No one gets it right 100% of the time. Everyone has a percentage of the time that they get it wrong. Some people have a higher percentage than others.
Sure, but some people get it wrong most of the time. They just don't care. I hate that.
Being a really slow worker is a really bad thing. If you take 2 people that are right the same percentage of the time. One works twice as fast as the other. You have to be paying the slower worker half the salary of the fast worker to make the slow worker's employment as valuable as the fast worker.
We're not making shoes here. It's quite rare that "productivity per dollar of salary" really matters, at least not by a factor of 2. Predictably delivering high quality code on schedule as a team is what matters to me.
It doesn't matter to me if someone finishes a project in 2 days and it takes them 3 months to work out all the bugs, or if it just takes them 3 months to finish, if the end result is the same.
Not to me. The guy who checks in after 2 days and says "ship it, I'm done", and we're still finding bugs in production 3 months later is a disaster (arguably you should never depend on the coder to believe anything is done, but sadly as DevOps becomes popular, we're back to that BS). The guy who gets to the end of the iteration, says "I'm done", but his work isn't accepted (didn't really solve the problem, rejected by automation, etc) is a much bigger problem than the guy who half-way through realizes he'll only be half done.
Predictability counts for a lot. Quality counts for a lot. Management will hold the team accountable for delivering X amount by some date - with people who do it right you know where you are on that, with people who do it wrong it's anyone's guess, and everyone's problem when the project blows up at the end.
Sounds interesting, but the abstract for that DDC paper is gibberish.
In the DDC technique, source code is compiled twice: once with a second (trusted) compiler (using the source code of the compilerâ(TM)s parent), and then the compiler source code is compiled using the result of the first compilation. If the result is bit-for-bit identical with the untrusted executable, then the source code accurately represents the executable.
It this saying "write your own compiler, then use it to compile GCC, then use that to compile GCC"? I.e., the normal process for bootstrapping GCC to a new architecture?
Meh, better be running those compiles on a completely trusted OS (which you built how?), on a completely trusted processor (the masks were checked how?). I guess it's a good idea, since the more diverse you go on platforms, the more likely you'd be to find one that's trustworthy. Sadly, it could be defeated by an attacker with unbounded funding, reach, and decades of work to subvert every platform out there.
This is the real problem with the evil of the NSA. You have to be able to trust something to have a beachhead to build on. But the NSA destroyed trust in everything.
But you don't always have someone who's wrong. That's my entire point. Stop focusing on "fast vs slow", focus on "right vs wrong". Get rid of the people who get it wrong, even if they're fast. Keep the people who get it right, even if they're slow.
I haven't seen a big advantage in startup times, but then I like to power stuff off when I'm not using it.
Win7 seems to do a fine job with idling processors or running one at low speed, though I haven't tried it on mobile. Surface still needs work for battery life, but I could believe it's better than WIn7.
I use VMware Workstation - Hyper-V just doesn't do what I need with snapshotting and cloning. Though I do like the "compatibility through virtualization" approach in general.
I keep hearing about all these secrect tricks you can do with the Win8 UI to access cool functionality. Windows-key hotkeys and etc. Sorry, it's dead to me if it's not discoverable.
Slow and wrong is uninteresting though, you fire them and move on. This field is not for everyone. I've seen a big problem at large companies with favoring fast and wrong over slow and right, because distant management can measure "fast" easier than "right".
That's too bad. I really like the Win7 UI - like it better than any of the Linux UIs I've tried. But the core OS needs serious help with the problem Windows has always had with unresponsive network shares or failing devices. If my mouse becomes unresponsive because of a disk I/O error, something is deeply wrong. C'mon MS, fix that instead of changing the UI at random!
but 8 is far superior to 7 once you install Classic Shell.
I've heard that a lot here. I've never seen a difference other than the wretched UI, the file copy progress thingy, and the new task manager. As far as the internals, it's as crappy as ever if you have an unresponsive network share, and my Win8 laptop locks up (some explorer crash) and has to be hard power cycled, which I've never had a problem with in earlier Windows versions.
"Idiot" or "dummy" misses the point, I think. Never confuse activity with productivity, or "who cares how fast you go if you're going the wrong way".
I love programmers who may work slower, but are diligent and make sure they're doing the right thing. Follow coding standards, ask questions when they're not sure how to proceed, etc. I barely care if they contribute less than others, as long as it's predictable, as you'll size projects to the available staff anyhow.
I hate programmers who do work someone else has to fix. Ignore important coding standards, don't test, or simply solve the wrong problem. You pretty much have to count them as zero or negative in terms of team contribution, no matter how much code they may spew out.
There's a huge, giant, enormous difference between the legal definition of rape: involving violence or its threat, the sort you clearly mean, the sort any reasonable person would mean; between that and the sort I described in my post. That was rather the point of my post, which you seem to have missed.
1. Wal-Mart employees and shoppers are mostly from the bottom third, income wise. Under the current system, those workers are subsidized by taxes, mostly paid by the top third. If Wal-Mart raised wages and benefits, that cost would translate directly to higher prices, shifting the burden of the subsidy from the top third to the bottom third, income-wise. Hey, I like the way you think!
2. Risk is why capital gets a share of profits. CEO is also a hard job. Good thing it pays well, or no one would do it.
3. Fuck the environment - what are you some kind of hippie? Hipster? And yet you didn't mention how it's Wal-Mart's fault the ice caps are melting. I'm confused by your position.
Maybe you've never been poor enough the need to shop at Wal-Mart, but here's a hint: people shop there because it's so cheap. It's also already the nations biggest grocery store chain (arguably, it's now a grocery store that also sells some other stuff, since groceries are the majority of its revenue), Prices can only go down from competition, though I don't think Amazon's direct-delivery model for groceries will play in the same market as Wal-Mart, they do compete in other areas.
Except Wal-Mart's prices are damn low over time. They can sustain lower prices than just about anyone else because they have the best logistics chain in the world - really amazing tech there. Also partly because they sell low-quality versions of familiar products, of course, but apparently consumers are just fine with that.
Face it: hatred for Wal-Mart is a tribal identification thing, not a rational economic argument.
The interesting fight is yet to come. Eventually, Wal-Mart and Amazon will be in direct competition. Bring popcorn.
nobody ever argued that literally half of men are rapists
Maybe your friends don't - that just means your friends aren't nuts. There are people who argue that all men are rapists (some just haven't gotten around to the act yet). Seriously.
Are you actually saying that there aren't men (a significant number of them) who feel like they have the right to sleep with women they find attractive? I don't mean the desire, I mean that they actually think they deserve it for some reason, regardless of what the woman in question feels like. Those men do exist.
Ah, so you want to create more thoughtcrime here, just more narrowly defined? Fuck that. A man has the right to believe any damn thing he chooses to believe about anyone. Actions, on the other hand, are appropriate for discussion.
Let me put it another way. Have you ever been groped on the sidewalk? Have you ever been followed for over two hours by a man who was staring at you the whole time? Have you ever had someone say something suggestive to you when you were minding your own business and then they called you a stuck up cunt when you politely told them you were busy? Those are common stories I hear from women ALL THE TIME. They are not isolated incidents.
Having been the victim of actual criminal violence more than once, I find little sympathy for someone who gets worked up about being called a bad name, or getting a look they don't enjoy (shall we have facecrime too - oh wait, we doo, it's called "microaggression"). Grouping, of course, is actual assault, though the traditional response of slugging the guy in return is justified IMO: a rare instance where escalating is appropriate. In any case, those examples have nothing to do with rape.
And a startling number of people have no regard for a women's autonomy and simple right to go about their business without being harassed.
Almost everyone agrees that people have a right not to be harassed. It's the definition of harassment that varies. It's also a minor thing in life - if the worst thing that happens to you today is that you get a comment or a look that displeases you, you had a good day. And the idea that it's only men that harass women? Laughable.
Really now. You've never known a woman who has reported any kind of sexual harassment or violence and in turn been asked what she was wearing, if she'd been drinking/smoking/doing other drugs, or in any way encouraged the victim? A horrifying number of women I know have had that exact problem.
And how many have received 200 lashes as punishment because they did not have 3 male witnesses who were not relatives to testify to their innocence? This stuff really happens in the world.
Liposuction works too. But carrying some fat isn't in itself a concerning health issue: it's the eating and exercise habits correlated with it (e.g., fat cells don't cause adult-onset diabetes, the same bad eating habits cause both).
So are you really asking why the studios don't charge less for streaming licenses? That question answers itself. Of course, those paying attention to stuff like Steam sales discover that dropping the price for older stuff can result in vastly more revenue, but Hollywood hasn't clicked to that yet. Once they do, they won't need "virtual DVDs", they'll just reduce the licensing fees as titles age.
Netflix has gotten pretty good about licensing recent blockbusters for streaming though. It might be a couple of months between DVD and streaming availability, but then these days it can take Netflix a couple months to send you the DVD at the top of your queue.
Most men are rapists if you believe all straight sex is rape. Some people believe that.
Most men could be a rapists if you believe that waking up next to a man who is far uglier than he seemed when you were completely drunk is rape. Some people believe that.
Most men are rapists if you believe that failure to support the radical feminist agenda is tantamount to rape (the reasonable feminist agenda having been achieved a while back - look at pay for women under 35 who've never had a kid - it's higher than similar men now). There are sincere arguments being made at some colleges that formal accusations of rape should not be questionable, that "conviction" (expulsion for the college etc) should follow accusation without any sort of hearing. Because rape culture.
There simple is no "rape culture" in Western civilization by the "physical assault" definition of rape - marrying off girls against their will has been passe for some time now, as has blaming a rape victim for the crime. But there's an entire cultural leadership based on convincing people that they are victims, and so a new definition of "rape' and "rape culture" was needed.
"Rape culture" predominates if you say it includes every man who desires to have sex with a woman who doesn't desire him. So what? How many more thought crimes do we need to invent? It also predominates in some other cultures around the globe still stuck in a medieval mindset, but that's never what the "rape culture" complaint seems to be about.
They don't do it because the lawyers didn't see it as any different from their current streaming, that is, it would require a license. Since the license is the stumbling block for Netflix's sad lack of older streaming content, I'm not seeing how these shenanigans would help.
Form what I hear, the big problem for streaming license for older works isn't even the price negotiation, it's that the contractual rights are unclear for everyone involved in making the movie, when it comes to this new form of revenue.
There certainly isn't some scheme by Netflix to offer DVDs to price-conscious users, since DVDs are so much more expensive to the end user than streaming, unless you only watch a couple of movies a week.
DVDs can be rented out with no special licensing. Buy the DVD, and right of first sale says you can do anything but rip it. The law for CDs (and other phonorecordings) is just different - the law was sabotaged there a century or so ago.
Not to defend Bennett, but copyright law for "phonorecords" is just different; e.g. you can't rent out CDs like you can DVDs.
But Bennett is still an idiot to think that Netflix hasn't already worked through this idea with their lawyers. Plus, let's face it, Netflix is gradually dropping DVDs as a thing. I think the first 20 DVDs in my queue now are "very long wait", and it looks like Netflix is just giving up on anything but new releases and a bit of older schlock, much like Redbox.
Well, I expect the change was more due to a gradual reduction in the absurd governmental corruption in the cities around Silly Valley (I'm assuming you're talking about Hayward or Fremont or Milpitas). I had gotten so bad that basics like street lights and road repairs just weren't happening. But there was a noticeable (to me, anyhow) change a couple years ago, and the cities really seems to start doing their jobs again. Not sure if that extends to the school district, but clearly the budget crunch started shining light on just how little of local government funding was actually going to something useful. If only the county would have a similar change (but Alameda county will likely have to go through bankruptcy first).
While that would be quite clever, advances in battery power are a big part of why fully functional prosthetics seem likely to me. I don't think it will take anywhere near 50 years, either, at least for the physical disabilities. The mental stuff is a whole different world.
Slashdot Mirror
No one gets it right 100% of the time. Everyone has a percentage of the time that they get it wrong. Some people have a higher percentage than others.
Sure, but some people get it wrong most of the time. They just don't care. I hate that.
Being a really slow worker is a really bad thing. If you take 2 people that are right the same percentage of the time. One works twice as fast as the other. You have to be paying the slower worker half the salary of the fast worker to make the slow worker's employment as valuable as the fast worker.
We're not making shoes here. It's quite rare that "productivity per dollar of salary" really matters, at least not by a factor of 2. Predictably delivering high quality code on schedule as a team is what matters to me.
It doesn't matter to me if someone finishes a project in 2 days and it takes them 3 months to work out all the bugs, or if it just takes them 3 months to finish, if the end result is the same.
Not to me. The guy who checks in after 2 days and says "ship it, I'm done", and we're still finding bugs in production 3 months later is a disaster (arguably you should never depend on the coder to believe anything is done, but sadly as DevOps becomes popular, we're back to that BS). The guy who gets to the end of the iteration, says "I'm done", but his work isn't accepted (didn't really solve the problem, rejected by automation, etc) is a much bigger problem than the guy who half-way through realizes he'll only be half done.
Predictability counts for a lot. Quality counts for a lot. Management will hold the team accountable for delivering X amount by some date - with people who do it right you know where you are on that, with people who do it wrong it's anyone's guess, and everyone's problem when the project blows up at the end.
Sure, you can
Sounds interesting, but the abstract for that DDC paper is gibberish.
In the DDC technique, source code is compiled twice: once with a second (trusted) compiler (using the source code of the compilerâ(TM)s parent), and then the compiler source code is compiled using the result of the first compilation. If the result is bit-for-bit identical with the untrusted executable, then the source code accurately represents the executable.
It this saying "write your own compiler, then use it to compile GCC, then use that to compile GCC"? I.e., the normal process for bootstrapping GCC to a new architecture?
Meh, better be running those compiles on a completely trusted OS (which you built how?), on a completely trusted processor (the masks were checked how?). I guess it's a good idea, since the more diverse you go on platforms, the more likely you'd be to find one that's trustworthy. Sadly, it could be defeated by an attacker with unbounded funding, reach, and decades of work to subvert every platform out there.
This is the real problem with the evil of the NSA. You have to be able to trust something to have a beachhead to build on. But the NSA destroyed trust in everything.
But you don't always have someone who's wrong. That's my entire point. Stop focusing on "fast vs slow", focus on "right vs wrong". Get rid of the people who get it wrong, even if they're fast. Keep the people who get it right, even if they're slow.
I haven't seen a big advantage in startup times, but then I like to power stuff off when I'm not using it.
Win7 seems to do a fine job with idling processors or running one at low speed, though I haven't tried it on mobile. Surface still needs work for battery life, but I could believe it's better than WIn7.
I use VMware Workstation - Hyper-V just doesn't do what I need with snapshotting and cloning. Though I do like the "compatibility through virtualization" approach in general.
I keep hearing about all these secrect tricks you can do with the Win8 UI to access cool functionality. Windows-key hotkeys and etc. Sorry, it's dead to me if it's not discoverable.
Slow and wrong is uninteresting though, you fire them and move on. This field is not for everyone. I've seen a big problem at large companies with favoring fast and wrong over slow and right, because distant management can measure "fast" easier than "right".
That's too bad. I really like the Win7 UI - like it better than any of the Linux UIs I've tried. But the core OS needs serious help with the problem Windows has always had with unresponsive network shares or failing devices. If my mouse becomes unresponsive because of a disk I/O error, something is deeply wrong. C'mon MS, fix that instead of changing the UI at random!
but 8 is far superior to 7 once you install Classic Shell.
I've heard that a lot here. I've never seen a difference other than the wretched UI, the file copy progress thingy, and the new task manager. As far as the internals, it's as crappy as ever if you have an unresponsive network share, and my Win8 laptop locks up (some explorer crash) and has to be hard power cycled, which I've never had a problem with in earlier Windows versions.
So, do tell, why is 8 superior?
"Idiot" or "dummy" misses the point, I think. Never confuse activity with productivity, or "who cares how fast you go if you're going the wrong way".
I love programmers who may work slower, but are diligent and make sure they're doing the right thing. Follow coding standards, ask questions when they're not sure how to proceed, etc. I barely care if they contribute less than others, as long as it's predictable, as you'll size projects to the available staff anyhow.
I hate programmers who do work someone else has to fix. Ignore important coding standards, don't test, or simply solve the wrong problem. You pretty much have to count them as zero or negative in terms of team contribution, no matter how much code they may spew out.
There's a huge, giant, enormous difference between the legal definition of rape: involving violence or its threat, the sort you clearly mean, the sort any reasonable person would mean; between that and the sort I described in my post. That was rather the point of my post, which you seem to have missed.
1. Wal-Mart employees and shoppers are mostly from the bottom third, income wise. Under the current system, those workers are subsidized by taxes, mostly paid by the top third. If Wal-Mart raised wages and benefits, that cost would translate directly to higher prices, shifting the burden of the subsidy from the top third to the bottom third, income-wise. Hey, I like the way you think!
2. Risk is why capital gets a share of profits. CEO is also a hard job. Good thing it pays well, or no one would do it.
3. Fuck the environment - what are you some kind of hippie? Hipster? And yet you didn't mention how it's Wal-Mart's fault the ice caps are melting. I'm confused by your position.
Maybe you've never been poor enough the need to shop at Wal-Mart, but here's a hint: people shop there because it's so cheap. It's also already the nations biggest grocery store chain (arguably, it's now a grocery store that also sells some other stuff, since groceries are the majority of its revenue), Prices can only go down from competition, though I don't think Amazon's direct-delivery model for groceries will play in the same market as Wal-Mart, they do compete in other areas.
So then you agree that few would consider them fungible. :p
Except Wal-Mart's prices are damn low over time. They can sustain lower prices than just about anyone else because they have the best logistics chain in the world - really amazing tech there. Also partly because they sell low-quality versions of familiar products, of course, but apparently consumers are just fine with that.
Face it: hatred for Wal-Mart is a tribal identification thing, not a rational economic argument.
The interesting fight is yet to come. Eventually, Wal-Mart and Amazon will be in direct competition. Bring popcorn.
A Hyundai and a Ferrari are both cars, like any other consumer good, but few would consider them fungible.
Nothing wrong with Amazon playing hardball in negotiations. They're still far from a monopoly.
nobody ever argued that literally half of men are rapists
Maybe your friends don't - that just means your friends aren't nuts. There are people who argue that all men are rapists (some just haven't gotten around to the act yet). Seriously.
Are you actually saying that there aren't men (a significant number of them) who feel like they have the right to sleep with women they find attractive? I don't mean the desire, I mean that they actually think they deserve it for some reason, regardless of what the woman in question feels like. Those men do exist.
Ah, so you want to create more thoughtcrime here, just more narrowly defined? Fuck that. A man has the right to believe any damn thing he chooses to believe about anyone. Actions, on the other hand, are appropriate for discussion.
Let me put it another way. Have you ever been groped on the sidewalk? Have you ever been followed for over two hours by a man who was staring at you the whole time? Have you ever had someone say something suggestive to you when you were minding your own business and then they called you a stuck up cunt when you politely told them you were busy? Those are common stories I hear from women ALL THE TIME. They are not isolated incidents.
Having been the victim of actual criminal violence more than once, I find little sympathy for someone who gets worked up about being called a bad name, or getting a look they don't enjoy (shall we have facecrime too - oh wait, we doo, it's called "microaggression"). Grouping, of course, is actual assault, though the traditional response of slugging the guy in return is justified IMO: a rare instance where escalating is appropriate. In any case, those examples have nothing to do with rape.
And a startling number of people have no regard for a women's autonomy and simple right to go about their business without being harassed.
Almost everyone agrees that people have a right not to be harassed. It's the definition of harassment that varies. It's also a minor thing in life - if the worst thing that happens to you today is that you get a comment or a look that displeases you, you had a good day. And the idea that it's only men that harass women? Laughable.
Really now. You've never known a woman who has reported any kind of sexual harassment or violence and in turn been asked what she was wearing, if she'd been drinking/smoking/doing other drugs, or in any way encouraged the victim? A horrifying number of women I know have had that exact problem.
And how many have received 200 lashes as punishment because they did not have 3 male witnesses who were not relatives to testify to their innocence? This stuff really happens in the world.
Pure awesome. I suspect you flew under the mods radar, but +5 virtual funny.
Liposuction works too. But carrying some fat isn't in itself a concerning health issue: it's the eating and exercise habits correlated with it (e.g., fat cells don't cause adult-onset diabetes, the same bad eating habits cause both).
So are you really asking why the studios don't charge less for streaming licenses? That question answers itself. Of course, those paying attention to stuff like Steam sales discover that dropping the price for older stuff can result in vastly more revenue, but Hollywood hasn't clicked to that yet. Once they do, they won't need "virtual DVDs", they'll just reduce the licensing fees as titles age.
Netflix has gotten pretty good about licensing recent blockbusters for streaming though. It might be a couple of months between DVD and streaming availability, but then these days it can take Netflix a couple months to send you the DVD at the top of your queue.
Most men are rapists if you believe all straight sex is rape. Some people believe that.
Most men could be a rapists if you believe that waking up next to a man who is far uglier than he seemed when you were completely drunk is rape. Some people believe that.
Most men are rapists if you believe that failure to support the radical feminist agenda is tantamount to rape (the reasonable feminist agenda having been achieved a while back - look at pay for women under 35 who've never had a kid - it's higher than similar men now). There are sincere arguments being made at some colleges that formal accusations of rape should not be questionable, that "conviction" (expulsion for the college etc) should follow accusation without any sort of hearing. Because rape culture.
There simple is no "rape culture" in Western civilization by the "physical assault" definition of rape - marrying off girls against their will has been passe for some time now, as has blaming a rape victim for the crime. But there's an entire cultural leadership based on convincing people that they are victims, and so a new definition of "rape' and "rape culture" was needed.
"Rape culture" predominates if you say it includes every man who desires to have sex with a woman who doesn't desire him. So what? How many more thought crimes do we need to invent? It also predominates in some other cultures around the globe still stuck in a medieval mindset, but that's never what the "rape culture" complaint seems to be about.
They don't do it because the lawyers didn't see it as any different from their current streaming, that is, it would require a license. Since the license is the stumbling block for Netflix's sad lack of older streaming content, I'm not seeing how these shenanigans would help.
Form what I hear, the big problem for streaming license for older works isn't even the price negotiation, it's that the contractual rights are unclear for everyone involved in making the movie, when it comes to this new form of revenue.
There certainly isn't some scheme by Netflix to offer DVDs to price-conscious users, since DVDs are so much more expensive to the end user than streaming, unless you only watch a couple of movies a week.
DVDs can be rented out with no special licensing. Buy the DVD, and right of first sale says you can do anything but rip it. The law for CDs (and other phonorecordings) is just different - the law was sabotaged there a century or so ago.
Not to defend Bennett, but copyright law for "phonorecords" is just different; e.g. you can't rent out CDs like you can DVDs.
But Bennett is still an idiot to think that Netflix hasn't already worked through this idea with their lawyers. Plus, let's face it, Netflix is gradually dropping DVDs as a thing. I think the first 20 DVDs in my queue now are "very long wait", and it looks like Netflix is just giving up on anything but new releases and a bit of older schlock, much like Redbox.
Well, I expect the change was more due to a gradual reduction in the absurd governmental corruption in the cities around Silly Valley (I'm assuming you're talking about Hayward or Fremont or Milpitas). I had gotten so bad that basics like street lights and road repairs just weren't happening. But there was a noticeable (to me, anyhow) change a couple years ago, and the cities really seems to start doing their jobs again. Not sure if that extends to the school district, but clearly the budget crunch started shining light on just how little of local government funding was actually going to something useful. If only the county would have a similar change (but Alameda county will likely have to go through bankruptcy first).
While that would be quite clever, advances in battery power are a big part of why fully functional prosthetics seem likely to me. I don't think it will take anywhere near 50 years, either, at least for the physical disabilities. The mental stuff is a whole different world.