doesn't. He's appealing to beliefs, whether supported by science or not - first, the belief that wifi radiation can be dangerous, and second, the belief that his widget is safer than the competition.

I'd say the competitor has poor marketing.

With that "pregnant woman" setting, I'd go and say "My router is much safer than theirs. Theirs emits dangerous wifi - so dangerous they have to put in a pregnant woman setting to prevent their wifi from hurting your unborn child. Our wifi doesn't need that setting as it's inherently safer and won't hurt your unborn child!"

After all, it can go either way - either admit their setting is better. or trash their setting as evidence they need it, while yours doesn't.

The thing is, as a drone pilot, if I see a fire, the last thing I want to do is get in the way of firefighters and/or emergency services.

That's because you were probably raised right and still have the sense you were born with.

We can't assume the same about everybody else. In fact, it's safest to assume everyone else has no idea how to behave and will fuck stuff up more often than not.

In fact, I can imagine a reason why people would bring their drone into a wildfire - cool video shoot.

Sadly, it appears taking shots of things from new and unusual angles to get the view on YouTube seems to be the order of the day.

I mean, when you can bring your drone over a wildfire to get cool video of that fire burning down someone's house, that'll bring the clicks and the money.

And you know YouTube pays people too much when they can destroy a $10,000 Apple Watch Edition and pay for it from the YouTube proceeds.

So yeah, catch a wildfire from a cool angle burning up someone's prized possession, make serious cash, who cares if you're putting people's property or lives in danger. Just the YouTube clicks matter.

DHCPv6 is nothing like DHCPv4. It was designed from the ground up differently, just like IPv6 itself was. It's the only mechanism out there that an IPv6 network admin has to control which devices get which addresses. Denying a DHCPv6 solution just forces people into a 2 sizes fit all, which is far from ideal. Also, DHCPv6 is the only thing that allows one to have, say /96 subnets (assuming that they don't give a fuck to SLAAC) or even a /128 assignment.

And there are many valid uses of DHCP where IPv6 doesn't exist, or is insufficient. RA and RADNS works for the most basic case, but enterprise needs are far more varied.

I mean, think desktop management - it's not unusual to have DHCP right now give the PC an IP and boot it off the network (DHCP options for boot-server and boot-file) - otherwise known as PXE, as well as in an OS environment for the OS to pick up which is the authentication server it should use (LDAP, Active Directory, etc) and so on.

I suppose IPv6's way is to have those services announce themselves over the network, but then it becomes limited to a network segment and you start filling the network up with broadcasts. Plus, it's a lot harder to manage - for example, you can give someone a new PC by noting its MAC address and the OS install/download/etc happen automatically by plugging it in and booting it up. to that configuration.

see, in the US (for those not from here) if we call you a 'contractor' in the software field, then we can have you work 40 hours/week minimum, likely ask for more and not pay more (just guilting you into working more, the unspoken threat is to cancel your contract the very next day). but the super sweet deal they get is that they don't cover your healthcare (not one penny), they don't cover the national holidays, the religious holidays or even your actual sick days. all that costs you a day's pay for each day you take off during those times. we have a lot of US monday holidays and, as a contractor, I hated it. I got 32 hours of pay that week, other fulltime employees got their full week's pay and 1 day loss of pay is actually a lot, when you add it up. and no, as a contractor, you do NOT get paid more than the f/t guys. that stopped happening 10 or 20 years ago, at least. today, the contractor in sw is the lowest rank, the most disposable and everyone knows it.

That mean contracting's not for you. First off, you need better negotiation skills. And potentially sales skills because you're supposed to negotiate all those things in your contract.

Your hourly rate should include extra money to pay for your benefits and your taxes that the employer would've paid. And the contract is for a definite period of time - it cannot be indefinite (or you and your company run a real risk of being reclassified as employee), so add in a holiday bonus to the rate. If you make $30/hr as a FT employee, you had better be charging out $50+ as contractor to cover extra expenses, vacation, PTO, etc.

Your contract should also include termination clauses - penalties paid if terminated early. If you're good, you can get it so you get full payment for rest of the contract, if not, you can make it so you get 30 days.

And while you're drafting your contract, add in IP provisions because it's appropriate.

Yes, contractors suck, especially if you lack the skills to sell yourself. Yes, if your company is switching you, it sucks and you will probably agree to something just for stability, which is the wrong thing to do. Or at the very least, make it a super-short 30 day contract so your exploitation period is short while you regroup and negotiate better terms. At the same time, use that time to look for another job - because either way, you're free to do so. As a contractor, the company cannot limit you from checking out other prospects or even doing multiple jobs.

SSDs just make it worse, since when they fail, they are usually impossible to recover.

My hard drive failures generally tend to be unrecoverable - sure I might be able to get pieces of data, but once they go, it's generally gone. SSDs just up and dying is no real biggie (backups!).

I suppose the real sad thing is that Microsoft had one of the best backup solutions for networked Windows computers, especially in a home/SOHO setting. Windows Home Server had a stupidly simple to use backup system - it worked at a file and image level so if you were upgrading or restoring, you popped in the boot DVD, booted the PC with the new hard drive off it, logged into your WHS, and clicked "restore". Couple of hours later and your PC is up and running.

And it backed up all PCs nightly - woke them up, did the backup, put them back to sleep. Plus all your usual de-duplicating and other things. And in the few cases where a PC needs drivers, the backup created a driver folder you can view on another PC, copy those to a thumb drive, and when the boot DVD prompted, you stuck those in and it loaded them.

it was also stupidly simple to use - install the Windows Home Server connector, add it to the backup rotation and done.

I generally don't pay much attention to the music (of course I'm aware it's there) when I'm watching a film.

But seeing as he's done the tunes for a few that a I really like I might try digging out a few soundtracks, or watching with the picture off.

You might think you don't, but you actually do. Even if you're not aware of it.

Sound is actually a critical part of a motion picture - more so than the picture itself! Many studies have been conducted (and you can do it yourself, too) - with the sound muted (turn on subtitles), you'll find the movie is actually lacking. Reverse it - with the picture off and the sound on, and it doesn't matter - you get the full range of emotions and environment that the director was trying to create, even though you're not actually seeing the images. That's how important sound is.

Even before the era of talkies where you had a gramophone or piano player, they were doing the same thing - to provide context and emphasis for the images.

And the movie's score plays a VERY important role in emotional development - it's not just putting some music to fill in some gaps, but the right choice of instruments, tempo and cues adds excitement to action sequences, suspense during sneak scenes, sorrow or sadness during bad events, etc.

If you have a movie that is particularly moving, try watching it without sound and you'll wonder what the big deal was.

Oh and yes, the music is intended to be background music - you're not supposed to notice it unless the director really has a lull in the dialog or effects or is doing a hero sequence. That's what makes it even more powerful.

If you have a particularly good ear, and given modern movies typically follow a standard three-act structure, pay attention to the hero theme - first when it plays out at the beginning ("everything's going great!"), then see how it evolves in the second act (hero is challenged) and third act (hero is wounded and must somehow overcome). And finally after the denouement, hear the theme again (hero succeeds).

It's somewhat ironic, that in a motion picture, sound is probably the most important aspect of it, not the picture.

If we don't want to save the world because it's "not profitable", then we are truly fucked. What are we, Ferengi?

Actually, the real reason it's "not profitable" is because of cost externalization.

If I burn toxic chemicals and release it into the atmosphere, it costs me very little. it costs society a lot (increased health care for those downwind, etc).

And that's why it's "not profitable". We haven't costed out a lot of things - it's still cheaper to pollute than to control pollution.

Rarely is stuff truly "free" - it just means it isn't priced right. Spewing toxic chemicals in the air is effectively free, because the only people who pay are those downwind.

It doesn't help that you have people in the government that are used to purchasing Ships... They don't seem to comprehend software, the speed at which it changes, the technology changes, etc... They want to buy a unit of something and then just perform maintenance (if your software breaks you should just be able to add a coat of paint right?).

Actually, software maintenance is a thing - software needs to be maintained just like a gearbox or an engine or a nuclear reactor. Here they're paying Microsoft to maintain it - effectively Microsoft is a contractor.

And it makes sense too - even in an embedded system, isolated from the internet, there's still opportunities for infection (you still need to get data into and out of the system, and USB keys are stupidly easy ways to update core components.

Heck, infected USB keys was one way the USAF got their drone consoles infected - mission waypoints etc., were stored on USB keys and copied to the consoles (beats hand-entering the data!), and well, there you go.

As for why Windows, well, if someone writes a really specialized piece of software, and you use it, you pretty much are stuck with what OS they use. It doesn't have to be custom development, just a piece of really niche software that you need.

And don't forget your local food bank. Those you can help either by giving them cash (they normally have enough leverage that $1 in donations can buy at least $2 worth of food), or by buying stuff they're constantly in need of (it's not just canned goods, but stuff like fresh produce) and donating it.

Food banks are a lifeline - many users are just on the edge - food, rent, or utiltiies. No one goes to a food bank unless they really have to, and users are limited in selection to what was donated. There's typically plenty of canned goods, but lesser amounts of fresh produce. Even "fancy" foods are well appreciated by users.

And they need volunteers - when you meet the people who use them, you'll see how normal most are - they just happened to fall on hard times. but they're generally otherwise normal families/

Yeah, last year Qualcomm was all the shiz. But can you move 100K+ parts/month? No? Then it's off the table.

Broadcom, Nvidia, even TI (worse parts and massively worse support, IMO) same, same same.
Bottom line? I'd recommend Freescale 9 times out of 10 for any of the medium to small players if I was looking for a high end ARM SOC.

Not correct. Qualcomm has plenty of support companies who will gladly do smaller quantities. Sure you won't get the personalized support that Samsung and all the other big guys get, but they have access to the same resources - basically these companies aggregate a bunch of smaller companies into a bigger one, plus handling all the common questions because everyone asks them.

In fact, all you have to do is ask Qualcomm and they'll hand you the contact information for a company that'll help you out.

The reason for this was Qualcomm saw what happened to nVidia - back when Tegra was the SoC - nVidia was not talking to anyone moving less than 1M units. Qualcomm took over and they notice there's a lot of interest in their chips, but they know they can't support every company who only wants to do 1K, 10K, 100K units. So Qualcomm basically create a bunch of platforms to satisfy these smaller requests, and contracts companies to support them. (These SoCs demand high-precision PCBs which are costly to make, tricky to design, and take a LONG time to manufacture, so Qualcomm designs modules which adapts the complex PCBs to a simpler edge connector or board-to-board connector).

Probably not going to happen because of this. Sony doesn't want you to be able to play the games you already bought. Then again, Microsoft doesn't really want you to either, but they're behind in the game, so their hand was forced. Also, backward compatibility only supports a handful of games. I typically don't buy a console until 3-4 years after it's out, then I can get GOTY editions of games for $30 instead of new "patched out of the box" games for $60.

Sony wants you to buy it again. The number of re-releases this generation is staggering - there's plenty of PS3 games being remade for PS4, a few Xbox360 games remade for Xbone (a few, not as many as Sony it seems).

As for Microsoft? They're behind, yes, but not hugely behind. And not far enough to be desperate - when you're talking about both shipping tens of millions already, you're not "in trouble". Plus, Microsoft found the new price point where sales have picked up and even exceeded PS4 sales.

All we can say is life is good when both are actually competing with each other.

(By any measure, the Xbone is a success by itself. Just when you compare it against the PS4, it's not as successful).

And you can bet Sony is probably trying hard to get PS3 backwards compatibility going because Microsoft's announced it, and Sony's game schedule is starting to look skimpy because Sony's E3 presentation was more about games "in the future", while Microsoft's was "this year or next".

You're forgetting about focus groups, which is where most politician's views/presentations are actually crafted. Polls are used as feedback for "how are we doing with 20 to 30 year-old Latino transvestites who self-identify as Republicans" to identify where (demographically) more advertising money needs to be spent.

You know, political parties have the campaigning down pat. They don't rely on public polls for their information and policy positions. They have, through decades of research and analysis, figured out who generally votes for them, and who is in their target demographic they need to convince.

Using that local knowledge Is what gets them ahead - not some political poll run by calling up a bunch of people who aren't controlled.

For example - some political parties ignore public polls altogether because the weighting of the public is skewed. If your party skews towards the middle age and older folks, then issues that affect young people are not ones that concern you. And if the poll was done at the local university? Doesn't matter if you scored only 8% and your opponent 90%. If you know that of that group of people, only 10% actually vote, you ignore them. The time and money can be better spent getting at the 30% undecided in the group that do vote. (See: Elections in Canada where the "popular vote" was nowhere near the actual vote - often because the polls used inaccurate weightings and other errors.)

Political parties know their demographics, they know who votes for them, who's likely to vote for them, and who are the people who actually get out and vote.

So in the free trial to promote the service Apple is supposed to pick up all the costs. It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.

I don't like the argument the artists are using that since Apple is using the free period to promote Apple's service then Apple should pay all of the artists fees. There are lots of ways that the artists are getting promoted yet they still expect to get paid for it. How come they never have to make a sacrifice for the sake of promotion? It's always someone else that needs to make the sacrifice and never themselves. Yes, I can understand that there are many struggling artists out there but the ones that are complaining the loudest are those that have the most money. Taylor Swift could easily make do without three month of royalties from streaming from Apples service but she's the one that screamed the loudest. H

Well, that's how the internet and contracts work these days - if you don't like it, make a big stink in public and companies will go rushing to fix it. Customer service by the noisiest and most demanding.

Anyhow, Apple is going to pay per stream, so it's likely they'll give less play to the more expensive artists and more play to the cheaper ones.

And you can bet that 71.5% or 73% is now going to vanish back to industry standard 70%. I don't know how that extra 1.5/3% would have worked out for artists - how long would a subscriber have to be subscribed before that extra money makes a difference, but I assume others have done the calculation.

And don't feel too sorry for Apple - you can bet they're going to use this to pressure those rates downwards - we'll give you more per stream during those 3 months if you give us 69.9%...