Legalities vary from state to state in the US. In Texas, it's pretty normal that stuff you do on your own time belongs to the company. In Minnesota, that's illegal.
There can be a contract in at-will employment. All that means is that the contract can be terminated at any time by either party for any reason not specifically illegal.
In the US, laws vary on that from state to state. In some, if you do a personal project at home, and have no agreement to the contrary, your employer owns it. In some, if you do a personal project at home, you own it, regardless of any agreement. No law that I know of says that you can do your personal projects at work and own them.
I've described a simple mechanism that heats things up. Therefore, since we are burning fossil fuels, we'd expect the planetary surface to heat up. That's also what our thermometers tell us, and we see other effects that we'd expect from global warming. It's conceivable that there would be some sort of effect to counteract the warming, but we haven't found one.
Your argument seems to be that we should ignore basic science and obvious conclusions, since there are possible ways the conclusions could be wrong, and figuring out those ways and eliminating them would take more complicated science.
I suspect that you believe many things simply because a collective pushes them on you as science. Do you think there are galaxies out there? Ever seen one that looks like a galaxy with equipment you controlled? Do you believe that stars are powered by fusion? That dinosaurs existed tens of millions of years ago?
What is this country that has nothing to do with its citizens? If the citizens are better off, the country is better off. The police have no specific obligation to help any specific person in any specific situation, but their job is to protect people in general. As a particular individual, I'm safer because there are police out there that I help pay for, and because they do help individuals. The police will likely come if I need a police officer (as you point out, they don't have a specific obligation to come when I personally need them). If I'm robbed, the police will try to find and convict the individual that robbed me, and any trial will be about specific actions concerning specific people. It isn't possible for the police to do any general good without doing lots of specific goods.
His problem was depression and anxiety, which can be found in all Federally protected classes. I haven't heard anyone say "We need more depressed people in this organization to be more diverse."
Yup. That's what I was going through. If I had been undepressed enough to think straight, I would have been able to get out of the stress, and wouldn't have gotten as depressed as I dd. Fortunately, I eventually wound up leaving what was stressing me not entirely voluntarily, and from there I was able to fake it until I made it, something like twenty years later.
Yep, as far as you're concerned it's all about you. Most people get a good feeling out of helping others, and I recommend trying it if only as a way to your happiness. If you feel like you have enough to give to get what you want in return, you'll probably be more secure. and will likely have a better feeling about what you have. Many people get their greatest happiness from making other people happy, and I do recommend testing to see if it works for you.
Birth and death are points in time. It's what you do in between that's important.
To those who think what happens after death is what's important, what you do with what time you have (be it prenatal, posthumous, or in between) is important. Most religions that talk about the afterlife have it depend on what you do in your life or lives, making what you do in life even more important.
My self-esteem is based largely on how I can make things better for people. A lot of this is being a husband and father, part of it is being good friends to people, and a lot is based on my ability to help my company and its customers by developing software. Being a software developer doesn't define me, because I'm a lot of things besides that, but it's something I spend a lot of time and energy on, and which I have tangible evidence that people appreciate. If my performance were to decline to the point that I feared for my job, or if I believed it was, I'd feel less useful and that I had less to contribute, and my self-esteem would go down.
If he was clinically depressed then it isn't Uber's fault at all.
If he was clinically depressed to the point of suicide, he fell under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Uber was required to seek reasonable accommodations for his problem.
You don't have to be friends with someone to see the behavioral changes that come with serious depression.
You'd be surprised. Depressed people can come off as pretty much normal when interacting with people. Their productivity will probably be dismal, so a manager might pick up on it.
If the developer consistently underestimates, the manager can apply a multiplier. It's better for a developer to have consistent estimates than accurate ones.
One of the best directors I ever worked for didn't know anything about software development, and knew he didn't know anything, but figured he could rely on us to fill him in on what he needed to know.
We estimate points by getting everyone together, talking about it, and getting everyone's estimate in Fibonacci numbers of points. Then we ask people who voted unusually high or low why they think their estimate is right, and pick some number in the middle. It works well enough.
I'd guess that they'd never had a customer over 110 before, and that nobody bothered to write that into any test (unless it was to ensure rejection of anyone over 110).
I think it would have more of an impact on punch cards. I've dealt with systems that use punch cards or the equivalent for data storage. They're limited to 80 characters (fewer if the cards are sequenced), and going from one card per record to two is a major pain. Nobody would waste two columns on a punch card for data that would remain constant.
Commercial computer use dates back to the 1950s, and not many places had computers until later. Application software was usually custom written for each organization. Software was typically thought of as a short-term thing. Even in the 1980s I went through a cost-benefit analysis training course in which the software was considered not to provide benefit after five years. This was short-sighted thinking then, but there wasn't much expectation that the stuff you were writing would be used in some distant future date like 2000.
My first exposure was in 1981. A friend of mine was maintaining the software for child support payments. After the first few months of 1981, the software would figure the baby would be born in 82. Add 18 to get 00, and it's 81, so obviously no more child support was due. Presumably banks with 30-year mortgages faced this earlier, but I never worked for a financial institution until 2005.
One reason Social Security etc. is counted on is that people pay for it. Currently, the Social Security fund gets about 15% of your salary, which would make a pretty good savings plan. I'd be willing to forego it if I were to get that money back, with interest and accounting for inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
I get assigned work. I do my assigned work. Nobody tells me when to work on a given assignment. It's better for everyone that way.
Whether it's enforceable depends on the state.
Legalities vary from state to state in the US. In Texas, it's pretty normal that stuff you do on your own time belongs to the company. In Minnesota, that's illegal.
There can be a contract in at-will employment. All that means is that the contract can be terminated at any time by either party for any reason not specifically illegal.
In the US, laws vary on that from state to state. In some, if you do a personal project at home, and have no agreement to the contrary, your employer owns it. In some, if you do a personal project at home, you own it, regardless of any agreement. No law that I know of says that you can do your personal projects at work and own them.
I've described a simple mechanism that heats things up. Therefore, since we are burning fossil fuels, we'd expect the planetary surface to heat up. That's also what our thermometers tell us, and we see other effects that we'd expect from global warming. It's conceivable that there would be some sort of effect to counteract the warming, but we haven't found one.
Your argument seems to be that we should ignore basic science and obvious conclusions, since there are possible ways the conclusions could be wrong, and figuring out those ways and eliminating them would take more complicated science.
I suspect that you believe many things simply because a collective pushes them on you as science. Do you think there are galaxies out there? Ever seen one that looks like a galaxy with equipment you controlled? Do you believe that stars are powered by fusion? That dinosaurs existed tens of millions of years ago?
What is this country that has nothing to do with its citizens? If the citizens are better off, the country is better off. The police have no specific obligation to help any specific person in any specific situation, but their job is to protect people in general. As a particular individual, I'm safer because there are police out there that I help pay for, and because they do help individuals. The police will likely come if I need a police officer (as you point out, they don't have a specific obligation to come when I personally need them). If I'm robbed, the police will try to find and convict the individual that robbed me, and any trial will be about specific actions concerning specific people. It isn't possible for the police to do any general good without doing lots of specific goods.
His problem was depression and anxiety, which can be found in all Federally protected classes. I haven't heard anyone say "We need more depressed people in this organization to be more diverse."
Yup. That's what I was going through. If I had been undepressed enough to think straight, I would have been able to get out of the stress, and wouldn't have gotten as depressed as I dd. Fortunately, I eventually wound up leaving what was stressing me not entirely voluntarily, and from there I was able to fake it until I made it, something like twenty years later.
Yep, as far as you're concerned it's all about you. Most people get a good feeling out of helping others, and I recommend trying it if only as a way to your happiness. If you feel like you have enough to give to get what you want in return, you'll probably be more secure. and will likely have a better feeling about what you have. Many people get their greatest happiness from making other people happy, and I do recommend testing to see if it works for you.
Birth and death are points in time. It's what you do in between that's important.
To those who think what happens after death is what's important, what you do with what time you have (be it prenatal, posthumous, or in between) is important. Most religions that talk about the afterlife have it depend on what you do in your life or lives, making what you do in life even more important.
My self-esteem is based largely on how I can make things better for people. A lot of this is being a husband and father, part of it is being good friends to people, and a lot is based on my ability to help my company and its customers by developing software. Being a software developer doesn't define me, because I'm a lot of things besides that, but it's something I spend a lot of time and energy on, and which I have tangible evidence that people appreciate. If my performance were to decline to the point that I feared for my job, or if I believed it was, I'd feel less useful and that I had less to contribute, and my self-esteem would go down.
I'd suspect he suffered from depression. Stress can aggravate it.
If he was clinically depressed to the point of suicide, he fell under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Uber was required to seek reasonable accommodations for his problem.
You'd be surprised. Depressed people can come off as pretty much normal when interacting with people. Their productivity will probably be dismal, so a manager might pick up on it.
I had a friend who started a four-month project. He finished approximately on time, eight years later.
If the developer consistently underestimates, the manager can apply a multiplier. It's better for a developer to have consistent estimates than accurate ones.
I don't have to make the same mistakes I made before. I can make new mistakes.
I take it that (a) the 18-hour days were not your idea, and (b) you'd have finished faster working fewer hours.
One of the best directors I ever worked for didn't know anything about software development, and knew he didn't know anything, but figured he could rely on us to fill him in on what he needed to know.
We estimate points by getting everyone together, talking about it, and getting everyone's estimate in Fibonacci numbers of points. Then we ask people who voted unusually high or low why they think their estimate is right, and pick some number in the middle. It works well enough.
That works best for when you're just computerizing an existing process, less well if you're trying to come up with an efficient computerized process.
Fewer than one in ten million people is over 110. 1% in a country like Mexico is a lot of people. Less than one ten-millionth isn't.
I'd guess that they'd never had a customer over 110 before, and that nobody bothered to write that into any test (unless it was to ensure rejection of anyone over 110).
I think it would have more of an impact on punch cards. I've dealt with systems that use punch cards or the equivalent for data storage. They're limited to 80 characters (fewer if the cards are sequenced), and going from one card per record to two is a major pain. Nobody would waste two columns on a punch card for data that would remain constant.
Commercial computer use dates back to the 1950s, and not many places had computers until later. Application software was usually custom written for each organization. Software was typically thought of as a short-term thing. Even in the 1980s I went through a cost-benefit analysis training course in which the software was considered not to provide benefit after five years. This was short-sighted thinking then, but there wasn't much expectation that the stuff you were writing would be used in some distant future date like 2000.
My first exposure was in 1981. A friend of mine was maintaining the software for child support payments. After the first few months of 1981, the software would figure the baby would be born in 82. Add 18 to get 00, and it's 81, so obviously no more child support was due. Presumably banks with 30-year mortgages faced this earlier, but I never worked for a financial institution until 2005.
One reason Social Security etc. is counted on is that people pay for it. Currently, the Social Security fund gets about 15% of your salary, which would make a pretty good savings plan. I'd be willing to forego it if I were to get that money back, with interest and accounting for inflation.