So a decade ago they stopped teaching computer programming in UK schools.
And in the last decade, what... has London stopped being a major Tech Hub? Is there a shortage of good young programmers looking for jobs in London?
The answers to both of those questions is NO. So *my* question is this - if teaching computer programming in schools or not teaching it has no discernable effect, why bother wasting time on lessons on it when they could be devoted to something else?
To be fair, regardless of simulations, proofs etc. having 50 asteroids of mass 1 tonne each impacting the earth at the same time is *way* less risky than having a single asteroid of 50 tonnes impact - at the very least more of the mass will be burned off in the atmosphere, also the distributed nature, and lower individual impact energies, of the fragments will almost certainly result in less loss of life and less climate change...
Then it sounds like you will need to give some equity in your business away.
Or, consider this - why are you allowing the same guys writing the software to be responsible for testing it? If you genuinely write good specs you should be able to find someone who will write automated testing (and/or engage in manual testing) to meet your spec and apply it against the software provided by the contractor. This should eliminate a very large number of potential bugs. If your specs are good enough you could even offshore this fairly easily - it's very simple work.
Why has your organisation allowed a senior developer to stagnate? Why has he not been given continuous mentoring, training, qualifications etc?
Sounds like your company has failed to educate and train its' workforce and is now suffering. The answer to this question is not "train him" but "examine your training and career progression policies" as it sounds like they need a massive improvement. If they event exist at all.
When this happens, the manager who is in charge of all those people steps in and says "You will co-operate and get things done, or else you will no longer work here".
Actually, to do this would demonstrate very poor management skills - a good manager doesn't just tell people to do things while leaving a broken system in place.
A good manager would modify the work environment in order to incentivise the staff to act in a way which is more in line with the business goals (advancing the kernel) - then they would explain these changes and why they were making them to all involved.
Shouting "DO YOUR JOB" at people has a curiously poor track record for making people, y'know, actually do their job.
And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.
For exactly the same reason that people borrow money. "Why pay 10,000 today when I can pay 11,000 next year". Works for millions of people and businesses.
And it's likely to be *cheaper* to convert to renewables in the future, not more expensive. Of course, you have to factor in the cost (mostly environmental) of the delay in switching... but it's not an equation with an obvious outcome...
I agree with your sentiment, however a guy who was in multiple shootouts with the police? A guy who hijacked a car along with someone else who had explosives and triggers/dets? I think it's safe to say this guy is guilty of some pretty serious shit, and we should be celebrating catching a perp. Whether or not he bombed the marathon - that remains to be seen, but I think it's unlikely that the guy they fished out of the boat after gun battles is a store clerk from downtown Cambridge married with 2 kids who likes to play D&D on a Friday night.
But there is a ceiling to how much "budget" you can assign to the game... the "best" decks for most tournaments are either almost unchanging over time (the expensive, Legacy decks) or are limited to a few hundred quid (Standard Decks). It's also fair to say that as soon as you move from even remotely casual play to basic competitive play, EVERYONE has the cards they need - while some players might have had to pay out some money to meet that minimum competitive level, there are few to zero players who sit at a table playing a "cheap" deck of cards and suffering from a statistical disadvantage - everyone gets what they need, so the "higher budget more options" argument only applies to maybe 20% of players on the lower end of the competitive scale. Once you enter the competitive realm, the playing field is very flat in terms of budget, and mostly comes down to information warfare (research, preparation, networking).
And if you're good at the game you will be acquiring cards for free from prizes at a very fast rate - the best local players, who do NOT make it to the Pro Tour, pay little to nothing to play the game... they win the majority of the cards they need, and can borrow others from traders/stores in return for promoting the stores. The "cost" of the game to newer or weaker players is actually subsidising the better players in many ways - although the money changes hands in ways completely different from poker, it results in a fairly similar outcome (admittedly with much smaller amounts).
Finally, the aspect of the game known for being most skill-intensive is called "Limited" where everyone pays the same price to play and plays with cards provided, rather than cards they have bought/collected - here financial muscle is no advantage at all, and this form of the game is more enjoyable and rewarding to many players.
The hood is part of the structural strength of the vehicle.
This may be true of some automobiles, but it's certainly not true of them all - many auto hoods now are the equivalent of tin-foil with more thickness of paint on them than metal in them... On my car (Honda S2000) you can make a significant shallow depression in the hood, depressing it only with the strength in your smallest finger...
The fact is, there's a lot more to dieting than simply reducing your calorific intake and exercising regularly.
ACTUALLY, there isn't.
Can we stop perpetuating this please - it is *that* simple, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they're either ignorant, or trying to make money out of the people who are ignorant to this fact.
It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.
A long time ago, it was expected that all military personnel should follow orders, rules and regulations, and that they would not be held accountable for their actions while doing so.
Then, as a species, we grew up a little, and a number of events including Nuremberg helped us to realise that this was not a healthy attitude.
Now, in 2012 many people still believe it is "right" to lie about and cover up the killing of innocent people. I hope, as a species, we will continue to grow and to understand that this is unacceptable. When it comes to the murder of non-military personnel, being part of such a cover-up should be regarded as an abuse of human rights (it is, after all, a conspiracy to hide a crime against humanity) and military personnel *should* have whistleblower rights, in a limited range of circumstances.
Perhaps they have a 14-day test and release cycle? And as such for any changes to the site to go through editorial and any content QA processes they might have, it might need 14 days (as a minimum) to go-live?
A bit like ordering someone to change something in a magazine and reprint a new version of it. Sure they could typeset it immediately after leaving court and pay a million bucks to have the printers' staff come in at midnight to set some plates and do a print run - but is it reasonable for the court to expect them to do that, rather than follow the normal publication process?
I just wanted to take a second out of my day, to say thank you to Google. To anyone who works there, who can influence Google, who knows an employee - please pass on my personal thanks for this staunch defence of free speech, in the face of what is probably the single most intimidating anti-free-speech group and protest the world has seen in my lifetime.
What you are doing is very worthy - and really stands to highlight the "Do No Evil" motto that Google is famous for, but that some people have (rightly or wrongly) started to bring into question recently.
Media providers must take their place in the defence of free speech - in the days of investigative journalism they actually tended to be more aggressive about this - and Youtube and other similar providers are absolutely vital in allowing the discourse and social interaction that we need as a community to grow and become better people.
I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.
If the public wanted that, they would either buy smaller drinks, or drink less of the drink... the fact that they're not would indicate they DON'T want the mayor to do anything...
People (employees) pay income tax, not companies/corporations.
Taxes on profits are nearly always "Corporation Tax" which is not an income tax. Income taxes (22% for most of most peoples income above a certain threshold) are paid by the individual, but it is usually taxed "at source" so the company pays it to HMRC before the employee receives the payment making it appears as if the company pays it...
If they are not paying "Income Tax" on the wages paid to their employees, they are in MAJOR trouble as are their employees, who will be liable to pay the tax, even though the company avoided it. The article, though, talks about them not paying CORPORATION tax - a whole different matter.
I don't know why Slashdot chose to use the phrase "Income Tax" in the title, which makes this highly confusing...
Slashdot Mirror
So a decade ago they stopped teaching computer programming in UK schools.
And in the last decade, what... has London stopped being a major Tech Hub? Is there a shortage of good young programmers looking for jobs in London?
The answers to both of those questions is NO. So *my* question is this - if teaching computer programming in schools or not teaching it has no discernable effect, why bother wasting time on lessons on it when they could be devoted to something else?
Probably the fact that the IMEI number can be changed?
To be fair, regardless of simulations, proofs etc. having 50 asteroids of mass 1 tonne each impacting the earth at the same time is *way* less risky than having a single asteroid of 50 tonnes impact - at the very least more of the mass will be burned off in the atmosphere, also the distributed nature, and lower individual impact energies, of the fragments will almost certainly result in less loss of life and less climate change...
Then it sounds like you will need to give some equity in your business away.
Or, consider this - why are you allowing the same guys writing the software to be responsible for testing it? If you genuinely write good specs you should be able to find someone who will write automated testing (and/or engage in manual testing) to meet your spec and apply it against the software provided by the contractor. This should eliminate a very large number of potential bugs. If your specs are good enough you could even offshore this fairly easily - it's very simple work.
Why has your organisation allowed a senior developer to stagnate? Why has he not been given continuous mentoring, training, qualifications etc?
Sounds like your company has failed to educate and train its' workforce and is now suffering. The answer to this question is not "train him" but "examine your training and career progression policies" as it sounds like they need a massive improvement. If they event exist at all.
Actually, to do this would demonstrate very poor management skills - a good manager doesn't just tell people to do things while leaving a broken system in place.
A good manager would modify the work environment in order to incentivise the staff to act in a way which is more in line with the business goals (advancing the kernel) - then they would explain these changes and why they were making them to all involved.
Shouting "DO YOUR JOB" at people has a curiously poor track record for making people, y'know, actually do their job.
Is that Vampirism works?
Debris from 2km away seems preferable to a detonating warhead 5 metres away.
For exactly the same reason that people borrow money. "Why pay 10,000 today when I can pay 11,000 next year". Works for millions of people and businesses.
And it's likely to be *cheaper* to convert to renewables in the future, not more expensive. Of course, you have to factor in the cost (mostly environmental) of the delay in switching... but it's not an equation with an obvious outcome...
I agree with your sentiment, however a guy who was in multiple shootouts with the police? A guy who hijacked a car along with someone else who had explosives and triggers/dets? I think it's safe to say this guy is guilty of some pretty serious shit, and we should be celebrating catching a perp. Whether or not he bombed the marathon - that remains to be seen, but I think it's unlikely that the guy they fished out of the boat after gun battles is a store clerk from downtown Cambridge married with 2 kids who likes to play D&D on a Friday night.
Then the average user exchanges their bitcoin for a currency other than US Dollars?
... you should inform them that day rates for training are 2-3 times day rates for remote development, and start from there...
... the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram
But there is a ceiling to how much "budget" you can assign to the game... the "best" decks for most tournaments are either almost unchanging over time (the expensive, Legacy decks) or are limited to a few hundred quid (Standard Decks). It's also fair to say that as soon as you move from even remotely casual play to basic competitive play, EVERYONE has the cards they need - while some players might have had to pay out some money to meet that minimum competitive level, there are few to zero players who sit at a table playing a "cheap" deck of cards and suffering from a statistical disadvantage - everyone gets what they need, so the "higher budget more options" argument only applies to maybe 20% of players on the lower end of the competitive scale. Once you enter the competitive realm, the playing field is very flat in terms of budget, and mostly comes down to information warfare (research, preparation, networking).
And if you're good at the game you will be acquiring cards for free from prizes at a very fast rate - the best local players, who do NOT make it to the Pro Tour, pay little to nothing to play the game... they win the majority of the cards they need, and can borrow others from traders/stores in return for promoting the stores. The "cost" of the game to newer or weaker players is actually subsidising the better players in many ways - although the money changes hands in ways completely different from poker, it results in a fairly similar outcome (admittedly with much smaller amounts).
Finally, the aspect of the game known for being most skill-intensive is called "Limited" where everyone pays the same price to play and plays with cards provided, rather than cards they have bought/collected - here financial muscle is no advantage at all, and this form of the game is more enjoyable and rewarding to many players.
This may be true of some automobiles, but it's certainly not true of them all - many auto hoods now are the equivalent of tin-foil with more thickness of paint on them than metal in them... On my car (Honda S2000) you can make a significant shallow depression in the hood, depressing it only with the strength in your smallest finger...
ACTUALLY, there isn't.
Can we stop perpetuating this please - it is *that* simple, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they're either ignorant, or trying to make money out of the people who are ignorant to this fact.
Horses used to canter just fine without internal combustion, why do we need it?
A long time ago, it was expected that all military personnel should follow orders, rules and regulations, and that they would not be held accountable for their actions while doing so.
Then, as a species, we grew up a little, and a number of events including Nuremberg helped us to realise that this was not a healthy attitude.
Now, in 2012 many people still believe it is "right" to lie about and cover up the killing of innocent people. I hope, as a species, we will continue to grow and to understand that this is unacceptable. When it comes to the murder of non-military personnel, being part of such a cover-up should be regarded as an abuse of human rights (it is, after all, a conspiracy to hide a crime against humanity) and military personnel *should* have whistleblower rights, in a limited range of circumstances.
Russ
Perhaps they have a 14-day test and release cycle? And as such for any changes to the site to go through editorial and any content QA processes they might have, it might need 14 days (as a minimum) to go-live?
A bit like ordering someone to change something in a magazine and reprint a new version of it. Sure they could typeset it immediately after leaving court and pay a million bucks to have the printers' staff come in at midnight to set some plates and do a print run - but is it reasonable for the court to expect them to do that, rather than follow the normal publication process?
It will be for tracking purposes, so that the site owners knows who has clicked on which external links, and from which pages on their site.
I'm not saying it's a marvel of engineering, but it's a common request from marketers.
I just wanted to take a second out of my day, to say thank you to Google. To anyone who works there, who can influence Google, who knows an employee - please pass on my personal thanks for this staunch defence of free speech, in the face of what is probably the single most intimidating anti-free-speech group and protest the world has seen in my lifetime.
What you are doing is very worthy - and really stands to highlight the "Do No Evil" motto that Google is famous for, but that some people have (rightly or wrongly) started to bring into question recently.
Media providers must take their place in the defence of free speech - in the days of investigative journalism they actually tended to be more aggressive about this - and Youtube and other similar providers are absolutely vital in allowing the discourse and social interaction that we need as a community to grow and become better people.
Thank You,
I think "direct" does not mean what you think it means.
If the public wanted that, they would either buy smaller drinks, or drink less of the drink... the fact that they're not would indicate they DON'T want the mayor to do anything...
You could ask the same about the US - in many areas of the US aquifers are being drained far, far faster than they are being replenished...
People (employees) pay income tax, not companies/corporations.
Taxes on profits are nearly always "Corporation Tax" which is not an income tax. Income taxes (22% for most of most peoples income above a certain threshold) are paid by the individual, but it is usually taxed "at source" so the company pays it to HMRC before the employee receives the payment making it appears as if the company pays it...
If they are not paying "Income Tax" on the wages paid to their employees, they are in MAJOR trouble as are their employees, who will be liable to pay the tax, even though the company avoided it. The article, though, talks about them not paying CORPORATION tax - a whole different matter.
I don't know why Slashdot chose to use the phrase "Income Tax" in the title, which makes this highly confusing...