I interpret "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as being something that might have been said by Karl Marx. The original article doesn't really go into the context of the court case, but it is intereting that this came from Texas which conjures up images of rugged individualism.
The flaw in your logic is that the H1B visa has hard time leaving for another job. The biggest hurdle is that if an H1B visa holder changes job, he has to restart to long and drawn out process for getting a green card. That means that the visa holder cannot participate in the job market, so if he is underpaid or overworked or whatever he cannot change jobs as easily as a citizen. This, of course, distorts the labor market both for the H1B visa holder and for citizens.
If you are going to argue for free markets, H1B visas should not be used as an example of markets working.
I saw this report and blogged about it yesterday (shameless plus: click on the link in my sig to read it). Basically my opinion is that if Verizon gets the iPhone then this could kill Android.
Funny you should say that, because I was just thinking today that the company I work for (big multinational) has about 4000 people in the Information Technology group, but it seems like only about 40 actually do any coding. The rest of us are architects, business analysts, testers, project managers, etc, who tell the 40 how to do their job.
Maybe 40 is an exaggeration but it isn't off by much!
Seems like the article focuses on the interface layer (hence the name "The State of Mapping API's). However, I think the hard work is the collection of the underlying map data. One of the more interesting projects is the OpenStreetMap project where map data is crowdsourced.
I think it is a fine line. On the one hand, you want to teach something that is useful for the students, regardless of where they end up. However, you don't want it to be too specific as to make what they learn obsolete in 5 years.
Personally, I think there are two directions you can go. First, you use a pre-CS syllabus where you teach programming basics like bits and bytes. Second way is that you can use a syllabus where you stress computers for non-CS people which might include the Internet, file systems, etc.
I think the general syllabus that they have chosen with stressing free and open source products really doesn't accomplish either of these goals. If you are aiming for the pre-CS philosophy, the basics are technology-agnostic and it should stress theory over specific platforms at least at the begining.
If you are aiming for a general computer awareness type of class, then while open source is all good, it unfortunately doesn't apply to 99.9% of the real world. If anything, the class should be more a survey of the existing tools. For instance, if there is a section on using browsers to access the internet, then the class should touch upon all of the existing ones, maybe pointing out pros and cons, with the acknowledgement that Internet Explorer is, for better or worse, the dominant browser. Not even touching upon non-open source products which happen to be prevalent creates a serious blind spot on the student's education. It is akin to not even mentioning evolution in biology because of religious biases.
Now some of the open source people might grouse at this suggestion. However, if you are looking to gain mind-share, isn't it better to do so by comparing open source to non-open source and let the chips fall where they may, rather than by just ignoring the non-open source and hope that they go away?
Startups seem to be good at coming up with new and groundbreaking ideas because they are not constrained by corporate bureaucracy, internal politics, etc. In addition, existing companies often have a "cash cow" that brings in tons of money, so there is some complacency there. A startup is a sink-or-swim type of endevor that fosters creativity out of sheer despiration to succeed.
What Startups don't necessarily have is the Infrastructure to take a good idea to market. Big companies have manufacturing plants, sales and martketing departments, access to capital, brand recognition, and all of the little details to make money from a good idea.
So what ends up happening is that Startups that come up with truly good ideas end up being bought by big companies who can take the idea and make money from it. This makes sense for the big company. Rather than the big company spending its own money on fleshing out 1000 ideas, out of which only 10 or so might end up being moneymakers, they let the startups take the risk and once it becomes clear which startups have promise, then they spend their money.
It used to be that big companies have their own R&D departments where ideas could be incubated internally (PARC, Bell Labs, etc). However, that sort of thing seems to have fallen out of favor as large companies have become more risk averse.
As someone who owns an Android phone AND a dedicated GPS, perhaps I can inject something into this conversation:
Another consideration is how well it will hold up under the elements. Even the cheapest Garmin eTrex (which I own BTW) is pretty rugged. I wouldn't trust my Android smartphone out in the woods in the rain, mud, etc. Some other pluses of going the dedicated route:
- Battery life is better on the dedicated GPS, and when it does run down, it takes standard AA's.
- The dedicated GPS seems to have a better "time to first fix" than my Android phone, but that just might be because of the specific model. However, if your one purpose is to do GPS, it makes sense that you would do it better than a multipurpose device.
I do think it would be cool if there was a dedicated GPS that took pictures too. You could use the GPS to geotag the picture and have it as an icon for a waypoint to help remind you what that waypoint is.
Not sure what you mean by "abusive place to work". I know a couple people who work for, or have worked for, Microsoft in various capacities, but so I have some insight into what it is like there.
My college roomate worked for them for a number of years out at the Redmond home office as a developer. This was back in the 90's, so things might have changed. He said that although the workload was sometimes heavy, especially near the time of a release, most of their policies were very developer friendly.
Every developer had their own office, even the junior level ones. That way, you don't have the distractions that you would get in a standard cube farm. You could pretty much set your own hours, including working at home if you wanted to. My friend was a night owl, so he would go into the office around noon, stay till five, leave for a few hours to eat and recreate, and then he might go back to the office around 9 or 10 and work past midnight. Not many places give you that type of freedom. If you needed some piece of hardware or software, you got it. My friend had like 4 or 5 PC's in his office to test the software on various versions of Windows. He even had a Mac (!) to test the Mac version.
As far as work environment goes, MS bent over backwards to keep people happy. The department had a "morale" budget that was used for outings to the movies, to set up a LAN for gaming, and other stuff that the team wanted. And of course you had your free beverages and snacks available to you. Not to mention, the Redmond campus is just gorgeous. It had the feel of a college campus with its expansive greens and pristine buildings. There were even folks taking a break playing ultimate frisbee on one of the lawns. And of course, you got all of the usual benefits: health care, 401(k), employee discounts on software. Then there are those stock options that everyone talks about. Back in the 90's when the stock was on the rise, those options were worth more than your salary in some cases.
That's not to say that everything was all wine and roses there. As I mentioned he did work some long hours at times because there is a lot of pressure to "ship" products. However, I never heard of him refer to anything there as being abusive. He was well compensated for his hard work, and he had a lot of freedom and a lot of fun there, too.
It is interesting that Google did not make the list. Google is always held up as being the best company to work for, if you believe geek lore. They are the pinnacle of the "nerf guns in the office" culture that was heralded in by the dotcom bubble. However, there are nowhere to be found...
Either something is wrong with that survey, or Google isn't as good as advertised.
I also don't see Microsoft on the list. Love em or hate em, they are also considered to be a top geek employer. I guess it might be because those stock options aren't as great as they used to be.
You obviously don't believe in the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Code might _appear_ ugly because of all of the special cases that have been discovered and fixed over the code's lifetime. If you rewrite the code, you might forget (or not be aware of) some of those corner cases, and then you run the risk of ending up with an elegant program that doesn't work!
That being said, you may reach a point where a rewrite is in order but you shouldn't go rewriting code just to satisfy your own personal aesthetic.
I read the article that you linked to, and I was a little bit disappointed. For the most part, the links do not try to prove that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. Most of the links try to disprove the counter arguments to this proposition, which is a very different thing.
Also, I found the link to have a serious bias. As an example, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11646 argues that the "hocket stick" graph showing how current temps are greater in the recent past than over the past 1000 years is accurate. However, on the other hand, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11647 states that accurately measuring temperatures that occured over 150 years ago involves a fair amount of guesswork and assumptions. I interpret the above as meaning that the validity of the data is directly correlated to how well it bolsters your position, which seems very unscientific to me.
Like I said, I am not opposed to the notion of global warming being caused by CO2 emissions. However, I am naturally a skeptic by nature, and I do not like to take these things on face value, especially when the ramification of these assertions can have far reaching consequences on society. If we are going to spend X number of dollars to readjust our lives to reduce emissions, then we better be certain that the science is valid.
In addition to being a skeptic, I am also anti-political. So far, I see a lot of political agendas attached to BOTH SIDES of the argument, so that is one reason that I am skeptical. Anytime anyone has a political agenda, you have to be very careful before you give them carte blanche.
It looks like they are upgrading their internal network to fiber optic to handle the increased bandwidth. However, they are relying on copper wire to deliver the service into the home. That would suggest that this might be a bottleneck, although that is just conjecture on my part.
In my area, Verizon is offering their FiOS TV/Internet/phone service. If you subscribe, they upgrade all of the phone wiring in your home to fiber optic cable. Because the network is 100% fiber, I would imagine that FiOS would have more bandwidth available for all of these services.
Verizon is really pushing FiOS here. Just last week I had a Verizon rep ring my door to tell me that they are in the area, and if I would like to upgrade. I am a happy DirecTV customer, so I really have no desire to switch to them for TV. However, the Internet service is supposed to blow anything else out of the water in terms of speed, so I MIGHT consider it in the future, if I find that I am outgrowing my DSL service.
Actually what you describe seems to happen quite a bit already. Companies often demand "tax credits" and other favorable conditions in order to remain in, or move to, a particular location. Local leaders often justify these concessions by saying that luring a keeping a particular company in the area means more jobs, stronger economy etc.
One example here in NJ is what are called "enterprise zones". The state will lower the sales tax in certain areas (usually urban areas) in order to entice retail business to set up shop there. The rationale is the a retail business will benefit because shoppers will be enticed to shop in these areas due to the lower tax.
Here is the thing that I don't understand... It is a fact that our global climate is getting warmer (melting of polar ice, etc). It is also a fact that CO2 emissions have been rising for years. However, it is unclear to me whether or not the two things are actually related...
Before you jump on me for being a Bush-loving conservative or whatever, first hear me out... I acknoledge that it is certainly possible that the increased CO2 is causing climate changes. However, I also am aware that our global climate goes through various warming and cooling cycles, and these cycles have been going on since before the dawn of man. Therefore, it is certainly possible that the current warming trend is the result of these NATURAL climate cycles.
I think the problem with the whole global warming "debate" (and I use the term debate extremely loosely) is that the level of actual scientific discourse has devolved into personal attacks along ideological lines. On the one side, you have folks who believe that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is a "head in the sand" conservative who doesn't believe in science. On the other side, you have the global warming skeptics who think that the other side are a bunch of "the sky is falling" environmentalist commie wackos. Unfortunately, I think the truth probably lies in the middle but the discussion is so polarized that nothing positive comes out of it.
My feeling is that I believe that it is certainly POSSIBLE that global warming is the result of CO2 emissions. However, nobody has stepped forward with definitive evidence to show me that there is a link between warming and CO2 emissions. If there are opportunities to reduce our emissions without incurring a high price, then I am all for it. However, if we are going to pursue a policy of zero emissions no matter what the cost, then we ought to be very darn sure that we are getting our money's worth.
First, the current high gas prices are almost exclusively due to lack of refinery capacity, and the oil companies have a major disincentive in increasing it. You see, by investing money in refinery capacity and increasing supply they'd be expected to "reduce" prices. What idiot would spend money to make less?
The fallacy in your argument is you are equating "price" to "revenue". In simplified terms, revenue = price TIMES quantity sold. So if an oil company increased their refining capacity, they would be able to increase the amount of gas their could sell, so even if they were selling it at a lower price (due to higher supply), they MIGHT actually make more money! Also, the cost of increasing capacity is a one-time cost, while the increased capacity would continue indefinitely.
As far as your suggestion that we all drive Priuses or whatever in order to become "energy independent", you are way off base here. I define "energy independent" as not using any petroleum-based fuels. Although Priuses are more fuel efficient, as far as I know, they still use petroleum which is a non-renewable resource that must be imported. To achieve true "energy independence", you must look at alternative, renewable energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells, electric recharged with solar or wind energy, etc. Otherwise we are just time-shifting the issue.
I have to disagree with you here. If somebody says they left because they had a "disagreement with management" WITHOUT QUALIFYING IT FURTHER, then I would be very hesitant to hire that person. Obviously, there are some disagreements which would justify leaving a company, and what you described would qualify. Certainly, if a candidate told me the story that you told in your post, then I would not question their decision.
On the other hand, if somebody just said that they had a disagreement and left it at that, then I would wonder what they were trying to hide.
Some advice for the Jericho fans... Move on. Go to the library. Read. Learn to think. Stop following the fashion crowd. Get an education. Get a life.
Chill out, buddy. Now if you want to watch Guy Smiley or whatever on PBS, then more power to you. If so called "commercial TV" is not to your liking, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion since it is your life after all. However, there is no reason to get all in all worked up about other people's choices in entertainment.
Sure you say you don't like American Idol or Survivor or whatever, but does its existence somehow diminish your life in any way? After all, if you are not tuning in, then it would seem as if those shows should have no impact on your happiness or lack thereof. Personally, I am not a big fan of American Idol either, so its existence is totally irrelevant to me. If people want to watch it, then that's their perogative, and who am I to tell others what they should and shouldn't like. Nobody appointed me the arbiter of taste, and nobody has appointed you to that position either.
For the record I did watch Jericho, and yes it did have its lame moments. However, the thing that I did like about it is that it got you to think about what the world would be like if a nuclear holocaust were to occur. Could it have been more gritty and realistic? Sure it could of. Did it spend a disproportional amount on soap opera-y stuff? Possibly, yes. However, I think that one thing that it did was it provided some food for thought about how normal people might react to a disaster.
Without the pressure that a stable society exerts, the true natures of the characters came through. Some people rose to the ocassion and banded together in order to maintain a certain semblance of community and society. Others, freed from the constraints of society, ended up descending into a more barbaric existence. I have never been in a disaster situation, but you always here about some people who do whatever it takes to help their fellow man, while others take advantage of the situation for their own profit. I think the show portrayed that quite well, although it was peppered with a lot of ancillary storylines which sometimes detracted from the show. However, that is the nature of art. Sometimes you just have to take away what you can from it and just ignore the rest.
So anyway, I will end this post by throwing your challenge to "learn to think" back in your face. Rather than just blindly discarding "98%" or commercial TV as being useless or whatever, why not keep your eyes open for opportunities for learning and thinking in places were you never thought to look because you were too close minded.
Is the offer from your manager an official agreement in writing? Or is it along the lines of "hey if you quit now, I'll see what I can do for you..." From the way the original poster described it, it sounded more like the latter. Call me a cynic, but I would seriously doubt that your manager is going to try very hard to waive the relocation clause.
I know you say it sucks there and all (I've lived in upstate NY state so I know all about it!), but it is MUCH easier to find another job when you already have one. I know from experience since I have tried to look for a job both when I've had a job and when I have been unemployed. When you have don't have a job, prospective employers are more likely to screw you over, because they know you are in a desperate situation. And even if they don't hold it against you, you might take a job you might normally wouldn't out of desperation.
The worst job I ever took was one that I found during a bout of unemployment. Even though the job was terrible, I stayed there while I searched for a better job. I certainly did not regret that decision in the least...
Yes, of course, I agree that this compensation structure isn't "fair". I was just pointing out that quitting on 4/1 not rational when you can work an extra two weeks and get a big windfall.
Actually, the way to minimize the amount of time you work without a bonus would be to quit on 4/16 WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE. That way, you would only be working for 2 weeks without a bonus. Someone might say that this isn't "professional" since you aren't giving notice. However, personally, I have this rule that if you want me to work for you, you have to pay me a fair salary. I am not going to stick around if you plan on "stiffing" me.
Slashdot Mirror
I interpret "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as being something that might have been said by Karl Marx. The original article doesn't really go into the context of the court case, but it is intereting that this came from Texas which conjures up images of rugged individualism.
The flaw in your logic is that the H1B visa has hard time leaving for another job. The biggest hurdle is that if an H1B visa holder changes job, he has to restart to long and drawn out process for getting a green card. That means that the visa holder cannot participate in the job market, so if he is underpaid or overworked or whatever he cannot change jobs as easily as a citizen. This, of course, distorts the labor market both for the H1B visa holder and for citizens.
If you are going to argue for free markets, H1B visas should not be used as an example of markets working.
I saw this report and blogged about it yesterday (shameless plus: click on the link in my sig to read it). Basically my opinion is that if Verizon gets the iPhone then this could kill Android.
I never had wisdom teeth so I guess I am out of luck, too. Funny thing is that I never had any wisdom either, so go figure.
When they catch the people who did this, they should be forced to listen to those vuvuzelas at high volume until their ears bleed. That'll teach 'em.
They copied this idea from _Law and Order_.
Funny you should say that, because I was just thinking today that the company I work for (big multinational) has about 4000 people in the Information Technology group, but it seems like only about 40 actually do any coding. The rest of us are architects, business analysts, testers, project managers, etc, who tell the 40 how to do their job.
Maybe 40 is an exaggeration but it isn't off by much!
Seems like the article focuses on the interface layer (hence the name "The State of Mapping API's). However, I think the hard work is the collection of the underlying map data. One of the more interesting projects is the OpenStreetMap project where map data is crowdsourced.
I think it is a fine line. On the one hand, you want to teach something that is useful for the students, regardless of where they end up. However, you don't want it to be too specific as to make what they learn obsolete in 5 years.
Personally, I think there are two directions you can go. First, you use a pre-CS syllabus where you teach programming basics like bits and bytes. Second way is that you can use a syllabus where you stress computers for non-CS people which might include the Internet, file systems, etc.
I think the general syllabus that they have chosen with stressing free and open source products really doesn't accomplish either of these goals. If you are aiming for the pre-CS philosophy, the basics are technology-agnostic and it should stress theory over specific platforms at least at the begining.
If you are aiming for a general computer awareness type of class, then while open source is all good, it unfortunately doesn't apply to 99.9% of the real world. If anything, the class should be more a survey of the existing tools. For instance, if there is a section on using browsers to access the internet, then the class should touch upon all of the existing ones, maybe pointing out pros and cons, with the acknowledgement that Internet Explorer is, for better or worse, the dominant browser. Not even touching upon non-open source products which happen to be prevalent creates a serious blind spot on the student's education. It is akin to not even mentioning evolution in biology because of religious biases.
Now some of the open source people might grouse at this suggestion. However, if you are looking to gain mind-share, isn't it better to do so by comparing open source to non-open source and let the chips fall where they may, rather than by just ignoring the non-open source and hope that they go away?
There can only be one...
Who is more scientifically accurate, Joan Rivers or Dick Clark?
Ideas + Infrastructure = Profit
Startups seem to be good at coming up with new and groundbreaking ideas because they are not constrained by corporate bureaucracy, internal politics, etc. In addition, existing companies often have a "cash cow" that brings in tons of money, so there is some complacency there. A startup is a sink-or-swim type of endevor that fosters creativity out of sheer despiration to succeed.
What Startups don't necessarily have is the Infrastructure to take a good idea to market. Big companies have manufacturing plants, sales and martketing departments, access to capital, brand recognition, and all of the little details to make money from a good idea.
So what ends up happening is that Startups that come up with truly good ideas end up being bought by big companies who can take the idea and make money from it. This makes sense for the big company. Rather than the big company spending its own money on fleshing out 1000 ideas, out of which only 10 or so might end up being moneymakers, they let the startups take the risk and once it becomes clear which startups have promise, then they spend their money.
It used to be that big companies have their own R&D departments where ideas could be incubated internally (PARC, Bell Labs, etc). However, that sort of thing seems to have fallen out of favor as large companies have become more risk averse.
As someone who owns an Android phone AND a dedicated GPS, perhaps I can inject something into this conversation:
Another consideration is how well it will hold up under the elements. Even the cheapest Garmin eTrex (which I own BTW) is pretty rugged. I wouldn't trust my Android smartphone out in the woods in the rain, mud, etc. Some other pluses of going the dedicated route:
- Battery life is better on the dedicated GPS, and when it does run down, it takes standard AA's.
- The dedicated GPS seems to have a better "time to first fix" than my Android phone, but that just might be because of the specific model. However, if your one purpose is to do GPS, it makes sense that you would do it better than a multipurpose device.
I do think it would be cool if there was a dedicated GPS that took pictures too. You could use the GPS to geotag the picture and have it as an icon for a waypoint to help remind you what that waypoint is.
Not sure what you mean by "abusive place to work". I know a couple people who work for, or have worked for, Microsoft in various capacities, but so I have some insight into what it is like there.
My college roomate worked for them for a number of years out at the Redmond home office as a developer. This was back in the 90's, so things might have changed. He said that although the workload was sometimes heavy, especially near the time of a release, most of their policies were very developer friendly.
Every developer had their own office, even the junior level ones. That way, you don't have the distractions that you would get in a standard cube farm. You could pretty much set your own hours, including working at home if you wanted to. My friend was a night owl, so he would go into the office around noon, stay till five, leave for a few hours to eat and recreate, and then he might go back to the office around 9 or 10 and work past midnight. Not many places give you that type of freedom. If you needed some piece of hardware or software, you got it. My friend had like 4 or 5 PC's in his office to test the software on various versions of Windows. He even had a Mac (!) to test the Mac version.
As far as work environment goes, MS bent over backwards to keep people happy. The department had a "morale" budget that was used for outings to the movies, to set up a LAN for gaming, and other stuff that the team wanted. And of course you had your free beverages and snacks available to you. Not to mention, the Redmond campus is just gorgeous. It had the feel of a college campus with its expansive greens and pristine buildings. There were even folks taking a break playing ultimate frisbee on one of the lawns. And of course, you got all of the usual benefits: health care, 401(k), employee discounts on software. Then there are those stock options that everyone talks about. Back in the 90's when the stock was on the rise, those options were worth more than your salary in some cases.
That's not to say that everything was all wine and roses there. As I mentioned he did work some long hours at times because there is a lot of pressure to "ship" products. However, I never heard of him refer to anything there as being abusive. He was well compensated for his hard work, and he had a lot of freedom and a lot of fun there, too.
It is interesting that Google did not make the list. Google is always held up as being the best company to work for, if you believe geek lore. They are the pinnacle of the "nerf guns in the office" culture that was heralded in by the dotcom bubble. However, there are nowhere to be found...
Either something is wrong with that survey, or Google isn't as good as advertised.
I also don't see Microsoft on the list. Love em or hate em, they are also considered to be a top geek employer. I guess it might be because those stock options aren't as great as they used to be.
You obviously don't believe in the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Code might _appear_ ugly because of all of the special cases that have been discovered and fixed over the code's lifetime. If you rewrite the code, you might forget (or not be aware of) some of those corner cases, and then you run the risk of ending up with an elegant program that doesn't work!
That being said, you may reach a point where a rewrite is in order but you shouldn't go rewriting code just to satisfy your own personal aesthetic.
I read the article that you linked to, and I was a little bit disappointed. For the most part, the links do not try to prove that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. Most of the links try to disprove the counter arguments to this proposition, which is a very different thing.
/ climate-change/dn11646 argues that the "hocket stick" graph showing how current temps are greater in the recent past than over the past 1000 years is accurate. However, on the other hand, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11647 states that accurately measuring temperatures that occured over 150 years ago involves a fair amount of guesswork and assumptions. I interpret the above as meaning that the validity of the data is directly correlated to how well it bolsters your position, which seems very unscientific to me.
Also, I found the link to have a serious bias. As an example, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth
Like I said, I am not opposed to the notion of global warming being caused by CO2 emissions. However, I am naturally a skeptic by nature, and I do not like to take these things on face value, especially when the ramification of these assertions can have far reaching consequences on society. If we are going to spend X number of dollars to readjust our lives to reduce emissions, then we better be certain that the science is valid.
In addition to being a skeptic, I am also anti-political. So far, I see a lot of political agendas attached to BOTH SIDES of the argument, so that is one reason that I am skeptical. Anytime anyone has a political agenda, you have to be very careful before you give them carte blanche.
Here is another article that has some more technical details:
a g=nl
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6020423.html?t
It looks like they are upgrading their internal network to fiber optic to handle the increased bandwidth. However, they are relying on copper wire to deliver the service into the home. That would suggest that this might be a bottleneck, although that is just conjecture on my part.
In my area, Verizon is offering their FiOS TV/Internet/phone service. If you subscribe, they upgrade all of the phone wiring in your home to fiber optic cable. Because the network is 100% fiber, I would imagine that FiOS would have more bandwidth available for all of these services.
Verizon is really pushing FiOS here. Just last week I had a Verizon rep ring my door to tell me that they are in the area, and if I would like to upgrade. I am a happy DirecTV customer, so I really have no desire to switch to them for TV. However, the Internet service is supposed to blow anything else out of the water in terms of speed, so I MIGHT consider it in the future, if I find that I am outgrowing my DSL service.
Actually what you describe seems to happen quite a bit already. Companies often demand "tax credits" and other favorable conditions in order to remain in, or move to, a particular location. Local leaders often justify these concessions by saying that luring a keeping a particular company in the area means more jobs, stronger economy etc.
One example here in NJ is what are called "enterprise zones". The state will lower the sales tax in certain areas (usually urban areas) in order to entice retail business to set up shop there. The rationale is the a retail business will benefit because shoppers will be enticed to shop in these areas due to the lower tax.
Here is the thing that I don't understand... It is a fact that our global climate is getting warmer (melting of polar ice, etc). It is also a fact that CO2 emissions have been rising for years. However, it is unclear to me whether or not the two things are actually related...
Before you jump on me for being a Bush-loving conservative or whatever, first hear me out... I acknoledge that it is certainly possible that the increased CO2 is causing climate changes. However, I also am aware that our global climate goes through various warming and cooling cycles, and these cycles have been going on since before the dawn of man. Therefore, it is certainly possible that the current warming trend is the result of these NATURAL climate cycles.
I think the problem with the whole global warming "debate" (and I use the term debate extremely loosely) is that the level of actual scientific discourse has devolved into personal attacks along ideological lines. On the one side, you have folks who believe that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is a "head in the sand" conservative who doesn't believe in science. On the other side, you have the global warming skeptics who think that the other side are a bunch of "the sky is falling" environmentalist commie wackos. Unfortunately, I think the truth probably lies in the middle but the discussion is so polarized that nothing positive comes out of it.
My feeling is that I believe that it is certainly POSSIBLE that global warming is the result of CO2 emissions. However, nobody has stepped forward with definitive evidence to show me that there is a link between warming and CO2 emissions. If there are opportunities to reduce our emissions without incurring a high price, then I am all for it. However, if we are going to pursue a policy of zero emissions no matter what the cost, then we ought to be very darn sure that we are getting our money's worth.
First, the current high gas prices are almost exclusively due to lack of refinery capacity, and the oil companies have a major disincentive in increasing it. You see, by investing money in refinery capacity and increasing supply they'd be expected to "reduce" prices. What idiot would spend money to make less?
The fallacy in your argument is you are equating "price" to "revenue". In simplified terms, revenue = price TIMES quantity sold. So if an oil company increased their refining capacity, they would be able to increase the amount of gas their could sell, so even if they were selling it at a lower price (due to higher supply), they MIGHT actually make more money! Also, the cost of increasing capacity is a one-time cost, while the increased capacity would continue indefinitely.
As far as your suggestion that we all drive Priuses or whatever in order to become "energy independent", you are way off base here. I define "energy independent" as not using any petroleum-based fuels. Although Priuses are more fuel efficient, as far as I know, they still use petroleum which is a non-renewable resource that must be imported. To achieve true "energy independence", you must look at alternative, renewable energy sources like hydrogen fuel cells, electric recharged with solar or wind energy, etc. Otherwise we are just time-shifting the issue.
I have to disagree with you here. If somebody says they left because they had a "disagreement with management" WITHOUT QUALIFYING IT FURTHER, then I would be very hesitant to hire that person. Obviously, there are some disagreements which would justify leaving a company, and what you described would qualify. Certainly, if a candidate told me the story that you told in your post, then I would not question their decision.
On the other hand, if somebody just said that they had a disagreement and left it at that, then I would wonder what they were trying to hide.
Some advice for the Jericho fans... Move on. Go to the library. Read. Learn to think. Stop following the fashion crowd. Get an education. Get a life.
Chill out, buddy. Now if you want to watch Guy Smiley or whatever on PBS, then more power to you. If so called "commercial TV" is not to your liking, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion since it is your life after all. However, there is no reason to get all in all worked up about other people's choices in entertainment.
Sure you say you don't like American Idol or Survivor or whatever, but does its existence somehow diminish your life in any way? After all, if you are not tuning in, then it would seem as if those shows should have no impact on your happiness or lack thereof. Personally, I am not a big fan of American Idol either, so its existence is totally irrelevant to me. If people want to watch it, then that's their perogative, and who am I to tell others what they should and shouldn't like. Nobody appointed me the arbiter of taste, and nobody has appointed you to that position either.
For the record I did watch Jericho, and yes it did have its lame moments. However, the thing that I did like about it is that it got you to think about what the world would be like if a nuclear holocaust were to occur. Could it have been more gritty and realistic? Sure it could of. Did it spend a disproportional amount on soap opera-y stuff? Possibly, yes. However, I think that one thing that it did was it provided some food for thought about how normal people might react to a disaster.
Without the pressure that a stable society exerts, the true natures of the characters came through. Some people rose to the ocassion and banded together in order to maintain a certain semblance of community and society. Others, freed from the constraints of society, ended up descending into a more barbaric existence. I have never been in a disaster situation, but you always here about some people who do whatever it takes to help their fellow man, while others take advantage of the situation for their own profit. I think the show portrayed that quite well, although it was peppered with a lot of ancillary storylines which sometimes detracted from the show. However, that is the nature of art. Sometimes you just have to take away what you can from it and just ignore the rest.
So anyway, I will end this post by throwing your challenge to "learn to think" back in your face. Rather than just blindly discarding "98%" or commercial TV as being useless or whatever, why not keep your eyes open for opportunities for learning and thinking in places were you never thought to look because you were too close minded.
Is the offer from your manager an official agreement in writing? Or is it along the lines of "hey if you quit now, I'll see what I can do for you..." From the way the original poster described it, it sounded more like the latter. Call me a cynic, but I would seriously doubt that your manager is going to try very hard to waive the relocation clause.
I know you say it sucks there and all (I've lived in upstate NY state so I know all about it!), but it is MUCH easier to find another job when you already have one. I know from experience since I have tried to look for a job both when I've had a job and when I have been unemployed. When you have don't have a job, prospective employers are more likely to screw you over, because they know you are in a desperate situation. And even if they don't hold it against you, you might take a job you might normally wouldn't out of desperation.
The worst job I ever took was one that I found during a bout of unemployment. Even though the job was terrible, I stayed there while I searched for a better job. I certainly did not regret that decision in the least...
Yes, of course, I agree that this compensation structure isn't "fair". I was just pointing out that quitting on 4/1 not rational when you can work an extra two weeks and get a big windfall.
Actually, the way to minimize the amount of time you work without a bonus would be to quit on 4/16 WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE. That way, you would only be working for 2 weeks without a bonus. Someone might say that this isn't "professional" since you aren't giving notice. However, personally, I have this rule that if you want me to work for you, you have to pay me a fair salary. I am not going to stick around if you plan on "stiffing" me.