Most people are terrible at salary negotiation. Based on various studies with some degree of variance, overall they suggest about 55% of men do not negotiate their wages, and about 70% of women do not negotiate their wages. That is NO NEGOTIATION AT ALL.
It's age old and about positions of power. When unemployed there's a strong desire not to risk rejection of a chance to get scraps from the Lord's table by asking for more scraps or better quality scraps.
Risk takers can get that higher salary or they can get shown the door. The outcome is not always obvious. It seems to be easier to negotiate terms for a job you don't want since you are not so worried about pushing things too far and losing the chance.
Negotiating salary for that first job is an exercise in trying to get screwed over as little as possible since a typical line taken is that the applicant is worthless due to no employment history in that field, and some utter bastards will really push that view on the kids who are just starting out. Then they say something about being "generous" to the "worthless" applicant and offer as low as they can.
It is of course all lies to trick the applicants into a race to the bottom - if they thought the applicants were "worthless" they wouldn't have made it to the interview.
In a lot of places they only employ recent grads because they can screw them over for salary, but where else is a recent grad going to get a job? If you have part time work doing something unrelated to your study that can keep you going long enough to be able to refuse those that want to screw you over more than most or the dead end posts where they chew through recent grads and offer no chance for advancement.
That first job is probably going to be very disappointing but you need something on the C.V. to show that you are capable of working in your field of study a living.
I figured this out when I was like seven years old. You just hook up one of these to a space ship and fly straight to Jupiter.
Or in the sense of adding a spoiler and neon running lights to a beat up Honda Civic "might be really cool"?
Oh, you've seen my whip. Pretty badass, huh?
NF had its peak right before the big flix-gate (lol) when they upped the price, removed streaming and changed plans on everyone.
at that point, I dropped them and never looked back.
vpn is $10 or less. torrents are free. there are NO ADS in torrents. no drm, and good compression yet still watchable.
I have not found a reason to resume paying for content. if an enlightened company gives me a good reason, I could consider it. but I'm not interested in resuming netflix and now that they are starting to SHOW the dark side of their corp mentality, yeah, they are a done-deal and I predict a decline in their customer levels over time.
Customers in the Windows Store.
See how easy that was?
" And everything they added to Windows 8.1 was a step backwards."
Based on the success of 7, that's a good thing, right?
My god, the thought that the new generation might have new moral values: what is the world coming to?
Really? You think a "new generation" is so simple-minded that they can't use reason to put together a value system that arrives at the same destination as so many others? You think it's a good thing to change out values like
I'm delighted that, despite the fastest growing population in the world appearing to embrace medieval theocratic nonsense as the basis of their value system, that at least a fair portion of the world has gone more down the route of using reason to examine and reinforce their moral code. Yes, a "new generation" may indeed show less of the superstition-based trappings surrounding the fringes of judeo-christian culture, but basic stuff like "don't use your new [whatever technology] to steal people's shit" doesn't mean that a moral code based on that reasonable observation that doing so is objectively bad means that changing [whatever technology] means the moral code is changing. Just, sometimes, the venue in which it's applied.
That's why pretending that it's malware that's the issue, and not abusive thieves and vandals (people), is an act of moral cowardice. Because it's the same old stuff, different playing field. People who focus on the gun, the car, the piece of viral code, whatever - they're too chickenshit to address what's actually at play: other people whose world views are broken enough to make malicious use of the tools. People scared of making value judgments about other people always, always reach for the tool as the villain. That says more about that person than it does about the actual villain.
I would dissect your rant if I thought it merited a response
Hey look! You're doing it right now. That's actually pretty funny.
Are you equal in intelligence, as the next person?
No. I'm smarter than a lot of people, and many many people are smarter than me.
Did you ever get a "b", or score a 99 on a test
Oh, I've done MUCH worse than that.
Why condemned them
Why are you asking me? Have I condemned anybody? I'm condemning those who try to pretend that nothing bad is ever anybody's fault. That (relative to the article we're talking about, here) fact that focusing on the tools people use (or mis-use) and ignoring the fact that it's people using those tools is intellectual laziness and often cowardice in the face of political correctness.
Some may be better in an urban, or a wilderness environment. Why complain, you are not robots.
So you agree - people are different, and not all are equal. But ignoring that, we're talking about when people use tools (like malware) to steal other people's assets and reputations.
Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation?
If you have to ask this question, I have to surmise that you're not familiar with a joy of an interesting job well done. Don't worry about it. There are enough people who are willing to work for the sake of doing interesting things and/or killing boredom.
Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor?
There won't be anywhere where they can keep "more of the value". When you get into the situation where 99% are jobless because of automation, there are only two ways to go from there: either you have wealth redistribution, or you have a Luddite uprising that smashes the machines and rewinds the civilization back, and forces it to stay there to maintain social stability. The former option allows for further technological progress, the latter does not. If you personally had that choice, which one would you take?
On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.
There's no way to demand compliance when there are literally hundreds of people lined up behind you willing to do the job that you're currently doing.
Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.
History of past economic systems is generally not applicable to newer ones. If you tried to forecast the success of a capitalist system based on your personal experience in a feudal society, and the past historical track record in, say, Antique slave societies, you would have to conclude that it's an unrealistic utopia, because 90% of the population are needed just to grow the food for everyone else.
Thing is, as technology advances, it eventually accumulates enough changes to force a significant leap in how economics work. It's not really voluntary - the society either makes a leap (and this can also go smoothly or bloody, depending), or it falls off the progress bandwagon and gets stuck in past, and eventually gets conquered or otherwise pushed around by those who stayed on the track.
Capitalism is based on the notion of a workforce that has to work for a living, and on there actually being enough work necessary to satisfy the day-to-day demands that everyone has to do their parts. This assumption is not going to hold true for much longer. In fact, it wouldn't hold true in developed countries today already, if not for outsourcing - why bother with robots if Chinese ex-peasants are a dime a dozen? But those peasants will ride capitalism into middle class themselves, and then outsource to Africans; and then Africans will ride it, and then there's no-one to outsource to - and then it's robots anyway.
And just as feudalism couldn't survive and compete once agricultural techniques advanced to the point where the majority of the population didn't have to be involved in it, so capitalism won't survive once industrial production advances to the point where a single human is sufficient to control a factory that can supply the demands of an entire city.
Just so you know, the average malware jockey makes money that makes me wonder why I remain on this side of the fence. So much for "getting a good job that pays well".
Don't worry. He already has one.
It's acceptable to allow one that is bad, but noticeably better. If you keep iterating on it, eventually you'll actually get a decent candidate. More importantly, if you keep voting out the worse guys, being a worse guy will stop being profitable in politics.
The people collectively? Yes
Adelson owns among many things casinos, hotels, an Israeli newspaper.
So, what you're trying to say is that Sheldon Adelson is representative of people from other countries. Then we agree.
Those casinos, newspapers, investment management companies, etc. get money by selling things to customers, and not just other elite rich people customers.
So, what you're saying is, we have a "representative democracy" but it represents the people of a different country?