If you, as an engineer, present yourself as a prima donna, disheveled, or otherwise cause yourself to be seen as putting your proclivities above their own, clients will be that much more on guard against you trying to satisfy your own interests as opposed to theirs. It will now be your (or more likely someone else's) job to convince the clients that your professionalism rises above the perceived disrespect or cluelessness.
At some point shareholders will use software and statistics similar to that used for deciding work schedules and payrate for hourly employees when setting bounds for c-suite compensation. "Sorry, total compensation packages that cost over X % of revenue have not been shown to improve executive performance.".
What is the correct choice: How much of the profit do you distribute as bonuses, etc. and how much do you reinvest to grow business next year? I doubt the engineers would all agree on the split (other than they should get the lion's share of the distribution).
Yes I know that in trying to win customers a business needs to consider the fact that more often than not a lot of these potential customers will have many of these arbitrary, illogical preconceptions, so I do understand that making compromises to please their sensibilities is important for the success of a business. It doesn't change the fact that these preconceptions are arbitrary and could make life simpler if over time they were phased out. I actually think in some places that's already begun to happen.
Arbitrary and prejudicial yes, but still rational. Think about the bowl of M&Ms (with all brown M&Ms removed) that Van Halen required to be backstage for each of their shows. It didn't even rise to the level of indulging a prejudice: it was a completely arbitrary requirement. But if the bowl wasn't there or had the wrong stuff in it the band knew the venue wasn't taking the specs of the contract seriously and so they would be on guard for further deviations. If you, as an engineer, present yourself as a prima donna, disheveled, or otherwise cause yourself to be seen as putting your proclivities above their own, clients will be that much more on guard against you trying to satisfy your own interests as opposed to theirs. It will now be your (or more likely someone else's) job to convince the clients that your professionalism rises above the perceived disrespect or cluelessness. Programmers are already given an incredible amount of latitude compared to most engineers, especially when comparing the elite whose work product easily returns as much revenue per FTE (think billion dollar power plants, refineries, semiconductor FABs, etc).
Trading the graphic tee and shorts for a nicer shirt and jeans right before the meeting isn't a whole lot to ask.
If a company switches from having its revenue come from subscriptions and ads to microtransactions (say, the Washington Post) they will probably need more than just a plugin. And once they have that, voila, they will still need to convert bitcoin to $, which will have costs that scale somewhat with the number of transactions. If Bitcoin is volatile then they will have to choose to either frequently exchange bitcoins in lots of small transactions (expensive) or speculate on bitcoins by holding onto them and infrequently exchanging them. They would probably have to accept multiple different coins, unless we are positing that one coin type will become completely dominant. There are services that do that today for ~1% (for bitcoin only) but: 1, that business model is for e-commerce, not microtransactions: they would have to process thousands of times more microtransactions to get the same revenue; and 2, currency exchanges are going to be regulated and monitored to some degree, so their costs will be going up.
Say a lot of people wanted to pay for the Washington Post using Argentine Peso, Brazilian Real, and Namibian Dollar microtransactions. How much would it cost the WP to do that? That is pretty much the expense we need to be looking at.
It simply isn't worth the effort to cheat on a microtransaction.
Will it be worth the effort to be paid by one? The processor will want a cut, the currency exchange will want a cut (twice), the people keeping the system secure will want a cut... just because the amount per transaction is tiny doesn't mean the cost per transaction will scale down similarly. And if the value of the currency is unstable, you'll have to run every flippin transaction through the currency exchange. Otherwise subscribers or the processor will game the system.
If you've been at 5 different companies with different responsibilities at each then most of those responsibilities will only be tangential to the job you are writing a resume for right now. Write the resume accordingly.
They're ALL designed and built by interns, or idiots. (or both).
Taleo's portals for job applicants were quite borked back when they were an independent company and their one job was "talent acquisition" and other HR related database stuff. God knows what it's like for job applicants using their stuff now that they are part of Oracle.
Personally, I'm going with this sentiment from upthread:
Sometimes I've wondered if overcoming the quirks of a badly-designed website is some kind of screening test for applicants.
Yep. If you are easily frustrated by software SNAFUs and don't have the patience or cleverness to get past the difficulties in a high stakes situation like a job opportunity then what is the likelyhood of you showing those qualities day to day at work?
For all of the jokes about the DMV, every time I've been there the workers know their jobs and move things along just fine. Its the folks who couldn't be bothered to make an appointment, didn't bring the right paperwork, or hate the law and are (very loudly) requesting that it not be applied to them who end up spending lots of wasted time at the DMV.
The rule has some validity - they wanted to keep syndicates of owners from controlling a bunch of teams, which I think happened in the NHL. The 30% rule was to prevent decision making from being paralyzed due to lack of a single owner able to end a stalemate. Of course, the NFL could have written rules that prevented these problems without banning municipal ownership.
Hang on. They gave you different prescriptions/lenses for right and left, correct? I wear contacts, but only one corrects for astigmatism. I only wear them if I'm surfing or otherwise in the water, and they're great - unless I accidentally swap them right for left, which makes life immediately unpleasant. The rest of the time I just wear glasses.
Try starting your own football league, see how far you get before the NFL stomps you flat for violating its intellectual property. Broadcasters probably couldn't show your games if they wanted to due to their contracts with the NFL.
It's not elected star-struck fanbois that are the problem, it's elected officials who subsequently work for the team after the negotiations have ended, the elected officials that are given sweet investment deals by the owners of the teams, the local newspapers that are both highly influential in local elections and dependent on the sports section for a huge chunk of their dwindling revenues...
Are the breeders retiring their horses earlier because they want immediate cash flow or because of risk management? Modern racehorses are so fragile that there is a very good chance they will be injured/put down if they are raced for one more season. If that happens: no breeding fees at all. That would definitely help explain a lowered quality (resilience) of the race horses in succeeding generations.
And the leagues banned this type of ownership (corporate, both public and private) to keep it from happening again. A team has to be owned by a maximum of 32 people (not corporations), one of which must own at least 30% of the team.
Paying for it however is mandatory (building stadiums, local tax breaks for teams) for most folks who live near an NFL team, whether or not they like football.
I was talking about the import of fake generic medicines from India. No high profit margins, no monopolies, just generic low cost cipro, lipitor, and other drugs. Which prescription policy causes importation of fake generic drugs that don't actually contain the active ingredients?
Your question already presumes your conclusion: that these things can be decided ahead of time by a bunch of people sitting in a room.
Your private org would have them standing in an outdoor tennis court? BTW, the FDA decides these things ad hoc for each drug approval, not in advance. How would your private org do it?
On the issue of prices: don't blame the FDA: they don't set prices. If you want to blame someone, blame Congress. They could put compulsory licensing of drugs on the table just like other countries do whenever they want. The only time it has ever come up was Cipro (Anthrax scare) - and that was against Bayer AG, a German manufacturer
And yes, it is your complaint that is at issue here:
The drug and medical device industries LOVE regulations. It protects them and blocks any new competitors from entering the marketplace. Also keeps the 'base' cost high so they can slap on their profitable percentage on top.
Your complaint is why I responded to you. What, exactly, is the FDA doing wrong? What, exactly is the EMA doing wrong? Nice punt, by the way.
You guessed wrong. I don't consider those things "horrors".
So the idea of your kids getting fake (fake = does not actually contain the active ingredient) cipro to fight an infection or your parents getting a fake cancer drug doesn't horrify you? If not, how about the idea of paying real money for fake drugs?
On the one hand, it would have a compelling financial interest in actually bringing the drug to market; on the other hand, it would have a compelling financial interest to avoid making mistakes that it would be held liable for. In different words, unlike the FDA, it is actually strongly motivated to do the right thing.
Doesn't answer my question. What would this organization be doing differently? Approve drugs without requiring extensive studies that show a new drug actually provides a benefit over existing therapies? Not offer accelerated approval processes for drugs aimed at markets with significant unmet medical needs? Not inspect plants to see if they follow QC rules?
Why would you give this organization a financial stake in bringing a specific drug to market? Would they get a cut of each prescription or just a flat bonus for approving the drug? Do they still get paid if they don't approve the drug? Why would they face much if any liability? Wouldn't they just indemnify themselves like the UL does?
It would help me understand your complaint if you could provide some examples where the FDA has been too strict: drugs they should have approved but did not, manufacturing plants they ordered shut down or disallowed from the US market when they were actually making good clean batches of drugs, etc, and how those examples reflect systemic problems. Does the European Medicines Association fall under your criticisms as well? I won't say those agencies are perfect (far from it) but I don't see why a private org would do a better job, since in highly risk prone industries it is much easier to game financial incentives into "heads I win, tails you lose" contracts than to actually create a system that welds incentives to the intended outcomes.
bull fucking shit. How long does it take in terms of FTEs and calendar years to get a new drug approved? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a new model of passenger plane? Now compare: how long does it take to get a new flavor of security approved and start selling it to accredited investors? Oh, that's right: you don't have to get it approved. Or even registered. The retail parts of the financial industry are tightly regulated, but as the value of the transaction goes up, the regulations go down. Ditto for the penalties.
So I guess you ceded my point that the horrors are ongoing and the FDA is solving them to some extent. If you have a fully private solution, please feel free to suggest it - so long as you can address the profound difference between dealing with safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals as opposed to toaster ovens. For example: I say I have a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. How does your private organization evaluate this claim differently from how the FDA would? How would it inspect the plant in Switzerland that makes the drug, the plant in the UK that formulates the drug, and the plant in New Jersey that does the fill and finish differently than the FDA does?
On the inspection and evaluation end I think the FDA should be doing even more, not less.
Corrupt, yes. But if politicians honest or otherwise managed to get rid of the medallions or even just change the law so that the medallions were significantly less valuable the municipality would be on the hook for a huge liability lawsuit from the medallion owners.
I have always loved it when people in favor of 'more regulation' have to reach back to 19th century horrors.
The drug and medical device industries LOVE regulations. It protects them and blocks any new competitors from entering the marketplace. Also keeps the 'base' cost high so they can slap on their profitable percentage on top.
No need to reach back to the 19th century for horrors - Look at the present day drugs imported by the US from India. How do you feel about fake statins and antibiotics?
Slashdot Mirror
If you, as an engineer, present yourself as a prima donna, disheveled, or otherwise cause yourself to be seen as putting your proclivities above their own, clients will be that much more on guard against you trying to satisfy your own interests as opposed to theirs. It will now be your (or more likely someone else's) job to convince the clients that your professionalism rises above the perceived disrespect or cluelessness.
At some point shareholders will use software and statistics similar to that used for deciding work schedules and payrate for hourly employees when setting bounds for c-suite compensation. "Sorry, total compensation packages that cost over X % of revenue have not been shown to improve executive performance.".
What is the correct choice: How much of the profit do you distribute as bonuses, etc. and how much do you reinvest to grow business next year? I doubt the engineers would all agree on the split (other than they should get the lion's share of the distribution).
Yes I know that in trying to win customers a business needs to consider the fact that more often than not a lot of these potential customers will have many of these arbitrary, illogical preconceptions, so I do understand that making compromises to please their sensibilities is important for the success of a business. It doesn't change the fact that these preconceptions are arbitrary and could make life simpler if over time they were phased out. I actually think in some places that's already begun to happen.
Arbitrary and prejudicial yes, but still rational. Think about the bowl of M&Ms (with all brown M&Ms removed) that Van Halen required to be backstage for each of their shows. It didn't even rise to the level of indulging a prejudice: it was a completely arbitrary requirement. But if the bowl wasn't there or had the wrong stuff in it the band knew the venue wasn't taking the specs of the contract seriously and so they would be on guard for further deviations. If you, as an engineer, present yourself as a prima donna, disheveled, or otherwise cause yourself to be seen as putting your proclivities above their own, clients will be that much more on guard against you trying to satisfy your own interests as opposed to theirs. It will now be your (or more likely someone else's) job to convince the clients that your professionalism rises above the perceived disrespect or cluelessness. Programmers are already given an incredible amount of latitude compared to most engineers, especially when comparing the elite whose work product easily returns as much revenue per FTE (think billion dollar power plants, refineries, semiconductor FABs, etc).
Trading the graphic tee and shorts for a nicer shirt and jeans right before the meeting isn't a whole lot to ask.
Say a lot of people wanted to pay for the Washington Post using Argentine Peso, Brazilian Real, and Namibian Dollar microtransactions. How much would it cost the WP to do that? That is pretty much the expense we need to be looking at.
It simply isn't worth the effort to cheat on a microtransaction.
Will it be worth the effort to be paid by one? The processor will want a cut, the currency exchange will want a cut (twice), the people keeping the system secure will want a cut ... just because the amount per transaction is tiny doesn't mean the cost per transaction will scale down similarly. And if the value of the currency is unstable, you'll have to run every flippin transaction through the currency exchange. Otherwise subscribers or the processor will game the system.
If you've been at 5 different companies with different responsibilities at each then most of those responsibilities will only be tangential to the job you are writing a resume for right now. Write the resume accordingly.
They're ALL designed and built by interns, or idiots. (or both).
Taleo's portals for job applicants were quite borked back when they were an independent company and their one job was "talent acquisition" and other HR related database stuff. God knows what it's like for job applicants using their stuff now that they are part of Oracle. Personally, I'm going with this sentiment from upthread:
Sometimes I've wondered if overcoming the quirks of a badly-designed website is some kind of screening test for applicants.
Yep. If you are easily frustrated by software SNAFUs and don't have the patience or cleverness to get past the difficulties in a high stakes situation like a job opportunity then what is the likelyhood of you showing those qualities day to day at work?
For all of the jokes about the DMV, every time I've been there the workers know their jobs and move things along just fine. Its the folks who couldn't be bothered to make an appointment, didn't bring the right paperwork, or hate the law and are (very loudly) requesting that it not be applied to them who end up spending lots of wasted time at the DMV.
The rule has some validity - they wanted to keep syndicates of owners from controlling a bunch of teams, which I think happened in the NHL. The 30% rule was to prevent decision making from being paralyzed due to lack of a single owner able to end a stalemate. Of course, the NFL could have written rules that prevented these problems without banning municipal ownership.
Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding. It is more fun for the owners.
Are they on less drugs during breeding compared to racing? The horses that is, not the owners.
Hang on. They gave you different prescriptions/lenses for right and left, correct? I wear contacts, but only one corrects for astigmatism. I only wear them if I'm surfing or otherwise in the water, and they're great - unless I accidentally swap them right for left, which makes life immediately unpleasant. The rest of the time I just wear glasses.
Try starting your own football league, see how far you get before the NFL stomps you flat for violating its intellectual property. Broadcasters probably couldn't show your games if they wanted to due to their contracts with the NFL.
It's not elected star-struck fanbois that are the problem, it's elected officials who subsequently work for the team after the negotiations have ended, the elected officials that are given sweet investment deals by the owners of the teams, the local newspapers that are both highly influential in local elections and dependent on the sports section for a huge chunk of their dwindling revenues ...
I'd add take away their anti-trust exemptions.
Are the breeders retiring their horses earlier because they want immediate cash flow or because of risk management? Modern racehorses are so fragile that there is a very good chance they will be injured/put down if they are raced for one more season. If that happens: no breeding fees at all. That would definitely help explain a lowered quality (resilience) of the race horses in succeeding generations.
And the leagues banned this type of ownership (corporate, both public and private) to keep it from happening again. A team has to be owned by a maximum of 32 people (not corporations), one of which must own at least 30% of the team.
Seeing as many of the local citizens don't actually follow football, we'll take that ROI in cash, not tickets or broadcasts, thank you very much.
Paying for it however is mandatory (building stadiums, local tax breaks for teams) for most folks who live near an NFL team, whether or not they like football.
Your question already presumes your conclusion: that these things can be decided ahead of time by a bunch of people sitting in a room.
Your private org would have them standing in an outdoor tennis court? BTW, the FDA decides these things ad hoc for each drug approval, not in advance. How would your private org do it?
On the issue of prices: don't blame the FDA: they don't set prices. If you want to blame someone, blame Congress. They could put compulsory licensing of drugs on the table just like other countries do whenever they want. The only time it has ever come up was Cipro (Anthrax scare) - and that was against Bayer AG, a German manufacturer
And yes, it is your complaint that is at issue here:
The drug and medical device industries LOVE regulations. It protects them and blocks any new competitors from entering the marketplace. Also keeps the 'base' cost high so they can slap on their profitable percentage on top.
Your complaint is why I responded to you. What, exactly, is the FDA doing wrong? What, exactly is the EMA doing wrong? Nice punt, by the way.
You guessed wrong. I don't consider those things "horrors".
So the idea of your kids getting fake (fake = does not actually contain the active ingredient) cipro to fight an infection or your parents getting a fake cancer drug doesn't horrify you? If not, how about the idea of paying real money for fake drugs?
On the one hand, it would have a compelling financial interest in actually bringing the drug to market; on the other hand, it would have a compelling financial interest to avoid making mistakes that it would be held liable for. In different words, unlike the FDA, it is actually strongly motivated to do the right thing.
Doesn't answer my question. What would this organization be doing differently? Approve drugs without requiring extensive studies that show a new drug actually provides a benefit over existing therapies? Not offer accelerated approval processes for drugs aimed at markets with significant unmet medical needs? Not inspect plants to see if they follow QC rules?
Why would you give this organization a financial stake in bringing a specific drug to market? Would they get a cut of each prescription or just a flat bonus for approving the drug? Do they still get paid if they don't approve the drug? Why would they face much if any liability? Wouldn't they just indemnify themselves like the UL does?
It would help me understand your complaint if you could provide some examples where the FDA has been too strict: drugs they should have approved but did not, manufacturing plants they ordered shut down or disallowed from the US market when they were actually making good clean batches of drugs, etc, and how those examples reflect systemic problems. Does the European Medicines Association fall under your criticisms as well? I won't say those agencies are perfect (far from it) but I don't see why a private org would do a better job, since in highly risk prone industries it is much easier to game financial incentives into "heads I win, tails you lose" contracts than to actually create a system that welds incentives to the intended outcomes.
bull fucking shit. How long does it take in terms of FTEs and calendar years to get a new drug approved? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a new model of passenger plane? Now compare: how long does it take to get a new flavor of security approved and start selling it to accredited investors? Oh, that's right: you don't have to get it approved. Or even registered. The retail parts of the financial industry are tightly regulated, but as the value of the transaction goes up, the regulations go down. Ditto for the penalties.
So I guess you ceded my point that the horrors are ongoing and the FDA is solving them to some extent. If you have a fully private solution, please feel free to suggest it - so long as you can address the profound difference between dealing with safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals as opposed to toaster ovens. For example: I say I have a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. How does your private organization evaluate this claim differently from how the FDA would? How would it inspect the plant in Switzerland that makes the drug, the plant in the UK that formulates the drug, and the plant in New Jersey that does the fill and finish differently than the FDA does? On the inspection and evaluation end I think the FDA should be doing even more, not less.
Corrupt, yes. But if politicians honest or otherwise managed to get rid of the medallions or even just change the law so that the medallions were significantly less valuable the municipality would be on the hook for a huge liability lawsuit from the medallion owners.
I have always loved it when people in favor of 'more regulation' have to reach back to 19th century horrors.
The drug and medical device industries LOVE regulations. It protects them and blocks any new competitors from entering the marketplace. Also keeps the 'base' cost high so they can slap on their profitable percentage on top.
No need to reach back to the 19th century for horrors - Look at the present day drugs imported by the US from India. How do you feel about fake statins and antibiotics?