Then use your in-house built electronics. Ah, too expensive? Well, tough shit, pay up or... what, no money? Maybe because of a debt that measures in trillions? Oh well, ask the Chinese for a big loan. Oh wait...:)
Yet his "grammer" and writing haven't improved. Just sayin'...
And I love some inconsistencies in the article. First he says Facebook was first in his life, then he says he was valuing himself more than Facebook. he should really make up his mind.
I will disregard you're an AC, so I'll respond. Your message proves me right. Go live in your pink world, please, where you feel safe and there are no monsters. Or so you think. I wonder what would you do if you witnessed a car crash with people getting severely injured. You'd probably promptly faint and not be able to help them. Or at most keep the distance and call 911, risking them to die because you can't help them anyway (there's going to be lots of that bad, scary thing called blood).
What reality? That horrible things happen? I actually knew that already. But most people's personal reality in the civilized world is going about most of their days more-or-less happily with little more to worry about than whether there's enough milk for the morning. Yeah, shitty things happen, and if you want to obsess over them (as the news channels seem to do) - and if it comforts you to believe that you're not one of the "sheeple" - go ahead.
No, you don't "know" it. It's a vague expression that has been carefully filtered of all garbage and trickled down to you with care, God forbid you might see a bit of blood here and there. As a result, you're "shocked" when you accidentally see a bit of true world. the world is composed of both people happily minding their business and people frantically killing others (or themselves). I prefer to be properly informed of both, so that my view won't be biased. Thankfully, I managed to know both the shadow and the light.
No, mate, the viewer might just be better in sync with how the world really is. You have no clue. Most people have no clue, and that's because their eyes are blind shut by a "world" of fake. If you live in a densely populated area (NY, LA, SanFran...), chances are that there's a murder less than 20 miles from you every single day, not to mention rapes, crippling beatings and the like. With the advent of digital cameras pretty much everywhere... expect the reality to hit you in the head more and more often. You live in a made-up world of pink and birds. Whether you want to take the red pill and wake up is up to you.
I have watched plenty deaths caught on camera (as a former civilian consultant for police departments, related to digital footage technicalities). Also, when I worked for a TV station I had to record footage of car accidents, fires, drownings, aftermaths of suicides of various sort (for police records, there was a contract which had us take footage in gruesome detail and share it with the police department). I have developed a thicker crust than most people do, and that allowed me to examine the situations without being shocked. They're shocking to watch because they are rarely seen. If you see a couple every other week for a couple years, it becomes a banality, so to speak.
Also from a financial perspective, whenever some criminal schmuck decides to take his own life, your government saves up to a few millions which otherwise would be spent on trials, imprisonment and whatnot.
You need to go back to History 101, my friend. the world's history is full of people killing other people, and themselves, sometimes at the same time. It even happens right now in some part of the world. You would call them savages. They would call you wimp. Amazingly, I think both parties are wrong at the same time. What you need to realize: we're facing different views and different cultures and there's nothing more to it. It's really THAT simple.
No offense man, but people got so soft nowadays, especially in "civilized" countries. People from Western Europe, UK, USA, Canada et al seem to have become very sensitive to what they call "gruesome" images. But at the same time they watch Saw VII or whatever. Yeah, I know one's "the real deal" and the other is "fake stuff" but really, strictly from a visual perspective pretty much any live murder or suicide is less spectacular. Grow a pair and realize you just watched some troubled complete stranger do something that's less gruesome than most thrillers/horror movies out there.
Um, yes and no. First off, I have developed a great subconscious advert avoidance. I simply don't see them in the game. I also don't read reviews (such "games" don't deserve reviews to be written, let alone read). Why do I play it? Because I'm interested of what the next level unlocks. What have they been thinking about? Oh it's this weapon, oh it's that animal. The game is based on microtransactions, not ads. Whoever is dumb enough to pay for such a lazy 3-screens implementation deserve to have their money taken away from them.
Here's a subjective reason. I have this game called Stone Age Game. You can recruit other players into your clan by typing in their ID, so people send their IDs back and forth. It's a pain to select an ID, change to another screen and then paste it in. It's boring and tedious. On a PC, I could do that in a tenth of the time. Stupid reason? Maybe, but it would at least improve my gameplay.
They are networked, allright. There's another reason why there's no action taken against the one-off offender: if the percentage of "pirates" is very very low (say, 1 in 10.000), it's simply not feasible to spend time and money to go after them. There's probably far more people who jump over the gates anyway.
It's a multinational company where in the help-desk organization people were from India, USA, Romania, Ireland, China, Chile, Mexico, Egypt, Singapore... so what you're saying is clearly not applicable.
I worked for a couple years in a helpdesk organization where breaks were tracked. In my country you are legally entitled to 10 minutes break every hour. You can take 10x 1 minute, or 1x 10 minute, or even skip a few breaks and take a larger one. At the end of the day though, you should not have more than 90 minutes of breaks. This was tracked through Avaya CMS and usually there was no action taken even if those breaks were exceeded, as long as the offended didn't blatantly exceed his break quota for an extended amount of days. It depends a lot on how does the employer interpret that data. In my company, the processes and procedures are lax, there's usually no follow up unless someone really abuses breaks. Another reason for monitoring is capacity management. You wouldn't want all your employees to go on breaks at the same time (some tend to group up when going for a smoke, that affects call flow and customers). There was a live report publicly displayed on every center using projectors, so that everyone could see whether they affect call flow or not by going in a break. Sometimes agents had a particularly nasty call and they needed to lay off the pressure by stepping away for a few minutes, and all they needed to do was ask for an exception, that was always granted. There was a guy who tried abusing that as well, so I had to talk to him for a few times and he finally got back in line. Monitoring your behavior while at work is okay. being absurd about the data is not. Fine line between those two.
It's all a matter of perspective. Being used to slooow speeds makes people not need more. It's simple habit. On the other hand, I pay the equivalent of 10 dollars a month for 100 mbit/s optical fiber transfer speed, at least metropolitan. Of course, downloading from external sources slows the transfer down to cca 20 mbit/s but I admit I mostly use metropolitan for heavy transfers. I sometimes transfer gigabytes of data (mostly pictures) to friends or family within the metropolitan network and it's blazing fast.
There's this problem of comparing unripe apples and ripe oranges. What the fuck, dudes? First of, there's this stupid comparison of ripe X versus unripe Y. Then, I'd take a less nutritive organic peach over a pesticide-filled ripe peach any day. Sure, might take me two over one in terms of nutrition, but at least those two are not sprinkled with shit.
So, my manager telling me "you're a rockstar" all the time is basically a string of lies? And me, who thought he was of an integer behavior and had a good character. Time for me to get real.
As much as I dislike management, 9 times out of 10 it's "rockstar" developers not co-operating with managers (or the rest of the team for that matter, lets not even consider how they treat "peons" like accounting and infrastructure staff).
Those were NOT rockstar coders, they were cowboy coders.
I've seen some very good managers absolutely lose it with "rockstar" devs, to the point where they've made that dev quit (easier than trying to get them fired here in Oz), oddly enough the teams performance improved once that individual left. OTOH I've seen some shocking managers completely suck up to "rockstar" devs where it's ended in catastrophe and the project manager and developer are both looking for someone else to blame.
Those were NOT rockstar coders, they were cowboy coders. Let's get our facts straight. There are coders who are unmanageable, and they can't be called rockstars, period. They lack an ingredient, and that's human interaction skills. Sure, a rockstar coder could be difficult to manage, due to mainly stubbornness or "thinking too fast", but impossible to manage? No.
BTW, people who think managers need to butt out and let the "rockstar" do their thing are deluding themselves. Left to their own devices, a "rockstar" will do what they feel like, not what the client actually needs (a lot of devs have this problem, which is why we have Project Managers to bridge that gap, the difference between a good dev and a "rockstar" dev is the good devs aren't in denial about it).
Slashdot Mirror
Then use your in-house built electronics. Ah, too expensive? Well, tough shit, pay up or... what, no money? Maybe because of a debt that measures in trillions? Oh well, ask the Chinese for a big loan. Oh wait... :)
Yet his "grammer" and writing haven't improved. Just sayin'...
And I love some inconsistencies in the article. First he says Facebook was first in his life, then he says he was valuing himself more than Facebook. he should really make up his mind.
I will disregard you're an AC, so I'll respond.
Your message proves me right. Go live in your pink world, please, where you feel safe and there are no monsters. Or so you think.
I wonder what would you do if you witnessed a car crash with people getting severely injured. You'd probably promptly faint and not be able to help them. Or at most keep the distance and call 911, risking them to die because you can't help them anyway (there's going to be lots of that bad, scary thing called blood).
Their Jedi tricks don't work on me. Only money!
True world is simply reality, which is quite a bit more than that sugar-coated censored crap that's being fed to you on TV.
What reality? That horrible things happen? I actually knew that already. But most people's personal reality in the civilized world is going about most of their days more-or-less happily with little more to worry about than whether there's enough milk for the morning. Yeah, shitty things happen, and if you want to obsess over them (as the news channels seem to do) - and if it comforts you to believe that you're not one of the "sheeple" - go ahead.
No, you don't "know" it. It's a vague expression that has been carefully filtered of all garbage and trickled down to you with care, God forbid you might see a bit of blood here and there. As a result, you're "shocked" when you accidentally see a bit of true world.
the world is composed of both people happily minding their business and people frantically killing others (or themselves). I prefer to be properly informed of both, so that my view won't be biased. Thankfully, I managed to know both the shadow and the light.
On the other hand, keeping world violence hidden from people leads to people who have no idea how real world is.
No, mate, the viewer might just be better in sync with how the world really is. You have no clue. Most people have no clue, and that's because their eyes are blind shut by a "world" of fake. If you live in a densely populated area (NY, LA, SanFran...), chances are that there's a murder less than 20 miles from you every single day, not to mention rapes, crippling beatings and the like.
With the advent of digital cameras pretty much everywhere... expect the reality to hit you in the head more and more often.
You live in a made-up world of pink and birds. Whether you want to take the red pill and wake up is up to you.
I have watched plenty deaths caught on camera (as a former civilian consultant for police departments, related to digital footage technicalities). Also, when I worked for a TV station I had to record footage of car accidents, fires, drownings, aftermaths of suicides of various sort (for police records, there was a contract which had us take footage in gruesome detail and share it with the police department). I have developed a thicker crust than most people do, and that allowed me to examine the situations without being shocked.
They're shocking to watch because they are rarely seen. If you see a couple every other week for a couple years, it becomes a banality, so to speak.
Also from a financial perspective, whenever some criminal schmuck decides to take his own life, your government saves up to a few millions which otherwise would be spent on trials, imprisonment and whatnot.
You need to go back to History 101, my friend. the world's history is full of people killing other people, and themselves, sometimes at the same time. It even happens right now in some part of the world. You would call them savages. They would call you wimp. Amazingly, I think both parties are wrong at the same time.
What you need to realize: we're facing different views and different cultures and there's nothing more to it. It's really THAT simple.
No offense man, but people got so soft nowadays, especially in "civilized" countries. People from Western Europe, UK, USA, Canada et al seem to have become very sensitive to what they call "gruesome" images. But at the same time they watch Saw VII or whatever. Yeah, I know one's "the real deal" and the other is "fake stuff" but really, strictly from a visual perspective pretty much any live murder or suicide is less spectacular.
Grow a pair and realize you just watched some troubled complete stranger do something that's less gruesome than most thrillers/horror movies out there.
Um, yes and no.
First off, I have developed a great subconscious advert avoidance. I simply don't see them in the game. I also don't read reviews (such "games" don't deserve reviews to be written, let alone read). Why do I play it? Because I'm interested of what the next level unlocks. What have they been thinking about? Oh it's this weapon, oh it's that animal.
The game is based on microtransactions, not ads. Whoever is dumb enough to pay for such a lazy 3-screens implementation deserve to have their money taken away from them.
Here's a subjective reason. I have this game called Stone Age Game. You can recruit other players into your clan by typing in their ID, so people send their IDs back and forth. It's a pain to select an ID, change to another screen and then paste it in. It's boring and tedious. On a PC, I could do that in a tenth of the time.
Stupid reason? Maybe, but it would at least improve my gameplay.
They are networked, allright. There's another reason why there's no action taken against the one-off offender: if the percentage of "pirates" is very very low (say, 1 in 10.000), it's simply not feasible to spend time and money to go after them. There's probably far more people who jump over the gates anyway.
It's a multinational company where in the help-desk organization people were from India, USA, Romania, Ireland, China, Chile, Mexico, Egypt, Singapore... so what you're saying is clearly not applicable.
I worked for a couple years in a helpdesk organization where breaks were tracked. In my country you are legally entitled to 10 minutes break every hour. You can take 10x 1 minute, or 1x 10 minute, or even skip a few breaks and take a larger one. At the end of the day though, you should not have more than 90 minutes of breaks.
This was tracked through Avaya CMS and usually there was no action taken even if those breaks were exceeded, as long as the offended didn't blatantly exceed his break quota for an extended amount of days.
It depends a lot on how does the employer interpret that data. In my company, the processes and procedures are lax, there's usually no follow up unless someone really abuses breaks.
Another reason for monitoring is capacity management. You wouldn't want all your employees to go on breaks at the same time (some tend to group up when going for a smoke, that affects call flow and customers). There was a live report publicly displayed on every center using projectors, so that everyone could see whether they affect call flow or not by going in a break. Sometimes agents had a particularly nasty call and they needed to lay off the pressure by stepping away for a few minutes, and all they needed to do was ask for an exception, that was always granted. There was a guy who tried abusing that as well, so I had to talk to him for a few times and he finally got back in line.
Monitoring your behavior while at work is okay. being absurd about the data is not. Fine line between those two.
The IPO debacle hurt Facebook's image as a company. Share prices expect to soar, they fell instead. Company image affected.
I said the IPO was FACEBOOK's biggest mistake, not Mark's. If you don't see the difference, oh well...
Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
There, fixed that for him.
It's all a matter of perspective. Being used to slooow speeds makes people not need more. It's simple habit. On the other hand, I pay the equivalent of 10 dollars a month for 100 mbit/s optical fiber transfer speed, at least metropolitan. Of course, downloading from external sources slows the transfer down to cca 20 mbit/s but I admit I mostly use metropolitan for heavy transfers. I sometimes transfer gigabytes of data (mostly pictures) to friends or family within the metropolitan network and it's blazing fast.
There's this problem of comparing unripe apples and ripe oranges. What the fuck, dudes?
First of, there's this stupid comparison of ripe X versus unripe Y. Then, I'd take a less nutritive organic peach over a pesticide-filled ripe peach any day. Sure, might take me two over one in terms of nutrition, but at least those two are not sprinkled with shit.
And Dungeon Siege 1, Legends of Aranna and DS2.
DS3 is a pile of shit.
So, my manager telling me "you're a rockstar" all the time is basically a string of lies? And me, who thought he was of an integer behavior and had a good character. Time for me to get real.
Therefore: bad managers. As I was saying :)
As much as I dislike management, 9 times out of 10 it's "rockstar" developers not co-operating with managers (or the rest of the team for that matter, lets not even consider how they treat "peons" like accounting and infrastructure staff).
Those were NOT rockstar coders, they were cowboy coders.
I've seen some very good managers absolutely lose it with "rockstar" devs, to the point where they've made that dev quit (easier than trying to get them fired here in Oz), oddly enough the teams performance improved once that individual left. OTOH I've seen some shocking managers completely suck up to "rockstar" devs where it's ended in catastrophe and the project manager and developer are both looking for someone else to blame.
Those were NOT rockstar coders, they were cowboy coders.
Let's get our facts straight. There are coders who are unmanageable, and they can't be called rockstars, period. They lack an ingredient, and that's human interaction skills. Sure, a rockstar coder could be difficult to manage, due to mainly stubbornness or "thinking too fast", but impossible to manage? No.
BTW, people who think managers need to butt out and let the "rockstar" do their thing are deluding themselves. Left to their own devices, a "rockstar" will do what they feel like, not what the client actually needs (a lot of devs have this problem, which is why we have Project Managers to bridge that gap, the difference between a good dev and a "rockstar" dev is the good devs aren't in denial about it).
Yes, here we agree completely.