The average manager at a large software company has no ability to blackmail you.
From my experience as a contractor - manager references are also highly overrated. You should be able to get references from other sources (such as former coworkers and the coworkers at your new job).
If this really bothers you and you don't need the money I suggest leaving the company earlier. Life is too short to get pushed around. Alternatively - if they bring it up again just say you probably won't give them a good reference either. They'll probably say something like "heh - I don't need a reference from you". Then you say, "ok, sounds like we're even".
This is the standard: For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
"Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
the "From:" field. If the originator of the message can be indicated
by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
"Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.
It doesn't say "author mailbox and transmitter mailbox are identical". It says "author and transmitter are identical". If I own both mailboxes then the Sender field should not be used.
Every other mail program I use lets me change the From address without this silliness.
I sort of see your point about having too many languages doing the same thing, but did you know that most modern web applications already use 4+ languages?
Choose one of PHP/Perl/Python/Java/C# to handle business logic and flow on control. Use some flavor of SQL to access the database. Throw in HTML to provide the basic user interface. Add javascript for client side features that can't be supported with plain HTML. If your application is of any size at all you've got some property files written in XML, YAML, or other similar language. Good developers probably used some variant of UML to conceptualize the design before they started.
The idea that one language can do everything is pretty silly.
Since you are pushing standardisation I assume your current environment is not standardised. Let's say you choose Java. What are you going to do with all those.NET and PHP apps? What is the cost for your employees to retrain to another language? Who will maintain the php app? I've created small perl and ruby scripts that would have needed many more hours to develop under Java or C#. Sure there were some developers on our team that didn't know how to maintain those scripts, but we had enough smart developers to cover it. There is a definite cost savings when smart developers choose the right tool for the job.
And since somebody mentioned golf... how many professional golfers do you see standardised on 1 club?
I did not prove what you were saying. You said it was a bad idea to chase a draw or flush. I said there are circumstances in which it is a very good idea. There are also bad cases such as the one you pointed out.
Anyway, you completely ignored the first part of my post. To repeat: you cannot play strictly by the odds and win at poker. You need to consider other player's betting patterns and behavior in order to win at poker.
If I know you always fold when the pot odds are against you I will clean you out. I know you only call/raise strong hands so I won't try to bluff with my weak hand. When you check on the flop that is an instant tell that your "good" start failed to improve.
If you still disagree please explain how you will win money by strictly playing the odds.
You cannot play poker strictly by the odds except against very bad players. Once any decent opponent notices that you always fold weak hands they will win every hand where you have weak cards (thus winning any ante/pot built up). They will also fold when they notice you playing a strong hand against their weak hand (keeping the pots that you do win to a small level).
Also, with a large pot it can be a very good idea to chase a flush or straight if you are 1 draw away from the hand. The key is to examine the pot odds. Example: if I have a 1 in 10 chance to win a $200 pot then a $10 bet is low risk for that pot (if I bet 20 times I could expect 2 wins and thus $400 for my $200 in bets). If I have a 1 in 10 chance to win a $70 pot then a $10 bet is a high risk (2 wins this time only gives me $140 compared to my $200 in bets).
Slashdot Mirror
The average manager at a large software company has no ability to blackmail you.
From my experience as a contractor - manager references are also highly overrated. You should be able to get references from other sources (such as former coworkers and the coworkers at your new job).
If this really bothers you and you don't need the money I suggest leaving the company earlier. Life is too short to get pushed around. Alternatively - if they bring it up again just say you probably won't give them a good reference either. They'll probably say something like "heh - I don't need a reference from you". Then you say, "ok, sounds like we're even".
Obama was a lawyer, but not a trial lawyer. Saying otherwise is like calling MLK a cult leader rather than a minister.
This is the standard:
For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
"Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
the "From:" field. If the originator of the message can be indicated
by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
"Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.
It doesn't say "author mailbox and transmitter mailbox are identical". It says "author and transmitter are identical". If I own both mailboxes then the Sender field should not be used.
Every other mail program I use lets me change the From address without this silliness.
I sort of see your point about having too many languages doing the same thing, but did you know that most modern web applications already use 4+ languages?
.NET and PHP apps? What is the cost for your employees to retrain to another language? Who will maintain the php app? I've created small perl and ruby scripts that would have needed many more hours to develop under Java or C#. Sure there were some developers on our team that didn't know how to maintain those scripts, but we had enough smart developers to cover it. There is a definite cost savings when smart developers choose the right tool for the job.
Choose one of PHP/Perl/Python/Java/C# to handle business logic and flow on control. Use some flavor of SQL to access the database. Throw in HTML to provide the basic user interface. Add javascript for client side features that can't be supported with plain HTML. If your application is of any size at all you've got some property files written in XML, YAML, or other similar language. Good developers probably used some variant of UML to conceptualize the design before they started.
The idea that one language can do everything is pretty silly.
Since you are pushing standardisation I assume your current environment is not standardised. Let's say you choose Java. What are you going to do with all those
And since somebody mentioned golf... how many professional golfers do you see standardised on 1 club?
"Which sounds more REAL?"
Neither. It is an IMAGINARY GAME. You're talking about a guy fighting rats with a sword...
If you don't want to have any number crunching in your games that's fine, but get off the realism bit.
I did not prove what you were saying. You said it was a bad idea to chase a draw or flush. I said there are circumstances in which it is a very good idea. There are also bad cases such as the one you pointed out.
Anyway, you completely ignored the first part of my post. To repeat: you cannot play strictly by the odds and win at poker. You need to consider other player's betting patterns and behavior in order to win at poker.
If I know you always fold when the pot odds are against you I will clean you out. I know you only call/raise strong hands so I won't try to bluff with my weak hand. When you check on the flop that is an instant tell that your "good" start failed to improve.
If you still disagree please explain how you will win money by strictly playing the odds.
You cannot play poker strictly by the odds except against very bad players. Once any decent opponent notices that you always fold weak hands they will win every hand where you have weak cards (thus winning any ante/pot built up). They will also fold when they notice you playing a strong hand against their weak hand (keeping the pots that you do win to a small level).
Also, with a large pot it can be a very good idea to chase a flush or straight if you are 1 draw away from the hand. The key is to examine the pot odds. Example: if I have a 1 in 10 chance to win a $200 pot then a $10 bet is low risk for that pot (if I bet 20 times I could expect 2 wins and thus $400 for my $200 in bets). If I have a 1 in 10 chance to win a $70 pot then a $10 bet is a high risk (2 wins this time only gives me $140 compared to my $200 in bets).