Startups don't compete with large corporations. That's not their purpose. Their purpose is to invent something that seems like a product, then get bought by a big corporation.
"Efficiency" matters a lot to bringing an established product to the market cheaply, but it means fuck-all to inventing new products. And while one company is busy "brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines", their competitor has just bought a start-up that figured out how to do that job with actual machines, so they win.
Mindless drudge-work is slowly vanishing as a kind of employment, and this is not (in the long run) a bad thing.
I don't carry my phone around with me at work - I've always thought that rude. I'd look like the perfect worker if judged by my phone, either that or dead.
Do you not believe a libertarian would want to limit the power of a "corporation which provided essentially all government functions"? Maybe some would - there are simple-minded believers in every philosophy - but that's hardly well thought-out.
As soon as you have BTC savings accounts, then the BTC supply is dominated by fractional-reserve banking. I don't know why people think that limiting the supply of the "physical" currency is important - it's just not.
No, my bank will make me whole if I have losses due to fraud (or so they say, anyhow). Just like I like to shop with a credit card for that fraud protection.
If banks offer BTC savings accounts, then the BTC supply is dominated by fractional-reserve banking, and the government can poke its nose in if it desires.
A very special type of press is needed for a convincing fake. Good paper money is printed with an 8-color press, which are really only used to print currency and Magic cards. Dunno if the seized press used the same process, or they were just clever in some way. In any case, the secret service probably keeps track of the few presses capable of printing convincing fakes.
I've never had money stolen out of a bank account. Of course, bitcoins will never be mainstream unless I can have a BTC-denominated savings account and credit card(at which point central banks control the BTC money supply, so why bother?).
In the normal sense of "air pollution" that I grew up with, no one would consider CO2 to be a pollutant. It's accepted as one by a generation that has never experienced real air pollution. It's simply not the same kind of emission as e.g. sulfur compounds, or particulates. It doesn't case irritation, provoke asthma attacks, cause cancer, corrode building and statues. Maybe it's bad - I don't know - but it's certainly not the same kind of bad.
People who want to regulate CO2 as "air pollution" are simply trying to force their values on others. I hate that shit - call it a religion or not, it's the same sort of BS as forcing a "gay marriage is evil" value on others.
I used to see this all over the place, where the non-Amazon sellers selling through Amazon's portal would be discounted to where, with shipping, they matched the Prime cost. Hard to find examples today - makes me wonder about price fixing.
For Marketplace items it's still common though - here's an example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ... Both hardback and paperback Amazon marketplace sellers are setting prices that, with shipping, more or less match the prime price. I suspect for marketplace items this is just the cheaper ones sell out, and the more expensive don't.
1) Halt the re-org until you know what you're doing.
That only makes sense for an outsider. If the choice is an insider, I'd assume he was driving the reorg from the beginning.
Release Windows 7.5, backporting all the internal improvements of the Win 8 series which can fit, keeping the Win 7 interface. Expect all your business to upgrade to this, and skip Win 8. It will be the new XP, and you'll support it for at least a decade. Deal with it.
I'm sure it will be called Windows 9 regardless, but yeah if he doesn't get that a phone needs a very different UI than a server, I'm not sure what could keep MS from arcing over into a long decline.
Much more seriously, go to the Research group and academia and work exceptionally hard to make a truly great, innovative...
I haven't seen anything innovative on the UI side since Gates left. I'd love to see it again, but I suspect it would take a while to find that sort of talent again, and real managerial talent to keep whoever's currently entrenched out of the way.
I can't believe that Bill gates would lose that job against his will (he might be ready to focus fully on his charity, though). He just has too much stock, too many ties to other long-timers who also control %s, and is just too practiced in Microsoft-specific infighting.
For a large company, if the result of your hiring criteria, company-wide, shows a racial bias, you're asking for the "opportunity" to prove your innocence. At my current large company we're not supposed to put anything in the interview feedback unless it's both on the short list of approved criteria and we can describe specifics from the interview to back it up. Bit of a pain, really.
Small companies are a different world of course, and I've worked at a couple where the racism was pretty blatant (once for and once against my race - wasn't keen to stay at either).
someone developing for the web platform can use any language he likes as long as it's JavaScript.
Someone developing for the web platform can use any language he likes as long as it compile to JavaScript. Much of the JS actually running in browsers was generated from one sort of framework or another.
also, you cannot write a decent application, since javascript currently is the only supported language and it lacks basic software engineering features.
I've heard rumors that software exists that takes code written in one language and transforms it, or "compiles" it if you will, into another language. But maybe that's just an unworkable academic idea.
I'd agree that's normal. What's more, this "passionate" is without a doubt a code for "exploitable".
Here's why: for various cultural reasons, self-taught geeks who code from the love of coding are a far higher percentage of American-born coders, than of e.g. India or China, simply because "software developer" has a far higher social status (and relative pay) in other countries, such that parents push their children to become developers there in the way that some American children are pushed to become doctors or lawyers. Therefore, if you actually filtered on "loves to code" instead of "good at coding", you'd be illegally discriminating against a protected class, in a way that's not-at-all subtle to anyone who spends time on hiring in the field.
The goal of this "passionate" business isn't crypto-racism (it would be too obvious, if nothing else), but simply trying to find people who are not only good, but willing to work far longer than a professional work week at management insistence, and those qualities can be found in young and/or desperate people from anywhere.
Here's one dead simple way it could be true: every student at the end of the course gets a job interview from Google/Adobe/etc in some sort of pool. Doing well in the interview is a requirement for graduating. Thus, trivially, almost all graduates will get job offers. (Most of the big firms are just looking for the smartest few% who have any kind of coding ability at all to work with, so if you're smart enough going in, a few months of full-time training would work for you.)
No clue what's really going on there, but it's not surprising if good vocational training leads to a high placement rate (still not believing the 99% without a pre-established deal with the companies, but that's not all that far-fetched).
Where did I say "we can't trust the stupid people"? Do you take a poll of your neighbors to see how to rewire your house, or do you call an electrician? You call an expert because they've studied the field, and know how it works. I don't see any way that this is "the modern left." It's common sense. If you have a problem about X, you find an X-ologist to tell you more about it. If you don't think this is the obvious way to do things, then I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.
I agree with you completely for easy problems. In fact, that's a good definition of an easy problem: one for which any expert knows the answer, and every expert gives the same answer, and it's just a matter of the size of the check needed to get the work done. But every state and city will get the same answers from their local experts for such problems, no?
Hard problems are different. They're not "well solved". Experts argue about what the best answer is, and often insist that those on the other side aren't actually experts at all - there's not even agreement as to who the experts are. Doesn't that sound like all the interesting problems in modern politics?
Plus there are issues that are simply geographic in nature. What's the right amount of earthquake hardening to pass code? What's the highest winds a building should survive to pass code? How important is it to conserve water, and separately to limit water in storm sewers?
I cannot see that the current government is somehow a scheming bastion of corruption and totalitarianism.
Compared to what? Certainly there are worse governments. But the more powerful the government, the more corruption matters. This nation was founded on the idea that government shouldn't grow too powerful because we can't trust it. And corruption doesn't have to take the form of a glowing eye atop a tower - or even money pocketed by the boss - corruption simply means that projects don't get completed satisfactorily. Panama's government tried to maintain the Panama Canal with local companies and local supervision, and failed; the problem wasn't that hard, but there was too much corruption to get the job done. America's government tried to create a website to allow people to shop for health insurance, and failed; the problem wasn't that hard, but there was too much corruption to get the job done.
Small organizations are more efficient than large at many tasks, that's hardly controversial. Some tasks can only be done by large organizations, or only done optimally. Solving each problem with a smaller organization where that works for that problem is a better plan than throwing one giant blob at everything.
I think for most problems, the important role for a central authority is to provide standards. To incorporate "lessons learned" wherever experts do agree that problems have been well solved, and insist on that as a minimum. Do you need the government to grow all the food, or does the FDA work well enough for the government's role? Do you need all electrical work done by the government, or does the national electric code suffice?
Ohh, you're one of those. Well, glad you had your Two Minutes Hate against Trotsky, err, Goldstein, err, right wing extremists, and can go back to obeying those causing the problems.
Really, the only thing I think you can criticize Obama vs previous presidents over the NSA scandal is: his did actually run against this sort of snooping in his first presidential campaign. Not that it's shocking that a politician breaks his promises or anything, but you'd think when all this became public he might have been more publically critical.
I can remember when the reason you bought a Mac was to run Word. Makes you wonder why Mac isn't a first class platform for Office these days, though maybe it is for Office365?
Slashdot Mirror
Land records only show who owns a house (which can easily be an LLC) not who lives there.
Startups don't compete with large corporations. That's not their purpose. Their purpose is to invent something that seems like a product, then get bought by a big corporation.
"Efficiency" matters a lot to bringing an established product to the market cheaply, but it means fuck-all to inventing new products. And while one company is busy "brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines", their competitor has just bought a start-up that figured out how to do that job with actual machines, so they win.
Mindless drudge-work is slowly vanishing as a kind of employment, and this is not (in the long run) a bad thing.
I don't carry my phone around with me at work - I've always thought that rude. I'd look like the perfect worker if judged by my phone, either that or dead.
Do you not believe a libertarian would want to limit the power of a "corporation which provided essentially all government functions"? Maybe some would - there are simple-minded believers in every philosophy - but that's hardly well thought-out.
What "special privileges" have corporations been granted by government? They're just a convenient way to do a limited partnership in an LLC.
D-Wave's "proprietary approach" makes me think it's nothing but fraud, simply because if it actually worked, they'd do better to explain more.
As soon as you have BTC savings accounts, then the BTC supply is dominated by fractional-reserve banking. I don't know why people think that limiting the supply of the "physical" currency is important - it's just not.
No, my bank will make me whole if I have losses due to fraud (or so they say, anyhow). Just like I like to shop with a credit card for that fraud protection.
If banks offer BTC savings accounts, then the BTC supply is dominated by fractional-reserve banking, and the government can poke its nose in if it desires.
A very special type of press is needed for a convincing fake. Good paper money is printed with an 8-color press, which are really only used to print currency and Magic cards. Dunno if the seized press used the same process, or they were just clever in some way. In any case, the secret service probably keeps track of the few presses capable of printing convincing fakes.
I've never had money stolen out of a bank account. Of course, bitcoins will never be mainstream unless I can have a BTC-denominated savings account and credit card(at which point central banks control the BTC money supply, so why bother?).
In the normal sense of "air pollution" that I grew up with, no one would consider CO2 to be a pollutant. It's accepted as one by a generation that has never experienced real air pollution. It's simply not the same kind of emission as e.g. sulfur compounds, or particulates. It doesn't case irritation, provoke asthma attacks, cause cancer, corrode building and statues. Maybe it's bad - I don't know - but it's certainly not the same kind of bad.
People who want to regulate CO2 as "air pollution" are simply trying to force their values on others. I hate that shit - call it a religion or not, it's the same sort of BS as forcing a "gay marriage is evil" value on others.
I used to see this all over the place, where the non-Amazon sellers selling through Amazon's portal would be discounted to where, with shipping, they matched the Prime cost. Hard to find examples today - makes me wonder about price fixing.
For Marketplace items it's still common though - here's an example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ... Both hardback and paperback Amazon marketplace sellers are setting prices that, with shipping, more or less match the prime price. I suspect for marketplace items this is just the cheaper ones sell out, and the more expensive don't.
1) Halt the re-org until you know what you're doing.
That only makes sense for an outsider. If the choice is an insider, I'd assume he was driving the reorg from the beginning.
Release Windows 7.5, backporting all the internal improvements of the Win 8 series which can fit, keeping the Win 7 interface. Expect all your business to upgrade to this, and skip Win 8. It will be the new XP, and you'll support it for at least a decade. Deal with it.
I'm sure it will be called Windows 9 regardless, but yeah if he doesn't get that a phone needs a very different UI than a server, I'm not sure what could keep MS from arcing over into a long decline.
Much more seriously, go to the Research group and academia and work exceptionally hard to make a truly great, innovative ...
I haven't seen anything innovative on the UI side since Gates left. I'd love to see it again, but I suspect it would take a while to find that sort of talent again, and real managerial talent to keep whoever's currently entrenched out of the way.
I can't believe that Bill gates would lose that job against his will (he might be ready to focus fully on his charity, though). He just has too much stock, too many ties to other long-timers who also control %s, and is just too practiced in Microsoft-specific infighting.
For a large company, if the result of your hiring criteria, company-wide, shows a racial bias, you're asking for the "opportunity" to prove your innocence. At my current large company we're not supposed to put anything in the interview feedback unless it's both on the short list of approved criteria and we can describe specifics from the interview to back it up. Bit of a pain, really.
Small companies are a different world of course, and I've worked at a couple where the racism was pretty blatant (once for and once against my race - wasn't keen to stay at either).
I would blindly bet money that there exists both a LUA to JS and JS to LUA compiler. It's just the kind of world we live in.
someone developing for the web platform can use any language he likes as long as it's JavaScript.
Someone developing for the web platform can use any language he likes as long as it compile to JavaScript. Much of the JS actually running in browsers was generated from one sort of framework or another.
also, you cannot write a decent application, since javascript currently is the only supported language and it lacks basic software engineering features.
I've heard rumors that software exists that takes code written in one language and transforms it, or "compiles" it if you will, into another language. But maybe that's just an unworkable academic idea.
I'd agree that's normal. What's more, this "passionate" is without a doubt a code for "exploitable".
Here's why: for various cultural reasons, self-taught geeks who code from the love of coding are a far higher percentage of American-born coders, than of e.g. India or China, simply because "software developer" has a far higher social status (and relative pay) in other countries, such that parents push their children to become developers there in the way that some American children are pushed to become doctors or lawyers. Therefore, if you actually filtered on "loves to code" instead of "good at coding", you'd be illegally discriminating against a protected class, in a way that's not-at-all subtle to anyone who spends time on hiring in the field.
The goal of this "passionate" business isn't crypto-racism (it would be too obvious, if nothing else), but simply trying to find people who are not only good, but willing to work far longer than a professional work week at management insistence, and those qualities can be found in young and/or desperate people from anywhere.
Not students: graduates.
Here's one dead simple way it could be true: every student at the end of the course gets a job interview from Google/Adobe/etc in some sort of pool. Doing well in the interview is a requirement for graduating. Thus, trivially, almost all graduates will get job offers. (Most of the big firms are just looking for the smartest few% who have any kind of coding ability at all to work with, so if you're smart enough going in, a few months of full-time training would work for you.)
No clue what's really going on there, but it's not surprising if good vocational training leads to a high placement rate (still not believing the 99% without a pre-established deal with the companies, but that's not all that far-fetched).
Where did I say "we can't trust the stupid people"? Do you take a poll of your neighbors to see how to rewire your house, or do you call an electrician? You call an expert because they've studied the field, and know how it works. I don't see any way that this is "the modern left." It's common sense. If you have a problem about X, you find an X-ologist to tell you more about it. If you don't think this is the obvious way to do things, then I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.
I agree with you completely for easy problems. In fact, that's a good definition of an easy problem: one for which any expert knows the answer, and every expert gives the same answer, and it's just a matter of the size of the check needed to get the work done. But every state and city will get the same answers from their local experts for such problems, no?
Hard problems are different. They're not "well solved". Experts argue about what the best answer is, and often insist that those on the other side aren't actually experts at all - there's not even agreement as to who the experts are. Doesn't that sound like all the interesting problems in modern politics?
Plus there are issues that are simply geographic in nature. What's the right amount of earthquake hardening to pass code? What's the highest winds a building should survive to pass code? How important is it to conserve water, and separately to limit water in storm sewers?
I cannot see that the current government is somehow a scheming bastion of corruption and totalitarianism.
Compared to what? Certainly there are worse governments. But the more powerful the government, the more corruption matters. This nation was founded on the idea that government shouldn't grow too powerful because we can't trust it. And corruption doesn't have to take the form of a glowing eye atop a tower - or even money pocketed by the boss - corruption simply means that projects don't get completed satisfactorily. Panama's government tried to maintain the Panama Canal with local companies and local supervision, and failed; the problem wasn't that hard, but there was too much corruption to get the job done. America's government tried to create a website to allow people to shop for health insurance, and failed; the problem wasn't that hard, but there was too much corruption to get the job done.
Small organizations are more efficient than large at many tasks, that's hardly controversial. Some tasks can only be done by large organizations, or only done optimally. Solving each problem with a smaller organization where that works for that problem is a better plan than throwing one giant blob at everything.
I think for most problems, the important role for a central authority is to provide standards. To incorporate "lessons learned" wherever experts do agree that problems have been well solved, and insist on that as a minimum. Do you need the government to grow all the food, or does the FDA work well enough for the government's role? Do you need all electrical work done by the government, or does the national electric code suffice?
Ohh, you're one of those. Well, glad you had your Two Minutes Hate against Trotsky, err, Goldstein, err, right wing extremists, and can go back to obeying those causing the problems.
Wasn't it cool when we had a pro-liberty, anti-censorship party on the one hand, and a small government party on the other? Those were the days ...
Really, the only thing I think you can criticize Obama vs previous presidents over the NSA scandal is: his did actually run against this sort of snooping in his first presidential campaign. Not that it's shocking that a politician breaks his promises or anything, but you'd think when all this became public he might have been more publically critical.
I can remember when the reason you bought a Mac was to run Word. Makes you wonder why Mac isn't a first class platform for Office these days, though maybe it is for Office365?