Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.
Yes, admittedly these can all be problems. I don't have an easy answer for you. I think part of why it worked for the company I was with was the relative size of the comapny. This company was pretty small - about 10 employees total working perhaps 4-5 projects a month - serving the small to medium business(which is a goldmine). We never seemed to have issues with the customers, getting the job done on time (and correctly), or getting paid in a timely manner. Reading your post, I realize we were very, very lucky.
This was the one and only experience I ever had with this type of pay scheme. Maybe it's more common with programming, but it's the only time I ever saw it as a network architect. I am more than willing to admit that perhaps my experience was an anomaly. I just had so much fun doing that job (and got a lot of money doing it!). I think my age had something to do with it, also. I was willing to take a lot more risks then. Now... not so much. I don't know if I'd do this today (but the money potential would be tempting), but if I were in my early/mid 20s... in a heartbeat.
Because the bonus depends on things that are outside of my control.
Not really. If the contract is drawn up correctly (read: by a lawyer), then there will actually be very few things "outside of your control" when it comes to deliverables and payment.
On a project, I will try to meet any deadline that isn't too far from reasonable, but only for a fixed wage that recognizes my worth.
Then you obviously are willing to settle for much less money.
I used to work for a guy who ran a small/medium network consultancy similar to how dada runs his company. This was in the mid to late 90s. We were paid a base of $10/hr plus bonus on a project-by-project basis. Not only did we work harder and more efficiently, we made a TON of money. In the three years I worked for this guy, I had one year at about $100K(gross) and the other two were close. This was when I was in my 20s.
Unfortunately, he sold his business (for an insane amount of money). The money train was now over because the new owners paid a salary instead. All the best workers left. I think it has since gone bankrupt.
I am now entrenched in the salaried world, and it has taken me this long to get back to the level of income I enjoyed 8 years ago. I would much rather have the "low-base"/contigency based bonus than a "guaranteed" salary.
A hack can be a crack, and crack can be a hack. Witness the X-Box ones that let you run unsigned programs via holes. A hack and a crack.
A hack is not always a crack. In fact, it can be the opposite of one, where a clever modification prevents a crack.
A crack is not always a hack. Sticking a screwdriver into a plastic case and ripping it open with brute-force is a crack, but it not by any means a hack.
With a little work, this could read like a Dr Suess book:)
Making it more productive makes it sound as if the only purpose to being alive is work and produce a product.
That's seems to be the pervading theme in our (US) culture. I work for a multi-national, and I can say that my contemporaries in Europe and SA don't have the same attitude. I'm not saying they do bad work or don't work hard. It's simply they seem to view work as a means to an end, where the US seems to view work as that end.
Do you remember the huge plot twist at the end of the novel?
Are you serious? Plot twist? It's a plot twist only if you don't see it coming. The "Oh my God, I didn't see that coming!" part was telegraphed *long* before the ending losing all of it's intended impact.
While I did enjoy the book, there were absolutely *no* real surprises in it.
...that IE7 comes out with it's phishing filter.:P
Then in the sig...
Grammar Lesson: "you're" is a contraction of "you are"; "your" means you possess something; "yore" means days gone by.
That's too rich. Let me try:
Grammar Lesson: "it's" is a contraction of "it is"; "its" is the possesive form of "it"; "IT" was the last decent Stephen King novel.:) (couldn't resist)
Then send your kids to private parochial (or other such) school. They will supply all the mythology you want. Don't expect me to susidize religious indroctrination with my tax dollars.
The judge will usually offer you a lower sentence if you bother to show up, because you just proved that you aren't likely to just roll over and the court costs are therefore going to be more than the ticket.
Your state/municipality must be different than mine. I got a speeding ticket and was prepared to pay it. I went to court to get supervision (you no longer have to go to get that), which means pay the fine, don't get another in 6mos. and it gets removed from your driving record. Well, the officer didn't show up. Result? Dismissed and no court costs.
Please. It's obvious you are just another "car" apologist. To you the guys in D€troit can do no wrong. The advantages of the bicycle over the car is evident to anyone with a grade-school education.
Your argument for multiple can crushing is specious at best. To use this feature, you would need simulataneous empty cans. The only way I know of to generate that sort of event to is have "friends" possibly involving a "party". The fact that we post on slashdot argues against the conditions for that situation to ever arise. While I suppose that you could let the empties accumulate, that seems to be an example of inefficient garbage collection. Better to crush them as they empty.
And how about bloat? My god the car is huge and takes a humongous amount of storage space. I can store 7-8 bicycles in the same space as one economy car. In fact every year, the car seems to take up just a little more space. And don't get me started on features. Your car can do a huge number of things. It can be used to sleep in, play music, shelter you from the elements (the list goes on...) What happened to the philosophy of doing one or two things and doing them well. That's what I do. I have a bed to sleep in, a house to protect me, and a stereo system to listen to music. They all do the same thing a car does, but they do it better because they are more focused.
The system requirements are unbeleivable. A bicycle can be powered using only a pound or two of fuel a day. And this fuel can be created by anyone if they so desire or purchased prepared. Now consider the car. It requires gallons and gallons of a proprietary fuel technology that can only be created from the decay of plant and animals over millions of years. This is unacceptable for anyone who wants more control over their can crushing.
Please, simply accept that the car is an inferior choice of can crusher. If you cannot see the truth of my logic, then I fear it's too late for you.
NTP did exactly what RAMBUS did. Both are dirty, unethical, and reprehensible business practices.
Unfortunately, it's not yet illegal. While they can be invalidated (and in the case of NTP's patents that appears to be what is happeneing), it usually comes to late to help companies bankrupted by these practices.
A copyright is for an idea.
Wrong. Copyright is for a particular *expression* of an idea. For example, following your criteria there could only ever be one book about C programming while the copyright is active.
I do agree with what seems to be your general point. The patent system no longer offers protection to foster innovation as it was intended. It now appears to be a vehicle stifle invention and make lawyers rich.
but they never stop to think about what a great aluminum can crusher a car is. I mean, have you ever tried to crush a bunch of aluminum cans with a bicycle?
*Ooo! a new flamewar on/.*
You sir, are obviously an idiot. Why would I want an oversized resource consuming beast to crush cans. It's overkill. Give me the streamlined Bicycle anyday over a car. It has less of a footprint and is much more nimble than the car. The interface is much simpler and easier to use than the car.
[...]I've every faith that drugs can solve some problems, they should be the last solution, not the first.
Well, on that I do agree with you. I did have to take drugs to get better. It's not about the drug "curing" me. All the drug can do (and this is the case in most psych drugs) is get me to a state where I can begin to deal with what the real issues are. I took an anti-depressant for 10 yrs. I did not take it and say "whee! I'm cured". It was a long, hard fucking road. Over the course of those 10 years, I've finished school, increased my earning by 20x (when I tried to kill myself, I was making $4/hr under the table at a used book-store), actually have relationships with people, get out, exercise... all the stuff normal people do.
I did "get a life" as you say, but without the medicine available I never would have had a chance. I would be dead. I was not one of those "cry for help" attempted suicide. If a friend hadn't found me, I would not be posting this right now. Without the meds to supress and minimize depression, I would never have had a chance. Meds alone won't do it, but for some people they are absolutely necessary.
I got my degree in psych (but work in IT security.. go figure), and I get excited everytime I read about depression studies. I wouldn't wish what I went through (both the depression and recovery) on my worst enemy.
I quess the whole question is why would you need password "recovery"? Don't you just reset the password? I have never heard of any reason for "recovery" of authentication passwords. You just set a new one.
Hash your passwords. Let me try saying that another way: plaintext storage of passwords/passphrases is stupid. Yes, you can't reverse a hash, but why would you ever want to? Compare password hashes at the application level when the user logs in. If the application is not set up to easily do that, I would be highly suspiscious of your programmers competence. You probably have all kinds of other problems waiting in the wings.
I too am in risk management. I heartily agree with what you have said. It all boils down to each companies tolerance of risk. Some companies are willing to pay the 2 weeks of serverence even though the employee no longer performs the job.
I work for a multi-national bank, and they do this all the time. They may spend millions over the course of a couple of years doing this, but this is what they are willing to pay to mitigate the possibility of even higher loss. There are some systems (I'm thinking of Fed Reserve and clearing house operations) that could cost that much over the course of a couple *hours* if they were disrupted (fines and/or actual loss). Even though internal controls make it unlikely to happen, the risk is still there and paying for 2 weeks of non-productivity is a small price to pay to reduce it.
This does not even take into account the *legal* problems a company would face if they allowed an out-going employee access and he/she disrupted operations to the point of major financial loss. It's called Due Care. And it can result in criminal charges being brought against the senior management. "So you knew the possibility existed, but still let this person have access?"
Don't be insulted. This is just SOP these days for any company with responsibilities to shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh.. we do have that term and it means the same thing in the US. Just because Yez70 has a limited vocabulary does not mean the rest of us do :)
As much as it pains me to point this out, it is a word. I personally hate this word and will never use it myself.
Irregardless
From the definition page:
Yes, admittedly these can all be problems. I don't have an easy answer for you. I think part of why it worked for the company I was with was the relative size of the comapny. This company was pretty small - about 10 employees total working perhaps 4-5 projects a month - serving the small to medium business(which is a goldmine). We never seemed to have issues with the customers, getting the job done on time (and correctly), or getting paid in a timely manner. Reading your post, I realize we were very, very lucky.
This was the one and only experience I ever had with this type of pay scheme. Maybe it's more common with programming, but it's the only time I ever saw it as a network architect. I am more than willing to admit that perhaps my experience was an anomaly. I just had so much fun doing that job (and got a lot of money doing it!). I think my age had something to do with it, also. I was willing to take a lot more risks then. Now... not so much. I don't know if I'd do this today (but the money potential would be tempting), but if I were in my early/mid 20s... in a heartbeat.
Because the bonus depends on things that are outside of my control.
Not really. If the contract is drawn up correctly (read: by a lawyer), then there will actually be very few things "outside of your control" when it comes to deliverables and payment.
On a project, I will try to meet any deadline that isn't too far from reasonable, but only for a fixed wage that recognizes my worth.
Then you obviously are willing to settle for much less money.
I used to work for a guy who ran a small/medium network consultancy similar to how dada runs his company. This was in the mid to late 90s. We were paid a base of $10/hr plus bonus on a project-by-project basis. Not only did we work harder and more efficiently, we made a TON of money. In the three years I worked for this guy, I had one year at about $100K(gross) and the other two were close. This was when I was in my 20s.
Unfortunately, he sold his business (for an insane amount of money). The money train was now over because the new owners paid a salary instead. All the best workers left. I think it has since gone bankrupt.
I am now entrenched in the salaried world, and it has taken me this long to get back to the level of income I enjoyed 8 years ago. I would much rather have the "low-base"/contigency based bonus than a "guaranteed" salary.
A hack can be a crack, and crack can be a hack. Witness the X-Box ones that let you run unsigned programs via holes. A hack and a crack.
:)
A hack is not always a crack. In fact, it can be the opposite of one, where a clever modification prevents a crack.
A crack is not always a hack. Sticking a screwdriver into a plastic case and ripping it open with brute-force is a crack, but it not by any means a hack.
With a little work, this could read like a Dr Suess book
Making it more productive makes it sound as if the only purpose to being alive is work and produce a product.
That's seems to be the pervading theme in our (US) culture. I work for a multi-national, and I can say that my contemporaries in Europe and SA don't have the same attitude. I'm not saying they do bad work or don't work hard. It's simply they seem to view work as a means to an end, where the US seems to view work as that end.
Ah...
:)
Got it. I was going back and forth between "It only is supported on the current Firefox" and "If it only supported the current Firefox"
Now that I look at it, it looks like touch typing gone wrong
if only is supported currect FF
???
Can someone point me to the extension that does "geekoid" to "English" translations?
the last time i saw mysql's jdbc driver, it literally sucked
And I can download this... where? (Hey, I'm lonely...)
Do you remember the huge plot twist at the end of the novel?
Are you serious? Plot twist? It's a plot twist only if you don't see it coming. The "Oh my God, I didn't see that coming!" part was telegraphed *long* before the ending losing all of it's intended impact.
While I did enjoy the book, there were absolutely *no* real surprises in it.
I can't tell if you are serious or making a joke... really.
...that IE7 comes out with it's phishing filter. :P
:) (couldn't resist)
Then in the sig...
Grammar Lesson: "you're" is a contraction of "you are"; "your" means you possess something; "yore" means days gone by.
That's too rich. Let me try:
Grammar Lesson: "it's" is a contraction of "it is"; "its" is the possesive form of "it"; "IT" was the last decent Stephen King novel.
Then send your kids to private parochial (or other such) school. They will supply all the mythology you want. Don't expect me to susidize religious indroctrination with my tax dollars.
And we have... Godwin! Thanks for playing! Meet up again next week when we talk about the merits of perk vs infusion vs drip coffee makers :)
The judge will usually offer you a lower sentence if you bother to show up, because you just proved that you aren't likely to just roll over and the court costs are therefore going to be more than the ticket.
Your state/municipality must be different than mine. I got a speeding ticket and was prepared to pay it. I went to court to get supervision (you no longer have to go to get that), which means pay the fine, don't get another in 6mos. and it gets removed from your driving record. Well, the officer didn't show up. Result? Dismissed and no court costs.
Please. It's obvious you are just another "car" apologist. To you the guys in D€troit can do no wrong. The advantages of the bicycle over the car is evident to anyone with a grade-school education.
Your argument for multiple can crushing is specious at best. To use this feature, you would need simulataneous empty cans. The only way I know of to generate that sort of event to is have "friends" possibly involving a "party". The fact that we post on slashdot argues against the conditions for that situation to ever arise. While I suppose that you could let the empties accumulate, that seems to be an example of inefficient garbage collection. Better to crush them as they empty.
And how about bloat? My god the car is huge and takes a humongous amount of storage space. I can store 7-8 bicycles in the same space as one economy car. In fact every year, the car seems to take up just a little more space. And don't get me started on features. Your car can do a huge number of things. It can be used to sleep in, play music, shelter you from the elements (the list goes on...) What happened to the philosophy of doing one or two things and doing them well. That's what I do. I have a bed to sleep in, a house to protect me, and a stereo system to listen to music. They all do the same thing a car does, but they do it better because they are more focused.
The system requirements are unbeleivable. A bicycle can be powered using only a pound or two of fuel a day. And this fuel can be created by anyone if they so desire or purchased prepared. Now consider the car. It requires gallons and gallons of a proprietary fuel technology that can only be created from the decay of plant and animals over millions of years. This is unacceptable for anyone who wants more control over their can crushing.
Please, simply accept that the car is an inferior choice of can crusher. If you cannot see the truth of my logic, then I fear it's too late for you.
NTP did exactly what RAMBUS did. Both are dirty, unethical, and reprehensible business practices.
Unfortunately, it's not yet illegal. While they can be invalidated (and in the case of NTP's patents that appears to be what is happeneing), it usually comes to late to help companies bankrupted by these practices.
A copyright is for an idea.
Wrong. Copyright is for a particular *expression* of an idea. For example, following your criteria there could only ever be one book about C programming while the copyright is active.
I do agree with what seems to be your general point. The patent system no longer offers protection to foster innovation as it was intended. It now appears to be a vehicle stifle invention and make lawyers rich.
...you'd discover that hunter-gatherers spent (and spend) far less time focused on getting food than us "civilized" people do working at our jobs.
;)
Yes. They spent time starving, too
Nicto .. Veridum .... *cough cough cough*
Wrong order and wrong words (you were referring to Ash in Army of Darkness, right?)
"Klatu! Verato! uh.... [cough]necktie.[/cough]"
but they never stop to think about what a great aluminum can crusher a car is. I mean, have you ever tried to crush a bunch of aluminum cans with a bicycle?
/.*
*Ooo! a new flamewar on
You sir, are obviously an idiot. Why would I want an oversized resource consuming beast to crush cans. It's overkill. Give me the streamlined Bicycle anyday over a car. It has less of a footprint and is much more nimble than the car. The interface is much simpler and easier to use than the car.
[...]I've every faith that drugs can solve some problems, they should be the last solution, not the first.
Well, on that I do agree with you. I did have to take drugs to get better. It's not about the drug "curing" me. All the drug can do (and this is the case in most psych drugs) is get me to a state where I can begin to deal with what the real issues are. I took an anti-depressant for 10 yrs. I did not take it and say "whee! I'm cured". It was a long, hard fucking road. Over the course of those 10 years, I've finished school, increased my earning by 20x (when I tried to kill myself, I was making $4/hr under the table at a used book-store), actually have relationships with people, get out, exercise... all the stuff normal people do.
I did "get a life" as you say, but without the medicine available I never would have had a chance. I would be dead. I was not one of those "cry for help" attempted suicide. If a friend hadn't found me, I would not be posting this right now. Without the meds to supress and minimize depression, I would never have had a chance. Meds alone won't do it, but for some people they are absolutely necessary.
I got my degree in psych (but work in IT security.. go figure), and I get excited everytime I read about depression studies. I wouldn't wish what I went through (both the depression and recovery) on my worst enemy.
Remember this: We think the same thing of you.
That he's also a closed minded linux douche?
Is this like the Chewbacca defense?
I quess the whole question is why would you need password "recovery"? Don't you just reset the password? I have never heard of any reason for "recovery" of authentication passwords. You just set a new one.
Hash your passwords. Let me try saying that another way: plaintext storage of passwords/passphrases is stupid. Yes, you can't reverse a hash, but why would you ever want to? Compare password hashes at the application level when the user logs in. If the application is not set up to easily do that, I would be highly suspiscious of your programmers competence. You probably have all kinds of other problems waiting in the wings.
I too am in risk management. I heartily agree with what you have said. It all boils down to each companies tolerance of risk. Some companies are willing to pay the 2 weeks of serverence even though the employee no longer performs the job.
I work for a multi-national bank, and they do this all the time. They may spend millions over the course of a couple of years doing this, but this is what they are willing to pay to mitigate the possibility of even higher loss. There are some systems (I'm thinking of Fed Reserve and clearing house operations) that could cost that much over the course of a couple *hours* if they were disrupted (fines and/or actual loss). Even though internal controls make it unlikely to happen, the risk is still there and paying for 2 weeks of non-productivity is a small price to pay to reduce it.
This does not even take into account the *legal* problems a company would face if they allowed an out-going employee access and he/she disrupted operations to the point of major financial loss. It's called Due Care. And it can result in criminal charges being brought against the senior management. "So you knew the possibility existed, but still let this person have access?"
Don't be insulted. This is just SOP these days for any company with responsibilities to shareholders.
Yes, it sent neo-nazi spam. Really.