Google is still in a bubble, they can afford high ideals. When their stock goes to $40 you might see them doing anything for a buck, although in this case I suspect the open source community would reject Google hooks in the code, or simply fork out if needed to maintain a free option for users ("FreeFox"...i should trademark that!).
He is getting is options at a ridiculous price that will likely be just a memory for many years to come. My advice - wait until it gets below $100 before even thinking of joining. Look at Yahoo - many employees joined at $150 (and falling) when they could have joined at $8...where would you rather have your options priced??? In the case of Yahoo they would have even made up their lost wages by waiting.
If you like programming, keep doing it as long as you can. If you don't like programming, stop immediately and do something you like. This applies to any field. On your deathbed you are not going to be worried about stock options, you are going to wonder if you wasted your life or not.
It seems every Richie Rich is trying to go to Mars these days. My prediction is after $100 million and no results, Bezos will get tired of it and close up.
I work at the second largest airline in the world
and now make exactly what I would be making if I had stayed in the Navy. Does
this make me overpaid?
Once again, people seem to confuse skill, aptitude, etc with wages. Wages are driven by supply and demand. Demand for pilots is about to get very out of whack with supply. At first the pilots will hold the line and try to get back to a better time of high wages, but then someone will cut the line and offer up his services at 10% less than the party line, and he will get the job. And then the party line will drop by 10%, and so on and so on, until out of work pilots no longer see any benefit in bidding on the work and the supply rationalizes.
You are not entitled to any specific wage.
Pilot pay is going to change, fast
on
United Paper Shuffle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
With so many airlines folding, its simple supply and demand. Pilot pay is going to drop and drop hard and fast. Union agreements have kept most airline employees from engaging reality for many years, but at long last they are facing reality like the rest of us. It really doesn't matter how rarefied and skilled a position is, if there are twenty people lining up to fill it, wages are going down.
if google were to go into the telecommunications business they could make a killing if they did it properly.
So though Global Crossing, MediaOne, RSN blah blah blah. I highly doubt Google has the hubris to think it can succeed where so many before (with access to so much venture/stock cash) have failed.
Google does not have access or ownership to a last-mile network, and more to the point the management of such networks is incredibly costly. If Google tried to be a later-day SBC I imagine their stock would begin to look a lot like SBC (translation: not good for present owners of GOOG).
If they were truly making such plans they would also have to hire literally tens of thousands of people, or make a monstrous acquisition. Neither of which appears in the cards from what I can tell.
They're only talking about hiring out a few experts with expertise in dealing with new fiber negotiations. Going from this to a plan to own a major telco backbone is a huge leap, they would likely have to triple their headcount to manage such an operation...one in the past that has bankrupted many other companies.
It could just be an option play - the option in the future to improve pae performance by shuttling most traffic through a Google-only backbone.
I think people may be reading too much into this. They're talking about hiring out a small number of positions. Going from that to wanting their own national fiber network is a huge leap, but I suppose its fun to speculate...
P4 systems are going for $500. You can get CRTs for FREE from almost any computer recycling dump. Gimme a break, there is no need for even welfare recipients to be running your hardware at this point.
Everyone here thinks you are talking about C. If you aren't, this thread is pointless.
Also, CS curricula are very regular across schools
on
Who Needs Harvard?
·
· Score: 1
Another point in favor of state schools is that they typically teach a curriculum that is almost identical to the best engineering schools now, often the standard ACM curriculum. Now the Ivies may have a slight edge in the average aptitude of students, but I have found the top 2% are excellent regardless of origin.
But, you know in our society people want to think paying more means better. People are confused where Mercedes gets a lower quality ranking than Kia, or when state grads are getting jobs Harvard grads aren't. Sorry kids, you don't always get what you pay for.
Agreed - I BLACK OUT education on CVs I read
on
Who Needs Harvard?
·
· Score: 1
I have found that some of the best people I have hired are from schools that I have never heard of (mostly foreign). That is not to say I have not hired good grads from CMU, MIT etc, but they aren't good because of where they went to school. Hence I now black out with a marker where someone went to school on a resume. It makes zero difference to me. If you interview well, you will get a job, regardless of your attendance at Duluth Hairdressing School or Caltech.
You know this for a fact, eh? Why don't you look at some annual reports
Yes I know it for a fact, since these facts are available to anyone who reads to annual executive compensation issues of BusinessWeek, Forbes, Fortune etc.
Why not peruse the financials of Tenet (investigated by SEC) or HealthSouth (investigated by SEC for executive fraud)? Have you even heard of these companies? Would you even know how to look this information up?
HAHAHA....no seriously...HAHAHA...have you ever worked in a Fortune 500 or S&P 500 company? Oh wait, you honestly believe that these executives are paid tens of millions of dollars because the are rare geniuses?
Let me explain how it works. Executive compensation is determined by the Board of Directors, who are often chose by the executives. See the conflict?
I won't even go into the hundreds of firms who show terrible financials yet continue to payout hundreds of millions to executives. Or the firms who actually fire the execs but still pay them tens of millions. Doesn't the notion of the golden parachute blow out your argument by definition - these people are being paid millions of dollars to make sure they don't come in to work!
JP Morgan once said that he would never invest in a firm where the difference between the lowest pay and the highest pay was 20x. He would find very few firms to invest in today.
The idea that executives are rare geniuses is a myth.
So now your saying that paying executives more is against the idea of capitalism?
No, I am saying what I have said about four times now, that if you can minimize executive pay or any type of compensation, you are by definition more efficiently allocating capital. Why do you think factories move to China?? Basic ECON 101 stuff here.
Anyways, you said the money owned by the company wasn't put in reinvestements or the share holders, but in a Yacht fund, which would be fraud.
I think its obvious that I was pointing fun at ridiculous executive compensation.
Thats not true at all, Mozilla, Apache etc all receive operating grants from "investors" (often other companies). Many projects operate on $0, but the larger ones do not. Once again, my point is that they make much more efficient use of this investor funding than many traditional corporations....making them more efficient vehicles for capital.
I am saying that given $1 of money, open source will turn it into capital (defined by economists as dynamic money used to create value), not wealth (defined by economists as static money not used to create value).
Executive compensation has almost completely moved from capital to wealth disbursements. Open source products tend to be more capitalistic, in the sense that almost all of the money they receive will be put into production.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is still in a bubble, they can afford high ideals. When their stock goes to $40 you might see them doing anything for a buck, although in this case I suspect the open source community would reject Google hooks in the code, or simply fork out if needed to maintain a free option for users ("FreeFox"...i should trademark that!).
He is getting is options at a ridiculous price that will likely be just a memory for many years to come. My advice - wait until it gets below $100 before even thinking of joining. Look at Yahoo - many employees joined at $150 (and falling) when they could have joined at $8...where would you rather have your options priced??? In the case of Yahoo they would have even made up their lost wages by waiting.
You're right. Its only by thinking small like you that we can rescue ourselves from having lives.
If you like programming, keep doing it as long as you can. If you don't like programming, stop immediately and do something you like. This applies to any field. On your deathbed you are not going to be worried about stock options, you are going to wonder if you wasted your life or not.
Until their cookies are blocked, that is.
Then the market wil respond with stable or high wages, as I have said.
It seems every Richie Rich is trying to go to Mars these days. My prediction is after $100 million and no results, Bezos will get tired of it and close up.
Once again, people seem to confuse skill, aptitude, etc with wages. Wages are driven by supply and demand. Demand for pilots is about to get very out of whack with supply. At first the pilots will hold the line and try to get back to a better time of high wages, but then someone will cut the line and offer up his services at 10% less than the party line, and he will get the job. And then the party line will drop by 10%, and so on and so on, until out of work pilots no longer see any benefit in bidding on the work and the supply rationalizes.
You are not entitled to any specific wage.
With so many airlines folding, its simple supply and demand. Pilot pay is going to drop and drop hard and fast. Union agreements have kept most airline employees from engaging reality for many years, but at long last they are facing reality like the rest of us. It really doesn't matter how rarefied and skilled a position is, if there are twenty people lining up to fill it, wages are going down.
So though Global Crossing, MediaOne, RSN blah blah blah. I highly doubt Google has the hubris to think it can succeed where so many before (with access to so much venture/stock cash) have failed.
If they were truly making such plans they would also have to hire literally tens of thousands of people, or make a monstrous acquisition. Neither of which appears in the cards from what I can tell.
They're only talking about hiring out a few experts with expertise in dealing with new fiber negotiations. Going from this to a plan to own a major telco backbone is a huge leap, they would likely have to triple their headcount to manage such an operation...one in the past that has bankrupted many other companies.
I think people may be reading too much into this. They're talking about hiring out a small number of positions. Going from that to wanting their own national fiber network is a huge leap, but I suppose its fun to speculate...
P4 systems are going for $500. You can get CRTs for FREE from almost any computer recycling dump. Gimme a break, there is no need for even welfare recipients to be running your hardware at this point.
Everyone here thinks you are talking about C. If you aren't, this thread is pointless.
But, you know in our society people want to think paying more means better. People are confused where Mercedes gets a lower quality ranking than Kia, or when state grads are getting jobs Harvard grads aren't. Sorry kids, you don't always get what you pay for.
I have found that some of the best people I have hired are from schools that I have never heard of (mostly foreign). That is not to say I have not hired good grads from CMU, MIT etc, but they aren't good because of where they went to school. Hence I now black out with a marker where someone went to school on a resume. It makes zero difference to me. If you interview well, you will get a job, regardless of your attendance at Duluth Hairdressing School or Caltech.
Yes I know it for a fact, since these facts are available to anyone who reads to annual executive compensation issues of BusinessWeek, Forbes, Fortune etc.
Why not peruse the financials of Tenet (investigated by SEC) or HealthSouth (investigated by SEC for executive fraud)? Have you even heard of these companies? Would you even know how to look this information up?
HAHAHA....no seriously...HAHAHA...have you ever worked in a Fortune 500 or S&P 500 company? Oh wait, you honestly believe that these executives are paid tens of millions of dollars because the are rare geniuses?
Let me explain how it works. Executive compensation is determined by the Board of Directors, who are often chose by the executives. See the conflict?
I won't even go into the hundreds of firms who show terrible financials yet continue to payout hundreds of millions to executives. Or the firms who actually fire the execs but still pay them tens of millions. Doesn't the notion of the golden parachute blow out your argument by definition - these people are being paid millions of dollars to make sure they don't come in to work!
JP Morgan once said that he would never invest in a firm where the difference between the lowest pay and the highest pay was 20x. He would find very few firms to invest in today.
The idea that executives are rare geniuses is a myth.
Economics does not measure revenue, it measure utility, since revenue is arbitrary based on currencies, distribution, etc etc
Which I also did not mention.
So now your saying that paying executives more is against the idea of capitalism?
No, I am saying what I have said about four times now, that if you can minimize executive pay or any type of compensation, you are by definition more efficiently allocating capital. Why do you think factories move to China?? Basic ECON 101 stuff here.
Anyways, you said the money owned by the company wasn't put in reinvestements or the share holders, but in a Yacht fund, which would be fraud.
I think its obvious that I was pointing fun at ridiculous executive compensation.
Thats not true at all, Mozilla, Apache etc all receive operating grants from "investors" (often other companies). Many projects operate on $0, but the larger ones do not. Once again, my point is that they make much more efficient use of this investor funding than many traditional corporations....making them more efficient vehicles for capital.
Where did I mention patents?
Euh, thats fraud, profit in a company either goes into the Cash balance, to the share holders as dividends or in reinvestement.
????? So on your planet executives don't get paid?
Universities should not be operating product development labs for corporations.
Executive compensation has almost completely moved from capital to wealth disbursements. Open source products tend to be more capitalistic, in the sense that almost all of the money they receive will be put into production.