Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Either way, the answer is simple. Rather than having a tax system based on how much money a person makes, why not have a tax system based on how much money people spend? Jobs borrowed billions using his stock as collateral. What happened to that money? I'm going to take a guess and say he spent it at some point.
Chances are he just reinvested the majority of it.
I did find a couple of implementations of semaphores that implemented fifo outside of the core libraries, but the implemetation seemed very slow with lots of context switches. Reviewing comments on the java implemention, "fair" semaphores are also a lot slower than non-fair.
Shamefully, I will admit that I assumed they were always fair, so I definitely learned something.
Thanks for responding. The fairness parameter is interesting - I would love to see how it was implemented in java on Windows since all of the kernel objects (mutex, semaphore, etc) are not guaranteed to be processed fairly. I may have to go do some investigating.
I admit it has been a few years since I developed in Java, but I wouldn't mind reading what your specific concerns are about collections and concurrency in.Net. Here is astarting point for concurrency and one for collections.
I would also be interested in hearing what you think is missing from the.Net ecosystem.
Personally, I trust scientists much more than businessmen. Good scientists are trained to be brutally honest with themselves, and to use methods that expose rather than hide flaws in their own reasoning.
Businessmen are trained to be confident in their abilities and conclusions regardless of reality.
This means that when businessmen look at the objective opinions of good scientists, with their "given this" and "see chart X for exceptions", they blow them off. Then they spend millions pointing out how the scientists can't even make up their mind.
For me, it's an easy choice.
Wow. So in your over-generalized world, scientists are smart and good and businessmen are evil and stupid. I'm shocked that you choose to side with the scientists.
Also, it is the Scrum Masters job to shield the team from pressure from higher management. Stakeholders are allowed to (and must) prioritise tasks, but the influence should end there
In my experience, people at the level of a Scrum Master may have the responsibility to shield the team but they rarely have the authority. If the Scrum Master, or even a level higher, is unable to deliver to management's expectations, don't believe management is meeting to decide how they failed or how to replace themselves.
My experiences are the exact opposite when it comes to liquor distribution. In Calgary, stores have good specials on beer, wine and hard liquor all the time if you shop around. I can also get fantastic service at several specialized wine shops. I spend about twelve weeks a year in the B.C. Interior and the liquor store hours are terrible (still closed Sundays and holidays, only open until 6 pm every night except Friday until 9 pm. I find the prices in B.C. very similar to Calgary's regular prices, but then B.C. adds an additional 7% tax at checkout.
I don't know anyone who goes to B.C. without buying their booze in Calgary first. If you are paying less in B.C. you're probably not shopping around for the best deals. We figured out that we saved over $100 by buying $500 worth of booze in Calgary before heading out last summer. That wasn't even including the 7% PST in B.C.
because they can just capitalize on their profits, sell out at the right time, and jump to another ship. that is how it is happening for a long time in wall street now
People can't just magically "sell out," there has to be a buyer who is willing to pay for the shares. What is the incentive for someone to buy if you have just stripped the value out of the company?
The article is highlighting what the actual intent of corporations is, to enrich the nation/state and it's citizens which chartered it, not to merely increase corporate shareholder value.
The nation/state is enriched through wealth redistribution (corporate taxes, captial gains, employee taxes). Asking corporations to operate with a different mandate than to maximize shareholder wealth causes several problems within the company, including problems raising capital, and implies that the government is incapable of performing its role in the nation/state of redistributing wealth.
You can tell this is a geek site. Bad software rollout, first post wants to blame the QA manager, second wants to blame "Upper Management." How about a little blame for the devs?
The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products.
Wow - we have very different experiences with Google these days. I "maintain" computers for different family members in 4 different homes and I have removed Google toolbar multiple times from each one. When asked, nobody remembers wanting to install it. The toolbar is now included with a few of the standard downloads/upgrades (for example, Shockware). Of course, it's not "force" but if the toolbar is being installed without users having to check a box to install it, then I consider it adware.
Personally, the idea that the toolbar is available in a download from other companies bothers me and stops me from wanting to use it. If I want the toolbar, I will go to Google's site and download it - I'm waiting for the day I go to download the latest version of Reader and I forget to clear the "Install Google OS" checkbox;)
Further, I would think it improper to allow developers to use AJAX without understanding the actual underlying meaning.
Really? Improper? For a little perspective, we used to think that it would be improper to code in C if you couldn't write assembler. Suprisingly lots of people were successful at a higher level of abstraction without understanding the underlying structure.
Ajax is just a more recent example of the same phenomena. For now, it's important to understand the underlying technologies because the toolkits aren't robust enough yet, but eventually the majority of developers will simply use it as a basic tool without any understanding of the core technologies.
that folks like Lay, Skilling, Milken, and Boesky, speak publicly about the miracle of free markets, then go back to their boardrooms and do their damndest to put the markets in their pocket
I also just finished The Smartest Guys in the Room, and I was left with impression that Lay is an idiot, definitely not smart enough or driven enough to control the market. It seemed to me that Andy Fastow (former Enron CFO) was the dirtiest of them all, and Skilling set up the environment for Fastow to flourish.
Lay's just a wannabe politician who couldn't control the monster he created.
Big Business pays developers to contribute code to open source projects to add new features that they want? And your problem is what, exactly?
It's not my problem;)
The issue is that "Big Business" pays a subset of the developers to help set the direction but the majority of developers are unpaid. If you have a better interpretation of the concern, please share it.
I'm confused about what you (and the author) mean by "being treated more as subcontractors".
I don't think it's about existing versions, it seems to me that the complaint is that the large corps are setting the direction for future development.
The idea is that IBM (for example) has a direction for the projects it supports and uses the team's developers to implement that vision despite only paying a few of the team members directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, the answer is simple. Rather than having a tax system based on how much money a person makes, why not have a tax system based on how much money people spend? Jobs borrowed billions using his stock as collateral. What happened to that money? I'm going to take a guess and say he spent it at some point.
Chances are he just reinvested the majority of it.
Some of the greatest inventions came from people who were labelled as crackpots in their day.
and some of the worst inventions come from crackpots everyday.
Shamefully, I will admit that I assumed they were always fair, so I definitely learned something.
Thanks for responding. The fairness parameter is interesting - I would love to see how it was implemented in java on Windows since all of the kernel objects (mutex, semaphore, etc) are not guaranteed to be processed fairly. I may have to go do some investigating.
I would also be interested in hearing what you think is missing from the .Net ecosystem.
Find a new company. Quick.
There is no such requirement in any jurisdiction I've looked at
I'm not sure which jurisdictions you've looked at but you may want to look again. Usually there are five elements of a valid contract:
Consideration is exactly what the gp post was talking about. Of course, never take legal advice on slashdot.
Siebel?
Personally, I trust scientists much more than businessmen. Good scientists are trained to be brutally honest with themselves, and to use methods that expose rather than hide flaws in their own reasoning.
Businessmen are trained to be confident in their abilities and conclusions regardless of reality.
This means that when businessmen look at the objective opinions of good scientists, with their "given this" and "see chart X for exceptions", they blow them off. Then they spend millions pointing out how the scientists can't even make up their mind.
For me, it's an easy choice.
Wow. So in your over-generalized world, scientists are smart and good and businessmen are evil and stupid. I'm shocked that you choose to side with the scientists.
Also, it is the Scrum Masters job to shield the team from pressure from higher management. Stakeholders are allowed to (and must) prioritise tasks, but the influence should end there
In my experience, people at the level of a Scrum Master may have the responsibility to shield the team but they rarely have the authority. If the Scrum Master, or even a level higher, is unable to deliver to management's expectations, don't believe management is meeting to decide how they failed or how to replace themselves.
a majority shareholder would have > 50%+1!
An unacceptable one off error, please test boundary cases before checking in your comments ;)
My experiences are the exact opposite when it comes to liquor distribution. In Calgary, stores have good specials on beer, wine and hard liquor all the time if you shop around. I can also get fantastic service at several specialized wine shops. I spend about twelve weeks a year in the B.C. Interior and the liquor store hours are terrible (still closed Sundays and holidays, only open until 6 pm every night except Friday until 9 pm. I find the prices in B.C. very similar to Calgary's regular prices, but then B.C. adds an additional 7% tax at checkout. I don't know anyone who goes to B.C. without buying their booze in Calgary first. If you are paying less in B.C. you're probably not shopping around for the best deals. We figured out that we saved over $100 by buying $500 worth of booze in Calgary before heading out last summer. That wasn't even including the 7% PST in B.C.
because they can just capitalize on their profits, sell out at the right time, and jump to another ship. that is how it is happening for a long time in wall street now
People can't just magically "sell out," there has to be a buyer who is willing to pay for the shares. What is the incentive for someone to buy if you have just stripped the value out of the company?The article is highlighting what the actual intent of corporations is, to enrich the nation/state and it's citizens which chartered it, not to merely increase corporate shareholder value.
The nation/state is enriched through wealth redistribution (corporate taxes, captial gains, employee taxes). Asking corporations to operate with a different mandate than to maximize shareholder wealth causes several problems within the company, including problems raising capital, and implies that the government is incapable of performing its role in the nation/state of redistributing wealth.You can tell this is a geek site. Bad software rollout, first post wants to blame the QA manager, second wants to blame "Upper Management." How about a little blame for the devs?
Bill - why are you reading slashdot on a Tuesday night - I thought it was bridge night with Buffett.
The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products.
Wow - we have very different experiences with Google these days. I "maintain" computers for different family members in 4 different homes and I have removed Google toolbar multiple times from each one. When asked, nobody remembers wanting to install it. The toolbar is now included with a few of the standard downloads/upgrades (for example, Shockware). Of course, it's not "force" but if the toolbar is being installed without users having to check a box to install it, then I consider it adware.
Personally, the idea that the toolbar is available in a download from other companies bothers me and stops me from wanting to use it. If I want the toolbar, I will go to Google's site and download it - I'm waiting for the day I go to download the latest version of Reader and I forget to clear the "Install Google OS" checkbox ;)
That's not what the rest of Canada calls you ;)
Really? Improper? For a little perspective, we used to think that it would be improper to code in C if you couldn't write assembler. Suprisingly lots of people were successful at a higher level of abstraction without understanding the underlying structure.
Ajax is just a more recent example of the same phenomena. For now, it's important to understand the underlying technologies because the toolkits aren't robust enough yet, but eventually the majority of developers will simply use it as a basic tool without any understanding of the core technologies.
For the most part, they will be successful too.
I also just finished The Smartest Guys in the Room, and I was left with impression that Lay is an idiot, definitely not smart enough or driven enough to control the market. It seemed to me that Andy Fastow (former Enron CFO) was the dirtiest of them all, and Skilling set up the environment for Fastow to flourish. Lay's just a wannabe politician who couldn't control the monster he created.
Considering MSFT was founded in 1975, I have to call bullshit.
Big Business pays developers to contribute code to open source projects to add new features that they want? And your problem is what, exactly?
It's not my problemThe issue is that "Big Business" pays a subset of the developers to help set the direction but the majority of developers are unpaid. If you have a better interpretation of the concern, please share it.
I'm confused about what you (and the author) mean by "being treated more as subcontractors".
I don't think it's about existing versions, it seems to me that the complaint is that the large corps are setting the direction for future development.The idea is that IBM (for example) has a direction for the projects it supports and uses the team's developers to implement that vision despite only paying a few of the team members directly.
but "zombies" don't scream "grown up" to most people over the age of 12.
Really? Are you sure? Zombies? Zombies should scream "get a life!"
postgres and firebird is better then SQL server for 99.999999999999999999% of the businesses that need a database.
I'm curious what the requirement is for the 0.000000000000000001% of businesses that you are willing to concede to SQL Server.