The encrustation of paper-pushers that exists just below the elected officials and out of sight of the public. They have all the real power, close to zero accountability, and total job security.
I think he's referring to the fact that as traces get smaller and closer together, quantum tunnelling and other such effects start becoming a real problem.
That is because, as I'm sure you figured out, this is a jihad or religious war to them, and they must win at all cost. They're trying to bend AN ENTIRE WORLD to their will and way of thinking, and they can't afford to lose such a pivotal early skirmish.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that their main motivation in going straight to a third trial is nothing to do with this payout, and everything to do with avoiding a precedent. If they 'won' this case with a payout of $54k, substantially less than the cost of the trial, they've basically destroyed the financial justification for all similar such copyright infringement trials. They're not just fighting for this one guy's money, they're fighting this lawsuit for the collective payouts of all future trials where the defendant could pay more than $54,000. With that in mind, it's perfectly reasonable for them to spend half a million dollars on a retrial.
I don't know why you got modded 'troll' - I guess that dude can't get laid without paying for it.:P
Do you say "look honey- a rainbow, isn't it pretty?" Or do you say, "look at the refractions of light caused by rain droplets creating a prism effect at an angle we can see, isn't the spectral composition of the light pleasing to the photo receptors in the cornea?".
Your dilemma here isn't about mysticism vs. science. It's about nerdspeak vs. normalspeak. If your partner is as much of a geek as you are then you can get away with nerdspeak and still make with the hot and steamy. (I cut a middle path - "hey sweetie look at that awesome rainbow! I love physics!")
Honestly, the world is a lot more impressive if you realise that all of these magical-seeming phenomena result from the same basic rules than if you just say 'a wizard did it'. I find that understanding the physics behind a rainbow or an ocean wave just makes them that much more beautiful.
For instance, explaining an approaching thunderhead: "Moist air rises when it's heated, and as the rising air cools to dewpoint, the water condenses and then freezes, giving up its latent heat to keep the air rising into the stratosphere, while the low pressure region sucks in more moist warm air, which continues to fuel the thunderhead. Eventually the water droplets coalesce to a size where the updraft can no longer support them, and they fall, soaking that unfortunate douche in the convertible next to us." Much better than "look, it's a big cloud with some rain".:P
A simpler metric would be to assign the points for a match (0,1 or 3) to each individual player and then divide by number of matches played. The result would tell something about a player's effectiveness compared to his team mates, other footballers or even himself over the years (like whether he got better or whether a transfer was a good one).
Only if team makeups vary frequently. If a player plays on the same, fairly static team for a long time, then this system can't tell the difference between the player being bad, and the team being bad despite the player. Of course, you could say that sticking with a losing team for a long time is a sign of a bad player...
How about off-ball activity that contributes? Moving across a zone or defender to clear space for someone who actually handles the ball? What about the guy who makes a brilliant cut but doesn't get served well by a teammate, so never handles the ball?
Good point. As someone said below, an excellent defender may never get anywhere near the ball, because he has his mark so completely shut down that no-one ever passes to them.
As for Italian league players - the system also rewards control, doesn't it? Strings of successful passes etc? So their style of play where they pissfart around with the ball in the back line for half the game would still be scored well IF they then took those long chains of controlled passes and converted them into attempts on goal. And if they didn't, then that long chain of controlled passes was pretty useless, wasn't it?
Points for not scoring? Isn't that the same as a woman telling you that she just wants to be friends because your friendship means more than a relationship would?
No, it's like giving a guy points for how many numbers he gets and how many hot chicks actually flirt back with him. Then you can see who's better with the ladies even if you're comparing two Slashdotters and the scoreline would typically be a nil-all draw.
Having a natural resistance to drugs' effects is a good thing, especially if other effects come through fully. Consider the possibility of having strong narcotic-based post-surgery painkillers with fewer or even no adverse effects.
What's the difference between "drugs' effects" and "other effects"? I don't like the idea of strong narcotic-based post-surgery painkillers having no effects because I had a natural resistance.:S
I read a short story recently that described a guy from 2100ish re-engineering his liver to produce heroin and then going back in time with the intent of investing the drug money and becoming rich. When he arrived back in present-day America it was this utopia and the only difference was that all drugs were legalised (and hence there were no drug gangs, no cartels, far fewer deaths due to questionable-quality black market drugs etc.) I've googled for it to no avail, can anyone name the story?
Yeah, I think most of us cottoned on that it doesn't really matter what the people think... they just pass laws anyway. Look at Work Choices (went through despite being massively opposed), The Emissions Trading Scheme (didn't go through despite being very popular), Broadband filter (went through because we need to think of the children).
Exactly. There's zero accountability in the system, and no-one seems to really care. Politicians go back on core election promises and hand-wave it away with "oh yeah but that's just an election promise, we didn't MEAN it". Laws and policy changes are made with no regard to popular opinion. Instead of elections being about policy, they're just shit-slinging matches between the two major players. Taxpayer money is spent on contentless advertising that says nothing more than "we're good, they're scumbags, vote for us!"
The thing with Australia right now is that it's very successful - wages are fairly high, unemployment is low, in the middle of a mining boom, interest rates are still fairly decent (around 4%). People are happy with their lot, there's no burning issues that people want fixed.
Life's too good and too easy and we just don't give a shit as long as we can get a couple of steaks on the barbie and a carton of beer in the fridge on the weekends. The greatest accomplishment of democracy is to trick the proles into thinking that, because they voted, everything the government does is their choice. No matter what happens, there's no point in protesting because "we voted for them".
Instead store multiple levels of the tree in a contiguous mem/disk page.
I seem to recall a chapter in a programming book that I read maybe 15 years ago, talking about 'locality of reference' for optimisation. It was the same concept as this: Structure your memory usage to keep data that are accessed together, stored together. Then, whatever caching mechanism is in place will be able to spend less time paging (or spread the paging out over a larger number of CPU cycles) and thus have better throughput.
Re:Are you serious? Do you even know who phk is?
on
Knuth Got It Wrong
·
· Score: 1
It's not hyperbolic at all. phk is 100% correct, like usual. Knuth's estimates have been shown to be incorrect. In case you didn't catch it, that's what science is all about. Knuth posed his theory and his conclusions, and phk showed how they were wrong.
Actually, Knuth posted his assumptions, theory and conclusions, and phk showed that some of the assumptions no longer hold true for physical hardware.
Sure, who doesn't want 3x as much? In this economy, they will probably work for 75% of the prima donna they just fired, because after months of interviews, they know they aren't going to do much better, and some income is better than no income.
And this is why it's wise to have another job lined up before you start causing drama in the one you already have. If you don't like your current job, you don't have a poopie at them, quit, and then start looking. You quietly apply for a couple on the side. Then, when you get an offer, you talk to management and say "I've been offered X elsewhere". If you like your current job more than the new one, you give them a chance to counter-offer and keep you at a higher rate. If your new job pays that much more, or is that much more fun, then you just hand in your notice. I tend to get a 5% yearly pay rise at absolute most if I'm just sitting at the same company, but I tend to get a 10%+ raise when I move jobs (I actually start a new one in three weeks' time that pays 24% more than my current salary!), so moving jobs is a way to rapidly jack up your salary.
He didn't fire the first shot, his employer did. They used the economic downturn and his goodwill to dump huge quantities of additional responsibility on him without any compensation. All he is doing is returning fire and all power to him. Honestly, if they treat him like this now odds are he'll get laid off after project launch anyway, as they are treating him as disposable. So he might as well get his pay now 'cos he sure won't get it later.
Actually, not so much. The employer using the economic downturn to get extra work out of him for no extra pay is the flip side of him now using the economic revival to demand more money from them. That's fair enough.
Holding the project to ransom just before launch to get a pay raise is as bad as the company kidnapping his pet dog and using it to extort a pay cut from him.
As a manager, I can tell you its this sort of short-sightedness that will buy you a one way ticket to the street.
Absolutely. By pulling such a stunt, you'll have permanently destroyed any trust they had in you as an employee. If you stay at the company they'll have to relegate you to only non-essential tasks, purely to protect themselves from similar extortion later. Most likely that will just be a waste of your time and their money, and so they'll boot you and hire someone who they can trust.
I don't understand why people think that their personal experience and the experience of their friends is representative of the entire job market. "How good the job market is" (how do you even measure that anyway?) probably varies so much across a single state that individual data points are useless.
Well, since you want data and not anecdotes... I can't find the news article now but I read recently that in Australia, something like 70% of employees are looking for new work, up from about 30% a couple of years ago.
This is why I think one big and important role for government is to "bust up" large companies, and make it very difficult for companies to become too large, and if they do, regulate them heavily. Large corporations are the bane of free markets. It's not a "free market" if there's only one place to buy something from (especially if it's something necessary, like power, water, or communications), or if there's only 2 or 3 places and they're all colluding.
By their very nature, utility companies and public infrastructure companies have to be big. You can't be a small player if you're running an interstate rail network, or a city's power grid, or a municipal water supply. It makes much more sense for them to be run by the government, as non-profit organisations, rather than applying the usual free-market economics to them.
That said, the OP will never get what he's worth at his current job. He deserves it. A great boss would give it to him, but it'll probably never happen. He's in the corporate equivalent of the "friend zone." His best hope for exploiting the situation is to get as much experience as possible, and the most inflated title possible, and try and use that as leverage when moving on to the next job.
That's brilliant!
Some jobs and some companies are like that. You've worked there for a while, you're friends with the management, you like the company. When the company has hard times, you feel obliged to put in long hours, take on additional duties, maybe take a pay cut, all to help the company out. The thing is, companies like this have very little in the way of an available career path. You get paid somewhere near sorta what you're worth and you get your 4% pay raise per year, but you're not going to get big pay raises even if the scope of your actual duties grows far beyond what they're officially employing you for. The tend to see it as some kind of betrayal if you ask for more money, even if you're truly worth it. Once you outgrow your initial role, often the only way to continue advancing your career is to move jobs.
Of course, there's an important flip side here. If you want to add to your skill set, it can be worth taking the pay hit and doing a stint at a company like this, because you'll be getting work experience in all sorts of fields. My last job, I was employed as a programmer but due to their inability to find a sysadmin, I ended up spending about five months as their ICT Coordinator running an Active Directory network.
Slashdot Mirror
So who really runs the country?
The encrustation of paper-pushers that exists just below the elected officials and out of sight of the public. They have all the real power, close to zero accountability, and total job security.
Of course, then there's a terrible problem with kids being ganked by night elf rogues. I really hope your WoW themepark has spirit healers...
I think he's referring to the fact that as traces get smaller and closer together, quantum tunnelling and other such effects start becoming a real problem.
That is because, as I'm sure you figured out, this is a jihad or religious war to them, and they must win at all cost. They're trying to bend AN ENTIRE WORLD to their will and way of thinking, and they can't afford to lose such a pivotal early skirmish.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that their main motivation in going straight to a third trial is nothing to do with this payout, and everything to do with avoiding a precedent. If they 'won' this case with a payout of $54k, substantially less than the cost of the trial, they've basically destroyed the financial justification for all similar such copyright infringement trials. They're not just fighting for this one guy's money, they're fighting this lawsuit for the collective payouts of all future trials where the defendant could pay more than $54,000. With that in mind, it's perfectly reasonable for them to spend half a million dollars on a retrial.
Do you say "look honey- a rainbow, isn't it pretty?" Or do you say, "look at the refractions of light caused by rain droplets creating a prism effect at an angle we can see, isn't the spectral composition of the light pleasing to the photo receptors in the cornea?".
Your dilemma here isn't about mysticism vs. science. It's about nerdspeak vs. normalspeak. If your partner is as much of a geek as you are then you can get away with nerdspeak and still make with the hot and steamy. (I cut a middle path - "hey sweetie look at that awesome rainbow! I love physics!")
:P
Honestly, the world is a lot more impressive if you realise that all of these magical-seeming phenomena result from the same basic rules than if you just say 'a wizard did it'. I find that understanding the physics behind a rainbow or an ocean wave just makes them that much more beautiful.
For instance, explaining an approaching thunderhead: "Moist air rises when it's heated, and as the rising air cools to dewpoint, the water condenses and then freezes, giving up its latent heat to keep the air rising into the stratosphere, while the low pressure region sucks in more moist warm air, which continues to fuel the thunderhead. Eventually the water droplets coalesce to a size where the updraft can no longer support them, and they fall, soaking that unfortunate douche in the convertible next to us." Much better than "look, it's a big cloud with some rain".
Same as fusion: Ten years from now, for all possible values of "now."
That's better than it used to be. In the '40s it was 40 years away!
A simpler metric would be to assign the points for a match (0,1 or 3) to each individual player and then divide by number of matches played. The result would tell something about a player's effectiveness compared to his team mates, other footballers or even himself over the years (like whether he got better or whether a transfer was a good one).
Only if team makeups vary frequently. If a player plays on the same, fairly static team for a long time, then this system can't tell the difference between the player being bad, and the team being bad despite the player. Of course, you could say that sticking with a losing team for a long time is a sign of a bad player...
How about off-ball activity that contributes? Moving across a zone or defender to clear space for someone who actually handles the ball? What about the guy who makes a brilliant cut but doesn't get served well by a teammate, so never handles the ball?
Good point. As someone said below, an excellent defender may never get anywhere near the ball, because he has his mark so completely shut down that no-one ever passes to them.
As for Italian league players - the system also rewards control, doesn't it? Strings of successful passes etc? So their style of play where they pissfart around with the ball in the back line for half the game would still be scored well IF they then took those long chains of controlled passes and converted them into attempts on goal. And if they didn't, then that long chain of controlled passes was pretty useless, wasn't it?
Points for not scoring? Isn't that the same as a woman telling you that she just wants to be friends because your friendship means more than a relationship would?
No, it's like giving a guy points for how many numbers he gets and how many hot chicks actually flirt back with him. Then you can see who's better with the ladies even if you're comparing two Slashdotters and the scoreline would typically be a nil-all draw.
That's the one!
Having a natural resistance to drugs' effects is a good thing, especially if other effects come through fully. Consider the possibility of having strong narcotic-based post-surgery painkillers with fewer or even no adverse effects.
What's the difference between "drugs' effects" and "other effects"? I don't like the idea of strong narcotic-based post-surgery painkillers having no effects because I had a natural resistance. :S
Yeah but they're totally back in fashion dude!
I read a short story recently that described a guy from 2100ish re-engineering his liver to produce heroin and then going back in time with the intent of investing the drug money and becoming rich. When he arrived back in present-day America it was this utopia and the only difference was that all drugs were legalised (and hence there were no drug gangs, no cartels, far fewer deaths due to questionable-quality black market drugs etc.) I've googled for it to no avail, can anyone name the story?
Yeah, I think most of us cottoned on that it doesn't really matter what the people think... they just pass laws anyway. Look at Work Choices (went through despite being massively opposed), The Emissions Trading Scheme (didn't go through despite being very popular), Broadband filter (went through because we need to think of the children).
Exactly. There's zero accountability in the system, and no-one seems to really care. Politicians go back on core election promises and hand-wave it away with "oh yeah but that's just an election promise, we didn't MEAN it". Laws and policy changes are made with no regard to popular opinion. Instead of elections being about policy, they're just shit-slinging matches between the two major players. Taxpayer money is spent on contentless advertising that says nothing more than "we're good, they're scumbags, vote for us!"
The thing with Australia right now is that it's very successful - wages are fairly high, unemployment is low, in the middle of a mining boom, interest rates are still fairly decent (around 4%). People are happy with their lot, there's no burning issues that people want fixed.
Life's too good and too easy and we just don't give a shit as long as we can get a couple of steaks on the barbie and a carton of beer in the fridge on the weekends. The greatest accomplishment of democracy is to trick the proles into thinking that, because they voted, everything the government does is their choice. No matter what happens, there's no point in protesting because "we voted for them".
I guess that's another valid response. I always preferred just shouting "You can't stop here! This is bat country!"
Instead store multiple levels of the tree in a contiguous mem/disk page.
I seem to recall a chapter in a programming book that I read maybe 15 years ago, talking about 'locality of reference' for optimisation. It was the same concept as this: Structure your memory usage to keep data that are accessed together, stored together. Then, whatever caching mechanism is in place will be able to spend less time paging (or spread the paging out over a larger number of CPU cycles) and thus have better throughput.
It's not hyperbolic at all. phk is 100% correct, like usual. Knuth's estimates have been shown to be incorrect. In case you didn't catch it, that's what science is all about. Knuth posed his theory and his conclusions, and phk showed how they were wrong.
Actually, Knuth posted his assumptions, theory and conclusions, and phk showed that some of the assumptions no longer hold true for physical hardware.
Laden or unlad-OHGODBEES yaarglh!
Sure, who doesn't want 3x as much? In this economy, they will probably work for 75% of the prima donna they just fired, because after months of interviews, they know they aren't going to do much better, and some income is better than no income.
And this is why it's wise to have another job lined up before you start causing drama in the one you already have. If you don't like your current job, you don't have a poopie at them, quit, and then start looking. You quietly apply for a couple on the side. Then, when you get an offer, you talk to management and say "I've been offered X elsewhere". If you like your current job more than the new one, you give them a chance to counter-offer and keep you at a higher rate. If your new job pays that much more, or is that much more fun, then you just hand in your notice. I tend to get a 5% yearly pay rise at absolute most if I'm just sitting at the same company, but I tend to get a 10%+ raise when I move jobs (I actually start a new one in three weeks' time that pays 24% more than my current salary!), so moving jobs is a way to rapidly jack up your salary.
He didn't fire the first shot, his employer did. They used the economic downturn and his goodwill to dump huge quantities of additional responsibility on him without any compensation. All he is doing is returning fire and all power to him. Honestly, if they treat him like this now odds are he'll get laid off after project launch anyway, as they are treating him as disposable. So he might as well get his pay now 'cos he sure won't get it later.
Actually, not so much. The employer using the economic downturn to get extra work out of him for no extra pay is the flip side of him now using the economic revival to demand more money from them. That's fair enough.
Holding the project to ransom just before launch to get a pay raise is as bad as the company kidnapping his pet dog and using it to extort a pay cut from him.
As a manager, I can tell you its this sort of short-sightedness that will buy you a one way ticket to the street.
Absolutely. By pulling such a stunt, you'll have permanently destroyed any trust they had in you as an employee. If you stay at the company they'll have to relegate you to only non-essential tasks, purely to protect themselves from similar extortion later. Most likely that will just be a waste of your time and their money, and so they'll boot you and hire someone who they can trust.
Oh, I thought he just had Asperger's.
I don't understand why people think that their personal experience and the experience of their friends is representative of the entire job market. "How good the job market is" (how do you even measure that anyway?) probably varies so much across a single state that individual data points are useless.
Well, since you want data and not anecdotes... I can't find the news article now but I read recently that in Australia, something like 70% of employees are looking for new work, up from about 30% a couple of years ago.
This is why I think one big and important role for government is to "bust up" large companies, and make it very difficult for companies to become too large, and if they do, regulate them heavily. Large corporations are the bane of free markets. It's not a "free market" if there's only one place to buy something from (especially if it's something necessary, like power, water, or communications), or if there's only 2 or 3 places and they're all colluding.
By their very nature, utility companies and public infrastructure companies have to be big. You can't be a small player if you're running an interstate rail network, or a city's power grid, or a municipal water supply. It makes much more sense for them to be run by the government, as non-profit organisations, rather than applying the usual free-market economics to them.
That said, the OP will never get what he's worth at his current job. He deserves it. A great boss would give it to him, but it'll probably never happen. He's in the corporate equivalent of the "friend zone." His best hope for exploiting the situation is to get as much experience as possible, and the most inflated title possible, and try and use that as leverage when moving on to the next job.
That's brilliant!
Some jobs and some companies are like that. You've worked there for a while, you're friends with the management, you like the company. When the company has hard times, you feel obliged to put in long hours, take on additional duties, maybe take a pay cut, all to help the company out. The thing is, companies like this have very little in the way of an available career path. You get paid somewhere near sorta what you're worth and you get your 4% pay raise per year, but you're not going to get big pay raises even if the scope of your actual duties grows far beyond what they're officially employing you for. The tend to see it as some kind of betrayal if you ask for more money, even if you're truly worth it. Once you outgrow your initial role, often the only way to continue advancing your career is to move jobs.
Of course, there's an important flip side here. If you want to add to your skill set, it can be worth taking the pay hit and doing a stint at a company like this, because you'll be getting work experience in all sorts of fields. My last job, I was employed as a programmer but due to their inability to find a sysadmin, I ended up spending about five months as their ICT Coordinator running an Active Directory network.