Your argument is specious. While lack of physical activity may contribute to obesity, there is nothing to say all people who are not physically active are obese. Indeed, he may very well be going to the gym 3 hours a day. We have no way of knowing from him being a professional video game player
So, is Doritoes going to start putting professional gamers on their bags like Wheaties does with ball players on theor cereal? Are we goning to be seeing fat kids with Cokes and Doritoes yelling, "I'm in training! I have t eat this way!"
Becoming a star requires at a minimum many times the mass of jupiter. As small stars exist, there's therefore a likelihood that there are gas giants almost as big a the minimum to make a star.
A quick google seems to suggest that's 8% the size of the son
As Jupiter is 0.1% size the son, 11x the size of jupiter doesn't seem that big. We should be able to find "planets" up to almost 80x larger
While it may be possible to find, I've never seen it. I've lived in Netherlands and Switzerland, and I've visited most of western europe. I've been to scandinavia, but usually I don't drink if I go visit since alcohol prices are insane.
I'm a cretin? Is that an attack ad hominem? Where does all of this anger come from?
You would be correct that grammatically I should have said "a word for mulled wine" instead of "the word for mulled wine." But that doesn't really warrant such an insane reaction.
Some of the countries you forgot to mention like Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland (and probably a few others) use the term Glühwein to describe some sort of warm wine drink flavored with different ingredients.
In other countries you did mention, if you go to a typical Christmas market you will see many places advertising "Glühwein." If you go to cafes in winter you may also see Glühwein on the menu. Usually it's advertised in big letters, alongside whatever the local equivalent is (e.g. Vin Chaud in France). I've seen this in France and Sweden, but I'd imagine it extends to other countries as well. Most people over here understand what Glühwein is, and if you go into a cafe and ask for it there's a good chance they'll understand what you want.
True, though (while truly ghastly results have been substantially reduced by sanitary handling equipment and standardized yeast strains) those are exactly the sort of things frequently made from deeply undistinguished jug or box wines.
On the plus side, they don't seem to have invented wine coolers or 'flavored fortified wines' so they can count themselves blessed on those counts.
Sorry I forgot most of the audience here was American.
Come to Europe. Over here wine doesn't come in boxes. And Glühwein (the word for mulled wine) is made with high quality wine, and sometimes a touch of Amaretto. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a ghastly wine. In the grocery store a 5 EUR bottle of wine will compare with $20-$30 over there.
Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone now-a-days is trying very hard to come up with new methodologies and paradigms and web 6.5isms, so they can get their 5 minutes in the lime light?
Hey! You're violating my business process patent!;-)
Watch out! Someone might have patented finding people to patent troll via slashdot.
Putting in things like triggers require fore thought as to what could change. This is a process that can take as much time (or even more) as your original task. If you are a clever programmer, you might still miss something. And if you're not a programmer, you may find this an impossible task.
Things like "reactive programming" make it easier for non-techies to process data. It is a little bit funny that they write it up in this manner (next up, an article about "round transportation" describing how to move things with no friction using circular objects!)
However, I think it's worth exploring things like this. These days people are tracking and storing vast amounts of data and non-DBAs are trying to find answers. Excel like ease of use makes data more accessible to people, and is going to be something you'll see more of in the future
One minute of using an automated tool is apparently a worse offense than crashing the economy.
I know! And a few seconds of using an automatic weapon can get you the death sentence.
Really society should not mind people who break the law for only a little bit of time. Better to punish people who speed all the time with the death sentence -- they may have broken the law for hours at a time!
This is an interesting point. What you're really saying is it boils down to the company.
In some companies, empire building is a huge thing. People will take any excuse to make themselves oversee a bigger staff.
But it's not always the case. And senior management is supposed to be on guard for these things, which may be why your direct manager wants more staff but your managers manager doesn't
In addition to the IT department wanting more people, probably shipping, accounting, sales, and just about every other group in the company wants to hire more people. And everyone probably has a good reason, a clear benefit or savings to the company if they get the people they want.
As the company can't invest in all of these projects (and hire all those people), they'll be careful before they add staff to any group. This is pretty standard. It's not enough that you say "I need more people so we can finish projects on time and get a great network infrastructure." You have to be able to say "lack of IT staff is hurting X groups and costs the company $X"
Why not look at it another way? Instead of asking for more people, look at the issues being brought up with help desk work. Are you spending 8 hours a day resetting passwords? Maybe you can give the users the ability to reset their own passwords. Or maybe some training will pay off dividends and allow people to make less help desk calls. Cut down on the help required and you can effectively have more time for other things (without needing to hire someone else). You'll look like a hero. Just start tracking what type of issues come in and you'll be able to use that to build your case to management.
Ask a workaholic who busts their ass all week for a buck, and doesn't have a family, if a guy in a mud hut is "useful"
Ask the guy in a mud hut with a giant family the same thing about the workaholic
Both will undoubtedly think the other is crazy. The guy in a mudhut obviously must be for choosing to live in a mud hut, and the workaholic because he would rather have little green pieces of paper then enjoy life.
In the end the only thing that matters is that YOUR life made YOU happy. Ranking your accomplishments based on how they are perceived by others is a waste of time
The reference to "communism" refers to the ultimate meaning of this mentality of "big corporations are evil they need to suffer." It's the same thing in an extreme form
Read Atlas Shrugged or an other Ayn Rand book. Objetivists (of which Alan Greenspan was one) can be a little wonky, but the broad strokes are right on. Atlas Shrugged does a good job of a thought experiment of "what happens if all the evil industrialists leave society"
Or pick up an economics text book. The cost of people at the top is set by supply and demand. Businesses aren't stupid if they could find someone to run a company for less then a hundred million a year they would.
Finally, you could argue that lacking a bill gates another operating system would come into being, but think about the personal computer market before windows (tandy computers had their own OS, commodore had their own os, amiga had their own OS). Unless you're implying that someone else would unify pc operating systems, in which case you're arguing that if there was no bill gates then there'd be someone similar (refuting your own argument)
The thing we're really getting at is what's called the "principal agent" problem by economists. CEOs (and other rich people) are compensated to benefit stockholders, and add value to the company. However, CEOs might do things that destroy value (things like empire building, or using company assets for personal benefit). These problems are due to misalignment of CEO interests and interests of shareholders -- not an inherent evilness of fat cats and ceos
So let's go to a communist society! The "pricks" (or producers in society) can have all of their profits taken from them. We'll give it to people who can't or won't produce, and we'll be happy because we'll have their big fat bags of money for ourselves!!
Sadly it won't work. If you remove incentive, people stop producing because they say "well if I get the same no matter how hard I work, I won't work." This actually led to famines when Mao took over red china initially. They told all the farmers they'd been "liberated", and at the end of the farm year took all the food the farmers produced that they didn't need to live. Next year the farmers produced so there was little to no excess to be taken away, and there were widespread famine. Slave labor and a semi capitalist rewards system all were tried as ways to motivate farmers to produce
It's true, it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Calling it anything else is criminal insanity (what else do you call the act of taking from others what isn't yours?)
People at the bottom also tend to forget how much they need people at the top. If you were to erase a billionaire like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison or the guys who invented facebook from the history books, you'd also erase all of the jobs and wealth that their creativity had created for society. In addition, society would arguably lose technology or cheap resources that have been great benefit to it.
Let me put it another way, if the boards of GE or IBM or any of these companies that pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars were looking to replace their CEO, why don't they choose cheap labor over costly labor? Like me. I'll work for only a million a year instead of tens of millions, and I'm sure there are people out there who would work for free as CEO, just to get "CEO, GE" on their resume. Well companies don't hire the cheapest workers because they'd be unqualified -- a CEO who makes 100 million a year should create value for the company of many times that. And looking at the choice of hiring a CEO who will create a billion in value and cost the company 100 million, or me, who will cost only a million but probably destroy value, the company makes the rational choice.
This is not to say that workers are not important. It's a two way street: a fat cat should not be allowed to exploit their workers (slave labor / sweat shops / etc). But to create value for a company and economy you need to pay people for the services they're doing (for lack of a better word, for their minds).
There was another poster somewhere who hit it spot on: the problem with the crisis is not all businessmen, its the ones who created a cesspool of toxic debt and banks ready to crash. Those people are criminals, and should be prosecuted as the con-artists that they are. However, punishing all business for the acts of a few con men will create a reactionary response -- and hurt the irish more then it'll help it
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is specious. While lack of physical activity may contribute to obesity, there is nothing to say all people who are not physically active are obese. Indeed, he may very well be going to the gym 3 hours a day. We have no way of knowing from him being a professional video game player
So, is Doritoes going to start putting professional gamers on their bags like Wheaties does with ball players on theor cereal? Are we goning to be seeing fat kids with Cokes and Doritoes yelling, "I'm in training! I have t eat this way!"
Ummm...Fat?
https://www.google.nl/search?q=Kim+'viOLet'+Dong+Hwan&espv=216&es_sm=119&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ
Becoming a star requires at a minimum many times the mass of jupiter. As small stars exist, there's therefore a likelihood that there are gas giants almost as big a the minimum to make a star.
A quick google seems to suggest that's 8% the size of the son
As Jupiter is 0.1% size the son, 11x the size of jupiter doesn't seem that big. We should be able to find "planets" up to almost 80x larger
http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=jupiter%20mass%20compared%20to%20sun&t=crmtb01
While it may be possible to find, I've never seen it. I've lived in Netherlands and Switzerland, and I've visited most of western europe. I've been to scandinavia, but usually I don't drink if I go visit since alcohol prices are insane.
I'm a cretin? Is that an attack ad hominem? Where does all of this anger come from?
You would be correct that grammatically I should have said "a word for mulled wine" instead of "the word for mulled wine." But that doesn't really warrant such an insane reaction.
Some of the countries you forgot to mention like Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland (and probably a few others) use the term Glühwein to describe some sort of warm wine drink flavored with different ingredients.
In other countries you did mention, if you go to a typical Christmas market you will see many places advertising "Glühwein." If you go to cafes in winter you may also see Glühwein on the menu. Usually it's advertised in big letters, alongside whatever the local equivalent is (e.g. Vin Chaud in France). I've seen this in France and Sweden, but I'd imagine it extends to other countries as well. Most people over here understand what Glühwein is, and if you go into a cafe and ask for it there's a good chance they'll understand what you want.
True, though (while truly ghastly results have been substantially reduced by sanitary handling equipment and standardized yeast strains) those are exactly the sort of things frequently made from deeply undistinguished jug or box wines.
On the plus side, they don't seem to have invented wine coolers or 'flavored fortified wines' so they can count themselves blessed on those counts.
Sorry I forgot most of the audience here was American.
Come to Europe. Over here wine doesn't come in boxes. And Glühwein (the word for mulled wine) is made with high quality wine, and sometimes a touch of Amaretto. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a ghastly wine. In the grocery store a 5 EUR bottle of wine will compare with $20-$30 over there.
Not like any modern cultures do anything similar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulled_wine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangria
Hey! You're violating my business process patent! ;-)
Watch out! Someone might have patented finding people to patent troll via slashdot.
Putting in things like triggers require fore thought as to what could change. This is a process that can take as much time (or even more) as your original task. If you are a clever programmer, you might still miss something. And if you're not a programmer, you may find this an impossible task.
Things like "reactive programming" make it easier for non-techies to process data. It is a little bit funny that they write it up in this manner (next up, an article about "round transportation" describing how to move things with no friction using circular objects!)
However, I think it's worth exploring things like this. These days people are tracking and storing vast amounts of data and non-DBAs are trying to find answers. Excel like ease of use makes data more accessible to people, and is going to be something you'll see more of in the future
A quick google would suggest it's possible (but not guaranteed)
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/will-bankruptcy-get-rid-lawsuit-judgments.html
Or he declares bankruptcy and pays nothing (or all he has)
What would you define as a "fair" fine?
no one trusts the "justice" system anymore.
One minute of using an automated tool is apparently a worse offense than crashing the economy.
I know! And a few seconds of using an automatic weapon can get you the death sentence.
Really society should not mind people who break the law for only a little bit of time. Better to punish people who speed all the time with the death sentence -- they may have broken the law for hours at a time!
This is an interesting point. What you're really saying is it boils down to the company.
In some companies, empire building is a huge thing. People will take any excuse to make themselves oversee a bigger staff.
But it's not always the case. And senior management is supposed to be on guard for these things, which may be why your direct manager wants more staff but your managers manager doesn't
That is if and only if he's working for a shady company. Although such things do happen.
In addition to the IT department wanting more people, probably shipping, accounting, sales, and just about every other group in the company wants to hire more people. And everyone probably has a good reason, a clear benefit or savings to the company if they get the people they want.
As the company can't invest in all of these projects (and hire all those people), they'll be careful before they add staff to any group. This is pretty standard. It's not enough that you say "I need more people so we can finish projects on time and get a great network infrastructure." You have to be able to say "lack of IT staff is hurting X groups and costs the company $X"
Why not look at it another way? Instead of asking for more people, look at the issues being brought up with help desk work. Are you spending 8 hours a day resetting passwords? Maybe you can give the users the ability to reset their own passwords. Or maybe some training will pay off dividends and allow people to make less help desk calls. Cut down on the help required and you can effectively have more time for other things (without needing to hire someone else). You'll look like a hero. Just start tracking what type of issues come in and you'll be able to use that to build your case to management.
Because if you are going to act corruptly, you'll try to be private about it
"Usefulness" is such a relative thing.
Ask a workaholic who busts their ass all week for a buck, and doesn't have a family, if a guy in a mud hut is "useful"
Ask the guy in a mud hut with a giant family the same thing about the workaholic
Both will undoubtedly think the other is crazy. The guy in a mudhut obviously must be for choosing to live in a mud hut, and the workaholic because he would rather have little green pieces of paper then enjoy life.
In the end the only thing that matters is that YOUR life made YOU happy. Ranking your accomplishments based on how they are perceived by others is a waste of time
Name one whistleblower who met with a "strange accident"
His original argument has little if anything to do with "Stockholm syndrome"
The reference to "communism" refers to the ultimate meaning of this mentality of "big corporations are evil they need to suffer." It's the same thing in an extreme form
"The science is in"? Care to provide some citations?
Read Atlas Shrugged or an other Ayn Rand book. Objetivists (of which Alan Greenspan was one) can be a little wonky, but the broad strokes are right on. Atlas Shrugged does a good job of a thought experiment of "what happens if all the evil industrialists leave society"
Or pick up an economics text book. The cost of people at the top is set by supply and demand. Businesses aren't stupid if they could find someone to run a company for less then a hundred million a year they would.
Finally, you could argue that lacking a bill gates another operating system would come into being, but think about the personal computer market before windows (tandy computers had their own OS, commodore had their own os, amiga had their own OS). Unless you're implying that someone else would unify pc operating systems, in which case you're arguing that if there was no bill gates then there'd be someone similar (refuting your own argument)
The thing we're really getting at is what's called the "principal agent" problem by economists. CEOs (and other rich people) are compensated to benefit stockholders, and add value to the company. However, CEOs might do things that destroy value (things like empire building, or using company assets for personal benefit). These problems are due to misalignment of CEO interests and interests of shareholders -- not an inherent evilness of fat cats and ceos
So let's go to a communist society! The "pricks" (or producers in society) can have all of their profits taken from them. We'll give it to people who can't or won't produce, and we'll be happy because we'll have their big fat bags of money for ourselves!!
Sadly it won't work. If you remove incentive, people stop producing because they say "well if I get the same no matter how hard I work, I won't work." This actually led to famines when Mao took over red china initially. They told all the farmers they'd been "liberated", and at the end of the farm year took all the food the farmers produced that they didn't need to live. Next year the farmers produced so there was little to no excess to be taken away, and there were widespread famine. Slave labor and a semi capitalist rewards system all were tried as ways to motivate farmers to produce
It's true, it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Calling it anything else is criminal insanity (what else do you call the act of taking from others what isn't yours?)
Mod parent up -- I couldnt have said it better.
People at the bottom also tend to forget how much they need people at the top. If you were to erase a billionaire like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison or the guys who invented facebook from the history books, you'd also erase all of the jobs and wealth that their creativity had created for society. In addition, society would arguably lose technology or cheap resources that have been great benefit to it.
Let me put it another way, if the boards of GE or IBM or any of these companies that pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars were looking to replace their CEO, why don't they choose cheap labor over costly labor? Like me. I'll work for only a million a year instead of tens of millions, and I'm sure there are people out there who would work for free as CEO, just to get "CEO, GE" on their resume. Well companies don't hire the cheapest workers because they'd be unqualified -- a CEO who makes 100 million a year should create value for the company of many times that. And looking at the choice of hiring a CEO who will create a billion in value and cost the company 100 million, or me, who will cost only a million but probably destroy value, the company makes the rational choice.
This is not to say that workers are not important. It's a two way street: a fat cat should not be allowed to exploit their workers (slave labor / sweat shops / etc). But to create value for a company and economy you need to pay people for the services they're doing (for lack of a better word, for their minds).
There was another poster somewhere who hit it spot on: the problem with the crisis is not all businessmen, its the ones who created a cesspool of toxic debt and banks ready to crash. Those people are criminals, and should be prosecuted as the con-artists that they are. However, punishing all business for the acts of a few con men will create a reactionary response -- and hurt the irish more then it'll help it