Bah. You want to burn power? Try ECL. The lights dimmed when you turned it on, but on the bright side you could cook your breakfast on a chip. ECL people were also using decent transmission line layout techniques for PCB's back in the 60's - a few decades before other digital designers had to worry about it. For many years the MECL handbook was the standard reference for hi-speed digital PCB design.
Which effect of your poor reading comprehension explains why you thought I didn't understand "another"?
I might further add that I probably know more about historical patterns of social changes relating to sexuality in multiple different cultures [blah, blah, blah]
Then I apologize for mistaking you for someone who is historically ignorant. You obviously can't use that as an excuse. Which makes it even more difficult to explain why you think you are able to predict such trends, especially using such pulled from your posterior explanations as "the only things keeping the lid on is the cultural momentum of the Boomers and an unholy alliance between traditionalists [blah, blah, blah]". Using such vague and subjective arguments you could claim to predict anything. You're playing futurist, which is a game invented to make astrologers seem respectable.
educate yourself on the much broader arcs of development throughout the world
Even to the small extent that serious historians see "broad arcs of development" as something other than idle musings and the silly posturing of irresponsible popularizers and sophomoric students, you're a fool to think you have the perspective to see a broad arc while you're in the midst of it.
It won't be easy to move but if taxes is the only reason, they can move elsewhere.
But taxes aren't the only reason. They almost never are, despite the bleating. Do you really think Apple is stupid enough to lose most of the design teams in they have in SV?
I think we're on the cusp of another sexual revolution
Historically ignorant much? To pick just the most recent example, ever hear of the 70's? (hint: it's not just a TV show). Ever hear of AIDS? Sexual mores have gone back and forth throughout history. Oh, I forgot, this time it's different, your generation is unique in history, we're approaching the singularity, or the end of history, or whatever crap you prefer.
Scott McNealy (oops, I meant Vint Cerf) is saying that if his pet technology causes problems, then there is nothing wrong with the tech, and people's expectations should change. I call that bad engineering (and politics). In the 19th and early 20th century the choking smoke from everything from locomotives to smelters was just the "price of progress". Similarly, there used to be a cold calculation that every $1M in construction would result in one construction worker's death. Can't be avoided. Bull. Those problems were the result of bad engineering and bad politics, as improvements since have demonstrated. Claiming that "privacy is an anomaly" and society should change to support the Internet is just a half-assed excuse. This man has clearly run out of new ideas, and is just resting on his laurels.
Usually it's not considered STEM, which stands for Scientific, Technical, Engineering and Math. You could argue medicine is a technical field, but that's not how the term is generally used.
As usual, those who bash MBA most loudly are the ones that hire them:
Read more carefully: Musk said he hired people in spite of having MBA's, not that he wouldn't hire people with MBA's.
There is no such thing as a bad education, only bad students.
There are both.
I have an MBA, it was totally awesome to get, I did it while working full time, learned a lot, apply the knowledge often.
If you also have a serious technical degree, and think that about your MBA, you're the exception. I've known some very astute people with a serious technical education, who also got MBA's. They all say they did it for the credentials. They say that while they learned some useful basics in the MBA curricula, none of them were terribly impressed by it (including Wharton, etc.) and think they could have obtained the important knowledge with much less fanfare and expense.
Saying you dislike MBA's is not the same as saying you don't need managers and executives. Groves was brilliant at organizing and running major projects, but he was an army officer for the Corps of Engineers, not an MBA. The degree hadn't even been invented back then, which helps explain why we aren't speaking German or Japanese.
I hire for open reqs based on the PERSON and their SKILLSET, not the degree they may or may not hold.
Musk is essentially saying the same thing. However, where someone else with that philosophy would tend to think positively about an MBA (even though it wasn't an essential or bottom line requirement), he thinks negatively about it. However he did say he would hire people with MBA's anyway, if they met his other requirements.
According to Musk, 'I hire people in spite of an MBA'.
What's that, he doesn't like mindless groupthink, and the inability to understand the difference between a rule of thumb and actual thought, judgement and understanding of reality? No wonder the guy is a failure.
Thus you have an area that is subsidising a massively wealthy company by increased taxation on small businesses.
And individuals. But don't you know that everyone should bow and scrape before Apple for being so beneficent as to create all those jobs (some of them in the US)?
But Apple doesn't have to stay anywhere near SV or the state at all. They could move their HQ to a different state like Boeing did.
Boeing moved their headquarters for political reasons - by an astounding coincidence they wound up in the congressional district of someone who had a lot of influence on their business. Chicago is also not a place you'd move for low cost. Lastly, they moved some offices - not the airplane design and manufacturing business.
You're talking about two cities right next to each other, where apparently there's no shortage of land or office space (else College Station would fill up and you'd then get more stuff in Bryan). I'll also guess that that area is not someplace like SV or Manhattan where businesses flock for reasons much more important to them than cost (else there'd be nothing in SV or Manhattan).
No it's not, because cost of living is irrelevant.
First, CoL is relevant because it usually means higher salaries (I could get a raise by moving to SV, even without leaving my current employer). Second, cost of business is affected by leasing or land costs, which vary wildly by location. CoL also tends to ripple through all sorts of services and whatnot that businesses require (everything from cleaning services to ordering takeout for a late night).
Atlanta has a low cost of living, but the Atlanta Braves are in the midst of moving out to the suburbs due to this kind of subsidy BS.
What kind of subsidies are you talking about? Baseball stadiums are notorious for subsidies that go way beyond tax breaks. Also, did they want to move out anyway for some reason?
The issue with this argument is that it sounds all well and good until you consider it for a few seconds. Apple gets a rebate now that it is a billion dollar company but if a new 'Apple' was starting out today they'd have to pay the full rate of tax.
The argument is still good because, as I stated, SV is expensive no matter what the tax breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile in the software world we'll still be arguing Java vs. C++.
Bah. You want to burn power? Try ECL. The lights dimmed when you turned it on, but on the bright side you could cook your breakfast on a chip. ECL people were also using decent transmission line layout techniques for PCB's back in the 60's - a few decades before other digital designers had to worry about it. For many years the MECL handbook was the standard reference for hi-speed digital PCB design.
Which part of "another" didn't you get?
Which effect of your poor reading comprehension explains why you thought I didn't understand "another"?
I might further add that I probably know more about historical patterns of social changes relating to sexuality in multiple different cultures [blah, blah, blah]
Then I apologize for mistaking you for someone who is historically ignorant. You obviously can't use that as an excuse. Which makes it even more difficult to explain why you think you are able to predict such trends, especially using such pulled from your posterior explanations as "the only things keeping the lid on is the cultural momentum of the Boomers and an unholy alliance between traditionalists [blah, blah, blah]". Using such vague and subjective arguments you could claim to predict anything. You're playing futurist, which is a game invented to make astrologers seem respectable.
educate yourself on the much broader arcs of development throughout the world
Even to the small extent that serious historians see "broad arcs of development" as something other than idle musings and the silly posturing of irresponsible popularizers and sophomoric students, you're a fool to think you have the perspective to see a broad arc while you're in the midst of it.
Argue all you want - that's not how the term is used.
So how do you think that happened?
Hint: it's not because Apple is there.
It won't be easy to move but if taxes is the only reason, they can move elsewhere.
But taxes aren't the only reason. They almost never are, despite the bleating. Do you really think Apple is stupid enough to lose most of the design teams in they have in SV?
I think we're on the cusp of another sexual revolution
Historically ignorant much? To pick just the most recent example, ever hear of the 70's? (hint: it's not just a TV show). Ever hear of AIDS? Sexual mores have gone back and forth throughout history. Oh, I forgot, this time it's different, your generation is unique in history, we're approaching the singularity, or the end of history, or whatever crap you prefer.
Scott McNealy (oops, I meant Vint Cerf) is saying that if his pet technology causes problems, then there is nothing wrong with the tech, and people's expectations should change. I call that bad engineering (and politics). In the 19th and early 20th century the choking smoke from everything from locomotives to smelters was just the "price of progress". Similarly, there used to be a cold calculation that every $1M in construction would result in one construction worker's death. Can't be avoided. Bull. Those problems were the result of bad engineering and bad politics, as improvements since have demonstrated. Claiming that "privacy is an anomaly" and society should change to support the Internet is just a half-assed excuse. This man has clearly run out of new ideas, and is just resting on his laurels.
Usually it's not considered STEM, which stands for Scientific, Technical, Engineering and Math. You could argue medicine is a technical field, but that's not how the term is generally used.
As usual, those who bash MBA most loudly are the ones that hire them:
Read more carefully: Musk said he hired people in spite of having MBA's, not that he wouldn't hire people with MBA's.
There is no such thing as a bad education, only bad students.
There are both.
I have an MBA, it was totally awesome to get, I did it while working full time, learned a lot, apply the knowledge often.
If you also have a serious technical degree, and think that about your MBA, you're the exception. I've known some very astute people with a serious technical education, who also got MBA's. They all say they did it for the credentials. They say that while they learned some useful basics in the MBA curricula, none of them were terribly impressed by it (including Wharton, etc.) and think they could have obtained the important knowledge with much less fanfare and expense.
Saying you dislike MBA's is not the same as saying you don't need managers and executives. Groves was brilliant at organizing and running major projects, but he was an army officer for the Corps of Engineers, not an MBA. The degree hadn't even been invented back then, which helps explain why we aren't speaking German or Japanese.
I hire for open reqs based on the PERSON and their SKILLSET, not the degree they may or may not hold.
Musk is essentially saying the same thing. However, where someone else with that philosophy would tend to think positively about an MBA (even though it wasn't an essential or bottom line requirement), he thinks negatively about it. However he did say he would hire people with MBA's anyway, if they met his other requirements.
According to Musk, 'I hire people in spite of an MBA'.
What's that, he doesn't like mindless groupthink, and the inability to understand the difference between a rule of thumb and actual thought, judgement and understanding of reality? No wonder the guy is a failure.
Thus you have an area that is subsidising a massively wealthy company by increased taxation on small businesses.
And individuals. But don't you know that everyone should bow and scrape before Apple for being so beneficent as to create all those jobs (some of them in the US)?
Here in the UK we cut out the middleman, and just buy these flying saucer tech headquarters directly from taxpayers' money:
You fools! You're supposed to get an extraterrestrial government to pay for flying saucers.
In other words, the city should punish Apple more for creating jobs.
Alternatively, Apple should punish the city for giving them a good place to do business? No business is located in SV for its low costs.
50% sales tax is outrageous by the way.
Parody, or do you have a problem with reading/math?
Please explain how that applies to Apple.
I give up - real post or parody? Oh, what's the difference, we statists love stealing and make no bones about it.
But Apple doesn't have to stay anywhere near SV or the state at all. They could move their HQ to a different state like Boeing did.
Boeing moved their headquarters for political reasons - by an astounding coincidence they wound up in the congressional district of someone who had a lot of influence on their business. Chicago is also not a place you'd move for low cost. Lastly, they moved some offices - not the airplane design and manufacturing business.
You're talking about two cities right next to each other, where apparently there's no shortage of land or office space (else College Station would fill up and you'd then get more stuff in Bryan). I'll also guess that that area is not someplace like SV or Manhattan where businesses flock for reasons much more important to them than cost (else there'd be nothing in SV or Manhattan).
No it's not, because cost of living is irrelevant.
First, CoL is relevant because it usually means higher salaries (I could get a raise by moving to SV, even without leaving my current employer). Second, cost of business is affected by leasing or land costs, which vary wildly by location. CoL also tends to ripple through all sorts of services and whatnot that businesses require (everything from cleaning services to ordering takeout for a late night).
Atlanta has a low cost of living, but the Atlanta Braves are in the midst of moving out to the suburbs due to this kind of subsidy BS.
What kind of subsidies are you talking about? Baseball stadiums are notorious for subsidies that go way beyond tax breaks. Also, did they want to move out anyway for some reason?
And now I can't want to see how someone out pedantics-me in continuing this petty-up-man-ship thread.
Done before you posted - see upthread. Just as there's an Obfuscated C contest, Slashdot should have an "Ultimate Pedantry" contest.
The issue with this argument is that it sounds all well and good until you consider it for a few seconds. Apple gets a rebate now that it is a billion dollar company but if a new 'Apple' was starting out today they'd have to pay the full rate of tax.
The argument is still good because, as I stated, SV is expensive no matter what the tax breaks.
They may just be stuck trying to find a prime number vendor that will sell them a 9.
No, that's quite easy. You don't believe all those specs, do you?
Either way, leave it to a mathematical genius to ruin a joke.