of course, if you exercise as part of the lifestyle change, you'll be putting on muscle, which weighs a lot more than the fat you're losing.
I've just run the simulator in TFA on my known variables for the last year (I got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had to make some very controlled, measured, changes to my lifestyle which got me back to being healthy). It said I'd have lost over 30Kg over that year. I actually lost just under 10Kg, but went from being unable to run for more than 100m to completing a 12Km fun-run and confidently entering for a half-marathon in 3 months' time. I also lost about 6inches off my waistline (as in I gained a waist!).
Also, humans are not controlled by variables and equations. The equations describe an average person, who doesn't exist. They're useful approximations, but in the end just approximations.
A forty-something wanting a degree to boost their career in IT, is akin to a chimp that wants to learn to smoke cigarettes because it'll make them more like a person. If you're still shuffling code at forty your career has gone so far off the rails that a degree won't save it. If you're a smart, accomplished, hard worker, you should be looking to retire by the time you're in your mid-fifties. If that isn't likely right now with ten years to go, then the cost of a degree isn't going to help you achieve it.
That's fascinating. Please, from your obviously enormous experience of life as an aging tech industry worker, tell us how we fit the large number of able, experienced coders into the small number of available management jobs. Never mind the fact that a lot of those able experienced coders enjoy coding and don't want to manage.
Or maybe they should all have made their fortunes working in dotcoms? Yeah, that doesn't work if you've got a family to feed, you can't take the risks that bring the rewards that allow you to retire in your fifties.
Attitudes like yours is why the OP is having a problem. Be part of the solution and rethink your attitudes, please.
There is no ceiling that I'm aware of, but there is a major reluctance to pay wages above the initial 3-5 years. Especially when most of those 5 year folks churn out almost the same quality code as brand new grads.
Except that they don't. All the studies done have shown that experience really counts for code quality and productivity.
Of course, that's assuming the rest of the development chain is working. If the management have poorly-conceived ideas and don't listen to their techies about what's feasible in the first place, then they might as well employ actual monkeys in the coding role because the project's going to fail regardless.
I'm pretty sure that any limits are really ageism and not related to whether you have a degree or not. It's all about how many hours-per-week they can get out of you for $X per month. The older you are the fewer those hours are.
Even if the hours you do provide are really worth more in terms of productivity because your experience means that you do not go off on unproductive tangents.
I see the same ageism (Australia), and definitely the same need for paper qualifications. But I took the need for paper qualifications to be a reflection of today's reluctance to make judgement calls. If two candidates walk in and one has a degree and the other hasn't then the HR drone is immediately biased to take the one with the degree regardless of experience (because graduates are better than non-graduates right?). Taking the non-graduate requires a judgement call on the relative worth of their experience, and judgement calls expose you to liability.
As the entire software industry knows, experience trumps any formal education for productivity in coding. Yet there's still a lot ageism around, an impression that somehow good coders are in their 20's and work 12+ hours a day (when every single formal study done has shown that a project staffed by inexperienced coders working long hours is pretty much a guaranteed fail). I have a partly-formed theory that it's because the young inexperienced candidate reacts to the PHB's ideas with 'wow great idea I'll get working on it immediately' while the older hand responds with 'yeah we tried that five years ago and it failed because...'
But just in case the limit really is the degree.... get the fastest cheapest degree you can. It does NOT matter what the subject is. As long as it is fast and cheap. It is just the first step and at this point you really aren't concerned about making the correct relationships with the other kids in the frats.
THEN start working on an advanced degree in the subject that you really want. Such as computer science. Or whatever.
To a certain extent this is true, in my experience, but why bother getting the bachelor's degree? Most uni's will accept your experience instead of a bachelor's and you can go straight to the interesting bit.
I'm in very much the same situation as the OP, and I've done two things:
1. Started an MBA, which has been useful and interesting, and provides all the credibility I need for the paper-brained. I'd massively recommend this over starting a bachelor's degree because you'll be mixing with people in their 30's and 40's and not sitting there in a class full of kids wondering wtf you're doing there.
2. Refocused on consulting/coding for small companies and startups. They really value the experience and what works rather than what looks good on paper, and they're not afraid of judgement calls. Also, no HR drones - you get interviewed by the founder, usually in a pub.
Vegetation can grow very quickly under some circumstances; we all know the denier line that "CO2 is plant food". Which, of course, is absolutely true and wonderful, as long as you overlook the fact that it is also poison to animals adapted to current atmospheric conditions.
You're serious? You do realise that we animals breathe out CO2, don't you? That we don't completely expel the air in our lungs, so you can do whatever you like to the outside concentration of CO2 and it won't even begin to affect the levels that we're actually breathing?
so an organisation like GetUp! (http://www.getup.org.au/) is astroturfing or not? it is funded by small donations, but also by unions. It pushes a very definite political agenda.
I can see an argument both ways, so I'm curious about whether that would be classed as an astroturfer or not...
I'm definitely going to be voting minority parties this year, though the amazing complexity of the voting system means that no doubt some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
I can't believe the political dialogue in this country sometimes. It's like people were born supporting Liberals or Labour, and so they defend that party against all comers, regardless of how godawful the politicians actually are. You can't see the policies for the haze of partisan conflict. But then, both parties' policies are 'whatever the other party does is wrong' with no real thought behind it.
and yet no-one is even attempting to deal with the cause of all of these problems: human overpopulation.
(Well, except China and their famous one-child policy of course)
Reducing the environmental impact of people is kinda pointless if you keep adding more people. In fact, it just worsens the problems because when you finally have to deal with the population problem you've got a larger population to deal with.
I use Skype messaging all the time, rarely use it to make calls, and I've noticed performance is getting terrible these days too. Messages frequently don't arrive until the next time the recipient logs on.
Guess it's time to move on... I haven't tried Google hangouts for this yet, so that might be worth a go
I'm currently a director of companies in both the UK and Australia, and the 'elevator summary' given to me in both occasions is 'act in the best interests of the shareholders'. I notice that the wikipedia article phrases it as 'act in the best interest of the company' but one of the cases quoted there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. ) specifically states:
...a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees. It is often cited as embodying the principle of "shareholder value" in companies.
Is that good enough as a citation?
I think it entirely depends on the reason behind the actions. If you're genuinely donating money to a good cause in order to promote the company's position in the community and raise sales in future, then you're OK. If you're donating company money to a cause (good or otherwise) that you are involved in or feel should be promoted, but that money is not benefitting the company, then you're in potential trouble.
Face it, there are enough people that anything we do collectively has impact on the world.
as part of the biosphere of our planet, this is entirely natural.
This is where the Gaia theory starts, that our atmosphere, climate included, is generated by the biosphere, by all us living things. To give the most dramatic example,l we changed it from an anaerobic atmosphere to an aerobic one.
Changing our atmosphere, our world, our climate, is as natural as breathing.
So there's going to be a wind farm on every single square mile of land? Including the ocean?
um, well...yes...eventually.
Our demand for energy is still rising, we're progressively banning all other forms of energy generation for not being 'green' enough. And wind generation is very very inefficient in terms of land use.
So unless we switch to another form of power generation before then...yes
There is no such thing as a global climate though. There are a number of different climates which interact in a global system, but it's not a global climate.
Steve Jobs, in fact any director of a limited company, had/has a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value. Paying taxes is not maximising shareholder value.
It's unlikely, but possible, that a failure by Apple's board to put in place appropriate tax management strategies in accordance with the normal practice of the tech industry could be grounds for a lawsuit by an Apple shareholder. Certainly the accountants involved in Apple's financial management would be considered negligent if they failed to alert the board of the possible strategies for reducing tax liabilities. And then the board could be considered negligent if they failed to implement those strategies.
Companies are not required to be good citizens. Companies are required to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.
I think the disjoint between the West and Developing countries will crack the Catholic Church, the same as it has done for the Anglican Church. The rising acceptance of homosexuality and the demands for female priests from the liberalising West meet the 'traditional values' of the developing world. For any organisation with an inflexible moral code, this is a huge problem. Splinter religions form either in the West because the parent church isn't changing fast enough, or in the developing countries (as has happened with the Anglican church) because it's changing too fast. We might finally see the Roman Empire collapse;)
It'll be interesting to see what Islam does about the same problem as their congregation in Western countries move further away from the traditional Muslim moral code. I hope they manage to deal with it peacefully.
I thought there was a circle of hell reserved for virtuous pagans? (not sure if that's Dante or actual official theology any more).
So eternal unpleasantness probably awaits your Buddhist friend. Which strangely accords somewhat with his own beliefs, as life is suffering and only by achieving nirvana can he escape the cycle of rebirth
I'm working from a viewpoint that says the Church was deliberately established by some Roman political genius back in the 3rd century AD who saw that a conventional military empire was not going to continue working, but that a monotheistic state religion could continue effective control of the territories in the Roman Empire from Rome even after the military boundaries collapsed. Which it did, and it did. It even extended them. Rome never militarily conquered Germany, but a thousand years later the Holy Roman Empire was centred on that region. Anyway I digress.
They needed something that would keep religion at the forefront of people's minds, and keep them 'sinning' so they keep coming back to the church for 'forgiveness' (which can only be obtained from God, and therefore only from the Church). Looking at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs ) you see 'sex' right at the bottom. But lack of sex won't actually kill you (unlike a lack of any of the other needs at that level), it'll just drive you a bit weird. So...natural choice. Tell people that having sex is sinful and you'll keep them coming back for more 'forgiveness' that only you can give.
Remember that this is coupled with the confessional booth, where citizens are encouraged to tell their priest *everything* that they've done. All the secrets of a community are held by the community priest, an incredible position of power providing effective control of the community. Since we all think about sex, and have little sexual fantasies about the people around us all the time, then this effectively ensures that everyone in the community has something to confess every week, reinforcing the control of the community by the priest.
It's so elegant and yet evil at the same time. And incredibly effective. 1700 years later it's still very much operational, and the Roman Empire/Catholic church is still a powerful political entity in the modern world.
So I'm a n00b. I've been playing games for ever, but when I start a new game, I'm a n00b. I don't have any skill. I don't mind that I don't have any skill, because I'm new at this this and learning.
Then I run into someone like you who calls me a dickhead and gives me a frank assessment of my skill.
I realise this makes you feel better about yourself, as you clearly have more skill than me (that's OK, I'm new at this). How does it make me feel? Am I likely to want to carry on learning this game?
That depends on the kind of person I am. If I'm a nice guy (which I am) probably not because learning this game means spending time with dickheads like you, and there are plenty of other games. If I'm a dickhead myself, I'll quit this session because I'm getting yelled at by some dickhead, I'm not winning and I like winning, and I don't care about anyone else.
So the culture of the game evolves to a point where no individual game lasts longer than 2 minutes because as soon as someone makes any kind of mistake they get yelled at, so they quit, so their team folds because they're obviously going to lose. The game stops being about whatever the designers made it to be, and starts being about who gets to yell abuse at who first.
So please stop cursing and giving frank assessment of skills, because it's ruining online gaming.
I don't if it's the same in the sates, but in the UK and Australia, it's hats.
Anyone wearing a hat, of any description, while driving a car, is a godawful driver. Old men in flat caps, young guys in baseball caps, girls in those weird sunshade-visor-things.
Slashdot Mirror
you are, of course, correct, and I apologise for my stupid use of language.
If I changed it to '..which weights a lot more than the fat you're losing for the same volume' that would probably fix it.
of course, if you exercise as part of the lifestyle change, you'll be putting on muscle, which weighs a lot more than the fat you're losing.
I've just run the simulator in TFA on my known variables for the last year (I got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had to make some very controlled, measured, changes to my lifestyle which got me back to being healthy).
It said I'd have lost over 30Kg over that year. I actually lost just under 10Kg, but went from being unable to run for more than 100m to completing a 12Km fun-run and confidently entering for a half-marathon in 3 months' time. I also lost about 6inches off my waistline (as in I gained a waist!).
Also, humans are not controlled by variables and equations. The equations describe an average person, who doesn't exist. They're useful approximations, but in the end just approximations.
A forty-something wanting a degree to boost their career in IT, is akin to a chimp that wants to learn to smoke cigarettes because it'll make them more like a person. If you're still shuffling code at forty your career has gone so far off the rails that a degree won't save it. If you're a smart, accomplished, hard worker, you should be looking to retire by the time you're in your mid-fifties. If that isn't likely right now with ten years to go, then the cost of a degree isn't going to help you achieve it.
That's fascinating. Please, from your obviously enormous experience of life as an aging tech industry worker, tell us how we fit the large number of able, experienced coders into the small number of available management jobs. Never mind the fact that a lot of those able experienced coders enjoy coding and don't want to manage.
Or maybe they should all have made their fortunes working in dotcoms? Yeah, that doesn't work if you've got a family to feed, you can't take the risks that bring the rewards that allow you to retire in your fifties.
Attitudes like yours is why the OP is having a problem. Be part of the solution and rethink your attitudes, please.
There is no ceiling that I'm aware of, but there is a major reluctance to pay wages above the initial 3-5 years. Especially when most of those 5 year folks churn out almost the same quality code as brand new grads.
Except that they don't. All the studies done have shown that experience really counts for code quality and productivity.
Of course, that's assuming the rest of the development chain is working. If the management have poorly-conceived ideas and don't listen to their techies about what's feasible in the first place, then they might as well employ actual monkeys in the coding role because the project's going to fail regardless.
I'm pretty sure that any limits are really ageism and not related to whether you have a degree or not. It's all about how many hours-per-week they can get out of you for $X per month. The older you are the fewer those hours are.
Even if the hours you do provide are really worth more in terms of productivity because your experience means that you do not go off on unproductive tangents.
I see the same ageism (Australia), and definitely the same need for paper qualifications.
But I took the need for paper qualifications to be a reflection of today's reluctance to make judgement calls. If two candidates walk in and one has a degree and the other hasn't then the HR drone is immediately biased to take the one with the degree regardless of experience (because graduates are better than non-graduates right?). Taking the non-graduate requires a judgement call on the relative worth of their experience, and judgement calls expose you to liability.
As the entire software industry knows, experience trumps any formal education for productivity in coding. Yet there's still a lot ageism around, an impression that somehow good coders are in their 20's and work 12+ hours a day (when every single formal study done has shown that a project staffed by inexperienced coders working long hours is pretty much a guaranteed fail).
I have a partly-formed theory that it's because the young inexperienced candidate reacts to the PHB's ideas with 'wow great idea I'll get working on it immediately' while the older hand responds with 'yeah we tried that five years ago and it failed because...'
But just in case the limit really is the degree .... get the fastest cheapest degree you can. It does NOT matter what the subject is. As long as it is fast and cheap. It is just the first step and at this point you really aren't concerned about making the correct relationships with the other kids in the frats.
THEN start working on an advanced degree in the subject that you really want. Such as computer science. Or whatever.
To a certain extent this is true, in my experience, but why bother getting the bachelor's degree? Most uni's will accept your experience instead of a bachelor's and you can go straight to the interesting bit.
I'm in very much the same situation as the OP, and I've done two things:
1. Started an MBA, which has been useful and interesting, and provides all the credibility I need for the paper-brained. I'd massively recommend this over starting a bachelor's degree because you'll be mixing with people in their 30's and 40's and not sitting there in a class full of kids wondering wtf you're doing there.
2. Refocused on consulting/coding for small companies and startups. They really value the experience and what works rather than what looks good on paper, and they're not afraid of judgement calls. Also, no HR drones - you get interviewed by the founder, usually in a pub.
good luck
Vegetation can grow very quickly under some circumstances; we all know the denier line that "CO2 is plant food". Which, of course, is absolutely true and wonderful, as long as you overlook the fact that it is also poison to animals adapted to current atmospheric conditions.
You're serious? You do realise that we animals breathe out CO2, don't you? That we don't completely expel the air in our lungs, so you can do whatever you like to the outside concentration of CO2 and it won't even begin to affect the levels that we're actually breathing?
so an organisation like GetUp! (http://www.getup.org.au/) is astroturfing or not? it is funded by small donations, but also by unions. It pushes a very definite political agenda.
I can see an argument both ways, so I'm curious about whether that would be classed as an astroturfer or not...
I'm definitely going to be voting minority parties this year, though the amazing complexity of the voting system means that no doubt some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
I can't believe the political dialogue in this country sometimes. It's like people were born supporting Liberals or Labour, and so they defend that party against all comers, regardless of how godawful the politicians actually are. You can't see the policies for the haze of partisan conflict. But then, both parties' policies are 'whatever the other party does is wrong' with no real thought behind it.
and yet no-one is even attempting to deal with the cause of all of these problems: human overpopulation.
(Well, except China and their famous one-child policy of course)
Reducing the environmental impact of people is kinda pointless if you keep adding more people. In fact, it just worsens the problems because when you finally have to deal with the population problem you've got a larger population to deal with.
VLC is unaffected. Buy any version of Windows you like, download VLC in 1 minute, watch all the DVD's you want.
So once again, one division of Microsoft is crippling the marketability of another department's software.
This is how vast monopolistic empires die, not from outside, but from inside.
I use Skype messaging all the time, rarely use it to make calls, and I've noticed performance is getting terrible these days too.
Messages frequently don't arrive until the next time the recipient logs on.
Guess it's time to move on... I haven't tried Google hangouts for this yet, so that might be worth a go
Indeed, but your argument was a straw man too. You don't need to cover the planet in wind farms for it to affect the climate.
and the scalability of green energy systems is a concern.
Eventually we're going to have to deal with demand and stop breeding so much.
Thought I'd give you a while to think about this for more than 5 minutes and realise your mistake...but obviously not...
A system of interoperating parts is not the same thing as a single one of those parts. So a hive is not the same as a bee.
A human body is not the same as a human cell.
A 'global weather system' is not the same as a climate.
So, yeah, when you manage to make it out of 7th grade let us know...
couldn't be arsed wading through the law sites...so I just looked it up on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors'_duties
and in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
I'm currently a director of companies in both the UK and Australia, and the 'elevator summary' given to me in both occasions is 'act in the best interests of the shareholders'.
I notice that the wikipedia article phrases it as 'act in the best interest of the company' but one of the cases quoted there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. ) specifically states:
...a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees. It is often cited as embodying the principle of "shareholder value" in companies.
Is that good enough as a citation?
I think it entirely depends on the reason behind the actions. If you're genuinely donating money to a good cause in order to promote the company's position in the community and raise sales in future, then you're OK. If you're donating company money to a cause (good or otherwise) that you are involved in or feel should be promoted, but that money is not benefitting the company, then you're in potential trouble.
Face it, there are enough people that anything we do collectively has impact on the world.
as part of the biosphere of our planet, this is entirely natural.
This is where the Gaia theory starts, that our atmosphere, climate included, is generated by the biosphere, by all us living things. To give the most dramatic example,l we changed it from an anaerobic atmosphere to an aerobic one.
Changing our atmosphere, our world, our climate, is as natural as breathing.
So there's going to be a wind farm on every single square mile of land? Including the ocean?
um, well...yes...eventually.
Our demand for energy is still rising, we're progressively banning all other forms of energy generation for not being 'green' enough. And wind generation is very very inefficient in terms of land use.
So unless we switch to another form of power generation before then...yes
damn I never have mod points when I need them. +1 Funny :)
There is no such thing as a global climate though. There are a number of different climates which interact in a global system, but it's not a global climate.
Steve Jobs, in fact any director of a limited company, had/has a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value. Paying taxes is not maximising shareholder value.
It's unlikely, but possible, that a failure by Apple's board to put in place appropriate tax management strategies in accordance with the normal practice of the tech industry could be grounds for a lawsuit by an Apple shareholder.
Certainly the accountants involved in Apple's financial management would be considered negligent if they failed to alert the board of the possible strategies for reducing tax liabilities. And then the board could be considered negligent if they failed to implement those strategies.
Companies are not required to be good citizens. Companies are required to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.
I think the disjoint between the West and Developing countries will crack the Catholic Church, the same as it has done for the Anglican Church. ;)
The rising acceptance of homosexuality and the demands for female priests from the liberalising West meet the 'traditional values' of the developing world. For any organisation with an inflexible moral code, this is a huge problem. Splinter religions form either in the West because the parent church isn't changing fast enough, or in the developing countries (as has happened with the Anglican church) because it's changing too fast.
We might finally see the Roman Empire collapse
It'll be interesting to see what Islam does about the same problem as their congregation in Western countries move further away from the traditional Muslim moral code. I hope they manage to deal with it peacefully.
I thought there was a circle of hell reserved for virtuous pagans? (not sure if that's Dante or actual official theology any more).
So eternal unpleasantness probably awaits your Buddhist friend. Which strangely accords somewhat with his own beliefs, as life is suffering and only by achieving nirvana can he escape the cycle of rebirth
sorry, missed your reply.
I'm working from a viewpoint that says the Church was deliberately established by some Roman political genius back in the 3rd century AD who saw that a conventional military empire was not going to continue working, but that a monotheistic state religion could continue effective control of the territories in the Roman Empire from Rome even after the military boundaries collapsed. Which it did, and it did. It even extended them. Rome never militarily conquered Germany, but a thousand years later the Holy Roman Empire was centred on that region. Anyway I digress.
They needed something that would keep religion at the forefront of people's minds, and keep them 'sinning' so they keep coming back to the church for 'forgiveness' (which can only be obtained from God, and therefore only from the Church). Looking at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs ) you see 'sex' right at the bottom. But lack of sex won't actually kill you (unlike a lack of any of the other needs at that level), it'll just drive you a bit weird. So...natural choice. Tell people that having sex is sinful and you'll keep them coming back for more 'forgiveness' that only you can give.
Remember that this is coupled with the confessional booth, where citizens are encouraged to tell their priest *everything* that they've done. All the secrets of a community are held by the community priest, an incredible position of power providing effective control of the community. Since we all think about sex, and have little sexual fantasies about the people around us all the time, then this effectively ensures that everyone in the community has something to confess every week, reinforcing the control of the community by the priest.
It's so elegant and yet evil at the same time. And incredibly effective. 1700 years later it's still very much operational, and the Roman Empire/Catholic church is still a powerful political entity in the modern world.
So I'm a n00b. I've been playing games for ever, but when I start a new game, I'm a n00b. I don't have any skill. I don't mind that I don't have any skill, because I'm new at this this and learning.
Then I run into someone like you who calls me a dickhead and gives me a frank assessment of my skill.
I realise this makes you feel better about yourself, as you clearly have more skill than me (that's OK, I'm new at this). How does it make me feel? Am I likely to want to carry on learning this game?
That depends on the kind of person I am. If I'm a nice guy (which I am) probably not because learning this game means spending time with dickheads like you, and there are plenty of other games. If I'm a dickhead myself, I'll quit this session because I'm getting yelled at by some dickhead, I'm not winning and I like winning, and I don't care about anyone else.
So the culture of the game evolves to a point where no individual game lasts longer than 2 minutes because as soon as someone makes any kind of mistake they get yelled at, so they quit, so their team folds because they're obviously going to lose. The game stops being about whatever the designers made it to be, and starts being about who gets to yell abuse at who first.
So please stop cursing and giving frank assessment of skills, because it's ruining online gaming.
I don't if it's the same in the sates, but in the UK and Australia, it's hats.
Anyone wearing a hat, of any description, while driving a car, is a godawful driver. Old men in flat caps, young guys in baseball caps, girls in those weird sunshade-visor-things.
I agree, mostly, except that it's going to give a certain amount of justification to the jerks.
"Hey I paid $100 so I can come on here and behave like an asshat. Quit telling me to stop being an asshat or give me my $100 back!"