It's not because the site has been slashdotted. This message was up there over the weekend. It just looks like they are taking a while to move the site to the new server.
And BTW it's zooomr with 3 'o's;)
Try this in brainboost... Not that you're likely to get a better answer to the question from google. A google within wikipedia for the same question seemed to have a relatively low obfustication index.
What is the moon made of?
But PR-STV becomes instant-runoff in a single-seat election. This would have been useful in 2000 where Nader was perceived to have been weakening the Gore vote.
In this case a Nader supporter could have voted: 1. Nader 2. Gore
When Nader got knocked out the vote would then automatically go to Gore. A similar sitation could exist on the republican side for minority right-wing candidates and possibly libertarian candidates.
As you point out the duopoly would have to approve such a change in voting method. I believe each state would have to approve the method also.
Such universal approval is very unlikely... which is a shame.
I selected the text at the top, pulled down and to the right, and the window closed (as it should).
Good point. Someone above mentioned that "useless middle button". Given that the left and right buttons have already got useful functions associated with them why not set up mouse gestures on the middle button?
I'm a big fan of open source, but I don't agree with exclusive mandates. While some applications are undoubtably top of their class (eg. apache, sendmail, linux[as a server], mozilla/firebird etc.), others have yet to reach a stable, user-friendly state.
While many/.ers are techno-literate, the average computer user is still a long way from understanding the workings of the computers and software they use. That is to say, they're not going to be able to tweak the product, run through a manual install or any other fun tasks required to get an unstable program to behave.
While open source is nice to have, a closed source product that performs better must be considered under practical conditions (remember the bitkeeper saga in the lkml). I think OS developers understand this and eventually we will see many open source applications overtake their closed source counterparts in terms of quality and usability.
In their paranoia about open source competition, the likes of MS and other closed source development houses will probably shoot themselves in the foot as they have done many times in the past(like those fantastic halloween memos), and open more doors for implementation of open source. This is going to be a gradual but inevitable process and will probably take many years. Until then, if closed source works better then it should be considered along side open source, judged on all its merits including the genuine relevance of source availability, security requirements, stability, user-friendliness, ease of maintenance, licence renewal costs etc.
It cannot, and should not, be just a question of total cost of ownership but a true cost-benefit balance. What any customer wants, even if they're getting the product free, is bang for their buck over the life of the product. If a free product works 50% of the time and an equivalent proprietary product works 90% of the time then it's probably worthwile going with the closed product even on a pure TCO basis.
Open source should be adopted only after it becomes the better option and not before. Mandates to exclusively use open source will only hurt its case in the long run.
The original poster on this thread is absolutely correct on all points. But have you considered the reasons behind a company choosing to give a bonus over, say a pay rise. In many cases bonuses replace pay.
The nice thing about a bonus from a company's perspective is that it is completely optional. Therefore when times are hard or the employee is felt to be underperforming the cash can be witheld.
The unfortunate side effect of regular bonuses is that many employees do come to expect them. I find it perfectly understandable that people would be annoyed not to receive cash they thought was due. After all, if it was normal pay then they would definitely get it.
Then again a bonus is not and should not be considered normal pay. Every employee should bear this in mind when negotiating for a new job or a pay rise.
The best way to deal with bonuses is to plan as though you were not going to receive them. This way you will feel happy if you get one and won't give a damn if you don't.
Remember you agreed to a pay structure including a non-guaranteed bonus, it's up to you to deal with it properly, especially when you don't receive it! If you find you don't like the bonus concept in hard times then, like the original poster said, negotiate higher pay or find a job that will provide higher normal pay in place of a bonus.
In the meantime, it's a very bad idea to react negatively to not receiving a bonus. Your bosses will essentially treat the complaint in the same way as the original poster of this thread. They might also use it to label you a whiner. This does not tend look good on a career history.
Finally, as to a company giving a 'doll', well that's kind of adding insult to injury (at least, if you consider not receiving a bonus injury). I suggest you try the garbage compactor or bury it with a formal ceremony. Hell invite your co-workers and have a group funeral for the dolls. The important thing, whatever you do, is to enjoy the moment and get it out of your system so you can get on with life and enjoy the holidays.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like a phone that would let me talk my text messages in and read the response to me.
It's not because the site has been slashdotted. This message was up there over the weekend. It just looks like they are taking a while to move the site to the new server. And BTW it's zooomr with 3 'o's ;)
Damnit! I chose an "obvious question" ... Ah well, the wikipedia search was original anyway.
Try this in brainboost ... Not that you're likely to get a better answer to the question from google. A google within wikipedia for the same question seemed to have a relatively low obfustication index.
What is the moon made of?
But PR-STV becomes instant-runoff in a single-seat election. This would have been useful in 2000 where Nader was perceived to have been weakening the Gore vote.
... which is a shame.
In this case a Nader supporter could have voted:
1. Nader
2. Gore
When Nader got knocked out the vote would then automatically go to Gore. A similar sitation could exist on the republican side for minority right-wing candidates and possibly libertarian candidates.
As you point out the duopoly would have to approve such a change in voting method. I believe each state would have to approve the method also.
Such universal approval is very unlikely
Krunch
I'm a big fan of open source, but I don't agree with exclusive mandates. While some applications are undoubtably top of their class (eg. apache, sendmail, linux[as a server], mozilla/firebird etc.), others have yet to reach a stable, user-friendly state.
/.ers are techno-literate, the average computer user is still a long way from understanding the workings of the computers and software they use. That is to say, they're not going to be able to tweak the product, run through a manual install or any other fun tasks required to get an unstable program to behave.
While many
While open source is nice to have, a closed source product that performs better must be considered under practical conditions (remember the bitkeeper saga in the lkml). I think OS developers understand this and eventually we will see many open source applications overtake their closed source counterparts in terms of quality and usability.
In their paranoia about open source competition, the likes of MS and other closed source development houses will probably shoot themselves in the foot as they have done many times in the past(like those fantastic halloween memos), and open more doors for implementation of open source. This is going to be a gradual but inevitable process and will probably take many years. Until then, if closed source works better then it should be considered along side open source, judged on all its merits including the genuine relevance of source availability, security requirements, stability, user-friendliness, ease of maintenance, licence renewal costs etc.
It cannot, and should not, be just a question of total cost of ownership but a true cost-benefit balance. What any customer wants, even if they're getting the product free, is bang for their buck over the life of the product. If a free product works 50% of the time and an equivalent proprietary product works 90% of the time then it's probably worthwile going with the closed product even on a pure TCO basis.
Open source should be adopted only after it becomes the better option and not before. Mandates to exclusively use open source will only hurt its case in the long run.
The original poster on this thread is absolutely correct on all points. But have you considered the reasons behind a company choosing to give a bonus over, say a pay rise. In many cases bonuses replace pay.
The nice thing about a bonus from a company's perspective is that it is completely optional. Therefore when times are hard or the employee is felt to be underperforming the cash can be witheld.
The unfortunate side effect of regular bonuses is that many employees do come to expect them. I find it perfectly understandable that people would be annoyed not to receive cash they thought was due. After all, if it was normal pay then they would definitely get it.
Then again a bonus is not and should not be considered normal pay. Every employee should bear this in mind when negotiating for a new job or a pay rise.
The best way to deal with bonuses is to plan as though you were not going to receive them. This way you will feel happy if you get one and won't give a damn if you don't.
Remember you agreed to a pay structure including a non-guaranteed bonus, it's up to you to deal with it properly, especially when you don't receive it! If you find you don't like the bonus concept in hard times then, like the original poster said, negotiate higher pay or find a job that will provide higher normal pay in place of a bonus.
In the meantime, it's a very bad idea to react negatively to not receiving a bonus. Your bosses will essentially treat the complaint in the same way as the original poster of this thread. They might also use it to label you a whiner. This does not tend look good on a career history.
Finally, as to a company giving a 'doll', well that's kind of adding insult to injury (at least, if you consider not receiving a bonus injury). I suggest you try the garbage compactor or bury it with a formal ceremony. Hell invite your co-workers and have a group funeral for the dolls. The important thing, whatever you do, is to enjoy the moment and get it out of your system so you can get on with life and enjoy the holidays.
Incidently the CP/M clone which became MS-DOS was called QDOS, which if I recall correctly stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System".
It was mostly a copy of CP/M with a few new file and disk handling features.
MS seems to have come a long way front the days of Quick 'n Dirty (at least in their operating system).
If they got their info from napster then it looks like the movie is just a renamed Hobbit! Came across this conversation during a search.