Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.
Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.
How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?
I did work for Google and have since retired. So point not invalid.
As someone who has interviewed nearly 200 people to do work like mine, I'm very much aware how rare my skills are. And I'm also aware how many CVs and phone screens happened before I saw those people. So no, not confirmation bias.
I'm also aware that it's not a huge amount of work to acquire those skills. Particularly now with loads of free resources one can use to learn more. Invest a little money and you could have your own rpi kubernetes cluster for a few hundred bucks. You can run hadoop or spark or hbase or mesos on a cloud provider. Learn ansible, prometheus, go, python or loads of other things in your browser. You can show off your skills outside your job on github or bitbucket and contribute to loads of projects to build up a real, viewable CV.
There are companies out there that value their engineering staff. For starters, they're usually not calling them "IT staff." You should look for those companies. You should also look at the job you do. Is it worth what they pay you? If you ran the company, would you keep that position? If either answer is no, go find a company where both those answers are yes - and your career will be the better for it.
You're working in a change-averse industry - your skills will ossify.
I've been hearing about H1-B visa issues on slashdot since I joined and my uid is 5000. And quite honestly, I've never understood it. If you keep up your skills and progress beyond basic tech support or other low-level paper-pushing jobs this is never an issue.
In my experience, people with H1-B visas fill one of two scenarios: needs and costs.
The first is where a company needs more staff because they are always hiring. This would be like a Google or Facebook where they need smart, capable staff and can't find enough of them. Even with H1-Bs they can't. So there's no threat to "native" workers.
The second is to replace low-skilled staff with cheaper workers. And yeah, I get that sucks. But the solution is to learn more skills so you can get the first type of job.
I'm a 45 year old developer. I've learned more programming languages post-college than I learned in college. I've taken courses on managing development teams. I've read tons of books on various aspects of tech. I have skills that are useful and hard to find.
That's the answer - and it's actually part of the point Hillary Clinton was making.
OpenSSL did not come from OpenBSD. So right from the start your theory is broken.
It's a great question.
The answer to the question is to update your CV, go apply for some jobs and take one of them. Because right now you work for an asshole.
Designs are great but they need to be built with actual, physical materials. Those materials will be supplied by someone.
Every single large nuclear plant to date has been built and run by large corporations.
Nukes are theoretically safe and efficient. As I understand it, there's not enough known uranium sources on Earth to power the world, but in conjunction with solar, wind, hydro and bio-fuels (preferably from waste) there's enough.
Unfortunately, theories don't build nuke plants. Corporations do. And we can't manage to regulate large retail stores to make them behave in a socially responsible way, why do we think we can regulate a giant power company? Japan generally comes across as a competent, long-term thinking country. And yet even their political culture couldn't prevent fraud and corruption in the building of their nuke plants.
Until our political systems can effectively regulate large corporations, I'm opposed to nuclear power. The theory's great, but so far I don't see designs that can survive large-scale corruption.
MAC addresses are useless for tracking pretty much anything except on a LAN (and even then they're pretty useless - particularly with virtual machines becoming more prevalent). In addition MAC address info ages out insanely quickly. Half the MAC addresses in my house post-date the street view car passing. And in fact several others aren't here.
ESSID info is useful for geolocation, but even it rapidly ages. And Google is hardly the only company that sniffs that.
And Microsoft applications bleed private info far more sensitive than MAC addresses. I once got a job offer as a Word document which also contained job offers for four other people. Some versions of Word and Excel save random bits of RAM into docs. Honestly if you're using Microsoft products and expect to have any privacy you're an idiot.
We know Google sniffed the data it sniffed because they reported themselves for doing it.
If you think about this technically, there is absolutely zero useful info one could get from such data (other than using it as a source for randomness and even then...).
All these stories do is punish a company for self-reporting a perceived privacy concern - one which they quickly addressed.
Exactly! Where's the "comment must be added to article" button?
Just email your thoughts on copyright to someone who sounds foreign. The NSA will forward it to them.
Marriage is a civil institution that relates primarily to property. The US gov't has only been involved in marriage for a few hundred years because the US gov't has only existed for a few hundred years.
Yes churches and religious groups kept marriage records and performed ceremonies. "The state" has evolved over time and for quite a bit of it religious groups were part of the state. That had some flaws - go read some European history.
Marriage as a civil institution serves some very concrete situations. It handles various situations that arise for couples in terms of property rights, inheritance rights, child custody, immigration, criminal law, taxes, pensions, etc. There are problems that crop up for couples that are more complicated than if they came up (if they could come up) for individuals.
Laws relating to marriage are designed to address those situations. To provide couples with reasonable expectations that they can plan on and to simplify people's lives in terms of their interactions with the state.
The laws relating to marriage are generally there to make people's lives run more smoothly and therefore often get overlooked. But at times they crop up and when couples (both or individually) avail of them they understand the benefit those laws provide.
Gay couples can already get married in religious services in all 50 states. The debate about the religious institution of marriage is a debate each religious group can work through. Eventually all of them will recognise same sex marriage but that's up to their individual congregations so generally the point is moot for most of us.
This civil institution of marriage (it's like Java - it's a VM, it's a language, it's a beverage, it's an island!) is the issue that all citizens should be concerned about and it should respect the rights of each citizen and weigh the various concerns. You being "offended" is way lower on the scale than gay citizens having legal protections for their relationships just as straight citizens do.
This is plainly clear. And in the future - the not very distant future I might add - those who don't understand that will be viewed by decent society as hateful, anti-social bigots. Everyone's free to be a hateful, anti-social bigot, but the rest of us are also free to call that out and to shun such people. Everyone has a right to their opinion and to speak their mind. No one has a right to avoid the social consequences of doing so.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759