You have now made your employer aware that you are unhappy. From this day on, your loyalty will always be in question.
More likely you have made your employer correct a major deficiency, and they have every reason to believe you are now happier.
When promotion time comes around, your employer will remember who is loyal and who is not.
This is true, but accepting a counter offer could as much be a sign of loyalty as not. Loyalty goes both ways. What kind of company insists that it's employee accept below market wages?
When times get tough, your employer will begin the cutbacks with you.
Maybe, but if they were willing to up your salary, maybe it's a sign they value you.
Accepting a counteroffer is an insult to your intelligence and a blow to your personal pride; you were bought.
BZZZZZT! B*llsh*t alert! Of course you were bought. Do you want to be regarded as cheap? Are you working because you would die for the company? Unlikely. They may be great, but most companies are in it for profit. If you aren't too, then work for a non-profit, they could use your help.
Where is the money for the counteroffer coming from? All companies have wage and salary guidelines which must be followed. Is it your next raise early?
At 50%? No. And hey, if that the game they are playing, you have found it out, and can start searching again.
Your company will immediately start looking for a new person at a cheaper price.
Maybe, or maybe not. You can't predict that.
The same circumstances that now cause you to consider a change will repeat themselves in the future, even if you accept a counteroffer.
If the circumstances are merely that you deserve a raise, well, let's hope so. If you are leaving because you hate working there, maybe you should leave.
Statistics show that if you accept a counteroffer, the probability of voluntarily leaving in six months or being let go in one year is extremely high.
If you were leaving because it sucks, yep. If you were just getting your pay in line with the market, maybe not. In any case, question those statistics. In recent times people have been leaving jobs because they'd been there a year, and that was long enough. And getting more money while you evaluate your position is nice.
Once the word gets out, the relationship that you now enjoy with your co-workers will never be the same. You will lose the personal satisfaction of peer group acceptance.
Bzzzzt! More b*llsh*t. If your peers even know about it, they will likely be gratified that you decided to stay, if they like you. More likely you will cause them to consider their own positions, which could lead to them trying the same thing, and they will look to you for advice. If you give it, honestly, you should end up being tighter with them.
What type of company do you work for if you have to threaten to resign before they will give you what you are worth?
All of them. Companies do not simply hand out the cash out of altruism. They maintain their profits by keeping costs down. If giving you a raise to keep you on is the best thing, that's what they do. Volunteering to pay more is not going to happen. Even review raises are going to be grudging, and are only done because it's what people expect.
Do we really know how long Morpheus has been in arrears with KaZaa? Maybe it's been months. If KaZaa is professional, they wouldn't be telling everyone and their cousin that Morpheus is being a deadbeat. It would be harder for Morpheus to pay if they start losing customers due to a bad rep.
Why not treat the R, G, and B values as 3D coordinates, and measure the distance between the points? You'd have to correct for apparent difference based on the tested points distance from 555nm green, but I bet it's some sort of simple weighting.
My guess is that you have your math screwed up somewhere.
Racks for musical equipment are, in fact, the same as racks for computers. You can use musical racks just fine.
The reason they are expensive is that the demand is low, and the construction has to be pretty strong. You are, after all, mounting stuff that's usually quite expensive, and usually mounting lots of it.
The root account has its own standard prompt, which I left alone to remind me when I am using root's environment instead of my own, with its different paths and aliases.
You want to make Slashdot better? You write the review. If you can write a better one, eventually you will be in the spot instead of Katz.
Regardless of whatever you think of his specific relevancy to Slashdot, he's one of the best writers submitting to them. Good writing is hard. If you think you can do better, go for it.
But do something to make Slashdot better. If you can't produce better reviews, then shut up about it.
I used to have chronic back spasms. Then a bed salesman pointed out that older beds can cause back probrlems, so I did some research, and Consumer Reports (among others) agreed. So I bought a new bed.
Boom. I haven't had a really bad day since.
Note that we had a 3 year old futon at the time. Futons as used in Japan are routinely aired out and moved around, unlike most futons used by Americans. This keeps them fluffy, and supportive.
HURD is based on Mach, which is on a whole bunch of platforms, such as... err... IA32 and, ummm, PA-RISC.
Well, in any case, Mach is made to be highly portable. If anyone cared to do it.
On the other hand, no one but a few people at the FSF seem to have worked on it since 1995.
Could someone tell me again why the HURD is a good idea?
Oh right, it's a system for managing complexity, making it easy for regular users to add services.
Do regular users have a hard time adding services to Linux? I'm root on my own boxes, and I can load and unload kernel modules all day.
Do regular users spend a lot of time wishing they could services to their box?
Let's face it folks, I think the reason the HURD is there at all is because Thomas Bushnell was/is having fun, along with a few other people.
I am sort of waiting for a few people to take issue with some of the claims made in that article about Linux, such as the claim that it's not very maintainable. I'm sure Linus (who's primary pet peeve is code maintainability) would have something to say about that, if he didn't have better things to do.
Let's state an obvious goal: Musicians want to make money doing the thing they love.
Let's state an obvious fact: Record Companies want to make money.
Breaking copyright is a simple issue: If you are distributing copies of any material that you don't hold copyright to, and you are not compensating the copyright holder at an agreed upon rate, you are breaking the law, and ripping off the copyright holder. Fair use is reasonable, and prevents dilution, i.e. if they had to procescute for every copy made not for compensation, either copyright would fade as a protection, or the courts would be jammed forever.
The fact that the recipient of most of the money are the record companies bears no relation on he question, even morally. The record companies are basicly bound by law to be profit seeking pigs. Failure to do their utmost can get them sued by the shareholders.
The fact that many of them are ripping off the artists also bears no relation. That's between the artist and the company. (Over time, things are changing. More artists are insisting on retaining their copyrights.)
It doesn't matter how much of the money from the record sales goes to whom. If you are distributing perfect copies of copyrighted material, you are ripping off the artist.
It costs an immense amount of money to produce an album. The biggest pop albums cost upwards of $200,000 just to get a master, and then you have the media production, advertising, etc. If CD's can be ripped and easily found on napster, say, The sales will drop, and the artists get less, and they may not get produced at all.
It's just like sanctions against Iraq.
Technology is enabling artists to get exposed more easily, and this is good for the art. But there is a cost to everything, and artists want to eat. Make sure you think about the whole picture. Even with todays amazingly cheap technology, the get an album with the production values of say Santanna's album costs large dollars, way out of hobby range. And being a fantastic musician general doing nothing else, so it must make you a living.
And let's face it, if you can only make $5000 a year producing music, as opposed to $90,000 being a sys admin, which one is going to be the hobby? And which one will be of lesser quality?
The RIAA might be lying about things, and if they are they are wrong. But as you make your decisions about what you will do, don't forget to pay the artists their due.
Maybe you ought to hang out with that negative karma guy, or that PhrOd guy...
Re:The Diamond Age is a little farther off...
on
Rise of the Nanobots
·
· Score: 1
"No one will ever need more the 640K" -- B. Gates
Failing to see the possibilities is a national pastime. But not a useful one.
Think on this: While we are not near the level of tech in "The Diamond Age", no assumptions are made about future discoveries, as far as basic tech.
We can take things apart atom by atom right now, and assemble them. Not very fast, mind you, but it's possible. And they have made solved the basic problems of manufacture at that scale, now the problem is the method of application, which is any easier problem.
On the other hand, I'm not going to make a prediction. Too many variables. But I'd guess it to start well within our lifetime.
Instead of having to buy a $100,000 robot, you buy $1000 worht of nanobots. The trade off is that you have to wait 2 weeks for them to finish.
One the other hand, you could use the car while they are working on it. They could be forming the interior while you are moving, assuming they had the raw materials.
Plus, when it was done, they could hang around in the engine and filter stuff, like oil and air (assuming an IC engine) or wandering around the interior cleaning things (and maybe using the dirt as new raw materials?). Plus, if you decided you didn't like the design of some bit, you could have it changed at will.
"By the time we finish dinner, the car should have fins!"
The obvious solution to the dark side of nanobots usage is more nanobots. Toner Wars, anybody?
The coolest use of nanatech will be internal cleansing. Being able to clean one's arteries and cells will be the thing that make the nanotech folks very very rich.
After that would be DNA repair.
After that, having nanobots build me a new car would be cool. Potentially anyone could do it, with the main factor being speed, since poorer folks would be able to afford as many nanobots.
On the other hand, I question the idea that a few hundred miles of nanobot photovoltaic roadway could supply the electricity for the entire United States. Has anyone got real math on that, or did the author pull it out of his ass?
If I remember correctly, trademark law states that the trademark is very narrow, limited to the work or phrase in the situation or niche.
The main point is to ensure that no one is confusing one for the other.
No one is gong to confuse "what's happening" with "que pasa".
I think lawyers who file suits like this should be made to work a day of pro bono beyond whatever they are normally required to donate, as well as paying all court costs and lawyer fees on the other side. And it should come directly from the lawyer, not the corporation, unless the lawyer can prove it wasn't his or her idea.
Re:Cracking is a crime. Period.
on
One for the Kids
·
· Score: 1
Sure cracking is a crime. Why is it that the DOJ gets to crack at will?
Remember kids, you can't have a free state if the government can look into everyones lives, but you can't see what the government is doing. That's called totalitarianism. It often leads to people disappearing in the middle of the night with no explanation, only to end up dead at the hands of "Justice" for the crime of "failing to conform."
The article is an oblique attack against indoctrination.
My guess is the CEO of Lotus will say neutral or positive things to anyone with the power to give them troubles. Austrailians have money too.
The reality is that Industry stands to make a buck from such things, so they'll happily stand by and wait to see what shakes out. No one who is taking care of a large business is going to make a comment on a neutral issue if they are representing the company. That's considered bad for shareholder value, because someone might think you were doing something about it and protest, causing a stock drop.
On the other hand, what folks believe for themselves is another thing. It's the voters that should be protesting, not "Industry".
Just because you "never learned to type" doesn't mean you didn't learn the basic layout of the keyboard. Most trans-hunt-and-peck folks basicly come up with a less efficent, but reasonable method over a longer time. If they want to switch to dvorak, they have to go through the learning curve again.
Washington is all about power. The Law Enforcement Establishment wants the power to do it's job. Their idea of the right amount of power is total control. If they can see every bit of communications between anyone, anywhere, they can control crime to a greater degree than they ever have before.
The key-escrow encryption bill and the sealed warrant secret break-in bill are point of the infrastructure they need to achieve this power.
They have other planks, as well. Read Title 18 of the federal statutes. There's some reading. It's possible to obtain a warrant for general seizure of assets on the suspicion (not any evidence) of Child Pornography. There is no requirement in the law for due process in getting seized goods returned. There is no requirement to even press charges.
At some point you can expect the police to start conducting random identity checks. Those without proper ID would be immediately arrested, supposedly until their identity could be correctly established.
Next we will have to swipe out ID through a scanner to purchase any of the currently legal vices, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Later you'll need to have your ID to get gas or ride interstate mass transit.
These planks will give them Law enforcement agency the means to enforce the law more efficiently.
Over time their power will grow, partly from "needed" additions to combat new crimes.
There's a fence post error which they should correct by saying: "By running this query in the future, you agree to these terms:..."
On the other hand, what the fuck does "or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems)." mean?
I called E*Trade, and the operator confirmed that the Affinity Program shares have not been distributed. She didn't know when they would, saying they'd get a message, and then we would.
Slashdot Mirror
You have now made your employer aware that you are unhappy. From this day on, your loyalty will always be in question.
More likely you have made your employer correct a major deficiency, and they have every reason to believe you are now happier.
When promotion time comes around, your employer will remember who is loyal and who is not.
This is true, but accepting a counter offer could as much be a sign of loyalty as not. Loyalty goes both ways. What kind of company insists that it's employee accept below market wages?
When times get tough, your employer will begin the cutbacks with you.
Maybe, but if they were willing to up your salary, maybe it's a sign they value you.
Accepting a counteroffer is an insult to your intelligence and a blow to your personal pride; you were bought.
BZZZZZT! B*llsh*t alert! Of course you were bought. Do you want to be regarded as cheap? Are you working because you would die for the company? Unlikely. They may be great, but most companies are in it for profit. If you aren't too, then work for a non-profit, they could use your help.
Where is the money for the counteroffer coming from? All companies have wage and salary guidelines which must be followed. Is it your next raise early?
At 50%? No. And hey, if that the game they are playing, you have found it out, and can start searching again.
Your company will immediately start looking for a new person at a cheaper price.
Maybe, or maybe not. You can't predict that.
The same circumstances that now cause you to consider a change will repeat themselves in the future, even if you accept a counteroffer.
If the circumstances are merely that you deserve a raise, well, let's hope so. If you are leaving because you hate working there, maybe you should leave.
Statistics show that if you accept a counteroffer, the probability of voluntarily leaving in six months or being let go in one year is extremely high.
If you were leaving because it sucks, yep. If you were just getting your pay in line with the market, maybe not. In any case, question those statistics. In recent times people have been leaving jobs because they'd been there a year, and that was long enough. And getting more money while you evaluate your position is nice.
Once the word gets out, the relationship that you now enjoy with your co-workers will never be the same. You will lose the personal satisfaction of peer group acceptance.
Bzzzzt! More b*llsh*t. If your peers even know about it, they will likely be gratified that you decided to stay, if they like you. More likely you will cause them to consider their own positions, which could lead to them trying the same thing, and they will look to you for advice. If you give it, honestly, you should end up being tighter with them.
What type of company do you work for if you have to threaten to resign before they will give you what you are worth?
All of them. Companies do not simply hand out the cash out of altruism. They maintain their profits by keeping costs down. If giving you a raise to keep you on is the best thing, that's what they do. Volunteering to pay more is not going to happen. Even review raises are going to be grudging, and are only done because it's what people expect.
Cash is great, but won't be used on truly useful items. Freshmen college students aren't noted for their planning ability.
The fact is, if I had an extra $200 my first quarter in college, I would have spent it on pizza and billiards.
And note, I had lots of tools at my parents house. I just didn't think to bring any of them.
Do we really know how long Morpheus has been in arrears with KaZaa? Maybe it's been months. If KaZaa is professional, they wouldn't be telling everyone and their cousin that Morpheus is being a deadbeat. It would be harder for Morpheus to pay if they start losing customers due to a bad rep.
Why not treat the R, G, and B values as 3D coordinates, and measure the distance between the points? You'd have to correct for apparent difference based on the tested points distance from 555nm green, but I bet it's some sort of simple weighting.
n d_ gamma/ColorFAQ.html#RTFToC9
My guess is that you have your math screwed up somewhere.
Anyway, see:
http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/notes/colour_a
I went to download the the demo for Palm Vx, and it's in .exe format. Argh.
I sent them a missive of complaint. You should too.
Racks for musical equipment are, in fact, the same as racks for computers. You can use musical racks just fine.
The reason they are expensive is that the demand is low, and the construction has to be pretty strong. You are, after all, mounting stuff that's usually quite expensive, and usually mounting lots of it.
It'd be better to tailor this according to standard airline flight paths. I bet you get a much different location.
In .profile, using bash:
0 33[0m> "'
PROMPT_COMMAND='PS1="[\t]-------->\n\h:\w\n\u > "'
if test `id -u` = "0"
then PROMPT_COMMAND='PS1="[\t]\n\h:\w\n\033[31;5mROOT\
fi
Simply, a normal prompt looks like this:
[12:40:03]-------->
habitrail:/home/httpd/html/hacksaw
hacksaw >
But if I am su'ed to root, it looks like this:
[12:41:00]
habitrail:/home/httpd/html/hacksaw
ROOT>
Where the word ROOT is in red.
The root account has its own standard prompt, which I left alone to remind me when I am using root's environment instead of my own, with its different paths and aliases.
And, of course, I use sudo as much as possible.
You want to make Slashdot better? You write the review. If you can write a better one, eventually you will be in the spot instead of Katz.
Regardless of whatever you think of his specific relevancy to Slashdot, he's one of the best writers submitting to them. Good writing is hard. If you think you can do better, go for it.
But do something to make Slashdot better. If you can't produce better reviews, then shut up about it.
In addition, make sure your bed isn't really old.
I used to have chronic back spasms. Then a bed salesman pointed out that older beds can cause back probrlems, so I did some research, and Consumer Reports (among others) agreed. So I bought a new bed.
Boom. I haven't had a really bad day since.
Note that we had a 3 year old futon at the time. Futons as used in Japan are routinely aired out and moved around, unlike most futons used by Americans. This keeps them fluffy, and supportive.
The systems administration point of view says "servers do not sleep."
If it's an important server, you have it on a UPS. If you must have 24/7 uptime, your UPS might include a generator, or two.
HURD is based on Mach, which is on a whole bunch of platforms, such as... err... IA32 and, ummm, PA-RISC.
Well, in any case, Mach is made to be highly portable. If anyone cared to do it.
On the other hand, no one but a few people at the FSF seem to have worked on it since 1995.
Could someone tell me again why the HURD is a good idea?
Oh right, it's a system for managing complexity, making it easy for regular users to add services.
Do regular users have a hard time adding services to Linux? I'm root on my own boxes, and I can load and unload kernel modules all day.
Do regular users spend a lot of time wishing they could services to their box?
Let's face it folks, I think the reason the HURD is there at all is because Thomas Bushnell was/is having fun, along with a few other people.
I am sort of waiting for a few people to take issue with some of the claims made in that article about Linux, such as the claim that it's not very maintainable. I'm sure Linus (who's primary pet peeve is code maintainability) would have something to say about that, if he didn't have better things to do.
Let's state an obvious goal: Musicians want to make money doing the thing they love.
Let's state an obvious fact: Record Companies want to make money.
Breaking copyright is a simple issue: If you are distributing copies of any material that you don't hold copyright to, and you are not compensating the copyright holder at an agreed upon rate, you are breaking the law, and ripping off the copyright holder. Fair use is reasonable, and prevents dilution, i.e. if they had to procescute for every copy made not for compensation, either copyright would fade as a protection, or the courts would be jammed forever.
The fact that the recipient of most of the money are the record companies bears no relation on he question, even morally. The record companies are basicly bound by law to be profit seeking pigs. Failure to do their utmost can get them sued by the shareholders.
The fact that many of them are ripping off the artists also bears no relation. That's between the artist and the company. (Over time, things are changing. More artists are insisting on retaining their copyrights.)
It doesn't matter how much of the money from the record sales goes to whom. If you are distributing perfect copies of copyrighted material, you are ripping off the artist.
It costs an immense amount of money to produce an album. The biggest pop albums cost upwards of $200,000 just to get a master, and then you have the media production, advertising, etc. If CD's can be ripped and easily found on napster, say, The sales will drop, and the artists get less, and they may not get produced at all.
It's just like sanctions against Iraq.
Technology is enabling artists to get exposed more easily, and this is good for the art. But there is a cost to everything, and artists want to eat. Make sure you think about the whole picture. Even with todays amazingly cheap technology, the get an album with the production values of say Santanna's album costs large dollars, way out of hobby range. And being a fantastic musician general doing nothing else, so it must make you a living.
And let's face it, if you can only make $5000 a year producing music, as opposed to $90,000 being a sys admin, which one is going to be the hobby?
And which one will be of lesser quality?
The RIAA might be lying about things, and if they are they are wrong. But as you make your decisions about what you will do, don't forget to pay the artists their due.
Your declaration of flamebait is a troll.
Maybe you ought to hang out with that negative karma guy, or that PhrOd guy...
"No one will ever need more the 640K" -- B. Gates
Failing to see the possibilities is a national pastime. But not a useful one.
Think on this: While we are not near the level of tech in "The Diamond Age", no assumptions are made about future discoveries, as far as basic tech.
We can take things apart atom by atom right now, and assemble them. Not very fast, mind you, but it's possible. And they have made solved the basic problems of manufacture at that scale, now the problem is the method of application, which is any easier problem.
On the other hand, I'm not going to make a prediction. Too many variables. But I'd guess it to start well within our lifetime.
Instead of having to buy a $100,000 robot, you buy $1000 worht of nanobots. The trade off is that you have to wait 2 weeks for them to finish.
One the other hand, you could use the car while they are working on it. They could be forming the interior while you are moving, assuming they had the raw materials.
Plus, when it was done, they could hang around in the engine and filter stuff, like oil and air (assuming an IC engine) or wandering around the interior cleaning things (and maybe using the dirt as new raw materials?). Plus, if you decided you didn't like the design of some bit, you could have it changed at will.
"By the time we finish dinner, the car should have fins!"
Wow. The ultimate spy car.
"He was driving a blue Astin Martin."
"The only car we have seen is a red MG."
The obvious solution to the dark side of nanobots usage is more nanobots. Toner Wars, anybody?
The coolest use of nanatech will be internal cleansing. Being able to clean one's arteries and cells will be the thing that make the nanotech folks very very rich.
After that would be DNA repair.
After that, having nanobots build me a new car would be cool. Potentially anyone could do it, with the main factor being speed, since poorer folks would be able to afford as many nanobots.
On the other hand, I question the idea that a few hundred miles of nanobot photovoltaic roadway could supply the electricity for the entire United States. Has anyone got real math on that, or did the author pull it out of his ass?
If I remember correctly, trademark law states that the trademark is very narrow, limited to the work or phrase in the situation or niche.
The main point is to ensure that no one is confusing one for the other.
No one is gong to confuse "what's happening" with "que pasa".
I think lawyers who file suits like this should be made to work a day of pro bono beyond whatever they are normally required to donate, as well as paying all court costs and lawyer fees on the other side. And it should come directly from the lawyer, not the corporation, unless the lawyer can prove it wasn't his or her idea.
Sure cracking is a crime. Why is it that the DOJ gets to crack at will?
Remember kids, you can't have a free state if the government can look into everyones lives, but you can't see what the government is doing. That's called totalitarianism. It often leads to people disappearing in the middle of the night with no explanation, only to end up dead at the hands of "Justice" for the crime of "failing to conform."
The article is an oblique attack against indoctrination.
My guess is the CEO of Lotus will say neutral or positive things to anyone with the power to give them troubles. Austrailians have money too.
The reality is that Industry stands to make a buck from such things, so they'll happily stand by and wait to see what shakes out. No one who is taking care of a large business is going to make a comment on a neutral issue if they are representing the company. That's considered bad for shareholder value, because someone might think you were doing something about it and protest, causing a stock drop.
On the other hand, what folks believe for themselves is another thing. It's the voters that should be protesting, not "Industry".
Just because you "never learned to type" doesn't mean you didn't learn the basic layout of the keyboard. Most trans-hunt-and-peck folks basicly come up with a less efficent, but reasonable method over a longer time. If they want to switch to dvorak, they have to go through the learning curve again.
Washington is all about power. The Law Enforcement Establishment wants the power to do it's job. Their idea of the right amount of power is total control. If they can see every bit of communications between anyone, anywhere, they can control crime to a greater degree than they ever have before.
The key-escrow encryption bill and the sealed warrant secret break-in bill are point of the infrastructure they need to achieve this power.
They have other planks, as well. Read Title 18 of the federal statutes. There's some reading. It's possible to obtain a warrant for general seizure of assets on the suspicion (not any evidence) of Child Pornography. There is no requirement in the law for due process in getting seized goods returned. There is no requirement to even press charges.
At some point you can expect the police to start conducting random identity checks. Those without proper ID would be immediately arrested, supposedly until their identity could be correctly established.
Next we will have to swipe out ID through a scanner to purchase any of the currently legal vices, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Later you'll need to have your ID to get gas or ride interstate mass transit.
These planks will give them Law enforcement agency the means to enforce the law more efficiently.
Over time their power will grow, partly from "needed" additions to combat new crimes.
Their power will grow to be close to absolute.
And of course, power corrupts.
There's a fence post error which they should correct by saying: "By running this query in the future, you agree to these terms:..."
On the other hand, what the fuck does "or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems)." mean?
I called E*Trade, and the operator confirmed that the Affinity Program shares have not been distributed. She didn't know when they would, saying they'd get a message, and then we would.
Well, it went big, but all I got was three messages saying I didn't get shares allocated.
No loss, but no gain.
Maybe next time they'll allocate more to e*trade...