I went freelance and am doing better than I ever did at the companies and corporations I worked for in the past.
Ditto that. I kept losing every job I got because of incompetent management leading to the company going under. I finally started my own company, and make about twice what I did before, and I get to work from home where my wife and brand new baby boy are. Plus, I've kept at it about three times as long as my longest stint at employment.
I don't see why my success should depend so much on other people's abilities and decisions. That's the problem with stock options. Sure, they're nice if you work for M$ or Google or Amazon before their IPO, but 99.9% of the time taking stock options is like placing a bet on the competence of your management.
Think about it. Can you even wrap your brain around the concepts of "competence" and "management" at the same time? I didn't think so. Forget about stock options. Find a company with better incentives.
AFAIK, da Vinci (and other inventors of the time) placed errors and flaws in the schematics of their inventions on purpose.
I'm a software engineer, and I've been doing this for years. I didn't realise da Vinci also had job security issues.
He didn't have 'job security' issues -- he simply had 'security' issues. He didn't want anybody else to steal his ideas, so he would record things incorrectly. I remember seeing a special on tv about reproducing Da Vinci machines, and one of the items they replicated was a diving suit. They came to the conclusion that he had intentionally sketched one part incorrectly -- because if you built it that way, the diver would drown! It would have been an obvious mistake for someone like Leonardo, but for somebody just trying to copy his plans, not so obvious.
So... maybe Leonardo was actually the first example of "security through obscurity"?
I don't understand. How on earth do these people get jobs as reporters with so little integrity, not to mention such poor writing and cognition skills? Who is going to read this article and not see right through the bias?
They're basically cheerleaders. They're not going to change anybody's mind with their 'new information' but they're going to make people who already share their viewpoint happy about them. And since even losing sides need cheerleaders, they still have jobs.
Same as 'debate' shows like Crossfire. They're not debating to come to a conclusion. Each side's arguments are so extremist to their viewpoints, they couldn't possibly change anybody's mind. They're just cheerleaders, to make the people already on their own side feel even more righteous.
Actually, that interview led to a particularly amusing bit of research. Comedy Central, although open enough to the fact that O'Reilly was just joking in fun when he said that nothing but "stoned slackers watch your dopey show", didn't like the misconception it reflected. So, they had Nielson Media do some research....
It turned out that viewers of The Daily Show were more likely to have completed a four-year college than viewers of The Factor.
Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to hit an obstacle
PLUS there's the eyesight factor. I think it's a brilliant idea for old people with failing eyesight to zip around at 18 mph. Riiiight....
Interesting fact: the lens in the eye never stops growing. So the older you are, the thicker and more opaque your lenses are. Plus your retinas are less sensitive. The result: a 60 year old's retina only picks up about 1/3 the light of a 20 year old's.
Right now, Internet2 can download the entire Library of Congress in about 20 seconds.
I'm not aware of any PIAA for publishers, but somebody is going to have a problem with this. And by the time this actually happens, I bet there will be an Internet4 that can do it all in 20ms.
Dear Mr. Dachannein, Regardless of how respected the SETI@Home project may be, those servers were purchased for a reason and running SETI@Home was not it. We find that the employee was vioating policy and his termination was appropriate.
Dear Governor Taft, I am a taxpayer in your state and, therefore, partially responsible for the funding of this computer. I would rather this computer be used to its fullest potential, and I feel that whenever it sits unused, it is wasting tax-bought resources.
It is common knowledge that computers typically become obsolete before they actually stop working. Therefore, getting as much use out of them as possible before they become obsolete is important. It is the same principle as using any product to its fullest potential before its life cycle is ended. I would assume that, for example, your state cars are not retired while they are still in good shape.
SETI@Home, and other distributed applications, are a good method of using computers when they would otherwise sit unused. The applications are designed to benefit the public (ie, taxpayers), and is therefore a method where the taxpayer dollars are directly beneficial to the taxpayer. In my opinion, running such applications on tax-bought machines should be required.
You can't sue a person just because they made a comment based on matters that are relative like intelligence, just like it's not slander if I say someone is ugly or boring
I fed about 12,000 into mine, the result of about five months worth of harvesting.
Lucky. I get that much spam every 9 or 10 days. I tried using Thunderbird's spam management, but it was so slow due to the sheer volume that I had to turn it off.
Even if everyone on the entire planet has seen a work and can recite it from memory, the work is still protected by copyright until it expires.
Good example: the "Happy Birthday" song, which is copyrighted. That's why when somebody has a birthday at a restaurant, the employees have to sing their own dumb little song to embarrass the poor fool.
With their huge coffers, can't Microsoft hire good UI designers?
I'm not a fan of the XP theme myself, but I can't fault Microsoft for that. Their designers, after all, have the incredibly huge responsibility of designing an interface suitable for all ages, all types, all purposes, all experience levels, and all tastes. They needed an interface that was equally suitable for being run on a pre-teens computer and an architectural firm's computer. That's no small task.
I'm sure the inevitable direction of this discussion leads to comparison with the OSX gui. Well, it's no comparison. Macs have, what, 2% market share? And most of them are fanatics, or graphic designers. Not nearly as difficult a range to design for.
I admit, I didn't get the Blue Screen of Death reference at first. I've been using Windows 2000 since it came out, and I might have seen a BSOD once... maybe twice. It just doesn't come up anymore.
Actually I was mostly confused at the joke at first, thinking, "Wait a minute, I thought IBM was 'Big Blue'"
Hines feels there will be room for both films to exist
That's a very calm reaction to someone who's work will inevitably be compared to Spielburg's. It sounds like he has a lot of faith in his project, I hope it turns out as good as he seems to think it will be. I'd much rather see a remake that's faithful to the story than a hollywood bastardization.
So they're asking IBM to open the source that was stolen to SCO so they can investigate it?
No, even worse. They're asking for the code they claim was stolen...so they can compare it to their own code, to determine if it was stolen.
It's almost like SCO is exclaiming "Ok, ok, your honor, we admit, we made this all up. But we don't have anywhere we need to be (especially since we're not going to waste time developing our own products). So while we're here, can you force IBM to produce some code, just so we can see if something matches, just for the heck of it? Yes, we know it's already freely available, but just humor us, ok?"
The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.
am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?
I agree, this is a crap sentence. But I think the problem is that they are using 'veto' first as a noun, then as a very in the space of four words.
'A threatened veto (noun: a veto) applied to veto (infinitive verb: to veto) a massive spending bill'
It's all about having a good relationship with your employer.
Having a good relationship with your employer is fine if they are sane/considerate/sensible/rational.
I used to work for a guy that wasn't. His name is Neil. I'm not hiding his name, because he still owes me $2,000.
I would pull in the 60 hours weeks, and instead of that translating into "boy, David went above and beyond this week, he needs an extra day this weekend" Neil translated it to "sweet, David is a sucker, I wonder if I can get him to work even more"
I ended up quitting, and to 'replace' me Neil pulled in an intern from a local college. There wasn't anybody left in my department except this intern, so he technically wasn't interning under anybody. But by still calling him an 'intern,' Neil reasoned that he didn't have to pay him. And whoever this guy was, he kept working there as an intern without getting paid. So Neil let everybody else go and brought in more 'interns.' Soon it was just Neil and his intern harem, and the only paycheck the company wrote had "Neil" on it.
Neil is the kind of employer that takes advantage of IT workers. And I've heard the same story from other people about other companies. I'm glad you have a good relationship with your employer, but it takes two people for a good relationship. And, I'm sorry to say, but from my experience your employer is a diamond in the rough.
tired of inflated stats... In July spam made up 94.5% of e-mail traffic... Does anyone else wonder where MessageLabs gets their statistics?
Over the past year, my spam has been a whopping 98.44% of my email. I wish I only had 94.5% spam. I don't see MessageLabs stats as being inflated, I see them as being optimistic.
Slashdot Mirror
I went freelance and am doing better than I ever did at the companies and corporations I worked for in the past.
Ditto that. I kept losing every job I got because of incompetent management leading to the company going under. I finally started my own company, and make about twice what I did before, and I get to work from home where my wife and brand new baby boy are. Plus, I've kept at it about three times as long as my longest stint at employment.
I don't see why my success should depend so much on other people's abilities and decisions. That's the problem with stock options. Sure, they're nice if you work for M$ or Google or Amazon before their IPO, but 99.9% of the time taking stock options is like placing a bet on the competence of your management.
Think about it. Can you even wrap your brain around the concepts of "competence" and "management" at the same time? I didn't think so. Forget about stock options. Find a company with better incentives.
AFAIK, da Vinci (and other inventors of the time) placed errors and flaws in the schematics of their inventions on purpose.
I'm a software engineer, and I've been doing this for years. I didn't realise da Vinci also had job security issues.
He didn't have 'job security' issues -- he simply had 'security' issues. He didn't want anybody else to steal his ideas, so he would record things incorrectly. I remember seeing a special on tv about reproducing Da Vinci machines, and one of the items they replicated was a diving suit. They came to the conclusion that he had intentionally sketched one part incorrectly -- because if you built it that way, the diver would drown! It would have been an obvious mistake for someone like Leonardo, but for somebody just trying to copy his plans, not so obvious.
So... maybe Leonardo was actually the first example of "security through obscurity"?
It'd have to be computationally equivalent to a Turing machine.
Dang, and that salesperson told me I was buying a computer! I got ripped off!
I don't understand. How on earth do these people get jobs as reporters with so little integrity, not to mention such poor writing and cognition skills? Who is going to read this article and not see right through the bias?
They're basically cheerleaders. They're not going to change anybody's mind with their 'new information' but they're going to make people who already share their viewpoint happy about them. And since even losing sides need cheerleaders, they still have jobs.
Same as 'debate' shows like Crossfire. They're not debating to come to a conclusion. Each side's arguments are so extremist to their viewpoints, they couldn't possibly change anybody's mind. They're just cheerleaders, to make the people already on their own side feel even more righteous.
I heard he was on the Factor
Actually, that interview led to a particularly amusing bit of research. Comedy Central, although open enough to the fact that O'Reilly was just joking in fun when he said that nothing but "stoned slackers watch your dopey show", didn't like the misconception it reflected. So, they had Nielson Media do some research....
It turned out that viewers of The Daily Show were more likely to have completed a four-year college than viewers of The Factor.
Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to hit an obstacle
PLUS there's the eyesight factor. I think it's a brilliant idea for old people with failing eyesight to zip around at 18 mph. Riiiight....
Interesting fact: the lens in the eye never stops growing. So the older you are, the thicker and more opaque your lenses are. Plus your retinas are less sensitive. The result: a 60 year old's retina only picks up about 1/3 the light of a 20 year old's.
At first I thought prosco.com was for pros. co., as in "A Prosecuting Company". That about sums it up.
Well, one good thing about this new Centaur is that it is less likely for Bush to fall off of.
Something tells me he'll manage.
Right now, Internet2 can download the entire Library of Congress in about 20 seconds.
I'm not aware of any PIAA for publishers, but somebody is going to have a problem with this. And by the time this actually happens, I bet there will be an Internet4 that can do it all in 20ms.
Dear Mr. Dachannein,
Regardless of how respected the SETI@Home project may be, those servers were purchased for a reason and running SETI@Home was not it. We find that the employee was vioating policy and his termination was appropriate.
Dear Governor Taft,
I am a taxpayer in your state and, therefore, partially responsible for the funding of this computer. I would rather this computer be used to its fullest potential, and I feel that whenever it sits unused, it is wasting tax-bought resources.
It is common knowledge that computers typically become obsolete before they actually stop working. Therefore, getting as much use out of them as possible before they become obsolete is important. It is the same principle as using any product to its fullest potential before its life cycle is ended. I would assume that, for example, your state cars are not retired while they are still in good shape.
SETI@Home, and other distributed applications, are a good method of using computers when they would otherwise sit unused. The applications are designed to benefit the public (ie, taxpayers), and is therefore a method where the taxpayer dollars are directly beneficial to the taxpayer. In my opinion, running such applications on tax-bought machines should be required.
You can't sue a person just because they made a comment based on matters that are relative like intelligence, just like it's not slander if I say someone is ugly or boring
That where defamation law comes in....
I fed about 12,000 into mine, the result of about five months worth of harvesting.
Lucky. I get that much spam every 9 or 10 days. I tried using Thunderbird's spam management, but it was so slow due to the sheer volume that I had to turn it off.
You know what sucks? Seeing this headline and reading "Planned" as "Manned". I was getting all excited.
Even if everyone on the entire planet has seen a work and can recite it from memory, the work is still protected by copyright until it expires.
Good example: the "Happy Birthday" song, which is copyrighted. That's why when somebody has a birthday at a restaurant, the employees have to sing their own dumb little song to embarrass the poor fool.
Does anyone else detect a certain similarity between the blog at the 'read more' link from the original post, and Groklaw?
Is this a third-party template that they both happen to use, or did somebody just rip Groklaw's design?
Does that mean when you watch porn on the Web it is not safe sex anymore?
It means that porn on the web is even more interactive! As soon as you view it, it f*cks your machine!
With their huge coffers, can't Microsoft hire good UI designers?
I'm not a fan of the XP theme myself, but I can't fault Microsoft for that. Their designers, after all, have the incredibly huge responsibility of designing an interface suitable for all ages, all types, all purposes, all experience levels, and all tastes. They needed an interface that was equally suitable for being run on a pre-teens computer and an architectural firm's computer. That's no small task.
I'm sure the inevitable direction of this discussion leads to comparison with the OSX gui. Well, it's no comparison. Macs have, what, 2% market share? And most of them are fanatics, or graphic designers. Not nearly as difficult a range to design for.
I admit, I didn't get the Blue Screen of Death reference at first. I've been using Windows 2000 since it came out, and I might have seen a BSOD once... maybe twice. It just doesn't come up anymore.
Actually I was mostly confused at the joke at first, thinking, "Wait a minute, I thought IBM was 'Big Blue'"
Hines feels there will be room for both films to exist
That's a very calm reaction to someone who's work will inevitably be compared to Spielburg's. It sounds like he has a lot of faith in his project, I hope it turns out as good as he seems to think it will be. I'd much rather see a remake that's faithful to the story than a hollywood bastardization.
So now I have to worry about watering my speakers before they die?!
So they're asking IBM to open the source that was stolen to SCO so they can investigate it?
No, even worse. They're asking for the code they claim was stolen...so they can compare it to their own code, to determine if it was stolen.
It's almost like SCO is exclaiming "Ok, ok, your honor, we admit, we made this all up. But we don't have anywhere we need to be (especially since we're not going to waste time developing our own products). So while we're here, can you force IBM to produce some code, just so we can see if something matches, just for the heck of it? Yes, we know it's already freely available, but just humor us, ok?"
The 3D plastic printer we have at work (granted it's a cheep one)
Can you really say that about any 3d printer? It's like saying, "Yes I drive a Ferrari, but it's one of the cheap ones...." hehe
The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.
am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?
I agree, this is a crap sentence. But I think the problem is that they are using 'veto' first as a noun, then as a very in the space of four words.
'A threatened veto (noun: a veto) applied to veto (infinitive verb: to veto) a massive spending bill'
It's all about having a good relationship with your employer.
Having a good relationship with your employer is fine if they are sane/considerate/sensible/rational.
I used to work for a guy that wasn't. His name is Neil. I'm not hiding his name, because he still owes me $2,000.
I would pull in the 60 hours weeks, and instead of that translating into "boy, David went above and beyond this week, he needs an extra day this weekend" Neil translated it to "sweet, David is a sucker, I wonder if I can get him to work even more"
I ended up quitting, and to 'replace' me Neil pulled in an intern from a local college. There wasn't anybody left in my department except this intern, so he technically wasn't interning under anybody. But by still calling him an 'intern,' Neil reasoned that he didn't have to pay him. And whoever this guy was, he kept working there as an intern without getting paid. So Neil let everybody else go and brought in more 'interns.' Soon it was just Neil and his intern harem, and the only paycheck the company wrote had "Neil" on it.
Neil is the kind of employer that takes advantage of IT workers. And I've heard the same story from other people about other companies. I'm glad you have a good relationship with your employer, but it takes two people for a good relationship. And, I'm sorry to say, but from my experience your employer is a diamond in the rough.
tired of inflated stats ... In July spam made up 94.5% of e-mail traffic ... Does anyone else wonder where MessageLabs gets their statistics?
Over the past year, my spam has been a whopping 98.44% of my email. I wish I only had 94.5% spam. I don't see MessageLabs stats as being inflated, I see them as being optimistic.