Hm, that number doesn't look like an accident to me:-) Seems more like G's way of creatively rewarding people -- that is a decent chunk of change (although I'm not sure how much work was required to find it) and it's a nice little in-joke/recognition of the nature of both the work and the bug-finder:-)
The incentive of money destroys nearly any type of creative work (e.g., bug finding, vulnerability testing, etc). The lower Google keeps the $$ reward for the bug, the more likely they are to get people who are in it for the experience, professionalism, notoriety, or satisfaction of bug finding... not the money itself. I bet Google would prefer to have the former type of people on their 'payroll' as they will likely be more loyal, find bugs deeper in the code, and overall contribute more to the project than someone who sees it as a paycheck.
Richard G blasted into space last year, and to offset the tons of jet fuel his spaceship burned, he purchased some carbon offsets. At a talk in Austin earlier this year, he made what I thought was an interesting point: carbon offsets might not work as effectively as planned, but they help get you in the habit of doing something about the problem. When/if we discover a better way, then you've already got the habit formed -- you just switch it to whatever this new method might be.
I'm sure there are some flaws in that but it was an interesting take I hadn't heard before.
Yes, people care about money, especially if they want to start (or have) a family. But If you compete on salary alone, other companies can easily match or exceed what you offer, turning your retention efforts into a commodity process, a race-to-the-top if you will.
What you want to offer is a work environment that the employee can't get anywhere else. That doesn't necessarily involve expensive toys and free stuff all the time. There is a third option -- a sustained, long-term effort at making the work environment fun, challenging, and personally rewarding to each employee. It means creating and maintaining a culture around those aspects. It means hiring only the best so people feel like they are working with smart people all day. It means providing career growth paths no matter what the position.
It's really tough, but when a company does it right, it really works. It certainly isn't free, but if you have this in place, it is much easier to retain employees than with salary alone, especially in these economic times.
I read it as that the documentation is incomplete or erroneous. The article talks about "technical documentation issues" and says "the company is working to fix problems with the documentation".
"Of a total of reported 212 deaths on Everest from 1921 to 2006, 192 occurred above Base Camp, the last encampment before technical (roped) climbing begins."
Does this mean that 10% of climbers die at (or below) base camp? That's a little scary, because in early October this year, I spent a night at a tent hotel near base camp on the Tibetan side. The altitude is 5200m. I had pretty bad headaches and stomach weirdness from the air pressure differences. Two of the three people I was with had trouble breathing; one even vomited after waking up in the morning. Now I'm glad we didn't go up any higher.
I got some amazing photos though and, well it's Mount Frickin' Everest!
Do you make him write docs, or attach a junior programmer to him for that purpose?... somewhere up the ladder a software engineer's job becomes mostly writing docs (regardless of whether you go management or architect)
Really? Have you never heard of a technical writer? We write great documentation so developers don't have to:-)
Accepting something is a tacit acknowledgement of everything that generated the thing you are accepting, unless you can furiously spin it otherwise (as someone mentioned re: Ron Paul accepting money from white supremacists). You are benefiting from any process or judgment that produced that money. You're also linking yourself, publicly, with the ideology of the group or person that generated that money.
I live in Shanghai. All TV stations on my cable outlet have been replaced by broadcasts from either CCTV 1 (the main station) or CCTV 9 (for us English speakers). Everything on both stations is 24/7 earthquake coverage.
As far as I can tell the Internet is normal.
At 2:28 PM yesterday the entire country observed three minutes of silence for the victims.
Disclaimer: IAATW (I am a technical writer) at a mid-sized SW/HW engineering company. The problem is not getting the user to read the docs. The problem is making sure they find the appropriate information once they're in there.
Most users hit the docs only when they encounter a problem. In that case they might crack a smile at a haiku in their doc set, but ultimately I bet that those nonstandard forms of writing would impede the comprehension of the material. As someone else here pointed out already, you know the docs are counter-intuitive when you have to pause for "a few moments of thought" as far as where to proceed next in the docs.
I hate to be a killjoy, but: Get in, read a couple lines, and get back to your app - that's the goal. Anything else is a distraction (at best) and a waste of time (at worst).
However, the article makes the point that "the humor and wit sampled above is only a tiny fraction of what's included, as the documentation itself is often actually quite technical and certainly useful." (I take this to mean that the humor is present in only a tiny fraction of the overall documentation set.) This design might show that the documentation author himself set appropriate limits on the humor:-)
So would a play which involved audience participation, and which was scripted such that according to said audience participation could result in one of several outcomes, then become a sport? I don't know if such a thing would offend the High Poobahs of theatre, but it sounds like a cool work of art to me.
As soon as you said that, I thought of The Mystery of Edwin Drood, a play which does involve audience participation. Because Dickens died before finishing the novel, the story has no ending. When performed as a play, the audience votes on who the murderer is, and then the cast finishes the play with one of several endings per the audience's choice. It's actually pretty cool:-)
"Some people say that there are journalists in China that have been arrested. We have hundreds of journalists in China, and some of them have legal problems. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression."
Yeah, I'd say being imprisoned is a pretty big legal problem...
If a movie isn't showing at the Alamo Drafthouse, I usually don't go. You can't beat cheap tickets, no commercials, respectful patrons (no little kids screaming, no teens talking on cell phones, no jackasses throwing popcorn at you), great food and beer served during the movie, great staff, special events, quirky movies, and weekly special events.
Um.. then again, if you don't live in central or south Texas, you can ignore this:-)
Unfortunately, this action is valid (as someone else already pointed out), if a little silly. If the MPAA can sue one place (2600) for propogating links to the code, then they can sue another place (CopyLeft) for propogating links to the code (not on their website, but on a T-shirt this time). It seems legally valid (not that I support the move:-) -ryry
Slashdot Mirror
Errr I screwed up that 1337-5p34k at the end there ...
Hm, that number doesn't look like an accident to me :-) Seems more like G's way of creatively rewarding people -- that is a decent chunk of change (although I'm not sure how much work was required to find it) and it's a nice little in-joke/recognition of the nature of both the work and the bug-finder :-)
It's too bad they couldn't pay out 7|-|4|\||5 ;-)
The incentive of money destroys nearly any type of creative work (e.g., bug finding, vulnerability testing, etc). The lower Google keeps the $$ reward for the bug, the more likely they are to get people who are in it for the experience, professionalism, notoriety, or satisfaction of bug finding ... not the money itself. I bet Google would prefer to have the former type of people on their 'payroll' as they will likely be more loyal, find bugs deeper in the code, and overall contribute more to the project than someone who sees it as a paycheck.
Richard G blasted into space last year, and to offset the tons of jet fuel his spaceship burned, he purchased some carbon offsets. At a talk in Austin earlier this year, he made what I thought was an interesting point: carbon offsets might not work as effectively as planned, but they help get you in the habit of doing something about the problem. When/if we discover a better way, then you've already got the habit formed -- you just switch it to whatever this new method might be.
I'm sure there are some flaws in that but it was an interesting take I hadn't heard before.
Seconded.
Yes, people care about money, especially if they want to start (or have) a family. But If you compete on salary alone, other companies can easily match or exceed what you offer, turning your retention efforts into a commodity process, a race-to-the-top if you will.
What you want to offer is a work environment that the employee can't get anywhere else. That doesn't necessarily involve expensive toys and free stuff all the time. There is a third option -- a sustained, long-term effort at making the work environment fun, challenging, and personally rewarding to each employee. It means creating and maintaining a culture around those aspects. It means hiring only the best so people feel like they are working with smart people all day. It means providing career growth paths no matter what the position.
It's really tough, but when a company does it right, it really works. It certainly isn't free, but if you have this in place, it is much easier to retain employees than with salary alone, especially in these economic times.
I read it as that the documentation is incomplete or erroneous. The article talks about "technical documentation issues" and says "the company is working to fix problems with the documentation".
http://www.womgames.com/index.php
The article says:
"Of a total of reported 212 deaths on Everest from 1921 to 2006, 192 occurred above Base Camp, the last encampment before technical (roped) climbing begins."
Does this mean that 10% of climbers die at (or below) base camp? That's a little scary, because in early October this year, I spent a night at a tent hotel near base camp on the Tibetan side. The altitude is 5200m. I had pretty bad headaches and stomach weirdness from the air pressure differences. Two of the three people I was with had trouble breathing; one even vomited after waking up in the morning. Now I'm glad we didn't go up any higher.
I got some amazing photos though and, well it's Mount Frickin' Everest!
Do you make him write docs, or attach a junior programmer to him for that purpose?... somewhere up the ladder a software engineer's job becomes mostly writing docs (regardless of whether you go management or architect)
Really? Have you never heard of a technical writer? We write great documentation so developers don't have to :-)
Accepting something is a tacit acknowledgement of everything that generated the thing you are accepting, unless you can furiously spin it otherwise (as someone mentioned re: Ron Paul accepting money from white supremacists). You are benefiting from any process or judgment that produced that money. You're also linking yourself, publicly, with the ideology of the group or person that generated that money.
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/19/online_implicat.php
I live in Shanghai. All TV stations on my cable outlet have been replaced by broadcasts from either CCTV 1 (the main station) or CCTV 9 (for us English speakers). Everything on both stations is 24/7 earthquake coverage.
As far as I can tell the Internet is normal.
At 2:28 PM yesterday the entire country observed three minutes of silence for the victims.
Disclaimer: IAATW (I am a technical writer) at a mid-sized SW/HW engineering company. The problem is not getting the user to read the docs. The problem is making sure they find the appropriate information once they're in there.
:-)
Most users hit the docs only when they encounter a problem. In that case they might crack a smile at a haiku in their doc set, but ultimately I bet that those nonstandard forms of writing would impede the comprehension of the material. As someone else here pointed out already, you know the docs are counter-intuitive when you have to pause for "a few moments of thought" as far as where to proceed next in the docs.
I hate to be a killjoy, but: Get in, read a couple lines, and get back to your app - that's the goal. Anything else is a distraction (at best) and a waste of time (at worst).
However, the article makes the point that "the humor and wit sampled above is only a tiny fraction of what's included, as the documentation itself is often actually quite technical and certainly useful." (I take this to mean that the humor is present in only a tiny fraction of the overall documentation set.) This design might show that the documentation author himself set appropriate limits on the humor
So would a play which involved audience participation, and which was scripted such that according to said audience participation could result in one of several outcomes, then become a sport? I don't know if such a thing would offend the High Poobahs of theatre, but it sounds like a cool work of art to me.
:-)
As soon as you said that, I thought of The Mystery of Edwin Drood, a play which does involve audience participation. Because Dickens died before finishing the novel, the story has no ending. When performed as a play, the audience votes on who the murderer is, and then the cast finishes the play with one of several endings per the audience's choice. It's actually pretty cool
Ars Technica explains the "yellow line" technology (and other related football tech) in this article: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/firstandte n.ars
In the interest of blatant self promotion, I offer my own coverage of CP in JIVE Magazine :-)
:-)
Yeah, we're no NYT, but still
Best quote from the Chinese gov't official:
...
"Some people say that there are journalists in China that have been arrested. We have hundreds of journalists in China, and some of them have legal problems. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression."
Yeah, I'd say being imprisoned is a pretty big legal problem
http://www.hatchmusic.com
If a movie isn't showing at the Alamo Drafthouse, I usually don't go. You can't beat cheap tickets, no commercials, respectful patrons (no little kids screaming, no teens talking on cell phones, no jackasses throwing popcorn at you), great food and beer served during the movie, great staff, special events, quirky movies, and weekly special events. Um .. then again, if you don't live in central or south Texas, you can ignore this :-)
100% agreed.
over-weight ... 90 pound ... wimplings
...
Man I sure am glad I chose an English degree over CS
Don't forget Assawoman, VA :-)
Unfortunately, this action is valid (as someone else already pointed out), if a little silly. If the MPAA can sue one place (2600) for propogating links to the code, then they can sue another place (CopyLeft) for propogating links to the code (not on their website, but on a T-shirt this time). It seems legally valid (not that I support the move :-)
-ryry
Just to clarify ... it's the MPAA .. not the RIAA Been reading too many Napster articles lately? :-)
-ryry