While it is true that anyone can create them, the amount of bitcoins produced is a fixed value. When you mine bitcoins you are actually competing with all the other people who are mining at the time. The total amount of bitcoins that will ever be produced will end in the year 2140 and will never change after that. It's like Gold but there's no way to get more.
The issue is not the ultimate fixed amount but the production rate. If someone decides to harness a lit of computing power to significantly increase the rate of production then you essentially have the same inflationary effect as a government rapidly printing money. In addition, by controlling a significant percentage of the bitcoins in circulation they can impact its value; in fact they wouldn't need to use them just the possibility they could flood the market would create uncertainty and negatively impact value. Of course, they might not actually produce that much. Doesn't bitcoin production use an algorithm that is designed to take into account increasing processor speed and so increase the time it takes to produce a bit coin? If so, harnessing high powered computation capacity could drive the cost of producing up to the point other producers drop out, ceding control of supply to one producer.The goal is not to flood the market but to take actions that create uncertainty about future value, lessing trust in them as a means of exchange and thus rendering them less useful for monetary transactions. Farfetched? Sure; but it seems to me that bitcoin relies on the difficulty of any one entity harnessing enough computing power to become a significant percentage of block production and thus a point to exploit by an entity that is not concerned about the costs and has access to significant amounts of computational resources.
is that anyone can create it. If someone figures out a way to create them much faster than today; or some government decides it wants to create some uncertainty in the market by flooding the market regardless of cost of production the value will drop. there is no "full faith and credit" backing its value and will ing to act to proptect its value; in that respect it's more like a stock or freely traded commodity.
I've seen many people fall for this trap, and some have lost their lives too. There are some who're even propagating that just thinking that you will be healed will absolve you of the disease, and you will be leading a happy life all again. But what irks me the most is that most of these people I know are Engineers and Doctors, people who've studied Science and know how it works.
Why? While I oppose the idea of "faith healing" and see its dangers; I can understand why people who would normally be rational would fall for it. Faith is a very powerful POV; and often people who fall back on "faith healing" are suffering from something that is incurable or very serious and "faith healing" provides the the hope of getting better. Hope, as is said, is the last to die and so people ignore the rational in order to hope.
The biggest issue I have is it is nigh impossible to easily find projects of interest. Often by the time I find them they are already funded or all the early adopter pricing is gone. I really don't want to do multiethnic searches with many non relevant results to find something worth funding.
If you consider yourself to be a professional, you will always do work that you take pride in. As you get older, it's amazing how small the world becomes - your reputation needs to precede you. At worst, you leave this job with everyone happy with you. At best, you have a new code monkey that sees you as a guru and future consultant and a former client who would happily recommend your work. There is nothing better for your word-of-mouth than having a brilliant protege.
Not to mention someone may move to a new company or position where they need your skills and remember you as "the guy who helped us out and left us in a great position even when he knew he was training his replacement;" or have a friend who says "I need..." and recommend you. It's part of being a professional, as you correctly point out.
However, free is not sustainable for most sites and users show a distinct disinclination to pay for content.
That is not necessarily true. Users show a distinct disinclination to pay for crappy or mediocre content. Since the birth of capitalism, people have paid for stuff. Everybody buys stuff.
The problem is that some people believe that the Internet changed all that, as if it was some sort of magical entity that made content free.
The WWW started with all sorts of free content, because it was provided by enthusiasts and academics, who didn't mind giving it away for free.
I certainly agree here - Sturgeon's revelation is still relevant; although it's more like 99.9% on the internet. The problem is people have gotten so conditioned to free that it's hard to convert them to pay; even if they are interested in the content. Look at/. - paywalled articles immediately get a request to for a way around the paywall and are often reposted word for word. Now, a reasonable argument is they are not worth what is asked; but then people still don't want to simply not read them - they want them for free.
The problem with ads are they often are obtrusive; but more importantly they don't seem to work very well. Their value will decrease to the point that you simply won't be able to serve enough to make it worthwhile. I don't think the current model is sustainable and ad-blockers aren't going away.
One model I've seen work is a sports site I frequent. They have small, narrowly targeted ads and go out of their way to avoid bad ones. they also ask for donations about 2x per year and get enough to keep running and hire and pay staff. The big thing is they actually have decent content and a robust discussion board so people want to help out to keep the site around.
It seemed to work just fine before everyone tried to commercialize things. The quote is "If you build it, they will come" not "If you build it, you will make money"
To a certain extent, yes.However, free is not sustainable for most sites and users show a distinct disinclination to pay for content. Without a way to at least cover costs sites will eventually fold. That's not bad, because there is a lot of crap out there; but ultimately after you build it and they come you need to figure out a way to keep it going.
First off all, it would strike at MS' Office 360 as well. Google could simply not collect data when the service is used at school. The law appears only to apply to use under the educational institutions guise; not elsewhere. Use at home? You'r fair game, and not using any data from use at school is simply a cost of capturing your eyeballs and getting used to Google's services. Nor does the law prevent Google from providing data to the schools for their use.
While individuals in a company may care about you, to the company, in the ned, you are simply a cost and as long as their return on that cost is acceptable they will do things to keep you around; to think otherwise is delusional.
No, it's not delusional at all. Some companies actually do care about their employees beyond how much they cost to keep around. You may not have actually worked for any such companies. I have. I'm sorry that you think such an attitude towards one's employees is anything but shitty.
Actually, I have. I worked for a company, several in fact, where we really were a family - and cared about each other. While that was important, and one of the reasons I stuck around a long time at two of them, that is different from the economic decisions surrounding employment. In the end, it does come down to "what can we afford?" and "what are the benefits, to the company, for absorbing the associated costs?" I realize that seems cold hearted and at odds with being a decent company but it really isn't; you can do many good things for employees while still ensuring the long term viability of the company.
Quite frankly, it makes no economic sense to train someone for a better job unless you are assured they will stick around because otherwise you simply absorb training costs for your competitor's employees.
Yes, that's why they also need to treat you well and pay you reasonable salaries so you stay. If a company doesn't want to do those things then it's really their own damn fault that employees may use the training to find a better job. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for shitty companies and their poor choices of how to treat their staff.
Companies do not provide training because they are decent, they do it because it generates a return and is viewed like any other investment - is the cost worth the return?
If your company solely does training for their own bottom line then, yes, they are not a decent company. But all the decent companies that I've worked for saw the training as much more than that. They also had high retention of employees because they actually cared about more than just "how much is my ROI on this training going to be?". At my current job and the last couple of places I worked for I could get training and get books reimbursed for pretty much any technology subject I wanted. In fact, my managers urged me to do so repeatedly. They viewed training in a way far beyond only the ROI.
That doesn't make them evil or bad, simply an organism that responds to the same stimuli as we do.
No it usually means they are shitty places to work. "Evil" has nothing to do with to do with anything.
Again, a decent company does not expect you to pay your own money and/or use up your leisure time to do training for them. And any company that does is no place I'd ever work for. There are plenty of better jobs out there.
I think you missed my point. ROI includes much more than an immediate financial return. They do the things you mention because it costs them less to do that than not to; that's a fundamental economic fact of life. In many cases, being a decent place to work keeps employees around and productive; so you do teh things that employees like to maximize your investment in them. I once spoke with as senior executive of a company with a number of perks beyond those normal for companies in his business. His response was "It's simply cheaper to do that than replace staff; our staffing costs are lower than our competitors and those savings outweigh the costs of the perks; so in the end we are more profitable." While individuals in a company may care about you, to the company, in the ned, you are simply a cost and as long as their return on that cost is acceptable they will do things to keep you around; to think otherwise is delusional.
That's what any decent company does. One that actual cares about growing their people instead of wanting another low-paid drone. That any company expects you to use your own time and money to improve your skills for them (because we all want to have no leisure time) is absurd. It's even more laughable that some employees think this is the way a company should treat you.
While most companies will pay for training that maintains or improves a person's skills at their current job, very few pay to develop skills for their next job; unless they have some assurance that the costs will be recovered. Quite frankly, it makes no economic sense to train someone for a better job unless you are assured they will stick around because otherwise you simply absorb training costs for your competitor's employees.Companies do not provide training because they are decent, they do it because it generates a return and is viewed like any other investment - is the cost worth the return? That doesn't make them evil or bad, simply an organism that responds to the same stimuli as we do. As for tuition reimbursement schemes, they are simply another part of what they view as your total compensation package and a cost of getting and keeping employees. If you don't use it you are simply chosing to forgo part of your compensation.
If the training meets a specific need and is a must have to continue or grow the business then the company will pay for it and do it on company time. To them, it's an investment with a specific ROI. If it's a nice to have but doesn't meet specific needs tehn they may reimburse as part of a benefits package but you are on your own time and dime until you pass or complete the course.
What field did you move to? My defense contractor programming career is obviously coming to an end.
I actually got an MBA and went into strategy consulting. When I was in school a significant percentage of my classmates had STEM degrees; and post degree went into consulting or finance (either on Wall Street or for a company).
It's not surprising US PhD's are more focused on the higher ranked schools. The premium, over an MS, for PhDs, is small relative to the cost so there is little incentive to earn one; and if you do the opportunities are far greater from a top school. For foreign students, a PhD has far more prestige and value and hence higher demand. lesser schools can use that demand to generate cash and fill programs.
Why not make H1B's more mobile - after six months or a year in the US allow them to freely change jobs. That's enough time for them to prove their skills and get an idea of their true worth in the job markets. Companies would need to be meet real market values for talent and would be more selective on who they hire and what they pay to avoid losing real talent while paying to get them here.
I can understand why people who are have the talents for STEM leave the field. I make far more in a non-STEM field than I ever made in engineering and haven't hit a plateau as many of my friends still in engineering. I remember when I first got my degree being shown a graph that showed salaries peaking and then real income declining as you gained experience since at some point it was cheaper to hire someone with less experience than pay you. The advcie I got was get some experience and then bolt - either to management or another field where your skills are rarer and experience is valuable.
The problem is that the shareholders of said companies have to agree to a restructuring in another country. And then they will vote on the executive's pay in the same session.
I am not sure why you claim this. unless Swiss corporate law is very different from most, they could do it without a shareholder vote.
"this" has already passed. according to swiss constitution, a text that was validated in such a referendum MUST be written into law.
guess the swiss will be able to get rid of those parasites...
No, some companies will restructure to move executive operations out of Switzerland; even if the executives physically remain in Switzerland. Large companies, by their very nature, have a global reach and will move operations to the most favorable climates. It may cause some hand wringing in Switzerland if Swiss companies, at least on paper, cease to be "Swiss;" then again given the interlocking nature of the senior levels of Switzerland's government, companies and Army officer corps no doubt some understanding will be reached. The Swiss can be described many ways, but "stupid businessmen that can't make things work behind teh scenes despite public positioning" is generally not one that comes to mind.
Apple offered a compelling product that was different from everything else - and used it's app store to build a strong supporting infrastructure to create a market. At some point, that market starts to slow as demand is satisfied; even if you still own the largest market share it's not going to grow like you want it. At that point, you decide where to play next - the smaller tablet was a natural move since it builds on Apple's strengths and meets a different need. Sure, you'll cannabalize some sales of the other products but you've grown the overall market for your products and continue to grow revenues and profits. It's the same as P&G introducing a new variant of a laundry detergent - meet another consumer need and drag in new customers as well as some switchers - and make more money in the end. Had apple introduced the smaller iPad first and then the larger you'd be seeing analyst headlines saying they made a mistake and should have introduced the larger one first.
This only applies to residences, so the factory would still have been OK to photograph. Even residences, w/o identifiable people, are OK.
In addition. the proviso other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment may conduct surveillance would let a broad range of activities to pass muster under the law. An environmental group could have people conduct surveillance if they feel a law is being broken, for example.
Disney's ships hold about 40% more passengers and they are priced at the higher end of the mass market lines. Given operational costs such as fuel are relative fixed it would seem their cruise costs would be significantly higher. The question is is the T2 experience compelling enough to attract capacity crowds and repeat business to be a viable long term business?
Slashdot Mirror
is that anyone can create it.
This is only half true.
While it is true that anyone can create them, the amount of bitcoins produced is a fixed value. When you mine bitcoins you are actually competing with all the other people who are mining at the time. The total amount of bitcoins that will ever be produced will end in the year 2140 and will never change after that. It's like Gold but there's no way to get more.
The issue is not the ultimate fixed amount but the production rate. If someone decides to harness a lit of computing power to significantly increase the rate of production then you essentially have the same inflationary effect as a government rapidly printing money. In addition, by controlling a significant percentage of the bitcoins in circulation they can impact its value; in fact they wouldn't need to use them just the possibility they could flood the market would create uncertainty and negatively impact value. Of course, they might not actually produce that much. Doesn't bitcoin production use an algorithm that is designed to take into account increasing processor speed and so increase the time it takes to produce a bit coin? If so, harnessing high powered computation capacity could drive the cost of producing up to the point other producers drop out, ceding control of supply to one producer.The goal is not to flood the market but to take actions that create uncertainty about future value, lessing trust in them as a means of exchange and thus rendering them less useful for monetary transactions. Farfetched? Sure; but it seems to me that bitcoin relies on the difficulty of any one entity harnessing enough computing power to become a significant percentage of block production and thus a point to exploit by an entity that is not concerned about the costs and has access to significant amounts of computational resources.
is that anyone can create it. If someone figures out a way to create them much faster than today; or some government decides it wants to create some uncertainty in the market by flooding the market regardless of cost of production the value will drop. there is no "full faith and credit" backing its value and will ing to act to proptect its value; in that respect it's more like a stock or freely traded commodity.
I've seen many people fall for this trap, and some have lost their lives too. There are some who're even propagating that just thinking that you will be healed will absolve you of the disease, and you will be leading a happy life all again. But what irks me the most is that most of these people I know are Engineers and Doctors, people who've studied Science and know how it works.
Why? While I oppose the idea of "faith healing" and see its dangers; I can understand why people who would normally be rational would fall for it. Faith is a very powerful POV; and often people who fall back on "faith healing" are suffering from something that is incurable or very serious and "faith healing" provides the the hope of getting better. Hope, as is said, is the last to die and so people ignore the rational in order to hope.
"Multiethnic" searches?
Ah, the wonders of a "smart" phone's speel cheker...
The biggest issue I have is it is nigh impossible to easily find projects of interest. Often by the time I find them they are already funded or all the early adopter pricing is gone. I really don't want to do multiethnic searches with many non relevant results to find something worth funding.
If you consider yourself to be a professional, you will always do work that you take pride in. As you get older, it's amazing how small the world becomes - your reputation needs to precede you. At worst, you leave this job with everyone happy with you. At best, you have a new code monkey that sees you as a guru and future consultant and a former client who would happily recommend your work. There is nothing better for your word-of-mouth than having a brilliant protege.
Not to mention someone may move to a new company or position where they need your skills and remember you as "the guy who helped us out and left us in a great position even when he knew he was training his replacement;" or have a friend who says "I need..." and recommend you. It's part of being a professional, as you correctly point out.
So they are getting smarter...but more lazier? Maybe that is a better hypothesis.
Or they have just become less capable of using proper grammar.
That is not necessarily true. Users show a distinct disinclination to pay for crappy or mediocre content. Since the birth of capitalism, people have paid for stuff. Everybody buys stuff.
The problem is that some people believe that the Internet changed all that, as if it was some sort of magical entity that made content free.
The WWW started with all sorts of free content, because it was provided by enthusiasts and academics, who didn't mind giving it away for free.
I certainly agree here - Sturgeon's revelation is still relevant; although it's more like 99.9% on the internet. The problem is people have gotten so conditioned to free that it's hard to convert them to pay; even if they are interested in the content. Look at /. - paywalled articles immediately get a request to for a way around the paywall and are often reposted word for word. Now, a reasonable argument is they are not worth what is asked; but then people still don't want to simply not read them - they want them for free.
The problem with ads are they often are obtrusive; but more importantly they don't seem to work very well. Their value will decrease to the point that you simply won't be able to serve enough to make it worthwhile. I don't think the current model is sustainable and ad-blockers aren't going away.
One model I've seen work is a sports site I frequent. They have small, narrowly targeted ads and go out of their way to avoid bad ones. they also ask for donations about 2x per year and get enough to keep running and hire and pay staff. The big thing is they actually have decent content and a robust discussion board so people want to help out to keep the site around.
It seemed to work just fine before everyone tried to commercialize things. The quote is "If you build it, they will come" not "If you build it, you will make money"
To a certain extent, yes.However, free is not sustainable for most sites and users show a distinct disinclination to pay for content. Without a way to at least cover costs sites will eventually fold. That's not bad, because there is a lot of crap out there; but ultimately after you build it and they come you need to figure out a way to keep it going.
First off all, it would strike at MS' Office 360 as well. Google could simply not collect data when the service is used at school. The law appears only to apply to use under the educational institutions guise; not elsewhere. Use at home? You'r fair game, and not using any data from use at school is simply a cost of capturing your eyeballs and getting used to Google's services. Nor does the law prevent Google from providing data to the schools for their use.
While it is possible that company or individual could be prosecuted I think the doctone of federal supremacy would trump state law.
While individuals in a company may care about you, to the company, in the ned, you are simply a cost and as long as their return on that cost is acceptable they will do things to keep you around; to think otherwise is delusional.
No, it's not delusional at all. Some companies actually do care about their employees beyond how much they cost to keep around. You may not have actually worked for any such companies. I have. I'm sorry that you think such an attitude towards one's employees is anything but shitty.
Actually, I have. I worked for a company, several in fact, where we really were a family - and cared about each other. While that was important, and one of the reasons I stuck around a long time at two of them, that is different from the economic decisions surrounding employment. In the end, it does come down to "what can we afford?" and "what are the benefits, to the company, for absorbing the associated costs?" I realize that seems cold hearted and at odds with being a decent company but it really isn't; you can do many good things for employees while still ensuring the long term viability of the company.
Quite frankly, it makes no economic sense to train someone for a better job unless you are assured they will stick around because otherwise you simply absorb training costs for your competitor's employees.
Yes, that's why they also need to treat you well and pay you reasonable salaries so you stay. If a company doesn't want to do those things then it's really their own damn fault that employees may use the training to find a better job. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for shitty companies and their poor choices of how to treat their staff.
Companies do not provide training because they are decent, they do it because it generates a return and is viewed like any other investment - is the cost worth the return?
If your company solely does training for their own bottom line then, yes, they are not a decent company. But all the decent companies that I've worked for saw the training as much more than that. They also had high retention of employees because they actually cared about more than just "how much is my ROI on this training going to be?". At my current job and the last couple of places I worked for I could get training and get books reimbursed for pretty much any technology subject I wanted. In fact, my managers urged me to do so repeatedly. They viewed training in a way far beyond only the ROI.
That doesn't make them evil or bad, simply an organism that responds to the same stimuli as we do.
No it usually means they are shitty places to work. "Evil" has nothing to do with to do with anything.
Again, a decent company does not expect you to pay your own money and/or use up your leisure time to do training for them. And any company that does is no place I'd ever work for. There are plenty of better jobs out there.
I think you missed my point. ROI includes much more than an immediate financial return. They do the things you mention because it costs them less to do that than not to; that's a fundamental economic fact of life. In many cases, being a decent place to work keeps employees around and productive; so you do teh things that employees like to maximize your investment in them. I once spoke with as senior executive of a company with a number of perks beyond those normal for companies in his business. His response was "It's simply cheaper to do that than replace staff; our staffing costs are lower than our competitors and those savings outweigh the costs of the perks; so in the end we are more profitable." While individuals in a company may care about you, to the company, in the ned, you are simply a cost and as long as their return on that cost is acceptable they will do things to keep you around; to think otherwise is delusional.
That's what any decent company does. One that actual cares about growing their people instead of wanting another low-paid drone. That any company expects you to use your own time and money to improve your skills for them (because we all want to have no leisure time) is absurd. It's even more laughable that some employees think this is the way a company should treat you.
While most companies will pay for training that maintains or improves a person's skills at their current job, very few pay to develop skills for their next job; unless they have some assurance that the costs will be recovered. Quite frankly, it makes no economic sense to train someone for a better job unless you are assured they will stick around because otherwise you simply absorb training costs for your competitor's employees.Companies do not provide training because they are decent, they do it because it generates a return and is viewed like any other investment - is the cost worth the return? That doesn't make them evil or bad, simply an organism that responds to the same stimuli as we do. As for tuition reimbursement schemes, they are simply another part of what they view as your total compensation package and a cost of getting and keeping employees. If you don't use it you are simply chosing to forgo part of your compensation.
Are you being purposely obtuse?
I doubt it. The poster was probably simply following the /. Tradition of being cluelessly obtuse.
Why should I even have to explain this entire thought process and reasons behind it that is clear to just about everyone else in this topic?
so the poster can post more clueless follow ups?
If the training meets a specific need and is a must have to continue or grow the business then the company will pay for it and do it on company time. To them, it's an investment with a specific ROI. If it's a nice to have but doesn't meet specific needs tehn they may reimburse as part of a benefits package but you are on your own time and dime until you pass or complete the course.
What field did you move to? My defense contractor programming career is obviously coming to an end.
I actually got an MBA and went into strategy consulting. When I was in school a significant percentage of my classmates had STEM degrees; and post degree went into consulting or finance (either on Wall Street or for a company).
It's not surprising US PhD's are more focused on the higher ranked schools. The premium, over an MS, for PhDs, is small relative to the cost so there is little incentive to earn one; and if you do the opportunities are far greater from a top school. For foreign students, a PhD has far more prestige and value and hence higher demand. lesser schools can use that demand to generate cash and fill programs.
Why not make H1B's more mobile - after six months or a year in the US allow them to freely change jobs. That's enough time for them to prove their skills and get an idea of their true worth in the job markets. Companies would need to be meet real market values for talent and would be more selective on who they hire and what they pay to avoid losing real talent while paying to get them here.
I can understand why people who are have the talents for STEM leave the field. I make far more in a non-STEM field than I ever made in engineering and haven't hit a plateau as many of my friends still in engineering. I remember when I first got my degree being shown a graph that showed salaries peaking and then real income declining as you gained experience since at some point it was cheaper to hire someone with less experience than pay you. The advcie I got was get some experience and then bolt - either to management or another field where your skills are rarer and experience is valuable.
The problem is that the shareholders of said companies have to agree to a restructuring in another country. And then they will vote on the executive's pay in the same session.
I am not sure why you claim this. unless Swiss corporate law is very different from most, they could do it without a shareholder vote.
"this" has already passed. according to swiss constitution, a text that was validated in such a referendum MUST be written into law. guess the swiss will be able to get rid of those parasites...
No, some companies will restructure to move executive operations out of Switzerland; even if the executives physically remain in Switzerland. Large companies, by their very nature, have a global reach and will move operations to the most favorable climates. It may cause some hand wringing in Switzerland if Swiss companies, at least on paper, cease to be "Swiss;" then again given the interlocking nature of the senior levels of Switzerland's government, companies and Army officer corps no doubt some understanding will be reached. The Swiss can be described many ways, but "stupid businessmen that can't make things work behind teh scenes despite public positioning" is generally not one that comes to mind.
If he used common sense then he's obviously not a(n) design engineer.
There fixed it for you. He sounds like a real field engineer; someone who knows where to apply the 10 lb monkey wrench to fix the problem.
Apple offered a compelling product that was different from everything else - and used it's app store to build a strong supporting infrastructure to create a market. At some point, that market starts to slow as demand is satisfied; even if you still own the largest market share it's not going to grow like you want it. At that point, you decide where to play next - the smaller tablet was a natural move since it builds on Apple's strengths and meets a different need. Sure, you'll cannabalize some sales of the other products but you've grown the overall market for your products and continue to grow revenues and profits. It's the same as P&G introducing a new variant of a laundry detergent - meet another consumer need and drag in new customers as well as some switchers - and make more money in the end. Had apple introduced the smaller iPad first and then the larger you'd be seeing analyst headlines saying they made a mistake and should have introduced the larger one first.
This only applies to residences, so the factory would still have been OK to photograph. Even residences, w/o identifiable people, are OK.
In addition. the proviso other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment may conduct surveillance would let a broad range of activities to pass muster under the law. An environmental group could have people conduct surveillance if they feel a law is being broken, for example.
Wait until someone captures a crime that authorities *want* to prosecute and the evidence get tossed because of this bill.
They'll get my Estes Camroc when they pry my cold dead fingers from the launch button...
Disney's ships hold about 40% more passengers and they are priced at the higher end of the mass market lines. Given operational costs such as fuel are relative fixed it would seem their cruise costs would be significantly higher. The question is is the T2 experience compelling enough to attract capacity crowds and repeat business to be a viable long term business?