Thanks for mentioning the over-engineering aspect. Some of my peers, that I usually refer to as 'the academics', often over-think, over-analyze, and over develop their solutions. They want to develop the perfect solution that will stand for all time, and will rebuke any and all criticisms. 6 Months later they might have a prototype if they haven't gotten stuck on some unsolvable. I often find this group is terrible at things like unit testing and refactoring. It is like it is above them. 40 years later they wake up in the fortran dept and realize the whole world is above them.
The other group, the 'clock-punchers', will do exactly as told, have nothing to prove, and in turn are extremely agile. They think simply so things like unit tests and prototypes come very easy to them. They aren't attached to their ideas in the same way, so they can switch tracks quickly. As a reward, they get experience on lots of frameworks, languages, and trends. Maybe they will never be head architects, but they make a crap load of cash, don't get weekend calls, and don't develop the cynicism that a lot of the heavyweights do.
My team needs both, but you only need a couple of the former group to solve the big issues. The latter will get your project finished. Thinkers never seem to finish anything, In their minds, there is ALWAYS something more to be done.
that is a good point. The few times I saw a company crash and burn, the CFO was one of the last out. The last few precious beans had to be passed out carefully.
When I visit western rural China, I am always amazed at what qualifies as a car.
Got a couple pipes, 4 wheels, and an old tractor engine? You have a car! Seriously, it reminds me of mad max, with less spikes and more bungie cords.
I am thankful for our regulations, because there it removes some of the risk that others with poor judgement carry. I think a lot of the reactions to these 3 fires is of the knee-jerk, xenophobic type, but it is to be expected. Tesla just needs to be resilient while they open the new market.
ps. I think you probably mean 1980's Volvo, since the late 60's early 70's were actually pretty cool and lean. I had a 122s that could baja.
Manipulating obsolescence has been around as long as consumerism. People always want the latest and greatest.. cars, video cards, televisions, digital cameras, Barbie dolls, clothes, PCs, even things like washing machines.
Just look at how much hoopla and money goes into events like CES and the Detroit Auto Show.
Having "The New XYZ" is an American status symbol. It goes back many many decades. "My Dad has the new Caddy, not last years crusty model like your Dad!"
Americans don't want rugby. Rugby is there for the watching and we choose not to watch it. Why turn something into something else that has been rejected? Where's the logic?
Football looks good on TV; it is a big reason it is such a part of American culture.
What Chris said... I meant it in more of colloquial / photography sense. i.e. lens diameter, not volume. A 1.4 or 2.8 for a given format will always give you not only more options in terms of aperture and depth of field, but delivers more information to the medium. When your camera is set to auto, as most digitals tend to be, all these decisions are made and sacrifices degrade the image. In terms of lens imperfections, that is true, but you can minimalize this aspect by choosing a good manufacturer.
Look at the lenses pros use. That's all I can really say. No one shoots with an Elph. When shopping for a new lens, you want as much aperture as you can afford; zooms included.
Resolution doesn't make up for the small lenses in any small camera. Ask any photographer. More Glass = Better Picture. It gives you better aperture and more light. No chips can make up for the lack of light in uber small lenses, point&shoots included. Therefore no smartphone will ever have the quality of a pro camera. Resolution sure, but those pixels will be garbage.
I worked for a major online brokerage, and we got hit by these bastards. A private equity firm bought a group of patents relating to the "control of online charts with HTML form elements". They were from the early days, maybe 97/98 and super broad. They threatened 17 companies with infringement and of course were willing to settle out of court. They got about 500K from us, and who knows how much else from the others.
They buy them from dying startups that are trying to cover their debts. And how they ever become patents is beyond me. They were stupidly general. Like patenting "the wheel".
It is a very smarmy business. IMO patents shouldn't be able to be sold. They can follow the product, but thats where I draw the line. It is an exploit of our legal system and the regulation of capitalism.
I feel that you are bending the semantics a bit. You can't declare all beliefs religion. 2 Atheists, on separate planets in separate galaxies are not part of the same religion. I get your point, but I think you are using wordplay.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't exactly cowboys, but the Jurassic Zookeeper Meme comes to mind.
Most of the old people we hire either can't actually write any code
If you hire a coder that can't code, who is the bigger failure?
wow, don't have kids when you finally do grow up. and, maybe see a therapist.
Thanks for mentioning the over-engineering aspect. Some of my peers, that I usually refer to as 'the academics', often over-think, over-analyze, and over develop their solutions. They want to develop the perfect solution that will stand for all time, and will rebuke any and all criticisms. 6 Months later they might have a prototype if they haven't gotten stuck on some unsolvable. I often find this group is terrible at things like unit testing and refactoring. It is like it is above them. 40 years later they wake up in the fortran dept and realize the whole world is above them.
The other group, the 'clock-punchers', will do exactly as told, have nothing to prove, and in turn are extremely agile. They think simply so things like unit tests and prototypes come very easy to them. They aren't attached to their ideas in the same way, so they can switch tracks quickly. As a reward, they get experience on lots of frameworks, languages, and trends. Maybe they will never be head architects, but they make a crap load of cash, don't get weekend calls, and don't develop the cynicism that a lot of the heavyweights do.
My team needs both, but you only need a couple of the former group to solve the big issues. The latter will get your project finished. Thinkers never seem to finish anything, In their minds, there is ALWAYS something more to be done.
If you have millions of dollars that you cannot prove came from a legal source, the feds will get you one way or another. See Capone for an example.
interesting graph, but I think your explanation on C is a little muddy. I would just say C is the initial cost before any storage medium is acquired.
that is a good point. The few times I saw a company crash and burn, the CFO was one of the last out. The last few precious beans had to be passed out carefully.
Uncertain future? I think Blackberry's future is anything but uncertain.
When I visit western rural China, I am always amazed at what qualifies as a car.
Got a couple pipes, 4 wheels, and an old tractor engine? You have a car! Seriously, it reminds me of mad max, with less spikes and more bungie cords.
I am thankful for our regulations, because there it removes some of the risk that others with poor judgement carry. I think a lot of the reactions to these 3 fires is of the knee-jerk, xenophobic type, but it is to be expected. Tesla just needs to be resilient while they open the new market.
ps.
I think you probably mean 1980's Volvo, since the late 60's early 70's were actually pretty cool and lean. I had a 122s that could baja.
except for that 150B$ cash reserve
rule 34
Phone in the pocket: get some, shoot blanks.
Phone on the nerd utility belt: saturday nights with the syfy channel.
Money buys the smartphones that run linux?
and if you want to make money, don't go into scientific or game programming.
Various MS corporate products demand newer OS's. Sharepoint is one that comes to mind.
Middle class canadians. At least they have healthcare when they get laid off.
and this one time.. at band camp...
gotta love the anecdotes in this thread; superlatively delicious.
People play Diablo 3?
Commie!
Kidding of course, but taking a drive with Dad in the new car is as American as apple pie.
Manipulating obsolescence has been around as long as consumerism. People always want the latest and greatest.. cars, video cards, televisions, digital cameras, Barbie dolls, clothes, PCs, even things like washing machines.
Just look at how much hoopla and money goes into events like CES and the Detroit Auto Show.
Having "The New XYZ" is an American status symbol. It goes back many many decades. "My Dad has the new Caddy, not last years crusty model like your Dad!"
Americans don't want rugby. Rugby is there for the watching and we choose not to watch it. Why turn something into something else that has been rejected? Where's the logic? Football looks good on TV; it is a big reason it is such a part of American culture.
What Chris said... I meant it in more of colloquial / photography sense. i.e. lens diameter, not volume. A 1.4 or 2.8 for a given format will always give you not only more options in terms of aperture and depth of field, but delivers more information to the medium. When your camera is set to auto, as most digitals tend to be, all these decisions are made and sacrifices degrade the image. In terms of lens imperfections, that is true, but you can minimalize this aspect by choosing a good manufacturer. Look at the lenses pros use. That's all I can really say. No one shoots with an Elph. When shopping for a new lens, you want as much aperture as you can afford; zooms included.
Resolution doesn't make up for the small lenses in any small camera. Ask any photographer. More Glass = Better Picture. It gives you better aperture and more light. No chips can make up for the lack of light in uber small lenses, point&shoots included. Therefore no smartphone will ever have the quality of a pro camera. Resolution sure, but those pixels will be garbage.
I worked for a major online brokerage, and we got hit by these bastards. A private equity firm bought a group of patents relating to the "control of online charts with HTML form elements". They were from the early days, maybe 97/98 and super broad. They threatened 17 companies with infringement and of course were willing to settle out of court. They got about 500K from us, and who knows how much else from the others. They buy them from dying startups that are trying to cover their debts. And how they ever become patents is beyond me. They were stupidly general. Like patenting "the wheel". It is a very smarmy business. IMO patents shouldn't be able to be sold. They can follow the product, but thats where I draw the line. It is an exploit of our legal system and the regulation of capitalism.
I feel that you are bending the semantics a bit. You can't declare all beliefs religion. 2 Atheists, on separate planets in separate galaxies are not part of the same religion. I get your point, but I think you are using wordplay.