I agree with everything you said except, "Nice enough to hire you."
Hiring me isn't a favor. I'm not your loser cousin who can't hold down a job because of his drinking problem. I'm a skilled and experienced professional, and I goddamn well will be treated like one.
The last time someone told me I should suck up a bad situation because I was, "Lucky to have a job" I quit. On the spot.
Within 3 months he was offering me a 10% raise, and 3 months after that his replacement was offering me 20%.
If they want to go ahead and quit, that's fine. It's the same situation we're going to be in in two weeks anyway. If I'm paying for them, then they can do it my way.
As for "training" you know that's bullshit. If you have access, people will have you working constantly for the last two weeks, and no one getting anything but the most cursory training.
Taking away their access forces them to work with someone who has access, someone who gets actual experience, and not just shitty verbal instructions, or cryptic written instructions.
Also, frankly, it cuts down on the bullshit where every manager in the building gets "one last project" in with the short timer, and then he leaves a ton of poorly tested crap lying around when he goes.
The reason I don't like leaving people with access is because they don't train people if they can fix the problem themselves. Period. It's not about being worried that someone is going to steal something, it's about being worried that something breaks on a regular basis that no one else knows how to fix.
I agree. I value my personal integrity quite highly, more highly than my job, so I tend to quit when the latter threatens to compromise the former.
I'm saying I understand why people would do it. I think often it's just symbolic: an attempt for them to salvage a little face, a little self-esteem from a crappy situation.
Note that I posted this in an article about stealing stuff from work.
No shit I don't own the copyright. I don't own the copyright on this post.
However, since this post and my backend code libraries are both invisible to management, I can walk with 'em. And I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
So working for a company that treats you like shit, cuts your pay, bullies you to work long hours, and then fires you is fine, but walking with a couple of boxes of pens is sacrilege?
I don't put myself in that sort of position: I don't usually have much trouble finding work, so I walk before I get stressed to that point. But I can certainly understand why a basically honest person might feel entitled to rip off a dishonest employer.
I actually support removing access privileges instantly in all cases where the employee is leaving: even if they're working out their final two weeks or something, it's better to have them having to do their work through someone who needs to learn how to do their job, than it is to have them "writing documentation" or "doing training" or any of a number of other stupid transition methods.
As far as preventing someone from stealing, I don't see how it would work for a tech industry. If your industry has tight data integrity, then they can't steal anyway, and if it doesn't they probably have some of it lingering on their home machines.
I've got a number of code libraries that migrate with me, but that's about it. Most of it I've opensourced at various times anyway. Far as I'm concerned, that sort of thing belongs to me in the first place.
Usually works out to their advantage: I had a guy contact me about some python code (my name is always in the header, along with my permanent email), and it turned out I was still using it, and had updated it enough to fix the problems that he was having with it. I was trying to figure out how he'd gotten his hands on such an old version when the email address registered.
Nah, doesn't apply because it's not ironic, and it's not targeted at the Geek Squad.
If you did a car that looked like the geek squad car, with a logo that was the same except it said, "Week Squad" and ran around fixing peoples computers with a sledgehammer, and filming it...THAT would be parody.
Or in this case, if these people ran around praying over peoples computers and did it specifically to make fun of the Geek Squad, that would be legit.
Having the same logo on a legitimate enterprise isn't protected by parody/freedom of expression laws.
I don't think anyone of us would have cared if he hadn't been the chair of the committee that was in charge of telecom regulation.
If my grandpa had that understanding of the internet, it'd be fine. For Ted Stevens to have it? Fuck no! It was a big part of his job, and the best he can come up with is "a series of tubes"? I don't think so!
We did some financials outsourcing to Infosys, and I can honestly say it was nothing like "skilled" work. Most of the people whose jobs were outsourced had mediocre skills, and no special education.
Mind, the Infosys people are hilariously bad, and the number of errors that they're making on financial jobs that have to be tediously fixed because they can't be re-run is staggering.
The NRE is massive. We're not talking about some kind of dinky software patent, where, once it's been thought up, it can be easily replicated. They have to be able to work up and mass produce huge quantities of glass, and there aren't many companies world wide who have that sort of capabilities.
Agreed, but your upfront is a lot lower than a more traditional printer would require.
Still, no, not a great solution, but it's perfectly within the power of the publishing houses to blacklist people who skip straight to digital publishing.
Are you talking to me? Dude, you don't have to tell me why he submitted his works to a publishing house: printed books are still king. You're going to lose the vast majority of your sales if you don't go print.
Generally though, as a first timer (he wrote some non-fiction, so maybe he didn't have to go through what others do) you have very little pull, and you get a pretty raw deal.
I think that, in the future, this is very likely to happen, and I think it's a very good thing.
Right now though...Distribution and marketing costs of printed books is prohibitively expensive, well out of reach of the average writer. So you've got to cut your devils deal with a publisher, and they take whatever they can get from you, up to and including all future publishing rights on all media.
Lot of people aren't in a position to renegotiate, and those people are the ones whose books are published to e-book the fastest. Those authors who are, they'll take longer because of all the negotiations.
It all depends on who you are and what your deal is. Generally, if you've released anything since the e-book thing has blown up, then you dealt with it in your original contract, and you may see as much as 25% of the 70% that Amazon pays your publishing house coming back to you...Which isn't bad but isn't good either.
If you did your deal 5 or 10 years ago, it's unlikely that you're going to get anywhere near as good a deal. A number of people who I've talked to, who've sold books that have sold more than 100,000 copies, but less than 1,000,000 copies...They're getting crap deals. Publishing houses make the RIAA look like a bunch of saints.
Most times the authors are against it because the publishing houses offer them a tiny flat fee and no percentage of the sales...As far as THEY are concerned, it's just one printing! And the author gets crap, which is wildly unfair given that the costs to the publishing house are non-existent.
In this case, since he's dead, there is no one to stop the publishing houses from raping his corpse.
Infrastructure is one of those places were government intervention is most useful. No one wants local competing water and sewer service, but we tolerate competing, privately maintained information infrastructure?
In many communities there is a push for the local governments to pay for high-end infrastructure with bonds and/or penny taxes, and communities are usually in favor of this.
Telecoms, on the other hand, usually resort to lobbying and aggressive push-polling to try and keep this from happening. In my mind, that they don't like it, is the best argument that it's the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Work for a media company, so my "creative output" while at work is arguably subject to their copyrights.
I agree with everything you said except, "Nice enough to hire you."
Hiring me isn't a favor. I'm not your loser cousin who can't hold down a job because of his drinking problem. I'm a skilled and experienced professional, and I goddamn well will be treated like one.
The last time someone told me I should suck up a bad situation because I was, "Lucky to have a job" I quit. On the spot.
Within 3 months he was offering me a 10% raise, and 3 months after that his replacement was offering me 20%.
If they want to go ahead and quit, that's fine. It's the same situation we're going to be in in two weeks anyway. If I'm paying for them, then they can do it my way.
As for "training" you know that's bullshit. If you have access, people will have you working constantly for the last two weeks, and no one getting anything but the most cursory training.
Taking away their access forces them to work with someone who has access, someone who gets actual experience, and not just shitty verbal instructions, or cryptic written instructions.
Also, frankly, it cuts down on the bullshit where every manager in the building gets "one last project" in with the short timer, and then he leaves a ton of poorly tested crap lying around when he goes.
The reason I don't like leaving people with access is because they don't train people if they can fix the problem themselves. Period. It's not about being worried that someone is going to steal something, it's about being worried that something breaks on a regular basis that no one else knows how to fix.
I agree. I value my personal integrity quite highly, more highly than my job, so I tend to quit when the latter threatens to compromise the former.
I'm saying I understand why people would do it. I think often it's just symbolic: an attempt for them to salvage a little face, a little self-esteem from a crappy situation.
Note that I posted this in an article about stealing stuff from work.
No shit I don't own the copyright. I don't own the copyright on this post.
However, since this post and my backend code libraries are both invisible to management, I can walk with 'em. And I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
So working for a company that treats you like shit, cuts your pay, bullies you to work long hours, and then fires you is fine, but walking with a couple of boxes of pens is sacrilege?
I don't put myself in that sort of position: I don't usually have much trouble finding work, so I walk before I get stressed to that point. But I can certainly understand why a basically honest person might feel entitled to rip off a dishonest employer.
Honesty is a two way street.
I actually support removing access privileges instantly in all cases where the employee is leaving: even if they're working out their final two weeks or something, it's better to have them having to do their work through someone who needs to learn how to do their job, than it is to have them "writing documentation" or "doing training" or any of a number of other stupid transition methods.
As far as preventing someone from stealing, I don't see how it would work for a tech industry. If your industry has tight data integrity, then they can't steal anyway, and if it doesn't they probably have some of it lingering on their home machines.
I've got a number of code libraries that migrate with me, but that's about it. Most of it I've opensourced at various times anyway. Far as I'm concerned, that sort of thing belongs to me in the first place.
Usually works out to their advantage: I had a guy contact me about some python code (my name is always in the header, along with my permanent email), and it turned out I was still using it, and had updated it enough to fix the problems that he was having with it. I was trying to figure out how he'd gotten his hands on such an old version when the email address registered.
Nah, doesn't apply because it's not ironic, and it's not targeted at the Geek Squad.
If you did a car that looked like the geek squad car, with a logo that was the same except it said, "Week Squad" and ran around fixing peoples computers with a sledgehammer, and filming it...THAT would be parody.
Or in this case, if these people ran around praying over peoples computers and did it specifically to make fun of the Geek Squad, that would be legit.
Having the same logo on a legitimate enterprise isn't protected by parody/freedom of expression laws.
I don't think anyone of us would have cared if he hadn't been the chair of the committee that was in charge of telecom regulation.
If my grandpa had that understanding of the internet, it'd be fine. For Ted Stevens to have it? Fuck no! It was a big part of his job, and the best he can come up with is "a series of tubes"? I don't think so!
We did some financials outsourcing to Infosys, and I can honestly say it was nothing like "skilled" work. Most of the people whose jobs were outsourced had mediocre skills, and no special education.
Mind, the Infosys people are hilariously bad, and the number of errors that they're making on financial jobs that have to be tediously fixed because they can't be re-run is staggering.
Just my two cents.
The NRE is massive. We're not talking about some kind of dinky software patent, where, once it's been thought up, it can be easily replicated. They have to be able to work up and mass produce huge quantities of glass, and there aren't many companies world wide who have that sort of capabilities.
Corning is a good company. And they're known for their long view: they came up with the first commercial 20 dB/km fibre optics too, back in the '70s.
I think most people only go to the apple store to play with the hardware anyway. I know people who do that as a form of entertainment.
Don't worry, size doesn't matter
Agreed, but your upfront is a lot lower than a more traditional printer would require.
Still, no, not a great solution, but it's perfectly within the power of the publishing houses to blacklist people who skip straight to digital publishing.
Are you talking to me? Dude, you don't have to tell me why he submitted his works to a publishing house: printed books are still king. You're going to lose the vast majority of your sales if you don't go print.
Generally though, as a first timer (he wrote some non-fiction, so maybe he didn't have to go through what others do) you have very little pull, and you get a pretty raw deal.
Nah. Everyone's gonna die.
But dying right before fame and all the fun it brings? Bummer.
I think that, in the future, this is very likely to happen, and I think it's a very good thing.
Right now though...Distribution and marketing costs of printed books is prohibitively expensive, well out of reach of the average writer. So you've got to cut your devils deal with a publisher, and they take whatever they can get from you, up to and including all future publishing rights on all media.
Lot of people aren't in a position to renegotiate, and those people are the ones whose books are published to e-book the fastest. Those authors who are, they'll take longer because of all the negotiations.
It all depends on who you are and what your deal is. Generally, if you've released anything since the e-book thing has blown up, then you dealt with it in your original contract, and you may see as much as 25% of the 70% that Amazon pays your publishing house coming back to you...Which isn't bad but isn't good either.
Some literary agents have started bypassing the publishing houses altogether which is good for the authors' e-book percentages, but bad if they want to sell paper books as well. On-demand printing may offset some of this.
If you did your deal 5 or 10 years ago, it's unlikely that you're going to get anywhere near as good a deal. A number of people who I've talked to, who've sold books that have sold more than 100,000 copies, but less than 1,000,000 copies...They're getting crap deals. Publishing houses make the RIAA look like a bunch of saints.
For those who are mystified by the above comment: There has already been a movie made
Wow, that's pretty ignorant.
Most times the authors are against it because the publishing houses offer them a tiny flat fee and no percentage of the sales...As far as THEY are concerned, it's just one printing! And the author gets crap, which is wildly unfair given that the costs to the publishing house are non-existent.
In this case, since he's dead, there is no one to stop the publishing houses from raping his corpse.
How much would it suck to write a bestselling series and die before the first book hit print?
Exactly.
Infrastructure is one of those places were government intervention is most useful. No one wants local competing water and sewer service, but we tolerate competing, privately maintained information infrastructure?
In many communities there is a push for the local governments to pay for high-end infrastructure with bonds and/or penny taxes, and communities are usually in favor of this.
Telecoms, on the other hand, usually resort to lobbying and aggressive push-polling to try and keep this from happening. In my mind, that they don't like it, is the best argument that it's the right thing to do.