This has nothing to do with database design. It has to do with programming language design. BNF, or Backus Naur Form is basically a way of describing the syntax of a programming language in a precise way. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with database design. It's not useful for really anything outside of acadamia other than writing a compiler using bison/yacc. I've written a vrml parser, and so could answer some questions about it, but would be annoyed if I was interviewing for a LAMP position and they threw out there. I would think they were incompetent. Maybe you're thinking of BCNF, or Boise Codd Normal Form, which IS related to database design?
Uggh.. Open source resembles research science. Like research scientists, open source programmers are not purely motivated by money, but that's not the same as working for free. People that get in early get a lot of fame, consulting gigs, endorsement opportunities, book deals, and other positive externalities due to the fact that they were first. They aren't doing it for "free", and as the number of programmers increases, the chance of getting these positive side benefits goes down greatly, and as a result so does motivation. Assuming that there is going to be a never ending stream of grunts to do the work once positive externalities go away is naive.
The problem isn't that ubuntu sucks, it's quite good. The problem is that apps developers need to get paid, and as a business, they have to target the biggest platform first. They can't spread their costs over a huge population the way an OS maker can. That's not to say ubuntu won't eventually win, but let's not assume we're looking at some exponential curve with a near-term revolution. We may very well be near saturation when it comes to willingness of developers to work on open source, as much of the high profile work has been claimed, and politics makes it less likely for newcomers to get that instant fame. I expect it to be a long, slow grind.
I should clarify, I started out 10 years ago, in a completely different economy. Still having a focused resume with a portfolio of relevant applications made the interview process MUCH easier.
1. Pick a specialty or two. Maybe you're interested in computer graphics, great, learn OpenGL, or maybe you want to work with databases, fine, learn the API's. 2. Do one or more of the following:
a. Write a few small, relevant, open-source programs that you can show to prospective employers.
b. Work on a few relevant open-source projects to help build networking/contacts.
c. Do an internship and write a few small relevant programs that you can discuss during the interview, this is also good for networking 3. Have a backup plan if you can't get a job. Try to pick a specialty where, if worst comes to worse, you can sell the applications you write, maybe even starting your own business.
The above is the catch 22, no one wants to train people, especially in this economy. I got a job out of school because I learned the relevant knowledge (OpenGL) to my field, and had a portfolio of applications that I wrote outside of school. The kind of guy that is most likely to get a job is the guy that can laugh at job offers because he knows that he has all the skills necessary to write the application on his own and keep the profits for himself. Looking back on it, I think my biggest mistake was not pursuing my own business more seriously. You will always make more money if you can cut out the middle man (your employer), and run your own business. Sure, you take risks, but in this economy, EVERYTHING is risky, and it's also risky to be an expendable employee, with debt, in a low-paying entry level job.
To get an idea of what Chavez has to deal with, imagine if the nutcases running the tea party were in charge, and that Fox News was every station. Imagine Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh multipied by about 100x. Imagine that they not only advocated overthrowing the government, but actually put those words into action in an unsuccessful coup attempt. They cooperated with the military and helped promote the transition to a new government before Chavez's followers put him back into office. In the US, they wouldn't be alive after something like that. It would be called treason and they would be hung. We would hang them, and then we would go on to talk about how repressive other societies are. In Venezuela, the wealthy have so much power that he had little choice but to let them continue for another 8 years until their licenses ran out. To describe the situation as a power hungry dictator ruling with an iron fist is just bonkers.
Agreed. That is not fast, at all. I think I've thrown together machines faster than that in the excitement of getting new hardware up and running. I think it would be more impressive if they were required to get them to boot, not to mention small details like hooking up the power and reset buttons, etc.
Agreed (ok, maybe they'll do it eventually, but 20 years?). These "experts" must have enormous egos to think that they are going to create artificial intelligence in 20 years. In what other field do people make such stupid predictions? I work in bio informatics and our ability to sequence genomes is increasing at a huge rate (think moore's law and then some), but do I think we'll have completely figured it all out in 20 years? Not a chance.
I do think IT is cyclical. It's not 9-5. What the submitter describes is probably a company that is in the slow part of it's development cycle, not in crunch time. But, it sounds like he's so green he doesn't realize it.
I'm sorry, but there is a big difference between doing the same thing over and over, and doing something new and different each time. The first type of work is very easy to commoditize and automate, the second is not. I've done many jobs, from fast food, to digging ditches, to programming. Programming is the only job where I have to be "here" to get work done. In many other jobs, I could space out completely, write music in my head, solve tough programming problems, etc. You can't do that with programming, and that makes it much more difficult. I think it's going to take a very long time for other countries to catch up in IT. Right now, programmers in the 3rd world are very demotivated. They slack quite a bit more than we do in the US. After all, if they get fired, they can go somewhere else and get another job the next day. Their market is going through something similar to the US in the 1990's. I don't expect it to change any time soon.
To expect someone in the 3rd world to be wealthy enough (upper class and wealthy over there) to afford university education, but subservient enough to work as hard as US intellectuals is completely moronic. It's not factory work, you can't just grab any peasant off the street and make them a programmer. So, you're not going to see them competing with us as programmers in the same way that you see them competing with us in consumer electronics production. You need educated people to program, which over there, is upper-class people, who are used to having servants, and relatively speaking, lazy.
Here's another way to think about it. Think about walking, it's pretty obvious and easy to do, right? Now, think about how you would explain what you do when you are walking, in a way that would be impossible to get wrong, and that takes into account every single input variable. Think about all of the algorithms you would have to use to manage the interaction of this input.
While programmers don't have to do tasks that hard every day, it gives you an idea of the kind of problems that programmers face when dealing with people who have no knowledge of how computers work. Walking is easy for humans, but to figure out HOW you actually do it, and getting a machine to do it, is very, very hard. I had a boss who literally couldn't even say what he wanted done. He would often forget very important details, and not even have a name for what he wanted, yet expected me to figure it out and automate it very quickly. Even making software "smart" enough to make the right decision is difficult. You have to sit down and think about exactly how a decision is made, and what variables are used to come to that decision. Often times, for humans, this process is completely unconscious, and making it conscious, and obvious, is very hard. Basically, you are highlighting what is important, making the previously invisible, visible.
Change your job description to working on a different organism with completely different anatomy each time, with new problems each time, and you're getting close to what programmers have to deal with. There are no "procedures" in programming. Nothing is rote, it's improvised problem solving, often for unique problems that is outside one's domain of expertise, which requires learning quite a bit of new information in order to properly understand the problem. Sure, there are patterns, and other techniques designed to help standardize approaches to certain classes of problems, but even then, getting too locked into these approaches can make things worse, not better. I've worked many jobs, from research in chemistry to IT, and programming is one of the only ones where there is very little auto-pilot. You have to be on and 100% engaged, and it's exhausting.
As far as the competition, I've seen it, the best and brightest from the 3rd world, working over here, and I'm not impressed. It's a bluff that people who don't know better like to use, but the threat isn't very real.
Re:How to turn your skilled employees into cogs
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
I'm beginning to think the issue is that the mis-application of Agile/XP can result in some of the most extreme micro-management that I've ever seen. Combine that with no offices, open work environment, etc, and I think when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.
Shouldn't this also be part of the discussion? If half the time people try it they screw it up miserably, then that's a failing of XP, in my opinion. Poor execution of XP would also explain the wide variability in opinion about XP.
Re:How to turn your skilled employees into cogs
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
With the adoption of XP, went boundaries went out the window where I work. I'll often come in to find someone sitting at my desk, or people will have impromptu meetings wherever, whenever. This drives me nuts. When a group of people is sitting so close to you that your chair bumps into theirs, it's a bit much. It's ridiculous, which is sad, because other than the work environment, it's a good place to work.
The biggest problem that I find with agile is that it's too easy to implement incorrectly, and the overall sweatshop environment means that productivity won't dip right away, as everyone is being watched. Many managers read about it and think, "Great, we can get rid of their offices, put them all out in the open, and throw out any kind planning." I think in the long run it will fail in a slow, painful way, as people get fed up and leave. Then, when productivity finally drops, management will receive the feedback that maybe their implementation is wrong.
Re:How to turn your skilled employees into cogs
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
My hope is that it will fail. However, I've seen over and over that just because something should fail, doesn't mean it will. It's all a matter of what people will put up with. Unfortunately, markets don't always teach us the correct lesson, or measure the correct variables.
Re:How to turn your skilled employees into cogs
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
Right, because goofing off is only allowable for managers, who have their own offices, not programmers. After all, we all know that having a desk in a quiet, distraction free location means that one is up to no good. What other reason would someone want this kind of environment? The same goes for libraries and other quiet settings, it clearly means that people are up to no good.
You're going to overlook quite a few very talented programmers with that kind of attitude.
How to turn your skilled employees into cogs
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the appeal with agile development is that it removes any barriers that programmers might have, such as rigid milestones, etc, and basically allows management to do what they want in terms of setting goals. It also is appealing to management because the knowledge sharing implies that they can get rid of their most expensive employees after a period of time (once the knowledge has dispersed). Specialized knowledge is an anathema to management, as it means that you have to pay that person more, and it's critical to the business, it's harder to fire them.
We have to evaluate agile based on it's real world results, not what the books describe. In the real-world, agile creates a very high-pressure work environment, where personal space is non-existent, everyone is watching you, and your work is constantly on display. This pressure can produce productivity gains but I would say that in the long run these gains aren't sustainable. I think agile is a very poor fit for your average introvert, which, imagine that, describes most programmers very well. What I believe will happen is that over time the better developers will move to a work place where things aren't quite so agile.
In the mean time, throwing out such ideas as design first, is going to cost us, big time. I think that software quality will drop, but it won't be obvious, as "quality" and "productivity" aren't things that are easily measurable. Often times, managers walk through a room, and if they see a bunch of people typing away or debating some design issue, then they see that busyness as productivity. No, I think the drop in productivity will become apparent when non-agile competitors clean their clocks, but then it will be too late.
Another thing is, if you still live in the same house, the first thing you do is disconnect a hard drive cable, or screw with the bios, and leave it so that it won't boot, then walk away for a few days. That way they can't use it while you are "working on it". Remember, you want this to be inconvenient for them. You want their experience of you working on their computer to be as traumatic as possible for maximum effect.
When my dad has PC problems, I tell him to bring it over, and that it will take a few weeks, and that I'll call him when it's done. I don't work on it unless I am already at my desk doing something else. That way I can get work done while waiting for his machine to reboot. The length of time that I take, combined with knowing that he has to make a trip to my house to drop it off and pick it up, keeps him from using me much. So, next time they have a problem, be sure to leave their machine out of commission for a week or two. If you finish and they have more problems, tell them to bring it back and that it will be another few weeks.
Eventually they'll stop using you, as it will no longer be convenient. I do the same thing with friends, "Go ahead and drop it off, and I'll try to find some time to get it up and running. It'll probably be a couple of weeks, because I'm pretty busy." If they say something like, "Can you tell me when you'll have time?" Answer, "No, I don't have much time, I'm just going to have to fit it in when I get a chance." If they get pushy, just tell them you don't have any time, or it'll be next month.
If they try to get answers over the phone, just keep repeating that you don't know until they get the hint.
I've found that saying no can sometimes really upsets people, but taking a few weeks to fix it doesn't. And you're guaranteed that after taking a few weeks they won't be bringing it back any time soon.
I think this is somewhat exaggerated. You have to tailor your advice to the audience. Remember that 1/3 of americans are obese, and that our tendency to over-consume is our main problem. Exercise won't fix this.
I've done my share of weightlifting and add muscle fairly easily. That said, at 5'11 and 255 at the start of this summer, the last thing I was going to do for weight loss was lift weights. Sure, I could have built up quite a bit of muscle starting with that base. But in the end, I still would have weighed 250ish, with all the joint aches and other problems that go with it. Make no mistake, your average power lifter, nfl linebacker, etc, at 250+ lbs, has problems, no matter how much they train. It's far better to get the weight down to something more reasonable, THEN exercise, than it is to subject one's joints and tendons to the pounding that they will take at a weight of 255. I'm now down to 220, do some light walking and jogging, etc, and once I'm down to 200, will add in regular exercise to help keep the weight off while eventually stopping at 180.
I'm sure I've lost muscle, but it's really not that big of a deal. Muscle can be added later, once my weight is down to something safe. That said, my knees, feet, and ankles no longer hurt and I'm much lighter on my feet. For me, getting the weight off first was worth it.
Good point with mentioning CISC having nothing to do with it. It's 1999, and apple and sun want their (RISC vs CISC) marketing back. What's incredibly ironic, is that the original poster didn't realize that the 360 is using a PowerPC core. Even more ironic is that even apple gave up that battle and is using intel chips. Worse, as I would always mention to my apple fanboy friends, there is no such thing as CISC as it's described in marketing literature, as modern CISC CPU's break instructions down into microcode, and run them on what's the equivalent of a RISC core (I could see steam coming out of their ears when I would mention that). But, I suppose the PS3 IS awesome at folding at home, we can give them that much.:) And, it's a great bluray player, that's what I use mine for.
Just to add to this train of thought thought. If schools published charts of average debt to income ratio for graduates, I think that would do a lot to get people to inject a bit of reality into student's choice of major and overall direction in life. They could even break it down by major, and throw in mean, median, standard deviation, etc, to make it more interesting.:)
My wife and I talked about this last night. While on the one hand, I don't expect someone with such a low GPA to get handed job offers right and left, I do think that there is something criminal about loading up someone who is lucky to get a job at McDonald's with $100,000 in debt, debt which cannot be discharged by bankruptcy. People are forced to take on this debt when they are fresh out of high school, and pressured into going to school at a time in their life when their perspective, and ability to think rationally is compromised due to lack of real-world experience. Schools should be more up-front about what a graduate's prospects really are going to be.
I have a window unit that can cool roughly 500 sq ft that draws 120 V x 13 amps, which is 1500 watts. I suppose if the prius is towing a large home behind it, it will need 5000 Watts to cool it.
I don't see it. A very small AC compressor that would draw 800-1000 watts is all you would need to cool a bedroom, cut it in half for the size of small car cabin, so that's maybe 400 watts. You can knock 30% off that, because it won't run all the time. So, it's maybe 300 watts. Keep in mind, this battery takes 220V x 30 amps for 8 hours to charge. If the battery is above 90% efficiency (most lions are well above this in terms of charging effiency), then it should be capable of returning the power it takes to charge it, which is roughly 6000 watts, for 8 hours. The effects of AC would be negligible. In the winter, it would be a bit worse. You would probably need the equivalent of a 1500 - 3000 watt space heater to warm the air. Heating requires quite a bit more electricity than AC does. Realistically, you're not going to take 8 hours to go 100 miles, you're going to take 2-3 hours tops. If we calculate the watt hours of the battery, it's 8hours x 6600 watts, which is 52800 Wh. If we assume a heater will need to run at 3000 watts (completely on, because you live in Alaska, right?) for that 3 hours, then it will use 9000 Watt hours, or a little less than 20% of your battery life. In that case, the car would go 80 miles instead of 100, not a big deal in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
This has nothing to do with database design. It has to do with programming language design. BNF, or Backus Naur Form is basically a way of describing the syntax of a programming language in a precise way. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with database design. It's not useful for really anything outside of acadamia other than writing a compiler using bison/yacc. I've written a vrml parser, and so could answer some questions about it, but would be annoyed if I was interviewing for a LAMP position and they threw out there. I would think they were incompetent. Maybe you're thinking of BCNF, or Boise Codd Normal Form, which IS related to database design?
Uggh.. Open source resembles research science. Like research scientists, open source programmers are not purely motivated by money, but that's not the same as working for free. People that get in early get a lot of fame, consulting gigs, endorsement opportunities, book deals, and other positive externalities due to the fact that they were first. They aren't doing it for "free", and as the number of programmers increases, the chance of getting these positive side benefits goes down greatly, and as a result so does motivation. Assuming that there is going to be a never ending stream of grunts to do the work once positive externalities go away is naive.
The problem isn't that ubuntu sucks, it's quite good. The problem is that apps developers need to get paid, and as a business, they have to target the biggest platform first. They can't spread their costs over a huge population the way an OS maker can. That's not to say ubuntu won't eventually win, but let's not assume we're looking at some exponential curve with a near-term revolution. We may very well be near saturation when it comes to willingness of developers to work on open source, as much of the high profile work has been claimed, and politics makes it less likely for newcomers to get that instant fame. I expect it to be a long, slow grind.
What a shock, people actually work harder for money than they do when it's forced labor.
I should clarify, I started out 10 years ago, in a completely different economy. Still having a focused resume with a portfolio of relevant applications made the interview process MUCH easier.
1. Pick a specialty or two. Maybe you're interested in computer graphics, great, learn OpenGL, or maybe you want to work with databases, fine, learn the API's.
2. Do one or more of the following:
a. Write a few small, relevant, open-source programs that you can show to prospective employers.
b. Work on a few relevant open-source projects to help build networking/contacts.
c. Do an internship and write a few small relevant programs that you can discuss during the interview, this is also good for networking
3. Have a backup plan if you can't get a job. Try to pick a specialty where, if worst comes to worse, you can sell the applications you write, maybe even starting your own business.
The above is the catch 22, no one wants to train people, especially in this economy. I got a job out of school because I learned the relevant knowledge (OpenGL) to my field, and had a portfolio of applications that I wrote outside of school. The kind of guy that is most likely to get a job is the guy that can laugh at job offers because he knows that he has all the skills necessary to write the application on his own and keep the profits for himself. Looking back on it, I think my biggest mistake was not pursuing my own business more seriously. You will always make more money if you can cut out the middle man (your employer), and run your own business. Sure, you take risks, but in this economy, EVERYTHING is risky, and it's also risky to be an expendable employee, with debt, in a low-paying entry level job.
No.
To get an idea of what Chavez has to deal with, imagine if the nutcases running the tea party were in charge, and that Fox News was every station. Imagine Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh multipied by about 100x. Imagine that they not only advocated overthrowing the government, but actually put those words into action in an unsuccessful coup attempt. They cooperated with the military and helped promote the transition to a new government before Chavez's followers put him back into office. In the US, they wouldn't be alive after something like that. It would be called treason and they would be hung. We would hang them, and then we would go on to talk about how repressive other societies are. In Venezuela, the wealthy have so much power that he had little choice but to let them continue for another 8 years until their licenses ran out. To describe the situation as a power hungry dictator ruling with an iron fist is just bonkers.
Agreed. That is not fast, at all. I think I've thrown together machines faster than that in the excitement of getting new hardware up and running. I think it would be more impressive if they were required to get them to boot, not to mention small details like hooking up the power and reset buttons, etc.
Agreed (ok, maybe they'll do it eventually, but 20 years?). These "experts" must have enormous egos to think that they are going to create artificial intelligence in 20 years. In what other field do people make such stupid predictions? I work in bio informatics and our ability to sequence genomes is increasing at a huge rate (think moore's law and then some), but do I think we'll have completely figured it all out in 20 years? Not a chance.
I do think IT is cyclical. It's not 9-5. What the submitter describes is probably a company that is in the slow part of it's development cycle, not in crunch time. But, it sounds like he's so green he doesn't realize it.
I'm sorry, but there is a big difference between doing the same thing over and over, and doing something new and different each time. The first type of work is very easy to commoditize and automate, the second is not. I've done many jobs, from fast food, to digging ditches, to programming. Programming is the only job where I have to be "here" to get work done. In many other jobs, I could space out completely, write music in my head, solve tough programming problems, etc. You can't do that with programming, and that makes it much more difficult. I think it's going to take a very long time for other countries to catch up in IT. Right now, programmers in the 3rd world are very demotivated. They slack quite a bit more than we do in the US. After all, if they get fired, they can go somewhere else and get another job the next day. Their market is going through something similar to the US in the 1990's. I don't expect it to change any time soon.
To expect someone in the 3rd world to be wealthy enough (upper class and wealthy over there) to afford university education, but subservient enough to work as hard as US intellectuals is completely moronic. It's not factory work, you can't just grab any peasant off the street and make them a programmer. So, you're not going to see them competing with us as programmers in the same way that you see them competing with us in consumer electronics production. You need educated people to program, which over there, is upper-class people, who are used to having servants, and relatively speaking, lazy.
Here's another way to think about it. Think about walking, it's pretty obvious and easy to do, right? Now, think about how you would explain what you do when you are walking, in a way that would be impossible to get wrong, and that takes into account every single input variable. Think about all of the algorithms you would have to use to manage the interaction of this input.
While programmers don't have to do tasks that hard every day, it gives you an idea of the kind of problems that programmers face when dealing with people who have no knowledge of how computers work. Walking is easy for humans, but to figure out HOW you actually do it, and getting a machine to do it, is very, very hard. I had a boss who literally couldn't even say what he wanted done. He would often forget very important details, and not even have a name for what he wanted, yet expected me to figure it out and automate it very quickly. Even making software "smart" enough to make the right decision is difficult. You have to sit down and think about exactly how a decision is made, and what variables are used to come to that decision. Often times, for humans, this process is completely unconscious, and making it conscious, and obvious, is very hard. Basically, you are highlighting what is important, making the previously invisible, visible.
Change your job description to working on a different organism with completely different anatomy each time, with new problems each time, and you're getting close to what programmers have to deal with. There are no "procedures" in programming. Nothing is rote, it's improvised problem solving, often for unique problems that is outside one's domain of expertise, which requires learning quite a bit of new information in order to properly understand the problem. Sure, there are patterns, and other techniques designed to help standardize approaches to certain classes of problems, but even then, getting too locked into these approaches can make things worse, not better. I've worked many jobs, from research in chemistry to IT, and programming is one of the only ones where there is very little auto-pilot. You have to be on and 100% engaged, and it's exhausting.
As far as the competition, I've seen it, the best and brightest from the 3rd world, working over here, and I'm not impressed. It's a bluff that people who don't know better like to use, but the threat isn't very real.
I'm beginning to think the issue is that the mis-application of Agile/XP can result in some of the most extreme micro-management that I've ever seen. Combine that with no offices, open work environment, etc, and I think when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.
Shouldn't this also be part of the discussion? If half the time people try it they screw it up miserably, then that's a failing of XP, in my opinion. Poor execution of XP would also explain the wide variability in opinion about XP.
With the adoption of XP, went boundaries went out the window where I work. I'll often come in to find someone sitting at my desk, or people will have impromptu meetings wherever, whenever. This drives me nuts. When a group of people is sitting so close to you that your chair bumps into theirs, it's a bit much. It's ridiculous, which is sad, because other than the work environment, it's a good place to work.
The biggest problem that I find with agile is that it's too easy to implement incorrectly, and the overall sweatshop environment means that productivity won't dip right away, as everyone is being watched. Many managers read about it and think, "Great, we can get rid of their offices, put them all out in the open, and throw out any kind planning." I think in the long run it will fail in a slow, painful way, as people get fed up and leave. Then, when productivity finally drops, management will receive the feedback that maybe their implementation is wrong.
My hope is that it will fail. However, I've seen over and over that just because something should fail, doesn't mean it will. It's all a matter of what people will put up with. Unfortunately, markets don't always teach us the correct lesson, or measure the correct variables.
Right, because goofing off is only allowable for managers, who have their own offices, not programmers. After all, we all know that having a desk in a quiet, distraction free location means that one is up to no good. What other reason would someone want this kind of environment? The same goes for libraries and other quiet settings, it clearly means that people are up to no good.
You're going to overlook quite a few very talented programmers with that kind of attitude.
I think the appeal with agile development is that it removes any barriers that programmers might have, such as rigid milestones, etc, and basically allows management to do what they want in terms of setting goals. It also is appealing to management because the knowledge sharing implies that they can get rid of their most expensive employees after a period of time (once the knowledge has dispersed). Specialized knowledge is an anathema to management, as it means that you have to pay that person more, and it's critical to the business, it's harder to fire them.
We have to evaluate agile based on it's real world results, not what the books describe. In the real-world, agile creates a very high-pressure work environment, where personal space is non-existent, everyone is watching you, and your work is constantly on display. This pressure can produce productivity gains but I would say that in the long run these gains aren't sustainable. I think agile is a very poor fit for your average introvert, which, imagine that, describes most programmers very well. What I believe will happen is that over time the better developers will move to a work place where things aren't quite so agile.
In the mean time, throwing out such ideas as design first, is going to cost us, big time. I think that software quality will drop, but it won't be obvious, as "quality" and "productivity" aren't things that are easily measurable. Often times, managers walk through a room, and if they see a bunch of people typing away or debating some design issue, then they see that busyness as productivity. No, I think the drop in productivity will become apparent when non-agile competitors clean their clocks, but then it will be too late.
Another thing is, if you still live in the same house, the first thing you do is disconnect a hard drive cable, or screw with the bios, and leave it so that it won't boot, then walk away for a few days. That way they can't use it while you are "working on it". Remember, you want this to be inconvenient for them. You want their experience of you working on their computer to be as traumatic as possible for maximum effect.
When my dad has PC problems, I tell him to bring it over, and that it will take a few weeks, and that I'll call him when it's done. I don't work on it unless I am already at my desk doing something else. That way I can get work done while waiting for his machine to reboot. The length of time that I take, combined with knowing that he has to make a trip to my house to drop it off and pick it up, keeps him from using me much. So, next time they have a problem, be sure to leave their machine out of commission for a week or two. If you finish and they have more problems, tell them to bring it back and that it will be another few weeks.
Eventually they'll stop using you, as it will no longer be convenient. I do the same thing with friends, "Go ahead and drop it off, and I'll try to find some time to get it up and running. It'll probably be a couple of weeks, because I'm pretty busy." If they say something like, "Can you tell me when you'll have time?" Answer, "No, I don't have much time, I'm just going to have to fit it in when I get a chance." If they get pushy, just tell them you don't have any time, or it'll be next month.
If they try to get answers over the phone, just keep repeating that you don't know until they get the hint.
I've found that saying no can sometimes really upsets people, but taking a few weeks to fix it doesn't. And you're guaranteed that after taking a few weeks they won't be bringing it back any time soon.
I think this is somewhat exaggerated. You have to tailor your advice to the audience. Remember that 1/3 of americans are obese, and that our tendency to over-consume is our main problem. Exercise won't fix this.
I've done my share of weightlifting and add muscle fairly easily. That said, at 5'11 and 255 at the start of this summer, the last thing I was going to do for weight loss was lift weights. Sure, I could have built up quite a bit of muscle starting with that base. But in the end, I still would have weighed 250ish, with all the joint aches and other problems that go with it. Make no mistake, your average power lifter, nfl linebacker, etc, at 250+ lbs, has problems, no matter how much they train. It's far better to get the weight down to something more reasonable, THEN exercise, than it is to subject one's joints and tendons to the pounding that they will take at a weight of 255. I'm now down to 220, do some light walking and jogging, etc, and once I'm down to 200, will add in regular exercise to help keep the weight off while eventually stopping at 180.
I'm sure I've lost muscle, but it's really not that big of a deal. Muscle can be added later, once my weight is down to something safe. That said, my knees, feet, and ankles no longer hurt and I'm much lighter on my feet. For me, getting the weight off first was worth it.
Good point with mentioning CISC having nothing to do with it. It's 1999, and apple and sun want their (RISC vs CISC) marketing back. What's incredibly ironic, is that the original poster didn't realize that the 360 is using a PowerPC core. Even more ironic is that even apple gave up that battle and is using intel chips. Worse, as I would always mention to my apple fanboy friends, there is no such thing as CISC as it's described in marketing literature, as modern CISC CPU's break instructions down into microcode, and run them on what's the equivalent of a RISC core (I could see steam coming out of their ears when I would mention that). But, I suppose the PS3 IS awesome at folding at home, we can give them that much. :) And, it's a great bluray player, that's what I use mine for.
Just to add to this train of thought thought. If schools published charts of average debt to income ratio for graduates, I think that would do a lot to get people to inject a bit of reality into student's choice of major and overall direction in life. They could even break it down by major, and throw in mean, median, standard deviation, etc, to make it more interesting. :)
My wife and I talked about this last night. While on the one hand, I don't expect someone with such a low GPA to get handed job offers right and left, I do think that there is something criminal about loading up someone who is lucky to get a job at McDonald's with $100,000 in debt, debt which cannot be discharged by bankruptcy. People are forced to take on this debt when they are fresh out of high school, and pressured into going to school at a time in their life when their perspective, and ability to think rationally is compromised due to lack of real-world experience. Schools should be more up-front about what a graduate's prospects really are going to be.
I have a window unit that can cool roughly 500 sq ft that draws 120 V x 13 amps, which is 1500 watts. I suppose if the prius is towing a large home behind it, it will need 5000 Watts to cool it.
I don't see it. A very small AC compressor that would draw 800-1000 watts is all you would need to cool a bedroom, cut it in half for the size of small car cabin, so that's maybe 400 watts. You can knock 30% off that, because it won't run all the time. So, it's maybe 300 watts. Keep in mind, this battery takes 220V x 30 amps for 8 hours to charge. If the battery is above 90% efficiency (most lions are well above this in terms of charging effiency), then it should be capable of returning the power it takes to charge it, which is roughly 6000 watts, for 8 hours. The effects of AC would be negligible. In the winter, it would be a bit worse. You would probably need the equivalent of a 1500 - 3000 watt space heater to warm the air. Heating requires quite a bit more electricity than AC does. Realistically, you're not going to take 8 hours to go 100 miles, you're going to take 2-3 hours tops. If we calculate the watt hours of the battery, it's 8hours x 6600 watts, which is 52800 Wh. If we assume a heater will need to run at 3000 watts (completely on, because you live in Alaska, right?) for that 3 hours, then it will use 9000 Watt hours, or a little less than 20% of your battery life. In that case, the car would go 80 miles instead of 100, not a big deal in my opinion.