This isn't about some ideal of responsibility. This is about the correct way to get productivity out of your employees, and it just happens to involve making reasonable deadlines.
Why do you assume the people working there care about putting in an honest day's work, as opposed to getting away with simply being there to collect their hours for their paycheck?.
I may be naive, but I'm not pathetic and complacent. Complacency is accepting that people are lazy and letting them be that way, I think it's better to assume that people are hard working and let the others filter away.
The guy even says they miss deadlines and the code they produce is crap.
So the people who make the deadlines are at fault. If they loosened their deadlines, code would be done on time and there would be time to make good code, which would save time and make people even more productive later on.
A telepath can by definition read minds and a clairvoyant can by definition see the future. The people who think they can but can't aren't telepaths or clairvoyants, they're frauds.
I hate to be asking the obvious but what's wrong with institutionalized racism? When you're violating some people's human rights, I understand that, but a choice between searching a random 5% and the Muslim 5% seems like a neutral decision.
The idea that people should be able to gain things with no effort (here money representing that effort) is the same as suggesting people not be rewarded for their actions.
There is nothing wrong with gaining something. Everyone has a right to pursue their own happiness. Laws were intended to prevent harm, not to prevent people from gaining something without a corporation making money off of it. I agree that if you enjoy an artist you should want to support them, and many people do voluntarily support their artists (see Radiohead, and even Wikipedia is supported by voluntary donation) but I actually think people's ability to find artists they like and want to support will be increased by making content freely accessible.
As for "artists are being paid too well", the argument is that they're getting rich right now so they'll keep creating even if we take out some of the means of gaining them money. Movie theaters and concerts are big, profitable business (even for expensive movies like Avatar, which just made $1 bil off of $300 mil in a few weeks), and the ability to freely fileshare won't hurt them significantly.
As for Gas Powered Games, I have no opposition to keeping pirates off of online servers - it's trivially enforceable and there's a strong argument that bandwidth costs a lot of money per person so each person should pay for it.
Enjoying a song without permission = $22,500 Growing a plant without permission = 5 years Illegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profit
This isn't a court of law where we're resurrecting them and killing them again. These are merely jokes. I don't have anything against random people on the internet laughing at my stupid mistakes, and I, being living, still have a reputation to uphold.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't trust Stephen Colbert. Why do you ask?
An iPhone is personal, and it's a computer. That makes it, by definition, a PC. Sorry to spoil your marketing-induced ideas of what a "PC" is.
This isn't about some ideal of responsibility. This is about the correct way to get productivity out of your employees, and it just happens to involve making reasonable deadlines.
this?
I hate Silverlight because it's Microsoft trying to destroy the multiplatform nature of the web.
Why do you assume the people working there care about putting in an honest day's work, as opposed to getting away with simply being there to collect their hours for their paycheck?.
I may be naive, but I'm not pathetic and complacent. Complacency is accepting that people are lazy and letting them be that way, I think it's better to assume that people are hard working and let the others filter away.
The guy even says they miss deadlines and the code they produce is crap.
So the people who make the deadlines are at fault. If they loosened their deadlines, code would be done on time and there would be time to make good code, which would save time and make people even more productive later on.
So was my post.
A telepath can by definition read minds and a clairvoyant can by definition see the future. The people who think they can but can't aren't telepaths or clairvoyants, they're frauds.
He said goddam. As in "Go, Drunk Drivers Against Mothers!"
720 * 480 = 345600 pixels
800 * 400 = 320000 pixels
You put the top of the screen on the right and make up for the remaining 25600 with... uh... the battery light.
I hate to be asking the obvious but what's wrong with institutionalized racism? When you're violating some people's human rights, I understand that, but a choice between searching a random 5% and the Muslim 5% seems like a neutral decision.
def post(parent): return parent
Probably. As a social, political and economic question, no.
Annual revenue of Microsoft = 40 billion per year, of which about 1/4 is profit
Fine = 900 million
A few days is about half an order of magnitude low but it's still the equivalent of a speeding ticket for the average person.
They did give the market share. 21% in the surveys, 6% now. Is even reading TFS not fashionable now?
The idea that people should be able to gain things with no effort (here money representing that effort) is the same as suggesting people not be rewarded for their actions.
There is nothing wrong with gaining something. Everyone has a right to pursue their own happiness. Laws were intended to prevent harm, not to prevent people from gaining something without a corporation making money off of it. I agree that if you enjoy an artist you should want to support them, and many people do voluntarily support their artists (see Radiohead, and even Wikipedia is supported by voluntary donation) but I actually think people's ability to find artists they like and want to support will be increased by making content freely accessible.
As for "artists are being paid too well", the argument is that they're getting rich right now so they'll keep creating even if we take out some of the means of gaining them money. Movie theaters and concerts are big, profitable business (even for expensive movies like Avatar, which just made $1 bil off of $300 mil in a few weeks), and the ability to freely fileshare won't hurt them significantly.
As for Gas Powered Games, I have no opposition to keeping pirates off of online servers - it's trivially enforceable and there's a strong argument that bandwidth costs a lot of money per person so each person should pay for it.
Enjoying a song without permission = $22,500
Growing a plant without permission = 5 years
Illegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profit
I think there's an inverse relationship here.
Grow up and pay the $675,000 fine for sharing 30 songs?
There's one word you could remove from that sentence and have it remain grammatically, orthographically and factually correct...
This isn't a court of law where we're resurrecting them and killing them again. These are merely jokes. I don't have anything against random people on the internet laughing at my stupid mistakes, and I, being living, still have a reputation to uphold.
Last time I checked, Congress still has 535 members.
Why is it distasteful to insult the dead?
One bookbook to contain them all...
Offtopic? CN Tower? Hello?