Please, kids, stop accepting crappy salaries. You're undermining the entire salary structure for the rest of us. Hold out. Don't take the first offer. Tell some offerers, in plain scat, to go fuck themselves and their crappy pay scale. If you do that to one employer, and the other guy does that to the other employer, you'll end up filling each others' positions and you'll get more money.
And I'll be able to get work at my usual pay rate (you don't want to know) without having to talk to the CEO about why it's wrong for him to let the salary structure erode. It works, but it's galling to him and to me, and it takes up time I could be billing and accomplishing the mission and making them think engineers are all work and no bullshit. And that will make the negotiating process and the salary structure better for you.
Is it just me, or is science starting to do not much more than gather statistical confirmation for the evident facts of life? I mean, anyone can tell that this is how it is; does it matter that we know with what confidence level each trope covers its portion of the behavioral spectrum?
I actually worked on a literal all-band/all-access (look up access in a Communications textbook) communications system once.
But it was 1985, and it was all in hardware.
It was basically a mobile shelter containing every kind of radio you've ever heard of, your local ham club has ever heard of, your local military base has ever heard of, and one or two nobody has heard of.
Right after that I went into software and haven't looked back.
So the world is 20 years behind me. Explains a lot.
Vista would have been developed and tested on hardware that's less capable than what will be released today or tomorrow, so why is this even a question?
Take the hint and go start a company that does what your company does, but does it without the wasteful overhead.
You'll kill them by pricing your product lower, and they'll die and you can price your product where they priced it, and you'll get rich and your engineers will be happy.
Google's intent is not to comment on the news or add value to it, but simply to become the portal to it. Their brand is advertised at the top, always, as are their other services. Therefore they're profiting from it.
It's a copyright violation, clearly. Google should be compensating the producers of the news for the value of the service they're receiving.
Deathstar ==> Natural choice for Deathstar operating system. (Note early attempts at commercialization involved use of childish semiotics in advertising in order to conceal Imperial origins).
If you're an untrained individual, and you start working out and eating a calorie deficit with the correct protein/fat/carbohydrate ratios, you may gain a couple of pounds of muscle while shedding the first 10-20 pounds of fat.
But then you're trained. And for trained individuals the situation is more predictable. If you're eating a 500-calorie daily deficit, you'll lose about a pound of fat and about 0.1 pounds of muscle per week. If you're eating at least a 10-15% calorie surplus, you'll gain 0.5-1.0 pounds of muscle per week, and the rest of the calories in fat.
Genetics will play two key roles here: 1. determining whether you're capable of "knowing" when you've eaten enough without crunching numbers at every meal; and, 2. determining whether the system stays roughly linear as your bodyfat percentage drops into the single digits. For endomorphs the truth is you will always have to crunch the numbers because your internal feedback systems are designed to make you overeat (ostensibly to fatten you up so you'll survive the periodic famines your breed evolved in); and, you may not get truly "ripped" until you're doing competitive-athlete levels of training and feeding.
Most humans are endomorphs, because few humans have evolved in lush conditions. The upside is, endomorphism is the superior condition; you're better at surviving harsh environments. The downside is, we've evolved enough brainpower and social skills that we almost never have to use that ability. The way-deep downside is, it makes us love Taco Bell's chihuaha, and mock Subway's Jared...
Jimbo's getting a system in his own image and likeness.
His altruism is a sham, and his concern for truth and egalitarianism are transparent covers for a cheap lust for power.
I've been on the Wikipedia three times, and each time ended up blocked by admins who didn't know what they were talking about, backed up by others who simply wanted to avoid having to see the argument in the argument fora, or even on my own user page.
It's pretty clear that this system is keeping facts out of the Wikipedia, while ensconcing inaccurate pages, which means the signal-to-noise ratio will never increase to a usable level.
I have no trouble at all getting dates. With women. Cute ones. And having sex with them. After an appropriate period of time treating them like a gentleman, to camouflage my true geekiness...
Nobody reading any portion of the Wikipedia can trust that it is accurate.
Between the abandonment of the system by good editors, the abuse of the system by bad editors, the abuse of power by the admins, the sanitization of many pages, and the general inability of anyone to know if any page is complete, the Wikipedia is reduced to the journalistic and encyclopedic equivalent of a house organ.
We're letting the criminals make the criminal law.
That's what we do when we allow lobbyists to write legislation regulating the corporations they represent, and paid-for legislators insert it verbatim as amendments to omnibus bills, where it's passed along with the other "necessary" parts of the bill.
Lobbying and graft are just the first reform; we need to change how laws are constructed, or we won't get a rational government.
The only thing you get by making government less powerful is less need for lobbying because the corporations will then have ALL the power.
We need government to be
a) independent of corporate interests of any kind b) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against corporate power c) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against government power
Lobbying, by the way, isn't wrong. In its true form it consists of standing in the lobbies of Congress waiting to tell the legislators something you want him to hear. That's just free speech.
What's wrong in lobbying today is that the lobbyists are buying favor rather than just presenting information.
Prohibiting anyone from giving anything to a member of government will take away that method of persuasion.
Serving your country is an honor, not an excuse to feed at the trough and sell out your countrymen.
The invalidation would be irrelevant and unnecessary if RIM has workarounds.
They're not making any money from already-sold devices.
And they'll be able to continue selling new ones.
They'll spend a few bucks selling firmware upgrades, if that's even possible.
Or they'll sell "upgraded" devices (maybe at a slim discount) to current customers.
Now, that might invite a class-action lawsuit from Blackberry owners claiming they were defrauded by someone selling pirated IP, but when has that ever cost any company what it was really worth to the class?
At worst, the judge will order RIM to pay a reasonable royalty. Shutting down the network would not be a legal option.
Now, where's my broker's number? I need to text him a buy order....
>You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.
But if the other side knows it's being illogical and depends on your turning the other cheek, you'll end up nailed to a cross with a sword-hole in your side expecting a resurrection that will never come.*
Stay logical, stick to the facts, and do not give in to unproven assertions. That is strength.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they're in demand.
They're working for peanuts.
Please, kids, stop accepting crappy salaries. You're undermining the entire salary structure for the rest of us. Hold out. Don't take the first offer. Tell some offerers, in plain scat, to go fuck themselves and their crappy pay scale. If you do that to one employer, and the other guy does that to the other employer, you'll end up filling each others' positions and you'll get more money.
And I'll be able to get work at my usual pay rate (you don't want to know) without having to talk to the CEO about why it's wrong for him to let the salary structure erode. It works, but it's galling to him and to me, and it takes up time I could be billing and accomplishing the mission and making them think engineers are all work and no bullshit. And that will make the negotiating process and the salary structure better for you.
Is it just me, or is science starting to do not much more than gather statistical confirmation for the evident facts of life? I mean, anyone can tell that this is how it is; does it matter that we know with what confidence level each trope covers its portion of the behavioral spectrum?
Mark Twain is the Prophet of God and the Word that he speaks is True.
Karl Rove can do the same thing with a few choice images in the background of a political ad...
Do I start to care that imaginary beings have no rights?
Or do I start to care that people who charge other people to pretend to be imaginary beings care that those imaginary beings should have no rights?
I'm not going to spend another synaptic activation on it.
I actually worked on a literal all-band/all-access (look up access in a Communications textbook) communications system once.
But it was 1985, and it was all in hardware.
It was basically a mobile shelter containing every kind of radio you've ever heard of, your local ham club has ever heard of, your local military base has ever heard of, and one or two nobody has heard of.
Right after that I went into software and haven't looked back.
So the world is 20 years behind me. Explains a lot.
Vista would have been developed and tested on hardware that's less capable than what will be released today or tomorrow, so why is this even a question?
Take the hint and go start a company that does what your company does, but does it without the wasteful overhead.
You'll kill them by pricing your product lower, and they'll die and you can price your product where they priced it, and you'll get rich and your engineers will be happy.
Google's intent is not to comment on the news or add value to it, but simply to become the portal to it. Their brand is advertised at the top, always, as are their other services. Therefore they're profiting from it.
It's a copyright violation, clearly. Google should be compensating the producers of the news for the value of the service they're receiving.
I always thought it ran VMS.
Deathstar ==> Natural choice for Deathstar operating system. (Note early attempts at commercialization involved use of childish semiotics in advertising in order to conceal Imperial origins).
Duh.
You'd think.
If you're an untrained individual, and you start working out and eating a calorie deficit with the correct protein/fat/carbohydrate ratios, you may gain a couple of pounds of muscle while shedding the first 10-20 pounds of fat.
But then you're trained. And for trained individuals the situation is more predictable. If you're eating a 500-calorie daily deficit, you'll lose about a pound of fat and about 0.1 pounds of muscle per week. If you're eating at least a 10-15% calorie surplus, you'll gain 0.5-1.0 pounds of muscle per week, and the rest of the calories in fat.
Genetics will play two key roles here: 1. determining whether you're capable of "knowing" when you've eaten enough without crunching numbers at every meal; and, 2. determining whether the system stays roughly linear as your bodyfat percentage drops into the single digits. For endomorphs the truth is you will always have to crunch the numbers because your internal feedback systems are designed to make you overeat (ostensibly to fatten you up so you'll survive the periodic famines your breed evolved in); and, you may not get truly "ripped" until you're doing competitive-athlete levels of training and feeding.
Most humans are endomorphs, because few humans have evolved in lush conditions. The upside is, endomorphism is the superior condition; you're better at surviving harsh environments. The downside is, we've evolved enough brainpower and social skills that we almost never have to use that ability. The way-deep downside is, it makes us love Taco Bell's chihuaha, and mock Subway's Jared...
Jimbo's getting a system in his own image and likeness.
His altruism is a sham, and his concern for truth and egalitarianism are transparent covers for a cheap lust for power.
I've been on the Wikipedia three times, and each time ended up blocked by admins who didn't know what they were talking about, backed up by others who simply wanted to avoid having to see the argument in the argument fora, or even on my own user page.
It's pretty clear that this system is keeping facts out of the Wikipedia, while ensconcing inaccurate pages, which means the signal-to-noise ratio will never increase to a usable level.
If I have a static IPv6 address, how am I going to spoof at the the Wikipedia any more?
Why don't they just implant rfid tags in our abdomens at birth while they're tying off the umbilical cord?
This is a major invasion of my privacy!
I don't know what you guys are talking about.
I have no trouble at all getting dates. With women. Cute ones. And having sex with them. After an appropriate period of time treating them like a gentleman, to camouflage my true geekiness...
A Wikipedia admin is not a moderator.
A Wikipedia admin has no special right to make editorial changes.
Not one of them will admit this, but it's there in the admin guidelines.
But when an admin decides that he's right and you're wrong, guess who wins, every time? And guess how often they're wrong?
Nobody reading any portion of the Wikipedia can trust that it is accurate.
Between the abandonment of the system by good editors, the abuse of the system by bad editors, the abuse of power by the admins, the sanitization of many pages, and the general inability of anyone to know if any page is complete, the Wikipedia is reduced to the journalistic and encyclopedic equivalent of a house organ.
It's not a franchise until it's been diluted....
Actually, it's worse.
We're letting the criminals make the criminal law.
That's what we do when we allow lobbyists to write legislation regulating the corporations they represent, and paid-for legislators insert it verbatim as amendments to omnibus bills, where it's passed along with the other "necessary" parts of the bill.
Lobbying and graft are just the first reform; we need to change how laws are constructed, or we won't get a rational government.
That's rather naive.
Government has the power to govern, i.e., regulate every aspect of individual or corporate life.
But individuals have certain rights, and in the United States of America, those have actually been protected.
Until now.
Taxation is a necessary part of governance of economic systems. It provides a negative-feedback loop that prevents massive oscillations.
Corporations want to have more rights than people, and as the people and the government, it's your job and mine to make sure they don't get it.
Money is not votes, and never should be.
The only thing you get by making government less powerful is less need for lobbying because the corporations will then have ALL the power.
We need government to be
a) independent of corporate interests of any kind
b) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against corporate power
c) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against government power
Lobbying, by the way, isn't wrong. In its true form it consists of standing in the lobbies of Congress waiting to tell the legislators something you want him to hear. That's just free speech.
What's wrong in lobbying today is that the lobbyists are buying favor rather than just presenting information.
Prohibiting anyone from giving anything to a member of government will take away that method of persuasion.
Serving your country is an honor, not an excuse to feed at the trough and sell out your countrymen.
I have a solution to the "one-way" communication problem.
More popups.
Audio popups!
Heads-up display popups!
Holy blackberries! Get me my patent attorney!
Seriously. That was a 'nice piece'?
It told us two things: 1. Jobs micromanages and 2. Jobs prefers small teams.
Whoopee. But, there's nothing revolutionary there.
The invalidation would be irrelevant and unnecessary if RIM has workarounds.
They're not making any money from already-sold devices.
And they'll be able to continue selling new ones.
They'll spend a few bucks selling firmware upgrades, if that's even possible.
Or they'll sell "upgraded" devices (maybe at a slim discount) to current customers.
Now, that might invite a class-action lawsuit from Blackberry owners claiming they were defrauded by someone selling pirated IP, but when has that ever cost any company what it was really worth to the class?
At worst, the judge will order RIM to pay a reasonable royalty. Shutting down the network would not be a legal option.
Now, where's my broker's number? I need to text him a buy order....
The question should be who wants to hack Linux on a Mac?
Because you're not hacking OS X.
>You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.
But if the other side knows it's being illogical and depends on your turning the other cheek, you'll end up nailed to a cross with a sword-hole in your side expecting a resurrection that will never come.*
Stay logical, stick to the facts, and do not give in to unproven assertions. That is strength.
* - okay, so there's a book that says that it worked for one guy, but it's been widely shown to be full of contradictions and other fantasies.