Find the people who currently hire for such jobs. Tell them what you want to do, ask them what they look for in candidates. Turn yourself into the candidate they're looking for.
This works for all other jobs too.
411 karma · joined July 12, 2010
This works for all other jobs too.
The history of technology so far makes it clear that competing standards lead to innovation and improvement; furthermore, purity of systems is weakness - one exploit, one flaw, is effective in 100% of cases.
To be fair, I didn't need to wear a tinfoil hat when reading _every_ paragraph!
I suppose next you'll be telling me Apple invented the helicopter, and next week will be increasing the chocolate ration.
If they have all the subscribers they were going to get anyway, AND some new ones thank to Apple, they've made more money and they fact that Apple is taking a cut won't bother them; 70% of more money is a lot better than no more money. It costs them effectively nothing to have more subscribers, so as long as their Apple-based subscribers aren't cannibalising their existing subscriber base, their profits go up.
Well worth reading, and comes under a creative commons licence.
This is a true story and it's a belief that is on the streets right now; some people believe even mathematics is legally owned by someone and they can't use it. If people won't experiment, they can't innovate.
Note that the countries that don't give a damn about so-called IP happily copy everything they can get their hands on. It will not take them long to start innovating on top of what already exists.
Of course it holds, what point are you making?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm
As you'll see, it discusses various studies and provides links to papers examining various cases in which people have had an adverse side-effect to a vaccine.
Please, everyone, no comments about how that may be true but what about this and that and the other; the poster asked for a link, here it is.
I wasn't aware that there were any serious effective alternatives to vaccination (besides living in a sterile bubble) and I just did a quick search. Obviously it has been only the most superficial look, but I'm seeing things like homeopathy and acupuncture recommended (as well as changes in diet, which I think is very optimistic indeed when confronted with the horrors of Polio), and at risk of offending, I'm still not convinced there are any effective alternatives. Of course, it was only a brief search, so I'm by no means stating that there aren't any; just that they're not in the top of the google list :)
However, this is at risk of turning into an off-topic digression and, even worse, one of those vaccer vs. anti-vaccer flame wars.
Back on topic, go go Bill Gates. If he decides to spend his fortune killing a disease, I for one will consider the years of putting up with MS Windows an extremely good deal.
I bet I wasn't careful enough and I've sparked a war now. :(
Just out of interest (and without making any statement on what these problems are), would you agree that on a societal level (i.e. I'm not talking about individual unlucky cases where someone has a bad reaction to a vaccination, but in terms of wider society) the problems of not having vaccines (i.e. the problems that would exist had vaccines never been invented) outweigh the problems of having vaccines?
Smallpox - eradicated from the face of the earth (barring lab samples).
Polio - only 50 years ago, there were tens of thousands of cases in the U.S. Ten years later, after a serious vaccination push, it was down to a bit over a hundred cases. 1979 - last indigenous Polio transmission in the U.S. (globally, it just won't die, in large part thanks to the efforts of religious fruit-loops convincing people it's a plot by the U.S. to sterilise them; we pushed it more or less down to a single country, and now heart-breakingly it's spreading from there again).
Whooping cough - beaten down from tens of thousands of deaths to dozens in the U.S., and then cases started rising again when people stopped having their children vaccinated at the start of the 21st century.
The list of diseases that no longer present a real daily threat to people goes on and on. Let's have someone big from the relevant government agency on the news telling people that they're killing children by dodging vaccinations.
"And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children." BillG certainly has. It's refreshing to see someone big just say it so clearly.
The original argument was that there was no point in investing, because if you'd invested 10-15 years ago, you'd have made a lot of money. That argument is wrong for obvious reasons, which I will spell out anyway; just because something did well in the past is no reason to think you'll lose money on it in the future.
Your argument is that if you invest in something and it goes down in value, you lose money. That's true but not relevant.
Eli's point seems to be that it's possible to make money on an investment after it's had an explosive growth stage; the obvious truth in counter to the initial falsehood, and in no way addressed by your comment.