This is a failure of current DRM schemes, not DRM in general. It would be easy enough to design DRM so that the DRM no longer applies after a certain date.
And since there are no laws requiring this, why would they ever build it?
He would be able to give $10,000 to exactly 100 people (all before taxes of course). After taxes, he could give approximately $6000 to 100 people, who in turn would only receive $4000 each (after taxes again). Could you go to college on $4k?
No, but I'd have $10k, which can seriously supplement tuition at a good state school or pay a newborn's tuition entirely. Gifts aren't taxed up to about $11k per person per year.
It's not inequality, it's inequality with the apparent lack of opportunity. Middle class people don't generally mug someone and take their Jag, and poor people with kids in college don't break into houses. Poor people who see drug dealing and crime as the only viable options do. College or subsidised apprenticeships would probably help this, although some of the bling culture could stand to go by the wayside.
You seem to think that an incentive is "economic" if it has anything to do with econonmics, but that's not the defining characteristic of an incentive. The defining characteristic of an incentive is what kind of reward it offers: in this case, a spiritual reward, making it a spiritual incentive.
Mainly, I'm saying that it's an economic incentive because it has value to the person making the decision. What do you consider economic - money? That's a fairly limited interpretation.
I had a coworker like that - she was Korean by blood (and cute, too) and loved Korean food. Only thing was, she was born and raised in NYC, so she didn't speak any Korean, and every time she went to a decent Korean place, the waitress just sort of assumed that she understood Korean.
Whether his faith is rational or not has no bearing. He has a value system, and supporting a company has a cost in this dimension just like choosing a good return is in the money side of things. It is an economic incentive because it affects his well being and is a decision on how to allocate a scarce good. It's not money, but economics isn't about money.
You the business are not in the business of making potential hires excited; your job is to make the best company you can, the best products, the happiest employees, the most loyal customers, etc., and people will flock to apply for employment. Google, for example.
I love when people deconstruct their own argument in the same breath they make it; Google got where it is in part from making people excited about them to the point that people would work there for less money (and nice options, I suppose). If you can't see the value in potential hires liking your workplace, then I hope your manager beats it into your head - you're doing your company a disservice.
That's not a rational economic incentive; it's an irrational moral incentive, reflecting a moral belief system[...]
That makes it a rational economic incentive - the person deciding has the belief system and, since he is not amoral, his morals receive weight in economic decisions. To do otherwise would be monstrous.
So it's more like africans disliking being called blacks.
I thought that was due to being confused with American blacks. Of course, one of the guys at my work is African, but he's also blonde and blue-eyed, so I don't think I'll be calling him black.
This must be why everyone has changed over to using the many free operating systems that support everything they need (word processing, email and web browsing for the majority of the populous).
Normal people don't install OSes. they take whatever Dell gives them, and MS says that that will be windows.
You will notice that there are very few start up software companies that survive, but those that due tend to use more standard engineering practices
It has little to do with that and a whole lot to do with producing something at a price people are willing to pay. engineering is often secondary to that.
So I guess what you are saying is that the pyramids, of egypt and central america, as well as the great wall of china, the temples of rome and all the other durable ancient structures where built the way they were because of building codes.
More or less, I was referring to houses (duh). Building codes are formalizations of things that have failed - they built a lot of crappy pyramids, and a lot of people died building the great wall of china.
I'm sure that if it weren't for building codes the Petronas Towers would have been built from match sticks and bubble gum.
Your house probably would be. Who knows, they might have done that anyway.
I know I would easily pay 5 times what I have on my current OS if someone could offer an alternative guaranteed not to crash, ever.
And so long as MS offers a $40 OS that is compatible with what you already have, noone will buy that OS, so you will pay $200,000 instead of $200.
That, even though my current OS has never crashed on me an probably never will (obviously I don't run Windows).
The tricky part comes after you turn on the computer. Everything fails.
I explained that the program was done but I had to train the users that morning so they could be operational in the afternoon. (Only about 10 people needed to use it right away.) This was dismissed with a *shout* of "Nobody is using it, therefore it is not finished!" He considered the program a failure.
At which point you reminded him that your original estimate was 60 days and that you only agreed to 30 days because they badgered you, right?
BTW, when I say "yelling" I mean it. Face red, blood pressure skyrocketing, the works.
Best response here is to smile a bit - nothing takes the steam out like finding out it's hilarious.
There was a time when people lived in ramshackle homes built out of what ever materials they could find lying around, but in time that changed to more robust building practices that worked out for the long term.
Not by choice, though: the places where people live got tired of collapsing buildings killing people and enacted building codes, which some builders follow and others ignore because paying off the inspector is cheaper. Meanwhile, a lot of people build extensions using any old crap they have lying around, as you may well discover if you by a house from someone else.
Writing software isn't like building a bridge -- there are often a fair number of incompatible but equally elegant solutions to a give problem
Also, it's really hard to duplicate a bridge. If you could build bridges like software, a 4 lane expressway would mostly involve deciding where the supports should go.
Once the user can depend on sane defaults, he'll just ignore the options that don't do what he's trying to do. That' s the downside of something that's really flexible.
That's what you get for having one monolithic tree (I assume). You may have it set up as multiple components that can compile independently, which will help performance (you can run a build cluster that continuously builds the tree) and isolate errors.
Sure it can - it will warn you that (x=0) is an assignment, but will still compile because it's legal to do that. If you get in the habit of doing the weird (0=x) convention, then it won't compile and you've eliminated one error class.
Slashdot Mirror
It is different, because Hardison's belief system has a bearing on his own ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning global warming
So what? The fact that Hardison has a clouded mind is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
This is a failure of current DRM schemes, not DRM in general. It would be easy enough to design DRM so that the DRM no longer applies after a certain date.
And since there are no laws requiring this, why would they ever build it?
He would be able to give $10,000 to exactly 100 people (all before taxes of course). After taxes, he could give approximately $6000 to 100 people, who in turn would only receive $4000 each (after taxes again). Could you go to college on $4k?
No, but I'd have $10k, which can seriously supplement tuition at a good state school or pay a newborn's tuition entirely. Gifts aren't taxed up to about $11k per person per year.
It's not inequality, it's inequality with the apparent lack of opportunity. Middle class people don't generally mug someone and take their Jag, and poor people with kids in college don't break into houses. Poor people who see drug dealing and crime as the only viable options do. College or subsidised apprenticeships would probably help this, although some of the bling culture could stand to go by the wayside.
If you try to pick up a cop disguised as a hooker, is it still prostitution? Not technically, but you're still going to jail
Isn't that why they charge you with solicitation?
Making developers (even the ones who don't get to work for you) excited helps build your business. Therefore, it's in your interest to do so.
You seem to think that an incentive is "economic" if it has anything to do with econonmics, but that's not the defining characteristic of an incentive. The defining characteristic of an incentive is what kind of reward it offers: in this case, a spiritual reward, making it a spiritual incentive.
Mainly, I'm saying that it's an economic incentive because it has value to the person making the decision. What do you consider economic - money? That's a fairly limited interpretation.
I had a coworker like that - she was Korean by blood (and cute, too) and loved Korean food. Only thing was, she was born and raised in NYC, so she didn't speak any Korean, and every time she went to a decent Korean place, the waitress just sort of assumed that she understood Korean.
Whether his faith is rational or not has no bearing. He has a value system, and supporting a company has a cost in this dimension just like choosing a good return is in the money side of things. It is an economic incentive because it affects his well being and is a decision on how to allocate a scarce good. It's not money, but economics isn't about money.
Most of this shit could go away if it was easier to fire people.
Getting fired would be simpler if health insurance wasn't tied to having a job and you got enough notice to start the job hunt
That's why you get technical reasons from the technical interviewers and let recruiters check for pitfalls.
You the business are not in the business of making potential hires excited; your job is to make the best company you can, the best products, the happiest employees, the most loyal customers, etc., and people will flock to apply for employment. Google, for example.
I love when people deconstruct their own argument in the same breath they make it; Google got where it is in part from making people excited about them to the point that people would work there for less money (and nice options, I suppose). If you can't see the value in potential hires liking your workplace, then I hope your manager beats it into your head - you're doing your company a disservice.
Candidates of the sort the article poster was asking about ("a danger to any code base") get a polite rejection from the recruiter and that is all.
That's a mistake. Poor developers have friends who are good developers, and if those developers think you're a cock, you'll never get to see them.
That's not a rational economic incentive; it's an irrational moral incentive, reflecting a moral belief system[...]
That makes it a rational economic incentive - the person deciding has the belief system and, since he is not amoral, his morals receive weight in economic decisions. To do otherwise would be monstrous.
So it's more like africans disliking being called blacks.
I thought that was due to being confused with American blacks. Of course, one of the guys at my work is African, but he's also blonde and blue-eyed, so I don't think I'll be calling him black.
I actually meant that Microsoft software is likely to have been conceived and released by ducks.
Not ducks - Canadian Geese. Have you seen the way they shit?
This must be why everyone has changed over to using the many free operating systems that support everything they need (word processing, email and web browsing for the majority of the populous).
Normal people don't install OSes. they take whatever Dell gives them, and MS says that that will be windows.
You will notice that there are very few start up software companies that survive, but those that due tend to use more standard engineering practices
It has little to do with that and a whole lot to do with producing something at a price people are willing to pay. engineering is often secondary to that.
So I guess what you are saying is that the pyramids, of egypt and central america, as well as the great wall of china, the temples of rome and all the other durable ancient structures where built the way they were because of building codes.
More or less, I was referring to houses (duh). Building codes are formalizations of things that have failed - they built a lot of crappy pyramids, and a lot of people died building the great wall of china.
I'm sure that if it weren't for building codes the Petronas Towers would have been built from match sticks and bubble gum.
Your house probably would be. Who knows, they might have done that anyway.
I know I would easily pay 5 times what I have on my current OS if someone could offer an alternative guaranteed not to crash, ever.
And so long as MS offers a $40 OS that is compatible with what you already have, noone will buy that OS, so you will pay $200,000 instead of $200.
That, even though my current OS has never crashed on me an probably never will (obviously I don't run Windows).
The tricky part comes after you turn on the computer. Everything fails.
I explained that the program was done but I had to train the users that morning so they could be operational in the afternoon. (Only about 10 people needed to use it right away.) This was dismissed with a *shout* of "Nobody is using it, therefore it is not finished!" He considered the program a failure.
At which point you reminded him that your original estimate was 60 days and that you only agreed to 30 days because they badgered you, right?
BTW, when I say "yelling" I mean it. Face red, blood pressure skyrocketing, the works.
Best response here is to smile a bit - nothing takes the steam out like finding out it's hilarious.
I don't know, but it will be a lot of fun finding out.
There was a time when people lived in ramshackle homes built out of what ever materials they could find lying around, but in time that changed to more robust building practices that worked out for the long term.
Not by choice, though: the places where people live got tired of collapsing buildings killing people and enacted building codes, which some builders follow and others ignore because paying off the inspector is cheaper. Meanwhile, a lot of people build extensions using any old crap they have lying around, as you may well discover if you by a house from someone else.
Writing software isn't like building a bridge -- there are often a fair number of incompatible but equally elegant solutions to a give problem
Also, it's really hard to duplicate a bridge. If you could build bridges like software, a 4 lane expressway would mostly involve deciding where the supports should go.
Once the user can depend on sane defaults, he'll just ignore the options that don't do what he's trying to do. That' s the downside of something that's really flexible.
That's what you get for having one monolithic tree (I assume). You may have it set up as multiple components that can compile independently, which will help performance (you can run a build cluster that continuously builds the tree) and isolate errors.
Sure it can - it will warn you that (x=0) is an assignment, but will still compile because it's legal to do that. If you get in the habit of doing the weird (0=x) convention, then it won't compile and you've eliminated one error class.