gantrep obviously hasn't thought this through. Paying taxes to pay for roads and education is also a commie plot (according to his view). As is 911. Stupid government attempting to help people help others. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
I'm not so sure about this one. I use to think this, but have now modified my view somewhat. While holding that view, I couldn't see how I could complain about a government who I helped vote to power. IE, only those who did not vote for the ruling party can complain (or vice versa). Also, people I know in politics would also tell me that "I can't complain if I don't directly do something about it". IE Unless I'm attending peace marches, writing letters to papers, signing surveys, or even stand for government I shouldn't be complaining about it. Locally, it makes more sense. If I care about the dog droppings in my local park (I do), then why aren't I picking them up myself, or writing letters telling the pollies to do something, or even attempting to be voted in on a "no dogs" policy.
My modified view is something like "Everyone can complain, but the more someone does about something, the more they care about it". IE, listen to complaints of people who make a lot of effort regarding fixing the problem (Voting is an effort). If they can't even be bothered to vote, then I may not think their complaint is worth listening too.
I was wondering why you were applying the values of the government of the USA (and thus hopefully the citizens of the USA) to the Australian government (and citizens). IE, by saying that the Australian government is in dereliction of its duties because it does not follow the US constitution (or bill of rights, or declaration of independance).
You are quite correct in saying that the government of the USA defines "Liberty" as being one of those rights it must defend. It is a matter of opinion (or interpretation) if an American's liberty is infringed by being made to vote (or go on jury duty). I have no arguement here. But you can't apply the US constitution, declaration of independance, or bill of rights to other countries. These things apply only to the USA, and do not define what another government's "duties" are.
It is possible the Australian people think the Australian government should force people to vote. In this case, the Australian government is fulfilling its duties, not neglecting them.
There were no adverts for particular movies. Even if there were, these is not the advert I was talking about.
I was talking about particular cinemas buying advertising space to advertise what time they have movies on, and at what cost. This is not a fraud.
Sure, an advert for a film may be a fraud, but the cinema advertising on *when* the film was showing is not.
you are pushing your point too far. Admit you are wrong. Not *all* advertising is fraudulant.
If you still need more examples, go to a classifieds section of the newspaper. (For an online example check: http://www.tradingpost.com.au). There are lots of adverts there for garage sales, pet animals, baby cots and whatever else you want to buy (privately). Not all of them are frauds (some may be). Most have a 2 line description of the item, plus the cost. Hardly a fraud.
I just checked my local newspaper, in the "entertainment" section it lists adverts from cinemas. Most of the cinemas advertised a list of movies, times they played, and how much. Thats it.
How is this deceptive? Unless their prices were wrong, or times.
Unfortunately my figures were out, though the concept was right (IE cable companies aren't restricting bandwidth cause we hate people!).
My background is building iTV apps and STB stuff (including TS, MPEG, middleware and other work). Which means I know something about it...but not the clear facts of operations (what you do).
Here in NYC, Time Warner now allows us to pick from several dozen movies to be played at any time, including the ability to pause, FF and REW (with preview), etc. (video on demand). All of this at close to DVD quality too.
So how do they do this
Generally they do "NVOD". Which means "Near Video on Demand". So they may have a movie starting every 15 minutes. You pick which one you want to watch.
What it actually means is that if a movie is two hours long, they have 8 chans dedicated to the movie. The starting time on each chan is staggered by 15mins, and they just repeat the movie all day. The chans are actually "hidden" chans, and only after you pay the right amount etc do you get access to them.
Being able to FF and RW movies means you are talking about REAL VOD. Which is very hard to scale. Good on them for being able to achieve it in a production environment. My guess would be that it will be limited, sent from local nodes, and it will only work for so many people at a time (IE not everyone could be watching a vid VOD at the same time, cause the system would die).
The killer is that the movies the cable and sat companies pump out "digital" most often are of LOWER visual quality than the DIVX stuff in the newsgroups and IRC channels. I actually gave up my directivo because the quality I was getting was no longer worth recording - or watching, IMO.
Depends on the company. A Cable company should have higher quality movie chans (8Mb/s), for general chans 2-4 Mb/s and for the shopping chan, 1Mb/s. In other words, much much higher quality than your DivXs (An 8Mb/s movie is about 7.2gig).
Generally though, Sat companies will use lower bandwidth for their chans. Why? Cause Bandwidth on a Sat is very very very expensive.
At the end of the day, its up to your cable/Sat company. Depends on how much bandwidth they have, and how many chans.
My upload speed is crimped to 30kB/s at the cable modem.
The fact that your upload speed is crimped does not mean that everyone's upload speed is crimped because the big bad companies don't want you to download lots of movies.
Perhaps its because they have too many internet customers for each node, and capping you makes it fairer to everyone else on their node.
Perhaps its because they can't afford you as a customer, paying pennies per month, but downloading dollars worth of data.
At your internet land speed record of 400MB/s I can download the average movie in 5 seconds.
The fact that an IP based internet speed record was set at 400Mb/s does not mean *you* can get that speed! The same that a land speed record doesn't mean your car can go the land speed record!
Just to show that you don't know what you are talking about, they transfered 600 odd megabytes over 13 seconds. A typically high quality movie will be 8megaBITs per second (or 1 megabyte). So a 2 hour movie will take 7.2gigaBYTEs. Thats more then 13 seconds it would take at record speeds. It would take 156seconds, not the 5 you claim.
You are right in saying that big companies are worried about you stealing/pirating movies. But once again, the solution to this is not to capp your bandwidth. Your bandwidth is capped because of other reasons (Buisness and Technical).
Why are you apologizing for them?
I'm not. I'm pointing out they aren't the reason you are not getting 400megs bandwidth.
FYI, I've worked in digital TV for the last 3 years (As an iTV developer..so though I have some idea of cable, I ain't an expert). I ain't part of your conspiricy.
Not quite, there is quite a lot of error control in a Transport Stream, including CRCs, headers etc etc.
And there is definately timing issues (to make sure the video is match with the sound etc). And there are packets to (TS Packets). Typically you will have TS Packets, inside TS packets you will hav PES Packets, and inside the PES Packets MPEG packets. All of these have error correction. The MPEG 2 standards most dtv uses has its own error correction too.
I spent a lot of time last year working on SW that would decode transport streams. And they are quite complex (suprised me).
But you are right in saying that your video decoder (STB) can handle a little loss.
You are certainly right. All internet BW is shared.
In the case of cable networks, its between you and your neighbour to the node (using coax and repeaters), then from the nodes to the network Op center (prob using fibre optic), and then wherever from there.
And the infrastructure for everyone to get online without limits is just not there. Physically and comercially.
On digital cable networks, you will have several (or many) transport streams (TS). each TS runs at a different frequency. Each TS will hold maybe a dozen diff chans.
So, each group of chans (and your internet back-chan) is on a diff frequency. it is the range and how the freq is shared that matters.
What a great example you picked! Cable TV companies are pumping dozens of digital movies accross their system at once, live. Yet they crimp your upload speed to DSL rates or lower,
very wrong.
But enough truth to fool people into believing what you said.
You are correct in saying that a digital cable system pumps out lots of bandwidth. They do. A movie chan is generally about 4mb/s, possible 8. A chan such as the shopping chan may be 1mb/s. So your cable company with 100 chans is pumping out approx 400mb/s.
Thats a lot of data.
But it is broadcast. Each customer is not individually downloading 400mb/s each. They are sharing *one* broadcast. It is not one stream per customer, but one stream is shared between all customers.
To use a cable for internet, assuming no TV is being broadcast, you can share that 400mb/s between all your users. Customers will have 4kb/s (thats kilobits) EACH (assuming its all shared equally). Not huge.
Obviously this is not the whole story. Your bandwith is shared between all customers on a node of the cable network (think of them as hubs). If you are the only person in your node, you will get full bandwidth. A node could cover tens, if not hundreds of thousands of users. If every person on your node is using the net to download porn, you will have a very slow connection (better using a modem). Also, the cable company wants to not just do internet, but TV too! In fact, most of the bandwith is used with TV/Movies.
So, they end up using part of their bandwith for internet, and part for broadcasting TVs.
How much they set aside for each is a buisness decision, as well as a technology one. If they sell cable internet, the costs are huge, setup, support, network, etc. Costs go up *per user*. Costs for TV is small (ish). Pay for content (movies), get money in from advertising, users, etc etc. No big support costs, no extra costs for bandwith etc etc. One stream can support hundreds of thousands of users.
It is both a technological problem *and* a buisness problem. They aren't giving you small limits cause they are afraid you will download videos. Don't be paranoid. They don't give you unlimited bandwith cause they can't, and it costs them a lot anyway.
He said that Apple approached them, with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product. He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered
From other sources, including an interview with C&G Vice President Bonnie Mitchel in the Wall Street Journal, it sounds as if you are badly mistaken.
C&G was never rolled by Apple. Apple never stole any of their developers. Apple did not threaten to release a product that would kill C&G.
C&G has only ever sold and marketed products that other people have made (otherwise known as publishing). They do not make or produce software themselves. If you create a nice product, they will sell it for you (for a cut of course). They don't own that product, just as a games publisher does not own the games they publish.
In this case the guy who developed SJ decided to accept a job at Apple. He *never* worked for SJ, but once had a partnership with them to sell his product.
It sounds like Apple did a nice thing and paid C&G for the rights to market/sell SJ. They could have gotton the guy to build iTunes himself. C&G only stopped selling the product after the developer asked them to. This was a decision by the *developer* and it sounds like C&G did not have a leg to stand on. It was *not* their product, but the developers. (I make the assumption that the developer fulfilled all contractual arrangements with C&G)
Don't blame Apple because a developer decided to take his software to someone who could make it go really really far (which Apple has done!).
We've been making money selling shareware products (really, just electronically distributed/sold products these days) for the past 15 years, and making money at it. Yes, with a real office, real employees, and real paychecks.
And you've been doing a good job too! Though I'm not a big player of games, I have played several of your games in the past. In fact, just reading this discussion has encouraged me to take another look at your recent offerings.
Would you be able to give me an insight into the company behind the games? How many employees do you have? How many are coders, how many marketers? How healthy is your return? What are your thoughts behind different release procedures? IE locking features, serial numbers, crackers etc etc.
Perhaps you can point me to "info" articles elsewhere on the web?
(If you want hard figures, according to the SDF's page, the budget for military spending for this year was 4,926,500,000,000 yen, which at the current exchange rate is 41,852,858,368 US dollars - not exactly peanuts.)
holy cow, that means each of the soldiers in the 1000 person national guard gets paid $40 million each! say $1 million for equipment and support, and they are some pretty well paid soldiers!
now *thats* a defense force I'd like to be part of!
Companies go through tough times, and sometimes extra work needs to be put in. But you need to be compensated for your time.
I have been put in simular situations many times (though not as severe), and have never ever been refused compensation. Of course, I've had to negotiate compensation, often the management don't realise how much this will cost them. And when you do negotiate, do it up front, before starting the work. Oh, and make sure they know it is *not* negotiable. You need some sort of compensation.
Just remember, a normal day is 8 hours, so a normal week is 40 hours.
They want you to work 84 hours a week. Thats double. IE, in those 6 weeks you will be working an equiv of 12 weeks.
A few ideas:
* Get paid a bonus equivelent to 6 week wages.
* Get 6 weeks of paid leave.
* Some sort of combination.
* Be pepared to compromise a little...work 10 hour days, and get 12 days holidays (IE get back your weekend time, and work 2 free hours a day)
A few no-nos:
* a long weekend is not fair compensation.
* Providing you lunch on Sunday is not a "fair exhange" (How much are you worth?)
* Tickets to your favourite sporting match is not compensation.
I prefer the holiday option (time in luei), as I can spend time with family and friends.
Just remember...the managers are human too, and they do care. They are more likely to offer you the holiday option, as it doesn't cost them more. And they do understand that it is fair they compensate you for your time.
The thing to remember is to be firm. Don't offer or threaten to quit. Just tell them...yes, I will work the extra hours, but I expect to be fairly compensated for those hours. If they won't budge, work 8 hour days. They can't fire you for working what you were hired to do.
At the end of the day though, its your decision. Not the companies. If this is the life you choose to live, and you want to work for this company. Then do it.
"Modern Day Gamers" are both anti-social and geeks.
I mean, the first thing you hear is him having a huge sniff!!!
You also see boys screaming like girls, people sitting around staring at the screen and hardly talking, and interviews with women in their lives who think they are anti-social.
And seriously....did he have to pick people who look like the stereotypical geek?
I'm not sure what he was actually attempting to achieve...but if it was to strengthen stereotypes, he has achieved it!
No profession has the tools to check for all errors/miscalculations in their projects. Civil engineers have a fairly good idea that building this bridge will work...but someone may have made a mistake. They don't have a tool that guarantees the bridge won't fall.
There are always errors in engineering projects. Ever built a house? There will be problems. the roof may leak, the door won't close properly etc etc. Generally the errors aren't bad enough that the house collapses....but it may. You don't see builders writing contracts saying that "if the house collapses too bad"
In the case of application development, we write that into our EULAs every day.
In building, things are well tested, well researched, and not used until people are fairly certain it works.
In the software industry, we only to simple testing, we don't research, and we release things with major flaws.
Now, obviously the building industry doesn't advance as fast as the SW industry...but I don't see how the fact that software advances 10 or 100 times faster then other industries means we can't be held liable for not properly testing our products.
Slashdot Mirror
gantrep obviously hasn't thought this through. Paying taxes to pay for roads and education is also a commie plot (according to his view). As is 911. Stupid government attempting to help people help others.
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
I'm not so sure about this one. I use to think this, but have now modified my view somewhat. While holding that view, I couldn't see how I could complain about a government who I helped vote to power. IE, only those who did not vote for the ruling party can complain (or vice versa). Also, people I know in politics would also tell me that "I can't complain if I don't directly do something about it". IE Unless I'm attending peace marches, writing letters to papers, signing surveys, or even stand for government I shouldn't be complaining about it. Locally, it makes more sense. If I care about the dog droppings in my local park (I do), then why aren't I picking them up myself, or writing letters telling the pollies to do something, or even attempting to be voted in on a "no dogs" policy.
My modified view is something like "Everyone can complain, but the more someone does about something, the more they care about it". IE, listen to complaints of people who make a lot of effort regarding fixing the problem (Voting is an effort). If they can't even be bothered to vote, then I may not think their complaint is worth listening too.
I was wondering why you were applying the values of the government of the USA (and thus hopefully the citizens of the USA) to the Australian government (and citizens). IE, by saying that the Australian government is in dereliction of its duties because it does not follow the US constitution (or bill of rights, or declaration of independance).
You are quite correct in saying that the government of the USA defines "Liberty" as being one of those rights it must defend. It is a matter of opinion (or interpretation) if an American's liberty is infringed by being made to vote (or go on jury duty). I have no arguement here. But you can't apply the US constitution, declaration of independance, or bill of rights to other countries. These things apply only to the USA, and do not define what another government's "duties" are.
It is possible the Australian people think the Australian government should force people to vote. In this case, the Australian government is fulfilling its duties, not neglecting them.
The duty of the government is to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens.
Where do you pull this from? The people of Australia should decide the "duties" of their government. Not you.
There were no adverts for particular movies. Even if there were, these is not the advert I was talking about.
I was talking about particular cinemas buying advertising space to advertise what time they have movies on, and at what cost. This is not a fraud.
Sure, an advert for a film may be a fraud, but the cinema advertising on *when* the film was showing is not.
you are pushing your point too far. Admit you are wrong. Not *all* advertising is fraudulant.
If you still need more examples, go to a classifieds section of the newspaper. (For an online example check: http://www.tradingpost.com.au). There are lots of adverts there for garage sales, pet animals, baby cots and whatever else you want to buy (privately). Not all of them are frauds (some may be). Most have a 2 line description of the item, plus the cost. Hardly a fraud.
I just checked my local newspaper, in the "entertainment" section it lists adverts from cinemas. Most of the cinemas advertised a list of movies, times they played, and how much. Thats it.
How is this deceptive? Unless their prices were wrong, or times.
thanks for the info.
:-)
Unfortunately my figures were out, though the concept was right (IE cable companies aren't restricting bandwidth cause we hate people!).
My background is building iTV apps and STB stuff (including TS, MPEG, middleware and other work). Which means I know something about it...but not the clear facts of operations (what you do).
I am now enlightened
Here in NYC, Time Warner now allows us to pick from several dozen movies to be played at any time, including the ability to pause, FF and REW (with preview), etc. (video on demand). All of this at close to DVD quality too.
So how do they do this
Generally they do "NVOD". Which means "Near Video on Demand". So they may have a movie starting every 15 minutes. You pick which one you want to watch.
What it actually means is that if a movie is two hours long, they have 8 chans dedicated to the movie. The starting time on each chan is staggered by 15mins, and they just repeat the movie all day. The chans are actually "hidden" chans, and only after you pay the right amount etc do you get access to them.
Being able to FF and RW movies means you are talking about REAL VOD. Which is very hard to scale. Good on them for being able to achieve it in a production environment. My guess would be that it will be limited, sent from local nodes, and it will only work for so many people at a time (IE not everyone could be watching a vid VOD at the same time, cause the system would die).
The killer is that the movies the cable and sat companies pump out "digital" most often are of LOWER visual quality than the DIVX stuff in the newsgroups and IRC channels. I actually gave up my directivo because the quality I was getting was no longer worth recording - or watching, IMO.
Depends on the company. A Cable company should have higher quality movie chans (8Mb/s), for general chans 2-4 Mb/s and for the shopping chan, 1Mb/s. In other words, much much higher quality than your DivXs (An 8Mb/s movie is about 7.2gig).
Generally though, Sat companies will use lower bandwidth for their chans. Why? Cause Bandwidth on a Sat is very very very expensive.
At the end of the day, its up to your cable/Sat company. Depends on how much bandwidth they have, and how many chans.
no no no no no
My upload speed is crimped to 30kB/s at the cable modem.
The fact that your upload speed is crimped does not mean that everyone's upload speed is crimped because the big bad companies don't want you to download lots of movies.
Perhaps its because they have too many internet customers for each node, and capping you makes it fairer to everyone else on their node.
Perhaps its because they can't afford you as a customer, paying pennies per month, but downloading dollars worth of data.
At your internet land speed record of 400MB/s I can download the average movie in 5 seconds.
The fact that an IP based internet speed record was set at 400Mb/s does not mean *you* can get that speed! The same that a land speed record doesn't mean your car can go the land speed record!
Just to show that you don't know what you are talking about, they transfered 600 odd megabytes over 13 seconds. A typically high quality movie will be 8megaBITs per second (or 1 megabyte). So a 2 hour movie will take 7.2gigaBYTEs. Thats more then 13 seconds it would take at record speeds. It would take 156seconds, not the 5 you claim.
You are right in saying that big companies are worried about you stealing/pirating movies. But once again, the solution to this is not to capp your bandwidth. Your bandwidth is capped because of other reasons (Buisness and Technical).
Why are you apologizing for them?
I'm not. I'm pointing out they aren't the reason you are not getting 400megs bandwidth.
FYI, I've worked in digital TV for the last 3 years (As an iTV developer..so though I have some idea of cable, I ain't an expert). I ain't part of your conspiricy.
Not quite, there is quite a lot of error control in a Transport Stream, including CRCs, headers etc etc.
And there is definately timing issues (to make sure the video is match with the sound etc). And there are packets to (TS Packets). Typically you will have TS Packets, inside TS packets you will hav PES Packets, and inside the PES Packets MPEG packets. All of these have error correction. The MPEG 2 standards most dtv uses has its own error correction too.
I spent a lot of time last year working on SW that would decode transport streams. And they are quite complex (suprised me).
But you are right in saying that your video decoder (STB) can handle a little loss.
You are certainly right. All internet BW is shared.
In the case of cable networks, its between you and your neighbour to the node (using coax and repeaters), then from the nodes to the network Op center (prob using fibre optic), and then wherever from there.
And the infrastructure for everyone to get online without limits is just not there. Physically and comercially.
On digital cable networks, you will have several (or many) transport streams (TS). each TS runs at a different frequency. Each TS will hold maybe a dozen diff chans.
So, each group of chans (and your internet back-chan) is on a diff frequency. it is the range and how the freq is shared that matters.
Well I wouldn't usually say hundreds of thousands.
Yep, you are right. Certiainly not hundreds of thousands. But bandwitdth is still very limited.
What a great example you picked! Cable TV companies are pumping dozens of digital movies accross their system at once, live. Yet they crimp your upload speed to DSL rates or lower,
very wrong.
But enough truth to fool people into believing what you said.
You are correct in saying that a digital cable system pumps out lots of bandwidth. They do. A movie chan is generally about 4mb/s, possible 8. A chan such as the shopping chan may be 1mb/s. So your cable company with 100 chans is pumping out approx 400mb/s.
Thats a lot of data.
But it is broadcast. Each customer is not individually downloading 400mb/s each. They are sharing *one* broadcast. It is not one stream per customer, but one stream is shared between all customers.
To use a cable for internet, assuming no TV is being broadcast, you can share that 400mb/s between all your users. Customers will have 4kb/s (thats kilobits) EACH (assuming its all shared equally). Not huge.
Obviously this is not the whole story. Your bandwith is shared between all customers on a node of the cable network (think of them as hubs). If you are the only person in your node, you will get full bandwidth. A node could cover tens, if not hundreds of thousands of users. If every person on your node is using the net to download porn, you will have a very slow connection (better using a modem). Also, the cable company wants to not just do internet, but TV too! In fact, most of the bandwith is used with TV/Movies.
So, they end up using part of their bandwith for internet, and part for broadcasting TVs.
How much they set aside for each is a buisness decision, as well as a technology one. If they sell cable internet, the costs are huge, setup, support, network, etc. Costs go up *per user*. Costs for TV is small (ish). Pay for content (movies), get money in from advertising, users, etc etc. No big support costs, no extra costs for bandwith etc etc. One stream can support hundreds of thousands of users.
It is both a technological problem *and* a buisness problem. They aren't giving you small limits cause they are afraid you will download videos. Don't be paranoid. They don't give you unlimited bandwith cause they can't, and it costs them a lot anyway.
He said that Apple approached them,
with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product.
He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had
to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes
and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered
From other sources, including an interview with C&G Vice President Bonnie Mitchel in the Wall Street Journal, it sounds as if you are badly mistaken.
C&G was never rolled by Apple. Apple never stole any of their developers. Apple did not threaten to release a product that would kill C&G.
C&G has only ever sold and marketed products that other people have made (otherwise known as publishing). They do not make or produce software themselves. If you create a nice product, they will sell it for you (for a cut of course). They don't own that product, just as a games publisher does not own the games they publish.
In this case the guy who developed SJ decided to accept a job at Apple. He *never* worked for SJ, but once had a partnership with them to sell his product.
It sounds like Apple did a nice thing and paid C&G for the rights to market/sell SJ. They could have gotton the guy to build iTunes himself. C&G only stopped selling the product after the developer asked them to. This was a decision by the *developer* and it sounds like C&G did not have a leg to stand on. It was *not* their product, but the developers. (I make the assumption that the developer fulfilled all contractual arrangements with C&G)
Don't blame Apple because a developer decided to take his software to someone who could make it go really really far (which Apple has done!).
Stop buying stuff from the companies that do this. Bottom line. Spam and telemarketing works because of idiots.
Alternatively, shoot all the idiots. And the elderly. And the naive. And the uneducated. And those who should have known better.
And when you and me are left...then cold calling us won't work!
Of course, perhaps it will be easier to stop the telemarketers from calling, rather then stopping people being people (ie idiotic).
He said should, not must.
good point...though he did also say it was "only right".
besides the point though.
Just read the GNU manifest (/usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU). Interesting read. thanks for pointing it out to me.
It's only right that if they make money off linux, they should donate to those who work on it.
You sure you reading the right license agreement?
We've been making money selling shareware products (really, just electronically distributed/sold products these days) for the past 15 years, and making money at it. Yes, with a real office, real employees, and real paychecks.
And you've been doing a good job too! Though I'm not a big player of games, I have played several of your games in the past. In fact, just reading this discussion has encouraged me to take another look at your recent offerings.
Would you be able to give me an insight into the company behind the games? How many employees do you have? How many are coders, how many marketers? How healthy is your return? What are your thoughts behind different release procedures? IE locking features, serial numbers, crackers etc etc.
Perhaps you can point me to "info" articles elsewhere on the web?
thanks
well, ok, cut another 10 million out per soldier. Thats only 30mil each (USD).
Which is besides the point....cause my reply was to the original poster who claimed Japan had only 1000 defense personel, yet a budget of 40 billion.
(If you want hard figures, according to the SDF's page, the budget for military spending for this year was 4,926,500,000,000 yen, which at the current exchange rate is 41,852,858,368 US dollars - not exactly peanuts.)
holy cow, that means each of the soldiers in the 1000 person national guard gets paid $40 million each! say $1 million for equipment and support, and they are some pretty well paid soldiers!
now *thats* a defense force I'd like to be part of!
Companies go through tough times, and sometimes extra work needs to be put in. But you need to be compensated for your time.
I have been put in simular situations many times (though not as severe), and have never ever been refused compensation. Of course, I've had to negotiate compensation, often the management don't realise how much this will cost them. And when you do negotiate, do it up front, before starting the work. Oh, and make sure they know it is *not* negotiable. You need some sort of compensation.
Just remember, a normal day is 8 hours, so a normal week is 40 hours.
They want you to work 84 hours a week. Thats double. IE, in those 6 weeks you will be working an equiv of 12 weeks.
A few ideas:
* Get paid a bonus equivelent to 6 week wages.
* Get 6 weeks of paid leave.
* Some sort of combination.
* Be pepared to compromise a little...work 10 hour days, and get 12 days holidays (IE get back your weekend time, and work 2 free hours a day)
A few no-nos:
* a long weekend is not fair compensation.
* Providing you lunch on Sunday is not a "fair exhange" (How much are you worth?)
* Tickets to your favourite sporting match is not compensation.
I prefer the holiday option (time in luei), as I can spend time with family and friends.
Just remember...the managers are human too, and they do care. They are more likely to offer you the holiday option, as it doesn't cost them more. And they do understand that it is fair they compensate you for your time.
The thing to remember is to be firm. Don't offer or threaten to quit. Just tell them...yes, I will work the extra hours, but I expect to be fairly compensated for those hours. If they won't budge, work 8 hour days. They can't fire you for working what you were hired to do.
At the end of the day though, its your decision. Not the companies. If this is the life you choose to live, and you want to work for this company. Then do it.
"Modern Day Gamers" are both anti-social and geeks.
I mean, the first thing you hear is him having a huge sniff!!!
You also see boys screaming like girls, people sitting around staring at the screen and hardly talking, and interviews with women in their lives who think they are anti-social.
And seriously....did he have to pick people who look like the stereotypical geek?
I'm not sure what he was actually attempting to achieve...but if it was to strengthen stereotypes, he has achieved it!
I'm sorry, but haven't you totally missed the point of the article?
The proposed speed increasae is TO THE PAGE RANKINGS, not to your searching! By the time you search, all page rankings have been done.
This has nothing to do with the speed of your search and the weight of the web page (unless I missed something)
fair enough, just one point.
No profession has the tools to check for all errors/miscalculations in their projects. Civil engineers have a fairly good idea that building this bridge will work...but someone may have made a mistake. They don't have a tool that guarantees the bridge won't fall.
There are always errors in engineering projects. Ever built a house? There will be problems. the roof may leak, the door won't close properly etc etc. Generally the errors aren't bad enough that the house collapses....but it may. You don't see builders writing contracts saying that "if the house collapses too bad"
In the case of application development, we write that into our EULAs every day.
In building, things are well tested, well researched, and not used until people are fairly certain it works.
In the software industry, we only to simple testing, we don't research, and we release things with major flaws.
Now, obviously the building industry doesn't advance as fast as the SW industry...but I don't see how the fact that software advances 10 or 100 times faster then other industries means we can't be held liable for not properly testing our products.