Depends on the product and vendor (using the term to mean any software source, not just commercial ones). Some vendors will ignore you, some will abuse/riducule you, some will put it on the list for next quarter's release and some rare precious few will personally deliver an overnight repair.
At least in open-source, if they don't you can try and fix it yourself.
The replicants were sent out to work in hazardous environments out in deep space. Presumably they had all sorts of customizations provided to assist in doing the job.
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
But that's the great thing about it. Since Deckard is a replicant and replicants have early expiration dates, you could use a 70-year old Harrison Ford and set it a year in the future from the original and it would be perfectly realistic!
The predictable script would in fact, have Ford on the run in a role reversal with a younger person as replicant hunter. Hopefully, though we'd be allowed something more original.
While they're at it, though, I wouldn't object if someone made a movie of the REAL "Blade Runner". The one by Alan E. Nourse.
The money to pay for benefits will come out of the employee's paycheck one way or another. If the employer has to pay employees when they're not working, it means the employee's per-working-hour salary will be lower than it would be otherwise.
We can afford to pay CEOs 400 times what most of those employees make and reward them with millions when they tank the company.
I suspect if we really wanted to, we could find the money somewhere.
We already pay employees not to work in companies that have "no moonlighting" restrictions. If they cannot work during nights and weekends, then their compensation needs to be sufficient to earn a living at their primary job. At least if there's any sort of free market for labor where they can hold out for a living wage.
I'm an employee of a company. I provide a service, in exchange for compensation. That's it, and that's that.
You won't be an employee of MY company. I expect anyone who works to me to be invested in the company so that they will have motivation to help the company, not merely be a salaried drone. I'll bet that one of your standard auto-quacks about Why Unions Are Bad is that union workers are drones who have no motivation do do anything much because they cannot easily be fired.
You, on the other hand, don't belong to a union, and you're not invested in your employer. Drones like that are the first out the door. And since this is the Century of the Disposable Employee you will be. You may think you're a Special Snowflake now, but your attitude WILL negate that.
If I want to run a company, I'm free to start my own.
Then do so. You may discover it's not as easy as your think.
Just as Microsoft has done, you too can separate IE and Windows.
I'll believe that Microsoft has separated IE and Windows when I can have more than one version/instance of IE installed and running at the same time like I can with external products such as Firefox.
Very often the original system was hacked out in a couple of days/nights by one or 2 heavily-medicated (caffeine, alcohol, whatever) people.
It more or less did the job even though it has one or 2 really awful (but infrequent) bugs and is difficult to maintain or expand.
Then one day someone decides it's time for the Second System (see Fred Brooks).
They put together a team and a schedule and - like as not - spend a lot of money on fashionable faddish tools and consultants and a lot of time coming up with bells and whistles (a/k/a the Second System Effect - see above).
65 days into the 90-day schedule, they realize that they don't have any actual working code, just an immense collection of stick-figure UML diagrams, panic and put all the programmers to work coding on 100-hour weeks.
Guess what the end result is? Hint: read the papers. Somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of all major software projects fail.
The difference between software and mazes is that with mazes you are doing the same task every time.
I know, for example, that I can take cold iron and have it running most of what makes it a useful production server machine in about 4 hours. I'll sign my name in blood on it. Because I've done that same task over and over.
On the other hand, software is a creative work and creativity implies that you are NOT doing the same task every time and that at best you are guessing.
The problem is, everyone else is second-guessing, and they're guessing wrong. And they often will not accept a realistic estimate. They'll push for a "realistic" estimate, then blame you when you cannot meet it.
Actually developers guess wrong too - they usually think it's going to take half the time and work it really does (based on stats I've seen). But developers could simply allow for that by doubling what they think.
Except that in many cases, as I said, they cannot resist the pressure from outside.
Then something changes and blows the estimates out of the water. But the MBA's think since only one line in the spec changed, the schedule should stay the same.
More often in my experience the managers and the users refuse to believe the estimates and force new "more realistic" estimates to be submitted.
But again, that's just extrapolation. Blind hope without even the promise of faith that things will be ever and ever the same, amen without a point where one more straw breaks the camel's back.
That's neither prudent nor human. We succeed because we ask "what if?", not because we assume.
Bill Gates can afford as much toilet paper as anyone could ever want, but how much will he buy?
Conversely, when no one has any income, what does it matter how cheap things are? That's like giving them a tax break based on a percentage of their paycheck. A recipe for social unrest.
There are of course, systems where not having a paycheck isn't a problem. Communism (in the abstract), for an example. But that's a very repugnant concept to most US citizens and it would have to be a wholly different system than any of the failures that have arisen up until now.
Change just for the sake of it is stupid. Are the new icons in any way better (they let people do their job faster, for example) ?
Change just for the sake of it is marketing. It's the same thing as mutating the taillights (and in the 1950's, fins) of a car just so that everyone will know that you couldn't afford to go out and replace the perfectly good car you already had.
Past performance is no predictor of future results.
A lot of people who thought otherwise when buying mortgage-backed securities learned that the hard way not long ago.
If you can mathematically prove that any time jobs are handed off to external forces that new jobs will spontaneously arrive to replace them, you will be awarded a Nobel Prize. No question of it.
As it is, you're simply extrapolating, and extrapolation has become extremely hazardous in the last century because of the higher rates of change in so many contributing factors.
What the rest of us are trying to do is figure out some sort of workable alternative in case these new jobs don't create themselves fast enough to replace the jobs that are being lost. And, for that matter, what to do about the general downsizing of relative income levels in the last 20-30 years.
Which is why I said that even industry, and yes, even the smelters, can use solar panels. Though I think it'd be neat if they used mirrors instead to provide at least some of the heat.
I think if you dig around YouTube you'll find an interesting video where someone took the Fresnel lens from a big-screen TV, mounted it in a frame and used it to smelt quarters.
I wouldn't want to run mission-critical volume business operations on it, especially in an area where clouds come and go, but it might be useful for spot jobs.
As for the reliability of output - if you have storage it's reliable enough, and induction heating is only one of many industries.
If I was to lay odds on which one would suffer most from a momentary eclipse - an Internet server farm or a factory using solar-generated heat, I think I'd choose the server farm.
Oddly, the server farms are among the most likely to be buying into solar.
A lot of performers may appear extroverted on stage, but confess to actually being very introverted. That's not an assert when looking for work.
Plus, when the norm is short-term gigs, that means that a lot of time has to be spent looking for work. If the job can be outsourced to an agent, that means that the performer (or whoever) can spend more time actually working and practicing.
Developers, of course, don't fit that mold. We're all team players who are just eager to meet and deal with as many people as we can as much as possible and we'd never want to pass up social time just to do geeky code things.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the same album. Singer usually implies a vocal range more than 3 notes wide. It was, alas, one of the things he did not do well.
And then it gets fixed right away ?
Depends on the product and vendor (using the term to mean any software source, not just commercial ones). Some vendors will ignore you, some will abuse/riducule you, some will put it on the list for next quarter's release and some rare precious few will personally deliver an overnight repair.
At least in open-source, if they don't you can try and fix it yourself.
"It's supposed to be decades into the future"
It was set in 2019, which will probably be the year of the sequel's release. I wonder how they will handle that.
Umbrellas with light-up handles will be out of fashion.
The replicants were sent out to work in hazardous environments out in deep space. Presumably they had all sorts of customizations provided to assist in doing the job.
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
But that's the great thing about it. Since Deckard is a replicant and replicants have early expiration dates, you could use a 70-year old Harrison Ford and set it a year in the future from the original and it would be perfectly realistic!
The predictable script would in fact, have Ford on the run in a role reversal with a younger person as replicant hunter. Hopefully, though we'd be allowed something more original.
While they're at it, though, I wouldn't object if someone made a movie of the REAL "Blade Runner". The one by Alan E. Nourse.
The money to pay for benefits will come out of the employee's paycheck one way or another. If the employer has to pay employees when they're not working, it means the employee's per-working-hour salary will be lower than it would be otherwise.
We can afford to pay CEOs 400 times what most of those employees make and reward them with millions when they tank the company.
I suspect if we really wanted to, we could find the money somewhere.
We already pay employees not to work in companies that have "no moonlighting" restrictions. If they cannot work during nights and weekends, then their compensation needs to be sufficient to earn a living at their primary job. At least if there's any sort of free market for labor where they can hold out for a living wage.
Sorry. Ebola is no excuse. You must present an actual death certificate.
The best union is the threat of unionization.
I'm an employee of a company. I provide a service, in exchange for compensation. That's it, and that's that.
You won't be an employee of MY company. I expect anyone who works to me to be invested in the company so that they will have motivation to help the company, not merely be a salaried drone. I'll bet that one of your standard auto-quacks about Why Unions Are Bad is that union workers are drones who have no motivation do do anything much because they cannot easily be fired.
You, on the other hand, don't belong to a union, and you're not invested in your employer. Drones like that are the first out the door. And since this is the Century of the Disposable Employee you will be. You may think you're a Special Snowflake now, but your attitude WILL negate that.
If I want to run a company, I'm free to start my own.
Then do so. You may discover it's not as easy as your think.
Well, no, I meant without resorting to trickery.
But if you can do it at all, that helps for development at least, so thanks for the info.
Just as Microsoft has done, you too can separate IE and Windows.
I'll believe that Microsoft has separated IE and Windows when I can have more than one version/instance of IE installed and running at the same time like I can with external products such as Firefox.
Very often the original system was hacked out in a couple of days/nights by one or 2 heavily-medicated (caffeine, alcohol, whatever) people.
It more or less did the job even though it has one or 2 really awful (but infrequent) bugs and is difficult to maintain or expand.
Then one day someone decides it's time for the Second System (see Fred Brooks).
They put together a team and a schedule and - like as not - spend a lot of money on fashionable faddish tools and consultants and a lot of time coming up with bells and whistles (a/k/a the Second System Effect - see above).
65 days into the 90-day schedule, they realize that they don't have any actual working code, just an immense collection of stick-figure UML diagrams, panic and put all the programmers to work coding on 100-hour weeks.
Guess what the end result is? Hint: read the papers. Somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of all major software projects fail.
The difference between software and mazes is that with mazes you are doing the same task every time.
I know, for example, that I can take cold iron and have it running most of what makes it a useful production server machine in about 4 hours. I'll sign my name in blood on it. Because I've done that same task over and over.
On the other hand, software is a creative work and creativity implies that you are NOT doing the same task every time and that at best you are guessing.
The problem is, everyone else is second-guessing, and they're guessing wrong. And they often will not accept a realistic estimate. They'll push for a "realistic" estimate, then blame you when you cannot meet it.
Actually developers guess wrong too - they usually think it's going to take half the time and work it really does (based on stats I've seen). But developers could simply allow for that by doubling what they think.
Except that in many cases, as I said, they cannot resist the pressure from outside.
Then something changes and blows the estimates out of the water. But the MBA's think since only one line in the spec changed, the schedule should stay the same.
More often in my experience the managers and the users refuse to believe the estimates and force new "more realistic" estimates to be submitted.
Because "It's Simple! All You Have To Do Is..."
But again, that's just extrapolation. Blind hope without even the promise of faith that things will be ever and ever the same, amen without a point where one more straw breaks the camel's back.
That's neither prudent nor human. We succeed because we ask "what if?", not because we assume.
Bill Gates can afford as much toilet paper as anyone could ever want, but how much will he buy?
Conversely, when no one has any income, what does it matter how cheap things are? That's like giving them a tax break based on a percentage of their paycheck. A recipe for social unrest.
There are of course, systems where not having a paycheck isn't a problem. Communism (in the abstract), for an example. But that's a very repugnant concept to most US citizens and it would have to be a wholly different system than any of the failures that have arisen up until now.
If this means nothing can ever get changed...
Change just for the sake of it is stupid. Are the new icons in any way better (they let people do their job faster, for example) ?
Change just for the sake of it is marketing. It's the same thing as mutating the taillights (and in the 1950's, fins) of a car just so that everyone will know that you couldn't afford to go out and replace the perfectly good car you already had.
As they say in the Stock Market:
Past performance is no predictor of future results.
A lot of people who thought otherwise when buying mortgage-backed securities learned that the hard way not long ago.
If you can mathematically prove that any time jobs are handed off to external forces that new jobs will spontaneously arrive to replace them, you will be awarded a Nobel Prize. No question of it.
As it is, you're simply extrapolating, and extrapolation has become extremely hazardous in the last century because of the higher rates of change in so many contributing factors.
What the rest of us are trying to do is figure out some sort of workable alternative in case these new jobs don't create themselves fast enough to replace the jobs that are being lost. And, for that matter, what to do about the general downsizing of relative income levels in the last 20-30 years.
Which is why I said that even industry, and yes, even the smelters, can use solar panels. Though I think it'd be neat if they used mirrors instead to provide at least some of the heat.
I think if you dig around YouTube you'll find an interesting video where someone took the Fresnel lens from a big-screen TV, mounted it in a frame and used it to smelt quarters.
I wouldn't want to run mission-critical volume business operations on it, especially in an area where clouds come and go, but it might be useful for spot jobs.
I suppose you are willing to pay your share of the national debt as well? Is that "ours" equally?
Yes, it is. And if I'm not "willing", at least I'm resigned to it. Once it's in the common coffers, it belongs to us all, debit or credit.
Doesn't mean I'm running out to vote for the tax-and-spend crowd or their more egregious counterparts, the tax-cut-and-spend crowd, though.
As for the reliability of output - if you have storage it's reliable enough, and induction heating is only one of many industries.
If I was to lay odds on which one would suffer most from a momentary eclipse - an Internet server farm or a factory using solar-generated heat, I think I'd choose the server farm.
Oddly, the server farms are among the most likely to be buying into solar.
Loser! I voted for Palpatine!
Oh, they were shredded before 9/11. 9/11 just made it so they didn't have to hide that fact anymore.
I'd say that they were frayed prior to 9/11, but that was Christmas.
Far more people manipulate themselves, however.
The H1-B debate seems to be about "hiring Americans who need jobs over foreigners".
Not in Southern California.
The debate there is in firing Americans in the hundreds just to replace them with cheaper H1-Bs.
A lot of performers may appear extroverted on stage, but confess to actually being very introverted. That's not an assert when looking for work.
Plus, when the norm is short-term gigs, that means that a lot of time has to be spent looking for work. If the job can be outsourced to an agent, that means that the performer (or whoever) can spend more time actually working and practicing.
Developers, of course, don't fit that mold. We're all team players who are just eager to meet and deal with as many people as we can as much as possible and we'd never want to pass up social time just to do geeky code things.