You're right. My fiancee's dad is a retired cop and her FOP sticker does not get her out of tickets. Getting pulled over by her dad's buddy, now that's a different story.
By the way, your sig is lame.
This assumes that time and risk are not factors. For 400M, I can have a fully functional battle-tested appserver right now. Or, I can spend maybe 50M to bring something new to market, but it won't be ready for a year and it might suck.
Given Oracle's track record for producing crappy middleware, I'd say 400M is well worth it:)
It seems like you're getting a lot of advice that says you should either:
Give up and accept the inefficiences of the beauracracy. Or...
Quit your job
I've been consulting for five years now and my firm has many clients in many industries and I can tell you with great certainty that this beauracracy exists almost everywhere. There are exceptions, but they are... exceptions. So, I'd say quitting your job is a bad strategy, because it is pretty likely that your next job will have stupid beauracracies similiar to your current job.
Here is my two cents:
You will not be able to fight the beauracracy from the bottom. Middle managers are notorious beauracrats. Good at pushing paper and that's about it.
If you have connections at the top, then it is possible that you can use an executive to help you push through the muck. However, this means you are going over the heads of many middle managers and worker bees. This will not make you any friends and it will probably make it very hard for you to get things done quickly in the future.
You're better off adapting to the system and learning how to get stuff done in spite of all of the b.s. This usually means forming personal relationships with key individuals who can help you. You need code promoted to QA? It's way easier if the CVS admin is your buddy. Need to rebuild a test database? Helps to have a DBA friend. You get the idea.
A better question to ask is, what is the likelihood that both planets will be hit by meteors at roughly the same time? If we split the population in half and colonize two planets, we would greatly reduce the chance that a meteor strike would wipe out humanity.
Yeah, yeah, Ok... I was right, you were wrong. I am dumb, you are smart...;)
My point is still that capitalism isn't about fairness and sharing. As you put it, it's really about profit maximization, which is basically the opposite of sharing.
I understood the parent poster's point perfectly. His point was that capitalism is more fair than communism because the government does not meddle with the markets, and hence, the magical market forces allow for a more fair distribution of wealth.
While, I believe that capitalism is a better economic paradigm than communism, I absolutely disagree with the idea that market forces will ensure more fairness and wealth-sharing. I would argue that the opposite is true, and a lot of people agree. That is why socialistic policies like minimum wages, graduated income tax, and welfare exist. Programs like these act to redistribute wealth with the goal of offering more "fairness". Of course, they also work counter to capitalism in that they create more inefficiency in the economy. It is a trade-off we live with. We give up some efficiency, and in return, we stretch the bell curve a little so that fewer folks are living in poverty.
My baseball example was not intended as a dig at pro ball players. I believe they deserve the money they get in the context of capitalism (ie. there is high demand for what they do and not many others can do it). However, it does illustrate how, in a capitalistic society, a small number of "lucky" individuals benefit from capitalism more than most of the rest of us. Is it fair or not? It depends on your perspective. But, I think a lot of people would agree that folks like pro ball players get more than they deserve and folks like teachers and doctors get less than they deserve.
In capitalism it is assumed that with no government intervention wealth will find a way to SHARE itself in a more fair and just way than if government intervened.
Where did you get that idea? Capitalism is about efficiency. There is no garauntee regarding the fair distribution of wealth. Example: Guy who hits a ball with a stick = millionaire.
I disagree. The only people who particiapate are volunteers who have an internet connection and happened to see a link to this site. This is not exactly a cross-section of the world population. Furthermore, of the 5,198 votes cast, 4,476 are from the US. If this were a true indicator of public opinion, the results should be much closer to reality (ie 52-41)
The overwhelming majority of votes are from North America, where Kerry supposedly holds a commanding lead. This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.
A frequently asked question about conjunctions is whether and or but can be used at the beginning of a sentence. This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and:
There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.
from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage
edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it.
I am not very knowledgeable about cylinder-based engines either, so this information came from my mechanic. Take it with a grain of salt.
Apparently, my mitsubishi has something called a "low-clearance" engine (i think that is the term) and if the timing belt fails, it will do very bad things to the engine. Specifically, I think he said it would bend valves.
Again, I don't know what the hell this means, but it certainly seems that a timing belt failure can cause significant damage to a normal engine.
I agree with your observation though. If those wheels get out of synch, there will be problems.
That's not a backdoor. It's usually referred to as a "Poison Pill". And it's perfectly legal. What is not legal is using non-free code that you didn't pay for. This opinion is not widely held among slashdot readers.
Yahoo is one of the 130 major web portals that recently signed a voluntary pledge not to post information that would jeopardise state security and disrupt social stability in China.
Ahem. Bullshit. This makes Yahoo sound like a hero. It should be re-worded as: Yahoo capitulates to Chinese government in order to retain 90 million potential eye-balls.
This is why I trust Google's results over Yahoo's. Google takes the moral high-ground and refuses to censor the Internet. I don't have to worry that my search results will be skewed by somebody's agenda.
Kinda looks bad for the "Write once, Run anywhere" people. Which would be Sun.
Not really. "Write once, Run anywhere" is based on the premise that your application will run on a compatible JVM. If Microsoft produces an incompatible JVM (oh surprise!), what can Sun do? Well, basically nothing. Sue them I guess. But really, the best thing to do is to do a good job of branding their own JVM and likewise, paint Microsoft's JVM as a bastardized wannabe.
That's the best way to describe working for in the public sector. I worked for a private consulting firm until I was laid off 6 months ago. I am currently (temporarily) working for state government until I start with a different consulting firm next month. I'm 25 and single. I don't care about job security. I want career advancement and intellectual stimulation. I definitely do not get that working for the government.
Also, keep in mind who you're going to work with. At the state we have a lot of people who come in at 22, sit on their ass for 35 years, and retire from a middle management job. Don't get me wrong, there are capable and intelligent people in the public sector. They just don't stand out against the sea of drones putting in their 40 hours * 48 weeks * 35 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. My fiancee's dad is a retired cop and her FOP sticker does not get her out of tickets. Getting pulled over by her dad's buddy, now that's a different story. By the way, your sig is lame.
Mmmmm... tasty gamma source.
This assumes that time and risk are not factors. For 400M, I can have a fully functional battle-tested appserver right now. Or, I can spend maybe 50M to bring something new to market, but it won't be ready for a year and it might suck.
:)
Given Oracle's track record for producing crappy middleware, I'd say 400M is well worth it
I've been consulting for five years now and my firm has many clients in many industries and I can tell you with great certainty that this beauracracy exists almost everywhere. There are exceptions, but they are... exceptions. So, I'd say quitting your job is a bad strategy, because it is pretty likely that your next job will have stupid beauracracies similiar to your current job.
Here is my two cents:
You're better off adapting to the system and learning how to get stuff done in spite of all of the b.s. This usually means forming personal relationships with key individuals who can help you. You need code promoted to QA? It's way easier if the CVS admin is your buddy. Need to rebuild a test database? Helps to have a DBA friend. You get the idea.
M-A-R-S... Mars bitches. And remember no gays settling down.
Dude, Soylent Green won't solve overpopulation. That's what the Euthanasia Death Chamber is for.
A better question to ask is, what is the likelihood that both planets will be hit by meteors at roughly the same time? If we split the population in half and colonize two planets, we would greatly reduce the chance that a meteor strike would wipe out humanity.
Yeah, yeah, Ok... I was right, you were wrong. I am dumb, you are smart... ;)
My point is still that capitalism isn't about fairness and sharing. As you put it, it's really about profit maximization, which is basically the opposite of sharing.
I understood the parent poster's point perfectly. His point was that capitalism is more fair than communism because the government does not meddle with the markets, and hence, the magical market forces allow for a more fair distribution of wealth.
While, I believe that capitalism is a better economic paradigm than communism, I absolutely disagree with the idea that market forces will ensure more fairness and wealth-sharing. I would argue that the opposite is true, and a lot of people agree. That is why socialistic policies like minimum wages, graduated income tax, and welfare exist. Programs like these act to redistribute wealth with the goal of offering more "fairness". Of course, they also work counter to capitalism in that they create more inefficiency in the economy. It is a trade-off we live with. We give up some efficiency, and in return, we stretch the bell curve a little so that fewer folks are living in poverty.
My baseball example was not intended as a dig at pro ball players. I believe they deserve the money they get in the context of capitalism (ie. there is high demand for what they do and not many others can do it). However, it does illustrate how, in a capitalistic society, a small number of "lucky" individuals benefit from capitalism more than most of the rest of us. Is it fair or not? It depends on your perspective. But, I think a lot of people would agree that folks like pro ball players get more than they deserve and folks like teachers and doctors get less than they deserve.
Where did you get that idea? Capitalism is about efficiency. There is no garauntee regarding the fair distribution of wealth. Example: Guy who hits a ball with a stick = millionaire.
I disagree. The only people who particiapate are volunteers who have an internet connection and happened to see a link to this site. This is not exactly a cross-section of the world population.
Furthermore, of the 5,198 votes cast, 4,476 are from the US. If this were a true indicator of public opinion, the results should be much closer to reality (ie 52-41)
The overwhelming majority of votes are from North America, where Kerry supposedly holds a commanding lead. This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.
Bah... Only 30m? That's nothing compared to the Mega Tsunami!
If given the choice would you rather... a. Save 20 seconds per day for 5000 people. b. Save one person's life.
They were probably just open SMTP relays. No trojan needed.
Just curious. Why do you think Java is ill-suited for rule processing?
The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it.
I am not very knowledgeable about cylinder-based engines either, so this information came from my mechanic. Take it with a grain of salt. Apparently, my mitsubishi has something called a "low-clearance" engine (i think that is the term) and if the timing belt fails, it will do very bad things to the engine. Specifically, I think he said it would bend valves. Again, I don't know what the hell this means, but it certainly seems that a timing belt failure can cause significant damage to a normal engine. I agree with your observation though. If those wheels get out of synch, there will be problems.
That's not a backdoor. It's usually referred to as a "Poison Pill". And it's perfectly legal. What is not legal is using non-free code that you didn't pay for. This opinion is not widely held among slashdot readers.
is how they are able drive a Cadillac into outer space! Gag... moan... argh
Yahoo is one of the 130 major web portals that recently signed a voluntary pledge not to post information that would jeopardise state security and disrupt social stability in China.
Ahem. Bullshit. This makes Yahoo sound like a hero. It should be re-worded as: Yahoo capitulates to Chinese government in order to retain 90 million potential eye-balls.
This is why I trust Google's results over Yahoo's. Google takes the moral high-ground and refuses to censor the Internet. I don't have to worry that my search results will be skewed by somebody's agenda.
Kinda looks bad for the "Write once, Run anywhere" people. Which would be Sun.
Not really. "Write once, Run anywhere" is based on the premise that your application will run on a compatible JVM. If Microsoft produces an incompatible JVM (oh surprise!), what can Sun do? Well, basically nothing. Sue them I guess. But really, the best thing to do is to do a good job of branding their own JVM and likewise, paint Microsoft's JVM as a bastardized wannabe.
That's the best way to describe working for in the public sector. I worked for a private consulting firm until I was laid off 6 months ago. I am currently (temporarily) working for state government until I start with a different consulting firm next month. I'm 25 and single. I don't care about job security. I want career advancement and intellectual stimulation. I definitely do not get that working for the government.
Also, keep in mind who you're going to work with. At the state we have a lot of people who come in at 22, sit on their ass for 35 years, and retire from a middle management job. Don't get me wrong, there are capable and intelligent people in the public sector. They just don't stand out against the sea of drones putting in their 40 hours * 48 weeks * 35 years.
err... do you mean Private vs Public schools?