Of course it's not the valid statistic, but it's the one that's going to run through an officer's mind when he sees someone ignore verbal communications and pull something rifle-shaped out of the back of a stopped truck.
The tragedy here is not that this officer acted improperly, but rather that humans are fundamentally incapable of reliably acting properly in this situation.
how many wrongful deaths of people other than a law enforcement officer resulted from shootings that arose from traffic stops where the driver was not actually armed or not actually a threat? I'm going to guess it was higher than 8.
You could do your own research. I count 6 where "not actually a threat" is reasonable. That's just about 1%.
Out of 48 officers feloniously killed in 2012, 8 were at traffic stops. That's 16.7%,, surpassing coronary artery disease as a cause of death. Is it unreasonable to worry when you feel chest pain?
Yes, millions of traffic stops happen with no problem, but that's not any comfort when a lone officer's at one that starts to go badly. There's also thousands of things that cause chest pain that aren't heart attacks.
If you can't tell the difference between a cane and a rifle from a distance of thirty feet,
...in the dark, from the end, in a quarter-second timespan, when the suspect has already ignored verbal requests, and knowing that officers do get shot at routine traffic stops fairly often...
Terribly sorry to break it to you, but by your standards, no human should be a police officer.
Elderly gentleman who can barely move without a cane?
From the video, he actually got out of the truck cab quite easily and walked several steps with no apparent difficulty.
If YOU or I had done this we would be rotting in jail for eternity.
No, we'd have a viable self-defense argument to put before the court for our assault charge. Self-defense doesn't require that one's life or well-being actually be at risk, but only that they believed it to be. Now, if you or I had shot the man and actually killed him, then we'd be facing a manslaughter charge, with the same self-defense argument. Assault and manslaughter don't actually carry eternal prison sentences, either. Society tends to frown on punishing accidents excessively.
The shooting may have been stupid and tragic, but it's pretty easily justified. Watching the video, the man gets out of his truck without being asked to, ignores the officer calling to him, then pulls a long thin object out of a holder in the back of the cab, which he immediately swings toward the officer. The officer, upon seeing what looks like a small rifle or shotgun aimed at him, shoots the apparently-armed man. The officer didn't realize it was a cane, and the man didn't think it'd look like a gun.
It was pretty obviously a mistake. What's right now is not to whine about "police abuse", but rather to heal the man (who survived and is reportedly doing well), understand that Hanlon's Razor is still valid, and move on.
No, I'm recommending a compressor to tame the wide dynamic range left over when a movie is mastered for theatrical release, but then actually shown in a home.
Compression itself is not bad. Bad compression is bad. Ideally the compression, along with the equalization, mixing, spacial image, et cetera, are all set to comfortable levels for the playback environment. In a movie theatre, a loud explosion is acceptable because it adds to the show. In a home environment, a loud explosion makes the viewers worry that the kids woke up, detracting from the show.
From what I can tell, TV shows usually aren't actually compressed for loudness. The exceptions are action-heavy shows like police procedurals, where people often start shouting without warning. Rather, most TV shows are explicitly mixed carefully. The theme music is mixed quietly, and the dialogue is mixed louder, but the volume level of any particular track never changes.
If your receiver has an effects processor in it already, it might even have compression under a name relating to "dynamics". It probably won't support the full control a standalone compressor will do, but it might work.
Unfortunately, I don't have a part number for a non-crappy receiver handy, but a while back I worked with a system that was 5.1-channel surround and offered both digital output and 6 analog RCA jacks on the back with low-level output. Those jacks came with preinstalled plugs that would bridge over to 6 corresponding analog inputs that went right to the amplifier. That amp then had the usual binding posts for the speakers. From a wiring perspective, it was really two separate components: the AV switch, and a 5.1-channel amplifier. I could connect all of my other requisite gear in between the two, supporting my processing and splitting needs.
More seriously, it is a rather distressing problem that there's all too often this one magic self-contained box that is expected to do everything perfectly with no ability to modify anything. Much like the adoption of DRM, it's a problem that no amount of edge-case (read: my) whining has had any effect on. It'd be nicer if the receiver had a low-level output (which some do, usually in the form of RCA jacks).
The proper (and again, I fully realize this goes well into the "pricey and ridiculous" territory) way is to turn down the receiver's amp pretty low, then use an 8-channel DI box to cut down the power your receiver is pushing out. Then you're into the signal level used for decent audio gear, and your options are far more flexible. You could add 4 of the aforementioned compressor units to compress all 8 channels, or you could just compress some of the channels for the preferred effect. You could leave your distant speakers uncompressed to preserve some of the punch without worrying about having the signal be too loud from nearby speakers.
Working entirely at low level, you have other options, too. If you have a big home theater, where the distance between main speakers (subwoofers don't really count) varies by more than about 5 feet, you might benefit from a properly-configured delay unit, so the sound arrives at your ears at the proper time, according to its spacial location in the source. If you prefer to take the sound fully into your own hands, you could add 8 channels of equalizers to set the frequency curves to match your room and listening preference. With a patch panel, mixer, and a multitrack recorder, you could also hook up your band for an in-house recording session, because if you're actually considering this level of production for a home system, you very likely have more money than sense.
Anyway, since you had to waste the earlier amplification to get down to that usable signal, you'll need 8 channels of amplification again to take your fully-customized signal and run it up to audible levels.
Life is easier and cheaper with just a 2-channel stereo system.
You're probably in about the 50th percentile, actually. Hearing 16 kHz puts you at somewhere under age 40, or you've taken pretty good care of your ears.
The hair cells in your ears that resonate with high frequencies up to 20 kHz sit right at the start of the cochlea. They're the first to be hit with sound, so the sound is at its highest energy. As the wave progresses to lower-frequency cells, it's progressively losing energy, so they don't get damaged as soon. By the time you get damage in the 2 kHz range, you'll start losing the parts of sound that make intelligible speech - the beginning and ending sounds of syllables. That's why older folks have a more difficult time understanding speech. They can hear you talking, but they literally can't hear what you're saying.
As an audio technician, I recommend a compressor with a fast attack and very slow release. Basically, when the volume goes above a certain threshold, any additional volume rise will be cut by a set ratio. Ideally, you'd set the threshold to the dialogue volume or just below, and set the ratio as low as you're comfortable with - more compression means flatter sound, but you'll be dulling the punch of music and emotion as well as the perceived loudness.
It's a bit pricey (and ridiculous) to start putting pro audio gear into your TV system, but there's something to be said for maintaining that perfect comfortable volume automatically.
Not the most straightforward tactic, but interesting nonetheless.
One court says the program must retain all metadata for more than five years, and another court says that the program must not retain metadata for longer than five years. This means that the only lawful way to run the program lawfully is to ensure that no metadata covered by these judgements is gathered, effectively outlawing the program entirely.
Even though the judgements may apply only within certain jurisdictions, the entire program is affected as phone calls may be generating metadata on people within the jurisdiction, regardless of where the other end is.
When the Fed creates money via loans, it also creates debt. The value of that debt inflates (via interest) as well. That debt supply moderates the increase in the money supply, so that the inflation effect can be curtailed if the production rate doesn't rise with the money supply.
Regardless of clearance, it would be unreasonable to demand a search every time you enter or exit your house. It's probably not so unreasonable to demand a search when you enter or exit a classified lab, though. The probability of working with secrets greatly increases the scope of what's "reasonable". The Fourth Amendment, after all, doesn't protect you from all searches.
Working with classified material doesn't really waive one's civil rights, but the applicable meaning of those rights does change. Rights are not absolute, and despite the insistence of the Internet hivemind, they never have been.
Finally, C IS the One True Language, Sarten. Bow before it's might and majesty!
Since C is just a thin veneer over machine code, I'll agree... it's certainly mighty. Then again, a bulldozer is not really the best tool for brain surgery.
You act like most corporate-minded people. Others are expected to knuckle under or they can expect to be fired out of spite. It's not about the job. It's about fucking other people over to make a point.
I watched it in every place I worked. The people who kept their jobs spent all day campaigning to get others fired. The people who actually did the work got harassed for weeks and then got fired.
To wit, you're not bitter in the least, are you?
So basically your management style is a pissing contest. Everyone else is required to sit quietly and wait to be instructed by your Olympian highness lest they upset your perfectly balanced apple cart with their amateur japes.
Quite the contrary... everyone in my team is expected to express any opinion they want and know that they won't be insulted or harassed because of it. I can go to my boss and say that something's wrong with his design, and I know that we'll have a nice professional discussion weighing pros and cons of alternatives. I won't have to sit through him ranting about how his way is best. My team can expect the same of me. It's not so much "insecure and paranoid" as it is "secure and professional".
If you want to play in the big leagues, son, you had better be prepared for World Series egos, and you had better be prepared to manage them without wetting yourself with your bullshit insecurities.
How's Fortune 100 suit you for "big leagues"? There are certainly egos here, but unlike what I've seen of yours in this thread and your comment history, here they're kept in check. By and large, everybody here knows that they are top-notch, but they also know that everybody else is top-notch, too. There's confidence, but not very much arrogance.
I have technical skills superior to any five people you've ever worked with combined.
I'll pick the man who built a computer by hand from relays, the Emmy-winning filmmaker, the four-star general, the 25-year-career fighter pilot, and my acquaintance in this picture. What's most amusing is that I've also worked with these fine folks personally as well as professionally, and I fully expect that they'd get along as a team, if there were a project requiring them.
If you hire me, you will deal with my ego, you will pay my fee and you will do it my way. If you want to shit the bed you do it on your own time. Why? Because my team produces results. I can take three of mine and outproduce any corporate tie-wearing fuck and ten of his while eating a sammich.
And that's exactly why I won't hire you. I don't care about whether you "outproduce" anyone. Your personality exposes too much risk. There's a chance that you'd provide a wonderful project that works perfectly, but there's also a significant chance that you'll make assumptions about the requirements or lock me in to an unmaintainable nightmare. Again based solely on this thread, I have only your assertion that your technical skills are adequate for the job, but I have a very clear demonstration of your insufficient interpersonal skills.
That's how I grew my business (with three record years) straight through the worst recession in eight decades.
How much could you have grown, though, if you had curtailed your arrogance just a bit?
What amuses me is how you're so dead-set against the stereotypical corporate boss that you actually fill the role nicely. You're focused mainly on production rather than employee well-being. You're emphasizing hard certifications and years of experience over good references, and you boast about your personal triumphs rather than your team's achievements.
I've never fired anyone.
You're a liar, then. Either you're lying about being an employer, lying about not firing anyone
There's a difference in what they consider "it", though. In academia, the research has to get done, in time for that conference deadline. In industry, the production has to get done, but then it has to get done again next week, and the week after that, and it's really preferred if we can do it with the same crew, rather than rotating shifts between the production floor and the hospital. Both want to get their jobs done, but there's a difference in what can be sacrificed to do it.
That's cute. You know nothing about my professional position, yet you assume I'm not an employer... but of course I, young whippersnapper that I am assumed to be, must respect your 40 years of probably-C experience, even though I can hire a senior engineer with only a decade's experience for less, and I won't have to iron out the team problems, either.
Your technical skills might indeed be valuable, but if I have to worry about you mouthing off to a customer or making another engineer take a poorly-timed vacation day, you're not valuable enough to be on my team. Missing a deadline on my current project carries a five-digit price tag per day. I don't have time to cater to your ego.
You will be fired when you can least afford it. American "employers" are not grown-ups. They are not emotionally or mentally capable of employing adults.
So I guess that's your management style, then... Or do you just mean every other employer is like that, and when you fire someone, you have a very good reason for it?
I'd fire you because you're a liability, based on the exchange here. Your qualifications quickly lose their lustre if you're costing the company business, either directly or by reputation.
Firstly, you're professing current knowledge that's 15 years out of date, and claiming its superiority based solely on your own observations from outside. That's the same inclination that leads to developers insisting on using C because it's the One True Language, even though more recent languages may fit the project better. Then you make assumptions about the circumstances of the situation, assuming that what you see on the surface is exactly how things really are, with no mitigating circumstances. When someone does disagree with your opinion, possibly due to knowing those other circumstances, you attack them and call them "immature, childish, [and] irresponsible".
As a prospective client, I wouldn't hire you, because I could expect that I'd be given a solution that has a good chance of being unmaintainable by anyone else. As an employer, I wouldn't hire you because your interpersonal skills suggest that I'd be constantly fighting to keep a team together unless they all simply bowed to your demands.
If I somehow ended up in a position where I could fire you, I'd probably do so, because as a responsible and competent manager, I'd recognize what your arrogance actually costs the business. While I do care about your well-being, I also have the rest of the team to worry about, and they're not the ones spreading discord. It might be tough, but I'd rather find someone else with your qualifications than try to hold together a frustrated team.
So you talk about "the only option in 2014 America", but you haven't tried any other options in this century.
You complain about employers who "maximize your hardship", yet by being self-employed, if you screw up, you get absolutely every bit of hardship possible.
You put down those who "don't know any better" and "ignore [your] advice", to the point of stating as a foregone fact that they will be fired, and you say that your opinion is "reality".
Yes, that's exactly why the policy exists. Fedora's hoping they can do an end-run around the sanctions, but the problem lies in the "don't tell" side. If the submissions are traceable back to their contributors, then there's no reason a prolific contributor can't simply announce who he is, regardless of Fedora's policies. Then they get instant (minor) fame and can have their 15 minutes in the spotlight.
The point of the sanctions is to say "If you're not going to play Global Economic Power nicely*, you're not going to play at all." That doesn't just mean "you're not going to win", but it also includes "you're not going to practice", "you're not going to have others play for you", and "you're not going to share the winnings with anyone who does play.
It has been upheld in US courts that even the minor fame from open-source authorship counts as economic gain (thus reinforcing the GPL's validity as being consequential). Acknowledging that Cuban programmers are good enough for inclusion in Fedora implies that Cuban programmers might be good enough for other projects, and that's marketing - certainly a part of that Global Economic Power game.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's not the valid statistic, but it's the one that's going to run through an officer's mind when he sees someone ignore verbal communications and pull something rifle-shaped out of the back of a stopped truck.
The tragedy here is not that this officer acted improperly, but rather that humans are fundamentally incapable of reliably acting properly in this situation.
how many wrongful deaths of people other than a law enforcement officer resulted from shootings that arose from traffic stops where the driver was not actually armed or not actually a threat? I'm going to guess it was higher than 8.
You could do your own research. I count 6 where "not actually a threat" is reasonable. That's just about 1%.
Out of 48 officers feloniously killed in 2012, 8 were at traffic stops. That's 16.7%,, surpassing coronary artery disease as a cause of death. Is it unreasonable to worry when you feel chest pain?
Yes, millions of traffic stops happen with no problem, but that's not any comfort when a lone officer's at one that starts to go badly. There's also thousands of things that cause chest pain that aren't heart attacks.
If you can't tell the difference between a cane and a rifle from a distance of thirty feet,
...in the dark, from the end, in a quarter-second timespan, when the suspect has already ignored verbal requests, and knowing that officers do get shot at routine traffic stops fairly often ...
Terribly sorry to break it to you, but by your standards, no human should be a police officer.
Elderly gentleman who can barely move without a cane?
From the video, he actually got out of the truck cab quite easily and walked several steps with no apparent difficulty.
If YOU or I had done this we would be rotting in jail for eternity.
No, we'd have a viable self-defense argument to put before the court for our assault charge. Self-defense doesn't require that one's life or well-being actually be at risk, but only that they believed it to be. Now, if you or I had shot the man and actually killed him, then we'd be facing a manslaughter charge, with the same self-defense argument. Assault and manslaughter don't actually carry eternal prison sentences, either. Society tends to frown on punishing accidents excessively.
You may want to look up the word "unjustifiable".
The shooting may have been stupid and tragic, but it's pretty easily justified. Watching the video, the man gets out of his truck without being asked to, ignores the officer calling to him, then pulls a long thin object out of a holder in the back of the cab, which he immediately swings toward the officer. The officer, upon seeing what looks like a small rifle or shotgun aimed at him, shoots the apparently-armed man. The officer didn't realize it was a cane, and the man didn't think it'd look like a gun.
It was pretty obviously a mistake. What's right now is not to whine about "police abuse", but rather to heal the man (who survived and is reportedly doing well), understand that Hanlon's Razor is still valid, and move on.
No, I'm recommending a compressor to tame the wide dynamic range left over when a movie is mastered for theatrical release, but then actually shown in a home.
Compression itself is not bad. Bad compression is bad. Ideally the compression, along with the equalization, mixing, spacial image, et cetera, are all set to comfortable levels for the playback environment. In a movie theatre, a loud explosion is acceptable because it adds to the show. In a home environment, a loud explosion makes the viewers worry that the kids woke up, detracting from the show.
From what I can tell, TV shows usually aren't actually compressed for loudness. The exceptions are action-heavy shows like police procedurals, where people often start shouting without warning. Rather, most TV shows are explicitly mixed carefully. The theme music is mixed quietly, and the dialogue is mixed louder, but the volume level of any particular track never changes.
If it doesn't get you a low-level output, I stand by what I (sarcastically) said.
If your receiver has an effects processor in it already, it might even have compression under a name relating to "dynamics". It probably won't support the full control a standalone compressor will do, but it might work.
Unfortunately, I don't have a part number for a non-crappy receiver handy, but a while back I worked with a system that was 5.1-channel surround and offered both digital output and 6 analog RCA jacks on the back with low-level output. Those jacks came with preinstalled plugs that would bridge over to 6 corresponding analog inputs that went right to the amplifier. That amp then had the usual binding posts for the speakers. From a wiring perspective, it was really two separate components: the AV switch, and a 5.1-channel amplifier. I could connect all of my other requisite gear in between the two, supporting my processing and splitting needs.
Ditch the crappy receiver.
More seriously, it is a rather distressing problem that there's all too often this one magic self-contained box that is expected to do everything perfectly with no ability to modify anything. Much like the adoption of DRM, it's a problem that no amount of edge-case (read: my) whining has had any effect on. It'd be nicer if the receiver had a low-level output (which some do, usually in the form of RCA jacks).
The proper (and again, I fully realize this goes well into the "pricey and ridiculous" territory) way is to turn down the receiver's amp pretty low, then use an 8-channel DI box to cut down the power your receiver is pushing out. Then you're into the signal level used for decent audio gear, and your options are far more flexible. You could add 4 of the aforementioned compressor units to compress all 8 channels, or you could just compress some of the channels for the preferred effect. You could leave your distant speakers uncompressed to preserve some of the punch without worrying about having the signal be too loud from nearby speakers.
Working entirely at low level, you have other options, too. If you have a big home theater, where the distance between main speakers (subwoofers don't really count) varies by more than about 5 feet, you might benefit from a properly-configured delay unit, so the sound arrives at your ears at the proper time, according to its spacial location in the source. If you prefer to take the sound fully into your own hands, you could add 8 channels of equalizers to set the frequency curves to match your room and listening preference. With a patch panel, mixer, and a multitrack recorder, you could also hook up your band for an in-house recording session, because if you're actually considering this level of production for a home system, you very likely have more money than sense.
Anyway, since you had to waste the earlier amplification to get down to that usable signal, you'll need 8 channels of amplification again to take your fully-customized signal and run it up to audible levels.
Life is easier and cheaper with just a 2-channel stereo system.
You're probably in about the 50th percentile, actually. Hearing 16 kHz puts you at somewhere under age 40, or you've taken pretty good care of your ears.
The hair cells in your ears that resonate with high frequencies up to 20 kHz sit right at the start of the cochlea. They're the first to be hit with sound, so the sound is at its highest energy. As the wave progresses to lower-frequency cells, it's progressively losing energy, so they don't get damaged as soon. By the time you get damage in the 2 kHz range, you'll start losing the parts of sound that make intelligible speech - the beginning and ending sounds of syllables. That's why older folks have a more difficult time understanding speech. They can hear you talking, but they literally can't hear what you're saying.
As an audio technician, I recommend a compressor with a fast attack and very slow release. Basically, when the volume goes above a certain threshold, any additional volume rise will be cut by a set ratio. Ideally, you'd set the threshold to the dialogue volume or just below, and set the ratio as low as you're comfortable with - more compression means flatter sound, but you'll be dulling the punch of music and emotion as well as the perceived loudness.
It's a bit pricey (and ridiculous) to start putting pro audio gear into your TV system, but there's something to be said for maintaining that perfect comfortable volume automatically.
Not the most straightforward tactic, but interesting nonetheless.
One court says the program must retain all metadata for more than five years, and another court says that the program must not retain metadata for longer than five years. This means that the only lawful way to run the program lawfully is to ensure that no metadata covered by these judgements is gathered, effectively outlawing the program entirely.
Even though the judgements may apply only within certain jurisdictions, the entire program is affected as phone calls may be generating metadata on people within the jurisdiction, regardless of where the other end is.
Fascinating.
Let's not forget debt.
When the Fed creates money via loans, it also creates debt. The value of that debt inflates (via interest) as well. That debt supply moderates the increase in the money supply, so that the inflation effect can be curtailed if the production rate doesn't rise with the money supply.
As an American, I have no idea what that word means.
In a sense, yes.
Regardless of clearance, it would be unreasonable to demand a search every time you enter or exit your house. It's probably not so unreasonable to demand a search when you enter or exit a classified lab, though. The probability of working with secrets greatly increases the scope of what's "reasonable". The Fourth Amendment, after all, doesn't protect you from all searches.
Working with classified material doesn't really waive one's civil rights, but the applicable meaning of those rights does change. Rights are not absolute, and despite the insistence of the Internet hivemind, they never have been.
Finally, C IS the One True Language, Sarten. Bow before it's might and majesty!
Since C is just a thin veneer over machine code, I'll agree... it's certainly mighty. Then again, a bulldozer is not really the best tool for brain surgery.
You act like most corporate-minded people. Others are expected to knuckle under or they can expect to be fired out of spite. It's not about the job. It's about fucking other people over to make a point.
I watched it in every place I worked. The people who kept their jobs spent all day campaigning to get others fired. The people who actually did the work got harassed for weeks and then got fired.
To wit, you're not bitter in the least, are you?
So basically your management style is a pissing contest. Everyone else is required to sit quietly and wait to be instructed by your Olympian highness lest they upset your perfectly balanced apple cart with their amateur japes.
Quite the contrary... everyone in my team is expected to express any opinion they want and know that they won't be insulted or harassed because of it. I can go to my boss and say that something's wrong with his design, and I know that we'll have a nice professional discussion weighing pros and cons of alternatives. I won't have to sit through him ranting about how his way is best. My team can expect the same of me. It's not so much "insecure and paranoid" as it is "secure and professional".
If you want to play in the big leagues, son, you had better be prepared for World Series egos, and you had better be prepared to manage them without wetting yourself with your bullshit insecurities.
How's Fortune 100 suit you for "big leagues"? There are certainly egos here, but unlike what I've seen of yours in this thread and your comment history, here they're kept in check. By and large, everybody here knows that they are top-notch, but they also know that everybody else is top-notch, too. There's confidence, but not very much arrogance.
I have technical skills superior to any five people you've ever worked with combined.
I'll pick the man who built a computer by hand from relays, the Emmy-winning filmmaker, the four-star general, the 25-year-career fighter pilot, and my acquaintance in this picture. What's most amusing is that I've also worked with these fine folks personally as well as professionally, and I fully expect that they'd get along as a team, if there were a project requiring them.
If you hire me, you will deal with my ego, you will pay my fee and you will do it my way. If you want to shit the bed you do it on your own time. Why? Because my team produces results. I can take three of mine and outproduce any corporate tie-wearing fuck and ten of his while eating a sammich.
And that's exactly why I won't hire you. I don't care about whether you "outproduce" anyone. Your personality exposes too much risk. There's a chance that you'd provide a wonderful project that works perfectly, but there's also a significant chance that you'll make assumptions about the requirements or lock me in to an unmaintainable nightmare. Again based solely on this thread, I have only your assertion that your technical skills are adequate for the job, but I have a very clear demonstration of your insufficient interpersonal skills.
That's how I grew my business (with three record years) straight through the worst recession in eight decades.
How much could you have grown, though, if you had curtailed your arrogance just a bit?
What amuses me is how you're so dead-set against the stereotypical corporate boss that you actually fill the role nicely. You're focused mainly on production rather than employee well-being. You're emphasizing hard certifications and years of experience over good references, and you boast about your personal triumphs rather than your team's achievements.
I've never fired anyone.
You're a liar, then. Either you're lying about being an employer, lying about not firing anyone
There's a difference in what they consider "it", though. In academia, the research has to get done, in time for that conference deadline. In industry, the production has to get done, but then it has to get done again next week, and the week after that, and it's really preferred if we can do it with the same crew, rather than rotating shifts between the production floor and the hospital. Both want to get their jobs done, but there's a difference in what can be sacrificed to do it.
That's cute. You know nothing about my professional position, yet you assume I'm not an employer... but of course I, young whippersnapper that I am assumed to be, must respect your 40 years of probably-C experience, even though I can hire a senior engineer with only a decade's experience for less, and I won't have to iron out the team problems, either.
Your technical skills might indeed be valuable, but if I have to worry about you mouthing off to a customer or making another engineer take a poorly-timed vacation day, you're not valuable enough to be on my team. Missing a deadline on my current project carries a five-digit price tag per day. I don't have time to cater to your ego.
You will be fired when you can least afford it. American "employers" are not grown-ups. They are not emotionally or mentally capable of employing adults.
So I guess that's your management style, then... Or do you just mean every other employer is like that, and when you fire someone, you have a very good reason for it?
I'd fire you because you're a liability, based on the exchange here. Your qualifications quickly lose their lustre if you're costing the company business, either directly or by reputation.
Firstly, you're professing current knowledge that's 15 years out of date, and claiming its superiority based solely on your own observations from outside. That's the same inclination that leads to developers insisting on using C because it's the One True Language, even though more recent languages may fit the project better. Then you make assumptions about the circumstances of the situation, assuming that what you see on the surface is exactly how things really are, with no mitigating circumstances. When someone does disagree with your opinion, possibly due to knowing those other circumstances, you attack them and call them "immature, childish, [and] irresponsible".
As a prospective client, I wouldn't hire you, because I could expect that I'd be given a solution that has a good chance of being unmaintainable by anyone else. As an employer, I wouldn't hire you because your interpersonal skills suggest that I'd be constantly fighting to keep a team together unless they all simply bowed to your demands.
If I somehow ended up in a position where I could fire you, I'd probably do so, because as a responsible and competent manager, I'd recognize what your arrogance actually costs the business. While I do care about your well-being, I also have the rest of the team to worry about, and they're not the ones spreading discord. It might be tough, but I'd rather find someone else with your qualifications than try to hold together a frustrated team.
So you talk about "the only option in 2014 America", but you haven't tried any other options in this century.
You complain about employers who "maximize your hardship", yet by being self-employed, if you screw up, you get absolutely every bit of hardship possible.
You put down those who "don't know any better" and "ignore [your] advice", to the point of stating as a foregone fact that they will be fired, and you say that your opinion is "reality".
Yeah, I'd fire you, too.
Not bitter in the least, are you?
Don't go it alone, then. Find a consulting firm that already has a client list.
Look for a consulting gig.
I've done a lot of work that boiled down to "tell us if and how this will work for us, before we spend all this money"
The kind that appeases the lawyers and preexisting contracts.
Yes, that's exactly why the policy exists. Fedora's hoping they can do an end-run around the sanctions, but the problem lies in the "don't tell" side. If the submissions are traceable back to their contributors, then there's no reason a prolific contributor can't simply announce who he is, regardless of Fedora's policies. Then they get instant (minor) fame and can have their 15 minutes in the spotlight.
Yes and "it's complicated".
The point of the sanctions is to say "If you're not going to play Global Economic Power nicely*, you're not going to play at all." That doesn't just mean "you're not going to win", but it also includes "you're not going to practice", "you're not going to have others play for you", and "you're not going to share the winnings with anyone who does play.
It has been upheld in US courts that even the minor fame from open-source authorship counts as economic gain (thus reinforcing the GPL's validity as being consequential). Acknowledging that Cuban programmers are good enough for inclusion in Fedora implies that Cuban programmers might be good enough for other projects, and that's marketing - certainly a part of that Global Economic Power game.
* For pro-American values of "nicely"