I refuse to fill those out. Hell, I refuse to fill out an "application" more than writing "see resume" on it. when I am looking I usually have 4 companies or more looking to get my attention, I am not jumping through your busywork hoops just because you want to feel important.
That's fine, you probably wouldn't be applying for one of my company's jobs in the first place, and even if you did, you probably wouldn't want to work there if filling out a job application is jumping through too many hoops. Nor would we want you there.
That might be a fun thing to do to the common people that are a dime a dozen, but I dont play silly HR games. I handed you a nice resume, and more copies of it in the interview, that is all you get.
Well, except that your resume wouldn't have made it past HR screening if you just wrote "see resume" on it.
I'm guessing you would freak out when I take a big sharpie to your contract and strike out the stuff I dont like, inital the changes, and then sign it. I do that to ALL contracts, only a fool signs a contract as written.
Well, I wouldn't freak out... I'd probably smile and take your changes, and since i'm not authorized to approve changes, I'd take your marked up contract and pass it on to Legal. Then in the 2 weeks while waiting for their review, I'd hire someone else who's more suited for the job. I don't care how good your technical skills are if you're not able to work effectively in the organization.
If my business ever grows to the point of needing H.R. this will specifically left out of their jobs. We're in a situation in the U.S. right now where anyone with a unique background or who doesn't nicely fit into an H.R. cubby hole isn't getting a job and it's a travesty. It's letting very smart and capable people sit by the side of the road while the people who simply play the game right get in.
All these H.R. rules, all the bullshit with resumes is holding things back. I would rather someone with real knowledge spend some time with the "300 resumes" than someone who thinks Microsoft Office is high tech sift through and let good candidates hit the trash because they have missed on check mark on the form.
That's great that you have the time to adequately screen every candidate, but when I have 5 job reqs open, each with 200+ resumes to screen, I really don't have the time to look at each resume (and I know I'm not the only one), so answer those screening questions carefully.
If you have a unique background, then find another way to get your resume in front of the hiring manager. This is where social networking comes in handy. I've had candidates track me down on LinkedIn and email their resume that way - I always look at those resumes since I know that it's not someone who's shotgunning his resume across every open job posting they can find regardless of relevancy to his experience.
If someone is applying for a senior developer position and includes $20 - $30K in his acceptable salary range, I'm not even going to look at his resume because he either doesn't know what someone in his position should be earning, or he's not good enough to command a reasonable salary.
So what should a junior developer with no full-time experience put down as an acceptable salary range? In general, what steps should one take to learn "what someone in his position should be earning" for each combination of job title, years of experience, and location? Is there a widely accepted set of reliable statistics?
Internet resources, recruiters, college employment counselors, friends/colleagues, online discussion groups, etc.
yes apparently...unless of course you are HR and have the responsibility of weeding potential candidates
for that you just need the ability to blindly check resumes for a list of arbitrary requirements
I've found that our HR department does a much better job of screening candidates than I do as the hiring manager -- I don't really have the time to adequately screen 300 resumes, so I'll make a first pass and screen on criteria that I can filter out using the candidate management system -- desired salary range, education level, years of experience, and the 3 questions that candidates have to fill out while applying.
And a note to job seekers: when you apply for a job online and the system asks you to answer a few specific questions about the job before you submit your resume, fill out those questions carefully, because those are weedout questions, when the hiring manager scans the list of candidates, he's not even going to look at your resume if he doesn't like the answer to those questions.
And be realistic with salary ranges, entering a range that's unrealistically low is as bad as one that's unrealistically high... don't assume that a low salary will guarantee that you'll pass the screening. If someone is applying for a senior developer position and includes $20 - $30K in his acceptable salary range, I'm not even going to look at his resume because he either doesn't know what someone in his position should be earning, or he's not good enough to command a reasonable salary.
Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.
It wasn't *his* paperwork that was wrong, it was the US Government's paperwork. As an agent of the Government, it should be incumbent upon her to help correct it. Or rather than seizing the boat, why didn't she just turn him around and send him back to Canada to await corrected paperwork.
No, this is a case where a single officer demanded that he sign the form before releasing the boat. This isn't a large number of officers, this is one officer in one case. Only a fucking moron would think that's evidence of anything other than one case.
Had you bothered to read the fucking post before responding, you would have realized that the GP acknowledged that there is a problem with DHS.
Any moron that read the article would know that there was at least one other officer involved.
And one would hope that a supervisor or senior officer had to sign off on the seizure -- if DHS allows a single officer to determine that a seizure is warranted and lets her complete the seizure with no other oversight or verification of the facts, then it sounds like the entire DHS is to blame for not requiring more oversight for a power that is so easily abused.
I think a book with the price that is higher than the paper copy of the same is one good indication.
That is the state the market is in now, there is no monopoly, and Amazon wants to lower prices. So that is certainly not an indication that a monopoly exists.
So you're assuming that Amazon will raise prices later on? And you're willing to punish a company on the basis of what it might do in the future? Also, the pricing of an ebook can be just above zero and still cover marginal production costs.
Also, I'm 30 years old. But nice way to bring in an ad hominem.
So what do you think Jeff Bezos meant when he said that Amazon is giving up short-term profits to trade for long-term growth. After they've grown as much as they can (i.e., they are a monopoly), do you think he'll tell shareholders "Thanks for your patience, we now dominate the book industry, but rather than raise prices to earn our hard won profits, we're going to continue to give up profit in order to keep prices low for consumers".
Somehow I don't believe that a billion dollar business is that altruistic, nor that shareholders would put up with it.
Except that for ebooks, there is no "artificially" low price. You can sell it for a few cents and it'll still be enough to cover the marginal costs of producing a new one.
No one can predict the future. You can't automatically assume that Amazon will raise prices later on...that's like punishing someone for a crime they haven't even committed yet.
How would you know if they are inflating prices? If Amazon did become a true monopoly over eBooks, any price they set would be the "market price" no matter how high or low.
Nothing stops a publisher from selling a DRM free ebook, if they choose to do so. Nothing stops a user from buying a DRM free ebook and using it on their reader. Check out the Calibre program. What these publishers want is to force publishers to sell all ebooks in a drm free format. Not gonna happen.
It will happen - it took the music industry a while to come to terms with selling DRM free music, and the book industry will follow, especially since books are even smaller and easier to share than music - I've seen 20GB Blu-ray rips available online, a file that size could hold 20,000 eBooks.
I think the point is that they would like to be able to sell the books as well, but the publishers have entered into a DRM related agreement with the vendors that lock other vendors out of the market. The publishers might be requiring the DRM, but if they are requiring Amazon DRM, then nobody else gets to play.
Sure, but why sue Amazon if it's the publishers that are setting DRM policy? That seems kind of like suing Exxon because the major car manufacturers require Exxon gas - Exxon may have paid GM a lot of money for that exclusive deal, but GM wasn't forced to accept the offer.
Amazon and Barnes and Noble seem to have a comparable book catalog, so it seems that publishers are happy to sell to anyone as long as they can enforce DRM.
So wait....they're complaining that this "monopoly" is keeping the prices high or low? If it's keeping the high, I don't see how other retailers can be driven out of business. If it's keeping prices low...then it's good for the customer!
I thought anti monopoly laws were meant to protect consumers and not competition as the recent dropping of the probe against Google showed.
The problem with a monopoly keeping prices artificially low is that once competitors are driven out of the market, then the monopoly is free to raise prices. They can always keep out new competition by lowering prices wherever a competitor arises.
So even if a (non-regulated) monopoly is pushing down prices, that's not always a good thing in the long run.
I hope you're joking. $15 for any fiction ebook is not a sound business model. I'd buy a good ebook for $5, but not $15.
I can only accept prices like that for certain kinds of non-fiction works where the market is smaller and the production/compilation effort is way higher.
I agree - if I'm going to pay for an eReader that takes away nearly all of the printing and distribution costs of a book along with most of the marketing costs, then I expect a significant discount on a $30 hardcover that's routinely discounted to $17 which is later sold as a $12 paperback discounted to $8.
$5 - $7 sounds more reasonable. Many Kindle books are priced higher than the discounted paper edition - even though I find reading the Kindle to be more convenient, I usually end up buying a used paperback (or even hardcover) because they are usually less than half the price of an eBook. I could even sell the used book after I'm done for a few dollars, making it even cheaper (though I usually just donate them to Goodwill)
So instead of getting $5 from me (minus the bookseller's profit), the publisher gets $0 from me for most of the books I read.
I don't understand why they are suing Amazon -- isn't it only the publishers that decide whether or not a book can be sold without DRM?
Amazon may very well have preferred pricing deals with some publishers (perhaps in part because they do support DRM), but it's still the publishers that are requiring DRM, not Amazon.
My Kindle reads non-DRM files in MOBI format just fine, so if the independents want to sell non-DRM files for Kindle customers, they can.
If you've never dealt with Amazon's confusing line-up of services, then you might overlook how hard it is to compare two services to each other.
I completely agree, but it seems a little misleading to say "Azure beats Amazon's Cloud!" when they are just looking at one tiny piece of their cloud offerings.
I wish there was a standard definition of "cloud". From the article, it sounds like they are just creating and deleting AWS S3 objects and timing the transfer rates. I guess that's in line with the traditional definition of a cloud server, but I'd be more interested in seeing how EC2 stacks up against the competition.
I'm sure S3 object benchmarks mean something to someone, but seems to be an awfully simplistic measurement. It'd be more useful to see how well each service scales across many users since individual object manipulation time is only a small part of the story for people that depend on the cloud for scalability. It could take one provider more time to manipulate a single object, but still be faster when serving that object to a million users.
That compression proved to be important due to yet another shortcoming of DynamoDB, one that nearly made me pull my hair out and encourage the team to switch back to MongoDB. It turns out the maximum record size in DynamoDB is 64K. That’s not much, and it takes me back to the days of 16-bit Windows where the text field GUI element could only hold a maximum of 64K. That was also, um, twenty years ago.
I didn't understand why he dismissed S3 to store his documents in the first place:
Amazon has their S3 storage, but that’s more suited to blob data—not ideal for documents
Why wouldn't an S3 blob be an ideal place to store a document of unknown size that you don't care about indexing? Later he says "In the DynamoDB record, simply store the identifier for the S3 object. That doesn’t sound like much fun, but it would be doable" -- is storing an S3 pointer worse than deploying a solution that will fail on the first document that exceeds 64KB, at which point he'll need to come up with a scheme to split large docs across multiple records? Especially when DynamoDB storage costs 10 times more than S3 storage ($1/GB/month vs $0.095/GB/month)
Yes, but commercial airliners aren't built with plugs and sockets. For weight savings, everything is directly hardwired. At least, in pretty much every airliner prior to the 787, and I can't imagine Boeing changing that. Military aircraft are built with plug and socket connectors, but both sides of the connection are big bulky heavy metal components
Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't make sense that field replaceable parts are hardwired in - you'd have to clip the wires to take it out, and every time you clip the wire it gets shorter, so eventually you'd have to run a new wire back to the source.
Even for parts that aren't replaced often, it seems that hardwiring would just increase the chance of error - if everytime they replace an engine someone has to sit down and manually splice 200 separate wires, that seems a lot more trouble prone than plugging in a dozen connectors that were wired in at the factory and tested on the factory test harness to be sure every wire was connected to where it should be.
When was the last time the government moved in a conservative direction (as opposed to merely slowing its march to the left)? It hasn't happened in my lifetime. And given the near monopoly the left has on the mainstream opinion-making I see no hope for it happening anytime soon.
I think it last happened when Republicans were really conservative instead of the "we are against anything the democratic party is for, and anything bad that has ever happened is Obama's fault" party.
Living in Hawaii is not quite the same as visiting there. Hawaii is small - even on Oahu (the most populated island), you can't drive any further than an hour from home (any more than that and you're on your way back home again). If you have family back on the mainland, you're an expensive 5 hour plane ride to the West Coast to visit them - worse if you're going to the East Coast. Housing is expensive too - in Honolulu, expect to pay San Francisco rates for housing, other islands and areas farther from Honolulu tend to be less expensive. Everything is expensive there because nearly everything is shipped in. Salaries tend to be lower than mainland salaries. Electricity is extremely expensive - around 30 cents/KWh. Forget getting good deals online - many places don't ship to Hawaii, or if they do, they use expensive UPS or Fedex shipping (where the least expensive shipping method is 2-day air) - USPS is affordable if you can find a vendor willing to ship via USPS. It'll be expensive to ship your household goods, and you'll pay (mostly) by volume, not be weight, so you probably won't be bringing much furniture... it'll be shipped by boat so you won't have it for a month. You can ship your car for around $1200, and it might be cheaper to do that than to sell it and buy a new one once you get there. Don't expect to be welcomed with open arms by local Hawaiians -- Hawaiians have strong family ties and social bonds, and it's hard to really fit in until you've lived on the Islands for years, and even after you've lived there for a decade or more, you still won't always be treated as a "local".
That said, for some people Hawaii really is a paradise and they are very happy there, but for others, Island Fever starts to set in after a couple years (or less). Before you pack your bags and decide to move to HI, spend a week (or more), with an eye toward what it would be like to live there (check out grocery and other household goods prices, car and gasoline prices, look at apartments, etc) make sure it's really right for you.
What about The Computer Virus? It's true that they usually need some kind of human interaction, but they do replicate without humans doing something to intentionally make it happen
I don't think anyone is claiming that malicious computer viruses should be protected by patents.
But let's say someone writes a benevolent computer virus (maybe one that automatically cleans up a malicious virus infection). The writer of the software shouldn't be able to sue me for compensation if his program inadvertently ends up on my computer. Not even if I plugged my computer into a university network (that had paid for the software) and the software ended up installing itself on my computer automatically.
I may have reaped the benefits from the software, but I didn't ask for it to be installed, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.
So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.
Doesn't MS already do that? If you install Word on another computer without a valid license key, it will either refuse to start or start a limited number of times with a nag screen warning you that it's not registered and will quit working.
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate itself. That's completely different from seeds that naturally replicate themselves and which is why you plant them in the first place. You could take one copy of a program and install it on multiple computers, but the human is doing the replicating, not the software itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to fill those out. Hell, I refuse to fill out an "application" more than writing "see resume" on it. when I am looking I usually have 4 companies or more looking to get my attention, I am not jumping through your busywork hoops just because you want to feel important.
That's fine, you probably wouldn't be applying for one of my company's jobs in the first place, and even if you did, you probably wouldn't want to work there if filling out a job application is jumping through too many hoops. Nor would we want you there.
That might be a fun thing to do to the common people that are a dime a dozen, but I dont play silly HR games. I handed you a nice resume, and more copies of it in the interview, that is all you get.
Well, except that your resume wouldn't have made it past HR screening if you just wrote "see resume" on it.
I'm guessing you would freak out when I take a big sharpie to your contract and strike out the stuff I dont like, inital the changes, and then sign it. I do that to ALL contracts, only a fool signs a contract as written.
Well, I wouldn't freak out... I'd probably smile and take your changes, and since i'm not authorized to approve changes, I'd take your marked up contract and pass it on to Legal. Then in the 2 weeks while waiting for their review, I'd hire someone else who's more suited for the job. I don't care how good your technical skills are if you're not able to work effectively in the organization.
Oh bullshit.
If my business ever grows to the point of needing H.R. this will specifically left out of their jobs. We're in a situation in the U.S. right now where anyone with a unique background or who doesn't nicely fit into an H.R. cubby hole isn't getting a job and it's a travesty. It's letting very smart and capable people sit by the side of the road while the people who simply play the game right get in.
All these H.R. rules, all the bullshit with resumes is holding things back. I would rather someone with real knowledge spend some time with the "300 resumes" than someone who thinks Microsoft Office is high tech sift through and let good candidates hit the trash because they have missed on check mark on the form.
That's great that you have the time to adequately screen every candidate, but when I have 5 job reqs open, each with 200+ resumes to screen, I really don't have the time to look at each resume (and I know I'm not the only one), so answer those screening questions carefully.
If you have a unique background, then find another way to get your resume in front of the hiring manager. This is where social networking comes in handy. I've had candidates track me down on LinkedIn and email their resume that way - I always look at those resumes since I know that it's not someone who's shotgunning his resume across every open job posting they can find regardless of relevancy to his experience.
If someone is applying for a senior developer position and includes $20 - $30K in his acceptable salary range, I'm not even going to look at his resume because he either doesn't know what someone in his position should be earning, or he's not good enough to command a reasonable salary.
So what should a junior developer with no full-time experience put down as an acceptable salary range? In general, what steps should one take to learn "what someone in his position should be earning" for each combination of job title, years of experience, and location? Is there a widely accepted set of reliable statistics?
Internet resources, recruiters, college employment counselors, friends/colleagues, online discussion groups, etc.
yes apparently...unless of course you are HR and have the responsibility of weeding potential candidates
for that you just need the ability to blindly check resumes for a list of arbitrary requirements
I've found that our HR department does a much better job of screening candidates than I do as the hiring manager -- I don't really have the time to adequately screen 300 resumes, so I'll make a first pass and screen on criteria that I can filter out using the candidate management system -- desired salary range, education level, years of experience, and the 3 questions that candidates have to fill out while applying.
And a note to job seekers: when you apply for a job online and the system asks you to answer a few specific questions about the job before you submit your resume, fill out those questions carefully, because those are weedout questions, when the hiring manager scans the list of candidates, he's not even going to look at your resume if he doesn't like the answer to those questions.
And be realistic with salary ranges, entering a range that's unrealistically low is as bad as one that's unrealistically high... don't assume that a low salary will guarantee that you'll pass the screening. If someone is applying for a senior developer position and includes $20 - $30K in his acceptable salary range, I'm not even going to look at his resume because he either doesn't know what someone in his position should be earning, or he's not good enough to command a reasonable salary.
Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.
It wasn't *his* paperwork that was wrong, it was the US Government's paperwork. As an agent of the Government, it should be incumbent upon her to help correct it. Or rather than seizing the boat, why didn't she just turn him around and send him back to Canada to await corrected paperwork.
No, this is a case where a single officer demanded that he sign the form before releasing the boat. This isn't a large number of officers, this is one officer in one case. Only a fucking moron would think that's evidence of anything other than one case.
Had you bothered to read the fucking post before responding, you would have realized that the GP acknowledged that there is a problem with DHS.
Any moron that read the article would know that there was at least one other officer involved.
And one would hope that a supervisor or senior officer had to sign off on the seizure -- if DHS allows a single officer to determine that a seizure is warranted and lets her complete the seizure with no other oversight or verification of the facts, then it sounds like the entire DHS is to blame for not requiring more oversight for a power that is so easily abused.
How would you know if they are inflating prices?
I think a book with the price that is higher than the paper copy of the same is one good indication.
That is the state the market is in now, there is no monopoly, and Amazon wants to lower prices. So that is certainly not an indication that a monopoly exists.
So you're assuming that Amazon will raise prices later on? And you're willing to punish a company on the basis of what it might do in the future? Also, the pricing of an ebook can be just above zero and still cover marginal production costs.
Also, I'm 30 years old. But nice way to bring in an ad hominem.
So what do you think Jeff Bezos meant when he said that Amazon is giving up short-term profits to trade for long-term growth. After they've grown as much as they can (i.e., they are a monopoly), do you think he'll tell shareholders "Thanks for your patience, we now dominate the book industry, but rather than raise prices to earn our hard won profits, we're going to continue to give up profit in order to keep prices low for consumers".
Somehow I don't believe that a billion dollar business is that altruistic, nor that shareholders would put up with it.
Except that for ebooks, there is no "artificially" low price. You can sell it for a few cents and it'll still be enough to cover the marginal costs of producing a new one.
No one can predict the future. You can't automatically assume that Amazon will raise prices later on...that's like punishing someone for a crime they haven't even committed yet.
How would you know if they are inflating prices? If Amazon did become a true monopoly over eBooks, any price they set would be the "market price" no matter how high or low.
Nothing stops a publisher from selling a DRM free ebook, if they choose to do so. Nothing stops a user from buying a DRM free ebook and using it on their reader. Check out the Calibre program. What these publishers want is to force publishers to sell all ebooks in a drm free format. Not gonna happen.
It will happen - it took the music industry a while to come to terms with selling DRM free music, and the book industry will follow, especially since books are even smaller and easier to share than music - I've seen 20GB Blu-ray rips available online, a file that size could hold 20,000 eBooks.
I think the point is that they would like to be able to sell the books as well, but the publishers have entered into a DRM related agreement with the vendors that lock other vendors out of the market. The publishers might be requiring the DRM, but if they are requiring Amazon DRM, then nobody else gets to play.
Sure, but why sue Amazon if it's the publishers that are setting DRM policy? That seems kind of like suing Exxon because the major car manufacturers require Exxon gas - Exxon may have paid GM a lot of money for that exclusive deal, but GM wasn't forced to accept the offer.
Amazon and Barnes and Noble seem to have a comparable book catalog, so it seems that publishers are happy to sell to anyone as long as they can enforce DRM.
So wait....they're complaining that this "monopoly" is keeping the prices high or low? If it's keeping the high, I don't see how other retailers can be driven out of business. If it's keeping prices low...then it's good for the customer!
I thought anti monopoly laws were meant to protect consumers and not competition as the recent dropping of the probe against Google showed.
The problem with a monopoly keeping prices artificially low is that once competitors are driven out of the market, then the monopoly is free to raise prices. They can always keep out new competition by lowering prices wherever a competitor arises.
So even if a (non-regulated) monopoly is pushing down prices, that's not always a good thing in the long run.
I hope you're joking. $15 for any fiction ebook is not a sound business model. I'd buy a good ebook for $5, but not $15.
I can only accept prices like that for certain kinds of non-fiction works where the market is smaller and the production/compilation effort is way higher.
I agree - if I'm going to pay for an eReader that takes away nearly all of the printing and distribution costs of a book along with most of the marketing costs, then I expect a significant discount on a $30 hardcover that's routinely discounted to $17 which is later sold as a $12 paperback discounted to $8.
$5 - $7 sounds more reasonable. Many Kindle books are priced higher than the discounted paper edition - even though I find reading the Kindle to be more convenient, I usually end up buying a used paperback (or even hardcover) because they are usually less than half the price of an eBook. I could even sell the used book after I'm done for a few dollars, making it even cheaper (though I usually just donate them to Goodwill)
So instead of getting $5 from me (minus the bookseller's profit), the publisher gets $0 from me for most of the books I read.
I don't understand why they are suing Amazon -- isn't it only the publishers that decide whether or not a book can be sold without DRM?
Amazon may very well have preferred pricing deals with some publishers (perhaps in part because they do support DRM), but it's still the publishers that are requiring DRM, not Amazon.
My Kindle reads non-DRM files in MOBI format just fine, so if the independents want to sell non-DRM files for Kindle customers, they can.
If you've never dealt with Amazon's confusing line-up of services, then you might overlook how hard it is to compare two services to each other.
I completely agree, but it seems a little misleading to say "Azure beats Amazon's Cloud!" when they are just looking at one tiny piece of their cloud offerings.
I wish there was a standard definition of "cloud". From the article, it sounds like they are just creating and deleting AWS S3 objects and timing the transfer rates. I guess that's in line with the traditional definition of a cloud server, but I'd be more interested in seeing how EC2 stacks up against the competition.
I'm sure S3 object benchmarks mean something to someone, but seems to be an awfully simplistic measurement. It'd be more useful to see how well each service scales across many users since individual object manipulation time is only a small part of the story for people that depend on the cloud for scalability. It could take one provider more time to manipulate a single object, but still be faster when serving that object to a million users.
That compression proved to be important due to yet another shortcoming of DynamoDB, one that nearly made me pull my hair out and encourage the team to switch back to MongoDB. It turns out the maximum record size in DynamoDB is 64K. That’s not much, and it takes me back to the days of 16-bit Windows where the text field GUI element could only hold a maximum of 64K. That was also, um, twenty years ago.
I didn't understand why he dismissed S3 to store his documents in the first place:
Amazon has their S3 storage, but that’s more suited to blob data—not ideal for documents
Why wouldn't an S3 blob be an ideal place to store a document of unknown size that you don't care about indexing? Later he says "In the DynamoDB record, simply store the identifier for the S3 object. That doesn’t sound like much fun, but it would be doable" -- is storing an S3 pointer worse than deploying a solution that will fail on the first document that exceeds 64KB, at which point he'll need to come up with a scheme to split large docs across multiple records? Especially when DynamoDB storage costs 10 times more than S3 storage ($1/GB/month vs $0.095/GB/month)
Yes, but commercial airliners aren't built with plugs and sockets. For weight savings, everything is directly hardwired. At least, in pretty much every airliner prior to the 787, and I can't imagine Boeing changing that. Military aircraft are built with plug and socket connectors, but both sides of the connection are big bulky heavy metal components
Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't make sense that field replaceable parts are hardwired in - you'd have to clip the wires to take it out, and every time you clip the wire it gets shorter, so eventually you'd have to run a new wire back to the source.
Even for parts that aren't replaced often, it seems that hardwiring would just increase the chance of error - if everytime they replace an engine someone has to sit down and manually splice 200 separate wires, that seems a lot more trouble prone than plugging in a dozen connectors that were wired in at the factory and tested on the factory test harness to be sure every wire was connected to where it should be.
When was the last time the government moved in a conservative direction (as opposed to merely slowing its march to the left)? It hasn't happened in my lifetime. And given the near monopoly the left has on the mainstream opinion-making I see no hope for it happening anytime soon.
I think it last happened when Republicans were really conservative instead of the "we are against anything the democratic party is for, and anything bad that has ever happened is Obama's fault" party.
Living in Hawaii is not quite the same as visiting there. Hawaii is small - even on Oahu (the most populated island), you can't drive any further than an hour from home (any more than that and you're on your way back home again). If you have family back on the mainland, you're an expensive 5 hour plane ride to the West Coast to visit them - worse if you're going to the East Coast. Housing is expensive too - in Honolulu, expect to pay San Francisco rates for housing, other islands and areas farther from Honolulu tend to be less expensive. Everything is expensive there because nearly everything is shipped in. Salaries tend to be lower than mainland salaries. Electricity is extremely expensive - around 30 cents/KWh. Forget getting good deals online - many places don't ship to Hawaii, or if they do, they use expensive UPS or Fedex shipping (where the least expensive shipping method is 2-day air) - USPS is affordable if you can find a vendor willing to ship via USPS. It'll be expensive to ship your household goods, and you'll pay (mostly) by volume, not be weight, so you probably won't be bringing much furniture... it'll be shipped by boat so you won't have it for a month. You can ship your car for around $1200, and it might be cheaper to do that than to sell it and buy a new one once you get there. Don't expect to be welcomed with open arms by local Hawaiians -- Hawaiians have strong family ties and social bonds, and it's hard to really fit in until you've lived on the Islands for years, and even after you've lived there for a decade or more, you still won't always be treated as a "local".
That said, for some people Hawaii really is a paradise and they are very happy there, but for others, Island Fever starts to set in after a couple years (or less). Before you pack your bags and decide to move to HI, spend a week (or more), with an eye toward what it would be like to live there (check out grocery and other household goods prices, car and gasoline prices, look at apartments, etc) make sure it's really right for you.
The article seems to end on a cliffhanger. What outcome is the article writer referring to? There are many that spring to mind.
Obviously the Python Software Foundation should rename the language after a lesser known snake. Maybe Mamusi or Atractaspis.
Software isn't self replicating
What about The Computer Virus? It's true that they usually need some kind of human interaction, but they do replicate without humans doing something to intentionally make it happen
I don't think anyone is claiming that malicious computer viruses should be protected by patents.
But let's say someone writes a benevolent computer virus (maybe one that automatically cleans up a malicious virus infection). The writer of the software shouldn't be able to sue me for compensation if his program inadvertently ends up on my computer. Not even if I plugged my computer into a university network (that had paid for the software) and the software ended up installing itself on my computer automatically.
I may have reaped the benefits from the software, but I didn't ask for it to be installed, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.
typical NPR.
last millennium story.
Are you saying that it's no longer an issue and companies are welcoming experienced older workers with open arms?
So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.
Doesn't MS already do that? If you install Word on another computer without a valid license key, it will either refuse to start or start a limited number of times with a nag screen warning you that it's not registered and will quit working.
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate itself. That's completely different from seeds that naturally replicate themselves and which is why you plant them in the first place. You could take one copy of a program and install it on multiple computers, but the human is doing the replicating, not the software itself.