This is PR damage-control, nothing else. They're trying to create the impression they were unwilling accomplices.
What exactly would you do if you were the CEO of Google, Apple or Microsoft, if you cared about your users' rights, at least when violating your users' rights gives you no benefits and if rumors about these violations hurt your company, and you didn't have any intention to go to jail?
What could you do if you were the CEO of a big company threatened by the government where you operate?
You would relocate your company HQ to another country. Simple as that.
Sending a strongly worded letter is a pure PR move. A feasibility study on relocating is what they should be doing if they are serious.
It's not about typing, or shortcuts, or block select, or the specific dialect of regular expressions in your favorite text editor. It's about indexing, refactoring, code analysis, live error highlights, popup-help, tab-complete, source control integration, boilerplate generation, integrated debuggers, and a thousand other things that most programming oriented text editors simply do not have. It's about letting the CPU in your computer do what it is there for, instead of just waiting patiently for the next keyboard interrupt so that it can use all 3 gigahertz of power to put a byte into a buffer and then go back to sleep.
THIS. This is hardest part for many old school, text-editor-only programmers to understand, and this is no different from writers who insisted on using mechanical typewriters instead of more modern text editors.
In fact, I once viewed a video of a fiction writer doing his writing, and I was surprised that his tool don't automatically highlight and index all reference of every characters in the story. Guess I am too used to modern IDEs.
Is this entire article some kind of joke? If you have physical access to a machine and are able to "steal" the cookies from their logged in browser session, then on another machine replicate that browser session and utilize that same logged in cookie so that the site can't tell the difference between the machine you HAVE PHYSICAL LOGGED-IN ACCESS TO and the replicated session, so you're able to continue using the site? Isn't this behaviour "as intended"?
Ever heard of Internet Cafe? Even seen public PC open for everybody to use in airports or other places?
This vulnerability means, if you EVER logged in to these sites once in public PCs, and if that PC has been compromised, then the cookies that have been used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else and use to access those sites as you. And you have no way to invalidate those cookies even if you have logged out from that site, EVEN IF YOU CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD immediately afterwards.
The correct way to use cookies is for it act as a key, and only a key, to some storage on the server side, i.e. the site itself. And once the user clicked "log out", that storage should be cleared and the cookie expired, so the key became invalid even if someone saved it and tried to reuse it later. Changing password should invalid all these session storage for that account.
I've worked with people like Linus many times; brilliant, know it, and abuse those who suggest ideas that don't align with their world view. They are usually correct when they shoot down an idea. However, I avoid them at all costs, both from a hiring and from peer perspective, because they are a cancer in most organizations, and the long term cost of dealing with their anti-social behaviour greatly outweighs the benefit they bring.
Abuse does not solve problems. Belittling others does not benefit anyone. It's fine to be blunt and explain why the idea proposed will not work, it saves time and energy. It is sign of a deeply flawed personality to attack the person who proposed the idea that won't work.
I second this. The only case when a manager would tolerate an abusive worker is when the said worker is really irreplaceable, or when the manager doesn't care about his team. And abusive workers know this (they would be fired soon enough otherwise), so they naturally gravitate towards carving their own domain in the team, either by driving other people away from that domain with their abuses, or work on something new and then not sharing the knowledge.
In the case of the abusive worker being irreplaceable, any smart manager would rectify the situation ASAP, either by finding/training replacement, or simply trying to remove the irreplaceable work itself (e.g. demise the system that no one else can maintain), as having someone irreplaceable means you are in deepsh** when that guy leaves.
However, for other workers, either situation (irreplaceable or manager not caring) is a BIG SIGN to leave asap, as your manager won't/can't do anything to prevent you getting abused.
End result is other staff in the team keep leave and it gets more difficult for the manager to train up a replacement for that abusive worker. So the best option for managers is not to hire any abusive workers in the first place, no matter how talented.
Your long post clearly demonstrated how unwieldy the use of MPG for fuel consumption is. Instead of converting wholesale to L/100km, let's just simply use G/100miles ("G/100m" for short) and see how much simpler your post would be:
e.g. Consider a trip of 300 miles in a variety of different cars:
Gee, anyone can immediately see that the biggest savings come from SUV->sedan, saving 2.4 G/100mi (~40% savings)
However, even going from 1 G/100m research car to 0.33G/100m concept car, you are still saving 66% of your fuel.
That's where your final analysis is wrong, you are using the same base (6.6 G/100m) to calculate the savings, when, instead, you should be using the consumption at each step as its own base. Even using MPG units, going from x MPG to 3x MPG means you save 66% fuel (i.e. 100MPG -> 300MPG), regardless that you started with only 15 MPG (which is irrelevant when you got to a 100MPG car).
This was planning, and the willingness to spend large amounts of money and effort to protect human life. Plus a bit of luck. But not a miracle.
I wish people working on software development and support in my company can understand this.
If you don't want shit to happen, planning and spending appropriately is how you prevent it happening. Not wishing for miracles, nor blaming people for shit happening.
Not really trying to turn it into a contest, but just "to put this into perspective". More or less, the point is other science projects have been dealing with similar data volume for a few years already, if there is anything newsworthy about this "DNA Data Deluge", it better be something more than just the data volume.
To put this into perspective, if you were to write this data onto standard DVDs, the resulting stack would be more than 2 miles tall.
NO. This does not put anything "into perspective", except it meant "a lot of data" for the average Joe.
To put it into useful perspective, we should compare with large data encountered in other sciences, such as 25PB per year from the LHC. And that's after aggressively discarding collisions that doesn't look promising in the first pass, it would be orders of magnitude bigger otherwise.
But now just 15PB per year doesn't look that newsworthy, eh?
Or you're a "GOOD programmer" who has really shitty project management? The kinds of management that think 24/7 3-shift manufacturing schedules will work in a software development group. They are out there too you know...
Sometimes the hours worked is out of the hands of the individual. Sometimes even just flat-out leaving isn't an option because, either the market sucks or you're stuck due to having 10-15+ years in a pension plan or the salary and OT are worth it for you financially... There's a number of reasons people stay on "nightmare" jobs.
8 hour shift a day x 7 days a week = 56 hours per week. Quite a bit less than 80 hours, don't you think? And if you will work 56 hours a week just because your manager said so, you ARE dumb.
"flat-out leaving isn't an option because..." Yeah, yeah, as if GOOD programmers can't find another job if they wish to, it may take months or even a year or two, but they get away fast enough.
"pension plan..." YOU put yourself in that position by joining that company and counting your chickens before they hatch. Future benefits that the company can take away simply by firing you is something you shouldn't count on.
"There's a number of reasons people stay on "nightmare" jobs." Yes, and out of those, the proportion of competent programmers you want to hire would be relatively less than normal.
You may have that expectation, but it has never been accepted as reasonable in the United States, going back to court cases in the early 19th century.
Which is exactly why I said it is a crazy idea for a "supposedly civilized world". Hint: I think the US is not civilized a bit in the privacy aspect.
Look at the European privacy laws for examples of real civilized peoples' expectation of privacy.
In short, companies can only use the data given in ways that is known and clearly stated at the time the data was collected. Not the wholesale "they got it so they can do whatever with it" free-for-all data grab that is happening in the US.
Yeah, I know, such privacy concepts are totally alien to Americans. Like nudists getting puzzled at why some people choose to cover part (but not all) of their bodies in a beach, and even dare to *expect* other people not to peek when they are changing, even when doing so in *public* bathrooms.
I've spent a lot of time on private projects under NDA, which obviously don't go on github. I've offered to supply redacted sections of code. Etc. But it was clear in a couple of instances that having a strong github presence was necessary before they wold even consider someone.
That practice discriminates against people who are too busy actually working and trying to make a living to spend 100 hours on somebody's open source project. Sure, it's a good thing to do. But don't punish people who don't have as much opportunity as others.
If a company uses any metric other than "can the guy do the work? Possibly including potential new work he may encounter?" to choose hires, it is BIG RED BLINKING LIGHTS to tell you to find someone else to work for. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that kind company won't have a lot of good people working there.
You should be glad that such discrimination happened at hiring time, you would be much worse off if they hired you and then you found out they make promotion and raises based on github presence.
...or, perhaps, people who enjoy their work and who want to make a difference.
In most groups, perhaps 20% of the people get half the work done. And, they tend to get great raises, promotions, flexibility, and plum projects -- and, yes, they end up working more hours a week than most of the other 80% (sometimes there's a sad case where someone that isn't very competent either manages to hold onto their job by producing enough work -- but working twice as many hours as others to do so, or who works so hard that softhearted managers can't bring themselves to fire them at the first opportunity).
If you think working 80 hours a week will get you in that top 20%, you ARE dumb.
Competent programmers have more than 2x the productivity of the average ones, and GOOD programmers have 10x more productivity than average. They can easily get into the top 20% productivity group by working only 40 hours a week and still make a difference, at the same time out-producing those average programmers working 80 hours a week, and keeping themselves fresh to handle any emergencies.
If you need to work 80 hours a week on a regular basis, you just proved yourself to be an average programmer, at best.
Do Not Track was silly, being opt-in and so on. And, surprise surprise, advertisers backed out when it started getting turned on by default. Now a fire is lit under their hindquarters since Firefox and Safari (and hopefully others) will simply do away with third party cookie support altogether. Taking away an advertiser's tracking tools is the best way to fight.
Exactly. This is no different than the police handing out "Do Not Rob" stickers to tourists, imagining that if few enough people put it on, then the thieves would spare those in return for the police focusing less effort to catch them. Anyone with half a brain will realize every tourist will put on the stickers, thus immediately making it totally pointless.
over and over you see in the tech industry these guys who work in fucking garages and could never make it through these bullshit processes, people like Woz, Jobs, Gates, Brin, Page, etc. none of those people would have been hired if they went through this shit.
I have said it before and will say it again, most companies have NO INTEREST in hiring entrepreneurs like Jobs or Brin, and that includes Google. Google already have Brin and Page, they don't need more Brins or Pages. They (including Google) just want more cogs for their wheels to churn out profit.
Start your own fucking company. These corporate douches can all eat shit.
Exactly, if you are the next Jobs (for real), go start your company and don't bother with getting hired.
Innovation sometimes leads to a dead end. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
Perhaps some saner managers would try out these "innovations" on a smaller scale and measure its results first, rather than applying them across the board for years before starting to look at the results and finally see it has *zero* value?
Next, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person with shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or stick-on contracts?
If no, that means the first person really didn't own it 100%, as there is a restriction on how the way he can or cannot sell it.
The "logical impossibility" only occurs when you twist the definition of ownership to include the ability to do things such as impose stick-on contracts when selling something. The original poster is applying 100% to a different set of attributes than you are.
While having a complex and twisted definition of ownership certainly creates lots of business for the legal profession, it is far from clear that it is beneficial to society as a whole. Judging from the current US legal system, very few legal professional have error lost any sleep thinking about this issue.
The only thing "twisted" here is the GP's desire to have something guaranteed for himself (100% ownership, do anything he likes with things he bought) while denying the same guarantee to others. "Ownership" included the right to transfer such ownership, by 100% unlimited ownership would include the ability to sell partial ownership to others.
This is the same debate of GPL vs BSD. BSD license provided 100% freedom, including the freedom to restrict others' freedom, while GPL restricted your freedom to restrict others' freedom, to ensure every derivative is equally free.
I am surprised this would need to be explained here in/.
If I am making a purchase as a private person (ie: not a business), whatever I've bought is mine. I own it 100%, it's my goddamn property and I will do whatever I fucking want with it (within written law of course)
No amount of shrinkwrap, ckickwrap, stick-on contracts, implied or non-negotiated "agreements" can change that. Contracts, usage policies and EULAs in which you had no bargaining or direct input are automatically null and void.
So, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person? I presume yes.
Next, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person with shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or stick-on contracts?
If no, that means the first person really didn't own it 100%, as there is a restriction on how the way he can or cannot sell it.
If yes, then business can sell you shrinkwrap licenses by selling through a private person as an intermediary. Thus you can never mandate every sale as buyer owning 100%.
What you are asking for is a logical impossibility.
The reasoning goes back to old law which is based on the idea that when you mail a letter, you have no expectation of privacy regarding with respect to the outside of the envelope
Which, by itself, is already a crazy idea in a supposedly "civilized" world.
When I mail a letter, I expect only the staff of the post office can read the outside of the envelope for the purpose of delivering the letter, until it reach the mailbox of the recipient. After which only authorized persons (with the mailbox key) will be able to retrieve.
There are LOTS of privacy expectation on the outside of the envelope already, namely:
1. I expect no one but post office staff can read it, and only for the purpose of delivering the mail (i.e. no data mining, no retention of this data, no sending it to FBI/NSA)
2. To spell it out, I don't expect the general public, non-delivery post office staff, the post office manager, nor people touring the post office, etc, to be able to read the outside of the envelope during transit
3. I don't expect people to stand behind the postman while he puts the mail into the target mailbox. Nor do I expect the postman to read the "from" address intentionally unless the "to" address is wrong
4. I don't expect anyone can open and go through the mailbox, even without opening any envelopes.
How does my purchase reflect *me* as the target audience? It doesn't. To put some context on this: even though I've spent WAY more time playing Civilization V, I only purchased it once, versus the many, many purchases I've spent LESS time playing on my phone. Using your logic this would make me more of a "mobile gamer" than a "PC gamer", but the opposite is actually true.
Look, to a game seller, how much money you spent of his game is way more important than how much time you spent on it.
Classifying you as a "mobile gamer" based on your purchase is the only relevant way from the POV of the industry. No game company cared how much time you spent of a game after you have paid for it.
For a mandatory car analogy - a rich guy bought 20 Ferraris but only drove them once in a while, spent most of his road time in a Benz instead. Another rich guy bought 20 Benz and only 1 Ferrari and drove the Ferrari all the time. Guess which one is more of a "Ferrari driver" and which one is a "Benz driver" for Ferrari and Benz?
If there is a point in time that is considered as "late in the project", you are doing Waterfall, not Agile.
Eh? After 38[1] 2-week sprints developing an accounting package the bean-counting dunderheads tell you it needs to support multiple currencies. Are you saying that's early?
[1] Including 17 that were about changing the colour to get more RAM.
That is neither "early" nor "late". You estimate the effort required, break down the stories into manageable small chunks, then let the dunderheads priorities the stories, and then off you go to the next sprint.
It may take 10, or 20, or 50 more sprints to have all the multi-currency requirements completed, but does it matter if it was the 3rd sprint, the 38th sprint or the 380th sprint? If it does, you are doing waterfall. For agile projects, it shouldn't matter. If the dunderheads aren't willing to pay for the additional stories, that's another problem entirely.
Yes, if they had included multi-currency at the 1st sprint, then you won't have a stories worth 10/20/50 sprints to do at the 38th sprint, but you just had those same amount of effort spread throughout you other stories, which would result in similar total effort anyway.
Or are you going to say your codebase was already a mess by the 38th sprint, when everyone was hope the project would finish so they don't have to deal with the accumulated technical debt? If you are going to say that, you already spotted the problem, and that is not with doing agile.
In all the years I've been building computers I can name only twice where I ever had the opportunity to upgrade; once with an old 466 when I went from a DX2-50 to a DX4-100; another time when I upgraded a K6-2 333 to a K6-2 500. Most of the time when it came time to "upgrade" there had been so many changes to the bus types, socket types, memory types, etc... it was just easier to start over from scratch than try to pick an upgrade from a narrow list of parts which often cost a fortune, while often only giving a moderate speed boost, because they were now considered "specialty" equipment for an obsolete architecture.
Granted, there are people who will insist that they've been able to upgrade their systems multiple times - but I'm not talking about those compulsive types who need the newest graphics card every other week. Most people I've talked to will buy a machine and keep it for 2-4 years before thinking its time buy a new one, by then everything has changed and the existing machine is mostly obsolete and so they have to start new.
Same here, and my first PC was an XT. So it is like in some 25+ years of owning and building my own PC, I can count the times I have upgraded one (after initially building it) in one hand.
And the most recent one was like 5 years ago, and that's only because it was a big hassle to re-install everything if I bought a new PC (which is a non-issue with a Mac), so I bought a new video card instead even though I could well afford a new PC with better everything.
Slashdot Mirror
This is PR damage-control, nothing else. They're trying to create the impression they were unwilling accomplices.
What exactly would you do if you were the CEO of Google, Apple or Microsoft, if you cared about your users' rights, at least when violating your users' rights gives you no benefits and if rumors about these violations hurt your company, and you didn't have any intention to go to jail?
What could you do if you were the CEO of a big company threatened by the government where you operate?
You would relocate your company HQ to another country. Simple as that.
Sending a strongly worded letter is a pure PR move. A feasibility study on relocating is what they should be doing if they are serious.
It's not about typing, or shortcuts, or block select, or the specific dialect of regular expressions in your favorite text editor. It's about indexing, refactoring, code analysis, live error highlights, popup-help, tab-complete, source control integration, boilerplate generation, integrated debuggers, and a thousand other things that most programming oriented text editors simply do not have. It's about letting the CPU in your computer do what it is there for, instead of just waiting patiently for the next keyboard interrupt so that it can use all 3 gigahertz of power to put a byte into a buffer and then go back to sleep.
THIS. This is hardest part for many old school, text-editor-only programmers to understand, and this is no different from writers who insisted on using mechanical typewriters instead of more modern text editors.
In fact, I once viewed a video of a fiction writer doing his writing, and I was surprised that his tool don't automatically highlight and index all reference of every characters in the story. Guess I am too used to modern IDEs.
Is this entire article some kind of joke? If you have physical access to a machine and are able to "steal" the cookies from their logged in browser session, then on another machine replicate that browser session and utilize that same logged in cookie so that the site can't tell the difference between the machine you HAVE PHYSICAL LOGGED-IN ACCESS TO and the replicated session, so you're able to continue using the site? Isn't this behaviour "as intended"?
Ever heard of Internet Cafe? Even seen public PC open for everybody to use in airports or other places?
This vulnerability means, if you EVER logged in to these sites once in public PCs, and if that PC has been compromised, then the cookies that have been used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else and use to access those sites as you. And you have no way to invalidate those cookies even if you have logged out from that site, EVEN IF YOU CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD immediately afterwards.
The correct way to use cookies is for it act as a key, and only a key, to some storage on the server side, i.e. the site itself. And once the user clicked "log out", that storage should be cleared and the cookie expired, so the key became invalid even if someone saved it and tried to reuse it later. Changing password should invalid all these session storage for that account.
I've worked with people like Linus many times; brilliant, know it, and abuse those who suggest ideas that don't align with their world view. They are usually correct when they shoot down an idea. However, I avoid them at all costs, both from a hiring and from peer perspective, because they are a cancer in most organizations, and the long term cost of dealing with their anti-social behaviour greatly outweighs the benefit they bring.
Abuse does not solve problems. Belittling others does not benefit anyone. It's fine to be blunt and explain why the idea proposed will not work, it saves time and energy. It is sign of a deeply flawed personality to attack the person who proposed the idea that won't work.
I second this. The only case when a manager would tolerate an abusive worker is when the said worker is really irreplaceable, or when the manager doesn't care about his team. And abusive workers know this (they would be fired soon enough otherwise), so they naturally gravitate towards carving their own domain in the team, either by driving other people away from that domain with their abuses, or work on something new and then not sharing the knowledge.
In the case of the abusive worker being irreplaceable, any smart manager would rectify the situation ASAP, either by finding/training replacement, or simply trying to remove the irreplaceable work itself (e.g. demise the system that no one else can maintain), as having someone irreplaceable means you are in deepsh** when that guy leaves.
However, for other workers, either situation (irreplaceable or manager not caring) is a BIG SIGN to leave asap, as your manager won't/can't do anything to prevent you getting abused.
End result is other staff in the team keep leave and it gets more difficult for the manager to train up a replacement for that abusive worker. So the best option for managers is not to hire any abusive workers in the first place, no matter how talented.
Your long post clearly demonstrated how unwieldy the use of MPG for fuel consumption is. Instead of converting wholesale to L/100km, let's just simply use G/100miles ("G/100m" for short) and see how much simpler your post would be:
e.g. Consider a trip of 300 miles in a variety of different cars:
15 MPG SUV = 20 gallons consumed = 6.6 G/100m
25 MPG sedan = 12 gallons consumed = 4 G/100m
50 MPG hybrid = 6 gallons consumed = 2 G/100m
100 MPG research car = 3 gallons consumed = 1 G/100m
300 MPG super-car = 1 gallon consumed = 0.33 G/100m
Gee, anyone can immediately see that the biggest savings come from SUV->sedan, saving 2.4 G/100mi (~40% savings)
However, even going from 1 G/100m research car to 0.33G/100m concept car, you are still saving 66% of your fuel.
That's where your final analysis is wrong, you are using the same base (6.6 G/100m) to calculate the savings, when, instead, you should be using the consumption at each step as its own base. Even using MPG units, going from x MPG to 3x MPG means you save 66% fuel (i.e. 100MPG -> 300MPG), regardless that you started with only 15 MPG (which is irrelevant when you got to a 100MPG car).
This was planning, and the willingness to spend large amounts of money and effort to protect human life. Plus a bit of luck. But not a miracle.
I wish people working on software development and support in my company can understand this.
If you don't want shit to happen, planning and spending appropriately is how you prevent it happening. Not wishing for miracles, nor blaming people for shit happening.
And all the corporate client data gone ...
And why should a programmer be scared of that? Do programmers double as DBA now?
weird quantum effect known as tunneling
Is this news for nerds, or news for Luddites? If you think tunneling is "weird" instead of just "fact of life", you don't belong here in /.
Not really trying to turn it into a contest, but just "to put this into perspective". More or less, the point is other science projects have been dealing with similar data volume for a few years already, if there is anything newsworthy about this "DNA Data Deluge", it better be something more than just the data volume.
To put this into perspective, if you were to write this data onto standard DVDs, the resulting stack would be more than 2 miles tall.
NO. This does not put anything "into perspective", except it meant "a lot of data" for the average Joe.
To put it into useful perspective, we should compare with large data encountered in other sciences, such as 25PB per year from the LHC. And that's after aggressively discarding collisions that doesn't look promising in the first pass, it would be orders of magnitude bigger otherwise.
But now just 15PB per year doesn't look that newsworthy, eh?
Or you're a "GOOD programmer" who has really shitty project management? The kinds of management that think 24/7 3-shift manufacturing schedules will work in a software development group. They are out there too you know...
Sometimes the hours worked is out of the hands of the individual. Sometimes even just flat-out leaving isn't an option because, either the market sucks or you're stuck due to having 10-15+ years in a pension plan or the salary and OT are worth it for you financially... There's a number of reasons people stay on "nightmare" jobs.
8 hour shift a day x 7 days a week = 56 hours per week. Quite a bit less than 80 hours, don't you think? And if you will work 56 hours a week just because your manager said so, you ARE dumb.
"flat-out leaving isn't an option because..." Yeah, yeah, as if GOOD programmers can't find another job if they wish to, it may take months or even a year or two, but they get away fast enough.
"pension plan..." YOU put yourself in that position by joining that company and counting your chickens before they hatch. Future benefits that the company can take away simply by firing you is something you shouldn't count on.
"There's a number of reasons people stay on "nightmare" jobs." Yes, and out of those, the proportion of competent programmers you want to hire would be relatively less than normal.
You may have that expectation, but it has never been accepted as reasonable in the United States, going back to court cases in the early 19th century.
Which is exactly why I said it is a crazy idea for a "supposedly civilized world". Hint: I think the US is not civilized a bit in the privacy aspect.
Look at the European privacy laws for examples of real civilized peoples' expectation of privacy.
In short, companies can only use the data given in ways that is known and clearly stated at the time the data was collected. Not the wholesale "they got it so they can do whatever with it" free-for-all data grab that is happening in the US.
Yeah, I know, such privacy concepts are totally alien to Americans. Like nudists getting puzzled at why some people choose to cover part (but not all) of their bodies in a beach, and even dare to *expect* other people not to peek when they are changing, even when doing so in *public* bathrooms.
I've spent a lot of time on private projects under NDA, which obviously don't go on github. I've offered to supply redacted sections of code. Etc. But it was clear in a couple of instances that having a strong github presence was necessary before they wold even consider someone.
That practice discriminates against people who are too busy actually working and trying to make a living to spend 100 hours on somebody's open source project. Sure, it's a good thing to do. But don't punish people who don't have as much opportunity as others.
If a company uses any metric other than "can the guy do the work? Possibly including potential new work he may encounter?" to choose hires, it is BIG RED BLINKING LIGHTS to tell you to find someone else to work for. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that kind company won't have a lot of good people working there.
You should be glad that such discrimination happened at hiring time, you would be much worse off if they hired you and then you found out they make promotion and raises based on github presence.
...or, perhaps, people who enjoy their work and who want to make a difference.
In most groups, perhaps 20% of the people get half the work done. And, they tend to get great raises, promotions, flexibility, and plum projects -- and, yes, they end up working more hours a week than most of the other 80% (sometimes there's a sad case where someone that isn't very competent either manages to hold onto their job by producing enough work -- but working twice as many hours as others to do so, or who works so hard that softhearted managers can't bring themselves to fire them at the first opportunity).
If you think working 80 hours a week will get you in that top 20%, you ARE dumb.
Competent programmers have more than 2x the productivity of the average ones, and GOOD programmers have 10x more productivity than average. They can easily get into the top 20% productivity group by working only 40 hours a week and still make a difference, at the same time out-producing those average programmers working 80 hours a week, and keeping themselves fresh to handle any emergencies.
If you need to work 80 hours a week on a regular basis, you just proved yourself to be an average programmer, at best.
Do Not Track was silly, being opt-in and so on. And, surprise surprise, advertisers backed out when it started getting turned on by default. Now a fire is lit under their hindquarters since Firefox and Safari (and hopefully others) will simply do away with third party cookie support altogether. Taking away an advertiser's tracking tools is the best way to fight.
Exactly. This is no different than the police handing out "Do Not Rob" stickers to tourists, imagining that if few enough people put it on, then the thieves would spare those in return for the police focusing less effort to catch them. Anyone with half a brain will realize every tourist will put on the stickers, thus immediately making it totally pointless.
over and over you see in the tech industry these guys who work in fucking garages and could never make it through these bullshit processes, people like Woz, Jobs, Gates, Brin, Page, etc. none of those people would have been hired if they went through this shit.
I have said it before and will say it again, most companies have NO INTEREST in hiring entrepreneurs like Jobs or Brin, and that includes Google. Google already have Brin and Page, they don't need more Brins or Pages. They (including Google) just want more cogs for their wheels to churn out profit.
Start your own fucking company. These corporate douches can all eat shit.
Exactly, if you are the next Jobs (for real), go start your company and don't bother with getting hired.
Innovation sometimes leads to a dead end. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
Perhaps some saner managers would try out these "innovations" on a smaller scale and measure its results first, rather than applying them across the board for years before starting to look at the results and finally see it has *zero* value?
Next, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person with shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or stick-on contracts?
If no, that means the first person really didn't own it 100%, as there is a restriction on how the way he can or cannot sell it.
The "logical impossibility" only occurs when you twist the definition of ownership to include the ability to do things such as impose stick-on contracts when selling something. The original poster is applying 100% to a different set of attributes than you are.
While having a complex and twisted definition of ownership certainly creates lots of business for the legal profession, it is far from clear that it is beneficial to society as a whole. Judging from the current US legal system, very few legal professional have error lost any sleep thinking about this issue.
The only thing "twisted" here is the GP's desire to have something guaranteed for himself (100% ownership, do anything he likes with things he bought) while denying the same guarantee to others. "Ownership" included the right to transfer such ownership, by 100% unlimited ownership would include the ability to sell partial ownership to others.
This is the same debate of GPL vs BSD. BSD license provided 100% freedom, including the freedom to restrict others' freedom, while GPL restricted your freedom to restrict others' freedom, to ensure every derivative is equally free.
I am surprised this would need to be explained here in /.
If I am making a purchase as a private person (ie: not a business), whatever I've bought is mine. I own it 100%, it's my goddamn property and I will do whatever I fucking want with it (within written law of course)
No amount of shrinkwrap, ckickwrap, stick-on contracts, implied or non-negotiated "agreements" can change that. Contracts, usage policies and EULAs in which you had no bargaining or direct input are automatically null and void.
So, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person? I presume yes.
Next, can a private person, having bought something, thus owning it 100%, now sell that thing to another private person with shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or stick-on contracts?
If no, that means the first person really didn't own it 100%, as there is a restriction on how the way he can or cannot sell it.
If yes, then business can sell you shrinkwrap licenses by selling through a private person as an intermediary. Thus you can never mandate every sale as buyer owning 100%.
What you are asking for is a logical impossibility.
The reasoning goes back to old law which is based on the idea that when you mail a letter, you have no expectation of privacy regarding with respect to the outside of the envelope
Which, by itself, is already a crazy idea in a supposedly "civilized" world.
When I mail a letter, I expect only the staff of the post office can read the outside of the envelope for the purpose of delivering the letter, until it reach the mailbox of the recipient. After which only authorized persons (with the mailbox key) will be able to retrieve.
There are LOTS of privacy expectation on the outside of the envelope already, namely:
1. I expect no one but post office staff can read it, and only for the purpose of delivering the mail (i.e. no data mining, no retention of this data, no sending it to FBI/NSA)
2. To spell it out, I don't expect the general public, non-delivery post office staff, the post office manager, nor people touring the post office, etc, to be able to read the outside of the envelope during transit
3. I don't expect people to stand behind the postman while he puts the mail into the target mailbox. Nor do I expect the postman to read the "from" address intentionally unless the "to" address is wrong
4. I don't expect anyone can open and go through the mailbox, even without opening any envelopes.
How does my purchase reflect *me* as the target audience? It doesn't. To put some context on this: even though I've spent WAY more time playing Civilization V, I only purchased it once, versus the many, many purchases I've spent LESS time playing on my phone. Using your logic this would make me more of a "mobile gamer" than a "PC gamer", but the opposite is actually true.
Look, to a game seller, how much money you spent of his game is way more important than how much time you spent on it.
Classifying you as a "mobile gamer" based on your purchase is the only relevant way from the POV of the industry. No game company cared how much time you spent of a game after you have paid for it.
For a mandatory car analogy - a rich guy bought 20 Ferraris but only drove them once in a while, spent most of his road time in a Benz instead. Another rich guy bought 20 Benz and only 1 Ferrari and drove the Ferrari all the time. Guess which one is more of a "Ferrari driver" and which one is a "Benz driver" for Ferrari and Benz?
Today. If this takes hold, others will follow ( or even be mandated by law ) and then you won't have any choice.
And today, if you stopped buying iPhone, others will follow, and then Apple won't have any iPhone sales anymore.
See how ridiculous you sound?
Eh? After 38[1] 2-week sprints developing an accounting package the bean-counting dunderheads tell you it needs to support multiple currencies. Are you saying that's early?
[1] Including 17 that were about changing the colour to get more RAM.
That is neither "early" nor "late". You estimate the effort required, break down the stories into manageable small chunks, then let the dunderheads priorities the stories, and then off you go to the next sprint.
It may take 10, or 20, or 50 more sprints to have all the multi-currency requirements completed, but does it matter if it was the 3rd sprint, the 38th sprint or the 380th sprint? If it does, you are doing waterfall. For agile projects, it shouldn't matter. If the dunderheads aren't willing to pay for the additional stories, that's another problem entirely.
Yes, if they had included multi-currency at the 1st sprint, then you won't have a stories worth 10/20/50 sprints to do at the 38th sprint, but you just had those same amount of effort spread throughout you other stories, which would result in similar total effort anyway.
Or are you going to say your codebase was already a mess by the 38th sprint, when everyone was hope the project would finish so they don't have to deal with the accumulated technical debt? If you are going to say that, you already spotted the problem, and that is not with doing agile.
In all the years I've been building computers I can name only twice where I ever had the opportunity to upgrade; once with an old 466 when I went from a DX2-50 to a DX4-100; another time when I upgraded a K6-2 333 to a K6-2 500. Most of the time when it came time to "upgrade" there had been so many changes to the bus types, socket types, memory types, etc... it was just easier to start over from scratch than try to pick an upgrade from a narrow list of parts which often cost a fortune, while often only giving a moderate speed boost, because they were now considered "specialty" equipment for an obsolete architecture.
Granted, there are people who will insist that they've been able to upgrade their systems multiple times - but I'm not talking about those compulsive types who need the newest graphics card every other week. Most people I've talked to will buy a machine and keep it for 2-4 years before thinking its time buy a new one, by then everything has changed and the existing machine is mostly obsolete and so they have to start new.
Same here, and my first PC was an XT. So it is like in some 25+ years of owning and building my own PC, I can count the times I have upgraded one (after initially building it) in one hand.
And the most recent one was like 5 years ago, and that's only because it was a big hassle to re-install everything if I bought a new PC (which is a non-issue with a Mac), so I bought a new video card instead even though I could well afford a new PC with better everything.
But we do want, insist actually, on root access for devices we own.
Then don't buy iPhones. It is that simple. Really.