I would expect almost any company to have bigger sales costs than development costs.
As a side note this is what leads to the argument that communism is more efficient. All those wasted resources trying to convince people over and over that your useless product is better than the next company's, why not eliminate that and centrally plan the distribution?
The fact that even with double the costs capitalism appears to be more efficient is interesting, as if the only way to get us to work is to fight us off against each other like rats after a single piece of cheese*.
* There only being one type of cheese available in a typical communist country of course
Postpartum depression also is a thing women have to deal with, while we don't.
I think this depends. I was told by the birth centre that the research is starting to come out that men suffer in the same proportion as women (about 1 in 7). As a random annecdote my wife's friend's husband had it badly, to the point where their marriage almost broke up (they had twins, he had no interest in them, so compounded stress).
Possibly this wasn't true in the past when men had less to do with child rearing. Also society doesn't 'allow' men to have PND, they are expected to be real men and suck it up.
You're ready to just about anything you could do before hand (physically) in a couple days.
This is completely incorrect. It varies with the woman. There are stories of women in fields stopping to have their baby then getting right back to plowing, but for most women the hormone relaxin has loosened the muscles to the extent where it takes weeks to get back to the same level of strength and physical activity. Of course physically mundane things like office work and cooking are achievable.
Yes, but in the same way that requiring disabled parking discriminates against the able-bodied. The rules of society tend to be about managing the welfare of the whole, not adhering to individualistic philosophy (taken as a whole the philosphies evinced by our behaviour is a contradictory mess).
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This is easily solved (and is in some countries) by allowing the primary carer to take the longer leave. Thanks to social mores and the biology of boobs this is almost always the woman.
Also maternity leave is not just for the mum to spend time with her baby, it is for her to recover from the birth.
The poor are sold the lie that anyone can strike it rich but the U.S. actually has the worst chance for an individual to change their socioeconomic status of all first-world nations.
It's tempting to consider this as a fraud of economic deregulation theory, however the second worst country is the much more 'socialist' UK.
New job though, we estimate in hours, again. That never works, everything is off
Why is that? Once the team is mature there is a relatively constant points-per-hour figure. Is there a psychological mechanism whereby people estimate differently in hours? If so then perhaps, like the article, the knowledge that you're tricking yourself with points doesn't matter, the placebo still orks.
Right, my company has a top-down directive for all divisions to go Agile, and this was my chief concern. It sounds sensible to break things down into two-day tasks that can be estimated accurately, but when I tried to envisage that with my upcoming projects I couldn't figure out when we had the time to do this.
According to the consultants at the training session the answer was that the team did it in the 4-hour backlog grooming sessions. Perhaps that works in some simpler industries. The point was made that we did projects that could take 2 people 6 months to design and architect. The response? Place that design time as a user story into the system.
So now you're back to square one. Management can create an epic "We want a product that does X, Y and Z" but still won't have any idea how long that will take until most of the hard design work is done much, much later.
It's more like you're a cashier at McDonalds and a rowdy group at a couple of tables ask why the new McAwesome burger doesn't come with mayo. You explain that it was done this way for a variety of reasons - cost, balance of flavours, space in the burger - but they yell and chant about it continually, some go outside and hold up signs to passing traffic to complain. Eventually you get sick of it and say "Mayonnaise is your Grandma's ingredient, I wish none of our burgers used it. Deal with it."
Stretched analogy, but the internet is a tedious echo chamber where the loudest, most annoying people get amplified by news media. I too detest DRM, and especially always-on DRM, but it's refreshing to see a manager say what's he thinking rather than spouting vague placations. Wouldn't hire him for my (theoretical) company though.
Odd, I'm Australian and found it to be more of a character study. It certainly didn't glorify war but also doesn't criticise the U.S. involvement. In fact I was left wondering how someone who chose to be with James Cameron could demonstrate such subtlety.
Coincidentally a few weeks ago I read a review of it in a Balinese newspaper, I think for expats. The English, or translation, was quite rough, but they did indeed slam it as pro-American propaganda.
One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.
Something's off here. The proportion of affected women should increase as they age because "since 14" covers a wider and wider age range. College age is pretty much the youngest age of "woman".
One (unlikely IMO) explanation is that rapes today are far more frequent. Another is that the definition of rape changes significantly between women of different age brackets. If this is the case then the statistics are a bit blurry*.
* What is clear is that rape is disgustingly common.
No, it's not. It's being done using the same third party tracking:
You're right, I came across some comments further down pointing this out.
The Alerts, include the date, time, time zone and title of the copyrighted content
The alerts yes, but the total evidence, that's unknown. Given that providing the alert requires cooperation between these third-parties and the DHCP logs of the ISP, why wouldn't they be part of the evidence? Really I see a lot of people complaining without providing an explanation of how you could be falsely accused. I'm sure there are plausible scenarios. Once they are presented we can discuss how, if at all, you could defend yourself. But it has the feeling of people whinging because they can't get away with an illegal activity anymore.
Remember this is done by the ISP and so will carry more authority than third-party torrent tracking. The same software that the ISP uses to detect the violation will presumably collate the evidence. The evidence will include your account, IP, their DHCP logs showing you were in control of the IP at that time, and statistics on how much uploading and downloading of the torrent you performed. Perhaps they also keep segments or hashes of the transferred content.
The incremental cost of producing this evidence is certainly trivial, I imagine it's an admin fee for a human to look over the report and your denial.
Out of interest I wonder what sort of denial could possibly work. Given they're the ISP they know with certainty from where they are transferring and what. It would be simple to encrypt or hide your torrent activity but that's beside the point.
I don't believe the fingerprint is quite as bad. Disabling scripts, while a data point in itself, removes many of the angles, but mostly the fingerprint can change rapidly (install a new font, change the resolution of your monitor) which means the tracking party loses the trail. With cookies it's a positive identification.
Late reply here but one issue with this choice is that the consequences are not linear. Were everyone to work 3 days a week you would be better off in one sense than if you were the only person doing so. This occurs because things like property prices are determined by how much money/work people have available to spend. In this sense we are constrained by society.
Counter to this, the individual does benefit in other senses from everyone else working more, such as increased technology and abundance leading to the possibility of increased welfare.
Can you honestly not see the answer to this? It's because you can be against two things that compete and have to choose a path between them.
In the case of the war it's your own sovereignty (yeah, yeah, or access to oil) versus the innocent lives of your soliders and the other country's citizens.
In the case of abortion it's your convenience versus, and here's the point that readin was making, either the life of a human baby or a bunch of cells.
It's certainly conservative (risk-averse) to err on the side of a foetus having worth as a human being. It should be conservative to err on the side of not going to war.
It's all mixed up in political point scoring, but yes. I consider myself fundamentally conservative, which means playing it safe. Playing it safe means health care and welfare for the disadvantaged, and not screwing the environment over for short-term gain.
Looking more like a child is just a polemic, but certainly the aim is to mimic looking younger.
Women only need to wax their bikini line to prevent hair showing. Waxing of the vaginal lips is done for various sexual psychological reasons, one of which may be to evoke childlike imagery (it's not like coyness and underage role playing doesn't occur).
More interesting is why we don't like pubic hair showing, it almost seems at odds with the desire to display as much of your sexual region as possible. I guess it's a fine line between alluring and tacky.
The complication is that personal morality is about reducing harm, it's just not as obvious as murder and theft. Governments take a high-level view of managing society and consequently end up making moral judgements, i.e. street drinking leads to violence, so they ban it even though the violence itself is already covered by law, with the aim of creating an overall more healthy community. Perhaps of more relevance to personal morality is the tax on alcohol in an attempt to reduce consumption.
If you take a purely individualistic ideological view then governments should not do this, but it should be recognised that the governments of every single country that has ever existed have taken this approach.
I imagine there are some psychological differences. Prostitution is more intimate, pornography is more communal with a support team around the actors. It probably depends on the person as to which is more or less unbalancing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called "short term gain versus long term gain".
At best encouraging population growth is medium-term gain. Structuring your society to require an ever-expanding population is long-term suicide.
Tread carefully. Porn is one thing, but imagine the shame if the MPAA told your neighbours you pirated Avatar.
I would expect almost any company to have bigger sales costs than development costs.
As a side note this is what leads to the argument that communism is more efficient. All those wasted resources trying to convince people over and over that your useless product is better than the next company's, why not eliminate that and centrally plan the distribution?
The fact that even with double the costs capitalism appears to be more efficient is interesting, as if the only way to get us to work is to fight us off against each other like rats after a single piece of cheese*.
* There only being one type of cheese available in a typical communist country of course
Postpartum depression also is a thing women have to deal with, while we don't.
I think this depends. I was told by the birth centre that the research is starting to come out that men suffer in the same proportion as women (about 1 in 7). As a random annecdote my wife's friend's husband had it badly, to the point where their marriage almost broke up (they had twins, he had no interest in them, so compounded stress).
Possibly this wasn't true in the past when men had less to do with child rearing. Also society doesn't 'allow' men to have PND, they are expected to be real men and suck it up.
You're ready to just about anything you could do before hand (physically) in a couple days.
This is completely incorrect. It varies with the woman. There are stories of women in fields stopping to have their baby then getting right back to plowing, but for most women the hormone relaxin has loosened the muscles to the extent where it takes weeks to get back to the same level of strength and physical activity. Of course physically mundane things like office work and cooking are achievable.
Yes, but in the same way that requiring disabled parking discriminates against the able-bodied. The rules of society tend to be about managing the welfare of the whole, not adhering to individualistic philosophy (taken as a whole the philosphies evinced by our behaviour is a contradictory mess).
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This is easily solved (and is in some countries) by allowing the primary carer to take the longer leave. Thanks to social mores and the biology of boobs this is almost always the woman.
Also maternity leave is not just for the mum to spend time with her baby, it is for her to recover from the birth.
It was funny to read when it came out.
Fortunately there's an xkcd about your attitude.
The poor are sold the lie that anyone can strike it rich but the U.S. actually has the worst chance for an individual to change their socioeconomic status of all first-world nations.
It's tempting to consider this as a fraud of economic deregulation theory, however the second worst country is the much more 'socialist' UK.
New job though, we estimate in hours, again. That never works, everything is off
Why is that? Once the team is mature there is a relatively constant points-per-hour figure. Is there a psychological mechanism whereby people estimate differently in hours? If so then perhaps, like the article, the knowledge that you're tricking yourself with points doesn't matter, the placebo still orks.
Right, my company has a top-down directive for all divisions to go Agile, and this was my chief concern. It sounds sensible to break things down into two-day tasks that can be estimated accurately, but when I tried to envisage that with my upcoming projects I couldn't figure out when we had the time to do this.
According to the consultants at the training session the answer was that the team did it in the 4-hour backlog grooming sessions. Perhaps that works in some simpler industries. The point was made that we did projects that could take 2 people 6 months to design and architect. The response? Place that design time as a user story into the system.
So now you're back to square one. Management can create an epic "We want a product that does X, Y and Z" but still won't have any idea how long that will take until most of the hard design work is done much, much later.
It's more like you're a cashier at McDonalds and a rowdy group at a couple of tables ask why the new McAwesome burger doesn't come with mayo. You explain that it was done this way for a variety of reasons - cost, balance of flavours, space in the burger - but they yell and chant about it continually, some go outside and hold up signs to passing traffic to complain. Eventually you get sick of it and say "Mayonnaise is your Grandma's ingredient, I wish none of our burgers used it. Deal with it."
Stretched analogy, but the internet is a tedious echo chamber where the loudest, most annoying people get amplified by news media. I too detest DRM, and especially always-on DRM, but it's refreshing to see a manager say what's he thinking rather than spouting vague placations. Wouldn't hire him for my (theoretical) company though.
My work is through Optus, can access the MFU site fine at this time.
Odd, I'm Australian and found it to be more of a character study. It certainly didn't glorify war but also doesn't criticise the U.S. involvement. In fact I was left wondering how someone who chose to be with James Cameron could demonstrate such subtlety.
Coincidentally a few weeks ago I read a review of it in a Balinese newspaper, I think for expats. The English, or translation, was quite rough, but they did indeed slam it as pro-American propaganda.
One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.
Something's off here. The proportion of affected women should increase as they age because "since 14" covers a wider and wider age range. College age is pretty much the youngest age of "woman".
One (unlikely IMO) explanation is that rapes today are far more frequent. Another is that the definition of rape changes significantly between women of different age brackets. If this is the case then the statistics are a bit blurry*.
* What is clear is that rape is disgustingly common.
No, it's not. It's being done using the same third party tracking:
You're right, I came across some comments further down pointing this out.
The Alerts, include the date, time, time zone and title of the copyrighted content
The alerts yes, but the total evidence, that's unknown. Given that providing the alert requires cooperation between these third-parties and the DHCP logs of the ISP, why wouldn't they be part of the evidence? Really I see a lot of people complaining without providing an explanation of how you could be falsely accused. I'm sure there are plausible scenarios. Once they are presented we can discuss how, if at all, you could defend yourself. But it has the feeling of people whinging because they can't get away with an illegal activity anymore.
Remember this is done by the ISP and so will carry more authority than third-party torrent tracking. The same software that the ISP uses to detect the violation will presumably collate the evidence. The evidence will include your account, IP, their DHCP logs showing you were in control of the IP at that time, and statistics on how much uploading and downloading of the torrent you performed. Perhaps they also keep segments or hashes of the transferred content.
The incremental cost of producing this evidence is certainly trivial, I imagine it's an admin fee for a human to look over the report and your denial.
Out of interest I wonder what sort of denial could possibly work. Given they're the ISP they know with certainty from where they are transferring and what. It would be simple to encrypt or hide your torrent activity but that's beside the point.
I don't believe the fingerprint is quite as bad. Disabling scripts, while a data point in itself, removes many of the angles, but mostly the fingerprint can change rapidly (install a new font, change the resolution of your monitor) which means the tracking party loses the trail. With cookies it's a positive identification.
Late reply here but one issue with this choice is that the consequences are not linear. Were everyone to work 3 days a week you would be better off in one sense than if you were the only person doing so. This occurs because things like property prices are determined by how much money/work people have available to spend. In this sense we are constrained by society.
Counter to this, the individual does benefit in other senses from everyone else working more, such as increased technology and abundance leading to the possibility of increased welfare.
Can you honestly not see the answer to this? It's because you can be against two things that compete and have to choose a path between them.
In the case of the war it's your own sovereignty (yeah, yeah, or access to oil) versus the innocent lives of your soliders and the other country's citizens.
In the case of abortion it's your convenience versus, and here's the point that readin was making, either the life of a human baby or a bunch of cells.
It's certainly conservative (risk-averse) to err on the side of a foetus having worth as a human being. It should be conservative to err on the side of not going to war.
Why? If the voting populace collectively wants less evil won't the parties move to capture that vote?
It's all mixed up in political point scoring, but yes. I consider myself fundamentally conservative, which means playing it safe. Playing it safe means health care and welfare for the disadvantaged, and not screwing the environment over for short-term gain.
Looking more like a child is just a polemic, but certainly the aim is to mimic looking younger.
Women only need to wax their bikini line to prevent hair showing. Waxing of the vaginal lips is done for various sexual psychological reasons, one of which may be to evoke childlike imagery (it's not like coyness and underage role playing doesn't occur).
More interesting is why we don't like pubic hair showing, it almost seems at odds with the desire to display as much of your sexual region as possible. I guess it's a fine line between alluring and tacky.
The complication is that personal morality is about reducing harm, it's just not as obvious as murder and theft. Governments take a high-level view of managing society and consequently end up making moral judgements, i.e. street drinking leads to violence, so they ban it even though the violence itself is already covered by law, with the aim of creating an overall more healthy community. Perhaps of more relevance to personal morality is the tax on alcohol in an attempt to reduce consumption.
If you take a purely individualistic ideological view then governments should not do this, but it should be recognised that the governments of every single country that has ever existed have taken this approach.
I imagine there are some psychological differences. Prostitution is more intimate, pornography is more communal with a support team around the actors. It probably depends on the person as to which is more or less unbalancing to do.