Another reason managers sometime cut it out of plans:
Because engineers tend to be conservative and can see all the possible ways a project can go wrong, they tend to overestimate the amount of time something will take.
Most projects I've worked on have been late (on paper) but many were completed by the time management really needed them.
Now tell me exactly how Sony can be infringing on a patent that didn't exist at the time the claimed infriging device was launched?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the U.S. patent system is based on "first to invent," not "first to file." In that case, neither the issue date of the patent nor the launch date of the PS2 are relevant. Instead, if Immersion could demonstrate in court that they invented the contested technology before Sony did, the applicable claims would be upheld.
newton's apple was cool when it was being hosted by ira flatow.
It didn't occur to me to mention it at the time, but the Ira Flatow era is exactly when I was thinking. I watched it in the 80s; haven't it seen it lately.
...she took a severance package and left the company. She returned later [the same year] as a contract worker.
Did she return to the same job? If so, might she have a case? The article makes it seem that she was laid off, then rehired into substantially the same position as a contractor.
Re:I'll take content over "hip-looking, style-lade
on
Web Design Garage
·
· Score: 1
If people like you were in charge of the world, we'd all be living in gray, concrete houses [...] but style matters
Agreed, but have you tried to read Tom Peters' Reimagine? Here's a sample chapter [PDF, 2.7 MB]. The Daily Show's America (The Book) is much the same: highly non-linear, making for a tough read.
Do they think that if they make the Wiki ONLINE POKER page #1 that nobody will go to the other 9 online poker page results returned by Google on the same page?
Finally, search creates problems for lower-literacy users...[T]hey have difficulty processing search results...As a result, [they] often simply pick the first hit on the list, even if it's not the most appropriate for their needs.
Agreed. And I have. The main problems I run into are (1) lots of deductions, which require some careful planning to account for on your W-4, and (2) bonuses, from which my employer deducts something in the neighborhood of 45%.
I should try harder to avoid the "interest-free loan" to the government, but if I did, I'd likely end up either spending the money or simply keeping it in a savings account earning 0.5%. Couple those options with the risk of owing and I'd rather take the refund.
Unlike the other replies, I'll agree that the phrase "start a startup" is awful.
However, I'd argue that it's not "how to write a chapter" when you should say "how to write a book." It's more like saying "how to write a writing."
Admittedly, there may be some connotation in the term "startup" that's intended here, but I'm of the opinion that no one should try to start a "startup," he should try to start a business.
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation.
Or, worse for the consumer, the computer industry will go the way of others where there is substantial fear of litigation, such as medicine: the increased cost of doing business, resulting from extensive patent searches, design-around efforts, and the like will be passed on to the customer.
[T]rying to treat any philosophy of open source as an economic model is doomed
I don't believe there is any merit to this simplistic view of economics, which seems so prevalent on Slashdot. For example: "Digital music files can be reproduced ad infinitum, are, therefore, without value, and thus can be traded freely with no impact to the recording industry."
None of the ingredients in a basic cake are particularly scarce. So, once the baker has sold his first 1000 cakes, he can bake more. This, and the fact that just about anyone can bake a cake, is why a basic cake costs so little. If there were only those 1000 cakes in the world, they would cost much more. This is the application of scarcity.
A better analogy would be to compare a (good) programmer and his source code with an experienced cake decorator. You can buy a sheet cake for $50, but a fancy wedding cake could cost you hundreds, I suppose. You're paying for the decorator's service, his skills. Similarly, source code, as little more than a text file, is in some sense worthless. However, not just anyone could have written the code to do what that code does, in just the way it does it. When you pay the programmer to write it, you're paying for his knowledge and experience.
Most people I know who whined about "wasting time" in high school weren't lamenting the lack of challenging, thought-provoking experiments to conduct in their spare time. They wanted more time to party and get wasted.
Graham writes, "I have about thirty friends whose opinions I care about, and the opinion of the rest of the world barely affects me." So when he asked them what they wish someone had told them in high school, he was probably asking other people who have degrees from schools like Cornell and Harvard.
My guess? Most of these types don't want "more time to party and get wasted."
Of course, in discussions on this forum, many slashdotters will argue that digital "products" (software, music files, and so forth) are not "goods," but merely "information."
Open Source in fact more capitalistic . . . It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is
I think you're trying to say that "Open Source" is more efficient. I'm not sure I see how it's more "capitialistic." (In part, it depends on precisely how you're defining "Open Source.")
Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free.
A very interesting point of discussion. In the US, copyright currently extends to life-of-the-author-plus-something. This gives an author's estate (his spouse, for example) exclusive control over his work (including the right to profit from it) after his death.
After I die, can my wife continue to derive income from the work I did for my employer while living? No. (Of course, this was work under the employ of another, so the analogy breaks down . ..)
Slashdot Mirror
And if I'm not mistaken, KC-135s at the Boeing Aerospace Support Center in San Antonio:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.375060,-98.56934 7&spn=0.005654,0.009066&t=k&hl=en
Another reason managers sometime cut it out of plans:
Because engineers tend to be conservative and can see all the possible ways a project can go wrong, they tend to overestimate the amount of time something will take.
Most projects I've worked on have been late (on paper) but many were completed by the time management really needed them.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the U.S. patent system is based on "first to invent," not "first to file." In that case, neither the issue date of the patent nor the launch date of the PS2 are relevant. Instead, if Immersion could demonstrate in court that they invented the contested technology before Sony did, the applicable claims would be upheld.
I trying make joke. Obviously bad delivery. Maybe need Joke-e-o-jigger.
Similarly, buy a comedy album and memorize it.
I did this in junior high with George Carlin's "Things to Watch Out For"
Exactly.
About a year ago...
No, that was yesterday.
Yes is.
It didn't occur to me to mention it at the time, but the Ira Flatow era is exactly when I was thinking. I watched it in the 80s; haven't it seen it lately.
What about Newton's Apple ?
Did she return to the same job? If so, might she have a case? The article makes it seem that she was laid off, then rehired into substantially the same position as a contractor.
Agreed, but have you tried to read Tom Peters' Reimagine? Here's a sample chapter [PDF, 2.7 MB]. The Daily Show's America (The Book) is much the same: highly non-linear, making for a tough read.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Maybe you'd be better off encoding all of your instant messages as quotes from British comedies translated into Latin.
Funny you should ask. From Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox posted today:
I figured I'd get this response :)
Agreed. And I have. The main problems I run into are (1) lots of deductions, which require some careful planning to account for on your W-4, and (2) bonuses, from which my employer deducts something in the neighborhood of 45%.
I should try harder to avoid the "interest-free loan" to the government, but if I did, I'd likely end up either spending the money or simply keeping it in a savings account earning 0.5%. Couple those options with the risk of owing and I'd rather take the refund.
Stupid? Probably. Easy? For sure.
Unlike the other replies, I'll agree that the phrase "start a startup" is awful.
However, I'd argue that it's not "how to write a chapter" when you should say "how to write a book." It's more like saying "how to write a writing."
Admittedly, there may be some connotation in the term "startup" that's intended here, but I'm of the opinion that no one should try to start a "startup," he should try to start a business.
Well lucky you! My tax situation this year includes:
Would you like to do my taxes? Think you could have them done in less than an hour?
For me, paying the $70 or so (net cost depends on the rebates) for TurboTax will have been well worth it when I receive my $3800 refund.
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation.
Or, worse for the consumer, the computer industry will go the way of others where there is substantial fear of litigation, such as medicine: the increased cost of doing business, resulting from extensive patent searches, design-around efforts, and the like will be passed on to the customer.
I don't believe there is any merit to this simplistic view of economics, which seems so prevalent on Slashdot. For example: "Digital music files can be reproduced ad infinitum, are, therefore, without value, and thus can be traded freely with no impact to the recording industry."
None of the ingredients in a basic cake are particularly scarce. So, once the baker has sold his first 1000 cakes, he can bake more. This, and the fact that just about anyone can bake a cake, is why a basic cake costs so little. If there were only those 1000 cakes in the world, they would cost much more. This is the application of scarcity.
A better analogy would be to compare a (good) programmer and his source code with an experienced cake decorator. You can buy a sheet cake for $50, but a fancy wedding cake could cost you hundreds, I suppose. You're paying for the decorator's service, his skills. Similarly, source code, as little more than a text file, is in some sense worthless. However, not just anyone could have written the code to do what that code does, in just the way it does it. When you pay the programmer to write it, you're paying for his knowledge and experience.
You know what I'd do if I had a million dollars?
Two chicks at once.
Graham writes, "I have about thirty friends whose opinions I care about, and the opinion of the rest of the world barely affects me." So when he asked them what they wish someone had told them in high school, he was probably asking other people who have degrees from schools like Cornell and Harvard.
My guess? Most of these types don't want "more time to party and get wasted."
Of course, in discussions on this forum, many slashdotters will argue that digital "products" (software, music files, and so forth) are not "goods," but merely "information."
Are you sure about that?
Really? Is Shrek licensed under CCLI?
I think you're trying to say that "Open Source" is more efficient. I'm not sure I see how it's more "capitialistic." (In part, it depends on precisely how you're defining "Open Source.")
A very interesting point of discussion. In the US, copyright currently extends to life-of-the-author-plus-something. This gives an author's estate (his spouse, for example) exclusive control over his work (including the right to profit from it) after his death.
After I die, can my wife continue to derive income from the work I did for my employer while living? No. (Of course, this was work under the employ of another, so the analogy breaks down . . .)
Other thoughts?