My favorite GPS screwup was one where we were driving south on an overpass, and the gps system told us to turn left to get onto the E/W route that the overpass was taking us on top of. Of course, since we were in the middle of a bridge, this was impossible. What we actually had to do was travel to the other side of the overpass, and then navigate back onto east-running lower route. There were no left turns involved. The driver was thoroughly pissed off with the system, ranting almost for the entire rest of the trip at the rest of us about how he was going to file a complaint with the company that supplied him with it, but I just found the whole thing hilarious. In retrospect now, though, I have just considered that the fact that I was laughing about it at the time may have just been making him angrier, which led to the 15 minute or so tirade.
My point is that pets are property, robots and AI's are property.... their actions are the responsibility of the owners, even if the owner had no actual control over what they did. In the case of robots and AI's that fail to perform as advertised, the owner may in turn have a legitimate claim against the manufacturer (and in some cases, the lawsuit may transfer directly to the manufacturer leaving the owner out of the loop entirely), but if the manufacturer has already disclaimed any such responsibility where they were permitted to do so by law, then the owner is still and should be entirely accountable.
Nice analogy.... except it doesn't apply here. The amount of time that I go before upgrading my CPU, which in my experience tends to amount to buying virtually an entirely new computer system (CPU, Mobo, memory, and often a video card, and sometimes even a new case and power supply), is about 2 to 3 years. While you might conjecture that I could upgrade slightly less frequently if I were to buy Intel, I doubt somehow doubt I'd be slowing down my upgrading to every 6 to 10 years, which is about how long I'd have to go without upgrading before the cost difference between AMD and Intel would typically pay for itself.
In the UK, the difference in how they are treated is only in that cats have an implicit "right to roam" unless there are specific extenuating circumstances that will overrule it, while dogs must always be kept confined or on a leash unless there are extenuating circumstances that can overrule that. Cat owners in the UK are still expected to take reasonable steps to prevent their cat causing harm to others or damage to others' property, and they can be held responsible for their pet's actions, even while it was outside of their immediate control and care. So yes, there is a difference in how they are managed: cat owners can generally legally allow their cats to roam anywhere at any time of day or night, and dog owners cannot, but cat owners are not actually any less responsible for their pet's actions than dog owners in the UK. An owner's responsibility with an AI or robot would probably be quite similar to that of a cat.... either way, however, the owner is responsible for the actions of their property.
The employee can often be held personally accountable by the company (for certain types of things) even if the company is generally held accountable by outside parties.
That's only trouble-free for people for whom the price of Intel compared to AMD is already not a concern.
So in other words, what you really mean is that what works best for a trouble-free life is to just be rich enough that you can buy your way past any problems.
I said that those were the minimum standards that are potentially sustainable on a job, not that those standards are necessarily actually going to be considered sufficient by anyone.
Is it still contempt of court it *not* declining is beyond your ability? If you *do* forget your password and are asked to produce it by a judge, then the court cannot fairly still hold you in contempt unless they also believe (probably without having any actual evidence to substantiate it) that you are lying to them about having forgotten.
.... wetware becomes a thing, and people start tying their passwords to their mental and emotional states, making it utterly impossible for someone to use that password to unlock a system unless they genuinely wanted to and not under any kind of duress to do so, whether by external coercion or drugs.
And when failing to surrender such passwords to the court when requested is contempt of court, you can then be held in contempt of court only for what you are thinking.
Yup, the 21st century's gonna be just great. Somebody call over the guy selling popcorn.
Actually, the only thing the employer *has* to do is offer enough money that he can find people who will do whatever job it is that he wants done. This does not have to be anything resembling what he thinks or even knows that the job may actually be worth. The only thing the employee *has* to do is fulfill the expectations of work completed that the employer has on him. That's it.
I am suggesting, however, that these are merely the minimums that one can offer at a potentially sustainable level... it's a pitifully low bar, and if it as high as anyone ever reaches, then I can only suggest that they are probably never going to be happy with themselves or their choices, or probably almost anything in their life, which is truly unfortunate. Ideally, an employer pays what an employee is *actually* worth, and not just whatever minimum amount they might be able to get one for, and the employee actually cares enough about the quality of their work that any extra time that they might spend on it without any addition remuneration is going to be inconsequential to them (because the employer is already paying them fairly anyways). This ideal is the standard that I hold to, and I do, quite frankly, think that people who settle for less either have too poor a self-esteem to believe they are actually worth more, or else who simply do not have the integrity to maintain a positive work ethic that is transferable to *ANY* job, regardless of how much money it may make a person. It is, I am sorry to say, an ideal that is not always achievable, but if I do not reach beyond whatever standard I know I might achieve, I know I can never discover my fullest potential..
And the figures you quoted are even more similar to eachother than what I can recall hearing about. I remember 80% in Canada, and 75% in the USA... Instead of a 5% disparity between the two countries, however, you are suggesting there is only a 2% one. This makes them even more similar... nearly to the point of being unobservable with regards to the amount of diversity one would encounter in the two nations without very close study, which was the underlying point I had made that was originally disputed.
Dunno where you got your figures from... but as of about 2011, about one out of every five of the population of Canada are a visible minority, compared to roughly one out of every four of the population in the USA. Canada has also been increasing in diversity in recent years far faster than the USA has, so it is likely that we will discover very soon whether that 5% difference in ethnic diversity is actually a significant factor.
Why don't you expect employers to be *passionate* about paying (not just wanting to, but actually paying) professional programmers the most they *possibly* can
Not necessarily that most that they possibly can, but certainly no less than what the employee is rightly worth, given whatever it is that they do for the company. If an employee believes they are worth more than the employer is paying, they should rightfully try and secure alternative employment. In the meantime, however, failing to perform to the best of their ability at whatever task that has been set out for them regardless of how much they might have been paid to do it it is a failure in work ethic, and that failure is going to impact their chances at the jobs that are better paying than the one they might have right now.
What I would expect both from employers and colleagues is integrity, empathy, and humility.
Dunno about that.... Canada has *roughly* the same amount of cultural diversity as the USA, and is consistently placed near the top of these kinds of lists.
Why would anyone, except inexperienced young employees, do that?
Because they care about doing the best work that they can... they want the quality of their work to be exemplary of the very best they can do, so they can take personal pride and satisfaction in how they did the job. I am over 50 years old, and have been in this industry professionally now for roughly half of my life. I don't think I'm particularly inexperienced, and the only people who ever call me young these days are those who are my parents age.
Actually, the demand I have upon employers is that they treat employees fairly and compensate them fairly for whatever work they ask them to do.... if the employer wants people to work extra hours, then he should be compensating the employees in some way for those extra hours, but people who are making a decent enough wage at what they do already are not going to typically care whether or not they get any extra remuneration for putting in more time than what they know they are actually being paid for. Studies have been done on this matter.... after a certain point, more money does not equate to more happiness or satisfaction.... but that does place a heavy onus on the employer to be treating their employees fairly and compensating them commensurate with their efforts and achievements.
There's a funny thing about money.... beyond a certain point past once mere survival ceases to be an issue (and if an employer is treating employees fairly and paying them what they should be worth, then this is most definitely an achievable thing, at least in this industry), you actually stop caring about how much more you can get. You get to have the luxury of caring about how good the work you do is *beyond* what that might mean to you financially because in the end, it isn't money that is going to give your life any sense of satisfaction with yourself or the believe that you have a life that is in any way worth living, it is your own confidence and joy that you derive from doing whatever it is that you do.
My employer does not place any overtime hour demands upon me that he does not fairly compensate me for in some way, but that does not mean I will not work overtime without renumeration on some occasions without being asked to get some tasks complete.... Truthfully, I do this more for my own benefit than the company's, because by putting in that extra time on occasion, I am able to leave work behind when I return home, and be able to fully enjoy the time with my wife and family instead of allowing a possibly nagging concern to eat at me over the night or the weekend about whether a particular task will be getting done on time.
You may be a professional, but if I may be frank on the matter, you come across as having the attitude and work ethic of a rank amateur. I've sat in at interviews with would-be colleagues who demonstrated similar attitudes, and thankfully none of them ever got hired on. I have also had the misfortune of working with a few that I did not sit in on the interview with, and in my experience, they move on quickly, rarely sticking around with any one company for more than about a year or so.
So yes.... you might get paid, but if you don't have enough of a passion to do what you get paid for to want to do the best job that you *possibly* can, regardless of what you actually might get paid to do it, then odds are going to be that you will be passed up for promotions, or let go when the economy downturns while people with more positive attitudes who genuinely cared about their work stay on, or sit back watching others move upwards along the professional ladder, leaving you trailing far behind.
Professionalism isn't just about being paid to do a job, in addittion to having the raw skill to do the job, it's also about having an attitude towards that job that merits other people *wanting* to pay you to do that job, and that generally entails having a personal investment in doing your own personal best, regardless of the size of the paycheque. After all, if your employer doesn't really *want* to pay you to do it, then at best any money you are making right now is only the result of inertia, and not because of any merits that you may have to convince them that you are *actually* worth what you make. There are no skills that you have that another cannot supply, so in the end the only real thing that you can control that will set you apart from other people and make *YOU* the best person for a job is in your attitude.
Which I am afraid, seems to need some adjustment. Good luck to you.
... is that it comes rather crossly at odds with freedom of thought. While the intent behind desiring such a notion can be laudable, and the dissemination of provably false information should be halted as quickly as possible, with the violators punished appropriately, applying such a notion to facts ultimately amounts to attempting to manipulate what other people are allowed to think, or to believe, by censoring or limiting access to whatever truthful accounts may have existed. While one might argue that is unfair to judge someone harshly for some things which might have occurred long ago, in reality, this problem is not caused by the mere availability of a historical account, since a person with a genuinely balanced perspective on the matter may see that an act committed so long ago should be thought of as inconsequential to what that person may be actually like today, and judge them instead of whatever merits they can present about themselves today. In the end, trying to erase records of misconduct just because they might make somebody continue to feel bad amounts to the effective rewriting of history, and as the saying goes, if we do not learn from the mistakes made in history, we are certain to only repeat them. However much we might want to not make someone live for the rest of their lives with the consequences of a stupid choice they might have made only once in their lives, that is, I'm afraid, just the way that life is. There are, and indeed should *always* be consequences for our choices, and if we decide that some of the most negative consequences for bad choices should be removed just because they make somebody feel bad about themselves or because they are unable to find anyone who will treat them fairly today because of it, then we are implicitly giving a commensurate level of permission to just go and do whatever stupid thing that they did again.
Not brand new, no... it's been around for about 4 years and change, but the experience is still a pretty sweet one, and considerably more recent than movie popcorn that the story alleges is the theater's only innovation.
Any appearance that I might have been suggesting that *I* was somehow more important than anyone else because I go to such lounges is a misinterpretation on your part, since I was only referring to the term "VIP" as it applies to what they happen name their lounges.
Also, they can't turn all theaters into such lounges because minors are prohibited from them, primarily by virtue of the fact that they serve alcohol.
I can't stand going to general admission shows since I first tried it a couple of years back now. Reserved seating for the movie, in-seat menu service for meals or concession before the movie starts, wider and more comfortable seats than GA, and with a bit more legroom to boot. Tickets are a bit more than GA, but man are they worth it!
Gonna go see Disney's classic tale of Stockholm syndrome tomorrow afternoon with my wife in a VIP lounge....and there won't be any screaming kids. I heartily recommend it if you are willing to shell out the extra couple of bucks per ticket for an improved theater experience.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite GPS screwup was one where we were driving south on an overpass, and the gps system told us to turn left to get onto the E/W route that the overpass was taking us on top of. Of course, since we were in the middle of a bridge, this was impossible. What we actually had to do was travel to the other side of the overpass, and then navigate back onto east-running lower route. There were no left turns involved. The driver was thoroughly pissed off with the system, ranting almost for the entire rest of the trip at the rest of us about how he was going to file a complaint with the company that supplied him with it, but I just found the whole thing hilarious. In retrospect now, though, I have just considered that the fact that I was laughing about it at the time may have just been making him angrier, which led to the 15 minute or so tirade.
You have a far higher standard of expectation upon people than I fear is actually deserved.
My point is that pets are property, robots and AI's are property.... their actions are the responsibility of the owners, even if the owner had no actual control over what they did. In the case of robots and AI's that fail to perform as advertised, the owner may in turn have a legitimate claim against the manufacturer (and in some cases, the lawsuit may transfer directly to the manufacturer leaving the owner out of the loop entirely), but if the manufacturer has already disclaimed any such responsibility where they were permitted to do so by law, then the owner is still and should be entirely accountable.
Nice analogy.... except it doesn't apply here. The amount of time that I go before upgrading my CPU, which in my experience tends to amount to buying virtually an entirely new computer system (CPU, Mobo, memory, and often a video card, and sometimes even a new case and power supply), is about 2 to 3 years. While you might conjecture that I could upgrade slightly less frequently if I were to buy Intel, I doubt somehow doubt I'd be slowing down my upgrading to every 6 to 10 years, which is about how long I'd have to go without upgrading before the cost difference between AMD and Intel would typically pay for itself.
In the UK, the difference in how they are treated is only in that cats have an implicit "right to roam" unless there are specific extenuating circumstances that will overrule it, while dogs must always be kept confined or on a leash unless there are extenuating circumstances that can overrule that. Cat owners in the UK are still expected to take reasonable steps to prevent their cat causing harm to others or damage to others' property, and they can be held responsible for their pet's actions, even while it was outside of their immediate control and care. So yes, there is a difference in how they are managed: cat owners can generally legally allow their cats to roam anywhere at any time of day or night, and dog owners cannot, but cat owners are not actually any less responsible for their pet's actions than dog owners in the UK. An owner's responsibility with an AI or robot would probably be quite similar to that of a cat.... either way, however, the owner is responsible for the actions of their property.
The employee can often be held personally accountable by the company (for certain types of things) even if the company is generally held accountable by outside parties.
... for the actions of their pets. The owner.
That's only trouble-free for people for whom the price of Intel compared to AMD is already not a concern.
So in other words, what you really mean is that what works best for a trouble-free life is to just be rich enough that you can buy your way past any problems.
And who can argue with that?
I said that those were the minimum standards that are potentially sustainable on a job, not that those standards are necessarily actually going to be considered sufficient by anyone.
Is it still contempt of court it *not* declining is beyond your ability? If you *do* forget your password and are asked to produce it by a judge, then the court cannot fairly still hold you in contempt unless they also believe (probably without having any actual evidence to substantiate it) that you are lying to them about having forgotten.
And when failing to surrender such passwords to the court when requested is contempt of court, you can then be held in contempt of court only for what you are thinking.
Yup, the 21st century's gonna be just great. Somebody call over the guy selling popcorn.
Actually, the only thing the employer *has* to do is offer enough money that he can find people who will do whatever job it is that he wants done. This does not have to be anything resembling what he thinks or even knows that the job may actually be worth. The only thing the employee *has* to do is fulfill the expectations of work completed that the employer has on him. That's it.
I am suggesting, however, that these are merely the minimums that one can offer at a potentially sustainable level... it's a pitifully low bar, and if it as high as anyone ever reaches, then I can only suggest that they are probably never going to be happy with themselves or their choices, or probably almost anything in their life, which is truly unfortunate. Ideally, an employer pays what an employee is *actually* worth, and not just whatever minimum amount they might be able to get one for, and the employee actually cares enough about the quality of their work that any extra time that they might spend on it without any addition remuneration is going to be inconsequential to them (because the employer is already paying them fairly anyways). This ideal is the standard that I hold to, and I do, quite frankly, think that people who settle for less either have too poor a self-esteem to believe they are actually worth more, or else who simply do not have the integrity to maintain a positive work ethic that is transferable to *ANY* job, regardless of how much money it may make a person. It is, I am sorry to say, an ideal that is not always achievable, but if I do not reach beyond whatever standard I know I might achieve, I know I can never discover my fullest potential..
And the figures you quoted are even more similar to eachother than what I can recall hearing about. I remember 80% in Canada, and 75% in the USA... Instead of a 5% disparity between the two countries, however, you are suggesting there is only a 2% one. This makes them even more similar... nearly to the point of being unobservable with regards to the amount of diversity one would encounter in the two nations without very close study, which was the underlying point I had made that was originally disputed.
Dunno where you got your figures from... but as of about 2011, about one out of every five of the population of Canada are a visible minority, compared to roughly one out of every four of the population in the USA. Canada has also been increasing in diversity in recent years far faster than the USA has, so it is likely that we will discover very soon whether that 5% difference in ethnic diversity is actually a significant factor.
Not necessarily that most that they possibly can, but certainly no less than what the employee is rightly worth, given whatever it is that they do for the company. If an employee believes they are worth more than the employer is paying, they should rightfully try and secure alternative employment. In the meantime, however, failing to perform to the best of their ability at whatever task that has been set out for them regardless of how much they might have been paid to do it it is a failure in work ethic, and that failure is going to impact their chances at the jobs that are better paying than the one they might have right now.
What I would expect both from employers and colleagues is integrity, empathy, and humility.
Dunno about that.... Canada has *roughly* the same amount of cultural diversity as the USA, and is consistently placed near the top of these kinds of lists.
I think you may have intended then to respond to someone else... since the aforementioned proof you quote was not provided by myself.
Because they care about doing the best work that they can... they want the quality of their work to be exemplary of the very best they can do, so they can take personal pride and satisfaction in how they did the job. I am over 50 years old, and have been in this industry professionally now for roughly half of my life. I don't think I'm particularly inexperienced, and the only people who ever call me young these days are those who are my parents age.
Actually, the demand I have upon employers is that they treat employees fairly and compensate them fairly for whatever work they ask them to do.... if the employer wants people to work extra hours, then he should be compensating the employees in some way for those extra hours, but people who are making a decent enough wage at what they do already are not going to typically care whether or not they get any extra remuneration for putting in more time than what they know they are actually being paid for. Studies have been done on this matter.... after a certain point, more money does not equate to more happiness or satisfaction.... but that does place a heavy onus on the employer to be treating their employees fairly and compensating them commensurate with their efforts and achievements.
My employer does not place any overtime hour demands upon me that he does not fairly compensate me for in some way, but that does not mean I will not work overtime without renumeration on some occasions without being asked to get some tasks complete.... Truthfully, I do this more for my own benefit than the company's, because by putting in that extra time on occasion, I am able to leave work behind when I return home, and be able to fully enjoy the time with my wife and family instead of allowing a possibly nagging concern to eat at me over the night or the weekend about whether a particular task will be getting done on time.
You may be a professional, but if I may be frank on the matter, you come across as having the attitude and work ethic of a rank amateur. I've sat in at interviews with would-be colleagues who demonstrated similar attitudes, and thankfully none of them ever got hired on. I have also had the misfortune of working with a few that I did not sit in on the interview with, and in my experience, they move on quickly, rarely sticking around with any one company for more than about a year or so.
So yes.... you might get paid, but if you don't have enough of a passion to do what you get paid for to want to do the best job that you *possibly* can, regardless of what you actually might get paid to do it, then odds are going to be that you will be passed up for promotions, or let go when the economy downturns while people with more positive attitudes who genuinely cared about their work stay on, or sit back watching others move upwards along the professional ladder, leaving you trailing far behind.
Professionalism isn't just about being paid to do a job, in addittion to having the raw skill to do the job, it's also about having an attitude towards that job that merits other people *wanting* to pay you to do that job, and that generally entails having a personal investment in doing your own personal best, regardless of the size of the paycheque. After all, if your employer doesn't really *want* to pay you to do it, then at best any money you are making right now is only the result of inertia, and not because of any merits that you may have to convince them that you are *actually* worth what you make. There are no skills that you have that another cannot supply, so in the end the only real thing that you can control that will set you apart from other people and make *YOU* the best person for a job is in your attitude.
Which I am afraid, seems to need some adjustment. Good luck to you.
... is that it comes rather crossly at odds with freedom of thought. While the intent behind desiring such a notion can be laudable, and the dissemination of provably false information should be halted as quickly as possible, with the violators punished appropriately, applying such a notion to facts ultimately amounts to attempting to manipulate what other people are allowed to think, or to believe, by censoring or limiting access to whatever truthful accounts may have existed. While one might argue that is unfair to judge someone harshly for some things which might have occurred long ago, in reality, this problem is not caused by the mere availability of a historical account, since a person with a genuinely balanced perspective on the matter may see that an act committed so long ago should be thought of as inconsequential to what that person may be actually like today, and judge them instead of whatever merits they can present about themselves today. In the end, trying to erase records of misconduct just because they might make somebody continue to feel bad amounts to the effective rewriting of history, and as the saying goes, if we do not learn from the mistakes made in history, we are certain to only repeat them. However much we might want to not make someone live for the rest of their lives with the consequences of a stupid choice they might have made only once in their lives, that is, I'm afraid, just the way that life is. There are, and indeed should *always* be consequences for our choices, and if we decide that some of the most negative consequences for bad choices should be removed just because they make somebody feel bad about themselves or because they are unable to find anyone who will treat them fairly today because of it, then we are implicitly giving a commensurate level of permission to just go and do whatever stupid thing that they did again.
Not brand new, no... it's been around for about 4 years and change, but the experience is still a pretty sweet one, and considerably more recent than movie popcorn that the story alleges is the theater's only innovation.
Any appearance that I might have been suggesting that *I* was somehow more important than anyone else because I go to such lounges is a misinterpretation on your part, since I was only referring to the term "VIP" as it applies to what they happen name their lounges.
Also, they can't turn all theaters into such lounges because minors are prohibited from them, primarily by virtue of the fact that they serve alcohol.
I can't stand going to general admission shows since I first tried it a couple of years back now. Reserved seating for the movie, in-seat menu service for meals or concession before the movie starts, wider and more comfortable seats than GA, and with a bit more legroom to boot. Tickets are a bit more than GA, but man are they worth it!
Gonna go see Disney's classic tale of Stockholm syndrome tomorrow afternoon with my wife in a VIP lounge....and there won't be any screaming kids. I heartily recommend it if you are willing to shell out the extra couple of bucks per ticket for an improved theater experience.