I totally understand what they're doing and that's fine if they want to operate in that way. Its people just need to realize this and use the name and prestige its name on their resume brings when they hop to a smaller but potentially more enjoyable organization.
The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave. Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.
What you have outlined above is a company which is not interested in its people and only its immediate bottom line and one where it's clear its people should move on regardless of payscale and internal short-term opportunity provided.
As someone who has repeatedly attended and presented at conferences in my field, I make it a point during negotiations for any new job to ensure these are funded fully but only if I am presenting; otherwise, I opt to share in the costs associated in attending with my employer.
Each and every company I have worked at in the past (and current) has a budget for training and professional development of its employees, some more than others; however, by making a case that I am giving back to a community of like-minded professionals and putting our name and brand out there during presentations, I have found this is an easy sell for companies for which I want to work.
I work extensively w/SAS and utilize a lot of the conference (SAS Global Forum/SUGI prior) materials in my day to day both for myself and our entire organization. By making it clear to my employers that I want to give back by presenting, I have opened organization's view on how the sharing of information benefits the business while benefiting the entire industry.
Make your determination and desires known when you sign on and, if that is not an option, make it clear to your management that you want to do the same thing. While I have received a variety of different types of pushback over the years for this view, they have all relented and ended up changing their world view when the benefits are presented as they are.
Conferences are not inexpensive (SAS Global Forum is usually around $3000 - $3500 for a single person encompassing travel, conference registration, lodging, meals, etc) but the ROI can be HUGE beyond that depending on the knowledge transfers that occur, the networking opportunities, and the new business development which I have seen from these conferences.
While I did not attend SASGF 2014 this year, it was solely due to my available time to develop a presentation topic, not because my company would not send me (this was my first missed attendance since I became involved in the SAS world) and I look forward to contributing to and learning from others in the future.
Best of luck.
Why do the ISP's want to break net neutrality? It's related to an ongoing fight between Netflix and pretty much every ISP on earth.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of Net Neutrality.
It's not just about the Netflix fight.
The biggest ISPs are increasingly turning into content providers and this puts them in direct competition with online service providers.
The idea behind Net Neutrality is to prevent these conglomerates from using their control of the network to either force payments from other companies (extracting rent from Netflix) or to force consumers into using co-branded offerings.
If you look at the wireless world, where the same rules don't apply, carriers are already taking money from other corporations to give you Facebook access (a co-branded offering) with no data charges.
Net Neutrality is fundamentally about preventing monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.
Just because a market is "free" does not magically make it competitive.
Truth of the matter is, in the SF Bay Area, it is hard to be unemployed if you're a properly skilled tech worker, citizen, green-card holder or otherwise.
This is real humorous. One company offered a degreed Electrical Engineer $15 an hour in the SF Bay Area. I kid you not. (read the thread) This is not an isolated case, and I know of other examples. Why do people bother to get college degrees again??
This is what the H1B program has bought us folks. People with degrees working for slave wages that won't even enable them to pay back their student loans. In my book, that's going backwards. It's time to stop being fooled by the H1B folly.
If we had a properly functioning H-1B program
I really question if we ever needed an H1B program. Because what it's doing is shifting the costs of training (if there is any) onto someone else. Not to mention the thousands of people who Microsoft and Cisco have laid off. Or the countless older workers who are being discriminated against (it seems like everyone's career ends at 40 - as they're laid off in favor of a younger H1B). If companies did not have H1Bs, perhaps all these 'undesirable' workers would have a lot more value in the job market. Or better yet, the layoffs would not happen in the first place.
This really is a case of the emperor having no clothes.
Search engines are absolutely awful at finding reviews. Try goggling "reviews for X", absolutely zero useful content.
Reviews for hotels (no parenthesis) brought up this slashdot article on the last page of google's (some results omitted) search results.
Such is the power of
When you are looking at reviews of hotels or restaurants you have almost nothing to judge the comments against.
I think the idea is to tie their reviews into the larger ecosystem of online comments.
So if they are assholes in the comments section of [online news article] and get downvoted,
then that would be reflected in the data your site gets from the "third party reputation system."
Then it's up to you how you want your site to weight their asshole behavior.
Ideally, this system would support one identification, but multiple user names,
in the sense that I can be Bob on one website and Alice on another,
but the reputation reflects all my online comments.
That said, while I see how it could be useful, I actually hate the idea.
Having ALL my online comments concentrated in 1 easy to hack/subpoena place is discomfiting.
In fact, the paper notes that security has been a big hastle in IBE-type encryption, as has revocation of keys. The authors claim, however, that they have accomplished both. Which implies the public key can't be an arbitrary string like an e-mail, since presumably you would still want messages going to said e-mail address, otherwise why bother revoking when you could just change address?
Anyways, this is not the only cool new crypto concept in town, but it is certainly one of the most intriguing as it would be a very simple platform for building mostly-transparent encryption into typical consumer apps. If it works as advertised.
I present it to Slashdot readers, to engender discussion on the method, RIBE in general and whether (in light of what's known) default strong encryption for everything is something users should just get whether they like it or not."
Link to Original Source
Pay no attention to the fact that what they're really doing is strongly diluting the actual poor reviews.
Honestly, the FAQ on their website makes them sound like complete fucking assholes. You don't have to bend over backwards for customers, but you really don't need to go around insulting the hell out of them.
Yes, which is exactly why China's campaign to make the yuan a major world currency is laughable. People aren't going to buy a currency just so they can buy consumer goods from you, they are going to want to invest it, and current Chinese law pretty much makes that impossible to do in any sort of meaningful fashion. China is trying to "have it's cake and eat it to" by throwing it's weight around like one of the big boys but still being ultra-protectionist like a developing economy. Sooner or later this is going to catch up with them, and it's not going to be pretty.
more to the point, the virgin galactic craft doesn't go anywhere. it has no destination other than downrange. so all branson is selling is a roller coaster ride. and an expensive one at that.
the russians (and soon spacex) at least have a space station as a destination.
What? Obama's new wonder-plan is what TOOK AWAY our low deductible plan and forced us, for more money, to buy one that will cost us thousands more each year in premiums, and ten thousand more a year in deductibles.
The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them.
Insurance companies typically do like to change their insurance plans, making changes to cost-sharing or the benefits they offer. That means that grandfathered plans have disappeared. [...]
These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.
The law took away your plan, only so far as your insurance company decided to get rid of it.
Because of how the math is working out, we're told to expect that next year's premiums will go up by another 45-55%. Thanks, Mr. Obamacare Cheerleader, if you're one of the people who helped to empower the people who snuck this 100% partisan monstrosity through congress on Pelosi's "deeming" technique. Thanks a lot.
In all seriousness, if the facts are as you claim, go to the media or write your congressman.
Fox News and Republican politicians have embarrassed themselves repeatedly by publicizing Obamacare horror stories that completely fall apart when verified.
They'd love to have a solid example of someone who really did get shafted and can't get a lower cost plan.
P.S. You say "Were forced to go to a new plan," if you didn't go through the exchange, your insurance company may be the one shafting you.
Instead of your napkin calculations, maybe you should look for legitimate estimates.
Here's the Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231
If you dig around some more, you'll find plenty of other people who have actually run the numbers and explained their forecasts.
In 2013, we saw the following rate increases due to Obamacare:
And if the insurance company doesn't spend 80% or 85% of those premiums on healthcare, they have to cut a check and return the excess to their customers.
Also, here's a fact check for your numbers: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/how-not-to-use-a-survey/
There's a link to the original survey in there.
Four of fifty states had a sample size of 8 or greater.
The other 46 states had sample sizes of 6 or less.
There's either fuck all for competition in 46/50 states,
or maybe the numbers you quoted aren't very useful for drawing conclusions.