What's the alternative? Just shut down all the other projects, and everyone has to use Gnome3? Then the Linux desktop really will be dead, dead, dead because Gnome3 is a steaming turd. The whole reason there's alternative desktops is because no one can agree on how a desktop should be.
If you think the proprietary stuff is any better, I invite you to look at Windows 8/Metro. No one is excited by that, but there, your only choice is to stick with Win7 for as long as you can. It's not like you can fork the Win7 UI and install it on Win8. You're stuck with whatever crap MS decides you should use, whether you like it or not.
I don't know what you're talking about with KDE and bugginess. It works just fine for me on Linux Mint 12 KDE (LM13KDE is even better, but I haven't installed that yet on the laptop I'm typing this on at the moment). It's perfectly stable.
Yes, the versions before around 4.6 had problems (the ones before 4.4 were seriously buggy), but that's old news. Get something with 4.8 or 4.9 or better and it's fine. The latest Linux Mint KDE version is excellent.
This is exactly right. So many people are bitching about Unity and Gnome3, all this would be moot if they'd just dump that crap and make KDE the default desktop, and different distros customize the many configuration options in it to their liking. KDE can be made to look and act very different with the config options and themes (and of course users can use that as a starting point and make further tweaks easily in "System Settings"). People who want something lighterweight can use XFCE or whatever, so that can be offered as an alternative to KDE in some distros.
Why all the distros are so in love with Gnome, I have no idea.
They have it on Reddit, and it works just fine. When people make a substantial change to their post after-the-fact (rather than 5 seconds after hitting "submit"), especially after replies have been made, they append the new text at the edit, or make a note, prefaced with "EDIT:", so that you know the post has been edited, usually to fix grammar.
Are Slashdotters so stupid they can't handle this bit of web-etiquette? Reddit doesn't even cater to an audience of self-proclaimed techies, it's for the general (internet) public, though it does have some sections on there that are aimed at techies like r/technology, r/science, r/Linux, etc.
No. The reason you flip a coin is because the coin will land on the correct choice for you, if it's a legitimate coin-flip. Otherwise, your body would find a way to shut it down.
So you actually like sitting in a cubicle farm all day, having to deal with a boss and deadlines, having to waste lots of time in meetings instead of working on interesting things, having to commute in rush-hour traffic? I don't like any of those things. Those are the things that make work not-fun. I don't know of any jobs that don't have at least some of these things (I did manage to escape many of them by being a telecommuter, but I've found this has its own unique challenges). Would I like to do programming work as a hobby if I got paid the same for doing nothing? Sure. But I'll pass on the deadlines and pressure and all the rest. Why on earth would anyone sign up for that stuff if they weren't required to?
This is a pretty stupid comment. Everyone wants to be an artist or a musician or a sports hero or an actor; that's why those jobs don't pay a dime unless you're really good and/or really lucky. There's tons of actors who aren't making any money acting, and are supporting themselves by waiting tables, trying to get their "big break".
People do office jobs because they want money, not because they enjoy the work. They go into these professions usually because they have some interest in it, and reason that it's better to make $100k working at a mind-numbing office job as an engineer doing something that's occasionally mildly interesting than to make $100k cleaning up nasty stopped-up toilets.
I'm an engineer, and if I didn't need a paycheck, there's no way I'd be doing this work. Sure, I'd do some engineering-type work in my spare time if I had a nice, fat trust fund check, but I wouldn't be doing it in some soul-crushing cubicle farm, answering to some stupid micromanaging boss, having to attend lots of inane time-wasting meetings, having to answer to angry impatient customers, and having to worry about my performance evaluation and whether I'm getting a raise or if I'm getting laid off because upper management has made some boneheaded decision. Instead, I'd sit at home and play with Arduinios or write open-source software, on my own schedule, without worrying at all about deadlines or bosses. That's why these things are called "hobbies" and not "work".
I think that's incorrect. Whenever the ship accelerates or decelerates or gets hit by a photon torpedo or something, there's going to be a force applied to the ship, and to the things and people inside. Sure, if the ship isn't moving, there's zero-g, but the ship moves around a lot, changing its speed. And because of the enormous acceleration this ship must be capable of in order to get anywhere in a decent amount of time, it has to be far, far beyond the g-forces the human body can withstand (the humans would all be splats on the bulkheads whenever the ship leaves orbit). So Star Trek invented the "inertial damper", which is supposed to counteract this force, and greatly reduce the amount of accelerative force felt by the crew. Supposedly, when you see them getting thrown around, that's because there were forces that the inertial dampers weren't able to fully compensate for.
ST:TNG did foresee instant searching of the entire corpus of human knowledge. Didn't you notice all the times they just ask the computer to compile some list of a bunch of obscure facts (like "ships lost in this sector") and narrow it by various parameters? They show the ship's computer having all kinds of data many times on the show. The old series of course didn't do quite as well here, but I thought I remember some similar things with them asking the computer for analyses.
The can't have "instant video from around the globe" because they're not on Earth, and they have limited communications with Earth and the rest of the Federation. Star Trek never shows what life on Earth or the developed planets is like, only some glimpses of out-of-the-way frontier planets. They barely even talk about what life is like for someone outside Starfleet.
Star Trek didn't foresee Facebook stalkers for the same reason as the above: communications are limited. Plus, they're not showing the general population, they're only showing people who've signed up to join Starfleet and be crew on ships on dangerous missions in deep space.
TNG replaced the "tapes" with "isolinear optical chips", which aren't that different conceptually from USB drives, or perhaps hot-pluggable nonvolatile DDR.
On-demand and streaming video and Netflix again is a red herring because they're not on Earth, they're in deep space with limited communications. Maybe the crew is watching movies in their quarters from a collection available on the ship's computer, and we're not shown that for the same reason we're not shown them using the head.
The whole panel exploding thing was always pretty stupid. There's no reason to have that much power running through a console that's only there to provide a user interface. How much power is running through your keyboard, mouse, or LCD monitor on your desk? I was disappointed they kept that silliness up in several TNG episodes.
I must have missed the bathroom on the bridge though, and I've been watching TNG episodes fairly regularly lately on Netflix. Where was that? It'd be nice if they had occasionally shown someone actually using a bathroom. I think the closest I've seen in the series is when they needed some of Dr. Pulaski's DNA and rifled through her drawers and found a hairbrush (and shouldn't that be in the bathroom, anyway, and not your dresser?).
You're definitely right about the seatbelts too. WTF is with that? They even thought of them too; one of the TOS movies showed the Excelsior class ships with some kind of leg clamps that folded down to hold people in their chairs if they thought the ride was going to turn bumpy, but then decades later in TNG they're gone and bodies are flying around the bridge again every time the ship encounters any turbulence.
If I recall the TNG Technical Manual properly, it was a combination of several technologies. Some kind of forcefields/tractor beams to provide the "treadmill" effect you talk of and to move matter around (that stuff that you touch and interact with), holograms (for scenery that you don't touch), and replicators (for making the simulacra that you touch, and any food that you meat eat in there).
Sorry, no. The holodecks aren't that advanced really, not compared to warp drive, teleportation, or especially the Guardian or Forever. The main thing they depend on is force fields, which, although fantastical, don't require FTL speeds like warp drive does and don't require you to figure out the quantum properties of all the atoms in your body like teleportation does, and doesn't involve time travel like the GoF.
The way the holodeck works is pretty simple: holograms (like we already have in some ways) are used so people see projected images. When they touch stuff, they're either touching some kind of synthesized matter (which doesn't have to be all that realistic, it just needs to feel real, although I guess if people eat something on the holodeck, they have to use the replicator technology for that), or maybe a forcefield. And for your problem of people spreading out in a holographic town over an area larger than the size of the holodeck, that's easy: the different people are partitioned so they're all seeing different images. Force fields are used so that, while people may think they're walking long distances inside the holodeck, they're really walking in place on "treadmills" made by forcefields. Forcefields can be used to provide the sensation of movement that you don't get on a modern treadmill.
Obviously forcefields are rather fantastical, but again, they're not as fantastical as those other things. This is why Star Trek shouldn't be considered a blueprint for the future; it's gotten the timelines on many possible technologies wrong. They show Kirk & Co. flying around at FTL speeds and shooting FTL energy weapons, and using teleporters, but having no idea what a holodeck is and having rather primitive computers. Really, the biggest problem with the ST universe in my mind is the teleporters. Those are the most "out there" from what I can tell, more so than the warp drive or anything else. Replicators aren't in the same league because they don't have to work at the atomic level, they just use already-existing materials and assemble them, like a 3D printer. And the whole reason they even invented transporters for the series was because of budget constraints; it would have been too expensive on their meager budget to use shuttlecraft for every single episode, as it costs a lot more to film those scenes, and that's why they so rarely showed the shuttlecraft. It was cheap to just make people stand on a pad, then flip to another scene with them standing on some outdoor set, with a cheap film effect to show "beaming". That's the real reason they used teleporters at all. My hunch is, if we ever start building FTL starships, we're going to be warping around the galaxy and enjoying holodecks for a LONG time before we invent teleporters, if we ever do. And instead of re-enacting historical scenes in these holodecks, we're mostly going to be using them for virtual sex.
This kinda reminds me of those women who refuse to date a man unless he's married, and their goal is to get the man to leave his wife and marry her. And then, when the man cheats on her with yet another women, she's shocked!
I work in an "at will" state too. At the place I worked before the last one, my entire team was also laid off, and with zero notice. I walked into work one morning, was told to go straight to a conference room, and we were given our pink slips right there. The company was Freescale Semiconductor.
However, even though there was zero notice, the writing had been on the wall for many months. We knew the axe was going to fall, we just didn't know exactly when. The upper management had been bungling things so badly, for so long, pissing off their customers, and they finally threw in the towel and said they were going to exit this line of business.
Was I mad? No. Because instead of trying to find another job before getting laid off, I was waiting for it. Why? Simple: "severance bonus". I got either 3 or 4 months' salary in severance bonus. (I think it was 4, because I had some accrued vacation time too.) Why would I want to leave before then? It was like a giant paid vacation. It was great: I got a giant check in exchange for promising not to sue them (and over what? I have no idea, but I wasn't arguing), so I could relax and take my time looking for a new job. I had a new one within a month or two.
So I don't know about other companies, but from what I've seen and heard with the really big companies, getting laid off isn't that bad, because they cushion you well with a nice fat severance. It's certainly a lot better than "beating them to it" and quitting with no notice.
So I'm sorry, I don't recommend quitting with no notice in most cases. Many times, the company will give you a nice check so you'll go quietly. And you may want to use one of your coworkers or your boss as a reference (as I did when I left that company, as I was on good terms with my supervisor).
However, this doesn't mean you should never quit with no notice. If the company's run by a bunch of assholes and you're about to go out of your mind, I think it's excusable. It happened to me once. I don't expect to ever repeat that performance, but I'm not going to apologize for it, that place was just ridiculous. But I guess it taught me some things to look out for so I don't ever accept a job at such a crappy company again.
The company could even provide this as a service: "here's contact information for some short-term boyfriends that your wife/girlfriend can spend the day with while you're spending the week programming for us for free."
I don't think so, no. Companies seem to all think now that the economy's bad, there's tons of qualified workers out there willing to work for peanuts and they don't need to woo them with things like moving expenses any more, like they did during the dot-com boom. Of course, while the economy IS bad for people without skills (and many with skills), this doesn't mean there's suddenly tons of people available with lots of highly specific experience in X, Y, and Z, and in fact in the software industry, there isn't much evidence of a lack of openings relative to the number of candidates, it's probably one of the best fields to be in right now.
One way your company can deal with this is to pay well, and to tell candidates what they're going to be offered if they get the job. If I'm interviewing for a bunch of jobs, and one of them has a lot more hurdles to get through, and I don't know what they're going to pay, then if I'm pressed on time I may very well skip them. This goes double if they're a smaller company, because in my experience most (but definitely not all) smaller companies pay extremely poorly, and seem to think that just because they're smaller, they shouldn't have to pay as much and I should expect as much. The worst ones are the smaller companies that use third-party recruiter services to find candidates, because they're apparently too stupid to just post an ad on Craigslist or Dice.com by themselves, so they think that just because they're paying $20-30k for the recruiter's services, that I should take a pay cut of that amount.
Slashdot Mirror
Where'd he get the idea that a bunch of basement-dwellers would know anything about sailing or marine gear?
What's the alternative? Just shut down all the other projects, and everyone has to use Gnome3? Then the Linux desktop really will be dead, dead, dead because Gnome3 is a steaming turd. The whole reason there's alternative desktops is because no one can agree on how a desktop should be.
If you think the proprietary stuff is any better, I invite you to look at Windows 8/Metro. No one is excited by that, but there, your only choice is to stick with Win7 for as long as you can. It's not like you can fork the Win7 UI and install it on Win8. You're stuck with whatever crap MS decides you should use, whether you like it or not.
I don't know what you're talking about with KDE and bugginess. It works just fine for me on Linux Mint 12 KDE (LM13KDE is even better, but I haven't installed that yet on the laptop I'm typing this on at the moment). It's perfectly stable.
Yes, the versions before around 4.6 had problems (the ones before 4.4 were seriously buggy), but that's old news. Get something with 4.8 or 4.9 or better and it's fine. The latest Linux Mint KDE version is excellent.
This is exactly right. So many people are bitching about Unity and Gnome3, all this would be moot if they'd just dump that crap and make KDE the default desktop, and different distros customize the many configuration options in it to their liking. KDE can be made to look and act very different with the config options and themes (and of course users can use that as a starting point and make further tweaks easily in "System Settings"). People who want something lighterweight can use XFCE or whatever, so that can be offered as an alternative to KDE in some distros.
Why all the distros are so in love with Gnome, I have no idea.
That's because the cases where people get away with it and it's in the news are all large companies, not little 1-3 person companies.
They have it on Reddit, and it works just fine. When people make a substantial change to their post after-the-fact (rather than 5 seconds after hitting "submit"), especially after replies have been made, they append the new text at the edit, or make a note, prefaced with "EDIT:", so that you know the post has been edited, usually to fix grammar.
Are Slashdotters so stupid they can't handle this bit of web-etiquette? Reddit doesn't even cater to an audience of self-proclaimed techies, it's for the general (internet) public, though it does have some sections on there that are aimed at techies like r/technology, r/science, r/Linux, etc.
You're a freak. I recommend you get psychological help.
No. The reason you flip a coin is because the coin will land on the correct choice for you, if it's a legitimate coin-flip. Otherwise, your body would find a way to shut it down.
Recruiters are a total fucking waste of time IME.
So you actually like sitting in a cubicle farm all day, having to deal with a boss and deadlines, having to waste lots of time in meetings instead of working on interesting things, having to commute in rush-hour traffic? I don't like any of those things. Those are the things that make work not-fun. I don't know of any jobs that don't have at least some of these things (I did manage to escape many of them by being a telecommuter, but I've found this has its own unique challenges). Would I like to do programming work as a hobby if I got paid the same for doing nothing? Sure. But I'll pass on the deadlines and pressure and all the rest. Why on earth would anyone sign up for that stuff if they weren't required to?
This is a pretty stupid comment. Everyone wants to be an artist or a musician or a sports hero or an actor; that's why those jobs don't pay a dime unless you're really good and/or really lucky. There's tons of actors who aren't making any money acting, and are supporting themselves by waiting tables, trying to get their "big break".
People do office jobs because they want money, not because they enjoy the work. They go into these professions usually because they have some interest in it, and reason that it's better to make $100k working at a mind-numbing office job as an engineer doing something that's occasionally mildly interesting than to make $100k cleaning up nasty stopped-up toilets.
I'm an engineer, and if I didn't need a paycheck, there's no way I'd be doing this work. Sure, I'd do some engineering-type work in my spare time if I had a nice, fat trust fund check, but I wouldn't be doing it in some soul-crushing cubicle farm, answering to some stupid micromanaging boss, having to attend lots of inane time-wasting meetings, having to answer to angry impatient customers, and having to worry about my performance evaluation and whether I'm getting a raise or if I'm getting laid off because upper management has made some boneheaded decision. Instead, I'd sit at home and play with Arduinios or write open-source software, on my own schedule, without worrying at all about deadlines or bosses. That's why these things are called "hobbies" and not "work".
I think that's incorrect. Whenever the ship accelerates or decelerates or gets hit by a photon torpedo or something, there's going to be a force applied to the ship, and to the things and people inside. Sure, if the ship isn't moving, there's zero-g, but the ship moves around a lot, changing its speed. And because of the enormous acceleration this ship must be capable of in order to get anywhere in a decent amount of time, it has to be far, far beyond the g-forces the human body can withstand (the humans would all be splats on the bulkheads whenever the ship leaves orbit). So Star Trek invented the "inertial damper", which is supposed to counteract this force, and greatly reduce the amount of accelerative force felt by the crew. Supposedly, when you see them getting thrown around, that's because there were forces that the inertial dampers weren't able to fully compensate for.
I thought the latinum was the part that couldn't be replicated, and the gold was just to make it look nice or something.
You have some inaccuracies and red herrings here.
ST:TNG did foresee instant searching of the entire corpus of human knowledge. Didn't you notice all the times they just ask the computer to compile some list of a bunch of obscure facts (like "ships lost in this sector") and narrow it by various parameters? They show the ship's computer having all kinds of data many times on the show. The old series of course didn't do quite as well here, but I thought I remember some similar things with them asking the computer for analyses.
The can't have "instant video from around the globe" because they're not on Earth, and they have limited communications with Earth and the rest of the Federation. Star Trek never shows what life on Earth or the developed planets is like, only some glimpses of out-of-the-way frontier planets. They barely even talk about what life is like for someone outside Starfleet.
Star Trek didn't foresee Facebook stalkers for the same reason as the above: communications are limited. Plus, they're not showing the general population, they're only showing people who've signed up to join Starfleet and be crew on ships on dangerous missions in deep space.
TNG replaced the "tapes" with "isolinear optical chips", which aren't that different conceptually from USB drives, or perhaps hot-pluggable nonvolatile DDR.
On-demand and streaming video and Netflix again is a red herring because they're not on Earth, they're in deep space with limited communications. Maybe the crew is watching movies in their quarters from a collection available on the ship's computer, and we're not shown that for the same reason we're not shown them using the head.
The whole panel exploding thing was always pretty stupid. There's no reason to have that much power running through a console that's only there to provide a user interface. How much power is running through your keyboard, mouse, or LCD monitor on your desk? I was disappointed they kept that silliness up in several TNG episodes.
I must have missed the bathroom on the bridge though, and I've been watching TNG episodes fairly regularly lately on Netflix. Where was that? It'd be nice if they had occasionally shown someone actually using a bathroom. I think the closest I've seen in the series is when they needed some of Dr. Pulaski's DNA and rifled through her drawers and found a hairbrush (and shouldn't that be in the bathroom, anyway, and not your dresser?).
You're definitely right about the seatbelts too. WTF is with that? They even thought of them too; one of the TOS movies showed the Excelsior class ships with some kind of leg clamps that folded down to hold people in their chairs if they thought the ride was going to turn bumpy, but then decades later in TNG they're gone and bodies are flying around the bridge again every time the ship encounters any turbulence.
If I recall the TNG Technical Manual properly, it was a combination of several technologies. Some kind of forcefields/tractor beams to provide the "treadmill" effect you talk of and to move matter around (that stuff that you touch and interact with), holograms (for scenery that you don't touch), and replicators (for making the simulacra that you touch, and any food that you meat eat in there).
Sorry, no. The holodecks aren't that advanced really, not compared to warp drive, teleportation, or especially the Guardian or Forever. The main thing they depend on is force fields, which, although fantastical, don't require FTL speeds like warp drive does and don't require you to figure out the quantum properties of all the atoms in your body like teleportation does, and doesn't involve time travel like the GoF.
The way the holodeck works is pretty simple: holograms (like we already have in some ways) are used so people see projected images. When they touch stuff, they're either touching some kind of synthesized matter (which doesn't have to be all that realistic, it just needs to feel real, although I guess if people eat something on the holodeck, they have to use the replicator technology for that), or maybe a forcefield. And for your problem of people spreading out in a holographic town over an area larger than the size of the holodeck, that's easy: the different people are partitioned so they're all seeing different images. Force fields are used so that, while people may think they're walking long distances inside the holodeck, they're really walking in place on "treadmills" made by forcefields. Forcefields can be used to provide the sensation of movement that you don't get on a modern treadmill.
Obviously forcefields are rather fantastical, but again, they're not as fantastical as those other things. This is why Star Trek shouldn't be considered a blueprint for the future; it's gotten the timelines on many possible technologies wrong. They show Kirk & Co. flying around at FTL speeds and shooting FTL energy weapons, and using teleporters, but having no idea what a holodeck is and having rather primitive computers. Really, the biggest problem with the ST universe in my mind is the teleporters. Those are the most "out there" from what I can tell, more so than the warp drive or anything else. Replicators aren't in the same league because they don't have to work at the atomic level, they just use already-existing materials and assemble them, like a 3D printer. And the whole reason they even invented transporters for the series was because of budget constraints; it would have been too expensive on their meager budget to use shuttlecraft for every single episode, as it costs a lot more to film those scenes, and that's why they so rarely showed the shuttlecraft. It was cheap to just make people stand on a pad, then flip to another scene with them standing on some outdoor set, with a cheap film effect to show "beaming". That's the real reason they used teleporters at all. My hunch is, if we ever start building FTL starships, we're going to be warping around the galaxy and enjoying holodecks for a LONG time before we invent teleporters, if we ever do. And instead of re-enacting historical scenes in these holodecks, we're mostly going to be using them for virtual sex.
Except gold-pressed latinum, and dilithium crystals.
This kinda reminds me of those women who refuse to date a man unless he's married, and their goal is to get the man to leave his wife and marry her. And then, when the man cheats on her with yet another women, she's shocked!
I work in an "at will" state too. At the place I worked before the last one, my entire team was also laid off, and with zero notice. I walked into work one morning, was told to go straight to a conference room, and we were given our pink slips right there. The company was Freescale Semiconductor.
However, even though there was zero notice, the writing had been on the wall for many months. We knew the axe was going to fall, we just didn't know exactly when. The upper management had been bungling things so badly, for so long, pissing off their customers, and they finally threw in the towel and said they were going to exit this line of business.
Was I mad? No. Because instead of trying to find another job before getting laid off, I was waiting for it. Why? Simple: "severance bonus". I got either 3 or 4 months' salary in severance bonus. (I think it was 4, because I had some accrued vacation time too.) Why would I want to leave before then? It was like a giant paid vacation. It was great: I got a giant check in exchange for promising not to sue them (and over what? I have no idea, but I wasn't arguing), so I could relax and take my time looking for a new job. I had a new one within a month or two.
So I don't know about other companies, but from what I've seen and heard with the really big companies, getting laid off isn't that bad, because they cushion you well with a nice fat severance. It's certainly a lot better than "beating them to it" and quitting with no notice.
So I'm sorry, I don't recommend quitting with no notice in most cases. Many times, the company will give you a nice check so you'll go quietly. And you may want to use one of your coworkers or your boss as a reference (as I did when I left that company, as I was on good terms with my supervisor).
However, this doesn't mean you should never quit with no notice. If the company's run by a bunch of assholes and you're about to go out of your mind, I think it's excusable. It happened to me once. I don't expect to ever repeat that performance, but I'm not going to apologize for it, that place was just ridiculous. But I guess it taught me some things to look out for so I don't ever accept a job at such a crappy company again.
The company could even provide this as a service: "here's contact information for some short-term boyfriends that your wife/girlfriend can spend the day with while you're spending the week programming for us for free."
Interesting, thanks for the insight. I haven't been looking seriously at all so I didn't realize this was the case.
GoDaddy is located in Scottsdale, Arizona, which is a haven for sociopaths and assholes, and is the home of the "30,000 dollar a year millionaire".
Don't companies give moving expenses anymore?
I don't think so, no. Companies seem to all think now that the economy's bad, there's tons of qualified workers out there willing to work for peanuts and they don't need to woo them with things like moving expenses any more, like they did during the dot-com boom. Of course, while the economy IS bad for people without skills (and many with skills), this doesn't mean there's suddenly tons of people available with lots of highly specific experience in X, Y, and Z, and in fact in the software industry, there isn't much evidence of a lack of openings relative to the number of candidates, it's probably one of the best fields to be in right now.
One way your company can deal with this is to pay well, and to tell candidates what they're going to be offered if they get the job. If I'm interviewing for a bunch of jobs, and one of them has a lot more hurdles to get through, and I don't know what they're going to pay, then if I'm pressed on time I may very well skip them. This goes double if they're a smaller company, because in my experience most (but definitely not all) smaller companies pay extremely poorly, and seem to think that just because they're smaller, they shouldn't have to pay as much and I should expect as much. The worst ones are the smaller companies that use third-party recruiter services to find candidates, because they're apparently too stupid to just post an ad on Craigslist or Dice.com by themselves, so they think that just because they're paying $20-30k for the recruiter's services, that I should take a pay cut of that amount.