Why? Why would I go back? So that they could offer me another 2.25%?
No, I went to another company that gave good raises without having to be forced into it. And hopefully, my old company learned its lesson, and offered the people who stayed more reasonable raises.
It's based on the assumption that the more experience a worker has, the more valuable he is to the company.
Salaries aren't about "earning it". The company figures out how much they value your labor, and then figure out how much less than that you will accept. If the later is lower than the former, they offer it to you, otherwise, they fire you.
Salaries are low because most people don't seem to understand that a company will generally attempt to pay you as little as it can without losing you.
Many places flat out lie. Be prepared to quit. It's often the only way to get a real raise. There was one place that, after I had worked there nearly a year, gave me a 2.25% raise, claiming that it was "all they could do". So I went and got another job. When I have notice, they offered me an immediate 10% raise if I'd stay. I laughed at them, and suggested that if they would give decent raises, they wouldn't have such a problem keeping good people.
Unfortunately, there's too many saps out there who complain about shit raises, but won't go out and do something about it. Don't like your raise? Get a new job, and then when you leave, tell them exactly why. If more people did that, raises would be higher for everyone.
That's not quite the point, though. It is NOT illegal to copy anything. It is illegal to give a copy to someone. Deliberately leaving a share folder open is no different from leaving photocopies of Harry Potter books on your doorstep with a sign that says "Take Me". In this case, you are the one committing the crime, not the person taking the copy.
I don't about the CD copy case...probably you'd be ok as long as they didn't show that you deliberately gave it for copying.
100 dpi is about what current LCD monitors run. To get a monitor that does 1600x1200, you generally need to by a 20" monitor. Such a monitor has a screen that is 16" by 12".
Higher end LCDs do better, but these are generally only available on laptops.
Congratulations, you missed the point of the comment!;-)
My comment is talking about how Java comparisons generally compare doing "Foo f = new Foo()" with "Foo *f = new Foo()", ignoring the speed C++ programmers do by manually doing stack allocation.
While you are correct, that perfect does not exist, it is also true that the way most software is developed, with arbitrary deadlines, poor testing and deathmarch coding, is responsible for much of the bugginess of modern software.
If software companies spent the time and money quality takes, then they would produce software that is less buggy. Not bug-free, but much less buggy.
Why is that a problem? That's all the more reason to compare a Java program to a C program using stack allocation. If Java is doing it as well or better than a programming doing it manually, then it should produce faster code.
In C++, it only requires 1 instruction to allocate on the stack. Less than that, actually, if you are allocating multiple objects in one scope.
You can't just compare Java allocation to:
Foo *foo = new Foo();
You also have to compare it to:
Foo foo;
Experienced C++ programmers will prefer the latter both because it is faster and because you don't have to worry about freeing it. One of the problems with a lot of the "See, Java's faster than C++!" comparisons is that they tend to translate directly from Java to C++, ignoring the things you can do in C++ but not Java (like stack allocation) that have a huge performance impact.
The thing is that programs don't sit around doing nothing but allocation. (If the speed of memory allocation is a factor in your program's speed, you have worse issues the language!) One of the big areas where Java performance fails is in its collection classes. The STL containers run much faster than the Java containers. This is inherent in the design. The Java containers will always be slower because of the "container of Objects" design. Sun could have fixed this with generics, but they chose to layer it on top of their "container of Objects" design rather than making it an alternative (as Microsoft did with C#.)
This is important because the speed of most application programs spend most of their time manipulating data structures.
Also, you're running bytecode, so you're automatically running at half-speed. Yes, JIT and optimization can recover some of this, but you can't ignore the effect.
Last time I used Java, one of the problems was that the garbage collector tended to lock everything for a significant period (0.5-1 second) even though the average deallocation time was smaller. If this happens in a GUI event, the UI will lock for a noticible period making the app seem slower even if in terms of CPU usage it isn't. More modern garbage collectors may have fixed this. I have no idea. But average deallocation speed is not the only metric you have to look at. You also have to look at the peak time. free may be slower, but it'll never take an exceptionally large amount of time.
On the other hand, it's 9:30 PM on Friday night and I, along with most of the rest of the team, is hard at work. I say "most", because the contractors all left at 5.
Some people like oysters. Some people like clams. Some like both.
People can agree that some things are better than others, obviously, but when it comes to any sort of art, be it movies, books, whatever, some of it just comes down to varied opinion.
Oh, they have a reason. Yeah, it's a cash cow now. But imagine ten or twenty years from now. An Apple that has 50% of the music market is an Apple that holds the labels by the balls. More importantly, it is an Apple that no longer needs the labels.
If Apple gets a big enough market, it can start selling artists directly. That is what the labels are really worried about. All the rest is just rhetoric.
He requires a fee if you want to read the entire book. He doesn't require a fee to search. His service is free if used the way google's print search will be used.
You don't need to pay anyone for fair use. You don't, for example, need permission to print an excerpt of a book in a book review, nor do you need to reimburse the author even if you charge for your review.
That isn't always AI cheating. The AI likes to trade science, so often you get into situations where once a culture gets an advance, it immediatley trades/gives it to all the others. The only way to really combat this is to get involved yourself. Be very aggressive about trading techs and always remember to immediately trade a tech with every other player you can once you trade it to the first guy, even if the deal sin't that great.
Sometimes you can use the AI love of tech against it, especially if there are a lot of players. In the mid-end game, offer trades for yearly gold. You can often get the AI into a situation where where all of it's profit goes to you, allowing you to take your taxes down to zero. I've found that using this technique, once you get a lead, you can keep it indefinitely as your getting a tech once every four years, while their all raising taxes to pay you.
Yes, I still get unwanted calls. But yes, the system is basically working in that I get probably two a month instead of two a day. And since those two a month are generally charities or companies I've done business with, the law is doing basically what it claims to.
To get rid of all unwanted calls, they'd need to require that charities and political groups honor it, and that companies lose the right to call the day after I stop doing business with them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I went to another company that gave good raises without having to be forced into it. And hopefully, my old company learned its lesson, and offered the people who stayed more reasonable raises.
Salaries aren't about "earning it". The company figures out how much they value your labor, and then figure out how much less than that you will accept. If the later is lower than the former, they offer it to you, otherwise, they fire you.
Salaries are low because most people don't seem to understand that a company will generally attempt to pay you as little as it can without losing you.
Unfortunately, there's too many saps out there who complain about shit raises, but won't go out and do something about it. Don't like your raise? Get a new job, and then when you leave, tell them exactly why. If more people did that, raises would be higher for everyone.
Yes. They have 17 years to defend it.
Yup. In the Bay Area, the average house goes for $550k. You're looking at a $2500/month mortgage payment. That'll eat half your take home right there.
Those salaries are typical for engineering in general, at least in San Francisco.
That's not quite the point, though. It is NOT illegal to copy anything. It is illegal to give a copy to someone. Deliberately leaving a share folder open is no different from leaving photocopies of Harry Potter books on your doorstep with a sign that says "Take Me". In this case, you are the one committing the crime, not the person taking the copy.
I don't about the CD copy case...probably you'd be ok as long as they didn't show that you deliberately gave it for copying.
100 dpi is about what current LCD monitors run. To get a monitor that does 1600x1200, you generally need to by a 20" monitor. Such a monitor has a screen that is 16" by 12".
Higher end LCDs do better, but these are generally only available on laptops.
Yes, the damages you should pay are $2 for every person that downloads the video from you.
When I interviewed at Amazon last year, they told me that they still used C++ for a lot of stuff.
Congratulations, you missed the point of the comment! ;-)
My comment is talking about how Java comparisons generally compare doing "Foo f = new Foo()" with "Foo *f = new Foo()", ignoring the speed C++ programmers do by manually doing stack allocation.
While you are correct, that perfect does not exist, it is also true that the way most software is developed, with arbitrary deadlines, poor testing and deathmarch coding, is responsible for much of the bugginess of modern software.
If software companies spent the time and money quality takes, then they would produce software that is less buggy. Not bug-free, but much less buggy.
Internet connections go down. It doesn't make sense to me to trust your data to something you might lose access to.
Why is that a problem? That's all the more reason to compare a Java program to a C program using stack allocation. If Java is doing it as well or better than a programming doing it manually, then it should produce faster code.
You can't just compare Java allocation to:
Foo *foo = new Foo();
You also have to compare it to:
Foo foo;
Experienced C++ programmers will prefer the latter both because it is faster and because you don't have to worry about freeing it. One of the problems with a lot of the "See, Java's faster than C++!" comparisons is that they tend to translate directly from Java to C++, ignoring the things you can do in C++ but not Java (like stack allocation) that have a huge performance impact.
The thing is that programs don't sit around doing nothing but allocation. (If the speed of memory allocation is a factor in your program's speed, you have worse issues the language!) One of the big areas where Java performance fails is in its collection classes. The STL containers run much faster than the Java containers. This is inherent in the design. The Java containers will always be slower because of the "container of Objects" design. Sun could have fixed this with generics, but they chose to layer it on top of their "container of Objects" design rather than making it an alternative (as Microsoft did with C#.)
This is important because the speed of most application programs spend most of their time manipulating data structures.
Also, you're running bytecode, so you're automatically running at half-speed. Yes, JIT and optimization can recover some of this, but you can't ignore the effect.
Last time I used Java, one of the problems was that the garbage collector tended to lock everything for a significant period (0.5-1 second) even though the average deallocation time was smaller. If this happens in a GUI event, the UI will lock for a noticible period making the app seem slower even if in terms of CPU usage it isn't. More modern garbage collectors may have fixed this. I have no idea. But average deallocation speed is not the only metric you have to look at. You also have to look at the peak time. free may be slower, but it'll never take an exceptionally large amount of time.
On the other hand, it's 9:30 PM on Friday night and I, along with most of the rest of the team, is hard at work. I say "most", because the contractors all left at 5.
Presumably they just need to port this. Or maybe this.
I've been using the Palm version for years.
BART has had a nifty schedule/map application for the Palm for years.
Some people like oysters. Some people like clams. Some like both.
People can agree that some things are better than others, obviously, but when it comes to any sort of art, be it movies, books, whatever, some of it just comes down to varied opinion.
Oh, they have a reason. Yeah, it's a cash cow now. But imagine ten or twenty years from now. An Apple that has 50% of the music market is an Apple that holds the labels by the balls. More importantly, it is an Apple that no longer needs the labels.
If Apple gets a big enough market, it can start selling artists directly. That is what the labels are really worried about. All the rest is just rhetoric.
He requires a fee if you want to read the entire book. He doesn't require a fee to search. His service is free if used the way google's print search will be used.
You don't need to pay anyone for fair use. You don't, for example, need permission to print an excerpt of a book in a book review, nor do you need to reimburse the author even if you charge for your review.
Not only that, but O'Reilly already has a service that allows his books to be searched just like Google wants to do.
So not only is he not a hypocrit, but he beat google to it.
That isn't always AI cheating. The AI likes to trade science, so often you get into situations where once a culture gets an advance, it immediatley trades/gives it to all the others. The only way to really combat this is to get involved yourself. Be very aggressive about trading techs and always remember to immediately trade a tech with every other player you can once you trade it to the first guy, even if the deal sin't that great.
Sometimes you can use the AI love of tech against it, especially if there are a lot of players. In the mid-end game, offer trades for yearly gold. You can often get the AI into a situation where where all of it's profit goes to you, allowing you to take your taxes down to zero. I've found that using this technique, once you get a lead, you can keep it indefinitely as your getting a tech once every four years, while their all raising taxes to pay you.
Yes, I still get unwanted calls. But yes, the system is basically working in that I get probably two a month instead of two a day. And since those two a month are generally charities or companies I've done business with, the law is doing basically what it claims to.
To get rid of all unwanted calls, they'd need to require that charities and political groups honor it, and that companies lose the right to call the day after I stop doing business with them.