Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:trick them into it ... (Score 2) 280 280

I don't know why this comment is marked troll, because it's absolutely not a troll, it is the absolute truth. I have had the EXACT same experience. I get an average of 2-4 recruiters contacting me with offers each month. I've worked hard on honing my skills, I've worked hard on networking locally/regionally, I've worked hard to ensure that my resume is up to date and relates my track record well, etc. Lumpy is exactly right. If others reading this think that he's bragging (and that's why they marked it a troll) they're missing the point. I cannot tell you the enormous difference in negotiation when you are confident (not arrogant) and put yourself in a position where people know you before you walk in the room. It's not that hard to do, and it absolutely puts you in the driver's seat.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Lumpy. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is be a superstar. Superstars are, by definition, a small percentage of the population. We cannot all do this. The vast majority cannot do this. Therefore it isn't really valuable advice. A goal to shoot for, absolutely. But if the key to success is to be in the top 10%, it leaves out the other 90% by definition.

Comment: Re:trick them into it ... (Score 1) 280 280

People dont understand that.

It's why I am fending off job offers monthly. I have a skillset that is in very high demand and I am in a field that has never had a lot of people in it.

All of this makes you an outlier by definition. You don't seem to understand that. Can we all be in the top 10%? I don't think so.

This is what always gets me about this type of example. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is have a rare skill set in a field that has few people in it. Well that's great, but it is something that only a relative few people can do. If more people did it, the field would have more people in it, the skill set would be more common, and you wouldn't be getting calls every day.

Comment: Re:A driver's license can cost thousands (Score 2) 280 280

How is that feasible when it reportedly costs $6,000 for a driver's license? Some jurisdictions reportedly require 120 hours of logged supervised driving on a learner's permit before they will issue a license (source), and not everybody has parents who both drive and are willing to sit in the car that long. At $50 per hour for a professional instructor, it starts to add up.

Thank God. In America anyone who can avoid crashing into things during their test can get a license. It's stupid easy, with the emphasis on stupid.

Comment: Re:In short? (Score 1) 280 280

How about a commute that's easily over 1.5 hours each way every day? Sitting still on highway 95 at 4:00 in the afternoon is about as far away from a brain clearing exercise as I can imagine. There's nothing better I'd rather do than literally waste 3+ hours a day with the other worker bees.

Fuck that. I would have to be desperate for a job to take one that is over 1.5 hours away. I know some people are indeed desperate for a job, but otherwise I would not waste so much of my day. Hell, I pay for a monthly parking spot in the city just to cut my commute from an hour and 15 to 30 minutes.

Comment: Re:The most idiotic story in the world (Score 1) 181 181

If being rich is your only measure of success than Bernie Madoff is a big success. How ironic you end your rant with the name Jesus since he was, by all accounts, a total failure dying penniless on the cross.

This is America; success is measured in dollars. Bernie Madoff was a success, until he turned himself in to the authorities. Modern Americans would step over Jesus and tell him to get a job.

Comment: Re:Like putting Marketing in charge... (Score 1) 181 181

Unfortunately, far too many people are worshipping at the church of Steve Jobs for the concept of the unskilled idea person to die out any time soon.

The PTB have also put this idea into the larger culture as a way to justify their disproportionate wealth.

Comment: Spoken like a true Capitalist (Score 1) 181 181

"Why waste so many years learning how to code? Why not just pay someone else to build your idea?"

Yeah, I mean why learn a skill yourself when you can just hire someone to do the work for you and then hire someone else to market the product to make you millions, while paying the guys you hired as little as possible? It seems the most important skill is being able to pay people while keeping most of the money for yourself.

Comment: Re:take care of yourself and you will look good (Score 1) 233 233

LOL at gluten. Fuck off, fad dieter.

You got lucky in the genes, that's it. You're just to arrogant to realize it.

I am not too arrogant to realize I have awesome genes. In fact, I'm pretty awesome in general, and rather smart too! How's that for not being arrogant?

Comment: Re:instead of just posting here... (Score 1) 89 89

After all, data about money can't be more important than money itself and money safeguarding/management has already outsourced to banks since, when? always?

"Next time there's a server security breach, I'll call my accountants to come fix it right?"

How's this any different to a physical bank security breach (aka robbery)? Next time the bank your accountants work with is robbed will you call them to fix the mess too?

You should look into how much people trusted banks with their money before the advent of FDIC. People trust banks with their money because the government is insuring it against theft or loss. No such guarantee comes with Cloud storage.

Comment: Re:The most underrated misconception of economics (Score 1) 940 940

And you realize the purported purpose of the bailouts was so people don't lose their life savings, homes, and businesses, right?

Emphasis on "purported". If the Fed or Treasury's priority was helping regular people they would have helped people pay their mortgages. Instead they threw money at the banks to make them whole, while letting Main Street get foreclosed upon. You can say the banks were forced to take the money, and they may have said that in public. But it doesn't hold up to assert that the banks didn't need the money. It obviates the whole bailout.

Finally, who's to say what the "correct" duration of time to hold a house is? If the banks really need the cash, they can put them to auction. And they frequently do.

But Drinkypoo's point is that they aren't selling the houses because they don't need the money because they are being propped up by the government.

Comment: Re:Subsidize the supply side (Score 1) 940 940

The problem is that we spent so long subsidizing the demand side that the supply for housing is hopelessly outpaced. The prices have skyrocketed over the past 15 years to the point where first-time buyers are largely priced out of the market. Want to drive home ownership in a sustainable way? Drive it at the supply side. That means subsidizing the whole supply chain, from land to materials to labor. Drive a massive swell of building to bring supply well above demand and watch as homeownership rates rise quickly but sustainably even as market speculators (who really just drive up prices further) get crushed under the weight of falling home prices.

Haven't we tried supply-side economics? What is to keep the supply side from simply pocketing the subsidy and continuing on at current prices?

Comment: Re:sigh... (Score 1) 940 940

If a fraction of the money that was used to bailout the banks had been used to just pay down the mortgages of those homeowners, the worst of the economic collapse would have been averted and the banks would have still gotten their money. Then, the bailouts wouldn't have been necessary at all.

But, but then you'd just be giving money to people! Some of them might not have been responsible! We can't just do that! Moral hazard! Whaargaarble!

Nope, better to just give, I mean loan, money to the banks. They're the responsible ones after all.

Comment: Re:sigh... (Score 1) 940 940

The only reason that banks do this is because government bail-out programs have made it more profitable to let it rot than to sell it -- primarily, this was accomplished with the suspension of mark to market during the crisis.

Basically, these properties were all allowed to sit on bank's books as though they were worth whatever was paid for them rather than their actual value (because if all of the banks had been forced to write down all the property on which they lost >50% of their investment, they would all have been insolvent)

Heh, which basically means they were insolvent. They probably still are. And yet their executives probably think the poor are a bunch of moochers, suckling at the government teat!

Comment: Re: sigh... (Score 1) 940 940

You realize the government (and hence the taxpayers) made lots of money off the bailout? The bailout was a loan that turned out to be a great investment. It was not a gift. Also, several banks were forced to take money at that time that they didn't need or want. Wells Fargo was very unhappy about this in particular. I'm tired of hearing the implication that the banks somehow got something for free. They paid a lot for that bailout - the interest they paid essentialy paid for the auto manufacturers bailout.

It's not nearly that simple. Yes, the initial loans were paid back. But there were myriad programs for buttressing the banks, some of them secret. The Fed still won't disclose how much and to whom they lent money. The Fed engaged in massive quantitative easing for years, which basically translates into free money for the banks. They also maintain a zero interest rate policy which is another huge subsidy to the banking industry. They can do things as mundane as borrow for free and turn around and buy Treasury bonds. Sure, it's only .25%, but you can make it up in volume. The banks literally have a money machine, which is the only reason they can still be in business.

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost