Running an SSH tunnel to a proxy won't get you expelled, arrested, and branded an untouchable by the corporate world. If anyone cares, you'll get told off by NetOps; In the worst case and as a repeat-offender, they might disconnect your dorm room's network access.
Did you read my post? I did say the correct approach was to try something like this when I talked about VPN. I was thinking that the person I replied to would take more drastic action to bypass his universities restriction.
As quite a few others have already pointed out, many unis require you to live on-campus.
To be honest, I still have a hard time believing this. Here in the UK not a single university in the country operates such a restriction, most have less accommodation than they need so force some (most, in many cases) students to live off campus.
As I said, I spent a year in university halls then got the hell out as quick as I could, but I am surprised the force you to live on campus even in your freshman year.
I might as well have just stopped reading your post there, they might lock you in to studying with them for 4 years but you are allowed to move off campus you know.
Many universities don't allow you to move out of the dorms (the cynic in me says it's for the $$, but who knows). I went to a tiny school in a really rural location and even if we wanted to move out, there were more students in the town than actual people in the town (1400 students, 800 residents), so it would've never worked to have people spread around.
That must be a wierd thing specific to the US. Here in the UK I cannot think of a single university that forced you to live in halls. In fact, that would probably not even be legal here.
How would that work with students who were local and chose to carry on living with their parents? Did they have to pay for a room they would not use or do they only open admissions to people who come from outside a certain geographical area?
If I pay to live in your house... and you have me locked in to that arrangement for four (or more) years...
I might as well have just stopped reading your post there, they might lock you in to studying with them for 4 years but you are allowed to move off campus you know. University Halls always have loads of restrictive policies, in my day you could not even have any sort of internet or phone service in your room, and this was before mobile phones so we all spent lots of time queuing at the payphones in the cold.
The solution to this is simply to move off campus into private accommodation and practice being a real grown up. By the time I finished uni everyone one of my mates had done this as part of the whole growing up experience. I moved out after my first year as I hated the overly sheltered environment of student halls
This doesn't involve either the FP's parents or his employer - He pays a boatload of money every year for housing AND internet access, and his uni has decided they can selectively skip out on the second half of that deal simply because they have a captive audience.
Is it actually a boat load of money compared to the average rent in that area? In my day uni halls were dirt cheap compared to living off campus. This was especially true when you factored in the bills for water, power, telephone, gas (for heating, not driving your car), etc that you had to all pay separately when you lived outside halls. If the university are subsidising the shit out of his internet access then they have a right to restrict it as much as they like providing they are up front about it.
Then yes, I damned well expect you to provide me with real internet access, and you can fully expect me to actively work around whatever attempts you may make to enforce your morality on my net feed.
This is the most retarded part of your entire post. The correct work around for this is to move the hell out of the universities sheltered halls of residence, get a 3G card or a VPN account if that is allowed through the firewall. Your approach may very well get you expelled, that will dump you in the gutter with no qualifications. No other university or employer is going to touch you if they find out you were expelled from a previous university for hacking into their network, even if you can explain that it was just to use SSH or something not on port 80.
This is also against the law in most western countries, you may even get a criminal record and will screw your life over utterly. Only last month there was a case here in the UK about an ethical hacker who has been convicted of breaking into facebook. He might have through he was doing them a favour but they did not share his sentiment.
We all do stupid crap when were are young, but thankfully most of use avoid getting dragged through the law courts for it. Bypassing the access controls on your university network though will certainly be very frowned upon if you are caught. Banking on not being caught is also a very big gamble, somewhere in your university is probably someone with a brain, even if most undergraduates have no direct contact with them. If they get a sniff of someone bypassing their security they may even contract in outside help to get to the bottom of who is doing it.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
Nope, we just realised that it is so easy to switch between windows as we need to using alt-tab or the bar at the bottom. Don't assume everyone who like using maximised windows for everything does so through stupidity.
Probably because many of us use Linux for real work, rather than Facebook and Youtube.
Now thats a laugh. It's a hobbiest OS. Some people might use it at work but most of us have our work desktop OS imposed upon us by our corporate overlords, even those of us who work with Linux servers all day. I am not saying that nobody here uses a desktop flavour or Linux for work, but I bet the vast majority of us are stuck with Windows or Mac and only use desktop Linux on our PC's at home.
Of course, since neither you nor me are posting any figures or solid research to back up our arguments we are both just plucking our opinions out of thin air.
The funny things about all this fuss about Gnome, Unity and whatever else is that I actually can understand this all. Gnome has long suffered from a "not invented here" mental block, I seem to remember Linus complaining about it years ago when he submitted them a bunch of patches to make an earlier version of Gnome more configurable without editing the code.
In light of this I do that Unity is a good idea, but after having only used it for a few days on my laptop I am not an immediate fan. I do think though that it has some nice touches now in 11.10 (11.04 was pretty clunky). Hopefully they will just make the ubuntu button far more like the windows start menu then be done with it since Windows 7 is, in my opinion a damn fine usable interface.
I know many people in the Linux community have deliberately chosen Linux in order to be different, but that has always struck me as just being obstinate, since both MS and Apple invest a fortune in user interface design I think the Linux community should try and let this influence them as much as possible since that is one thing open source software can rarely afford.
Even if Unity stop short of slavishly copying the windows start menu though, it is still the beginning of a damn decent interface and if they carry on letting out side influences suggest improvements then it will overtake gnome in no time.
Setup a basic LLC for yourself. Create the items/ideas under that. Document your time spent to show that it did not conflict with your full time job.
Then watch them take all your hard work in house as they legally own it. Also, they may well fire you for moonlighting depending on what other crap they put in your contract.
Creating an LLC is no guarantee against them doing this as you will own the LLC and their employment contract is with you and not the LLC. If they want to sue you for something they can sure you directly so the LLC offers you not protection. They could also probably just take the LLC as an asset from you if it was based entirely on their work.
Most companies put this sort of crap in contracts as an insurance policy to protect them from you using business knowledge you were gaining during your day job to produce a competing product. Assuming you are not doing this, your employer may well just let you produce other stuff on the side in your own time if you ask them nicely. If your employer does not want you to do this though then you really should just walk and get another job that will let you. This is assuming such a job exists, every job I ever had put a similar clause in my employment contract.
Without getting into technical details, in the general case, and under 2011 tax law, a married couple can waive paying federal tax on up to $500k($250k exclusion each) of realized gains on your house. Even if the parents had 0 basis on the house, the maximum realized gain would be $500k, so they don't have to pay anything on that.
Further, the son will take that property with a basis at fair market value(step-up in basis, see link below), i.e he'll have a full $500k basis in that house. It could appreciate to $750mil and he'd still pay no taxes when selling it.
IAACPA. (Albeit, a financial accountant, not a tax accountant:P)
But will the son not be given a bill by the IRS for estate tax when the house is transferred into his name when his parents die? This was what I was thinking would force him to sell the house in order to pay.
If the parents sunk all of their money into a $500k house and that was their only asset (thus leaving him no inheritance), then blame the parents for poor financial planning.
If someone leaves you a $500k house free and clear that's a pretty damn good inheritance and hardly poor financial planning on their part.
But aside from that, why should someone who only makes $20k/year (or whatever a barista might make...not much) be expected to be able to live in a $500k house?
Because it's bought and paid for, and his property. The question is, why should someone with low income but fully owned property NOT be allowed to live in it?
This is an utterly crap fictitious scenario.
In the scenario above where someone is left a house by his parents but no other money he would actually most likely be forced into selling the house in order to pay the government the estate tax he owed. The only reason Ms Jobs did not have to pay this is that your spouse is exempt.
The day I trust others to write code better than me is the day my work becomes just good enough. There is not a lot of vertical mobility writing good enough code.
The attitude that you are a better coder than all your peers does not go over well when you start working as part of a team. If you want a long successful career as a coder you need to get used to working in a team, and that often means relying on other peoples code to work. You may even one day become a technical lead where you have to trust other people to write code, that means also letting them make their own mistakes and learn from them.
but it's not interesting at the programming level. it's not about that.
Depends on the project, it can be. I am currently trying to create a SCORM 1.2 API interface in JS and that is a pretty major programming type task. Before anyone suggests using a different language please go and check what SCORM 1.2 is first. I have to do the work in JS as that is the language SCORM is based on.
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
If the US government did not pony up and buy GM then Chinese companies would have picked the corpse clean. Of course, most Chinese companies are partially state owned and have strong advantages in China. They then use that core market where they are always the main player to gain advantage overseas where we allow free market ideas to stifle our own government into not standing up for our own industry in the name of short term profits.
A great example of this is how China is currently building a commercial airline fleet. The first models are being built by Boeing, then the next models will be built by Boeing in china using Chinese workers and companies, then the Chinese companies get to sack off Boeing and use what they learned to build their own. The new high speed rail they are developing is the same as well, they buy in foreign expertise but only with a definite plan to bring that expertise in house eventually at any cost. This might have meant the country developed slower in the short term, but it has given the country a very solid base to build on now and it will only get bigger in future.
This is not saying GM never made mistakes, but the government that were in power when it went tits up had very tough choice to make.
Yes, and the Pakistani government had a fair idea he was in the country but they knew their own military and people supported him so there was not a lot they could do. Pakistan's political elite might moan occasionally about US drone strikes but the government are shit scared of muslim extremism too and would like nothing more that it to go away. Of course, they do not want to actually do anything about it themselves though because they would be booted out by their own people.
There are a great many countries in the Arab world like this where they tread a fine line between their own people and the support they receive from the US.
And yet capitalism -- let us not forget that Big Brother presides over an integrated, global capitalist system -- must be democratic, because it cannot be anything else.
Why?
I have a feeling there are an awful lot of Chinese people currently proving you wrong. Whatever else you say about the Chinese political system it is very far from democratic.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
As an outsider looking in (I am British) I always think this is certainly the case. The only solution in my book though involves actually looking at your political system and trying to change it for the better (ours too). The thing is though whenever I suggest this to most Americans they always come back to the constitution and the founding fathers. Surely, they were not right about every thing and somethings may have moved on since they lived.
The first thing I always want to change in the case of the UK is moving away from a two party, purely adversarial system. Proportional Representation is much better idea as smaller parties get more influence into government policy. This also forces the bigger parties to work together much more. Your system used to do this when you elected a president from one party and congress and the senate dominated by the other but this seems to have broken down of late.
By the way though, when the founding fathers did come up with your system it was a very good one and a very good example for the rest of the world to follow.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
As a brit who lives under a system of state funded health care I always find you guys horror stories about it as a bit absurd.
The first thing that you never get is that it is a fall back system. It is a very good fall back system but plenty of people still pay for better private care. If I want to see an NHS doctor or dentist I have to find one near my home, wait several weeks for an appointment then take time off work. I can go and see a doctor just near my office during my lunch break and pay for private care on a one off basis or get insurance to cover it ahead of time.
The state care does force the private healthcare industry to keep its prices very low though, and that is a definite plus in my book. I have no problem with the proportion of my taxes that funds the state fall back system even though I do not use it as it saves me watching people dieing on the streets. It also kind of balances out as I could not always afford private care, when i was a student I paid nothing in taxes but did break my hand and get treated for zero cost by the NHS.
Now, on to your main point about poor lifestyle choices. This is interesting as we are now having a debate along these lines in this country, and I am not entirely decided one way of the other. In the case of smoking surely if someone is warned that they are getting emphysema or cancer but still carry on smoking there is an argument for making them pay for their own care? I am 37 years old and we have known smoking was bad for you for as long as I can remember.
Being a lard arse (fatty) is not quite so clear cut as the fattiest foods are often the cheapest but I am still not entirely against encouraging people to lead healthier lives in return for treatment. Maybe not forcing them to pay for all their medical bills but at least some small contribution is good idea. That contribution can be deducted via taxes in order to not have to withhold treatment.
The thing is though, this is a perfectly reasonable debate to have as a society. Our politicians can then push back down the various civil servants the priorities we suggest.
Of course, maybe this is all much harder in your society due to how utterly bent your political system is but that is another issue. The way your politicians are blatantly bought and sold by campaign donations is very different to here where that sort of thing has to be done much more carefully on the sly. A politician taking money in return for voting in a particular way would be a very serious thing over here if you are caught. All it would take would be one undercover journalist getting proof of this going on and criminal charges may follow, getting booted out of parliament and your party certainly would. This is an example although in this case it was only asking a question, not actually voting in parliement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
Writing code professionally does not ensure you know what good practices are, in fact I'd argue that very often it shows you the contrary.
Nope definitely not. The poster I replied to though seemed to be saying he was an expert only because he had studied a BEng in software engineering. He only made mention of his academic qualification (actually, he didn't even say that, he just said studied) and that was why he knew all about software development, that is utter crap.
The best way to learn about developing software is to do it, full time, in a few different environments. I have spent 3 years working for a small company developing small stand alone agile projects. Then I moved on to work in a slightly larger company working as part of a team on a common codebase we all contribute to, I have been there 6 years. Both roles have taught me a lot. In my first role any mistakes you made you learned from quickly, but since each project was done and dusted quickly you very rarely had to struggle with legacy code. In my current role that is much more common as the same code has been constantly being tweaked and added to for almost a decade.
And it is not even clear that they reside in Europe at all.
If they do reside anywhere in Europe then they are liable to be arrested under a european arrest warrant and sent back to Sweden to serve their time. They must have left Europe and never come back to the entire continent to be safe.
That's why you have the manager sign off on the requirements and functional specification. He can change his mind (and often does as a company better understands the market) but the cost is then his responsibility which he can balance with the potential reward in his decision and communicate a justification to stake holders. If you just make the box, the responsibility is then fairly yours. How was the manager to know the cost of his decision?
Also, try always trying to build a box with extendible sides. If the manager baulks at the cost of this then tall him the only way to save him money as that he cannot possible make the box larger later. Giving them a choice of solutions where the cheapest solution has clearly specified limitations is a good way of covering both angles. He can them make a cost / benefit choice.
that's "waterfall" methodology, what you are referring to as "engineering."
I've done a BE in Software, and both methodologies were taught and covered well.
"waterfall" != "engineering"
But have you worked in both environments in a real company. Academic study of how to write software is worth very little compared to actually doing it professionally for a similar amount of time. Sorry, but a BEng is nothing of 3 years experience writing code for a living.
For one thing at uni you very rarely get marked on stuff as a team. In the real world everything depends on a project being completed as a team and if the project fails, then whole team has failed.
Oh, get really good at debugging the systems. Listen to other people. Ask them questions. Be humble when you don't know and thank people for assisting you. It pays off and makes you indispensable.
And the other side of this is never sound sure about something you are not absolutely 100% about. I have a guy who works for me at the moment who always contributes to discussions sounding 100% positive what he is saying is correct. Once I realised he was wrong about some of this stuff I realised I now have no way of knowing what he says is true without second guessing everything he suggests, that is so not where you want to be.
The funny thing is I was always like this too when I was more junior and I never realised how crap it was until the boot was put on the other foot.
Learn to bullshit about development methods like agile, waterfall, etc.
Check. This is most important when explaining to new developers fresh out of uni why you want them to actually talk to the client top find out what the client needs and are not giving them a defined specification where some else has already done the hard work
Learn to estimate project costs before a project starts.
When I was promoted to a technical lead I asked the guy who did the job previously how the hell you did this part of the role as it was always the bit I found most tricky. He basically told me to just give it my best guess then double it to be sure you covered the work. If the client moans it is too long then you offer them a 20% discount and are still covered.
Expect to spend lots of time making these estimates without getting paid for them only to be told that your estimate is too expensive and you've been beat out by some 'hacker' from Asia or Eastern Europe where the cost of living is a fraction of yours.
Of course, the problem here is that while these developers are much cheaper they need much better specifications to work from. They are generally not as good at talking to the client directly and finding out the business needs. Also, the joy of agile is that if is a methodology designed to cope with feature creep. Your fella in Estonia or India will be more likely to insist on a contract renegotiation at this point.
Also, you need to be sure your foreign developer is going to produce a decent working system. I am current working with a very good eastern European developer who produces damn decent code. I have had to rescue projects in the past though that were thrown together by halfwits just trying to get a quick buck and then move on to the next sucker safe in the knowledge that there was very little legal recourse the client had if the project went sideways.
If you play your cards right, you will graduate from programmer of the line to 'system architect' or something like that where you tell other programmers what to do.
Telling other programmers what to do is nightmare, almost all of us are arrogant fuckers and trying to dictate how we solve a problem is usually an exercise in futility. Just let the guys who work for you make their own fuckups and learn from them, never try and steer them clear of the fuckups ahead of time as they just resent this. Nope, you have to let them code themselves into a blind alley you saw coming a mile off then just demand they fix it. Or, you can try and hire that one exceptional developer in a million who actually listens and is happy to take advice, but they are often too expensive unless you get them straight out of uni.
I have an App, it is pirated by an Indian bloke, it was on a filesharing site in Holland.
This is clearly your fault. You obviously should have chosen to make your app available at a more reasonable price, or based some sort of software as a service model on top of it then distributed it as open source.
If all Wii games disappeared tomorrow, I would not shed a tear because I do not have a Wii and thus do not buy games for it.
But I am sure that those who do buy Wii games would miss them.
There may be child molesters who buy games from Steam. Are you, a Steam user, in that boat as well? No? Then do not so easily drag in "cheaters" as some loaded term for second-hand sellers.
I was not saying all people who trade in second games are cheaters. I was saying that cheaters are able to use the second hand market to recoup some money from a game they have been caught cheating it after they are banned. I would rather they could not do this even though I freely acknowledge that this would also impact a great many people who are too poor or tightfisted to just pony up and buy all their games new like me.
A new game is only $60 or so, that is chump change and I spend more that that most months on beer. If you cant afford that, then find a way to earn more or go without, that is what capitalism is all about. Those with the money have the power, those without the money can go fuck themselves as they do not matter. If you do not like this then try and find yourself a nice little socialist country to emigrate to, there must be one somewhere that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.
Your rant on thieving I don't understand as no-one in this thread has suggested going to the store and stealing a game, that would be as stupid and as illegal as me going to the Ford dealer and stealing a new truck because my truck came with a defective ignition switch.
I equate saying "I refuse to be bound by that games conditions of sale imposed by the creator so I will download it from the pirate bay and not pay anything" with stealing. I have been around long enough to hear all the arguments why it is not, but I still think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Running an SSH tunnel to a proxy won't get you expelled, arrested, and branded an untouchable by the corporate world. If anyone cares, you'll get told off by NetOps; In the worst case and as a repeat-offender, they might disconnect your dorm room's network access.
Did you read my post? I did say the correct approach was to try something like this when I talked about VPN. I was thinking that the person I replied to would take more drastic action to bypass his universities restriction.
As quite a few others have already pointed out, many unis require you to live on-campus.
To be honest, I still have a hard time believing this. Here in the UK not a single university in the country operates such a restriction, most have less accommodation than they need so force some (most, in many cases) students to live off campus.
I just did a quick search and found that Harvard does seem to let you live off campus apart from in your first year, judging by the link here: http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/about/faq.html#11
As I said, I spent a year in university halls then got the hell out as quick as I could, but I am surprised the force you to live on campus even in your freshman year.
I might as well have just stopped reading your post there, they might lock you in to studying with them for 4 years but you are allowed to move off campus you know.
Many universities don't allow you to move out of the dorms (the cynic in me says it's for the $$, but who knows). I went to a tiny school in a really rural location and even if we wanted to move out, there were more students in the town than actual people in the town (1400 students, 800 residents), so it would've never worked to have people spread around.
That must be a wierd thing specific to the US. Here in the UK I cannot think of a single university that forced you to live in halls. In fact, that would probably not even be legal here.
How would that work with students who were local and chose to carry on living with their parents? Did they have to pay for a room they would not use or do they only open admissions to people who come from outside a certain geographical area?
If I pay to live in your house...
and you have me locked in to that arrangement for four (or more) years...
I might as well have just stopped reading your post there, they might lock you in to studying with them for 4 years but you are allowed to move off campus you know. University Halls always have loads of restrictive policies, in my day you could not even have any sort of internet or phone service in your room, and this was before mobile phones so we all spent lots of time queuing at the payphones in the cold.
The solution to this is simply to move off campus into private accommodation and practice being a real grown up. By the time I finished uni everyone one of my mates had done this as part of the whole growing up experience. I moved out after my first year as I hated the overly sheltered environment of student halls
This doesn't involve either the FP's parents or his employer - He pays a boatload of money every year for housing AND internet access, and his uni has decided they can selectively skip out on the second half of that deal simply because they have a captive audience.
Is it actually a boat load of money compared to the average rent in that area? In my day uni halls were dirt cheap compared to living off campus. This was especially true when you factored in the bills for water, power, telephone, gas (for heating, not driving your car), etc that you had to all pay separately when you lived outside halls. If the university are subsidising the shit out of his internet access then they have a right to restrict it as much as they like providing they are up front about it.
Then yes, I damned well expect you to provide me with real internet access, and you can fully expect me to actively work around whatever attempts you may make to enforce your morality on my net feed.
This is the most retarded part of your entire post. The correct work around for this is to move the hell out of the universities sheltered halls of residence, get a 3G card or a VPN account if that is allowed through the firewall. Your approach may very well get you expelled, that will dump you in the gutter with no qualifications. No other university or employer is going to touch you if they find out you were expelled from a previous university for hacking into their network, even if you can explain that it was just to use SSH or something not on port 80.
This is also against the law in most western countries, you may even get a criminal record and will screw your life over utterly. Only last month there was a case here in the UK about an ethical hacker who has been convicted of breaking into facebook. He might have through he was doing them a favour but they did not share his sentiment.
We all do stupid crap when were are young, but thankfully most of use avoid getting dragged through the law courts for it. Bypassing the access controls on your university network though will certainly be very frowned upon if you are caught. Banking on not being caught is also a very big gamble, somewhere in your university is probably someone with a brain, even if most undergraduates have no direct contact with them. If they get a sniff of someone bypassing their security they may even contract in outside help to get to the bottom of who is doing it.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
Nope, we just realised that it is so easy to switch between windows as we need to using alt-tab or the bar at the bottom. Don't assume everyone who like using maximised windows for everything does so through stupidity.
The Linux community is ridiculously conservative.
Probably because many of us use Linux for real work, rather than Facebook and Youtube.
Now thats a laugh. It's a hobbiest OS. Some people might use it at work but most of us have our work desktop OS imposed upon us by our corporate overlords, even those of us who work with Linux servers all day. I am not saying that nobody here uses a desktop flavour or Linux for work, but I bet the vast majority of us are stuck with Windows or Mac and only use desktop Linux on our PC's at home.
Of course, since neither you nor me are posting any figures or solid research to back up our arguments we are both just plucking our opinions out of thin air.
The funny things about all this fuss about Gnome, Unity and whatever else is that I actually can understand this all. Gnome has long suffered from a "not invented here" mental block, I seem to remember Linus complaining about it years ago when he submitted them a bunch of patches to make an earlier version of Gnome more configurable without editing the code.
In light of this I do that Unity is a good idea, but after having only used it for a few days on my laptop I am not an immediate fan. I do think though that it has some nice touches now in 11.10 (11.04 was pretty clunky). Hopefully they will just make the ubuntu button far more like the windows start menu then be done with it since Windows 7 is, in my opinion a damn fine usable interface.
I know many people in the Linux community have deliberately chosen Linux in order to be different, but that has always struck me as just being obstinate, since both MS and Apple invest a fortune in user interface design I think the Linux community should try and let this influence them as much as possible since that is one thing open source software can rarely afford.
Even if Unity stop short of slavishly copying the windows start menu though, it is still the beginning of a damn decent interface and if they carry on letting out side influences suggest improvements then it will overtake gnome in no time.
Setup a basic LLC for yourself. Create the items/ideas under that. Document your time spent to show that it did not conflict with your full time job.
Then watch them take all your hard work in house as they legally own it. Also, they may well fire you for moonlighting depending on what other crap they put in your contract.
Creating an LLC is no guarantee against them doing this as you will own the LLC and their employment contract is with you and not the LLC. If they want to sue you for something they can sure you directly so the LLC offers you not protection. They could also probably just take the LLC as an asset from you if it was based entirely on their work.
Most companies put this sort of crap in contracts as an insurance policy to protect them from you using business knowledge you were gaining during your day job to produce a competing product. Assuming you are not doing this, your employer may well just let you produce other stuff on the side in your own time if you ask them nicely. If your employer does not want you to do this though then you really should just walk and get another job that will let you. This is assuming such a job exists, every job I ever had put a similar clause in my employment contract.
Not in this scenario.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200711
Without getting into technical details, in the general case, and under 2011 tax law, a married couple can waive paying federal tax on up to $500k($250k exclusion each) of realized gains on your house. Even if the parents had 0 basis on the house, the maximum realized gain would be $500k, so they don't have to pay anything on that.
Further, the son will take that property with a basis at fair market value(step-up in basis, see link below), i.e he'll have a full $500k basis in that house. It could appreciate to $750mil and he'd still pay no taxes when selling it.
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126098.html
IAACPA. (Albeit, a financial accountant, not a tax accountant:P)
But will the son not be given a bill by the IRS for estate tax when the house is transferred into his name when his parents die? This was what I was thinking would force him to sell the house in order to pay.
If the parents sunk all of their money into a $500k house and that was their only asset (thus leaving him no inheritance), then blame the parents for poor financial planning.
If someone leaves you a $500k house free and clear that's a pretty damn good inheritance and hardly poor financial planning on their part.
But aside from that, why should someone who only makes $20k/year (or whatever a barista might make...not much) be expected to be able to live in a $500k house?
Because it's bought and paid for, and his property. The question is, why should someone with low income but fully owned property NOT be allowed to live in it?
This is an utterly crap fictitious scenario.
In the scenario above where someone is left a house by his parents but no other money he would actually most likely be forced into selling the house in order to pay the government the estate tax he owed. The only reason Ms Jobs did not have to pay this is that your spouse is exempt.
The day I trust others to write code better than me is the day my work becomes just good enough. There is not a lot of vertical mobility writing good enough code.
The attitude that you are a better coder than all your peers does not go over well when you start working as part of a team. If you want a long successful career as a coder you need to get used to working in a team, and that often means relying on other peoples code to work. You may even one day become a technical lead where you have to trust other people to write code, that means also letting them make their own mistakes and learn from them.
but it's not interesting at the programming level. it's not about that.
Depends on the project, it can be. I am currently trying to create a SCORM 1.2 API interface in JS and that is a pretty major programming type task. Before anyone suggests using a different language please go and check what SCORM 1.2 is first. I have to do the work in JS as that is the language SCORM is based on.
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/
If the US government did not pony up and buy GM then Chinese companies would have picked the corpse clean. Of course, most Chinese companies are partially state owned and have strong advantages in China. They then use that core market where they are always the main player to gain advantage overseas where we allow free market ideas to stifle our own government into not standing up for our own industry in the name of short term profits.
A great example of this is how China is currently building a commercial airline fleet. The first models are being built by Boeing, then the next models will be built by Boeing in china using Chinese workers and companies, then the Chinese companies get to sack off Boeing and use what they learned to build their own. The new high speed rail they are developing is the same as well, they buy in foreign expertise but only with a definite plan to bring that expertise in house eventually at any cost. This might have meant the country developed slower in the short term, but it has given the country a very solid base to build on now and it will only get bigger in future.
This is not saying GM never made mistakes, but the government that were in power when it went tits up had very tough choice to make.
um - Bin Laden was in a nice Pakistani house.
Yes, and the Pakistani government had a fair idea he was in the country but they knew their own military and people supported him so there was not a lot they could do. Pakistan's political elite might moan occasionally about US drone strikes but the government are shit scared of muslim extremism too and would like nothing more that it to go away. Of course, they do not want to actually do anything about it themselves though because they would be booted out by their own people.
There are a great many countries in the Arab world like this where they tread a fine line between their own people and the support they receive from the US.
And yet capitalism -- let us not forget that Big Brother presides over an integrated, global capitalist system -- must be democratic, because it cannot be anything else.
Why?
I have a feeling there are an awful lot of Chinese people currently proving you wrong. Whatever else you say about the Chinese political system it is very far from democratic.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
As an outsider looking in (I am British) I always think this is certainly the case. The only solution in my book though involves actually looking at your political system and trying to change it for the better (ours too). The thing is though whenever I suggest this to most Americans they always come back to the constitution and the founding fathers. Surely, they were not right about every thing and somethings may have moved on since they lived.
The first thing I always want to change in the case of the UK is moving away from a two party, purely adversarial system. Proportional Representation is much better idea as smaller parties get more influence into government policy. This also forces the bigger parties to work together much more. Your system used to do this when you elected a president from one party and congress and the senate dominated by the other but this seems to have broken down of late.
By the way though, when the founding fathers did come up with your system it was a very good one and a very good example for the rest of the world to follow.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
As a brit who lives under a system of state funded health care I always find you guys horror stories about it as a bit absurd.
The first thing that you never get is that it is a fall back system. It is a very good fall back system but plenty of people still pay for better private care. If I want to see an NHS doctor or dentist I have to find one near my home, wait several weeks for an appointment then take time off work. I can go and see a doctor just near my office during my lunch break and pay for private care on a one off basis or get insurance to cover it ahead of time.
The state care does force the private healthcare industry to keep its prices very low though, and that is a definite plus in my book. I have no problem with the proportion of my taxes that funds the state fall back system even though I do not use it as it saves me watching people dieing on the streets. It also kind of balances out as I could not always afford private care, when i was a student I paid nothing in taxes but did break my hand and get treated for zero cost by the NHS.
Now, on to your main point about poor lifestyle choices. This is interesting as we are now having a debate along these lines in this country, and I am not entirely decided one way of the other. In the case of smoking surely if someone is warned that they are getting emphysema or cancer but still carry on smoking there is an argument for making them pay for their own care? I am 37 years old and we have known smoking was bad for you for as long as I can remember.
Being a lard arse (fatty) is not quite so clear cut as the fattiest foods are often the cheapest but I am still not entirely against encouraging people to lead healthier lives in return for treatment. Maybe not forcing them to pay for all their medical bills but at least some small contribution is good idea. That contribution can be deducted via taxes in order to not have to withhold treatment.
The thing is though, this is a perfectly reasonable debate to have as a society. Our politicians can then push back down the various civil servants the priorities we suggest.
Of course, maybe this is all much harder in your society due to how utterly bent your political system is but that is another issue. The way your politicians are blatantly bought and sold by campaign donations is very different to here where that sort of thing has to be done much more carefully on the sly. A politician taking money in return for voting in a particular way would be a very serious thing over here if you are caught. All it would take would be one undercover journalist getting proof of this going on and criminal charges may follow, getting booted out of parliament and your party certainly would. This is an example although in this case it was only asking a question, not actually voting in parliement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
Writing code professionally does not ensure you know what good practices are, in fact I'd argue that very often it shows you the contrary.
Nope definitely not. The poster I replied to though seemed to be saying he was an expert only because he had studied a BEng in software engineering. He only made mention of his academic qualification (actually, he didn't even say that, he just said studied) and that was why he knew all about software development, that is utter crap.
The best way to learn about developing software is to do it, full time, in a few different environments. I have spent 3 years working for a small company developing small stand alone agile projects. Then I moved on to work in a slightly larger company working as part of a team on a common codebase we all contribute to, I have been there 6 years. Both roles have taught me a lot. In my first role any mistakes you made you learned from quickly, but since each project was done and dusted quickly you very rarely had to struggle with legacy code. In my current role that is much more common as the same code has been constantly being tweaked and added to for almost a decade.
This is true they don't need to show passports due to the Schengen agreement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement .
And it is not even clear that they reside in Europe at all.
If they do reside anywhere in Europe then they are liable to be arrested under a european arrest warrant and sent back to Sweden to serve their time. They must have left Europe and never come back to the entire continent to be safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant
That's why you have the manager sign off on the requirements and functional specification. He can change his mind (and often does as a company better understands the market) but the cost is then his responsibility which he can balance with the potential reward in his decision and communicate a justification to stake holders. If you just make the box, the responsibility is then fairly yours. How was the manager to know the cost of his decision?
Also, try always trying to build a box with extendible sides. If the manager baulks at the cost of this then tall him the only way to save him money as that he cannot possible make the box larger later. Giving them a choice of solutions where the cheapest solution has clearly specified limitations is a good way of covering both angles. He can them make a cost / benefit choice.
that's "waterfall" methodology, what you are referring to as "engineering."
I've done a BE in Software, and both methodologies were taught and covered well.
"waterfall" != "engineering"
But have you worked in both environments in a real company. Academic study of how to write software is worth very little compared to actually doing it professionally for a similar amount of time. Sorry, but a BEng is nothing of 3 years experience writing code for a living.
For one thing at uni you very rarely get marked on stuff as a team. In the real world everything depends on a project being completed as a team and if the project fails, then whole team has failed.
Engineering a house:
1. Gather requirements
2. Write a spec
3. Design house to spec
4. Build house to design
Then :)
5. Gather new requirements as you have 3 children that came along while you were doing step 4
Oh, get really good at debugging the systems. Listen to other people. Ask them questions. Be humble when you don't know and thank people for assisting you. It pays off and makes you indispensable.
And the other side of this is never sound sure about something you are not absolutely 100% about. I have a guy who works for me at the moment who always contributes to discussions sounding 100% positive what he is saying is correct. Once I realised he was wrong about some of this stuff I realised I now have no way of knowing what he says is true without second guessing everything he suggests, that is so not where you want to be.
The funny thing is I was always like this too when I was more junior and I never realised how crap it was until the boot was put on the other foot.
Learn to bullshit about development methods like agile, waterfall, etc.
Check. This is most important when explaining to new developers fresh out of uni why you want them to actually talk to the client top find out what the client needs and are not giving them a defined specification where some else has already done the hard work
Learn to estimate project costs before a project starts.
When I was promoted to a technical lead I asked the guy who did the job previously how the hell you did this part of the role as it was always the bit I found most tricky. He basically told me to just give it my best guess then double it to be sure you covered the work. If the client moans it is too long then you offer them a 20% discount and are still covered.
Expect to spend lots of time making these estimates without getting paid for them only to be told that your estimate is too expensive and you've been beat out by some 'hacker' from Asia or Eastern Europe where the cost of living is a fraction of yours.
Of course, the problem here is that while these developers are much cheaper they need much better specifications to work from. They are generally not as good at talking to the client directly and finding out the business needs. Also, the joy of agile is that if is a methodology designed to cope with feature creep. Your fella in Estonia or India will be more likely to insist on a contract renegotiation at this point.
Also, you need to be sure your foreign developer is going to produce a decent working system. I am current working with a very good eastern European developer who produces damn decent code. I have had to rescue projects in the past though that were thrown together by halfwits just trying to get a quick buck and then move on to the next sucker safe in the knowledge that there was very little legal recourse the client had if the project went sideways.
If you play your cards right, you will graduate from programmer of the line to 'system architect' or something like that where you tell other programmers what to do.
Telling other programmers what to do is nightmare, almost all of us are arrogant fuckers and trying to dictate how we solve a problem is usually an exercise in futility. Just let the guys who work for you make their own fuckups and learn from them, never try and steer them clear of the fuckups ahead of time as they just resent this. Nope, you have to let them code themselves into a blind alley you saw coming a mile off then just demand they fix it. Or, you can try and hire that one exceptional developer in a million who actually listens and is happy to take advice, but they are often too expensive unless you get them straight out of uni.
I have an App, it is pirated by an Indian bloke, it was on a filesharing site in Holland.
This is clearly your fault. You obviously should have chosen to make your app available at a more reasonable price, or based some sort of software as a service model on top of it then distributed it as open source.
If all Wii games disappeared tomorrow, I would not shed a tear because I do not have a Wii and thus do not buy games for it.
But I am sure that those who do buy Wii games would miss them.
There may be child molesters who buy games from Steam. Are you, a Steam user, in that boat as well? No? Then do not so easily drag in "cheaters" as some loaded term for second-hand sellers.
I was not saying all people who trade in second games are cheaters. I was saying that cheaters are able to use the second hand market to recoup some money from a game they have been caught cheating it after they are banned. I would rather they could not do this even though I freely acknowledge that this would also impact a great many people who are too poor or tightfisted to just pony up and buy all their games new like me.
A new game is only $60 or so, that is chump change and I spend more that that most months on beer. If you cant afford that, then find a way to earn more or go without, that is what capitalism is all about. Those with the money have the power, those without the money can go fuck themselves as they do not matter. If you do not like this then try and find yourself a nice little socialist country to emigrate to, there must be one somewhere that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.
Your rant on thieving I don't understand as no-one in this thread has suggested going to the store and stealing a game, that would be as stupid and as illegal as me going to the Ford dealer and stealing a new truck because my truck came with a defective ignition switch.
I equate saying "I refuse to be bound by that games conditions of sale imposed by the creator so I will download it from the pirate bay and not pay anything" with stealing. I have been around long enough to hear all the arguments why it is not, but I still think it is.