Whenever they reboot, respin, retcon, or remake something I love, I'm usually just happier watching what I love. The original Red Dwarf episodes are amazing. If a recombobulation ever does come to be, have a watch party and pop in the classic.
At every technology company I'm aware of, 55 hour weeks are normal. Someone who works 40 hours isn't going anywhere professionally.
Not my experience at all. I've been a software engineer for 10 years. 40-45 hour weeks are the norm for me, and I make sure my boss knows it. I'm 100% satisfied with my pay, job security, and opportunities.
I've done 50+ hour weeks maybe 30 times in my career. Twice I went a month without a day off, which sucked until I got my bonus check.
I don't think it's that simple, even ignoring the difficulty of finding another job. I've been a software engineer for 10 years, and I've had to pull a few stretches of 55-60 hour weeks. Most engineers I know have done it; we don't like those periods but most of us really like our jobs overall.
In the OP's situation, I'd ask the boss to prove that it's reasonable to expect the company to become profitable under the proposed plan. Ask about dates, revenue, and customer commitments or at least verifiable customer interest. Make sure the boss considers the diminishing returns of working extra hours, and the need to recharge after a burst of extra hours. Working more hours can boost productivity for a while (depending on what you do), but not indefinitely. Personally, I can do 60 hour weeks for about a month before I become so sluggish and dumb that there's no point. Then I need a 4-5 day weekend and a return to 40 weeks for a while -- like 2 years. Cash helps too.
If the boss's plan is likely to work, I'd go for it. If boss won't do that, or tries and fails to be persuasive, start looking for a new job. The company is probably going to fail anyway.
If stock as payment comes up, don't accept it without doing your own research into the value of it. Startups are notoriously hard to price, and the manager may (honestly or not) be inclined to overestimate it.
As a software engineer, this makes sense to me. I haven't met many other engineers who don't like their jobs. Those who do, quit and do something else. I suspect it helps that before you get called "engineer" you build some widely usable skills, and we get paid pretty well even early in the career. So if you don't like it, you have some flexibility in finding something else. Try that in a field with highly specialized (or no) skill, or less ability to save money.
That article really pissed me off. I'd been reading about some of the studies they mention...
A study by the American Institute of Medicine concluded that a link between thiomersal in vaccines and neuro- developmental disorders --including autism - was 'biologically plausible'
Quite aside from the fact they didn't bother to identify the study, and only quoted two words from it, they didn't bother to mention that the AMA has since endorsed (DOC) the opposite.
In a related U.S. study, researchers found a 'statistically significant' association between thiomersal in vaccines and children with problems such as attention deficit disorder and speech and language learning delays.
Is there an extra page in the British version of Strunk & White that says you should never identify a study or quote more than two words?
How can they mention (I will not call it "cite") studies that are inconclusive on some aspects of a vaccine link, and fail to mention that every study which is rigorous enough to reach a conclusion has concluded there is no link?
Amazon can't patent "secure credit card transactions", but they can patent a particular way to implement secure credit card transactions. Anybody who does it the same way infringes upon the patent. Those who do it in a substantially different way don't infringe.
("substantially" should be read in a wishy-washy, hand-wavey tone of voice)
We don't know which patent is at issue, or what Cendant did that appears to infringe. As of right this second, not even Google News can find anything meaningful. Maybe it's an abuse of the system, maybe it's a legitimate case of ripping off an invention.
(Not, it's just simply "using the tools to" blah blah blah, it's got to be some particular tool or particular way of using them to even touch upon patent law)
So, basically, anything anybody says in this thread is speculation and wild-assed guessery. Except that statement and this one justifying it.
But a simple splitter will let you get a copy of the encrypted data, which you can then hack on at your leisure. You can FTP a copy to, say, Norway where a buddy can play with it without having to buy hardware.
I doubt they have monitors or video cards that can detect, say, a simple splitter or repeater. It's the sort of thing a third-year EE student can build (fourth year for digital signals).
It will stop some casual piracy, you know, the kind companies and congressmen say they don't care about. Mostly it will get Microsoft a piece of the monitor market without the need to develop useful features or compete on price.
Your definition of "gun" threw me, too, but I can't very well argue with a Master Sergeant even by proxy.
You can find handguns promoted for hunting or defense easily enough. Firearm makers have had to watch what they say for a long time, so promotions are always carefully tailored to deal with responsible, legal uses of guns. There's an ongoing scuffle about some being advertised as resisting fingerprints and thus (arguably) more suitable for criminal use, but that's the only thing I can thing of as even a borderline case of promoting bad behavior. So they should be safe, generally, from Groksteresque legal woes.
Amongst civilians, the most powerful handgun ammunititions (.454 Casull,.50 AE, and such) are primarily for hunting, because the recoil and bulk make them impractical for self defense.
Plus are you really going to hunt a bear with a pistol...something vastly inaccurate at any distance more then 10-15 feet.
Funnily enough, my dad used to do exactly that, with a.44 magnum revolver. He was a world-class shot back then though, because he was a pistol marksman in the army for several years.
10-15 feet is very pessimistic. If you're basing this on ROTC training, you probably only ever used military pistols and perhaps mostly shot standing up. Hunters can use handguns with longer barrels and scopes, and they'll get into as steady a position as they can.
I'm a casual target shooter who's never hunted, but I have a strong hunch I could kill a deer (standing still) at 50 feet with my short.357 Magnum revolver and sights. A serious hunter with a scope would outdo me by a wide margin.
That said, you're basically right that most hunters use rifles or shotguns, and rifles and shotguns are actually better for it. A sizeable minority use handguns because of the increased challenge and reduced weight and cost. Same reasons people hunt with bows.
Because I am pretty sure there are not many ways to promote a gun other then to kill people.
Eh, no. Guns are promoted to kill animals, or for target shooting. Some are promoted for legally killing people in self defense. Some are promoted for just plain killing people, but those promotions are addressed to police and military markets.
This guy obviously has no background in anything scientific, has absolutely no clue about what the space shuttle or NASA are trying to accomplish and can not analyze anything outside of a patheticly narrow and egotistical political lens.
Fair enough. So what are the space shuttle and NASA trying to accomplish, that cannot be accomplished with cheaper and safer unmanned missions?
I think space missions are cool and all, but here's a pretty interesting article about why it may be wasteful and an inappropriate way to spend taxpayers' money.
There is no master list of steps. It couldn't be flexible enough to allow excellence. Here's my vague, hand-wavy suggestions:
1: Do a little more than the support contract says you have to. If it's a serious problem, call the customer a couple days after fixing it to see if it's still fixed.
2: Have your support people educated. Flowcharts and checklists for solving common problems are fine, but don't let anybody answer your phone who doesn't understand the product.
3: Don't use your support system as a sales channel. Solve the customer's problem without fobbing more product on them.
4: Don't put a mediocre support person on first-tier phone support because it's "easier" than the levels for more complex problems. First tier interacts with almost everybody who calls in, it's an important job, get somebody good at it.
5: If a support person in the field calls the home office, the office guy drops everything and deals with it. Make sure you support people know this is an option.
6: If possible, have your field support people familiar not just with your products but with your customers' processes. This helps communication. It's a nice perk when your customers are rather homogenous, but probably doesn't matter for something like photocopier repairs.
As one of those scary gun people you avoid, and as an engineer...
This technology is still highly dubious. They say they've got a 90% reliability rate, which is terrible for an emergency device like a handgun. They're basing their biometrics on things that change -- you hold the gun differently when you're afraid for your life, for instance. Add the fact that the gun requires a battery and I wouldn't trust it to shoot cans.
Plus, these guns will probably be rather expensive. Call me a right-wing extremist, but I think poor people have a right to defend themselves too. New Jersey's law will disproportionately hurt the poor, who are the ones who tend to be victims, in need of a weapon for self defense.
I'm willing to sound paranoid, so I'll say the NJ law is just a step towards a ban.
A lot of people have pointed out that technologically, this isn't a big deal. If you install software, you have to know what the software does. The search tool is no worse than a key logger, and we don't act surprised when key loggers cause privacy problems.
The problem I see is one of marketing. Google, as a brand name, is for the masses. Their tools just quietly make the Internet easier. Best of all, you don't have to know much about the technology to use them or want to use them.
So by making a complicated tool appeal to novices, they've encouraged people to bypass a basic computer security rule: know what the software does.
I doubt the idea of having social skills is new to him. He is who he is, and if you want him to be somebody else maybe you're the one who should change.
It's affect. The fucking verb you want to use is affect. Effect as a verb means to cause to come into being. Spam does not effect bait e-mail accounts. It affects bait e-mail accounts....
Way to put that Karma bonus to good use...
The researcher has created a bait account because of spam, so I could argue that spam did effect the account. Similarly, I create a new daily-use account every few years because of spam, so spam has effect the majority of my accounts..
Actually, I had the wrong definitions drilled in at an early age and spent years "correcting" people who were using it right.
If you deliberately bait spam, your research will only be about spam as it effects bait e-mail accounts. Your conclusions won't be applicable to normal e-mail use habits.
Want to survey spam as it effects a normal, real-life, daily-use e-mail address? Get a new address and starting using it as your primary account. Anything less will be irrelevant statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever they reboot, respin, retcon, or remake something I love, I'm usually just happier watching what I love. The original Red Dwarf episodes are amazing. If a recombobulation ever does come to be, have a watch party and pop in the classic.
Do you want installers to be unemployed 1/4 of the year?
At every technology company I'm aware of, 55 hour weeks are normal. Someone who works 40 hours isn't going anywhere professionally.
Not my experience at all. I've been a software engineer for 10 years. 40-45 hour weeks are the norm for me, and I make sure my boss knows it. I'm 100% satisfied with my pay, job security, and opportunities.
I've done 50+ hour weeks maybe 30 times in my career. Twice I went a month without a day off, which sucked until I got my bonus check.
I don't think it's that simple, even ignoring the difficulty of finding another job. I've been a software engineer for 10 years, and I've had to pull a few stretches of 55-60 hour weeks. Most engineers I know have done it; we don't like those periods but most of us really like our jobs overall.
In the OP's situation, I'd ask the boss to prove that it's reasonable to expect the company to become profitable under the proposed plan. Ask about dates, revenue, and customer commitments or at least verifiable customer interest. Make sure the boss considers the diminishing returns of working extra hours, and the need to recharge after a burst of extra hours. Working more hours can boost productivity for a while (depending on what you do), but not indefinitely. Personally, I can do 60 hour weeks for about a month before I become so sluggish and dumb that there's no point. Then I need a 4-5 day weekend and a return to 40 weeks for a while -- like 2 years. Cash helps too.
If the boss's plan is likely to work, I'd go for it. If boss won't do that, or tries and fails to be persuasive, start looking for a new job. The company is probably going to fail anyway.
If stock as payment comes up, don't accept it without doing your own research into the value of it. Startups are notoriously hard to price, and the manager may (honestly or not) be inclined to overestimate it.
As a software engineer, this makes sense to me. I haven't met many other engineers who don't like their jobs. Those who do, quit and do something else. I suspect it helps that before you get called "engineer" you build some widely usable skills, and we get paid pretty well even early in the career. So if you don't like it, you have some flexibility in finding something else. Try that in a field with highly specialized (or no) skill, or less ability to save money.
That article really pissed me off. I'd been reading about some of the studies they mention...
Quite aside from the fact they didn't bother to identify the study, and only quoted two words from it, they didn't bother to mention that the AMA has since endorsed (DOC) the opposite.
Is there an extra page in the British version of Strunk & White that says you should never identify a study or quote more than two words?
How can they mention (I will not call it "cite") studies that are inconclusive on some aspects of a vaccine link, and fail to mention that every study which is rigorous enough to reach a conclusion has concluded there is no link?
Bastards.
Amazon can't patent "secure credit card transactions", but they can patent a particular way to implement secure credit card transactions. Anybody who does it the same way infringes upon the patent. Those who do it in a substantially different way don't infringe.
("substantially" should be read in a wishy-washy, hand-wavey tone of voice)
We don't know which patent is at issue, or what Cendant did that appears to infringe. As of right this second, not even Google News can find anything meaningful. Maybe it's an abuse of the system, maybe it's a legitimate case of ripping off an invention.
(Not, it's just simply "using the tools to" blah blah blah, it's got to be some particular tool or particular way of using them to even touch upon patent law)
So, basically, anything anybody says in this thread is speculation and wild-assed guessery. Except that statement and this one justifying it.
But a simple splitter will let you get a copy of the encrypted data, which you can then hack on at your leisure. You can FTP a copy to, say, Norway where a buddy can play with it without having to buy hardware.
I doubt they have monitors or video cards that can detect, say, a simple splitter or repeater. It's the sort of thing a third-year EE student can build (fourth year for digital signals).
It will stop some casual piracy, you know, the kind companies and congressmen say they don't care about. Mostly it will get Microsoft a piece of the monitor market without the need to develop useful features or compete on price.
We didn't have enough Tremors movies.
I read a book a while back about the history of the idea of zero. It tooks humans quite a while to get zero right, it's quite cool that a bird got it.
You can find handguns promoted for hunting or defense easily enough. Firearm makers have had to watch what they say for a long time, so promotions are always carefully tailored to deal with responsible, legal uses of guns. There's an ongoing scuffle about some being advertised as resisting fingerprints and thus (arguably) more suitable for criminal use, but that's the only thing I can thing of as even a borderline case of promoting bad behavior. So they should be safe, generally, from Groksteresque legal woes.
Amongst civilians, the most powerful handgun ammunititions (.454 Casull,
Funnily enough, my dad used to do exactly that, with a
10-15 feet is very pessimistic. If you're basing this on ROTC training, you probably only ever used military pistols and perhaps mostly shot standing up. Hunters can use handguns with longer barrels and scopes, and they'll get into as steady a position as they can.
I'm a casual target shooter who's never hunted, but I have a strong hunch I could kill a deer (standing still) at 50 feet with my short
That said, you're basically right that most hunters use rifles or shotguns, and rifles and shotguns are actually better for it. A sizeable minority use handguns because of the increased challenge and reduced weight and cost. Same reasons people hunt with bows.
Eh, no. Guns are promoted to kill animals, or for target shooting. Some are promoted for legally killing people in self defense. Some are promoted for just plain killing people, but those promotions are addressed to police and military markets.
Fair enough. So what are the space shuttle and NASA trying to accomplish, that cannot be accomplished with cheaper and safer unmanned missions?
I got the same feeling watching SpaceShipOne win the X-Prize. I'm not doubting the emotion power of the space program.
But do inspiration and goosebumps justify forcibly extracting money from taxpayers, and spending the lives of our best and brightest?
I think space missions are cool and all, but here's a pretty interesting article about why it may be wasteful and an inappropriate way to spend taxpayers' money.
There is no master list of steps. It couldn't be flexible enough to allow excellence. Here's my vague, hand-wavy suggestions:
1: Do a little more than the support contract says you have to. If it's a serious problem, call the customer a couple days after fixing it to see if it's still fixed.
2: Have your support people educated. Flowcharts and checklists for solving common problems are fine, but don't let anybody answer your phone who doesn't understand the product.
3: Don't use your support system as a sales channel. Solve the customer's problem without fobbing more product on them.
4: Don't put a mediocre support person on first-tier phone support because it's "easier" than the levels for more complex problems. First tier interacts with almost everybody who calls in, it's an important job, get somebody good at it.
5: If a support person in the field calls the home office, the office guy drops everything and deals with it. Make sure you support people know this is an option.
6: If possible, have your field support people familiar not just with your products but with your customers' processes. This helps communication. It's a nice perk when your customers are rather homogenous, but probably doesn't matter for something like photocopier repairs.
Notwithstanding the non-need for a hack, is the Treo 650 any good? I've been thinking of getting one.
I don't need a lot of fanciness, just a working phone and convenient PDA in one unit.
It has the inside track.
As one of those scary gun people you avoid, and as an engineer...
This technology is still highly dubious. They say they've got a 90% reliability rate, which is terrible for an emergency device like a handgun. They're basing their biometrics on things that change -- you hold the gun differently when you're afraid for your life, for instance. Add the fact that the gun requires a battery and I wouldn't trust it to shoot cans.
Plus, these guns will probably be rather expensive. Call me a right-wing extremist, but I think poor people have a right to defend themselves too. New Jersey's law will disproportionately hurt the poor, who are the ones who tend to be victims, in need of a weapon for self defense.
I'm willing to sound paranoid, so I'll say the NJ law is just a step towards a ban.
A lot of people have pointed out that technologically, this isn't a big deal. If you install software, you have to know what the software does. The search tool is no worse than a key logger, and we don't act surprised when key loggers cause privacy problems.
The problem I see is one of marketing. Google, as a brand name, is for the masses. Their tools just quietly make the Internet easier. Best of all, you don't have to know much about the technology to use them or want to use them.
So by making a complicated tool appeal to novices, they've encouraged people to bypass a basic computer security rule: know what the software does.
I doubt the idea of having social skills is new to him. He is who he is, and if you want him to be somebody else maybe you're the one who should change.
Way to put that Karma bonus to good use...
The researcher has created a bait account because of spam, so I could argue that spam did effect the account. Similarly, I create a new daily-use account every few years because of spam, so spam has effect the majority of my accounts..
Actually, I had the wrong definitions drilled in at an early age and spent years "correcting" people who were using it right.
If you deliberately bait spam, your research will only be about spam as it effects bait e-mail accounts. Your conclusions won't be applicable to normal e-mail use habits.
Want to survey spam as it effects a normal, real-life, daily-use e-mail address? Get a new address and starting using it as your primary account. Anything less will be irrelevant statistics.