The lawsuit isn't for continued access to work; the entity that initially hired him and agreed to the terms had an opportunity to negotiate continued/expanded access either before the contract was executed or in the intervening three years. The lawsuit is because the entity elected to ignore the previously negotiated contract. Intentional or accidental is for a court to decide.
If the award for breach of contract was simply the fee that would have been due, then there would be no incentive to bother honoring contracts -- you could simply pretend it didn't exist, not pay until someone noticed, and then get off with the same cost as you would have paid had both parties been diligent. No, lawsuits relating to breaches of contract are for additional damages (and courts subsequently award said damages) to punish the offending party as a deterrent to those who would shirk the responsibilities of a contract in the first place.
I'm sorry but it was you who did not understand me. I was talking about how to build, not necessarily have to be of "snow". Nothing would stop me to produce ice blocks and build with them a simpler (K.I.S.S.) geometric shape (the igloo) and in a way that does not require the use of complicated apparatuses such as a 3D printer (you can use your own hands or a simple winch).
The concept relies on an autonomous lander arriving well in advance of any inhabitants in order to build their habitat.
I'm not saying that makes their approach any easier or harder, just that relying on an automated construction process allows integrity verification prior to sending anyone.
Also, so you're aware: the contest required use of 3D printing, not wrenches and hands. Again, not a judgement on which is better, but it's important to understand the constraints involved here.
I know the webpage was a bit tough to read, but they do say how they propose to combat that: via a thin membrane.
A transparent and fully closed ETFE membrane reinforced with tensile Dyneema is deployed from the lander and inflated to form a pressurized boundary between the lander and the Martian exterior. This membrane, precision manufactured on Earth, is critical protection for the future ice shell, preventing any printed ice from sublimating into the atmosphere.
Why do we need to trust them to do anything? Let the market decide: if it's an awful experience (see: Ouya), it either won't last or Apple will pour resources into trying to make it suck less -- which based on their track record is pretty much a coin toss.
Tangentially, why do people get so caught up in issues of "trust" and fanboidom with these things? If something sucks, let it suck. If it's awesome, partake.
Humans and businesses want control, transparency and dynamic developer environment.
Buzzword bingo started: you have 3 squares so far. Are you a fresh MBA grad? WTF does 'dynamic developer environment' even mean in this context? Fuck that, what does it mean period?
Something like a start-up with no clue on what they want to do
Just... what? A start-up with no clue on what they want to do? Why did they form a 'start-up'?
... would like to develop software for their business as the developer "types out the code". They travel from Point A to Point B with one developer and can go to Point C with another developer.
You've described a situation where salary-, hourly-, task-based contracts already provide a solution. Adding the ability to 'watch a developer code' add nothing to shops that need to go from A to B to C.
Hailing a developer to do something is a good way to figure out things at lower cost.
Again... What? If you need someone to 'figure out things' and watching someone code as your 'lower cost' option is your 'best' option, you're fucked. Full stop. When a task is so difficult that you need to find someone to teach you how to solve a problem while watching them type, congratulations: you've just spent their fee *and* at least one person's salary/time to watch them type. And you may not even have a solution. 'Hard problems' of this sort are not something that can be solved in discrete 'code watching' sessions.
I do not think, till now, remote software development allows "hailing" a developer.
There are eleven million task-based software development websites. Go find one of them. They'll be cheaper than a task-based service that also requires a developer to surrender a view of their screen.
Hourly contract is/was the 'Uber-ification' of software development. This is nothing more than a gimmick.
Anyone who has enough knowledge to observe someone code and understand what's the developer is doing has better things they could be spending their time on. Anyone who doesn't have that knowledge won't be able to tell the difference between the developer toiling on the work they were contracted for or on a personal pet project.
A modern naval mine, for instance, is deployed and waits for an activation to autonomously engage targets. Does that meet your criteria?
While there is some room to nitpick his examples, they're largely relevant despite your dismissal of them -- and that's part of the problem. For example, an autonomous homing artillery shell might not fit your definition as it requires human interaction to initially deploy it, but once deployed, it chooses its own targets. The same is true for many other potential uses of autonomous weapon systems, but you seem hung up on novel new usages or extended periods between deployment and effect.
At best, the autonomous/non-autonomous weapon line is a blurred smudge on the road in our collective past. I'll agree that there's a larger potential for wider use going forward, but these tools are not new.
I do not see any reason to build a space elevator on Earth, Luna, Mars or anywhere else, because I believe (hope) we will soon see the emergence of antigravity a.k.a. gravity propulsion technology.
I wish he had led with that one and saved me 5 minutes.
I get the intent, but I'm going to submit that what people living in HUD housing need is NOT a better porn/tv/streaming bandwidth to their home. *NOBODY* needs gigabit fiber access to do their homework online.
Or you could read TFA and see that it's a 5Mbps down/1Mbps up connection.
I agree that in a well-functioning review marketplace a single reviewer (good or bad) should become lost in the noise. That's not what the plaintiff in this case is alleging though -- they're alleging that one person conspired to place eight different negative and fraudulent reviews in an attempt to circumvent said well-functioning review marketplace. Without additional information, this suit may have been placed to avert new negative and fraudulent reviews from being placed.
Random aside: the suit mentions DOES 1 through 10 but contains only 8 allegations.
I don't often comment. Colour me part of the silent somethingority on pretty much everything slashdot-related. Take that as you will.
But I'd like you to be clear: your position is that your 'representative sampling of smart people' (selection bias, much?) is a better judge than the 'crowd of Internet commenters' (who are also your desired readership), and thus if your 'smart' sample approves of your opinions, then you must believe your readership is just a bunch of club-swinging neanderthals who aren't erudite enough to appreciate your drivel and thus need your guiding light to navigate the darkness? Am I getting that right?
Don't confuse the issue by pretending it's all about collaboration and economics of software. It doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn my software idea into an existing framework exclusively due to price and availability. Just because there's a square peg available for free doesn't mean that it'll fit a round problem, even if a square solution may take longer.
I predominately work in computational analysis and have spent a significant portion of my career trying to figure out physical problems (first in video games and now in engineering analysis), particularly in the finite element/CFD domain. That makes OpenFOAM is a classic example for me -- it's the benchmark for open source CFD analysis. But I'm still employed at an engineering firm developing our own numerical analysis tools.
OpenFOAM is quite good at a very small subset of what it claims to do, but it doesn't do *everything* well. Unfortunately, the framework is sufficiently mature at this point that trying to fork it and address those flaws would be a colossal undertaking. This means that for many toolsets, starting from the ground up is simply a more attractive alternative. Could we reuse a few elements deep in the integrators? Maybe, but those would come with their own baggage.
Switching game engines halfway through development says more to me about a lack of proper requirements analysis and planning than it does about the benefits of one engine over another.
Announcements from executive leadership to ownership are made via boardroom table, not to reporters.
If you want to make an argument that Dell's 'announcement' was made to Dell customers or partners, you might be able to make a case. But the thought that they're 'announcing' this to rally support of shareholders is laughable.
There's a wide gulf between what they could have reasonably expected and what they received once on set. In what universe do you reside that makes questions like "Do you think the teams with women on them are at a disadvantage?" acceptable? Even if it's to generate 'value for their investment.'
While I understand your sentiment, he wasn't arrested for refusing to provide consent for a search - that's still quite illegal. He was 'arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away.'
The real issue as I see it with this ruling is that the hypothetical other occupant could be manipulated into providing consent. Eg, "Occupant A, if you don't let us search, we're going to arrest you on [insert something that an officer can dream up to get an arrest], but if you let us search your house for evidence against occupant B, then maybe we'll just forget about that for now."
The situation you're referring to is seasonal abuse of the EI system where employers pay salary during the season and then lay them off at the end of the season, after which the workers collect EI until the next season starts. This works largely because those workers work sufficient hours during that period to qualify for EI. "New" workers are seldom if ever hired to replace those laid off workers as there's simply no work to do.
As a side note, this abuse is in no way limited to the Maritimes. You see exactly the same sort of abuse in any seasonal industry in Canada (see: oilpatch).
EI reforms have been slow and have met with extreme resistance from both social and business groups. If you want to draw coarse circles around issues, then a big one is the blanket EI system that operates with so few parameters that allow this sort of abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
The lawsuit isn't for continued access to work; the entity that initially hired him and agreed to the terms had an opportunity to negotiate continued/expanded access either before the contract was executed or in the intervening three years. The lawsuit is because the entity elected to ignore the previously negotiated contract. Intentional or accidental is for a court to decide.
If the award for breach of contract was simply the fee that would have been due, then there would be no incentive to bother honoring contracts -- you could simply pretend it didn't exist, not pay until someone noticed, and then get off with the same cost as you would have paid had both parties been diligent. No, lawsuits relating to breaches of contract are for additional damages (and courts subsequently award said damages) to punish the offending party as a deterrent to those who would shirk the responsibilities of a contract in the first place.
I'm sorry but it was you who did not understand me. I was talking about how to build, not necessarily have to be of "snow". Nothing would stop me to produce ice blocks and build with them a simpler (K.I.S.S.) geometric shape (the igloo) and in a way that does not require the use of complicated apparatuses such as a 3D printer (you can use your own hands or a simple winch).
The concept relies on an autonomous lander arriving well in advance of any inhabitants in order to build their habitat.
I'm not saying that makes their approach any easier or harder, just that relying on an automated construction process allows integrity verification prior to sending anyone.
Also, so you're aware: the contest required use of 3D printing, not wrenches and hands. Again, not a judgement on which is better, but it's important to understand the constraints involved here.
I know the webpage was a bit tough to read, but they do say how they propose to combat that: via a thin membrane.
A transparent and fully closed ETFE membrane reinforced with tensile Dyneema is deployed from the lander and inflated to form a pressurized boundary between the lander and the Martian exterior. This membrane, precision manufactured on Earth, is critical protection for the future ice shell, preventing any printed ice from sublimating into the atmosphere.
... What? You don't change programmer attitudes by restricting choices of the consumer.
That's like saying counter-top mixers stay should be under-powered so that the attitudes of recipe creators will conform.
Why do we need to trust them to do anything? Let the market decide: if it's an awful experience (see: Ouya), it either won't last or Apple will pour resources into trying to make it suck less -- which based on their track record is pretty much a coin toss.
Tangentially, why do people get so caught up in issues of "trust" and fanboidom with these things? If something sucks, let it suck. If it's awesome, partake.
Humans and businesses want control, transparency and dynamic developer environment.
Buzzword bingo started: you have 3 squares so far. Are you a fresh MBA grad? WTF does 'dynamic developer environment' even mean in this context? Fuck that, what does it mean period?
Something like a start-up with no clue on what they want to do
Just... what? A start-up with no clue on what they want to do? Why did they form a 'start-up'?
... would like to develop software for their business as the developer "types out the code". They travel from Point A to Point B with one developer and can go to Point C with another developer.
You've described a situation where salary-, hourly-, task-based contracts already provide a solution. Adding the ability to 'watch a developer code' add nothing to shops that need to go from A to B to C.
Hailing a developer to do something is a good way to figure out things at lower cost.
Again... What? If you need someone to 'figure out things' and watching someone code as your 'lower cost' option is your 'best' option, you're fucked. Full stop. When a task is so difficult that you need to find someone to teach you how to solve a problem while watching them type, congratulations: you've just spent their fee *and* at least one person's salary/time to watch them type. And you may not even have a solution. 'Hard problems' of this sort are not something that can be solved in discrete 'code watching' sessions.
I do not think, till now, remote software development allows "hailing" a developer.
There are eleven million task-based software development websites. Go find one of them. They'll be cheaper than a task-based service that also requires a developer to surrender a view of their screen.
Gah, I meant task-based contract is the 'uber-ification' -- not hourly.
Hourly contract is/was the 'Uber-ification' of software development. This is nothing more than a gimmick.
Anyone who has enough knowledge to observe someone code and understand what's the developer is doing has better things they could be spending their time on. Anyone who doesn't have that knowledge won't be able to tell the difference between the developer toiling on the work they were contracted for or on a personal pet project.
Just... What?
We could just ... 'thin things out'. Sure. And let's not forget that Venus could 'house enough solar' to export.
Do you even read what you type?
You are needed in here, stat!
A modern naval mine, for instance, is deployed and waits for an activation to autonomously engage targets. Does that meet your criteria?
While there is some room to nitpick his examples, they're largely relevant despite your dismissal of them -- and that's part of the problem. For example, an autonomous homing artillery shell might not fit your definition as it requires human interaction to initially deploy it, but once deployed, it chooses its own targets. The same is true for many other potential uses of autonomous weapon systems, but you seem hung up on novel new usages or extended periods between deployment and effect.
At best, the autonomous/non-autonomous weapon line is a blurred smudge on the road in our collective past. I'll agree that there's a larger potential for wider use going forward, but these tools are not new.
I do not see any reason to build a space elevator on Earth, Luna, Mars or anywhere else, because I believe (hope) we will soon see the emergence of antigravity a.k.a. gravity propulsion technology.
I wish he had led with that one and saved me 5 minutes.
I get the intent, but I'm going to submit that what people living in HUD housing need is NOT a better porn/tv/streaming bandwidth to their home. *NOBODY* needs gigabit fiber access to do their homework online.
Or you could read TFA and see that it's a 5Mbps down/1Mbps up connection.
Because maybe you need ordinance delivered to an area with contested airspace.
I agree that in a well-functioning review marketplace a single reviewer (good or bad) should become lost in the noise. That's not what the plaintiff in this case is alleging though -- they're alleging that one person conspired to place eight different negative and fraudulent reviews in an attempt to circumvent said well-functioning review marketplace. Without additional information, this suit may have been placed to avert new negative and fraudulent reviews from being placed.
Random aside: the suit mentions DOES 1 through 10 but contains only 8 allegations.
Wasn't the senate disbanded shortly before the attack?
I don't often comment. Colour me part of the silent somethingority on pretty much everything slashdot-related. Take that as you will.
But I'd like you to be clear: your position is that your 'representative sampling of smart people' (selection bias, much?) is a better judge than the 'crowd of Internet commenters' (who are also your desired readership), and thus if your 'smart' sample approves of your opinions, then you must believe your readership is just a bunch of club-swinging neanderthals who aren't erudite enough to appreciate your drivel and thus need your guiding light to navigate the darkness? Am I getting that right?
Don't confuse the issue by pretending it's all about collaboration and economics of software. It doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn my software idea into an existing framework exclusively due to price and availability. Just because there's a square peg available for free doesn't mean that it'll fit a round problem, even if a square solution may take longer.
I predominately work in computational analysis and have spent a significant portion of my career trying to figure out physical problems (first in video games and now in engineering analysis), particularly in the finite element/CFD domain. That makes OpenFOAM is a classic example for me -- it's the benchmark for open source CFD analysis. But I'm still employed at an engineering firm developing our own numerical analysis tools.
OpenFOAM is quite good at a very small subset of what it claims to do, but it doesn't do *everything* well. Unfortunately, the framework is sufficiently mature at this point that trying to fork it and address those flaws would be a colossal undertaking. This means that for many toolsets, starting from the ground up is simply a more attractive alternative. Could we reuse a few elements deep in the integrators? Maybe, but those would come with their own baggage.
Switching game engines halfway through development says more to me about a lack of proper requirements analysis and planning than it does about the benefits of one engine over another.
I would echo that the 'blind' bit people talk about isn't really "omg I've gone blind and can't see anything!" It's more of just a super blurry thing.
Announcements from executive leadership to ownership are made via boardroom table, not to reporters.
If you want to make an argument that Dell's 'announcement' was made to Dell customers or partners, you might be able to make a case. But the thought that they're 'announcing' this to rally support of shareholders is laughable.
NT
There's a wide gulf between what they could have reasonably expected and what they received once on set. In what universe do you reside that makes questions like "Do you think the teams with women on them are at a disadvantage?" acceptable? Even if it's to generate 'value for their investment.'
While I understand your sentiment, he wasn't arrested for refusing to provide consent for a search - that's still quite illegal. He was 'arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away.'
The real issue as I see it with this ruling is that the hypothetical other occupant could be manipulated into providing consent. Eg, "Occupant A, if you don't let us search, we're going to arrest you on [insert something that an officer can dream up to get an arrest], but if you let us search your house for evidence against occupant B, then maybe we'll just forget about that for now."
The situation you're referring to is seasonal abuse of the EI system where employers pay salary during the season and then lay them off at the end of the season, after which the workers collect EI until the next season starts. This works largely because those workers work sufficient hours during that period to qualify for EI. "New" workers are seldom if ever hired to replace those laid off workers as there's simply no work to do.
As a side note, this abuse is in no way limited to the Maritimes. You see exactly the same sort of abuse in any seasonal industry in Canada (see: oilpatch).
EI reforms have been slow and have met with extreme resistance from both social and business groups. If you want to draw coarse circles around issues, then a big one is the blanket EI system that operates with so few parameters that allow this sort of abuse.