I always imagined that doctors being called off-hours were being called for honest-to-goodness life-and-death issues. I can think of few IT personnel that can say that they are being called for issues so serious. I can think of even fewer that make a physician's salary.
Am I off base here?
Definitely not off base, but you brought up several unrelated issues. The overwhelming majority of calls are not "honest-to-goodness life-and-death issues." In IT terms, I would imagine that many issues are rather simple calls. Important to the customer, but seems simple to the IT guy. The same is in medicine. Important to the patient, but simple, and rarely life threatening, to the physician's perspective. Not trying to downplay the importance of the calls. Just that that is what the vast majority of calls are about. I am not sure if you were making a point, or just an observation. If I see a point, it is that "because the calls are life and death (critically important), you should not get paid." I am not sure if I agree with that logic (forgive me for putting words in your mouth, if that was not your point). As to the salary, that is a different issue. I guess the question is "how much should a person make, to make it so the call is thrown in the price?" Not really sure, but, as a physician, I think $50 million a year would almost be enough.
True. Unfortunately, I am a physician. And doctors do not get paid on call. The physician model is that you HAVE to take call. If you don't get called, you get the pleasure of carrying the pager for free. If you get called, you work for free. If you go in to see a patient, you get paid as if you saw them during regular hours. So, they get paid for what they do (sometimes, depending upon the insurance), but not for being on call.
So you are saying Microsoft is leveraging an existing monopoly to force their way into other markets. Wow, that's pretty clever, and certainly innovative on their part. Surprised they didn't try that earlier.
If being skinny is genetic, and if being skinny leads to less children, then from evolutionary point of view, it's the skinny genes leading to less children, ie. it is a genetic "problem".
You are taking my post out of context. The GP was stating that fertility was the physical reason for less children in skinny women. I was saying that the explanation makes more sense to me if using a social, not physical reason.
However, your argument is a very good thought experiment. Although skinny, well educated, ambitious women might be attractive to males, that could be an evolutionary dead end, or at least a more limited evolutionary branch. Sad thought for me, but great point.
Again, I don't think they're saying thinner = bad, I think they're saying the population is shifting towards the optimum range. Skinny women have less, and less healthy children on average, so the average weight is rising by a small amount as they're outbred by heavier women.
I didn't RTFA, but I don't think that is a good conclusion at all. In my nonscientific, anecdotal observations, skinnier women have less children due to birth control, not because of some genetic problem. Increasing weight as a "shift towards optimum range" seems a bit of a stretch to me. I agree that any extreme of skinny or fat is bad, but I just see this as more of a social change leading to a biological change, rather than an ability to breed due to genetics thing.
No thanks. I tried it when I was a kid. They are just brine shrimp. Nothing special, definitely not monkeys, and don't waste your money by giving them another shot.
I am not sure I would agree so optimistically. I see the internet as just another means of communication, and cutting that off would obviously change the way we live. Our culture is built around the principles of this communication medium, and you can't simply go back to where you were. We COULD go back horse and buggies, but not really. Commuting could not longer be practical. The cities themselves would have to shrink, and the population decentralize more. We COULD use snail mail again, but that might not be realistic in the world that has changed so much with the internet. First thought is that businesses would have to shrink since automation of many processes could not be automated.
I understand now. But I wonder whether your speculations are accurate. Not saying they are not, just that I wonder. When apple started implementing zfs, the sun folks were very clear that apple did so without so much as contacting sun ahead of time. It seems unusual for a company to implement something, then later decide to license it for support, rather than license first, then implement. Well, maybe not THAT unusual, as apple might have just realized they bit off more than they could chew. But that is just speculation on my part.
That still doesn't make any sense. If sun relicensed zfs or went bankrupt, the existing zfs under CDDL is still valid, and can be forked. Sort of like if sun relicensed mysql, the gpl version is still gpl.
There is a point here, but I think it should be more of a concept than a call for a literal change. My analogy: I live in a large US city. I remember when it wasn't so. Neighbors knew each other, and it was relatively safe. But now, it has grown. People move too quickly to say Hi, and crime is on the rise. Traffic is a pain.
I can do several things. Kick people out. Fingerprint everyone, and put cameras around. Leave the city myself.
Again, wishful thinking. Like you said, you can't have it the way it was. And telling people to get fingerprinted only makes you look like an ass.
I think you may be quoting him out of context. He is talking with investors and industry analysts. He is not saying "I am sorry the product sucks." He is saying "I am sorry we were not able to sell more, because the product sucks." Different message, and I think he really did mean it.
The article claims Ramji has improved relations between Microsoft and open source people? Since when have relations between Microsoft and open source been anything but negative? We read stories on here almost every day about some new point of conflict.
In all fairness, Microsoft has been spreading misinformation the whole time Sam Ramji has been working there. Why would they stop now that he's leaving?
I would say Mod parent up, but you are already up to +5. What I also find surprising is that anyone would find this idea insightful. Not picking on GF678. I'm picking on the author of TFA. Free is not the be all end all of decision making, and it never was. That's what runs society, and that's the whole purpose of currency. Is there ANY circumstance in life where that should be the case, assuming you have the money? Because if you don't have the money, you won't use proprietary software regardless . . . legally.
probably nuggets of insight are better than incite.
A little off topic, but I wonder if that was meant to be a pun. That's a problem these days. We can't tell the difference between clever and dumb, because we don't really know the person posting.
Slashdot Mirror
I always imagined that doctors being called off-hours were being called for honest-to-goodness life-and-death issues. I can think of few IT personnel that can say that they are being called for issues so serious. I can think of even fewer that make a physician's salary. Am I off base here?
Definitely not off base, but you brought up several unrelated issues. The overwhelming majority of calls are not "honest-to-goodness life-and-death issues." In IT terms, I would imagine that many issues are rather simple calls. Important to the customer, but seems simple to the IT guy. The same is in medicine. Important to the patient, but simple, and rarely life threatening, to the physician's perspective. Not trying to downplay the importance of the calls. Just that that is what the vast majority of calls are about. I am not sure if you were making a point, or just an observation. If I see a point, it is that "because the calls are life and death (critically important), you should not get paid." I am not sure if I agree with that logic (forgive me for putting words in your mouth, if that was not your point). As to the salary, that is a different issue. I guess the question is "how much should a person make, to make it so the call is thrown in the price?" Not really sure, but, as a physician, I think $50 million a year would almost be enough.
True. Unfortunately, I am a physician. And doctors do not get paid on call. The physician model is that you HAVE to take call. If you don't get called, you get the pleasure of carrying the pager for free. If you get called, you work for free. If you go in to see a patient, you get paid as if you saw them during regular hours. So, they get paid for what they do (sometimes, depending upon the insurance), but not for being on call.
Mmmmm . . . Billion cat brains.
So you are saying Microsoft is leveraging an existing monopoly to force their way into other markets. Wow, that's pretty clever, and certainly innovative on their part. Surprised they didn't try that earlier.
If being skinny is genetic, and if being skinny leads to less children, then from evolutionary point of view, it's the skinny genes leading to less children, ie. it is a genetic "problem".
You are taking my post out of context. The GP was stating that fertility was the physical reason for less children in skinny women. I was saying that the explanation makes more sense to me if using a social, not physical reason. However, your argument is a very good thought experiment. Although skinny, well educated, ambitious women might be attractive to males, that could be an evolutionary dead end, or at least a more limited evolutionary branch. Sad thought for me, but great point.
Again, I don't think they're saying thinner = bad, I think they're saying the population is shifting towards the optimum range. Skinny women have less, and less healthy children on average, so the average weight is rising by a small amount as they're outbred by heavier women.
I didn't RTFA, but I don't think that is a good conclusion at all. In my nonscientific, anecdotal observations, skinnier women have less children due to birth control, not because of some genetic problem. Increasing weight as a "shift towards optimum range" seems a bit of a stretch to me. I agree that any extreme of skinny or fat is bad, but I just see this as more of a social change leading to a biological change, rather than an ability to breed due to genetics thing.
In that case, I will make a prediction of my own. In 2409, beer will be more popular than ever.
This is just brine gecko...don't be fooled!
Mmmmm . . . Brined gecko . . .
Time to give SeaMonkey another shot!
No thanks. I tried it when I was a kid. They are just brine shrimp. Nothing special, definitely not monkeys, and don't waste your money by giving them another shot.
Sounds like Nobel prize material to me!
For Professor Svante Paabo, or the human who had sex with a Neanderthal? I think you can make a stronger case for the latter.
I am not sure I would agree so optimistically. I see the internet as just another means of communication, and cutting that off would obviously change the way we live. Our culture is built around the principles of this communication medium, and you can't simply go back to where you were. We COULD go back horse and buggies, but not really. Commuting could not longer be practical. The cities themselves would have to shrink, and the population decentralize more. We COULD use snail mail again, but that might not be realistic in the world that has changed so much with the internet. First thought is that businesses would have to shrink since automation of many processes could not be automated.
I understand now. But I wonder whether your speculations are accurate. Not saying they are not, just that I wonder. When apple started implementing zfs, the sun folks were very clear that apple did so without so much as contacting sun ahead of time. It seems unusual for a company to implement something, then later decide to license it for support, rather than license first, then implement. Well, maybe not THAT unusual, as apple might have just realized they bit off more than they could chew. But that is just speculation on my part.
That still doesn't make any sense. If sun relicensed zfs or went bankrupt, the existing zfs under CDDL is still valid, and can be forked. Sort of like if sun relicensed mysql, the gpl version is still gpl.
Is it really patent trolling?
No. Apple spokesperson did come out saying patents and the patent system is perfectly fine, so they would agree with this lawsuit.
I can do several things. Kick people out. Fingerprint everyone, and put cameras around. Leave the city myself.
Again, wishful thinking. Like you said, you can't have it the way it was. And telling people to get fingerprinted only makes you look like an ass.
Well in *my* OS, the volume goes all the way to 11!
And I vote you +6 funny!
I think you may be quoting him out of context. He is talking with investors and industry analysts. He is not saying "I am sorry the product sucks." He is saying "I am sorry we were not able to sell more, because the product sucks." Different message, and I think he really did mean it.
I'm amazed that Mozilla was unaware of this and needed to ask someone.
Probably because if they asked Slashdot, everyone would be telling them to quit asking Slashdot and call a lawyer, so that's what they did.
Can't advise you on a 24-hour chapel, but I can advise you not to quit your day job.
11. Hulk level strength.
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear, with an aspect ratio comprising the squares of the first 3 non-zero positive primes.
I thought only Uranus was rectalinear.
The article claims Ramji has improved relations between Microsoft and open source people? Since when have relations between Microsoft and open source been anything but negative? We read stories on here almost every day about some new point of conflict.
In all fairness, Microsoft has been spreading misinformation the whole time Sam Ramji has been working there. Why would they stop now that he's leaving?
I would say Mod parent up, but you are already up to +5. What I also find surprising is that anyone would find this idea insightful. Not picking on GF678. I'm picking on the author of TFA. Free is not the be all end all of decision making, and it never was. That's what runs society, and that's the whole purpose of currency. Is there ANY circumstance in life where that should be the case, assuming you have the money? Because if you don't have the money, you won't use proprietary software regardless . . . legally.
probably nuggets of insight are better than incite.
A little off topic, but I wonder if that was meant to be a pun. That's a problem these days. We can't tell the difference between clever and dumb, because we don't really know the person posting.
When they experiment on humans, call me. It would be crazy NOT to try it!