other response are technically correct, but from a theoretical perspective, the bookie (less bid/ask spread) is computing a risk neutral price based on actual betting behavior. the optimal odds are the same ratio as the # of bets placed on each side. this guarantees the bookie doesn't lose money. add some extra fee for placing the bet and you always make money. the original odds might be set based on some empirical estimate, but the final odds used are always based on ratios of bets placed.

as mentioned earlier, why should someone be accountable for the results of deliberate attacks? no other industry does that.

I think an easier way to look at it is that it applies to the government, in that the articles place restrictions on what agents of the government can and cannot it. e.g.:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

...by the government

First of all, what's unrealistic about it? And it's not even a claim, i.e. as a result of using their service, they claim a particular result. It's the service itself they are talking about and they do not deliver.

the major problem I see with all of these services is that even if it finds music you might like, it doesn't mean it can create a good playlist based on what sounds good together. I haven't seen anything short of an experienced radio DJ be able to do this well. This is why I like radio paradise (www.radioparadise.com). It's 24 hour commercial free radio with an eclectic taste that's DJ'ed, so it doesn't sound disjointed.

Many of the books seem to be ~$11; this is 10% more than the kindle. That adds up pretty quickly.

Having worked with a variety of headhunters, and interviewed at companies that work with a lot of headhunters, the companies do not expect the head hunters to be honest, but they certainly expect you to be. the first thing I do at the beginning of every interview I go on is give them a copy of my resume I know is correct and basically say "I don't know what the headhunter gave you, but here's a correct copy."

Also, you can work with more than one head hunter at a time; there's no reason to work with only one. If the lying one keeps getting you good interviews, then ask him not to "fix" your resume, but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

That being said, there are plenty of headhunters that do what I call "marking their territory." A lot of companies maintain a database of potential candidates and their resumes. If and when you get a position, they pay the headhunter who found you, but oftentimes they will pay whoever put you into the system first. So, headhunters will scour job boards and tell you about wonderful positions they've found and how they have a really good relationship with the hiring manager (who they don't know) and ask you if you're OK with them talking to company. When you agree, they simply submit your resume to the companies candidate database. Other recruiters will know this and will therefore have no incentive to work with you. If you are in need of a job or you might have liked it anyway, everyone wins, but most of the time it's just a way to squeeze their competition and it can really screw you because plenty of companies won't "expire" the candidate entry for a year or two. When you need a job down the road a little, recruiters won't work with you because someone else has basically excluded you (for their purposes) from a number of good places.

If you suspect your headhunter may be doing this, then tell them sternly that you do not permit them to submit your resume anymore ANYWHERE.

Amen to that. Maybe he secretly spends all his time working on R (which rocks). That being said, why does SAS suck so much?

Fahrenheit 451 = 233 C. It makes sense that cardboard is a little higher

Then you'll have a heart attack when I tell you that the projects for the OS course I took at Cornell were all to expected be done either in Java or C# (although you could use another language if you pleased). There was also surprisingly little discussion of existing kernels.