Ergo, learn to defend yourself from it.
134 karma · joined October 2, 2009
Ergo, learn to defend yourself from it.
How?
Because H1-B employees cannot transfer out easily and live in fear of losing their jobs, because it means packing up and going home. (I can only imagine how much managerial abuse and in the worst case, sexual harassment this situation can lead to.) Employers love this arrangement, because it allows lower wages (the H1B worker isnt going to fight for a higher salary because he knows its dangerous to walk without another sponsor lined up.) and this pseudo indentured servitude arrangement makes for dependable employees.
Now if they took that away those restrictions, salaries would increase and employers would have no incentive to hire an immigrant over a local worker.
a: "not in the way it treats engineers as 'resources', and cronies, friends and relatives as 'management' as but in principal yes"
q: "i need a yes/no answer"
a: ".."
q: "so i'm putting down no"
a: "whatever".
fun fact: If the fortune 500 were a country it would have the second largest GDP in the world.
Most of you here reject or would like to run away from that institutional form of capitalism anyway to a good startup.
Why not also publish publicly financed: * legal agreements * HR contracts * management presentations, best practices, and training material * marketing presentations and training material * creative output such as artwork and music
so that the rest of the world can use them for free..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_f...
BTW does anyone have any color on what the heck happened that night?
http://ark.intel.com/#@ServerProducts
But your original point is a valid one: AMD introduced desktop 8 core processors a couple of years ago, while this is intels first 8 core desktop processor.
LinkedIn and Facebook are leading the market in the authenticated peer reviewed content business, which is locked in to their platforms, and which search engines cannot index.
Extrapolate ten years down the line, and that means a scenario where existing search engine leadership is severely compromised.
And thats why the push for G+. Its do or die.
tl;dr: the goal is to have search access to authenticated peer reviewed content, and to mitigate the risk of existing market leaders in that space from cannibalizing the search business, and with it the lucrative advertising business.
Boston, for example, has a deal today for 150 * $15 meals at a restaurant.That's $2250 revenue for a day or about $800k for the year. Assuming there are about 30 large cities in the US thats $24mm annual revenues.
Even if the average deal size (item price * count) is FIVE times that its about $110mm annually.
Also kind of tough to scale when the USP is ONE deal a day right? I mean will this work with two deals a day?
What am i missing?
Thanks.
Bill Gates' first idea for a company was one that made devices that were supposed to be installed at traffic junctions, IIRC. (ref: business at the speed of thought)
Way to go Vasudeva.
2. Price your software according to purchasing power parity. If a book in a B&N store in SFO costs $US49, the same book costs about $USD10 in book stores in Bangalore. Do the same for Windows and MS Office. (Require that its paid for by a country specific credit card if you must).
3. Open an office somewhere more exciting than Seattle. Remember that most of the crew pulling all nighters and doing the death march are < 30 y/o, think about what they want from life.
4. Send me money, and I'll tell explain in detail how to turn around the online business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCvLTlQWT6A&feature=relat...
(They speak about startups and devices a few minutes later)
Although op's PR skills in the social news aggregation space appear to be remarkably good. But the arguments still hold that this stuff is valuable if it has users, not because of the tech.
It used to be short life expectancies led to people having more children. Not anymore, as most countries are in the high life expectancy group.
Basically better family planning, womens rights, and health care leads to higher life expectancies leading to: SMALLER FAMILIES.
Now I will add:
i) Divorce laws, and strict enforcement of it. I think this contributes heavily to lowering populations. But you need that because of point (ii) below.
ii) The lack of religion leads to a lifestyle that breaks down the family unit. Once the patriarchal mode of life goes out of the window, so does the population growth. In other words, women's rights. So its a trade-off.
I'm looking at you Europe.
Seems to me like its a hurried piece of negative PR in part of a much larger war. Probably a response to the "Top 9 products Google killed" story somewhere else on the internets.