All web apps are kludges in one way or another simply because the web standards were never designed to support them. The mistake we made early on was not throwing the whole thing out and starting all over with a set of standards that were designed from the ground up for web apps. It's probably too late now.
"In the typical business world, it is well stated fact that any individual is 100% replaceable by someone who will probably do the same thing you did but cheaper."
Taken to its logical conclusion this means that I can eventually hire someone and not pay him anything since "any individual can be replaced by someone... cheaper". So it's cheaper workers all the way down.
Google is deep in the hype phase and has a ton of cash. The danger for a company in this position is that you can do all kinds of goofy things and you can talk yourself into believing that just about anything is the cause for your success even though there's no proof of a connection.
When reality eventually sets in and Google has to work to sustain itself, these "dream" practices will disappear. To Google employees I say: enjoy the party while you can, the real world is just around the bend.
"Like it or not, but every day, every single day, you are selling yourself."
I don't disagree, but I think it's a major problem in companies. Managers who find themselves easily "marketed" should avoid hiring "salesman" employees so their weakness isn't taken advantage of. They need to focus on the substance and not the spin.
Of course, if the job is for sales or marketing, then it's a different matter.
I think you started out objectively and then failed at the end.
I think most people who like to dress up do so because of the way it makes them feel or look. I don't think they do it out of any kind of work ethic.
Likewise, most people who don't like to dress up don't do it to be "lazy or sloppy" but because they just prefer to dress that way.
I think your comment about "lazy and sloppy" is just an attempt to justify your preference. Be assertive. You don't need to create a phony argument; just wear what you want.
No. Polygraphs are used to bluff you into telling the truth.
There's an old story that may or may not be true about stupid criminals that the police had hooked up to a "lie detector" that was really just a copy machine. When they denied the allegations, a sheet of paper came out of the "detector" that said "lie", so they confessed.
It's a funny story, but the truth is that the difference between using a polygraph to detect lies and using a copy machine is that the copy machine can also be used to make copies.
Hey, you're the one suggested it should be a general discussion rather than just about the MS case. I suspect what you really mean is that you don't like the US government's involvement in this specific case because they are defending MS in particular.
My view is if US companies are allowed to lobby in such EU cases (Sun, Real etc) then clearly it's lawful and quite appropriate for the US government to involved as well.
I went through these quality improvement movements too and the problem is that the quality is just another layer thrown on top of other activities. They wanted us to incorporate them into daily work but they didn't change the core incentives of the company. Not a single day was added to any schedule to provide more time for "doing things right the first time".
If "quality is free" at all, it's only free in the long term, and rarely is your boss interested in the long term. Despite the "grass-roots" rhetoric to these movements, management determines how much "quality" they're willing to pay for, not engineers and programmers.
It takes two to tango. Why didn't the EU work with the US to try to come to some agreement about how US and EU companies should behave prior to taking specific action against MS?
In addition, the fact that other US companies were involved in the process suggests that this really isn't an internal EU matter.
So, having been caught presenting a link that doesn't in fact, support your argument, you've decided to switch to another argument.
I'll admit I'm wrong when you can tell me which computers or even computer components Google has "designed". Google is not a company that designs computers, it's a company that creates software to sell ads just as Amazon is a company that creates software to sell products online.
I should have known better. I read the whole thing and it said nothing about what kind of employees actualy built the servers and how much they were paid.
Making the knowledge public is a practical necessity if you wish the patent to be enforced, but it's not a quid pro quo for getting a patent. Innovation is encouraged by the grant of the temporary monopoly, not by the disclosure.
Sorry, but assembling servers out of COTS components doesn't make you an expert on computer design any more than working on a car assembly line makes you an automotive engineer. I'll bet the "manufacturing" effort at Google was carried out by relatively low paid workers, not Google "puzzle" solvers.
My only point is that if you're going to look at companies from a global perspective, then you going to accept the reality that other countries have the right to comment any way they wish. This case isn't an internal EU matter.
Of course, but it's absurd to claim there's something wrong the home country expressing their opinion on the matter. After all, were it not for the lobying effort of non-EU companies, there wouldn't even be any case against MS.
Good engineers also have a good appreciation for efficiency and viability. It is more logical to avoid getting involved in politics if you know your concerns will not be heeded. This is not a situation where every participant has equal power. Management can always say "our way or the highway" and back it up.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree.
All web apps are kludges in one way or another simply because the web standards were never designed to support them. The mistake we made early on was not throwing the whole thing out and starting all over with a set of standards that were designed from the ground up for web apps. It's probably too late now.
"In the typical business world, it is well stated fact that any individual is 100% replaceable by someone who will probably do the same thing you did but cheaper."
... cheaper". So it's cheaper workers all the way down.
Taken to its logical conclusion this means that I can eventually hire someone and not pay him anything since "any individual can be replaced by someone
Google is deep in the hype phase and has a ton of cash. The danger for a company in this position is that you can do all kinds of goofy things and you can talk yourself into believing that just about anything is the cause for your success even though there's no proof of a connection.
When reality eventually sets in and Google has to work to sustain itself, these "dream" practices will disappear. To Google employees I say: enjoy the party while you can, the real world is just around the bend.
"Like it or not, but every day, every single day, you are selling yourself."
I don't disagree, but I think it's a major problem in companies. Managers who find themselves easily "marketed" should avoid hiring "salesman" employees so their weakness isn't taken advantage of. They need to focus on the substance and not the spin.
Of course, if the job is for sales or marketing, then it's a different matter.
"If it was good enough for Cary Grant, it's good enough for me."
A lot of elderly gay men are happy to hear you say that.
I think you started out objectively and then failed at the end.
I think most people who like to dress up do so because of the way it makes them feel or look. I don't think they do it out of any kind of work ethic.
Likewise, most people who don't like to dress up don't do it to be "lazy or sloppy" but because they just prefer to dress that way.
I think your comment about "lazy and sloppy" is just an attempt to justify your preference. Be assertive. You don't need to create a phony argument; just wear what you want.
"Polygraphs are used to see if you're lying."
No. Polygraphs are used to bluff you into telling the truth.
There's an old story that may or may not be true about stupid criminals that the police had hooked up to a "lie detector" that was really just a copy machine. When they denied the allegations, a sheet of paper came out of the "detector" that said "lie", so they confessed.
It's a funny story, but the truth is that the difference between using a polygraph to detect lies and using a copy machine is that the copy machine can also be used to make copies.
Hey, you're the one suggested it should be a general discussion rather than just about the MS case. I suspect what you really mean is that you don't like the US government's involvement in this specific case because they are defending MS in particular.
My view is if US companies are allowed to lobby in such EU cases (Sun, Real etc) then clearly it's lawful and quite appropriate for the US government to involved as well.
I went through these quality improvement movements too and the problem is that the quality is just another layer thrown on top of other activities. They wanted us to incorporate them into daily work but they didn't change the core incentives of the company. Not a single day was added to any schedule to provide more time for "doing things right the first time".
If "quality is free" at all, it's only free in the long term, and rarely is your boss interested in the long term. Despite the "grass-roots" rhetoric to these movements, management determines how much "quality" they're willing to pay for, not engineers and programmers.
It takes two to tango. Why didn't the EU work with the US to try to come to some agreement about how US and EU companies should behave prior to taking specific action against MS?
In addition, the fact that other US companies were involved in the process suggests that this really isn't an internal EU matter.
So, having been caught presenting a link that doesn't in fact, support your argument, you've decided to switch to another argument.
I'll admit I'm wrong when you can tell me which computers or even computer components Google has "designed". Google is not a company that designs computers, it's a company that creates software to sell ads just as Amazon is a company that creates software to sell products online.
I should have known better. I read the whole thing and it said nothing about what kind of employees actualy built the servers and how much they were paid.
Asking motherboad designers for a lower-power board is one thing, telling them how they should do it is quite another.
Yes, but Google didn't design the engineering spec for their servers either.
Making the knowledge public is a practical necessity if you wish the patent to be enforced, but it's not a quid pro quo for getting a patent. Innovation is encouraged by the grant of the temporary monopoly, not by the disclosure.
Sorry, but assembling servers out of COTS components doesn't make you an expert on computer design any more than working on a car assembly line makes you an automotive engineer. I'll bet the "manufacturing" effort at Google was carried out by relatively low paid workers, not Google "puzzle" solvers.
I wouldn't look to MS or even Apple for expert opinions on power distribution.
No, but your analogy assumes that Google's proposal is an obviously good engineering solution, which hasn't yet been proven.
So now Google thinks it's an expert in Electrical Engineering. What next, medical advice?
My only point is that if you're going to look at companies from a global perspective, then you going to accept the reality that other countries have the right to comment any way they wish. This case isn't an internal EU matter.
I'd agree as long as third-parties like Real, Sun etc would also butt out. It's really non-EU companies that initiated this, not the EU.
Of course, but it's absurd to claim there's something wrong the home country expressing their opinion on the matter. After all, were it not for the lobying effort of non-EU companies, there wouldn't even be any case against MS.
After all, it's not as if the EU were trying to fine a US company or something.
I assume you mean "a lot/most of Linux code re-usage" is in the embedded space.
Good engineers also have a good appreciation for efficiency and viability. It is more logical to avoid getting involved in politics if you know your concerns will not be heeded. This is not a situation where every participant has equal power. Management can always say "our way or the highway" and back it up.