By your logic, it's bad to keep drunken drivers from the street. =P
Look, pal. I'm not a defendant of a police state. But you can bet you damned ass I'm a defendant of the people's life.
We are not talking about natural disasters, but about predictable and avoidable disasters that happens to be promoted by ourselves! We deliberately give up every single chance to detect and correctly deal with these nutcracks.
I'm not talking about killing them. I'm not even talking about locking them (but if this is the only choice, better them than us!). I'm talking about to correctly dealing with them.
This will cost money? OF COURSE IT WILL. As costs money to hunt and prosecute drunken drivers.
The question is: it will worth it? My answer is YES.
Everyone dies, so the cost of living isn't more wasted by an unnatural or untimely death. [...]The rest of your reasoning is a series of cognitive illusions.
Cognitive illusion is to think that every nutcrack in the world has the right to go free killing people.
Of course every human being has rights. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the killed kids have rights too. As their relatives.
So, who we prosecute in order to protect the people's right to be alive?
The fact that everybody will die someday is a pitty of an argument, and makes me think that *YOU* don't make any kind of value (no necessary financial) to human life per se.
I'm make huge investments on my kid's welfare, even by knowing he will, also, die someday. But I'm making this investments anyway, as I want him to have the best lifespan I can afford to him.
I pay taxes. As everybody else (including the victims's relatives). Why our right to be alive is less important?
The quotes were from todaysinnovativewoman.com, an article named The Pitfalls of Investor Psychology (it's the first article I came across).
Trying to argue in favor of morality on the basis of cost is a huge mistake. I think it's valid to keep convicts alive, and provide mental health care, but it isn't less expensive - it's just better. It's humane.
You totally loose the point.
I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about civil responsibility.
GP stated that it's cheaper to let these nutcracks loose. I counter-argumented that it's more expensive. It's appear to be cheaper because some people thinks like you, what prevents that the bastards that make decisions about out life can be accountable by their mistakes.
Trouble is it is cheaper to ignore the problem, than do anything about it.
No, it's not.
The problem is that there's no legal mechanism to send the bill to the society.
To every kid being killed, there're expenses on funeral and emotional support for his/her relatives, but there're also all the practical expenses of the day-to-day life, as medical/dental bills, educational expenses, toys and little amusements, vacations, necessities (clothes, etc) that go to the trash bin.
To every adult being killed, we have all that expenses since his/her childhood, more the LACK of the future (and present) funds to do the same with his/her kids. With luck, another adult will take for him/herself this expenses - at the cost of the expenses of his/her own kids (present of future).
So, YES, there're a lot of waste of money on every people being killed by a nutcrack. People are used to avoid talking about this, because we're used to think that a "human life is invaluable and, so, can not be monetized". What I, also, agree - there're no money on the world that can pay my life.
However, the COST of being alive is measurable. If a life can't be brought back, the costs incurred on being alive can be.
So, NO. IT'S A HELL OF SHIT EXPENSIVE ignoring the problem. Thing is that the bill does not goes over the shoulder of the bastards that make that decisions.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there going to be some sort of legislature dictating that cell phone makers use a universal charging standard by this point?
You're wrong and not only you are wrong, I have to question what colour the sky is in your world.
As far as I know, what GP is proposing is the something like NEMA. You know, these things ARE legislated, so I don't see why in hell you think GP must be wrong. If I understand correctly, he thinks smartphones as a so important part of modern life that their charging connectors should be standardized the same way your TV's power chord is.
I don't know if I agree with GP, but he can be right.
I had a bad time on a company where a Agile methodology were the rule. I didn't bought that "Planning Poker" at first, but hell, somehow they managed to make that thing work.
Things gone havoc, however, when the unavoidable errors started to popup on the launching event, and no one had the slightest clue about what was happening. Since there was no code reviews, and even worst, the GIT repository was "rebased" constantly after deleting the last sprint's development branches (just the delivery branch were keep, so we could not know easily in what task one change was made), the sad true is that nobody was responsible for anything and the bad apples started to rot the chest.
The funny part is that they insisted on this "pair programming" thing even when what was needed was fast response to the many little mistakes. It was silly to put two valuable developers to fix stupid things as a typo or misspelled variable names (that happened on the previous sql-injection hunt that, somehow, the pair programmin didn't prevent to happen =P)
Accountability sucks, but unfortunately it's it what keeps everybody on line.
Manglement makes a decision that upsets everyone and lots of people talk about how they are going to start looking elsewhere for employment and the sky will fall and this is terrible, but after the 3 month gripe period, everyone accepts the changes and life moves on.
It's how things work.
Yep. Same thing here.
However, after de 3rd upsetting decision, the company where I used to work lost the fidelity of the higher valued professionals - a lot of them give this job the finger on the first acceptable offer they received from the competition. Hell, some of them accepted an offer with the same incoming - a 0% net incoming grow job exchange.
So, your mileage may vary. You can screw your staff now and then, but don't make it a business practice.
Banning weapons would patch the symptom, but not cure the disease. (If weapons should be banned, it's another discussion - I don't wanna touch this issue now).
The main problem is that we allow all kind of nutcracks to go loose without restrictions at the same time we fail to uncover these nutcracks before they do any harm.
I understand I'm dangerously flirting with absolutism here. However, I don't like the way this is going neither.
I don't want kids being murdered (by weapons of any kind) at schools, and I don't want to see them jailed inside schools that looks like prisons neither.
My point of view is that extremists don't attract large numbers of followers or support. Moderates do -- and moderates, unlike extremists, are open to negotiation and compromise.
Problem is: there's no compromising on a falling airplane. Or the pilot is good enough, or the plane is doomed for sure.
Being a good pilot is not enough, but certainly, is essential.
Drama aside, leadership on technical projects is like piloting an airplane. It's easy and smooth, until a emergency rises - when you must be god damned good in what you are doing in order to make the right decisions.
In the last 7 years, ALL of my socketed motherboards were retired in working conditiions.
But only ONE notebook we sold working - all of them but this one was trashed because the microprocessor soldering broke down, and resoldering is not cheap neither reliable.
The desktop's lifespan *will* be lowered down by this measure. What I'm astonished is that so few people are complaining about this.:-)
Don't underestimate the cost of hanging all of that golden plated little pins under your costly chip. Not to mention the cost of the socket itself on the motherboard. My cheap Atom330 MB has the processor soldered in it.
It's a calculated move. They know they will loose some market to the competition, but they bet they will expand their business enough to compensate.
Since the current PC market are already reaching saturation, it appears to me that they also wants to reduce the current life span of the computers as well.
ANYTHING can be good enough to replace a classroom because the real learning happens in the home's computer, doing the exercises.
The needed knowledge can be reached on books.
A good teacher can help a lot when you are stuck on a problem. But this help can be done using a mailing list.
But the better teacher, using the better books on the most techy classroom of the world is useless if the student don't do the fscking exercises at home, at night. Few hours of algorithm theory in a classroom is just not enough.
Oh, and only about $700 billion is military, and much of that is spent in the U.S., so cutting it means less industry, less employed people, etc.
The GP is right. You must be blinded by "imperialism syndrome" to address 700 BILLIONS of Dollars with the adverb "just".
A lot of the problems USA faces today is the result of the very same policy you're defending as if means "more industries, more employed people, etc".
We must talking about efficiency. USA took 10 years and 2 TRILLION Dollars and something just to kill a single man. USA is clearly holding, I mean, doing something very wrong.
Granted, I'm not saying everything is wrong, neither that all the military expenses are unnecessary...
you start to wonder why exactly we keep the "managerial class" around
Managing us, what else? =P
Keep in mind, *we* made the managers the same way *we* made the politicians. They're not extra terrestrials invading our business, but people like us that managed to get results from us.
They're the right tool to do the right job. Blame your colleagues every time you boss screws you without consequences. He does it because this is the way that works with your team.
We're speaking about the country that declared war and invaded Iraq under false accusations to kill Saddam, and violated Pakistan's sovereignty with a cover up operation to kill Bin Laden, all of that without any consequences.
(And I will not touch this Assange mess).
What make you think that the FBI should be worried for a so "small case"?
You have a good argument, but I don't agree that going open source is the more likely way out to Microsoft.
I think they'll push cloud computing first (if ever) going to some kind of open source. This way, the suite itself became expendable without compromising the monopoly.
On a first tough, I didn't agree - changing laws is slow because politicians are slow motioned professionals. Heat their arses and things start to change fast.
However, we live in a democracy and there're not people enough interested on baking politician's arses, so things stays as they're.
So, perhaps, bad publicity and noise - what can be done by a significantly smaller group of conscientious citizens, can lead to the big companies considering a law change. But by avoiding the bad press and minimizing the tax avoidance, the company becomes less attractive to his investors.
One possible way out, so, can be promoting a change in the law to close the loophole and, then, every other company in the country will need to pay the tax commonly avoided - what leverages the situation for the big company attractiveness for investors.
The money will come from our pockets anyway, as the companies will pass the costs to the prices.
Slashdot Mirror
By your logic, it's bad to keep drunken drivers from the street. =P
Look, pal. I'm not a defendant of a police state. But you can bet you damned ass I'm a defendant of the people's life.
We are not talking about natural disasters, but about predictable and avoidable disasters that happens to be promoted by ourselves! We deliberately give up every single chance to detect and correctly deal with these nutcracks.
I'm not talking about killing them. I'm not even talking about locking them (but if this is the only choice, better them than us!). I'm talking about to correctly dealing with them.
This will cost money? OF COURSE IT WILL. As costs money to hunt and prosecute drunken drivers.
The question is: it will worth it? My answer is YES.
Everyone dies, so the cost of living isn't more wasted by an unnatural or untimely death. [...]The rest of your reasoning is a series of cognitive illusions.
Cognitive illusion is to think that every nutcrack in the world has the right to go free killing people.
Of course every human being has rights. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the killed kids have rights too. As their relatives.
So, who we prosecute in order to protect the people's right to be alive?
The fact that everybody will die someday is a pitty of an argument, and makes me think that *YOU* don't make any kind of value (no necessary financial) to human life per se.
I'm make huge investments on my kid's welfare, even by knowing he will, also, die someday. But I'm making this investments anyway, as I want him to have the best lifespan I can afford to him.
I pay taxes. As everybody else (including the victims's relatives). Why our right to be alive is less important?
The quotes were from todaysinnovativewoman.com, an article named The Pitfalls of Investor Psychology (it's the first article I came across).
Trying to argue in favor of morality on the basis of cost is a huge mistake. I think it's valid to keep convicts alive, and provide mental health care, but it isn't less expensive - it's just better. It's humane.
You totally loose the point.
I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about civil responsibility.
GP stated that it's cheaper to let these nutcracks loose. I counter-argumented that it's more expensive. It's appear to be cheaper because some people thinks like you, what prevents that the bastards that make decisions about out life can be accountable by their mistakes.
Trouble is it is cheaper to ignore the problem, than do anything about it.
No, it's not.
The problem is that there's no legal mechanism to send the bill to the society.
To every kid being killed, there're expenses on funeral and emotional support for his/her relatives, but there're also all the practical expenses of the day-to-day life, as medical/dental bills, educational expenses, toys and little amusements, vacations, necessities (clothes, etc) that go to the trash bin.
To every adult being killed, we have all that expenses since his/her childhood, more the LACK of the future (and present) funds to do the same with his/her kids. With luck, another adult will take for him/herself this expenses - at the cost of the expenses of his/her own kids (present of future).
So, YES, there're a lot of waste of money on every people being killed by a nutcrack. People are used to avoid talking about this, because we're used to think that a "human life is invaluable and, so, can not be monetized". What I, also, agree - there're no money on the world that can pay my life.
However, the COST of being alive is measurable. If a life can't be brought back, the costs incurred on being alive can be.
So, NO. IT'S A HELL OF SHIT EXPENSIVE ignoring the problem. Thing is that the bill does not goes over the shoulder of the bastards that make that decisions.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there going to be some sort of legislature dictating that cell phone makers use a universal charging standard by this point?
You're wrong and not only you are wrong, I have to question what colour the sky is in your world.
As far as I know, what GP is proposing is the something like NEMA. You know, these things ARE legislated, so I don't see why in hell you think GP must be wrong. If I understand correctly, he thinks smartphones as a so important part of modern life that their charging connectors should be standardized the same way your TV's power chord is.
I don't know if I agree with GP, but he can be right.
Some guys give the Agile a bad name.
I had a bad time on a company where a Agile methodology were the rule. I didn't bought that "Planning Poker" at first, but hell, somehow they managed to make that thing work.
Things gone havoc, however, when the unavoidable errors started to popup on the launching event, and no one had the slightest clue about what was happening. Since there was no code reviews, and even worst, the GIT repository was "rebased" constantly after deleting the last sprint's development branches (just the delivery branch were keep, so we could not know easily in what task one change was made), the sad true is that nobody was responsible for anything and the bad apples started to rot the chest.
The funny part is that they insisted on this "pair programming" thing even when what was needed was fast response to the many little mistakes. It was silly to put two valuable developers to fix stupid things as a typo or misspelled variable names (that happened on the previous sql-injection hunt that, somehow, the pair programmin didn't prevent to happen =P)
Accountability sucks, but unfortunately it's it what keeps everybody on line.
(I got the boot, by the way)
where I wrote "give this job", please read "gave this job".
(Yes, I know - I need to practice English a bit more...)
Manglement makes a decision that upsets everyone and lots of people talk about how they are going to start looking elsewhere for employment and the sky will fall and this is terrible, but after the 3 month gripe period, everyone accepts the changes and life moves on.
It's how things work.
Yep. Same thing here.
However, after de 3rd upsetting decision, the company where I used to work lost the fidelity of the higher valued professionals - a lot of them give this job the finger on the first acceptable offer they received from the competition. Hell, some of them accepted an offer with the same incoming - a 0% net incoming grow job exchange.
So, your mileage may vary. You can screw your staff now and then, but don't make it a business practice.
Does it matter?
The charging is the precedent, not the veracity if the charge!
This will open a precedent.
Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".
Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!
Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!
Banning weapons would patch the symptom, but not cure the disease. (If weapons should be banned, it's another discussion - I don't wanna touch this issue now).
The main problem is that we allow all kind of nutcracks to go loose without restrictions at the same time we fail to uncover these nutcracks before they do any harm.
I understand I'm dangerously flirting with absolutism here. However, I don't like the way this is going neither.
I don't want kids being murdered (by weapons of any kind) at schools, and I don't want to see them jailed inside schools that looks like prisons neither.
I wonder if some of the connection bandwidth could be used to also transmit the flight recorder's data.
Not sure, however, if it would be a good idea...
http://everything2.com/title/BSD+is+dying
The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.
Not if he manages to be elected as a senator.
Smart move. The Australian government will be *forced* to defend him. You just can't afford to have your senators arrested around the world.
My point of view is that extremists don't attract large numbers of followers or support. Moderates do -- and moderates, unlike extremists, are open to negotiation and compromise.
Problem is: there's no compromising on a falling airplane. Or the pilot is good enough, or the plane is doomed for sure.
Being a good pilot is not enough, but certainly, is essential.
Drama aside, leadership on technical projects is like piloting an airplane. It's easy and smooth, until a emergency rises - when you must be god damned good in what you are doing in order to make the right decisions.
In the last 7 years, ALL of my socketed motherboards were retired in working conditiions.
But only ONE notebook we sold working - all of them but this one was trashed because the microprocessor soldering broke down, and resoldering is not cheap neither reliable.
The desktop's lifespan *will* be lowered down by this measure. What I'm astonished is that so few people are complaining about this. :-)
Don't underestimate the cost of hanging all of that golden plated little pins under your costly chip. Not to mention the cost of the socket itself on the motherboard. My cheap Atom330 MB has the processor soldered in it.
It's a calculated move. They know they will loose some market to the competition, but they bet they will expand their business enough to compensate.
Since the current PC market are already reaching saturation, it appears to me that they also wants to reduce the current life span of the computers as well.
ANYTHING can be good enough to replace a classroom because the real learning happens in the home's computer, doing the exercises.
The needed knowledge can be reached on books.
A good teacher can help a lot when you are stuck on a problem. But this help can be done using a mailing list.
But the better teacher, using the better books on the most techy classroom of the world is useless if the student don't do the fscking exercises at home, at night. Few hours of algorithm theory in a classroom is just not enough.
Don't expect that going online will change this.
Oh, and only about $700 billion is military, and much of that is spent in the U.S., so cutting it means less industry, less employed people, etc.
The GP is right. You must be blinded by "imperialism syndrome" to address 700 BILLIONS of Dollars with the adverb "just".
A lot of the problems USA faces today is the result of the very same policy you're defending as if means "more industries, more employed people, etc".
We must talking about efficiency. USA took 10 years and 2 TRILLION Dollars and something just to kill a single man. USA is clearly holding, I mean, doing something very wrong.
Granted, I'm not saying everything is wrong, neither that all the military expenses are unnecessary...
you start to wonder why exactly we keep the "managerial class" around
Managing us, what else? =P
Keep in mind, *we* made the managers the same way *we* made the politicians. They're not extra terrestrials invading our business, but people like us that managed to get results from us.
They're the right tool to do the right job. Blame your colleagues every time you boss screws you without consequences. He does it because this is the way that works with your team.
I find it a bit challenging to feel any great remorse over Pakistan's violated honour,[...]
Me too.
But I'm not talking about remorse, but consequences.
There're some that think that Argentina had every right to take over the Falkland Islands (they call it Malvinas), and yet, there were consequences.
Hell, even on Vietnam the USA had some good reasons to go to war - and yet, there were consequences.
This is just one more nail in the coffin.
What coffin? X-(
We're speaking about the country that declared war and invaded Iraq under false accusations to kill Saddam, and violated Pakistan's sovereignty with a cover up operation to kill Bin Laden, all of that without any consequences.
(And I will not touch this Assange mess).
What make you think that the FBI should be worried for a so "small case"?
You have a good argument, but I don't agree that going open source is the more likely way out to Microsoft.
I think they'll push cloud computing first (if ever) going to some kind of open source. This way, the suite itself became expendable without compromising the monopoly.
On a first tough, I didn't agree - changing laws is slow because politicians are slow motioned professionals. Heat their arses and things start to change fast.
However, we live in a democracy and there're not people enough interested on baking politician's arses, so things stays as they're.
So, perhaps, bad publicity and noise - what can be done by a significantly smaller group of conscientious citizens, can lead to the big companies considering a law change. But by avoiding the bad press and minimizing the tax avoidance, the company becomes less attractive to his investors.
One possible way out, so, can be promoting a change in the law to close the loophole and, then, every other company in the country will need to pay the tax commonly avoided - what leverages the situation for the big company attractiveness for investors.
The money will come from our pockets anyway, as the companies will pass the costs to the prices.
I'll give you that the statement would be helped by citation. But I won't give you the BS.
Me neither.
I don't know if GP is right, but I know you are wrong: Sadism != Psychopathy.
The tech world has plenty of company heads who've been called psychopaths, too — but would you want to actually change that?
YES.