Here in Australia, the following deductions need to be made to your gross contracting income:
GST 10%
Payroll tax 8%
Professional indemnity insurance ~3%
Public Liability insurance ~3%
Annual Leave: 20 days/yr
Public Holidays: 5? days/yr
Long service Leave: 6 days/yr
Special Leave: 3 days/yr
After doing this, you end up with the gross salary you would receive as an employee. As very rough guide, work out your hourly rate as an employee then double it to get what you should be charging to get the same money as a contractor. Of course you must figure out what premium you want to charge for lack of income security (or insure your income).
The correct answer to "What should I charge?'" is "What the market will bear". If your client raises their eyebrows at your hourly rate, then pays anyway, you are probably about optimum.
An Australian specific answer, but hopefully of some help.
IMO in this case the fact that Wikipedia is internally inconsistent means it is doing its job! It might not be correct, but it also isn't wrong.
There is uncertainty in Hamilton's date of death and this uncertainty was represented in the Wikipedia article. It is better to be inconsistent (and not wrong) than consistent and wrong. That way the reader knows that further research is required. (Hopefully once the reader finds a definitive answer they will come back and fix Wikipedia.)
It's also interesting to note that since the critique was written, the article has been sorted out. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
I would like to see a better method for recording sources in Wikipedia than relying on a few links at the end of an article. Perhaps hovering the mouse over a fact should pop up a list of sources?
I've news for you Steve. Most small customers don't bother with feedback as the perception is that it will be ignored.
First MS will lose the small 'at home' and business customers. Once these people are comfortable with the competition, the competition will seep into the big MS customers, for whom the 'small customers' are employees.
No, I'm not going to post this directly to you Steve, as I reckon you will ignore it.
I've got a suspicion that isn't actually correct. According the IEEE 802 committee (see first paragraph of the 'history' section)
The first meeting of the IEEE Computer Society "Local Network Standards Committee", Project
802, was held in February of 1980. (The project number, 802, was simply the next number in the
sequence being issued by the IEEE for standards projects).
So it is true that the first 802 meeting was in February 1980, but it doesn't follow that the number '802' is derived from that fact. Indeed, the IEEE implies, by the use of the word 'simply', that the two are unrelated.
The story I've heard is that the '80' does relate to the year 1980 but the '2' is a sequence number saying 802 was the second committee formed in 1980. If the first meeting had been in March, IEEE802 would still be IEEE802 (and not IEEE803).
Can anyone provide clearer references to show that the '80' really does relate to 1980 (not just a coincidence) and whether the '2' is really just a sequence number (and not the month)?
> These polls occur in the realm of statistics and probability. They require PhD-style expertise to understand.
Perhaps the point Mr Engberg missed is that one doen't get news from a single source in the Internet world? Instead, multiple sources are read and compared to minimise bias and stupidity. If there are statistics which require a PhD, go and find someone who has a PhD, knows satistics and can explain it to you, such as Tanenbaum.
I didn't think a trademark holder had any power to stop someone from USING their trademark, only to stop someone from from MISREPRESENTING their trademark.
For example, I can say "Nintendo games are a load of crap". I can't say "This new game I have written is a Nintendo game."
As long as I don't cause a consumer to mistakenly think something is a Nintendo, which isn't, I'm safe.
There is no concept of 'fair use' in trademarks as anyone is allowed to use a trademark, as long as they don't misrepresent it. Fair us is a copyright thing.
Such a society would then have no place for law makers (politicians). But then those who decide to change the laws (the law makers) would be out of a job.
Here's a question. What would be the effect of separating the two functions of deciding that a law needs to be changed and actually writing the new law? Would that mean existing laws would be less likely to be changed as it would be harder for the person who decides to change the law to benefit from it?
It's not really free, as the yahoo license is for a very narrow field of use. If the DomainKeys is implemented as free software, it doesn't seem possible (by my reading) to use the software outside the narrow area defined by yahoo ("the sole purpose of a sender verification solution in connection with e-mail.") Hence the software isn't really free (and neither is DomainKeys).
What you say is true in the absence of mutipath propagation (without independent fading). It is not true for an independently fading channel. Using MIMO on an independently fading channel (ie. multiplicative noise) does allow capacity to exceed what is possible in a SISO system operating at the Shannon limit.
MIMO systems retain all the properties of SIMO/MISO systems, since in some sense the optimization of the transmitting and receiving antenna elements is carried out in a superset of that of SIMO/MISO. In reality, MIMO systems offers advantages which go far beyond that of conventional smart antennas, as was first hinted in a breakthrough paper by J. Foschnini at Lucent Tech. in 1996 [Foschini96]. In this paper, Foschini shows that if the NxM channel matrix describing the wireless link in a M-transmit N-receive system has ideal independently fading elements, then the capacity of such a system grows linearly with the smallest number of antennas min(N,M) and no longer with the log function. An incredible improvement over the more traditional SIMO/MISO case. A similar result was also reported in [Telatar95]. In parallel, Foschini also developed a practical transmitter/receiver algorithm to beused in the MIMO context: the now famous "BLAST" algorithm [Foschini96]. Later another breakthrough scheme was proposed by ATT-Labs based on the idea of space-time coding [Tarokh98] to extract diversity gains in MISOthen MIMO.
I'm interested in any objections you still have, just in case there is a shortcoming in my knowledge.
This is the spatial equivalent to the time/frequency option of 'use more spectrum'. Achieving spatial diversity is typically done by adding more antennas (and RF gear) to the receiver and transmitter.
As an example, a special (simple) case of spatial diversity is using an array of antennas to do beamforming. Making the antenna occupy more space increases the antenna gain (directivity) allowing multiple data streams to reuse the same frequency.
In its most general form, spatial diversity allows multiple streams of data to be transmitted and received on the same antenna array, thus allowing capacity to be boosted over what you would expect from the wikipedia version of Shannon's equation.
In actual fact, the 'W' in wikipedia's equation should be a matrix involving spatial terms. This fact was discovered a decade or two ago and forms the basis of the hot topic of MIMO or space-time coding. An update to the 802.X standard, based on these techniques, is in the pipeline.
It's an ongoing topic of research to discover what the 'real' Shannon limit is when spatial diversity is taken into account. It looks (by my understanding) to be a function of the available frequency bandwidth and the available volume of space measured in wavelengths.
CDMA is simply a way of superimposing multiple data streams (users) which have been encoded in some way (typically by mutiplying by a code sequence). This is a very general technique. Choose the CDMA codes to be a set of orthogonal sine waves and the result is OFDM.
Ultimately CDMA and OFDM have the same performance (they are the same thing) but the special case of OFDM is typically easier to implement. The symmetry of the OFDM code set allows an FFT to be used to separate data streams.
A typical wireless LAN assigns all codes (carriers) to a single user but that doesn't have to be the case.
As a further example, chose the codes to be a set of orthogoal pulses and CDMA becomes TDMA.
CDMA is really just another name for 'superposition', that is, construction a linear combination of a set of sequences. The sequences don't even have to be orthogonal.
It's the 'spectral efficiency' (the number of bits per second per unit of bandwidth) and the ability of the receiver to reject other users signals that is important.
It is relatively easy to do 360Mbps given the whole radio spectrum to play with. It's a lot harder when it is necessary to coexist with all other users or a limited bandwidth is available.
The article doesn't give such information so Siemen's acheivement may be impressive, or then again it may not.
>...and advertises it as 'Runs Java(TM) Programs!'
In which case Sun could sue, as the whole point was that VJ++ didn't run Java programs but a broken approximation of Java. Hence MS couldn't claim it runs Java(tm) unless it really did run Java.
Surely the correct solution is to license all the copyrightable stuff under the GPL then reserve access to the "Java" trademark for implementations which comply with Sun's (open) standards?
The idea of a trademark is to make is difficult to pass of an inferior clone as the original, which seems to be precisely what Sun is trying to prevent.
Wouldn't China have the most 'stable democracy', in that their version of democracy encourages stability of government?
IMO one of the benefits of a democracy is that it introduces (controlled) instability, which forces the government to do its job properly or be overthrown (by the ballot box).
The real application for small accurate clocks is that they can be flown on the GPS satellites. This reduces (or ideally eliminates) the need for a ground control segment (the network of earth stations which transmit time/position correction data to the GPS satellites). In turn, this means the GPS system remains accurate for longer when unattended. That is, even when a hostile power has knocked out all the GPS ground stations the US still has the capability to fly a missile through that hostile power's window.
"I'm very proud of the fact that my son has started a small business. He's in his 20s and I get a real buzz out of the fact that he's prepared to have a go in a small business, that's what the future of this country is all about."
So the future of Australia lies in f**ing up everyone else's life so one person can get ahead?
We can all pack up and go home now. Australian mateship is dead.
Terrorists killed 88 of my countrymen in Bali during 2002. That doesn't give my country the right to invade another country, killing their people in revenge. To my shame my country has participated in a illegitmate war in Iraq (all the reasons given at the time have turned out to be bogus). Similarly you cannot claim September 11 as justification for invading Iraq.
As at November 2000, 52.1% of your fellow countrymen disagreed with the choice of government. Further, the electorate is made up of individuals. For those two reasons it is valid to talk about the American people as being distinct from the American government.
The US doesn't have a monopoly on dying for others. My country (Australia) has a proud tradition of dying for others (WWI France, Galipoli, WWII Europe, Vietnam, Korea, East Timor). That doesn't allow us to justify our future actions on the basis that "others should be bloody grateful to us".
Talk to and listen to some of those other people in the world rather than potificating to them. They might just have something worthwhile to say.
The more governments adopt this 'guilty until proven otherwise' strategy, the tighter Osama's grip on victory in the 'war' on terror.
The real war front is not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is in our own societies: at the airport check in, the railway station, the stadium, anywhere we have to trust other people. If we lose on this front, we lose the power to even demand a stop to the violence in Iraq.
Such 'security' diminishes us as human beings. Why can't our leaders see that the terrorists WANT draconian security inside their targets. Our leaders are doing the terrorist's work for them. Distrust and alienation is fuel for terrorism, not a solution.
First step is to recognise the humanity in those around us. Next step is to break the cycle and recognise the humanity of those we share the wider world with.
I ask myself what motivates the proponents of chapter
17 of the FTA. This is the chapter that seeks to
extend the monopolies of patents and copyrights.
By my understanding someone standing for free
trade should be against increased regulation and
monopoly and so against chapter 17. A paradox.
The best explanation I have come up with is that
proponents of chapter 17 are not for free trade
but are for private ownership. They are typically
against public property and against increased
regulation of property, as they believe those
weaken private ownership. In the case of patents
and copyright they are for increased regulation
as they believe it strengthens private ownership.
Perhaps chapter 17 of the "Free Trade Agreement"
is really a "Private Ownership Agreement"?
Chapter 17 of the FTA allows abstract ideas to be
claimed as private property. We shouldn't be
talking about whether chapter 17 of the FTA is
good for free trade but whether ideas are
property to be privately owned.
No idea is formed in isolation. Instead all
ideas draw from those around and those who
have gone before. It is impossible to have
a non-social idea in that having ideas requires
interaction with and inspiration by other people.
Witness the emphasis the scientific research
community places on publishing ideas and
establishing networks of collaboration.
Thomas Edison once said "Genius is one per cent
inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration."
The existing patent and copyright system allows
the 99% perspiration to be protected. Chapter
17 of the FTA extends the monopoly to include
the 1% inspiration, thus hampering innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
GST 10%
Payroll tax 8%
Professional indemnity insurance ~3%
Public Liability insurance ~3%
Annual Leave: 20 days/yr
Public Holidays: 5? days/yr
Long service Leave: 6 days/yr
Special Leave: 3 days/yr
After doing this, you end up with the gross salary you would receive as an employee. As very rough guide, work out your hourly rate as an employee then double it to get what you should be charging to get the same money as a contractor. Of course you must figure out what premium you want to charge for lack of income security (or insure your income).
The correct answer to "What should I charge?'" is "What the market will bear". If your client raises their eyebrows at your hourly rate, then pays anyway, you are probably about optimum.
An Australian specific answer, but hopefully of some help.
There is uncertainty in Hamilton's date of death and this uncertainty was represented in the Wikipedia article. It is better to be inconsistent (and not wrong) than consistent and wrong. That way the reader knows that further research is required. (Hopefully once the reader finds a definitive answer they will come back and fix Wikipedia.)
It's also interesting to note that since the critique was written, the article has been sorted out. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
I would like to see a better method for recording sources in Wikipedia than relying on a few links at the end of an article. Perhaps hovering the mouse over a fact should pop up a list of sources?
First MS will lose the small 'at home' and business customers. Once these people are comfortable with the competition, the competition will seep into the big MS customers, for whom the 'small customers' are employees.
No, I'm not going to post this directly to you Steve, as I reckon you will ignore it.
The story I've heard is that the '80' does relate to the year 1980 but the '2' is a sequence number saying 802 was the second committee formed in 1980. If the first meeting had been in March, IEEE802 would still be IEEE802 (and not IEEE803).
Can anyone provide clearer references to show that the '80' really does relate to 1980 (not just a coincidence) and whether the '2' is really just a sequence number (and not the month)?
Perhaps the point Mr Engberg missed is that one doen't get news from a single source in the Internet world? Instead, multiple sources are read and compared to minimise bias and stupidity. If there are statistics which require a PhD, go and find someone who has a PhD, knows satistics and can explain it to you, such as Tanenbaum.
For example, I can say "Nintendo games are a load of crap". I can't say "This new game I have written is a Nintendo game."
As long as I don't cause a consumer to mistakenly think something is a Nintendo, which isn't, I'm safe.
There is no concept of 'fair use' in trademarks as anyone is allowed to use a trademark, as long as they don't misrepresent it. Fair us is a copyright thing.
At least that is my understanding.
Here's a question. What would be the effect of separating the two functions of deciding that a law needs to be changed and actually writing the new law? Would that mean existing laws would be less likely to be changed as it would be harder for the person who decides to change the law to benefit from it?
----->>>>
Election Technology Council - ETC
The ETC is a coalition of companies dedicated to the development, delivery and support of electronic voting solutions to the American electorate.
Visit http://www.electiontech.org for more information.
----->>>>
On the about ETC page:
Council Members
Advanced Voting Solutions (AVS)
Diebold Election Systems
Election Systems & Software (ES&S)
Hart InterCivic
Perfect Voting System
Sequioa Voting Systems
Unilect
VoteHere, Inc
----->>>>
'nuff said
It's not really free, as the yahoo license is for a very narrow field of use. If the DomainKeys is implemented as free software, it doesn't seem possible (by my reading) to use the software outside the narrow area defined by yahoo ("the sole purpose of a sender verification solution in connection with e-mail.") Hence the software isn't really free (and neither is DomainKeys).
our consumer electronics business is worth more to us than our music business.
What you say is true in the absence of mutipath propagation (without independent fading). It is not true for an independently fading channel. Using MIMO on an independently fading channel (ie. multiplicative noise) does allow capacity to exceed what is possible in a SISO system operating at the Shannon limit.
I refer to to Foschini's seminal paper on the subject.
This web page sums it up:
I'm interested in any objections you still have, just in case there is a shortcoming in my knowledge.
This is the spatial equivalent to the time/frequency option of 'use more spectrum'. Achieving spatial diversity is typically done by adding more antennas (and RF gear) to the receiver and transmitter.
As an example, a special (simple) case of spatial diversity is using an array of antennas to do beamforming. Making the antenna occupy more space increases the antenna gain (directivity) allowing multiple data streams to reuse the same frequency.
In its most general form, spatial diversity allows multiple streams of data to be transmitted and received on the same antenna array, thus allowing capacity to be boosted over what you would expect from the wikipedia version of Shannon's equation.
In actual fact, the 'W' in wikipedia's equation should be a matrix involving spatial terms. This fact was discovered a decade or two ago and forms the basis of the hot topic of MIMO or space-time coding. An update to the 802.X standard, based on these techniques, is in the pipeline.
It's an ongoing topic of research to discover what the 'real' Shannon limit is when spatial diversity is taken into account. It looks (by my understanding) to be a function of the available frequency bandwidth and the available volume of space measured in wavelengths.
CDMA is simply a way of superimposing multiple data streams (users) which have been encoded in some way (typically by mutiplying by a code sequence). This is a very general technique. Choose the CDMA codes to be a set of orthogonal sine waves and the result is OFDM.
Ultimately CDMA and OFDM have the same performance (they are the same thing) but the special case of OFDM is typically easier to implement. The symmetry of the OFDM code set allows an FFT to be used to separate data streams.
A typical wireless LAN assigns all codes (carriers) to a single user but that doesn't have to be the case.
As a further example, chose the codes to be a set of orthogoal pulses and CDMA becomes TDMA.
CDMA is really just another name for 'superposition', that is, construction a linear combination of a set of sequences. The sequences don't even have to be orthogonal.
Completely off the planet, but I wonder if the 'big bang' was just a rogue wave?
It is relatively easy to do 360Mbps given the whole radio spectrum to play with. It's a lot harder when it is necessary to coexist with all other users or a limited bandwidth is available.
The article doesn't give such information so Siemen's acheivement may be impressive, or then again it may not.
In which case Sun could sue, as the whole point was that VJ++ didn't run Java programs but a broken approximation of Java. Hence MS couldn't claim it runs Java(tm) unless it really did run Java.
The idea of a trademark is to make is difficult to pass of an inferior clone as the original, which seems to be precisely what Sun is trying to prevent.
IMO one of the benefits of a democracy is that it introduces (controlled) instability, which forces the government to do its job properly or be overthrown (by the ballot box).
The real application for small accurate clocks is that they can be flown on the GPS satellites. This reduces (or ideally eliminates) the need for a ground control segment (the network of earth stations which transmit time/position correction data to the GPS satellites). In turn, this means the GPS system remains accurate for longer when unattended. That is, even when a hostile power has knocked out all the GPS ground stations the US still has the capability to fly a missile through that hostile power's window.
So the future of Australia lies in f**ing up everyone else's life so one person can get ahead?
We can all pack up and go home now. Australian mateship is dead.
You need to wake up.
Terrorists killed 88 of my countrymen in Bali during 2002. That doesn't give my country the right to invade another country, killing their people in revenge. To my shame my country has participated in a illegitmate war in Iraq (all the reasons given at the time have turned out to be bogus). Similarly you cannot claim September 11 as justification for invading Iraq.
As at November 2000, 52.1% of your fellow countrymen disagreed with the choice of government. Further, the electorate is made up of individuals. For those two reasons it is valid to talk about the American people as being distinct from the American government.
The US doesn't have a monopoly on dying for others. My country (Australia) has a proud tradition of dying for others (WWI France, Galipoli, WWII Europe, Vietnam, Korea, East Timor). That doesn't allow us to justify our future actions on the basis that "others should be bloody grateful to us".
Talk to and listen to some of those other people in the world rather than potificating to them. They might just have something worthwhile to say.
The perfect crime is the one that noone even knows has happened. Is the perfect war victory the one that a country inflicts on itself?
The real war front is not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is in our own societies: at the airport check in, the railway station, the stadium, anywhere we have to trust other people. If we lose on this front, we lose the power to even demand a stop to the violence in Iraq.
Such 'security' diminishes us as human beings. Why can't our leaders see that the terrorists WANT draconian security inside their targets. Our leaders are doing the terrorist's work for them. Distrust and alienation is fuel for terrorism, not a solution.
First step is to recognise the humanity in those around us. Next step is to break the cycle and recognise the humanity of those we share the wider world with.
That's my entry.
I ask myself what motivates the proponents of chapter 17 of the FTA. This is the chapter that seeks to extend the monopolies of patents and copyrights. By my understanding someone standing for free trade should be against increased regulation and monopoly and so against chapter 17. A paradox.
The best explanation I have come up with is that proponents of chapter 17 are not for free trade but are for private ownership. They are typically against public property and against increased regulation of property, as they believe those weaken private ownership. In the case of patents and copyright they are for increased regulation as they believe it strengthens private ownership.
Perhaps chapter 17 of the "Free Trade Agreement" is really a "Private Ownership Agreement"?
Chapter 17 of the FTA allows abstract ideas to be claimed as private property. We shouldn't be talking about whether chapter 17 of the FTA is good for free trade but whether ideas are property to be privately owned.
No idea is formed in isolation. Instead all ideas draw from those around and those who have gone before. It is impossible to have a non-social idea in that having ideas requires interaction with and inspiration by other people.
Witness the emphasis the scientific research community places on publishing ideas and establishing networks of collaboration.
Thomas Edison once said "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration." The existing patent and copyright system allows the 99% perspiration to be protected. Chapter 17 of the FTA extends the monopoly to include the 1% inspiration, thus hampering innovation.