You know, I almost wonder if anyone has ever sat on a phone conference and just parroted whatever comes up on that thing. I think with a typical non-technical tech PM talking to another non-technical tech PM (something I've actually seen a lot) this could actually fly. Would be at least fun to try!
42 has geeky significance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy). That is why you see it here a lot. as for 12... i dunno.
Mining stuff anywhere off earth is a long way from being practical.
Yes.... but I think from the very lengthy debate that follows your post it's clear that everyone agrees we need to start launching less from earth and more from orbit. The problem I see with this is that we still have to launch from earth to get there. I think eventually we will be able to mine and manufacture in space, limiting the need to launch from earth to only getting people or specific/complex devices up there. Ultimately allowing us to build much bigger and better space "stuff" . And IMO starting the first steps of this process are more important than trying to leap frog it. And we'll never get to a point where it is economically feasible if we don't start putzing with it to figure out how to get there.
I want to say that considering people often go for what is popular (rather than considering features and whatnot) that this surge in sales is simply a matter of spite; people buying samsung simply because they dislike apple's behavior - and chose to support samsung. But I wont, because I have virtually no evidence to support that theory, and the thought that people behave that way makes me a little sad. (Not the supporting part, but the buying whatever is popular and arbitrary spending out of spite parts. )
yeah, the wording could be better. But I think in the business world it's more important to sound smart and say things in ways that are less likely to confuse people, (even if it doesn't actually make any sense)... and thanks for catching the logical error I made (20 v 10) running on ~4 hours sleep atm =/
You most certainly can. I'm not an MBA, so I may be talking out of my ass here. But here is what I've always understood synergy to mean:
Take a program that will require half C and half SQL. The C guy could certainly of the whole thing. say in 25 hours; 5 for C and 20 for SQL. Or, for the SQL guy 5 for SQL and 20 for C.
If you put two C guys together the job should (in theory) take half the time. so 12.5 hours. But you are still looking at 25 man-hours here.
But if you put a the C and SQL guys together the job should take 5+5=10. Thus only 20 man-hours. That is what is meant by synergy. Putting the right teams together to maximize productivity.
Hmm, the teller's drawer would indicate that the store was locked and the owners felt it to be secure. Maybe if you add "in the tellers drawer, but the door was left open every night" then maybe we are closer.
regardless, my point wasn't so much to debate to what degree sony is culpable, just that they are. And considering that (afaik) the thieves didn't actually use the data they stole, and effectively caused no real harm to anyone (except that people had to bother closing accounts and the likes) and based on that 15 years seems extreme. Had they actually used the data to capture $millions and ruin many lives in the process... shit yeah. 15 easy.
I think you've got something backwards. This would accomplish the opposite. Keeping the money in the hands of a dated model that doesn't work rather than allowing it to be "spread around" via new business models.
what exactly does being pro-choice have to do with ensuring the continued survival of our entire species? And why would you not endorse this idea? Common sense is there WILL come a day, sooner or later, where if we aren't able to habitate elsewhere our species will no longer exist. Why would any sane person ever think this is ideal? And please tell me you have nothing to do with nuclear controls =/ and as for moons, that's great too, but short of *extensive* terraforming knowledge getting one to be outright habitable and self sustained is impossible. Keep in mind those small moons aren't exactly ideal due to the distance from earth and radiation from their planets. The best will be able to do in the foreseeable future is have artificial colonies that require earth assistance. Which leaves us back finding planets that are already habitable as our only immediate hope.
I like the idea of candidates taking a comprehensive standardized test on a wide variety of topics, not just science policy. This way we can get a good idea of what they will do without being distracted by the typical media shit storms and "current topics" - thus forgetting the existing issues...
Even better, they should get no fore warning of what the questions are, and have no adviser present telling them how to answer. Just honest answers.
I semi see your point; EM and light waves are nearly the same thing. but that said, much like light they ought to be required to be within range to pick up the EM waves directly, not watching from over a tower. Same concept as video surveillance vs first-hand witness. If it is okay to use towers to watch everything you do over the EM spectrum then it follows that it is okay to do so over the light spectrum - yet it isn't. well, *yet* at least. Regardless, I'm not willing to accept tools like this to aid in stripping our freedom, and more specifically my freedom is more important than catching criminals without due process. Not sure what the big deal with simply getting a fucking warrant is.
So, treat corporations as people when it comes to personal freedoms, but not when it comes to breaking laws? I know if I ever personally go out and take money from people for something that doesn't actually exist I will go to prison as a con artist. But corporations are saying they shouldn't even be fined? For doing the same thing?
No, corporations are not people. they are merely a means for people. a means of personal income, a means of progressing society and a means of stopping boredom (and thusly crime, making society better overall.) And people run them well get rewarded well for their efforts. Therefore corporations ought to do right for the people, since that is their underlying purpose. Lets stop acting like the converse is true, please.
Except in those cases it is considered bribery if an individual, or at the least a conflict of interest, if a small/medium business. NO one is "above" the law. We just make new ones the higher you get.
well, technically 0AD should be the point when that started happening. his reference to 1200BC was a matter of when a round earth was first postulated. somewhere around 200BC was the first time the circumference had been accurately calculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes prior to 0AD there was even a popular "religion" that believed and sought proof of atoms and particles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism . oh where we would be today if it weren't for 0AD....
but it's the WSJ - if they say business > gov in even arbitrary networking of wires that no single business minded person saw motivation, much less business model for, it must be true!
telling tales of "someone doing something stupid" is simply more interesting than most anything else you can say about them. more a matter of social norms than a window into the whole of their relationship. Honestly there is a point where you can't win: I avoid talking about my wife simply because I know the only things worth talking about will paint the picture that you speak of, but then I get the "why don't you ever talk about your wife, are you not happy with her" question. Hence, no winning.
Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 2
What I don't get is why they haven't tried not naming the thing to get it passed. Seems to me that any bill named something like "GBR-98691.02" gets through with little public attention, and they know it.
This. If writing something on/. or reddit or to a friend all I care about is that the target audience will understand. If, however, I am writing something to a client or department of some sort I at least attempt to use proper grammar. But overall I don't think it should matter as much as some make it out to. Like using a single word as a sentence ("This.") or ending a sentence in ("out to.") - both are grammatically incorrect, but there aren't many ways in which they could be misinterpreted; so why would anyone really care? But I'm sure there are plenty who will.
It is hard to say for certain, but I would imagine there was at least originally some amount of demand for employers to give these benefits for fear that people would just join unions and they would have to anyways. Maybe someone with more time than I could take a moment to compare worker rights and treatment before and after unions; see if there appears to be a pattern.
*slow clap* it was unexpected to see so many detractors here, especially considering that it is slashdot. sharing of insight is ALWAYS better than a few isolated teams trying to tackle something like this. Sure, some people will learn new techniques, but since they will be well known at that point, they will be well combated. If people actually use it, this should help close the gaping security flaws plaguing us at much faster pace.
well, if I were to stay with this company that long (32 now) I would probably move to project management or sales engineering. but yes, down the road when I'm ready to simply "be home" I'll likely move to one of those jobs. But not until I know the job i get is stable, well paying and I wont be treated poorly. A tall order in this economy - and I figure this job does well to qualify me for such positions. I will say that it seems most people hit a wall at about 5 years. We've been in business 11 years. After 7 years the company offers a 1 month paid sabbatical (in additional to regular PTO) as incentive to keep going.
Hmmm... I've never felt any peer pressure. More like client pressure. Though I certainly can't speak for everyone. I suppose it's worth asking around. In the few cases where I've been unwilling or unable to meet a client's demands others have gladly picked up the slack, without any amount of fussing. I suppose because I do the same for them.
Personally I've never had a job that wasn't demanding. Never a "normal" 9-5. And I've had a lot of jobs... Generally they have all been "must be here during 'core hours,' regardless of work load or recent work levels, and still regularly work til 3am to meet project deadlines" Which, the choice between being leashed to a certain grouping of hours versus working "when needed, as much as needed" seems obvious to me. It may be personal preference but outside of having a child's schedule to contend with I can't imagine someone preferring the former after having experiencing both.
Not even close. I would hazard a guess of roughly half that, on average. We have a few that have left to pursue higher paying 9-5's. Usually in the 90 to $100k range. But many have returned out of pure boredom/lack of challenge. One even reported having been lambasted by his boss for completing his 6 week project in 3 days.... Of those who have not returned, many of them continue to be part of "the family"... staying on the sports teams or continuing to join us for happy hour. Point being that "culture" is obtainable in a company. And more specifically, the young group the article references sounds in line with this type of mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I almost wonder if anyone has ever sat on a phone conference and just parroted whatever comes up on that thing. I think with a typical non-technical tech PM talking to another non-technical tech PM (something I've actually seen a lot) this could actually fly. Would be at least fun to try!
42 has geeky significance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy). That is why you see it here a lot. as for 12... i dunno.
Needless to say
pfffft.
Mining stuff anywhere off earth is a long way from being practical.
Yes.... but I think from the very lengthy debate that follows your post it's clear that everyone agrees we need to start launching less from earth and more from orbit.
The problem I see with this is that we still have to launch from earth to get there. I think eventually we will be able to mine and manufacture in space, limiting the need to launch from earth to only getting people or specific/complex devices up there. Ultimately allowing us to build much bigger and better space "stuff" . And IMO starting the first steps of this process are more important than trying to leap frog it. And we'll never get to a point where it is economically feasible if we don't start putzing with it to figure out how to get there.
I want to say that considering people often go for what is popular (rather than considering features and whatnot) that this surge in sales is simply a matter of spite; people buying samsung simply because they dislike apple's behavior - and chose to support samsung.
But I wont, because I have virtually no evidence to support that theory, and the thought that people behave that way makes me a little sad. (Not the supporting part, but the buying whatever is popular and arbitrary spending out of spite parts. )
yeah, the wording could be better. But I think in the business world it's more important to sound smart and say things in ways that are less likely to confuse people, (even if it doesn't actually make any sense)... and thanks for catching the logical error I made (20 v 10) running on ~4 hours sleep atm =/
You most certainly can. I'm not an MBA, so I may be talking out of my ass here. But here is what I've always understood synergy to mean:
Take a program that will require half C and half SQL. The C guy could certainly of the whole thing. say in 25 hours; 5 for C and 20 for SQL. Or, for the SQL guy 5 for SQL and 20 for C.
If you put two C guys together the job should (in theory) take half the time. so 12.5 hours. But you are still looking at 25 man-hours here.
But if you put a the C and SQL guys together the job should take 5+5=10. Thus only 20 man-hours. That is what is meant by synergy. Putting the right teams together to maximize productivity.
Hmm, the teller's drawer would indicate that the store was locked and the owners felt it to be secure. Maybe if you add "in the tellers drawer, but the door was left open every night" then maybe we are closer.
regardless, my point wasn't so much to debate to what degree sony is culpable, just that they are. And considering that (afaik) the thieves didn't actually use the data they stole, and effectively caused no real harm to anyone (except that people had to bother closing accounts and the likes) and based on that 15 years seems extreme. Had they actually used the data to capture $millions and ruin many lives in the process... shit yeah. 15 easy.
So, if your bank left your money sitting out front and people took it, you wouldn't blame the bank? That's effectively what sony did. Even better, they were WARNED they had left your money out. http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/02/is-your-private-information-safe-with-sony/
In my mind they are most definitely responsible. More so than the kids who took it (and apparently did nothing with it).
I think you've got something backwards. This would accomplish the opposite. Keeping the money in the hands of a dated model that doesn't work rather than allowing it to be "spread around" via new business models.
what exactly does being pro-choice have to do with ensuring the continued survival of our entire species? And why would you not endorse this idea? Common sense is there WILL come a day, sooner or later, where if we aren't able to habitate elsewhere our species will no longer exist. Why would any sane person ever think this is ideal? And please tell me you have nothing to do with nuclear controls =/
and as for moons, that's great too, but short of *extensive* terraforming knowledge getting one to be outright habitable and self sustained is impossible. Keep in mind those small moons aren't exactly ideal due to the distance from earth and radiation from their planets. The best will be able to do in the foreseeable future is have artificial colonies that require earth assistance. Which leaves us back finding planets that are already habitable as our only immediate hope.
I like the idea of candidates taking a comprehensive standardized test on a wide variety of topics, not just science policy. This way we can get a good idea of what they will do without being distracted by the typical media shit storms and "current topics" - thus forgetting the existing issues...
Even better, they should get no fore warning of what the questions are, and have no adviser present telling them how to answer. Just honest answers.
I semi see your point; EM and light waves are nearly the same thing. but that said, much like light they ought to be required to be within range to pick up the EM waves directly, not watching from over a tower. Same concept as video surveillance vs first-hand witness. If it is okay to use towers to watch everything you do over the EM spectrum then it follows that it is okay to do so over the light spectrum - yet it isn't. well, *yet* at least. Regardless, I'm not willing to accept tools like this to aid in stripping our freedom, and more specifically my freedom is more important than catching criminals without due process. Not sure what the big deal with simply getting a fucking warrant is.
So, treat corporations as people when it comes to personal freedoms, but not when it comes to breaking laws? I know if I ever personally go out and take money from people for something that doesn't actually exist I will go to prison as a con artist. But corporations are saying they shouldn't even be fined? For doing the same thing?
No, corporations are not people. they are merely a means for people. a means of personal income, a means of progressing society and a means of stopping boredom (and thusly crime, making society better overall.) And people run them well get rewarded well for their efforts. Therefore corporations ought to do right for the people, since that is their underlying purpose. Lets stop acting like the converse is true, please.
Except in those cases it is considered bribery if an individual, or at the least a conflict of interest, if a small/medium business. NO one is "above" the law. We just make new ones the higher you get.
well, technically 0AD should be the point when that started happening. his reference to 1200BC was a matter of when a round earth was first postulated. somewhere around 200BC was the first time the circumference had been accurately calculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes ....
prior to 0AD there was even a popular "religion" that believed and sought proof of atoms and particles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism . oh where we would be today if it weren't for 0AD
but it's the WSJ - if they say business > gov in even arbitrary networking of wires that no single business minded person saw motivation, much less business model for, it must be true!
telling tales of "someone doing something stupid" is simply more interesting than most anything else you can say about them. more a matter of social norms than a window into the whole of their relationship. Honestly there is a point where you can't win: I avoid talking about my wife simply because I know the only things worth talking about will paint the picture that you speak of, but then I get the "why don't you ever talk about your wife, are you not happy with her" question. Hence, no winning.
What I don't get is why they haven't tried not naming the thing to get it passed. Seems to me that any bill named something like "GBR-98691.02" gets through with little public attention, and they know it.
This. If writing something on /. or reddit or to a friend all I care about is that the target audience will understand. If, however, I am writing something to a client or department of some sort I at least attempt to use proper grammar. But overall I don't think it should matter as much as some make it out to. Like using a single word as a sentence ("This.") or ending a sentence in ("out to.") - both are grammatically incorrect, but there aren't many ways in which they could be misinterpreted; so why would anyone really care? But I'm sure there are plenty who will.
It is hard to say for certain, but I would imagine there was at least originally some amount of demand for employers to give these benefits for fear that people would just join unions and they would have to anyways. Maybe someone with more time than I could take a moment to compare worker rights and treatment before and after unions; see if there appears to be a pattern.
*slow clap*
it was unexpected to see so many detractors here, especially considering that it is slashdot. sharing of insight is ALWAYS better than a few isolated teams trying to tackle something like this. Sure, some people will learn new techniques, but since they will be well known at that point, they will be well combated. If people actually use it, this should help close the gaping security flaws plaguing us at much faster pace.
well, if I were to stay with this company that long (32 now) I would probably move to project management or sales engineering. but yes, down the road when I'm ready to simply "be home" I'll likely move to one of those jobs. But not until I know the job i get is stable, well paying and I wont be treated poorly. A tall order in this economy - and I figure this job does well to qualify me for such positions.
I will say that it seems most people hit a wall at about 5 years. We've been in business 11 years. After 7 years the company offers a 1 month paid sabbatical (in additional to regular PTO) as incentive to keep going.
Hmmm... I've never felt any peer pressure. More like client pressure. Though I certainly can't speak for everyone. I suppose it's worth asking around. In the few cases where I've been unwilling or unable to meet a client's demands others have gladly picked up the slack, without any amount of fussing. I suppose because I do the same for them.
Personally I've never had a job that wasn't demanding. Never a "normal" 9-5. And I've had a lot of jobs... Generally they have all been "must be here during 'core hours,' regardless of work load or recent work levels, and still regularly work til 3am to meet project deadlines" Which, the choice between being leashed to a certain grouping of hours versus working "when needed, as much as needed" seems obvious to me. It may be personal preference but outside of having a child's schedule to contend with I can't imagine someone preferring the former after having experiencing both.
Not even close. I would hazard a guess of roughly half that, on average. We have a few that have left to pursue higher paying 9-5's. Usually in the 90 to $100k range. But many have returned out of pure boredom/lack of challenge. One even reported having been lambasted by his boss for completing his 6 week project in 3 days.... Of those who have not returned, many of them continue to be part of "the family" ... staying on the sports teams or continuing to join us for happy hour. Point being that "culture" is obtainable in a company. And more specifically, the young group the article references sounds in line with this type of mentality.