I have no idea why, but when koan linked to Joel Stein's article, I real "Joseph Stalin". Brain fart of some sort or another.

I stand by the rest of my comment.

Shachar

You're not very good distinguishing between group pride and control, are you?

Shachar

You claimed that no movies are made about other genocides done by the Nazis because the Jews want the term "Holocaust" to only refer to that aspect of it. It is not possible for the to happen if the Jews don't actually control Hollywood. Merely producing a few movies won't stop others from producing other movies.

Also, I cannot help but point out that while you emphatically deny that you said that, you did not deny that that is what you believe. Quite the contrary, you tried to bring support to precisely the same point of view you deny expressing (albeit from the only person in history who can be said to have murdered even more people than Hitler himself).

It should be fairly obvious at this point that I have zero control over what you do or do not do. In terms of what the term means, however, you are wrong. See wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford dictionary.

Which is strange, because after I called you that, I went on to address your argument. Now why would I do that if all I want to do is kill the conversation?

While I completely agree that the label "anti-semite" is used too quickly on people who do not deserve it, in your case, given that you repeat a well known anti-semite story, it seems warranted.

Shachar

He'd certainly commend you on this comment. Particularly the part where you say:

So the Jews control Hollywood? Anti-Semitic much?

The Armenian Holocaust have been hashed mostly for political reasons. Too many nations care too much about what Turkey thinks, and they are extremely touchy about the matter. Let's hope that now that the Pope bashed them for it, that it will get more attention.

As for the Nazis non-Jews murder victims: the Nazis haven't been nearly as methodical in persecuting Roma, blacks, socialists etc. as they have the Jews. One of the side effects is that no one is really certain who should be counted toward that number (as opposed to "normal" war casualties). In fact, according to wikipedia, the number you quote (5 million) is on the low end of the estimates range, with the high end reaching as far as 16 million!

Shachar

60 million is a bit over-reaching. The only numbers I know that match that from WWII are for the number of casualties during the war. The number of people the Nazies actually murdered is not 100% clear, because other than the Jews, the Nazies weren't as methodical about the murders. Including 6 million Jews, the estimates range from 11 to 20 million.

I don't think it makes sense to count people killed, say, by invading British or American armies as people Goebbels can be held personally accountable for.

Shachar

Could it also be pay? I hear teaching (well, below college level) isn't particularly lucrative. And it is still at least partially the case that males tend to be the primary breadwinner. If you are making $40k a year teaching, or you could switch to software engineering or something and make $70k ...

I'm not saying it's not disrimination, either, I'm just wondering if we can really blame it solely on those sorts of societal pressures and not on economics, too.

Er, citation needed.

I've seen one extremely frustrating EHR in action. And it's true, the UI is awful. I don't think it was a manger, though, it looked to me like it was designed by an techy, heh. I would have thought that generic non-techy PHB would want something like TurboTax.

And it's not just the UI, it's also the specificity that is sometimes required - like, in medical history, someone says they broke their arm. There's no selection for "broken arm," it has to be a specific bone. So, patient who broke your arm when you were 6... what bone was it? :)

Hmmmm. This is pretty different from what I've read... but I'll have to look into it mor,e perhaps I've either been misled or misunderstood what I've read.

I can tell you that the feedback I got from my recruiter matched what I sensed from the interview. I think I can tell when the interviewer lost interest in me, and that was when I said I tried not to manage such big teams.

As for working for Google: How do you handle not being able to tell anyone what you're working on? Does that not bother you?

From what I hear,, Google's secrecy is second only to Apple (where you cannot even tell your coworkers what you're working on).

Shachar

Google does not give candidates any feedback on the reason they weren't hired.

My "internal headhunter" was called something along the lines of "hiring something", but I can collaborate that point. I was interviewed for a team lead position, and the hiring something told me that they decided I was great technically, but did not have enough experience managing teams of 10 people (why one would need such an experience, and how such a constellation makes sense, is left as an exercise for the reader). He even went as far as to say he, personally, thought that was a mistake.

My only guess is that candidates who approach Google (as opposed to candidates with whom Google initiates contact) don't get a hiring something, and as such, have no feedback. I certainly did not receive any feedback by any other channel.

Shachar

P.s.
I think I dodged a bullet there. Had Google extended an offer, I might have been tempted to take it. In retrospect, I very much doubt I'd have enjoyed it as much as I do where I ended up, at a small start-up.

They didn't pay for more bandwidth. You ALREADY paid for that bandwidth (say, 5mbit down). Comcast decided they didn't want to provide you 5mbit worth of Netflix, though, without Netflix ALSO paying, even though Netflix had already paid whoever they have as an ISP on their end.

This wasn't Netflix running out of bandwidth and having to increase their uplink speed, and it wasn't the consumer running out of bandwidth and having to pay to increase their download speed. This was Comcast deciding that Netflix was causing you (and your peers) to use too much of your already-paid for bandwidth. Comcast couldn't keep up with the consistent and simultaneous demand on what you supposedly had access to. So, instead, it throttled Netflix (which users saw as being Netflix's problem - hey, Netflix can't keep up!) and then charged Netflix to unthrottle (which users saw as Netflix "buying more bandwidth" so Netflix could keep up). In reality, it was Comcast that essentially oversold their bandwidth (you can have 5mbit down! oh, wait, nevermind, we can't supply all this bandwidth all at once; hey, a lot of it is being used by Netflix, maybe we could get them to pay more so it doesn't look like we were unprepared for demand on services we sold!)

This isn't unlike an airline overselling their flights. The difference is that when a flight fills up and customers who already paid for their tickets can't actually fit on the plane anymore, the airline doesn't start charging the destination more because the destination is using too much space on their plane. They give the customers who can't get on the plane at the very least a free transfer, and I think they get a free future lfight or something, too? Or a refund + flight? Something like that. In other words, the airliner realizes that part of overselling means that you have to deal with the consequences that occasionally come up with overselling... and "deal with" doesn't mean "charge someone else for your own lack of space that you sold as though you had more space than you actually did."

TL;DR: Comcast oversold their bandwidth and decided to make Netflix pay for it.