In socialist Germany, we have government sponsored universal health care that is alot cheaper and more efficient than in the U.S. I can go to the doc any time I want to and not have to worry about being able to pay the bills.
I have to call a bit of B.S. on this one. If you happen to already have a relationship with a good doctor who will accept the state insurance, then you're fine, but it can be very tough to get an speedy appointment with a competent doctor otherwise. And what percentage of your salary does that universal health care cost? Around 14% IIRC, which means that if you're pulling in €40000 / year (a good but not extravagant salary by German standards) then you're paying about €460 per month for that awesome universal health care. Without taking exchange rates into account, $460/month would get you some really nice health insurance in the U.S. - the kind that would let you go to any doctor whenever you want, and not worry about being able to pay the bills. Admittedly, when you're a relatively young factory worker with a stay-at-home wife and two kids, that insurance is a pretty good deal. For those of us who are single or with a working spouse (don't even get me started on the tax rates that a dual-income married couple has to pay), it's a poor value.
In socialist Germany, the state grants us legal protection from getting fired without good reason, unemployment benefits, parental benefits, grants for families with children, education sponsorships, the list goes on.
We've got that, too, except for the state protection from getting fired. Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I really think that the Germans take employee protection and job security too far, while the Americans don't take it seriously enough. Somewhere in the middle would be nice.
In socialist Germany we have low unemployment and a trade surplus.
We cut jobs, you implement Kurzarbeit - I think you could make a good argument for either measure, but that's for another thread.
In socialist Germany, we have a state funded independent news organization that reports important facts from around the world from an unbiased standpoint, instead of reporting on the lives of teenaged girl-stars or the most recent, spectacular highway robbery.
You've got me there.
Us here on the old continent can't understand why in the world anyone would ever vote for the Republican party that so clearly is the political wing of the wealthiest 5%.
Believe me, lots of us here on the new continent can't figure it out, either.
First off, kudos to these guys for trying to fill this void. That having been said, I think it's only a (short) matter of time before Google Nav has this, if it doesn't already.
Specifically, what I (and many others would like) is to be able to create a route in Google Maps, export / save it, and then have the turn-by-turn Android GPS thigamabob give me turn-by-turn directions. Particularly in a lot of European cities, the best route from point A to point B via bike is completely different from the best route by car.
Anyway, myself (and quite a few others) have been clamoring for this feature for a little while, and Google's response is "this is one of the most requested features", so I'm guessing it can't be too far away (assuming it's not here already, haven't checked in a while).
Still, for off-road stuff, this might be handy, although if you're going off-road I don't know why you even need a map in the first place, and therefore see no reason to limit it to the UK.
I can't believe I had to go this far down the thread for someone to make that point - that was the first thing I thought: besides being a terrible idea in principle, it sounds near-impossible to properly build and implement. I mean, I'm sure that with enough manpower and money thrown at it, you can get it done, but seriously - couldn't that manpower and money be put to some better use?
On the subject of moving to a patronage model, I think everyone's to an extent forgetting the massive revenues that concerts and (to a lesser extent) merchandise can bring in for a popular band or artist. From a two-second Google search I found this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/13/madonna-biggest-earning-musician-2008) which says that most of Madonna's substantial 2008 earnings were from her Sticky & Sweet tour. Artist becomes popular --> sold-out concerts --> profit!
Just my 2c...
Which bar? Do you happen to have a URL or other reference that the OP could check for his/her state (or show to clients)?
On another point, a LOT of small practices (think sole practitioner or firm / practice with less than 5 people) use all-in-one domain services like GoDaddy or Yahoo! Domains for everything, including their email (I have absolutely no data to back up this claim, it's just based on the folks I've met who have small businesses).
Given this, how is their email data any more private / protected than data hosted on Google Apps (let's leave the calendar out of it for now, since I think we can all agree that email is the item more likely to contain privileged info)? The provider can still be subpoenaed, and it's still susceptible to the same potential hacks.
Since we're all geeks here, we all know what it would take to do it _right_ - physically secured personal mail server, everything encrypted, yada yada, but the cost of hiring someone to do all that may be prohibitive to a small firm, and it probably unnecessary besides; in my experience, the law (and IANAL) generally says that you need to take reasonable measures to protect your client's secrets. I, personally, think that Google Apps is fine for this, as long as your user base is educated in the obvious security concepts (i.e. use a separate, unique password for your Google corporate account) and potential risks (i.e. Google doesn't offer any guarantees AFAIK).
Lots of people will offer anecdotes about how they were in a similar situation and did something totally bad-ass and made the bastards pay. Just ignore all that - if it works out then it'll make a great story, but more likely it's just going to hurt you.
Making the following assumptions:
1) You're in the U.S.
2) Your story is true and not just an invitation for trolling.
Do the following things:
1) Stay calm. If you're the type who gets riled up then make sure to keep yourself under control. Practice what you're going to say beforehand - this helps.
2) If you haven't already done so, get your boss to flat-out voice the threat in no uncertain terms. A lot of managers have perfected the art of implying, insinuating, but never actually brandishing the carrot or the stick. If he/she keeps beating around the bush, just ask "look, maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this, but are you saying that I'll get some kind of black mark for leaving in three weeks?" Hopefully, before you get to the point of asking that question, you'll find out it was just a misunderstanding. Most folks hate their bosses because they're incompetent. Very few bosses are true rat bastards - maybe you've got one of these, but probably not.
3) If you get past step 2 and you still think that the threat's there, then write a follow-up email to your boss saying the exact same thing. Something like "Hey boss, I'm a little shaken up, and I just want to make sure there's absolutely no confusion. If I leave in three weeks, am I going to receive a mark of leaving the company 'on bad terms'? If so, how much longer do I need to stay in order to ensure that I don't get that black mark? Have I done something to create these 'bad terms' other than hand in my resignation? I've really enjoyed working for you and for company X, and I would like to leave on good terms. KTHXBYE."
4) Immediately make a copy of all those emails and your performance reviews (that's obvious, right?).
5) If your boss doesn't reply or refuses to say anything clearly (I'm assuming that he won't be dumb enough to actually say "yeah, that's what I meant!"), have a quick chat with HR. Tell them your concerns. Some (OK, most) HR folks are useless, but they very rarely see direct threats, and they'll definitely take an interest. If your boss writes back "no, of course not! You've been great! You must have misunderstood...", then skip this step.
6) Leave no later than at the end of those original three weeks.
7) Fuggedaboutit. Nobody's ever going to talk to your boss. If you're really concerned about it, wait a couple of months and call up your old company, or ask a friend to call for you and ask for employment verification. Even better, talk to a recruiter, and ask him/her to get the skinny for you, since they've got experience getting those kinds of details anyway. If your recruiter does, in fact, get some info like "left on bad terms", then call a lawyer. I really, really, really doubt that'll happen tho.
Believe me, life's too complicated to worry about that kind of crap. Just be honest and clear, and this will all work out.
In one of my previous companies, we usually interviewed just for personality. We would often rate people on personality first and skills second - the idea was that if someone seemed sharp, hard-working, and friendly, then we were likely to get a lot done with that person. If someone's resume says s/he's been a PHP programmer (to use your situation as an example) for X years (and that can be verified with previous employers), then you have to assume that s/he has a pretty good idea of what s/he's doing, and it's very unlikely that you're going to get much more of an idea of a person's skills from his/her interview. Of course, you want to weed out incompetent ones, but you can do that with a 10-minute tech session - after that it's near-impossible to get an accurate gauge of someone's skills. So, more often than not, you're really looking for someone whose personality "clicks" with the group.
The only caveat I can think of is that, if you're going to administer this kind of test, you need to have administered the same test to everyone in the interviewee's potential group, and you need some way of predicting how well they'll all get along. Also, you need some variety in a group - groups without some diversity of personalities and styles are (IMHO) much less likely to succeed than groups with a mix of personalities and skills.
I feel the exact same way, although my situation is a bit different; I have a HDTV set from my days of living in a house (I live in a small 1br in Manhattan now) and there's no reasonable way for me to get OTA HDTV broadcasts without upsetting the board or the wife. Every show I like is OTA. So, my options are:
1) Bend over a chair for HDTV cable (very pricey in Manhattan), just so I can see the shows I like (which are all OTA)
2) Watch OTA analog broadcasts (I can get a signal by plugging in the cable, doesn't work for HDTV as a lot of you probably already know), reception's not too good but at least I'm _seeing_ it.
3) Download HDTV rips the next day.
Guess which one I go with?
I would be OK with paying a couple of bucks per show, or (even better), "subscribing" to the show for like $25 / season, with HDTV versions available online at the time of broadcast. But, here's another idea, and I think it's a good one: highly targeted ads. Have subscriptions to the show be free, but before you can sign up, you need to fill out a 15-minute survey with all the standard marketing data (age, gender, income, hobbies, neighborhood, do you have kids / do they watch the show with you, etc). After you fill out the survey, you get a login which can then be used to download any show that the network offers subscriptions to. Using your login, you can download a version of the show(s) you want with specifically targeted ads (ads for the Mexican restaurant two blocks from your place, ads for the local plumber, ads for stores / boutiques / games / etc all based on your survey). You're still watching ads, but they're ads that are really specifically targeted for you! A lot of people might not mind seeing that kind of ad, and even if you do, you can still FF or skip over it (it's a high-quality avi). Can you still share that? Sure, but if you can get it from the source just by filling out the survey (and hey, you might actually see an ad for something you _want_), why bother going the BitTorrent route?
Yes, I know there are all kinds of technical hurdles here; bandwidth for the servers with tons of people dl'ing high-bitrate video files, how to inject the ads properly in the first place, how to store all that stuff (since theoretically you've got a seperate file for each dl'er), and of course the algorithm to choose which ads go to which customers. Tech hurdles, to be sure, but how much harder is it than the rat race of copy protection?
Which brings me to the second point (probably echoing a lot of other people here) - why go through all this trouble to install copy protection on your downloadable / Internet-deliverable content? I mean, if I want a pirated copy of something, I can get it _now_ from someone who ripped a DVD. What exactly would Universal be trying to prevent? The worst-case scenario (people are taking the content and sharing it illegally) is already happening! Why not focus on giving people a good experience for a reasonable price? I think a good percentage of people who download something illegally would happily pay a reasonable fee for it, and the lower the price, the higher the percentage of people who would do it. Make a less-than-DVD-quality version available (particularly of movies that don't rely on special effects or other visuals) that's quick to download, charge $1 and see how many people purchase it. What's the risk? That people will illegally share and download the medium-quality version (as opposed to the high-quality versions that are already floating around the BT universe)?
Seriously, I often wonder if I'm missing something here. All this fuss about making content available online to prevent piracy. News flash: piracy is already here - you should know, you're the one putting those god-awful commercials at the beginning of movies. So what exactly are you trying to prevent?
In the book "1984", the main character's job is to go through news archives and change them to match the current political climate. To me, it looks like Apple has just made 2004 a little bit more like "1984". Doubleplusungood, IMO...
I have no problem with the reciprocity, and in fact I think that forcing Americans to be fingerprinted is a great way to give then just a little taste of what it's like on the other side. That being said, I really don't think it's a good example of reciprocity; at least the U.S. has the resources to implement this program and (we can only hope) make it at least semi-efficient so that people aren't sitting around forever in the airport. Brazil is attempting to throw it all together hodge-podge (fingerprints on cardboard? what are they doing with these fingerprint records? seriously...). As anyone who has ever dealt with Brazilian authorities can tell you, they are notoriously inefficient and corrupt. So, whilst Brazilians with valid passports/visas will probably have to go through some inconvenience and a blatant, undeserved invasion of privacy, at least they'll most likely be done with it soon enough. Americans entering Brazil will probably have a much tougher time of it on average.
Of course, if Brazil really wants to reciprocate, they can just let _almost_ everybody through, but once in a while they can pick someone at random to be detained, strip-searched, probed, and interrogated by officials with guns yelling at them in Portuguese, then eventually sent back to the U.S. with no explanation. But that would probably really piss some people off, and Brazil doesn't have an "anti-terrorism" blanket excuse for that sort of thing....
Slashdot Mirror
In socialist Germany, we have government sponsored universal health care that is alot cheaper and more efficient than in the U.S. I can go to the doc any time I want to and not have to worry about being able to pay the bills.
I have to call a bit of B.S. on this one. If you happen to already have a relationship with a good doctor who will accept the state insurance, then you're fine, but it can be very tough to get an speedy appointment with a competent doctor otherwise. And what percentage of your salary does that universal health care cost? Around 14% IIRC, which means that if you're pulling in €40000 / year (a good but not extravagant salary by German standards) then you're paying about €460 per month for that awesome universal health care. Without taking exchange rates into account, $460/month would get you some really nice health insurance in the U.S. - the kind that would let you go to any doctor whenever you want, and not worry about being able to pay the bills. Admittedly, when you're a relatively young factory worker with a stay-at-home wife and two kids, that insurance is a pretty good deal. For those of us who are single or with a working spouse (don't even get me started on the tax rates that a dual-income married couple has to pay), it's a poor value.
In socialist Germany, the state grants us legal protection from getting fired without good reason, unemployment benefits, parental benefits, grants for families with children, education sponsorships, the list goes on.
We've got that, too, except for the state protection from getting fired. Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I really think that the Germans take employee protection and job security too far, while the Americans don't take it seriously enough. Somewhere in the middle would be nice.
In socialist Germany we have low unemployment and a trade surplus.
We cut jobs, you implement Kurzarbeit - I think you could make a good argument for either measure, but that's for another thread.
In socialist Germany, we have a state funded independent news organization that reports important facts from around the world from an unbiased standpoint, instead of reporting on the lives of teenaged girl-stars or the most recent, spectacular highway robbery.
You've got me there.
Us here on the old continent can't understand why in the world anyone would ever vote for the Republican party that so clearly is the political wing of the wealthiest 5%.
Believe me, lots of us here on the new continent can't figure it out, either.
First off, kudos to these guys for trying to fill this void. That having been said, I think it's only a (short) matter of time before Google Nav has this, if it doesn't already. Specifically, what I (and many others would like) is to be able to create a route in Google Maps, export / save it, and then have the turn-by-turn Android GPS thigamabob give me turn-by-turn directions. Particularly in a lot of European cities, the best route from point A to point B via bike is completely different from the best route by car. Anyway, myself (and quite a few others) have been clamoring for this feature for a little while, and Google's response is "this is one of the most requested features", so I'm guessing it can't be too far away (assuming it's not here already, haven't checked in a while). Still, for off-road stuff, this might be handy, although if you're going off-road I don't know why you even need a map in the first place, and therefore see no reason to limit it to the UK.
I can't believe I had to go this far down the thread for someone to make that point - that was the first thing I thought: besides being a terrible idea in principle, it sounds near-impossible to properly build and implement. I mean, I'm sure that with enough manpower and money thrown at it, you can get it done, but seriously - couldn't that manpower and money be put to some better use? On the subject of moving to a patronage model, I think everyone's to an extent forgetting the massive revenues that concerts and (to a lesser extent) merchandise can bring in for a popular band or artist. From a two-second Google search I found this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/13/madonna-biggest-earning-musician-2008) which says that most of Madonna's substantial 2008 earnings were from her Sticky & Sweet tour. Artist becomes popular --> sold-out concerts --> profit! Just my 2c...
Which bar? Do you happen to have a URL or other reference that the OP could check for his/her state (or show to clients)? On another point, a LOT of small practices (think sole practitioner or firm / practice with less than 5 people) use all-in-one domain services like GoDaddy or Yahoo! Domains for everything, including their email (I have absolutely no data to back up this claim, it's just based on the folks I've met who have small businesses). Given this, how is their email data any more private / protected than data hosted on Google Apps (let's leave the calendar out of it for now, since I think we can all agree that email is the item more likely to contain privileged info)? The provider can still be subpoenaed, and it's still susceptible to the same potential hacks. Since we're all geeks here, we all know what it would take to do it _right_ - physically secured personal mail server, everything encrypted, yada yada, but the cost of hiring someone to do all that may be prohibitive to a small firm, and it probably unnecessary besides; in my experience, the law (and IANAL) generally says that you need to take reasonable measures to protect your client's secrets. I, personally, think that Google Apps is fine for this, as long as your user base is educated in the obvious security concepts (i.e. use a separate, unique password for your Google corporate account) and potential risks (i.e. Google doesn't offer any guarantees AFAIK).
Lots of people will offer anecdotes about how they were in a similar situation and did something totally bad-ass and made the bastards pay. Just ignore all that - if it works out then it'll make a great story, but more likely it's just going to hurt you. Making the following assumptions: 1) You're in the U.S. 2) Your story is true and not just an invitation for trolling. Do the following things: 1) Stay calm. If you're the type who gets riled up then make sure to keep yourself under control. Practice what you're going to say beforehand - this helps. 2) If you haven't already done so, get your boss to flat-out voice the threat in no uncertain terms. A lot of managers have perfected the art of implying, insinuating, but never actually brandishing the carrot or the stick. If he/she keeps beating around the bush, just ask "look, maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this, but are you saying that I'll get some kind of black mark for leaving in three weeks?" Hopefully, before you get to the point of asking that question, you'll find out it was just a misunderstanding. Most folks hate their bosses because they're incompetent. Very few bosses are true rat bastards - maybe you've got one of these, but probably not. 3) If you get past step 2 and you still think that the threat's there, then write a follow-up email to your boss saying the exact same thing. Something like "Hey boss, I'm a little shaken up, and I just want to make sure there's absolutely no confusion. If I leave in three weeks, am I going to receive a mark of leaving the company 'on bad terms'? If so, how much longer do I need to stay in order to ensure that I don't get that black mark? Have I done something to create these 'bad terms' other than hand in my resignation? I've really enjoyed working for you and for company X, and I would like to leave on good terms. KTHXBYE." 4) Immediately make a copy of all those emails and your performance reviews (that's obvious, right?). 5) If your boss doesn't reply or refuses to say anything clearly (I'm assuming that he won't be dumb enough to actually say "yeah, that's what I meant!"), have a quick chat with HR. Tell them your concerns. Some (OK, most) HR folks are useless, but they very rarely see direct threats, and they'll definitely take an interest. If your boss writes back "no, of course not! You've been great! You must have misunderstood...", then skip this step. 6) Leave no later than at the end of those original three weeks. 7) Fuggedaboutit. Nobody's ever going to talk to your boss. If you're really concerned about it, wait a couple of months and call up your old company, or ask a friend to call for you and ask for employment verification. Even better, talk to a recruiter, and ask him/her to get the skinny for you, since they've got experience getting those kinds of details anyway. If your recruiter does, in fact, get some info like "left on bad terms", then call a lawyer. I really, really, really doubt that'll happen tho. Believe me, life's too complicated to worry about that kind of crap. Just be honest and clear, and this will all work out.
In one of my previous companies, we usually interviewed just for personality. We would often rate people on personality first and skills second - the idea was that if someone seemed sharp, hard-working, and friendly, then we were likely to get a lot done with that person. If someone's resume says s/he's been a PHP programmer (to use your situation as an example) for X years (and that can be verified with previous employers), then you have to assume that s/he has a pretty good idea of what s/he's doing, and it's very unlikely that you're going to get much more of an idea of a person's skills from his/her interview. Of course, you want to weed out incompetent ones, but you can do that with a 10-minute tech session - after that it's near-impossible to get an accurate gauge of someone's skills. So, more often than not, you're really looking for someone whose personality "clicks" with the group. The only caveat I can think of is that, if you're going to administer this kind of test, you need to have administered the same test to everyone in the interviewee's potential group, and you need some way of predicting how well they'll all get along. Also, you need some variety in a group - groups without some diversity of personalities and styles are (IMHO) much less likely to succeed than groups with a mix of personalities and skills.
I feel the exact same way, although my situation is a bit different; I have a HDTV set from my days of living in a house (I live in a small 1br in Manhattan now) and there's no reasonable way for me to get OTA HDTV broadcasts without upsetting the board or the wife. Every show I like is OTA. So, my options are:
1) Bend over a chair for HDTV cable (very pricey in Manhattan), just so I can see the shows I like (which are all OTA)
2) Watch OTA analog broadcasts (I can get a signal by plugging in the cable, doesn't work for HDTV as a lot of you probably already know), reception's not too good but at least I'm _seeing_ it.
3) Download HDTV rips the next day.
Guess which one I go with?
I would be OK with paying a couple of bucks per show, or (even better), "subscribing" to the show for like $25 / season, with HDTV versions available online at the time of broadcast. But, here's another idea, and I think it's a good one: highly targeted ads. Have subscriptions to the show be free, but before you can sign up, you need to fill out a 15-minute survey with all the standard marketing data (age, gender, income, hobbies, neighborhood, do you have kids / do they watch the show with you, etc). After you fill out the survey, you get a login which can then be used to download any show that the network offers subscriptions to. Using your login, you can download a version of the show(s) you want with specifically targeted ads (ads for the Mexican restaurant two blocks from your place, ads for the local plumber, ads for stores / boutiques / games / etc all based on your survey). You're still watching ads, but they're ads that are really specifically targeted for you! A lot of people might not mind seeing that kind of ad, and even if you do, you can still FF or skip over it (it's a high-quality avi). Can you still share that? Sure, but if you can get it from the source just by filling out the survey (and hey, you might actually see an ad for something you _want_), why bother going the BitTorrent route?
Yes, I know there are all kinds of technical hurdles here; bandwidth for the servers with tons of people dl'ing high-bitrate video files, how to inject the ads properly in the first place, how to store all that stuff (since theoretically you've got a seperate file for each dl'er), and of course the algorithm to choose which ads go to which customers. Tech hurdles, to be sure, but how much harder is it than the rat race of copy protection?
Which brings me to the second point (probably echoing a lot of other people here) - why go through all this trouble to install copy protection on your downloadable / Internet-deliverable content? I mean, if I want a pirated copy of something, I can get it _now_ from someone who ripped a DVD. What exactly would Universal be trying to prevent? The worst-case scenario (people are taking the content and sharing it illegally) is already happening! Why not focus on giving people a good experience for a reasonable price? I think a good percentage of people who download something illegally would happily pay a reasonable fee for it, and the lower the price, the higher the percentage of people who would do it. Make a less-than-DVD-quality version available (particularly of movies that don't rely on special effects or other visuals) that's quick to download, charge $1 and see how many people purchase it. What's the risk? That people will illegally share and download the medium-quality version (as opposed to the high-quality versions that are already floating around the BT universe)?
Seriously, I often wonder if I'm missing something here. All this fuss about making content available online to prevent piracy. News flash: piracy is already here - you should know, you're the one putting those god-awful commercials at the beginning of movies. So what exactly are you trying to prevent?
In the book "1984", the main character's job is to go through news archives and change them to match the current political climate. To me, it looks like Apple has just made 2004 a little bit more like "1984". Doubleplusungood, IMO...
I have no problem with the reciprocity, and in fact I think that forcing Americans to be fingerprinted is a great way to give then just a little taste of what it's like on the other side. That being said, I really don't think it's a good example of reciprocity; at least the U.S. has the resources to implement this program and (we can only hope) make it at least semi-efficient so that people aren't sitting around forever in the airport. Brazil is attempting to throw it all together hodge-podge (fingerprints on cardboard? what are they doing with these fingerprint records? seriously...). As anyone who has ever dealt with Brazilian authorities can tell you, they are notoriously inefficient and corrupt. So, whilst Brazilians with valid passports/visas will probably have to go through some inconvenience and a blatant, undeserved invasion of privacy, at least they'll most likely be done with it soon enough. Americans entering Brazil will probably have a much tougher time of it on average. Of course, if Brazil really wants to reciprocate, they can just let _almost_ everybody through, but once in a while they can pick someone at random to be detained, strip-searched, probed, and interrogated by officials with guns yelling at them in Portuguese, then eventually sent back to the U.S. with no explanation. But that would probably really piss some people off, and Brazil doesn't have an "anti-terrorism" blanket excuse for that sort of thing....