Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:easy (Score 1) 480

Are you the jerk from the article? Oh no wait, he was brilliant. JK :)

Being a brilliant business person is identifying market trends and acting on them. Which means finding out what people want and delivering it to them at prices they can afford. To do this you need to get people with the right skills together on a voluntary basis by offering them compensation that they need to agree with.

In other words, it's up to the business person to get people together in such a way that everyone involved is benefiting and is better of than they would have been otherwise.

Comment Re:Political channels (Score 1) 649

>Occupy Wall Street was the first/best civil protest we've had in *decades*!

This tells me you reside on the left side of the political spectrum. Because for all it's flaws, the Tea Party were united in that they wanted a balanced budget ... and they were ridiculed. Now the right is doing the same thing to the left with OWS. The fact that you recognize one and not the other tells me that you're a useful idiot in their plot to use ridicule as you described it.

Comment Re:Well, they're a good indicator of intelligence (Score 3, Interesting) 672

As a person who is involved in hiring, we just want to get a sense of whether the position is right for you or whether you'll just flake out because you rather be doing something else. For example maybe in 5 years you expect to be a manager or a team leader but we don't expect openings. Or the opposite, maybe we do expect an opening and we are looking for someone with aspirations to become management so we can groom them for that position. Personally I like to see candidates achieve their objectives in our company. So if we can hire them on and both our goals align then both parties can potentially be satisfied or even happy.

It may seem like a stupid question but it's actually quite relevant. I guess relevance does depend on the job though.

Comment Economic Ignorance (Score 1) 631

Only 50 people to manage a huge center like that ... that's amazing levels of productivity. We need more business that can work that efficiently not less!

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

Comment Baby steps (Score 1) 355

The FCC's original mandate was to regulate the airwaves not their content. Eventually of course that all changed. I expect the very same thing to happen to the internet ... you know ... to protect children, america's business interests and to fight terrorists of course.

Comment Don't be so modest. (Score 1) 382

I like it the way it is. Department is a standard in the US, homeland has a very nazi feel to the name and you want people to believe that the massive overarching department that spies on it's own citizens is trying to do so for people's security. Don't be so modest DHS, I think you've succeeded with your name. Though I suppose you could call it the comity instead of department, much like the 'K' in KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti) State Security Committee. It may not match other department names but it would fit in with the new Russian theme you're going with such as having tzars.

Comment Re:Ron Pauls' economic ideas are head-crushingly S (Score 1) 2247

>He's one of those fucking crazy idiots who thinks that economies magically regulate themselves.

Actually libertarians believe in what's called Public Choice Theory. Public choice is the application of economic principles to the political realm. You see some economists believe that somethings shouldn't be handled by the free-market so they advocate we place those industries in the hands of politicians. The problem with that implicit assumption that the incentives in the public realm are structured in a way that will give better result. Public choice explodes that assumption. The rampant corporatism in the US (and in other nations) drives that point in quite nicely. So it's not so much that markets do it well, it's that they do it less bad.

So my argument would be that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to think that those who believe in free-markets are doing wishful thinking. There is a lot of theory behind that statement.

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard