vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
a) Nothing would support this company going back to $.50 per share b) Fundamentally the market for this sectors has been obliterated and the fundamentals don't look like they will improve. Similar companies experience what this one is and will be going through, they borrow the hilt and hope they can pump enough oil and sell the oil at a high price. Oil goes below, WAYYY below the price they can sell it at and even break even, so they are burning cash until they declare bankruptcy. This company is not an exception. So here is what to look at on their balance sheet: assets and liabilities. Liabilities are debt. Their debt is over 50% of their assets, that debt has interest and there is NO WAY they are making a profit. Their website's last financial statement is from September 30th.. LOL, so they haven't even released a quarterly financial statement in two quarters straight, so have they released anything? Given what we know about the dire state of the entire oil drilling industry, lets see if these guys are the exception to the rule (spoiler; they aren't) February 15th, 2015 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/strategic-oil-gas-ltd-provides-operations-update-2015-02-19-16173591 The Company prudently elected to stop the winter Muskeg drilling program     in order to preserve capital. So now they aren't even getting new assets to resale, they aren't making any money from that operation, their debt still has interest payments though. Approximately 700 Boe/d of production has been shut-in by suspending     operations at Bistcho, Cameron Hills and Larne, which are not economic     at current commodity prices. Predictable. Also, you should notice from their actual financial statements (from 6 months ago, lol) (when the price of oil was over 100% higher than it is today, lol), this company already wasn't a good performer. They have been financing themselves by doing private placements, by issuing shares to investors that are not you, and diluting the share value of ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS. Dead in the water. I got this from skimming their financial report, without even being familiar with how canadian companies report. Its just bad news. You shouldn't be married to this investment.
The problem is that both the H1b and L1 visas have problems and are gamed and this is what is probably causing resentment.  H1b visas have quotas that run out in one day a year, it means for a company to employ someone with skills they need to throw a bunch of them at this yearly crap shoot and hope they manage to win a visa for one of them.  The rest will have to wait another year to try again.  This is not how businesses employ, if they find a highly skilled foreign worker with skills they can't find in the US and are even willing to pay him more than anyone in the US, they can't unless they want to play that yearly gamble.  A highly skilled employee also don't want to sit around waiting for it, so they'll work for someone else.  The L1 visa at least allows large multi national companies to first employ people at one of their foreign offices for a year before carting them over to the US.  It's also good in a way to be able to figure out if the employee is as good as he seems on paper and in interviews, even before he gets to the USA.  This means most of the better skills probably enter the USA this way, which leaves the H1b visas to consultancies who systematically game the system.  They find a lot of young graduate applicants who are willing to wait for the yearly crapshoot and then take all those who win a visa and then employ them and contract them out 'competitively'.  The L1 visa can also be systematically gamed, those who don't win an H1b visa could be working for a foreign office of this consultancy in the meantime and then get a transfer to the USA on an L1 visa.  I think what needs to happen is that the H1b visa bar should be raised, e.g. a minimum salary, and then the quotas should be spread over a year like they do in the UK.  That means companies have more certainty that they can actually bring a skilled worker in, and it would make sure it's a skilled worker and not someone who is just a cheaper worker.  Then that would ideally shift the route for most skilled workers to H1b instead of L1 visas, which means L1 visas can be tightened to make sure they are used appropriately too, for example having to have worked for the company for 2 years instead of one and also a minimum salary.
I am in the same boat as you right now, I have about a year experience working for a financial advisor but even then it is not relevant enough for being an analyst.  I have put in over 120 apps over the past month and a half to any position that I meet 90% of requirements. The only thing I don't have is years of experience. I know how to code VBA, and how to build financial models but alas, I am looked over.  I have also been trying to network like crazy and just accepted to do a temp job working for a bank as a loan analyst and hopefully that will pan out into something better.  Many jobs want experiences with SAP and SQL, and I don't have either of those either, and there is no where to get experience because no junior analyst positions will take me without enough experience.  I turned down a banking internship because I did not want to take out loans for college, and now I am thinking I made the wrong choice. Hopefully some one will pick us up and catch us up to speed soon!  What area are you living in? I am in the Chicago area and I see new postings every day.  Also are you going to every job board? Career-builder, Monster, Indeed, LinkedIn, Craigslist? I have also hooked up with a few recruiting firms, they are the ones who got me the temp job. If you are in the Chicago area I will recommend a few for you to look into and a couple to stay away from.  Good luck on your search! I know you need it, because I need it too...
I'm curious what percentage of the job market make up the no-experienced people you mention and what percentage is made up of individuals that, for one reason or another, are stuck working those types of jobs just to make ends meet. Unless you distinguish between the no-skill individuals that don't need a livable wage, like teens still living at home, and other people that are struggling to support themselves with the only job they can get, and do so without age or other forms of discrimination, raising the minimum wage to a livable wage level is the only way I can think of that would enable the disadvantaged people that are for all intents and purposes stuck in their situation to gain the financial footing they need to raise themselves up to the next rung of the ladder. If you have other suggestions, I am more than happy to hear them.
Yes peeper  Now, you think the mental state of the baboon in the Whitehouse is not related to the economy . .I do  You think the pointless wars that American is involved in is Off Topic . . I think they are a core fundamental of the economy  You have spent 9 years of your life with an attention span of roughly 15 secs and have given people the power to tell you what to say and what not to in a social experiment called reddit, you conform to being a lemming.   I am sorry I cannot relate to you and your habit of peeping
Feel free to include me on your future meetings and I will pass along our high level overview. Also, have you thought about connecting with So and So? They are working in the Z space on a project and it may help to drive your project forward as well."" Client B: Me - ""Let me give you a brief overview of the project I am working on. John Doe recommended I connect with you as your project may intersect......."" Other Party - (Interrupts) ""Well we have already gotten our project approved at such and such level and we have found that we really don't have any interdependencies with your project."" Me - ""Oh, OK. Well I am not really looking to create additional work for anyone. I am just looking to leverage the work we are both already doing. We may be able to help each other."" Other Party - (Interrupts again) ""Our project team is really busy and we are on a tight deadline. We don't have the resources we need. I have told John Doe time and again we need more help but until we get it I just really need to focus on X."" Me - ""OK. Well how about I jump in to what it is we are actually doing and if there aren't any opportunities for collaboration or any synergies to be gained from working together that is fine. I just wanted to be proactive about connecting the dots across the organization. (Continue with my overview) Other Party - ""...........*crickets*..........."" (Meeting concludes.....) These aren't depictions of a single event. They are aggregations of month's of interactions that give a good representation of single events in a variety of contexts on a daily basis. Of course, there are exceptions. However, I have found that exceptions within both cultures are extremely rare based on my personal experience. This only furthers my point. Can you begin to see why a collaborative corporate culture is so foundational to the success of any endeavor regardless of scope, complexity, etc?
"The other answers here do an excellent job of laying out the mathematics of the expected value. Here is a different take on the question of whether lottery tickets are a sensible investment. I used to have the snobbish attitude that many mathematically literate people have towards lotteries: that they are ""a tax on the mathematically illiterate"", and so on. As I've gotten older I've realized that though, yes, it is certainly true that humans are staggeringly bad at estimating risks, that people actually are surprisingly rational when they spend their money. What then is the rational basis for buying lottery tickets, beyond the standard explanation of ""it's cheap entertainment""? Suppose you are a deeply poor person in America. Your substandard education prepared you for a job in manufacturing which no longer exists, you're working several minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table, and you're one fall off a ladder from medical-expense-induced total financial disaster.  Now suppose you have things that you would like to spend truly enormous amounts of money on, like, say, sending your children to schools with ever-increasing tuitions, or a home in a safe neighbourhood.  Buying lottery tickets is a bad investment, sure. Name another legal investment strategy that has a million-dollar payout that is accessible to the poor in America. Even if you could invest 10% of your minimum-wage salary without missing the electricity bill, that's still not going to add up to a million bucks in your lifetime. Probably not even $100K.  When given a choice between no chance whatsoever at achieving your goals and a cheap chance that is literally a one-in-a-million chance at achieving your goals the rational choice is to take the bad investment option over no investment at all."
"I'm not sure you are paying attention to your own comments. If you go back up to the first comment to which I reply, that comment is you singling out Scandinavia as an example of what is right.  That aside, when you say ""a lot"" of workers, you are discounting the scale of migrant work in Scandinavia vs just California, let alone the whole USA. The population of Sweden is 9 million people. There are over 11 million people living in the US as illegal immigrants, let alone the other 37 million legal immigrants living here. The US admits roughly 1 million immigrants per year, and there are roughly 1.5 million immigrants total living in Sweden.  And before you use anywhere in the EU as an example for immigration, you should take note of the escalating nationalism across every election everywhere in the EU. Your utopia isn't adjusting well to having a few Syrians around.  And after all of that, almost none of it is relevant to what I was actually talking about, which was this fact - through geographic happenstance and political coincidence, the US has millions of people who literally risk their lives to come work in conditions you deride as deplorable and unacceptable. They risk life and limb and family to sneak here to get this work by the millions. We as Americans do not have the will to totally shut them out, and as a result there is a black market for cheap labor. When you see these words, I bet you think I am justifying something just as much as I think you think you are defending something when you say this is bad. Here this: I am not making a moral judgement, I am stating a fact. And as long as there is a supply of millions of people willing to work for less than minimum wage, there will be a black market for labor paying less than minimum wage.  I've actually erased several closing paragraphs because I am unclear as to the point you even contend to make right now, based on your statement that you never singled out Scandinavia and then proceeded to talk about Scandinavia.  I hope you can understand that history, geography, and politics all influence the situations counties experience uniquely, and that wages are a market driven phenomenon. These are not moral statements."
I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them.   In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10.   So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference.  Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times.  2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you.  However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid.  That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents.  But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it.  I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny.  A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have.
I disagree and as kind of a millennial I have an opinion on this topic, not that I want to make something out of this. But there is w people Killeen with the quality of ads. Some of them are just not that well targeted to millennials.  Like for example if you look on tv you have a bunch of these ads that have a lot of old people. Another category is pharma ads. How are you going to get something out of pharma from guys who are still in their 20s. No one has enough problems yet and there is another dynamic at play there as well. That dynamic is that a lot of the advertisers want to get so called old people money. This is stuff like retirement savings, there Medicaid money etc, all the stuff they spend on tgrir bills. Given how the demographic pyramid is right now there is a difficulty for the advertisers to justify spending money in a wear that targets the Young folks.  That happens now and it's going to be like that for the next few years.  This is going to be something like a overall economic change so everything and everyone is going to see how the change takes place .  So the advertisements are part of it but really they are a small part of the puzzle  There isn't a good way to make people but things differently, it's all about what pays the most to advertisers, demographic groups be damned
This sounds wonderful, and you sure are better at life than I am, but it's just not working right now at the country-wide level.  You and your friends are not part of the problem.  But the 30% or so profits made by the financial sector are just rents--[extra costs the rest of us have-nots have to fork over to the haves](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/30/chart-of-the-day-us-financial-profits/).  [Businesses have also been making sky-high profits and just sitting on the money](http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/04/business-profits-soar-not-much-trickles-down-unemployed).  I don't see the reinvestment.  I just see a catch-phrase with no substance behind it.
Okay, you win the argument. I say this because I am giving up. The problem is this. Seriously think about what I'm saying. I say I have a problem with the way the system is. You say, no, this is wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with how the system is, because . . . and then you go and describe the parts of the system, and recite the reasons given for why those parts are the way they are. Okay? That's not an argument. That's elaborating on a definition. Your arguments aren't your own, and that's what proves you don't know what you're talking about. You need to stop pretending that because you just learned how there's a money multiplier, it must be this way because of some law of economics. It's not. Did you know that in the Middle East for example, they do not have this banking system? I'm not trying to start an argument about the better system, my point is that, dude, you don't even know that, and it undermines this whole mechanistically determined little financial ecosystem you're just assuming is a law of economic nature. Also, I never brought up any supposed need to go to a gold standard, but nice try. Further proof you are not really reading what I'm saying, and making assumptions. Why? Because you're gullible, and anything that seems establishment or widely accepted, that's what you go along with. Everyone who is critical of the Federal Reserve system and its existence must be a tinfoil hat wearing anti-Semite who believes 9/11 was done by reptilian aliens. I get it, believe me. If the Fed's job is to prevent the economy from collapsing overnight due to fluctuations in the price of money, when why did it not collapse overnight before the Fed existed? Wait, no. I'm done. You win. This is all in your imagination anyway, so I'll let you have it.
"&gt;so I would like to ask you which, at this project, poor management skill of Oracle staffs or plan of Oregon are worse to be accused.  **I believe there is an increased burden on the employer (Oregon) to effectively manage the scope of the work required for the project that the contractor (Oracle) is working on**.  Otherwise, the contractor has plausible deniability for being able to provide deliver a quality working solution.  &gt;Or do you think that plan was made mainly by Oracle?  I think the plan was **mostly made by Oracle with the requirements given by Oregon**, and that's where things seem messy.  My gut tells me though that when an employer hires a contractor for the creation of a fully integrated enterprise system, that the employer essentially signs their financial life away to the project in a way that absolves the contractor of indirect or direct ""damages"" that come from the result of unforeseen implementation requirements or issues.  Oracle has been around long enough to know how to legally cover their asses.  If there is anything that Oregon may have traction on, it would be a few of their fraud claims, given that Oracle has made [two settlements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_corporation#Justice_Department_lawsuit) with federal agencies of ~$100 &amp; ~$200 million since 2011 which were from allegations of fraud or false claims.  Such claims by Oregon may be supported by the fact that they allegedly have a former Oracle employee who can substantiate the poor quality of the product they were giving to Oregon, but that blame might go back to Oregon's specifications which I have no insight into.  As someone who has witnessed a couple of employer and contractor relationships between public &amp; private entities, my hope out of all of this is that:  * Sales people for contractors think twice before over-promising technology solutions that their company can't fully deliver on given resource constraints or lack of employer specifications.  * Employers ""hiring"" such entities manage them, expectations, plus the overall project effectively while accepting personal accountability &amp; responsibility.  I think the only people who have a clear picture of what was going on were anyone from either party who were on the front lines of managing the project, developing the systems, or running them."
It's a huge amount of money the government receives that they wouldn't have had I not chosen to go into business. Incidentally, this brings up another point. Doesn't the government owe me something for generating that many jobs? Why am I not getting a tax break? &gt; Yes but that is because unless you are doing it ALL yourself then you did not generate that $10. As a business owner you are in charge of managing resources to help generate that $10, you yourself however did not generate that $10. You had employees, and contractors, and people managing your building, payroll and yes even taxes. Every person involved in getting the product or service from idea to the door are all part of that $10. If your efforts in that co-ordination are netting you 15% of the total then you are beating the market already and I am not sure what your problem is. If you are looking to double or triple your investments you are looking for Las Vegas not Wall St or Main St. I see you don't understand how business works. &gt; I think the issue I see among people with your opinion is a failure to understand 2nd and 3rd order effects. Your bubble extends to what you do in your daily life and the parts of it you visibly see and touch. The world you see and touch every day is supported and made comfortable by a whole system and people whom you will never see or know. The issue I see among people with your opinion is that it is naive and obviously not based in any real world experience. If you had ever actually run a business, you would realize how many people get paid before you do (including the government). You have maybe a 5% chance of making an above average wage and you fight like hell every day to stay afloat. I encourage you to open your eyes and try to see the perspective of people who are actually making a difference in this world, and not the political lowlifes and lowlife leeches who have a vested interest in seeing to it that you believe something that simply isn't true."