It happens almost automatically in UK court cases that the loser pays the winner's costs. Especially when summary judgement has been given.
This is the way it ought to be, given that the judge and jury are already familiar with the details of the case. They could issue an accompanying veridict stating if the losing party had a good case (even though it lost) or if it has to defray the legal costs of the other party.
However laws are pased by politicians, and most politicians are ex-lawyers. What interest do they have in making the legal process more efficient?
You are not paying $129 for an upgrade. Apple doesn't sell OS upgrades. When you spend $129 for Jaguar you are getting a FULL version of the OS.
Now you open source kiddies understand why Microsoft branded versions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Windows, Windows 98 and Windows Me, and Windows 5.1 as Windows XP.
That way users cannot complain as loudly about paying $99 for an upgrade.
From what I see, Waterloo runs a CS/Comp Eng. school like everyone else.
Not at all. UW gets better students so it demands more of them. The same course in UW will cover more material and at a deeper level than at most other universities. Plus you are more challenged by your peers as they are quite often smarter than you.
IMHO, what school you go to doesn't have that much of an impact.
Wrong again. If you go to a top notch university (be it UW, Stanford, MIT, Oxford, or Moscow State) you have face-to-face contact with top notch people. This enriches your learning experience.
The local expert says that the buzzword in the crypto community is that the algorithm is apparently correct. The fact that is so elementary makes it less likely to be wrong.
I think the Economist strectched the facts a bit here...
For one Odlyzko's article first appeared in 1998. People in the network community were refering to it back in 2000.
Also they are trying to pin the blame on Worldcom (kick them while they are down). If the AT&T executives failed to listen to their foremost expert why is that Worldcom's problem? The data Odlyzko quotes from MAE and other NAPs is publicly available. It was very easy for anybody to check and see if data was doubling or not...
Yeah it's a shame they didn't say anything like "We remain a long way from fulfilling the full promise of asynchrony."
Is the entire article gung-ho with a caveat emptor buried in the middle of the article? Or was the entire article a "we are talking speculative stuff here, folks" type of thing?
Granted, in the case of nanotechnology at least they gave space for a rebuttal to a sceptic.
I for one like to hear about stuff years away.
I have no problem with this, so long as they make it sufficiently clear that the technology in question might never make it.
Manufacturing Hype^H^H^H^HConsent
on
Clockless Computing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In the past I've mentioned here the role that popular publications like Scientific American have in creating hype. Be it the semantic web, nanotechnology, AI or asynchronous circuits, SciAm seems to focus on pie-in-the-sky ideas with a very small chance of success.
That would be fine if they acknowledged this in the text, but more often than not they take an extremely bullish approach and echo the wildest promises by the researchers as if they were to happen tomorrow.
Very smart people have been working for many years in asynchronous circuits, yet the likeliest scenario are hybrid designs mixing synch and asynch circuits (the asynch circuit stops the clock from propagating).
Why do SciAm and other such publications do this? According to Chomsky because they are told so by the trilateral comission. Personally, I think they do it because it sells magazines.
RTFM is a great idea. Now all we need to do is write an Unix manual instead of the useless shufling of user manual, technical documentation and installation information otherwise known as "man pages".
Moorish artisans used to purposedly introduce a mistake in their tile designs, as it would be presumptous for a mere mortal to attempt perfection.
Knuth introduced the MIX back in the 60s and all the reasons why it was the wrong choice back then remain valid today. He well knows that, but leaves it in the text to follow his own theological observations and not make his books perfect.
A friend of mine suggested printing post-it notes with Java code to paste over MIX code in the tAoCP.
1) You were underpaying because you had no idea what the employee was worth, and are therefore incompentent at your job.
2) You were underpaying knowing full well what the employee was worth, and were therefore ripping him off.
It is usually (1), but sometimes (2). People do not freely share salary figures and during periods of rapid increase is easy to fall behind salary-wise. When your employees leave for another job is a good time to gage if you are falling behind (you also have to keep in mind that few leave for a lower paid job, so the sample is biased).
About (2) would you ever you walk to the manager and say "I'm overpaid please reduce my salary"? Of course not. So it works both ways.
In light of these two possibilities, explain again why the employee should keep working for you.
Personally, generally I wouldn't take the counteroffer, in part because of the reasons you listed above (another one: once underpaid, always underpaid).
Having said that, if you are in the right job, in the right place, with a ton of stock options, the company is doing great and the counter is substantially higher than the offer, I would think twice about it.
Yeah, and for far too many managers (especially the incompetent/immature ones), "whiner" is defined as "anyone who rocks the boat", whether the complaints are legitimate or not.
Sadly, that is true. If the person who originally posted the question has one such manager he/she should not take the counter.
Guess what? There's a hidden cost to replacing people. It's spelled M-O-R-A-L-E.
Precisely, nothing damages morale as much as having a whiner in your team. I want people who come up with constructive suggestions and can make lemons out of lemonade.
Most managers are useless overhead.
Many are, others have to put up with idiots like you who think they know better but cannot even predict the damaging effect of a whiner in a team. They believe themselves superior to management but left alone would not be able to ship software worth squat, with ever slipping deadlines and bug counts going through the roof. A good manager has a positive effect on those, a bad manager keeps idiots like you around with a negative effect.
Geesh, some people need to do the world a favor and get some useful skills and do something with them rather than piggyback on the work of others. But there are good ones that help the company and their managees. Be the exception, buddy.
I got to be a manager by writing code that is used by, literaly, millions of people. I wonder if you can say the same thing, since you seem to have such a high opinion of what you do.
Somebody who complains about cloudy days because they are depressing and about sunny days because they are too hot.
Yeah, and for far too many managers (especially the incompetent/immature ones), "whiner" is defined as "anyone who rocks the boat", whether the complaints are legitimate or not.
That is true, rightly or wrongly. So you better be judicious about your whines.
The linked 10 reasons are all bullshit. If the company likes you enough to match the offer, and you are otherwise happy where you are, take it. All you've shown your company is that you have goals, too.
Most employers like that.
Bzzt! Wrong. I'm a manager and it is not so simple. Some corporations treat offer/counteroffers very maturely, others don't.
It also depends on the employee. If you are a trooper, you have proven with the offer that you were underpaid and I'll raise your salary and leave it at that.
If you are a whiner, all you have shown is that you are an underpaid whiner. Since I need you to complete the current project I'll make a counteroffer, but I'll start searching for your replacement right away.
That story is the textbook definition of a hatchet job.
Cable ISPs could care less what you download. Bandwidth hogs are actually a net loss for ISPs, so they intend to charge those more. It is a mere accident that those hogs happen to be MP3 users.
For all the ISP cares, they could be SETI hogs, or pr0n hogs or remote X server/client hogs. So please drop the reference to the RIAA.
After 14 years in restaraunts, I can tell you without a doubt, that Credit Card theft and fraud are higher and easier to get away with than you might think.
I can believe that. Even so, stealing credit cards over the Net is even easier.
at the time nobody trusted sending their credit card numbers over the Net, although they rarely hesitated to turn them over to teenaged cashiers in restaurants
This is a completely bogus analogy.
A teenage cashier has access to a few hundred credit card numbers. If he stole them, all he would earn would be a few thousand dollars. Plus he would be easy to track down, as he was physically present in the restaurant. It is just not worth the risk to steal those credit card numbers.
Now, if I decide to intercept credit cards on the Net, I can do it anonymously and collect tens of thousands of CC numbers in a short time span. Then use the numbers to purchase jewelry and other expensive items on ebay and have them shipped express to a mailbox in Ohio. By the time the FBI closes down on the sting, I'm back in my native Elbonia enjoying the proceeds of my crime.
This will not work. When two people sell exactly the same product (think lettuce) it becomes a commodity and the margins fall to nearly zero. So manufacturers have a mandate to add distingushing features so that they sell a non-commodity.
It was tried many times with posix, open88 and other group of standards put together by two-bit players...
Most users think they want results in a graphical form, but usually when presented with the actual display, they dislike them.
One of this days, somebody will find the right way to display search results graphically, but so far all of those that I've seen fell well short of the standard ranked summary list presented by Google.
Slashdot Mirror
It happens almost automatically in UK court cases that the loser pays the winner's costs. Especially when summary judgement has been given.
This is the way it ought to be, given that the judge and jury are already familiar with the details of the case. They could issue an accompanying veridict stating if the losing party had a good case (even though it lost) or if it has to defray the legal costs of the other party.
However laws are pased by politicians, and most politicians are ex-lawyers. What interest do they have in making the legal process more efficient?
Remember, the worse he looks, the smarter he is.
I'm a frikin' genius!!
You are not paying $129 for an upgrade. Apple doesn't sell OS upgrades. When you spend $129 for Jaguar you are getting a FULL version of the OS.
Now you open source kiddies understand why Microsoft branded versions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Windows, Windows 98 and Windows Me, and Windows 5.1 as Windows XP.
That way users cannot complain as loudly about paying $99 for an upgrade.
From what I see, Waterloo runs a CS/Comp Eng. school like everyone else.
Not at all. UW gets better students so it demands more of them. The same course in UW will cover more material and at a deeper level than at most other universities. Plus you are more challenged by your peers as they are quite often smarter than you.
IMHO, what school you go to doesn't have that much of an impact.
Wrong again. If you go to a top notch university (be it UW, Stanford, MIT, Oxford, or Moscow State) you have face-to-face contact with top notch people. This enriches your learning experience.
The local expert says that the buzzword in the crypto community is that the algorithm is apparently correct. The fact that is so elementary makes it less likely to be wrong.
We will have to wait a few days to be certain...
I think the Economist strectched the facts a bit here...
For one Odlyzko's article first appeared in 1998. People in the network community were refering to it back in 2000.
Also they are trying to pin the blame on Worldcom (kick them while they are down). If the AT&T executives failed to listen to their foremost expert why is that Worldcom's problem? The data Odlyzko quotes from MAE and other NAPs is publicly available. It was very easy for anybody to check and see if data was doubling or not...
Is the entire article gung-ho with a caveat emptor buried in the middle of the article? Or was the entire article a "we are talking speculative stuff here, folks" type of thing?
Granted, in the case of nanotechnology at least they gave space for a rebuttal to a sceptic.
I for one like to hear about stuff years away.
I have no problem with this, so long as they make it sufficiently clear that the technology in question might never make it.
In the past I've mentioned here the role that popular publications like Scientific American have in creating hype. Be it the semantic web, nanotechnology, AI or asynchronous circuits, SciAm seems to focus on pie-in-the-sky ideas with a very small chance of success.
That would be fine if they acknowledged this in the text, but more often than not they take an extremely bullish approach and echo the wildest promises by the researchers as if they were to happen tomorrow.
Very smart people have been working for many years in asynchronous circuits, yet the likeliest scenario are hybrid designs mixing synch and asynch circuits (the asynch circuit stops the clock from propagating).
Why do SciAm and other such publications do this? According to Chomsky because they are told so by the trilateral comission. Personally, I think they do it because it sells magazines.
RTFM is a great idea. Now all we need to do is write an Unix manual instead of the useless shufling of user manual, technical documentation and installation information otherwise known as "man pages".
Moorish artisans used to purposedly introduce a mistake in their tile designs, as it would be presumptous for a mere mortal to attempt perfection.
Knuth introduced the MIX back in the 60s and all the reasons why it was the wrong choice back then remain valid today. He well knows that, but leaves it in the text to follow his own theological observations and not make his books perfect.
A friend of mine suggested printing post-it notes with Java code to paste over MIX code in the tAoCP.
Huh?
Wired was the first source AFAIK to describe the Well as "one of the earliest and most influential online communities."
So far the only influence of the Well is the self-agrandizing perspective of those who belonged to it.
Usenet ran circles around the Well, not to talk about the early Internet. Heck, Joe McCarthy mailing list at MIT was more influential than the Well.
So put a lid on it. The Well was a neat local BB in the Bay area. Nothing more, nothing less.
1) You were underpaying because you had no idea what the employee was worth, and are therefore incompentent at your job.
2) You were underpaying knowing full well what the employee was worth, and were therefore ripping him off.
It is usually (1), but sometimes (2). People do not freely share salary figures and during periods of rapid increase is easy to fall behind salary-wise. When your employees leave for another job is a good time to gage if you are falling behind (you also have to keep in mind that few leave for a lower paid job, so the sample is biased).
About (2) would you ever you walk to the manager and say "I'm overpaid please reduce my salary"? Of course not. So it works both ways.
In light of these two possibilities, explain again why the employee should keep working for you.
Personally, generally I wouldn't take the counteroffer, in part because of the reasons you listed above (another one: once underpaid, always underpaid).
Having said that, if you are in the right job, in the right place, with a ton of stock options, the company is doing great and the counter is substantially higher than the offer, I would think twice about it.
Yeah, and for far too many managers (especially the incompetent/immature ones), "whiner" is defined as "anyone who rocks the boat", whether the complaints are legitimate or not.
Sadly, that is true. If the person who originally posted the question has one such manager he/she should not take the counter.
A trooper is someone who does the work assigned to them, if there is a problem they'll try and solve it quickly before seeking managements help.
/.'ers that cannot are themselves whiners.
A whiner is someone who always finds something to complain about in every assignment, allocation, announcement, etc.
Well said. It's worth repeating.
I've never been a real titled manager but I knew the difference immediately.
As most people can. I'm willing to bet that most
The really hard part is when you've discovered a problem, carefully explained it and possible solutions, and they tell you there is no problem.
That is when we managers earn our often well-deserved reputation as idiots.
Guess what? There's a hidden cost to replacing people. It's spelled M-O-R-A-L-E.
Precisely, nothing damages morale as much as having a whiner in your team. I want people who come up with constructive suggestions and can make lemons out of lemonade.
Most managers are useless overhead.
Many are, others have to put up with idiots like you who think they know better but cannot even predict the damaging effect of a whiner in a team. They believe themselves superior to management but left alone would not be able to ship software worth squat, with ever slipping deadlines and bug counts going through the roof. A good manager has a positive effect on those, a bad manager keeps idiots like you around with a negative effect.
Geesh, some people need to do the world a favor and get some useful skills and do something with them rather than piggyback on the work of others. But there are good ones that help the company and their managees. Be the exception, buddy.
I got to be a manager by writing code that is used by, literaly, millions of people. I wonder if you can say the same thing, since you seem to have such a high opinion of what you do.
What the heck do you consider whining?
Somebody who complains about cloudy days because they are depressing and about sunny days because they are too hot.
Yeah, and for far too many managers (especially the incompetent/immature ones), "whiner" is defined as "anyone who rocks the boat", whether the complaints are legitimate or not.
That is true, rightly or wrongly. So you better be judicious about your whines.
The linked 10 reasons are all bullshit. If the company likes you enough to match the offer, and you are otherwise happy where you are, take it. All you've shown your company is that you have goals, too.
Most employers like that.
Bzzt! Wrong. I'm a manager and it is not so simple. Some corporations treat offer/counteroffers very maturely, others don't.
It also depends on the employee. If you are a trooper, you have proven with the offer that you were underpaid and I'll raise your salary and leave it at that.
If you are a whiner, all you have shown is that you are an underpaid whiner. Since I need you to complete the current project I'll make a counteroffer, but I'll start searching for your replacement right away.
That story is the textbook definition of a hatchet job.
Cable ISPs could care less what you download. Bandwidth hogs are actually a net loss for ISPs, so they intend to charge those more. It is a mere accident that those hogs happen to be MP3 users.
For all the ISP cares, they could be SETI hogs, or pr0n hogs or remote X server/client hogs. So please drop the reference to the RIAA.
Or do bikini-clad women really leap out of your closet the moment you pop open a can of Miller beer?
Why else would you drink that shit?
Natalie Portman's phone number on Ebay....
.
.
.
.
if it ever came up for auction.
After 14 years in restaraunts, I can tell you without a doubt, that Credit Card theft and fraud are higher and easier to get away with than you might think.
I can believe that. Even so, stealing credit cards over the Net is even easier.
at the time nobody trusted sending their credit card numbers over the Net, although they rarely hesitated to turn them over to teenaged cashiers in restaurants
This is a completely bogus analogy.
A teenage cashier has access to a few hundred credit card numbers. If he stole them, all he would earn would be a few thousand dollars. Plus he would be easy to track down, as he was physically present in the restaurant. It is just not worth the risk to steal those credit card numbers.
Now, if I decide to intercept credit cards on the Net, I can do it anonymously and collect tens of thousands of CC numbers in a short time span. Then use the numbers to purchase jewelry and other expensive items on ebay and have them shipped express to a mailbox in Ohio. By the time the FBI closes down on the sting, I'm back in my native Elbonia enjoying the proceeds of my crime.
This will not work. When two people sell exactly the same product (think lettuce) it becomes a commodity and the margins fall to nearly zero. So manufacturers have a mandate to add distingushing features so that they sell a non-commodity.
It was tried many times with posix, open88 and other group of standards put together by two-bit players...
Most users think they want results in a graphical form, but usually when presented with the actual display, they dislike them.
One of this days, somebody will find the right way to display search results graphically, but so far all of those that I've seen fell well short of the standard ranked summary list presented by Google.