Tried Netflix and Prime. You expect to get anything and everything. But instead you get one decent show, a load of old movies you've already seen.
Suddenly the most important thing is to remember to terminate subscription.
Let me put it this way. I can only watch so much content. There's more content around than I'll ever watch. If I'll be allowed to choose out of everything then I'll come back.
If you run your own IT shop, you necessarily have a much smaller pool of IT staff than Amazon. That means that your risk of losing an employee who is key for keeping your systems running is necessarily much larger than for Amazon. If you don't understand that, you certainly "don't have your stuff together".
Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it.
Well setup thought of systems require little staff. But you must be prepared to go the whole 9 yards during development phase. Resulting systems behave reasonably and predictively with respect to resources (CPU, memory, storage, networking bandwidth, etc...) The function of required staff vs. workload should be asymptotic and mustn't be linear and certainly not exponential. The task of the system administrator must be extremely boring (backups, restoring broken systems, adding hardware when thresholds are reached, patching/updating the OS when necessary.) Think of redundant systems without a single point of failure whereby hardware is added when necessary and where failure of one node only means that the system runs at a reduced speed. Think of prioritizing batch workload in order to reduce the max. needed CPU/IO. Think of transaction oriented processing. Think of reducing memory footprint. Think of letting your people work more and attend less meetings. Think of KISS even though what I describe sounds rather complex.
However, such kinds of systems the disadvantage that they eventually are taken for granted. And that crappy system designers get all the attention as apparently their work is of course much more complex.
You can achieve such levels of stability if you run a shop where the bottom line is clear to everyone. Or if you have exceptional management that understands the advantage of stability and the cost of instability.
However... The more you have your stuff together the easier it is to reach absurdly high levels of availability at affordable costs. Automatic host fail over, automatic site fail over, etc...
How nice. And when the employee that put all that together leaves to company for greener pastures or to pursue his dreams and when you have to replace him on short notice, that setup falls apart. Likewise, when you suddenly need to quadruple your capacity because of some business decision, you lack the staff and resources to do so quickly.
The nice thing about Amazon is that it is predictable, low (not zero) risk, and scalable.
I said "The more you have your stuff together". That means you have removed the bus effect as a factor. Not having your stuff together means the market forces will efficiently deal with you sooner or later.
However... The more you have your stuff together the easier it is to reach absurdly high levels of availability at affordable costs. Automatic host fail over, automatic site fail over, etc...
Same here. Would want to visit the USA. Should be fantastic. Both the country and people. There are many American scientists and artists that I hold in great esteem.
But as usual in any country, a minority of pedantic idiots try to screw things up. In my impression such wankers are more effective in the USA than in other true constitutional democracies. Coming up with pointless moronic rules (screen data at the airport that could be transferred in other more convenient, secure and untraceable ways), applying zero tolerance and feeling good about themselves for having done "a great job" at defending the country's best interests. And then there are their vassals who by the book and ooze stupidity out of their eyes.
To the majority of Americans that do have sense I'd say that it'd be good if that same majority would convey the idea that America surely wasn't built on FUD but more likely on risk taking, convention challenging, hard working and intellect.
In a very broad sense, what's in it for me? Even thinner phones and tablets? Any other implications for tech geeks?
Otherwise, WTF is a biology subject doing on/.?
Not to stir things up, to cause a hostile atmosphere, or to troll in general. But biologists are among the most questionable programmers I've ever met. Messing things up with their fancy Human Genome Project stuff and with their readily available access to reproduction topics most/.ers can only dream of.
Any "dirty" style should be avoided as a rule and applied with good reasoning.
My guilty pleasure is to return multiple return statements. The reasoning behind this is that it sometimes makes code better readable. Less nesting/fewer methods. Translating "avoid multiple return statements" to loops would result in avoiding break and continue statements.
If one's self-critical enough, code will be cleaned up eventually. Cleanly avoiding multiple return statements -and too many avoiding break and continue statements- usually comes with a breakthrough in the functional decomposition of the problem at hand.
It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.
How about selling expertise, technology, components and whatnot?
Second, how does such a beginners boo boo slip into statistics? I understand forgetting females without a cervix. But beings that weren't conceived with one? It sort of leaves the impression of botched research. Perhaps the findings and interpretation were rushed out to appease patrons. What else brings back memories of Roquefort and needs a once over? Did they confine the research to humans or more generally to primates?
So many questions.
Hello Mr. victim. It is me, Steffen van der Hast-Gracht of the Amsterdam police. Wiz my partner and also I am very happy to say my lover Ronald. I am terribly sorry to inform you zat you haf bin vukked ofer ze Internet by some ferry dubious person stemming from Ze Nezerlands. Vee haf already prepared ze forms for you to fill in so zat you can claim insurance, psychological help and absent time from yor wurk. Vee also made petition on ze Internet for you to arrange a silent march over ze canals. You ken bye flowers from my nephew but if you don't want or you don't like also from any other shop. Yes. End may I infite you for a romantic evening with you, your partners, our dogs and a few convicted drug dealers zat reely reely promise to take ze right path very soon.
Lets's assume a two classes world. Like you suggest, the upper class is security walled and can easily travel between compounds. The lower class in lawless areas outside the the walls.
I claim such a schema will not endure. There inevitably will be times when the upper class needs the lower class but can no longer access it. In the end the upper class will actually feel locked out and abandoned. No genuine external impulses will cause intellectual inbreeding. Attending a court with slave jesters as entertainment gets boring pretty soon. The tedious intelligentsia will either cause the tide to turn or will be eliminated and the next wave of smart people will have another go.
Not a scenario I'd be happy to have tested out. But in the long term this is what it would amount to IMHO.
Don't take it from me. Look at examples in the presence and in history, where cliques thought they deserved a garden of Eden. It never, ever works out well.
This defies the purpose of competition. As a competitor you're looking to improve your unique proposition, increase quality, lower costs, improve your dependency position with clients and suppliers. Saving on humans checks quite a few boxes. Following Nadella will weaken your strategic position. Artificially slowing down development serves the sneaky bastards that are now developing
In the middle long term companies that do exactly that will thrive. In the long term we'll all need to drastically re-evaluate our economy.
I haven't got an inkling -let alone an answer- as to what will matter when push comes to shove. The powers that be will not allow chaos to happen. At the same time we can't have a population of 90% poor people -made redundant by AI-, 9.9% of the people installing AI and robotics (until even that work dries out) and 0.1% wealthy people that actually feel entitled.
Where I work we have a particularly nasty Gaslighting Colleague. The guy is a pain, meddles into affairs that aren't his and actually commits sabotage. However, he's backed up by one higher manager and hence can get away with anything. Only thing we can do about him is playing the formal game. It isn't a cure but it stops the symptoms and reduces the bad atmosphere at the workplace.
Formality is all about quality and you can preemptively shut a Gaslighting Colleague with documenting agreements. Try setting up a a clean and small document to agree on quality issues (technical architecture design, class design, coding style, version control, deployment etc...) and stick to it. Sort of thank him for his contributions as quality auditor without giving him too much of a status.
Keep him busy and hand him enough rope to hang himself. (Bitching and moaning usually is a sign of incompetence.)
Most likely the antics won't stop and he'll go up a scale and try proving you guys are much too expensive and should be outsourced. Prepare for financial break down of the supply chain you function in.
If you don't have any manager backing you up than the situation really gets grim and unpleasant. Try as long as you can to not let the bastards ruin a good thing; Surrendering to any kind of competition is hardly ever a strategic solution. As a last resource look for alternative jobs.
You'd think organisations would detect any kind of behaviour that screws up their strategic position. But most of them don't. Some brown nosing career jockeys will use anything to gain a minimal raise in salary or position.
(The "sane" ones in organisation should come up with a way to unite. But how do you distinguish the "sane" ones?)
Slashdot Mirror
Slartibartfast?
Even if you do like kids, bringing them to the world we have today isn't exactly a gift to them...
My take also.
Lived through that in the 70s. Thinking "the world we have today" warrants giving up altogether is thoroughly depressing.
To cheer up people with a realistic view on life I'd say:
Has Nintendo ever done a decent job with software that isn't a game?
Chill out buddy. Our whole life is a game. Enjoyment over finishing #1.
Tried Netflix and Prime. You expect to get anything and everything. But instead you get one decent show, a load of old movies you've already seen.
Suddenly the most important thing is to remember to terminate subscription.
Let me put it this way. I can only watch so much content. There's more content around than I'll ever watch. If I'll be allowed to choose out of everything then I'll come back.
I think I might speak for one or two more.
If you run your own IT shop, you necessarily have a much smaller pool of IT staff than Amazon. That means that your risk of losing an employee who is key for keeping your systems running is necessarily much larger than for Amazon. If you don't understand that, you certainly "don't have your stuff together".
Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it.
Well setup thought of systems require little staff. But you must be prepared to go the whole 9 yards during development phase. Resulting systems behave reasonably and predictively with respect to resources (CPU, memory, storage, networking bandwidth, etc...) The function of required staff vs. workload should be asymptotic and mustn't be linear and certainly not exponential. The task of the system administrator must be extremely boring (backups, restoring broken systems, adding hardware when thresholds are reached, patching/updating the OS when necessary.) Think of redundant systems without a single point of failure whereby hardware is added when necessary and where failure of one node only means that the system runs at a reduced speed. Think of prioritizing batch workload in order to reduce the max. needed CPU/IO. Think of transaction oriented processing. Think of reducing memory footprint. Think of letting your people work more and attend less meetings. Think of KISS even though what I describe sounds rather complex.
However, such kinds of systems the disadvantage that they eventually are taken for granted. And that crappy system designers get all the attention as apparently their work is of course much more complex.
You can achieve such levels of stability if you run a shop where the bottom line is clear to everyone. Or if you have exceptional management that understands the advantage of stability and the cost of instability.
How nice. And when the employee that put all that together leaves to company for greener pastures or to pursue his dreams and when you have to replace him on short notice, that setup falls apart. Likewise, when you suddenly need to quadruple your capacity because of some business decision, you lack the staff and resources to do so quickly.
The nice thing about Amazon is that it is predictable, low (not zero) risk, and scalable.
I said "The more you have your stuff together". That means you have removed the bus effect as a factor. Not having your stuff together means the market forces will efficiently deal with you sooner or later.
And.......today I realized that Snowden is a character in Catch 22.
I see your clever rhetorical figure. Whereby Snowden integrally represents the USA.
Rather astutely the main issue is merely alluded to in unclear terms. Indeed there's no alternative when addressing bigots.
I understand what you mean.
However... The more you have your stuff together the easier it is to reach absurdly high levels of availability at affordable costs. Automatic host fail over, automatic site fail over, etc...
Then again not many have.
Water may be wet! (Stay tuned)
Bickering about Linux-related nomenclature goes rampant. (You know better! Add to the argument pile now!)
Same here. Would want to visit the USA. Should be fantastic. Both the country and people. There are many American scientists and artists that I hold in great esteem.
But as usual in any country, a minority of pedantic idiots try to screw things up. In my impression such wankers are more effective in the USA than in other true constitutional democracies. Coming up with pointless moronic rules (screen data at the airport that could be transferred in other more convenient, secure and untraceable ways), applying zero tolerance and feeling good about themselves for having done "a great job" at defending the country's best interests. And then there are their vassals who by the book and ooze stupidity out of their eyes.
To the majority of Americans that do have sense I'd say that it'd be good if that same majority would convey the idea that America surely wasn't built on FUD but more likely on risk taking, convention challenging, hard working and intellect.
Any corporation abusing its monopoly should compensate their victims. And gained market share should be relinquish.
In a very broad sense, what's in it for me? Even thinner phones and tablets? Any other implications for tech geeks?
Otherwise, WTF is a biology subject doing on /.?
Not to stir things up, to cause a hostile atmosphere, or to troll in general. But biologists are among the most questionable programmers I've ever met. Messing things up with their fancy Human Genome Project stuff and with their readily available access to reproduction topics most /.ers can only dream of.
Never heard of it before. Youtubed it. Absolutely hilarious!
Doing meaningful stuff is actually really hard. A streak of luck isn't the same as understanding business, marketing and product development.
(Sure, positive vibes and enthusiasm are all good. But at the end of the day you need deliverables.)
Any "dirty" style should be avoided as a rule and applied with good reasoning.
My guilty pleasure is to return multiple return statements. The reasoning behind this is that it sometimes makes code better readable. Less nesting/fewer methods. Translating "avoid multiple return statements" to loops would result in avoiding break and continue statements.
If one's self-critical enough, code will be cleaned up eventually. Cleanly avoiding multiple return statements -and too many avoiding break and continue statements- usually comes with a breakthrough in the functional decomposition of the problem at hand.
Just curious what the author of GIT has to say about this. He can point out the truth with absolute authority.
(Reinvented a square wheel? Solved a non-problem? Cured a symptom?)
It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.
How about selling expertise, technology, components and whatnot?
First, praise for communicating the error!
Second, how does such a beginners boo boo slip into statistics? I understand forgetting females without a cervix. But beings that weren't conceived with one? It sort of leaves the impression of botched research. Perhaps the findings and interpretation were rushed out to appease patrons. What else brings back memories of Roquefort and needs a once over? Did they confine the research to humans or more generally to primates?
So many questions.
The Eclipse app and a usable terminal app and I'm good to go. And a 17'' screen of course.
Hello Mr. victim. It is me, Steffen van der Hast-Gracht of the Amsterdam police. Wiz my partner and also I am very happy to say my lover Ronald. I am terribly sorry to inform you zat you haf bin vukked ofer ze Internet by some ferry dubious person stemming from Ze Nezerlands. Vee haf already prepared ze forms for you to fill in so zat you can claim insurance, psychological help and absent time from yor wurk. Vee also made petition on ze Internet for you to arrange a silent march over ze canals. You ken bye flowers from my nephew but if you don't want or you don't like also from any other shop. Yes. End may I infite you for a romantic evening with you, your partners, our dogs and a few convicted drug dealers zat reely reely promise to take ze right path very soon.
Lets's assume a two classes world. Like you suggest, the upper class is security walled and can easily travel between compounds. The lower class in lawless areas outside the the walls.
I claim such a schema will not endure. There inevitably will be times when the upper class needs the lower class but can no longer access it. In the end the upper class will actually feel locked out and abandoned. No genuine external impulses will cause intellectual inbreeding. Attending a court with slave jesters as entertainment gets boring pretty soon. The tedious intelligentsia will either cause the tide to turn or will be eliminated and the next wave of smart people will have another go.
Not a scenario I'd be happy to have tested out. But in the long term this is what it would amount to IMHO.
Don't take it from me. Look at examples in the presence and in history, where cliques thought they deserved a garden of Eden. It never, ever works out well.
This defies the purpose of competition. As a competitor you're looking to improve your unique proposition, increase quality, lower costs, improve your dependency position with clients and suppliers. Saving on humans checks quite a few boxes. Following Nadella will weaken your strategic position. Artificially slowing down development serves the sneaky bastards that are now developing
In the middle long term companies that do exactly that will thrive. In the long term we'll all need to drastically re-evaluate our economy.
I haven't got an inkling -let alone an answer- as to what will matter when push comes to shove. The powers that be will not allow chaos to happen. At the same time we can't have a population of 90% poor people -made redundant by AI-, 9.9% of the people installing AI and robotics (until even that work dries out) and 0.1% wealthy people that actually feel entitled.
What ho!
...and the key stakeholders in the universities will enjoy their kickbacks and high end dinners.
With corruption the return of invested capital is humongous. Corrupt idiots selling out for a diner and the feeling of being privileged.
Where I work we have a particularly nasty Gaslighting Colleague. The guy is a pain, meddles into affairs that aren't his and actually commits sabotage. However, he's backed up by one higher manager and hence can get away with anything. Only thing we can do about him is playing the formal game. It isn't a cure but it stops the symptoms and reduces the bad atmosphere at the workplace.
Formality is all about quality and you can preemptively shut a Gaslighting Colleague with documenting agreements. Try setting up a a clean and small document to agree on quality issues (technical architecture design, class design, coding style, version control, deployment etc...) and stick to it. Sort of thank him for his contributions as quality auditor without giving him too much of a status.
Keep him busy and hand him enough rope to hang himself. (Bitching and moaning usually is a sign of incompetence.)
Most likely the antics won't stop and he'll go up a scale and try proving you guys are much too expensive and should be outsourced. Prepare for financial break down of the supply chain you function in.
If you don't have any manager backing you up than the situation really gets grim and unpleasant. Try as long as you can to not let the bastards ruin a good thing; Surrendering to any kind of competition is hardly ever a strategic solution. As a last resource look for alternative jobs.
You'd think organisations would detect any kind of behaviour that screws up their strategic position. But most of them don't. Some brown nosing career jockeys will use anything to gain a minimal raise in salary or position.
(The "sane" ones in organisation should come up with a way to unite. But how do you distinguish the "sane" ones?)