Re:profit.
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not always better to make a profit. It depends on the organization. It's not in an NPO's best interest to show a profit (and if you think all NPOs are set up as goody-goody orgs, think again).
Practically every movie ever made in modern times does not show a profit.
For a corporation the goal not to make a profit, it's to "increase shareholder value". Turning a profit is one way to do this. Growth is another. Growth is usually achieved by taking revenue and pouring it back into expansion or R&D. Of course everyone involved is getting a salary so everyone is making money, even if the corp. isn't. The share value is going up because the company holdings are increasing. More factories, more IP, more product value...
Even for corps that show a profit, what's the point? Cash doesn't do you any good as a company. You get taxed on it and having too much laying around makes you a big target for a takeover. If you're going to keep a lot of cash your market valuation becomes even more important. Lose too much market confidence and someone will swoop in, buy you up, drain the coffers and throw you in the gutter.
Even outside of a big corp., profit is overrated. Let's say you set up your own mom-n-pop and incorporate. It's probably in your best interest to take everything your corp. takes in as revenue and pay it out to you as a salary. The Corp shows no profit and is not taxed. You show a salary and are taxed accordingly.
Performing a cover of a song is a lot different than snatching samples.
No doubt the lyrics were licenesed, royalties paid, etc...
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Sampling can be creative. It's just not right to take someone elses creative product and call it your own.
I'm not going to argue on wether this kind of ad can be blocked or not. It looks like a requested link (you clicked on it) and if your browser is allowed to resize windows and execute flash (or whatever the engine is) your stuck.
What I will say is that this model may be usefull for sites that have desireable content, if it's not abused. I remember a web site that is sadly dead - AdCritic
Would it still be alive if they had been able to finance those bandwidth bills? Would I have sat through (ONE) 15 sec add to get access to all that cool content? Maybe. Would I sit through a 15 sec ad on each clickthrough? Absolutely not!
The bottom line is the content has to be worth the inconvenience.
I was on Net-Flix up to a few months ago. I canceled it when I got layed-off. We've been renting and watching TV (or nothing, even better)for the last few months. I've had a job for a while but just haven't gotten around to signing back up.
I never had trouble when I was signed on. My movie list was about 50-70 deep when I quit. I put every movie I ever wanted to watch, plus a bunch that looked interesting any time I surfed IMDB.
There was no way they could ever say EVERY movie on my list was out. And they never did. I always got a movie within a couple of days of sending one in.
Actually "Legacy System" is used to describe a system that IS working. The only thing that can make it stop working is a change to the environment. Usually new features that users require that the Legacy system has never heard of. Things like GUIs or a mouse.
Some changes are more business based, like splitting a tax table into two. Good bye legacy system, unless you can remember where the COBOL source is, and how to mod it. And that it's cheaper to mod it than buy a new off the shelf package.
Some changes are really unexpected. Like the YEAR CHANGING (Y2K anyone?)
So while Legacy systems are systems that ARE working, that does not guarantee future workability.
Of course, once you decide to drop the legacy system and move to a modern one you get to enjoy all the joys of:
We'll just install Linux, it's cheap and installs on most machines perfectly most of the time, mostly... Then we just hook into the developer forums for the applications we use so we can implement the fixes and patches as they come out...
Or, wait! We go the MS route, easy! The servers come pre-installed so that's a no brainer. The software is really much more stable than it used to be. We'll only need to reboot once a week. We'll need to hire an MCSE to do that. Oh! And we'll want to stay clear of the BSA so we'll hire a new Accounting guy to track licenses and an IT guy to interface with that guy...
This has about as much value as those magazine picture contests, where you send in a picture of your dog drinking out of the toilet or whatever. That is to say, it might be entertaining, but don't expect to find the next Ansel Adams. In those contests the fine print states that you sign most rights over to the magazine.
This is also true for almost any other type of "mail in" contest: Video, Essay, Picture etc...
Usually you still retain your rights (i.e. you can sell the picture or whatever) but you can't limit the publisher on what they can do with the material. They can reproduce it, sell it (thus competing with you) or anything else they want.
This is necessary since otherwise, how would they be able to print your submission?
It sounds like MS might be going that extra mile and completely transfering rights to them (thus removing your rights), but I'm not sure on that.
Of course the bottom line is, If you really have a Good Idea(tm), work it out yourself, find a sponsor or sit on it until you can.
Software Engineering may not have anything to do with complex math, but it has everything to do with being able to read and write complex technical specifications.
A software design and analysis is a lot like a mathematical proof. You have a hypothesis (this design will solve the problem) and you document the steps necessary to get to the solution.
If somewhere along the way you can't draw a clean line from one portion of the design to another, you've identified a flaw in the hypothesis. You throw the design away or modify to fit.
This is also true if you are cookie cutting an existing design. You still have to prove that the existing problem fits into the category of problem that the proposed design has solved before. Kind of like identifying if a problem is NP complete.
If you can show that the problem fits the category then you can assume a number of other properties for the problem fit also.
If they want to maintain the Google trademark they are required to take this kind of action. By not activly defending a trademark you risk losing it into the public domain (cf. Kleenex, et. al.).
Google does not want to see the following phrases to become common place:
"I just used MSN to GOOGLE for the latest IIS exploit" "My Yahoo GOOGLE sure brings up a bunch of ads"
My understanding of the situation was that Google ASKED to have the term removed as opposed to using a Cease and Desist letter right off the bat.
I thought the article was well written, funny and entertaining. On the other had, you're post was ill thought out, derisive and pissy.
Given the choice between the article and your post, I'll take the article. Sadly the moderators thought I should read both. (Although when the day is done I suspect you'll be lucky to rate 1)
Why does a game have to go to "Major Publication" to be a success?
Why can't a game (or any content) serve a focused, interested community? Sure, most people will just go to the major vendors, but some will find the game that fits their particular interest.
This works the same for corner grocers/vs Supermarket, corner cofee shop/vs Starbucks or corner bookstore/vs Barnes & Nobels.
In town and cities that are spread out the superstores win out because of convenience. In dense cities the corner stores can do very well. It's just as easy to get to the individual stores and they can taylor what they carry to meet the local needs.
I guess it depends on what best models the net. Is it spread out where it becomes convinent to have one size fits all content or is it a dense city where its easy to find thing that fit my specific needs?
I heard a story few years ago while taking a networks training course. We were talking about packet order and the fact that it's not guaranteed. The instructor mentioned that you could probably expect the order to be maintained if you specified the route and were the only thing transmitting, but still, it is not guaranteed.
Someone in the class had worked on a secure network project where all the routes were static, but when they did load testing the packets would arrive out of order. This worried them (as it should) and they looked into it. It turned out that the routers (switches?) they were using would "cheat" when they detected backup and would send packets to ports off the static routes.
The exptected behavior was that the receiver would bounce the packet back as destination unknown. But this could buy the equipment precious milliseconds and the conjestion might clear.
Nope, I didn't read the article, but I do have Time Warner Cable.
Time warner has a feature called "I-Control" which is their Video on Demand product. It's nice. You need the Digital Cable box to access it, but you need that for "plus" channels anyway.
Go to the appropriate channel and a list of available movies pops up. Select your movie, and it starts (you have it for 8 hours). Pause, rewind, FF, rewatch. All for $1.50 - $3.99 depending on the movie. As much as I hate Time Warner, its a very nice feature.
If this new thing is Regular TV shows on demand (for a price or free) I'm all for it. They already have this to a limited degree. I can already choose a handfull of shows from DIY, FoodTV, Comedy Central etc... As well as special features like "The Makeing of..." various movies, all at no additional charge.
Now, if they add on top of that the ability to pause/rewind/ff live TV and it's hosted on thier side (no need to change my digitla box) I'm all for it. Expect me to buy a new box like the TIVO without TIVO features? Forget it.
Actually your USA SSN is not guaranteed to be unique. Not only that but, unlike most modern numeric IDs, it can't be validated.
Most modern numeric IDs are generated with a built in hash (using extra digits in the number itself) So while you may only need 1000 IDs for you might make your id field much larger, say 1 - 1000000. This would allow you to use some of the digits for a "checksum"
This would make it more difficult to falsly create IDs, but more usefull, it makes it unlikely that you'd fat-finger them when transcribing.
All in all your SSN is a poor identifier. That's one reason (of many) why it should not be used the way it is today i.e. Everywhere!
You're exactly right. Except that the $$ you're quoting isn't "Money" it's "Money saved". Your assersion that time=money comes from the expression "Time is Money". The usage of that phrase is typically in conjunction with someone or something waisting time and costing money.
So in your equation:
$ = deaths / Killing efficiency
$ is money saved not revenue.
If # deaths required to end the conflict remains constant then any improvement in efficiency will DECREASE cost.
I wouldn't say a damn thing to the little snot nosed moron. The school of hard knocks got me where I am today and it'll do him some good to toughen up a little.
The same goes for my future self. Screw him! I know I hate my 2 weeks ago self for laceing the code with idiotic bugs that I HAVE TO FIX! My future self can just hate me for putting off doing this refactoring and procrastinating about working-out.
It seems to me that this has already been covered by catalog shops. IIRC the Supreme Court ruled that out of state catalog orders were not subject to sales tax. If I order something online from another state, how is that different from ordering from a catalog from another state.
Or, is this law trying to overturn the previous court ruling. If so, I'd imagine that all the catalog (and magazine) lobbys would be working overtime.
Every problem is not solved by chest beating and grand standing. The IEEE is an old (and stodgey) organization. They are also "in the club" from the stand point of being able to command respect and get listened to.
They are able to take an advisory role on engineering and technology issues and no one is going to say "You're listening to them?"
They are not going to make a press release that slaps the law makers in the face. That's not "how it's done"
Here's a little play:
King: All people must walk on thier hands and speak only in pig-latin! I have spoken.
Advisor [who, after careful consideration, takes the side of the people]: Pardon your magesty [whispers in kings ear]
King: Hrumph! Yes, in addition, walking on feet and other languages are also acceptable. I have spoken.
Of course if the advisor had instead pissed on the kings robe and said it was the dumbest idea ever he would no longer be an advisor to the king. So it is with the IEEE.
Slashdot, who pisses on the robe of the king many times a day, will never advise the king.
You seem to be saying that just because something isn't "evil" it isn't bad. This is not true. It seems to be the nature of corporations to focus only on makeing money and to try any avenue, no matter how morally bankrupt, to that end. This is "bad". If the system forces this behavior then the system is "bad".
It's in my son's nature to try and get away with stealing cookies out of the cookie jar (he's 6). It's his nature, he's not "evil". He's still punished because it's "bad" behavior.
At some point I'll expect my son to be a "morally aware" person. This means that, even though he's never tried it and been punished for it, he'll know that taking cash from an open and unattended till is wrong. He won't try it just to see if it works. More over, if he does try it, he would be punished at a much higher intensity, because he should have known better.
You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't expect corperations to "know better". I don't agree, we should hold corporations to a higher level of "moral awareness".
Every specification for every semi-conductor device I've seen has always been marked "Preliminary". My HW co-workers told me, this is to protect the vendor and allow them to make any changes they see fit in the future.
One old crusty HW guy told me:
"They remove the prelminary mark when they obsolete the device"
You are exactly right! The problems you describe fall into my 10%. Not every company is trying to create/maintain/enhance Yahoo, MSN, CitiBank web front ends. Nor are there a large supply of companies trying to process 100 IP phone calls / second (with 99.999% reliability), or trying to fit 1000 polygons/ms in the latest game...
Luckily for you (and me) there is still a pretty good demand for Software Engineers / Developers that can solve hard problems.
Companies that have been working in the 10% difficulty product range know the value of a quality SW Engineer. Companies just scaling up will fall into the "doghouse" scenario, but they will eventually learn. Or they won't, but you don't want to work for them anyway, unless you like being laid off.
To the "younger" posters commenting on not being "seasoned". I feel for you. You don't get "seasoned" overnight. You take your beatings, figure out better ways and learn from your mistakes (or better yet, from someone else's!). Volunteer for the hard tasks. Learn things outside what your job requires of you. No matter how qualified you think you are, you still need to solve the same problem 100 times before you can say your an expert on it. Pay your dues.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not always better to make a profit. It depends on the organization. It's not in an NPO's best interest to show a profit (and if you think all NPOs are set up as goody-goody orgs, think again).
Practically every movie ever made in modern times does not show a profit.
For a corporation the goal not to make a profit, it's to "increase shareholder value". Turning a profit is one way to do this. Growth is another. Growth is usually achieved by taking revenue and pouring it back into expansion or R&D. Of course everyone involved is getting a salary so everyone is making money, even if the corp. isn't. The share value is going up because the company holdings are increasing. More factories, more IP, more product value...
Even for corps that show a profit, what's the point? Cash doesn't do you any good as a company. You get taxed on it and having too much laying around makes you a big target for a takeover. If you're going to keep a lot of cash your market valuation becomes even more important. Lose too much market confidence and someone will swoop in, buy you up, drain the coffers and throw you in the gutter.
Even outside of a big corp., profit is overrated. Let's say you set up your own mom-n-pop and incorporate. It's probably in your best interest to take everything your corp. takes in as revenue and pay it out to you as a salary. The Corp shows no profit and is not taxed. You show a salary and are taxed accordingly.
=Shreak
Performing a cover of a song is a lot different than snatching samples.
No doubt the lyrics were licenesed, royalties paid, etc...
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Sampling can be creative. It's just not right to take someone elses creative product and call it your own.
=Shreak
I'm not going to argue on wether this kind of ad can be blocked or not. It looks like a requested link (you clicked on it) and if your browser is allowed to resize windows and execute flash (or whatever the engine is) your stuck.
What I will say is that this model may be usefull for sites that have desireable content, if it's not abused. I remember a web site that is sadly dead - AdCritic
Would it still be alive if they had been able to finance those bandwidth bills? Would I have sat through (ONE) 15 sec add to get access to all that cool content? Maybe. Would I sit through a 15 sec ad on each clickthrough? Absolutely not!
The bottom line is the content has to be worth the inconvenience.
=Shreak
I was on Net-Flix up to a few months ago. I canceled it when I got layed-off. We've been renting and watching TV (or nothing, even better)for the last few months. I've had a job for a while but just haven't gotten around to signing back up.
I never had trouble when I was signed on. My movie list was about 50-70 deep when I quit. I put every movie I ever wanted to watch, plus a bunch that looked interesting any time I surfed IMDB.
There was no way they could ever say EVERY movie on my list was out. And they never did. I always got a movie within a couple of days of sending one in.
=Shreak
Actually "Legacy System" is used to describe a system that IS working. The only thing that can make it stop working is a change to the environment. Usually new features that users require that the Legacy system has never heard of. Things like GUIs or a mouse.
Some changes are more business based, like splitting a tax table into two. Good bye legacy system, unless you can remember where the COBOL source is, and how to mod it. And that it's cheaper to mod it than buy a new off the shelf package.
Some changes are really unexpected. Like the YEAR CHANGING (Y2K anyone?)
So while Legacy systems are systems that ARE working, that does not guarantee future workability.
Of course, once you decide to drop the legacy system and move to a modern one you get to enjoy all the joys of:
We'll just install Linux, it's cheap and installs on most machines perfectly most of the time, mostly... Then we just hook into the developer forums for the applications we use so we can implement the fixes and patches as they come out...
Or, wait! We go the MS route, easy! The servers come pre-installed so that's a no brainer. The software is really much more stable than it used to be. We'll only need to reboot once a week. We'll need to hire an MCSE to do that. Oh! And we'll want to stay clear of the BSA so we'll hire a new Accounting guy to track licenses and an IT guy to interface with that guy...
=Shreak
This has about as much value as those magazine picture contests, where you send in a picture of your dog drinking out of the toilet or whatever. That is to say, it might be entertaining, but don't expect to find the next Ansel Adams. In those contests the fine print states that you sign most rights over to the magazine.
This is also true for almost any other type of "mail in" contest: Video, Essay, Picture etc...
Usually you still retain your rights (i.e. you can sell the picture or whatever) but you can't limit the publisher on what they can do with the material. They can reproduce it, sell it (thus competing with you) or anything else they want.
This is necessary since otherwise, how would they be able to print your submission?
It sounds like MS might be going that extra mile and completely transfering rights to them (thus removing your rights), but I'm not sure on that.
Of course the bottom line is, If you really have a Good Idea(tm), work it out yourself, find a sponsor or sit on it until you can.
Later
=Shreak
Software Engineering may not have anything to do with complex math, but it has everything to do with being able to read and write complex technical specifications.
A software design and analysis is a lot like a mathematical proof. You have a hypothesis (this design will solve the problem) and you document the steps necessary to get to the solution.
If somewhere along the way you can't draw a clean line from one portion of the design to another, you've identified a flaw in the hypothesis. You throw the design away or modify to fit.
This is also true if you are cookie cutting an existing design. You still have to prove that the existing problem fits into the category of problem that the proposed design has solved before. Kind of like identifying if a problem is NP complete.
If you can show that the problem fits the category then you can assume a number of other properties for the problem fit also.
=Shreak
If they want to maintain the Google trademark they are required to take this kind of action. By not activly defending a trademark you risk losing it into the public domain (cf. Kleenex, et. al.).
Google does not want to see the following phrases to become common place:
"I just used MSN to GOOGLE for the latest IIS exploit"
"My Yahoo GOOGLE sure brings up a bunch of ads"
My understanding of the situation was that Google ASKED to have the term removed as opposed to using a Cease and Desist letter right off the bat.
=Shreak
I thought the article was well written, funny and entertaining. On the other had, you're post was ill thought out, derisive and pissy.
Given the choice between the article and your post, I'll take the article. Sadly the moderators thought I should read both. (Although when the day is done I suspect you'll be lucky to rate 1)
=MikeT
Why does a game have to go to "Major Publication" to be a success?
/vs Supermarket, corner cofee shop /vs Starbucks or corner bookstore /vs Barnes & Nobels.
Why can't a game (or any content) serve a focused, interested community? Sure, most people will just go to the major vendors, but some will find the game that fits their particular interest.
This works the same for corner grocers
In town and cities that are spread out the superstores win out because of convenience. In dense cities the corner stores can do very well. It's just as easy to get to the individual stores and they can taylor what they carry to meet the local needs.
I guess it depends on what best models the net. Is it spread out where it becomes convinent to have one size fits all content or is it a dense city where its easy to find thing that fit my specific needs?
=Shreak
I heard a story few years ago while taking a networks training course. We were talking about packet order and the fact that it's not guaranteed. The instructor mentioned that you could probably expect the order to be maintained if you specified the route and were the only thing transmitting, but still, it is not guaranteed.
Someone in the class had worked on a secure network project where all the routes were static, but when they did load testing the packets would arrive out of order. This worried them (as it should) and they looked into it. It turned out that the routers (switches?) they were using would "cheat" when they detected backup and would send packets to ports off the static routes.
The exptected behavior was that the receiver would bounce the packet back as destination unknown. But this could buy the equipment precious milliseconds and the conjestion might clear.
A cute solution, but not very secure.
Nope, I didn't read the article, but I do have Time Warner Cable.
Time warner has a feature called "I-Control" which is their Video on Demand product. It's nice. You need the Digital Cable box to access it, but you need that for "plus" channels anyway.
Go to the appropriate channel and a list of available movies pops up. Select your movie, and it starts (you have it for 8 hours). Pause, rewind, FF, rewatch. All for $1.50 - $3.99 depending on the movie. As much as I hate Time Warner, its a very nice feature.
If this new thing is Regular TV shows on demand (for a price or free) I'm all for it. They already have this to a limited degree. I can already choose a handfull of shows from DIY, FoodTV, Comedy Central etc... As well as special features like "The Makeing of..." various movies, all at no additional charge.
Now, if they add on top of that the ability to pause/rewind/ff live TV and it's hosted on thier side (no need to change my digitla box) I'm all for it. Expect me to buy a new box like the TIVO without TIVO features? Forget it.
=Shreak
Actually your USA SSN is not guaranteed to be unique. Not only that but, unlike most modern numeric IDs, it can't be validated.
Most modern numeric IDs are generated with a built in hash (using extra digits in the number itself) So while you may only need 1000 IDs for you might make your id field much larger, say 1 - 1000000. This would allow you to use some of the digits for a "checksum"
This would make it more difficult to falsly create IDs, but more usefull, it makes it unlikely that you'd fat-finger them when transcribing.
All in all your SSN is a poor identifier. That's one reason (of many) why it should not be used the way it is today i.e. Everywhere!
=Shreak
I use MSN Messenger for IM. Don't know why I chose them over AIM. Two devils, pick your poison I guess...
Check out Messenger Plus http://msgplus.patchou.com/
It keeps chat logs as well as provides other features (customized status etc...)
=Shreak
You're exactly right. Except that the $$ you're quoting isn't "Money" it's "Money saved". Your assersion that time=money comes from the expression "Time is Money". The usage of that phrase is typically in conjunction with someone or something waisting time and costing money.
So in your equation:
$ = deaths / Killing efficiency
$ is money saved not revenue.
If # deaths required to end the conflict remains constant then any improvement in efficiency will DECREASE cost.
=Shreak
I wouldn't say a damn thing to the little snot nosed moron. The school of hard knocks got me where I am today and it'll do him some good to toughen up a little.
The same goes for my future self. Screw him! I know I hate my 2 weeks ago self for laceing the code with idiotic bugs that I HAVE TO FIX! My future self can just hate me for putting off doing this refactoring and procrastinating about working-out.
HA, take that bastard!
=Shreak
It seems to me that this has already been covered by catalog shops. IIRC the Supreme Court ruled that out of state catalog orders were not subject to sales tax. If I order something online from another state, how is that different from ordering from a catalog from another state.
Or, is this law trying to overturn the previous court ruling. If so, I'd imagine that all the catalog (and magazine) lobbys would be working overtime.
=Shreak
Hold on there tiger.
Every problem is not solved by chest beating and grand standing. The IEEE is an old (and stodgey) organization. They are also "in the club" from the stand point of being able to command respect and get listened to.
They are able to take an advisory role on engineering and technology issues and no one is going to say "You're listening to them?"
They are not going to make a press release that slaps the law makers in the face. That's not "how it's done"
Here's a little play:
King: All people must walk on thier hands and speak only in pig-latin! I have spoken.
Advisor [who, after careful consideration, takes the side of the people]: Pardon your magesty [whispers in kings ear]
King: Hrumph! Yes, in addition, walking on feet and other languages are also acceptable. I have spoken.
Of course if the advisor had instead pissed on the kings robe and said it was the dumbest idea ever he would no longer be an advisor to the king. So it is with the IEEE.
Slashdot, who pisses on the robe of the king many times a day, will never advise the king.
=Shreak
Too true.
My dad was career Navy, 20+ years. Submarine and Submarine rescue.
Different vocations but I suspect when you're dealing with concrete reality and risk on a daily basis you tend not to mince words.
My dad gave me the same advice.
Actually he said "Stop whining, work sucks. That's why they call it 'Work' and not 'Blowjob'"
You kind of have to read between the lines with my dad. I came away with basically the same message you did.
=Shreak
I suppose it's a syllogism, but as you say, not a very good one. I'd actually qualify it more as a tautology.
=Shreak
When I was 18-20 I was an all-fired-up activist about how unfair the drinking-age laws were.
Now that I'm in my 30s, I just can't seem to bring myself to give a crap.
I walk into the store, and buy an M-rated game. No problem.
Hell, I'll buy an X-rated game.
Better yet, I'll buy 3 M-rated games, 1 X-rated game, 16 hours of XXX DVDs, a case of beer and a bottle of scotch.
I don't see the problem?
=Shreak
You seem to be saying that just because something isn't "evil" it isn't bad. This is not true. It seems to be the nature of corporations to focus only on makeing money and to try any avenue, no matter how morally bankrupt, to that end. This is "bad". If the system forces this behavior then the system is "bad".
It's in my son's nature to try and get away with stealing cookies out of the cookie jar (he's 6). It's his nature, he's not "evil". He's still punished because it's "bad" behavior.
At some point I'll expect my son to be a "morally aware" person. This means that, even though he's never tried it and been punished for it, he'll know that taking cash from an open and unattended till is wrong. He won't try it just to see if it works. More over, if he does try it, he would be punished at a much higher intensity, because he should have known better.
You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't expect corperations to "know better". I don't agree, we should hold corporations to a higher level of "moral awareness".
=Shreak
Every specification for every semi-conductor device I've seen has always been marked "Preliminary". My HW co-workers told me, this is to protect the vendor and allow them to make any changes they see fit in the future.
One old crusty HW guy told me:
"They remove the prelminary mark when they obsolete the device"
=Shreak
You are exactly right! The problems you describe fall into my 10%. Not every company is trying to create/maintain/enhance Yahoo, MSN, CitiBank web front ends. Nor are there a large supply of companies trying to process 100 IP phone calls / second (with 99.999% reliability), or trying to fit 1000 polygons/ms in the latest game...
Luckily for you (and me) there is still a pretty good demand for Software Engineers / Developers that can solve hard problems.
Companies that have been working in the 10% difficulty product range know the value of a quality SW Engineer. Companies just scaling up will fall into the "doghouse" scenario, but they will eventually learn. Or they won't, but you don't want to work for them anyway, unless you like being laid off.
To the "younger" posters commenting on not being "seasoned". I feel for you. You don't get "seasoned" overnight. You take your beatings, figure out better ways and learn from your mistakes (or better yet, from someone else's!). Volunteer for the hard tasks. Learn things outside what your job requires of you. No matter how qualified you think you are, you still need to solve the same problem 100 times before you can say your an expert on it. Pay your dues.
=Shreak