You probably want to be born wealthy (who you know), and then get your MBA. Almost 100% of high level CEOs are MBA from a name-brand school (Stanford/Harvard/Yale).
They are being paid because they are taking on a huge risk. If you bomb as a CEO, you'll never work for more than $10M/year again. So if you take on a job with a shaky ship like HP, where you might actually have a chance to fail, you have to negotiate a contract that will leave you covered for life in the event of failure. Otherwise, you refuse to take the job. CEOs don't make millions per year because they are morons when it comes to employment contracts.
But Leo took a huge risk taking on HP. I mean he failed, and so he will literally never work for more than $10 million per year again. To get him to take that job, they had to negotiate it so that no matter how he left he'd be taken care of for life. Otherwise, who would take that kind of risk?
Yes, that misperception is the source of many troubles. A better statement of the situation would be that the wrong CEO can cost tens of millions of dollars in profits. The difference between how much money they can make with a competent CEO and a superstar CEO isn't that high.
Actually, what you really want is to fire not just the CEO, but everyone about 3-4 levels down from there, all at the same time. Otherwise you just have the people who supported/enabled the failed CEO running the show.
Why would you have to know that you bypassed an agreement. Most websites do not have TOS. If the computer I'm using never shows me TOS, how would I ever know when I had bypassed an agreement.
Exactly why you should just devise tests for every required physical capacity, and administer them before every launch. The cost would be trivial compared to the cost of the launch.
It takes a few hours per layer right now. In the ballpark of 12. Going parallel means that intel, which currently spends billions per fab, is going to then spend trillions per fab. Going parallel to that degree means a fundamental rework of a manufacturing process that has had hundreds of billions of dollars in research already. Not that this is impossible, but getting that kind of fundamental redesign of the process done on the kind of timetable required to keep Moore on schedule? That project will put every other human endeavor to shame.
Exactly. It's pretty hard to imagine a transistor averaging less than maybe 10 atoms (your 6 plus 4 for interconnects), which puts you at about 1nm. The current generation devices are 22nm (per dimension). Being generous, that buys us about 5 doublings in each dimension, or 15 more years total. At that point, we get forced to go vertical, and then our computers fully fill the volume of a typical house within 50 years.
There is no way they are that far off on the measurement of the distance. They'd be ruining their careers with something that obvious for a claim this big. They'd be laughing stocks for life, and the tools to avoid that outcome are cheaply available (even consumer grade gps would allow them to measure the distance more accurately than the error required to explain this outcome).
And C (the speed of photons in vacuum) has been measured very accurately many times. More accurately than this outcome would allow also.
Layering buys you a 15 year extension on Moore's law if you're lucky. After that it gets really hard to layer fast enough to produce the finished chips within 18 months.
Moore's law is explicitly about transistor count, not clock speed. Compare the number of transistors in the cpu you bought, vs the number you can buy for the same price today.
Slashdot Mirror
And look, he managed to turn the #1 web property into #3.
You probably want to be born wealthy (who you know), and then get your MBA. Almost 100% of high level CEOs are MBA from a name-brand school (Stanford/Harvard/Yale).
Save up for your Stanford MBA. Practice your lying.
I assure you they did not fire him for cause. His severance will say nothing of the sort.
There are dozens. But competent leadership is not what the board wants. Apparently.
They did put it on ebay. Somehow Meg came out on top in the auction. Surprising result.
They are being paid because they are taking on a huge risk. If you bomb as a CEO, you'll never work for more than $10M/year again. So if you take on a job with a shaky ship like HP, where you might actually have a chance to fail, you have to negotiate a contract that will leave you covered for life in the event of failure. Otherwise, you refuse to take the job. CEOs don't make millions per year because they are morons when it comes to employment contracts.
But Leo took a huge risk taking on HP. I mean he failed, and so he will literally never work for more than $10 million per year again. To get him to take that job, they had to negotiate it so that no matter how he left he'd be taken care of for life. Otherwise, who would take that kind of risk?
Yes, that misperception is the source of many troubles. A better statement of the situation would be that the wrong CEO can cost tens of millions of dollars in profits. The difference between how much money they can make with a competent CEO and a superstar CEO isn't that high.
Actually, what you really want is to fire not just the CEO, but everyone about 3-4 levels down from there, all at the same time. Otherwise you just have the people who supported/enabled the failed CEO running the show.
The two words have a meaningful difference, and her bid was hardly futile.
I have bad news for you about your magnetic media, which also has a limited number of writes.
Heck, I've been working on predictive software for more than a decade and a half. The real accomplishment is only when you have something that works.
But predicting future ones is even more challenging.
Zzzz.
Why would you have to know that you bypassed an agreement. Most websites do not have TOS. If the computer I'm using never shows me TOS, how would I ever know when I had bypassed an agreement.
Doesn't the same argument apply to the contract they sent you via http in the first place?
In most of the world such an institution would be risking their accreditation. Coercive contracts are a no-no.
There is no chance that story would happen. In reality, he'd get caught, and not go on the mission. Risk of billions in losses for taxpayers averted.
Exactly why you should just devise tests for every required physical capacity, and administer them before every launch. The cost would be trivial compared to the cost of the launch.
It takes a few hours per layer right now. In the ballpark of 12. Going parallel means that intel, which currently spends billions per fab, is going to then spend trillions per fab. Going parallel to that degree means a fundamental rework of a manufacturing process that has had hundreds of billions of dollars in research already. Not that this is impossible, but getting that kind of fundamental redesign of the process done on the kind of timetable required to keep Moore on schedule? That project will put every other human endeavor to shame.
Exactly. It's pretty hard to imagine a transistor averaging less than maybe 10 atoms (your 6 plus 4 for interconnects), which puts you at about 1nm. The current generation devices are 22nm (per dimension). Being generous, that buys us about 5 doublings in each dimension, or 15 more years total. At that point, we get forced to go vertical, and then our computers fully fill the volume of a typical house within 50 years.
There is no way they are that far off on the measurement of the distance. They'd be ruining their careers with something that obvious for a claim this big. They'd be laughing stocks for life, and the tools to avoid that outcome are cheaply available (even consumer grade gps would allow them to measure the distance more accurately than the error required to explain this outcome).
And C (the speed of photons in vacuum) has been measured very accurately many times. More accurately than this outcome would allow also.
Layering buys you a 15 year extension on Moore's law if you're lucky. After that it gets really hard to layer fast enough to produce the finished chips within 18 months.
Moore's law is about the number of transistors, not their clock rate.
Moore's law is explicitly about transistor count, not clock speed. Compare the number of transistors in the cpu you bought, vs the number you can buy for the same price today.