The original Pentium Pro CPU, not the subsequent processors based upon that line.
So what you're saying is, Intel is no longer making large numbers of an old design, but rather making large numbers of a newer design. What's your next revelation? Toyota has consigned the 1998 Camry to the dustbin of history and is now going with the 2004 Camry.
Because 10 years down the road, there will be new programmers with more energy and a better understanding of the new technology and the really productive programmer won't be as productive anymore.
What new technology? In 10 years, I'll have 10 more years experience with current tech (and the new stuff), and I'll be more productive than some FOB newbie because I make fewer mistakes (due to my experience). The flashy new toy of the day will be a new wrinkle on something as old as I am, and I'll pick it up, should I need it, in about 2 weeks.
CEO's are often hired after the fact (though not always), and are in enough demand to warrant such a salary. It's important to the company to attract talent, and it's pretty clear that management talent is expensive.
Bullshit. They aren't worth nearly what they make, not by half. The main reason salaries are so high is likely due to corruption.
Anyone who wants to call themselves an engineer should do so, there is no reason why the term should be relegated to an elite few who think that the term can only apply to a few fields.
Yes, you're right - just like anybody who cares to call themselves a doctor should do so. I'm sure nothing bad will happen. By the way, how's that career in sanitation engineering working out?
Despite what people think, there is no right to privacy or "personal integrity" in the US Constitution. Maybe there should be, but as now there isn't.
Just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have it. If, fo instance, the second ammendment were repealed, we'd still have the right to keep and bear arms - it just wouldn't be explicitly recognized.
Do note that the 1st and 4th ammendment stronly imply a right to privacy and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Don't you realize that we are in the midst of a war for our very survival? Right now, there are brave scooba-troops risking their lives to protect your freedom. When you question the rational for the War on Sharks, you are dishonoring them.
Today we've secretly replaced the air tanks of this scuba platoon with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.
We didn't start it, he did with the invasion of another country
In point of fact, had Bush told Saddam that he didn't approve of the invasion plans when he FUCKING ASKED FOR PERMISSION, none of this would have happened. Yeah, Saddam's a nasty guy, but we aren't angels either.
From my reading of the situation, the entire line of questioning was improper - the whole ken starr investigation was a giant fishing expedition (link).
The only thing that Ken dug up was a sexual dalliance which, according to the definition provided by the judge, was not sex. Further, the grand jury is supposed to meet in secret, not release tapes to the public. Yes, it looks bad, but it's hard to look good when somebody spends $40M to smear you.
The very fact that companies don't want to tell shareholders how much of their (shareholders') money they are giving away, suggests that they were giving away too much.
No it doesn't. It means that they were using it as a way to hide expenses, or at least defer them.
Maybe not. But once it becomes part of public debate it is entirely illegal to lie about it in court.
No it isn't. You can get up on the stand and lie your ass off. It isn't perjury until you lie about something material to the case. Personally, I think he should have refused to answer, but I'm comfortable with his honorable not quite lie.
Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)
Yeah we can - the documents were signed by a dead man.
At an annual income of $170k the federal income tax rate is 33% (married filing jointly is 28%):
Tax burden, not rate.
Do rich people cost more to protect?
Yes. they have more assets, and receive preferential treatment.
I fail to see how that is relevant or what your point actually is.
The arguments against progressive taxation usually stem from the notion that the rich either deserve their money (Protestant ethic), or that they build their fortune by themselves. The simple truth is that they have benefitted, both by hard work, savvy, and luck, and by the support of the host society. If it weren't for the institutions the benefit from (fire, military, police protection, they would be spending a lot more money than average to protect themselves and their family. Why do you think people kidnap Americans so much in Brazil?
Slashdot Mirror
The original Pentium Pro CPU, not the subsequent processors based upon that line.
So what you're saying is, Intel is no longer making large numbers of an old design, but rather making large numbers of a newer design. What's your next revelation? Toyota has consigned the 1998 Camry to the dustbin of history and is now going with the 2004 Camry.
The main thing is that $40K is nothing in the Bay Area.
Hell, in SanFran, $90k isn't even that great. Isn't the poverty line around $70k?
I guess if I were an underachiever, I'd probably welcome a union.
Yeah, because your boss would never take advantage of you and demand extra work for no pay, not even in a lousy job market.
Which would you prefer - $40k for the next five years, or $60k this year and then you're unemployed and unemployable?
Around here, $40k is blockbuster wages. I'll take $90-110k for the next 20 years, thank you.
Because 10 years down the road, there will be new programmers with more energy and a better understanding of the new technology and the really productive programmer won't be as productive anymore.
What new technology? In 10 years, I'll have 10 more years experience with current tech (and the new stuff), and I'll be more productive than some FOB newbie because I make fewer mistakes (due to my experience). The flashy new toy of the day will be a new wrinkle on something as old as I am, and I'll pick it up, should I need it, in about 2 weeks.
Did I mention they probably all signed an employment contract so onerous they will end up owing EA money by the time the lawsuit is over?
This is CA - the judge has the option of throwing the employment agreement out the window.
still programming is sort of a geek thing.
It's probably because most people aren't used to dealing with rules that can't be cheated.
because they're giving away too much!
Yeah, if you mean more than 0. They did it that way because they could, not out of guilt.
CEO's are often hired after the fact (though not always), and are in enough demand to warrant such a salary. It's important to the company to attract talent, and it's pretty clear that management talent is expensive.
Bullshit. They aren't worth nearly what they make, not by half. The main reason salaries are so high is likely due to corruption.
Anyone who wants to call themselves an engineer should do so, there is no reason why the term should be relegated to an elite few who think that the term can only apply to a few fields.
Yes, you're right - just like anybody who cares to call themselves a doctor should do so. I'm sure nothing bad will happen. By the way, how's that career in sanitation engineering working out?
Should they also shoulder a percentage of the debt if the game totally bombs and brings in less money than it cost to make? If not, why?
Not unless they have a hand in the production. Most software projects fail as a result of mismanagement.
Despite what people think, there is no right to privacy or "personal integrity" in the US Constitution. Maybe there should be, but as now there isn't.
Just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have it. If, fo instance, the second ammendment were repealed, we'd still have the right to keep and bear arms - it just wouldn't be explicitly recognized.
Do note that the 1st and 4th ammendment stronly imply a right to privacy and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Don't you realize that we are in the midst of a war for our very survival? Right now, there are brave scooba-troops risking their lives to protect your freedom. When you question the rational for the War on Sharks, you are dishonoring them.
Today we've secretly replaced the air tanks of this scuba platoon with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice.
We didn't start it, he did with the invasion of another country
In point of fact, had Bush told Saddam that he didn't approve of the invasion plans when he FUCKING ASKED FOR PERMISSION, none of this would have happened. Yeah, Saddam's a nasty guy, but we aren't angels either.
God damn it! I'm surrounded by F-ing morrons on slashdot. shesh
That's what you get for hanging out on slashdot.
From my reading of the situation, the entire line of questioning was improper - the whole ken starr investigation was a giant fishing expedition (link). The only thing that Ken dug up was a sexual dalliance which, according to the definition provided by the judge, was not sex. Further, the grand jury is supposed to meet in secret, not release tapes to the public. Yes, it looks bad, but it's hard to look good when somebody spends $40M to smear you.
Convert to a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged frozen food (tv dinners, pizza), soup, and oatmeal.
You can use the money you save to pay for the heart attack you will get at 45 or 50.
All you need to take care of that is a small power "glitch" ;-) and an handy little utility CD.
The trick is not getting fired and arrested afterwards.
The spammer is not in for too long, the rapist is not in for long enough.
Can't do that - you'd have to release potheads to make more room.
The very fact that companies don't want to tell shareholders how much of their (shareholders') money they are giving away, suggests that they were giving away too much.
No it doesn't. It means that they were using it as a way to hide expenses, or at least defer them.
So, how would you insert your evil program in the path ahead of passwd, and why would you wrap passwd with another program?
Maybe not. But once it becomes part of public debate it is entirely illegal to lie about it in court.
No it isn't. You can get up on the stand and lie your ass off. It isn't perjury until you lie about something material to the case. Personally, I think he should have refused to answer, but I'm comfortable with his honorable not quite lie.
Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)
Yeah we can - the documents were signed by a dead man.
At an annual income of $170k the federal income tax rate is 33% (married filing jointly is 28%):
Tax burden, not rate.
Do rich people cost more to protect?
Yes. they have more assets, and receive preferential treatment.
I fail to see how that is relevant or what your point actually is.
The arguments against progressive taxation usually stem from the notion that the rich either deserve their money (Protestant ethic), or that they build their fortune by themselves. The simple truth is that they have benefitted, both by hard work, savvy, and luck, and by the support of the host society. If it weren't for the institutions the benefit from (fire, military, police protection, they would be spending a lot more money than average to protect themselves and their family. Why do you think people kidnap Americans so much in Brazil?
Your quote of a federal tax burden of 18% for 170K is wrong it is closer to about 28%.
No it isn't. The marginal rate is 28%, but the effective rate (including SS) is 18%.