Many large companies that operate warehouses could easily tell you what the real differences are between shipping companies when it comes to damages. In an example I know first hand, a switch from FedEx to UPS resulted in an increase of 0.7% on items returned due to damage in transit: Not that big of a difference, but enough to make sure that further UPS bids had to be noticeably lower than the FedEx bid to win: Packages damaged on delivery cost sales later.
Today, no terrorist would be able to repeat 9/11, because no pilot, crew or passenger would allow a hijacker to control a plane: The best a team of terrorists can get is to blow up the plane in the air.
So what you are really risking is the loss of less people than we lose to traffic accidents any given week, all in exchange of a bunch of money, a loss of privacy, and a lot of lost time. Would you lower every road's speed limit to 30mph to save deaths in the country's highways?
If the new scanners saved one plane every year (which they don't, since we don't get anywhere near one hijacking a year today) I'd still be against the scanners anyway. With not one blown airplane since 9/11 on US airspace, choosing anything else is being so ridiculously risk averse, you might as well never leave your home.
It'd also be an amazing transfer of money from those who can't save to those that can. It's also dodgeable by spending your money outside of the country.
Like all tax changes that claim to be revenue neutral, we have to compare it to the current system: Who would pay less taxes under Fair Tax? Who would pay more? There'd be huge winners and huge losers, and I've met quite a few people in favor of the system that didn't realize that they'd be by far on the losing team.
The GP is talking about regular government employees: Unelected, and with little executive power. Every case you are mentioning is about elected officials giving themselves and their close friends a raise. Apples and Oranges.
A large company tries to stay uninvolved in controversial issues by not displaying ads about said issues. At the same time, one of their executives wants to, personally, take a stand on one of said issues by backing one side. Nothing is stopping another large shareholder to donate money to the other side of the campaign.
There's no irony here at all, it's just something that makes perfect sense, like rain in my wedding day.
it can't if the fee for 'on the spot' payment is very low, but it could if the fee was high enough to keep the department running between fires. If the fire department takes 20K to run every month, and there's on average one fire a month, a non-subscription fee of 20K for putting out a fire without subscription would allow the fire department to run with a minimum initial investment, either by a private party or the government.
The problem here is that there was no procedure whatsoever to deal with a non-payer whose house can be saved. A form contract in the fire truck that the owner can sign to accept some kind of lien on the property to pay for the fire extinguishing costs plus a penalty would have saved the house, taught the homeowner a lesson and made the fire department richer.
A regular insurance policy is nothing more than a bet: You pay X per year, and in case of your death, your beneficiaries get Y back: If putting X in an investment fund would have netted you more than Y at the time of death, the insurance company wins, if Y is greater, you and your family win, so paying for coverage after you want to make a claim just doesn't work.
Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.
So the real problem is not the fact that this guy was unwise in his choice to not pay for the fire coverage, but on the fact that there was no mechanism to allow him to make a far higher contribution on site, for a final result that was superior to every party involved.
Robin claims they'll add recipes for the set hats, which are the only ones that aren't purely cosmetic. If the recipes are anywhere near those for making a random hat, you'll be able to get said hats in 20-30 hours, which is nowhere near as bad as you describe.
Until they add said recipes, it's rather outrageous, but valve tends to release a quick update or two right after every major pack, so I'd be surprised if it took more than two weeks. Meanwhile, just hoard random items
Some items are almost straight upgrades, but they are relatively easy to obtain without paying for them: Take the degreaser, almost strictly superior to the regular flamethrower for an experienced pyro, or the GRU, which brings a major improvement while just replacing the heavy's default weapon, which very few people would even use when playing even semi-seriously.
Once they make the hats that are part of a set craftable, we'll be in good shape.
First, all the items other than the hats and the GRU are easily craftable, today. the GRU has a 50% chance recipe. So most of us have been able to get the most of the items we wanted in a matter of minutes, without paying a dime. We'll be able to get the rest in a couple of weeks worth of item drops.
Now, the hats were an issue, because the chances of hat drops are extremely low, so getting the rare hat that completes a functional set is very difficult. There's been enough complaining about it that Robin has said that they'll quickly add a recipe to build the set hats. Now, we don't know if said recipe will require 2 regular items, some intermediate metal, or a bunch of refined metal plus token. Either way, it will make it easier to get the hats you want without paying a ton.
It is absolutely impossible to have a law that doesn't affect the economy. Every time a bill creates or destroys a job, it affects the economy. So what you are asking for is no government whatsoever: Public education affects the economy, by creating more teaching jobs that would exist otherwise, and by making sure that the children of people that value education get competition from the kids of parents that wouldn't send their kids to school if they didn't have to. A police department affects the economy, as it makes sure that the person owning property doesn't have to guard it, while making it harder for the people with little property to take it from someone else.
So, what you end up with is anarchy, at which point some very violent people decide that they want to tell the rest how to live. Congratulations on your discovery of despotism.
Pf cpurse there is one behind every bill: No matter what bill could possibly write, there'd always be winners and losers, and people like legislation that lets them win. This also happens when you remove legislation: The previous winners are now losers, and the former losers become winners.
The trick is to find the optimal legislation, where we win more than we lose.
Their margins are often 0, or negative. They make their money by not paying for merchandise on delivery, but a few weeks later. By cycling through inventory fast enough, they have large amounts of cash in hand, which they can play with in the same way gamestop does with their preorders.
The copy? You go to their website, click on documentation, and select the version you want. I've been using it for years, and the info you want is always there, in a sensible format. I've never wanted more.
But there is in the main reason property developed in most societies: Property, and exchanging money for its purchase or rental, is a way of prioritizing who gets to use a resource. Property rights become more important as a society grows in size in comparison to the resources around it, as moving towards the optimal use of existing resources becomes necessary for further development. If the trees gave an infinite amount of fruit every year, and cutting a tree for wood didn't actually stop it from bearing fruit, you would see a society where there's no property on trees, because there's no disadvantages in letting everyone full access to said tree.
And this is why making an MMO is just as risky as making an online shooter: The value of your game to other players is proportional to how many people play it. If you don't build a large player base quickly, the game will have no staying power, and will be abandoned quickly: It's boom or bust. Realtime just didn't make that great a game, so they went bust.
A pity: They went ahead and built a game nobody played, while the Crackdown franchise was handed to a team that built a sequel that was worse than the original in almost every way. I'd have much rather have a quality Crackdown 2 than the two games we ended up with.
Well, he probably qualifies as an EB-1 for making freaking Linux, so he doesn't have to navigate much of an immigration process: A green card for under 10K between fees and laywer costs, all in under a year.
If you don't have a master's degree, things are not so easy: A programmer with quite a bit of experience but no publications or a master's degree will only qualify as an EB-3. Today, they are giving people green cards to Europeans that received a labor certification in 2004. Yes, a 6 year wait, and that's if you come from Europe. That's why so many Indians get master's degrees in CompSci, even though they don't really have much use for them in the real world: Their line is longer than 6 years if they don't have a masters, but if they do, it's about 2 years last time I checked.
Oh, and all of those require an employee willing to sponsor you, and with those waits, no employer will sponsor you unless you are already working for them, so you have to have already qualified for an H1 visa or a research visa just to start the process, and chances are you need to work with them for a bit before they'll sponsor you.
So if you don't have a degree, manage to get a job with an H1 visa, and stay afloat without changing jobs all that often for about a decade, your best chance of coming in legally is to marry an American. If you can't go through that, you either go somewhere else or go illegal.
No wonder so many people choose illegal immigration.
The problem is that it's easy to follow this rule and forget another important one: If the code you are writing needs a lot of comments, chances are you need to try a different solution, because you are trying one that has the complexity in the wrong places.
The best code has enough comments to be understandable, but it also doesn't have anywhere near as many comments as there is code.
It's not quite like that: Remove the red bracelets, Nazi leaders and SS symbols, and you'll be good to go, so if you are recreating a WWII battlefield, more often than not you won't have to change anything unless you are trying to portray one of the SS divisions.
At 25 you shouldn't have hit your peak yet. What in the world are you doing to your life to have trouble keeping up. Management typically doesn't do much actual guiding. If your work doesn't let you have a life at 25, you need another one. The people that should be doing design are typically not 25ers. Have you never worked with a decent software architect? Even if management was the one way to go, not everyone would be able to go into management without ending up having a whole lot more managers than programmers, which is not exactly a good thing.
Can I get some of those sysadmins that can develop something? Mine couldn't write a 5 line perl script.
It's an issue of competence: If the sysadmins are competent, actually know how to configure the system and have the time to set up the facilities to handle remote logging for application code, separating concerns is a great idea. But people are stuck in situations where admins sadly know less about system configuration than the developers, and are uninterested in learning more about it. If, in that situation, your developers are not horrible, you might be better off giving them access, and even letting them do admin work.
Source control is difficult to use? Where in the world are you working? Even the smallest of shops have access to free source control, which requires minimal administration. How much maintenance do you thing is needed in, say, a mercurial repository?
Slashdot Mirror
Many large companies that operate warehouses could easily tell you what the real differences are between shipping companies when it comes to damages. In an example I know first hand, a switch from FedEx to UPS resulted in an increase of 0.7% on items returned due to damage in transit: Not that big of a difference, but enough to make sure that further UPS bids had to be noticeably lower than the FedEx bid to win: Packages damaged on delivery cost sales later.
Today, no terrorist would be able to repeat 9/11, because no pilot, crew or passenger would allow a hijacker to control a plane: The best a team of terrorists can get is to blow up the plane in the air.
So what you are really risking is the loss of less people than we lose to traffic accidents any given week, all in exchange of a bunch of money, a loss of privacy, and a lot of lost time. Would you lower every road's speed limit to 30mph to save deaths in the country's highways?
If the new scanners saved one plane every year (which they don't, since we don't get anywhere near one hijacking a year today) I'd still be against the scanners anyway. With not one blown airplane since 9/11 on US airspace, choosing anything else is being so ridiculously risk averse, you might as well never leave your home.
It'd also be an amazing transfer of money from those who can't save to those that can. It's also dodgeable by spending your money outside of the country.
Like all tax changes that claim to be revenue neutral, we have to compare it to the current system: Who would pay less taxes under Fair Tax? Who would pay more? There'd be huge winners and huge losers, and I've met quite a few people in favor of the system that didn't realize that they'd be by far on the losing team.
If the house hits you with a massive estate tax, your house is worth more than most people's lifetime earnings.
Reading comprehension failure!
The GP is talking about regular government employees: Unelected, and with little executive power. Every case you are mentioning is about elected officials giving themselves and their close friends a raise. Apples and Oranges.
A large company tries to stay uninvolved in controversial issues by not displaying ads about said issues. At the same time, one of their executives wants to, personally, take a stand on one of said issues by backing one side. Nothing is stopping another large shareholder to donate money to the other side of the campaign.
There's no irony here at all, it's just something that makes perfect sense, like rain in my wedding day.
it can't if the fee for 'on the spot' payment is very low, but it could if the fee was high enough to keep the department running between fires. If the fire department takes 20K to run every month, and there's on average one fire a month, a non-subscription fee of 20K for putting out a fire without subscription would allow the fire department to run with a minimum initial investment, either by a private party or the government.
The problem here is that there was no procedure whatsoever to deal with a non-payer whose house can be saved. A form contract in the fire truck that the owner can sign to accept some kind of lien on the property to pay for the fire extinguishing costs plus a penalty would have saved the house, taught the homeowner a lesson and made the fire department richer.
It is quite different.
A regular insurance policy is nothing more than a bet: You pay X per year, and in case of your death, your beneficiaries get Y back: If putting X in an investment fund would have netted you more than Y at the time of death, the insurance company wins, if Y is greater, you and your family win, so paying for coverage after you want to make a claim just doesn't work.
Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.
So the real problem is not the fact that this guy was unwise in his choice to not pay for the fire coverage, but on the fact that there was no mechanism to allow him to make a far higher contribution on site, for a final result that was superior to every party involved.
Robin claims they'll add recipes for the set hats, which are the only ones that aren't purely cosmetic. If the recipes are anywhere near those for making a random hat, you'll be able to get said hats in 20-30 hours, which is nowhere near as bad as you describe.
Until they add said recipes, it's rather outrageous, but valve tends to release a quick update or two right after every major pack, so I'd be surprised if it took more than two weeks. Meanwhile, just hoard random items
Some items are almost straight upgrades, but they are relatively easy to obtain without paying for them: Take the degreaser, almost strictly superior to the regular flamethrower for an experienced pyro, or the GRU, which brings a major improvement while just replacing the heavy's default weapon, which very few people would even use when playing even semi-seriously.
Once they make the hats that are part of a set craftable, we'll be in good shape.
First, all the items other than the hats and the GRU are easily craftable, today. the GRU has a 50% chance recipe. So most of us have been able to get the most of the items we wanted in a matter of minutes, without paying a dime. We'll be able to get the rest in a couple of weeks worth of item drops.
Now, the hats were an issue, because the chances of hat drops are extremely low, so getting the rare hat that completes a functional set is very difficult. There's been enough complaining about it that Robin has said that they'll quickly add a recipe to build the set hats. Now, we don't know if said recipe will require 2 regular items, some intermediate metal, or a bunch of refined metal plus token. Either way, it will make it easier to get the hats you want without paying a ton.
It is absolutely impossible to have a law that doesn't affect the economy. Every time a bill creates or destroys a job, it affects the economy. So what you are asking for is no government whatsoever: Public education affects the economy, by creating more teaching jobs that would exist otherwise, and by making sure that the children of people that value education get competition from the kids of parents that wouldn't send their kids to school if they didn't have to. A police department affects the economy, as it makes sure that the person owning property doesn't have to guard it, while making it harder for the people with little property to take it from someone else.
So, what you end up with is anarchy, at which point some very violent people decide that they want to tell the rest how to live. Congratulations on your discovery of despotism.
Pf cpurse there is one behind every bill: No matter what bill could possibly write, there'd always be winners and losers, and people like legislation that lets them win. This also happens when you remove legislation: The previous winners are now losers, and the former losers become winners.
The trick is to find the optimal legislation, where we win more than we lose.
Their margins are often 0, or negative. They make their money by not paying for merchandise on delivery, but a few weeks later. By cycling through inventory fast enough, they have large amounts of cash in hand, which they can play with in the same way gamestop does with their preorders.
It wouldn't: After you take into account all their income, they are both probably over 7 figures, making the tax cost them a whole lot more than 10k.
That's the CEO life for ya.
The copy? You go to their website, click on documentation, and select the version you want. I've been using it for years, and the info you want is always there, in a sensible format. I've never wanted more.
But there is in the main reason property developed in most societies: Property, and exchanging money for its purchase or rental, is a way of prioritizing who gets to use a resource. Property rights become more important as a society grows in size in comparison to the resources around it, as moving towards the optimal use of existing resources becomes necessary for further development. If the trees gave an infinite amount of fruit every year, and cutting a tree for wood didn't actually stop it from bearing fruit, you would see a society where there's no property on trees, because there's no disadvantages in letting everyone full access to said tree.
And this is why making an MMO is just as risky as making an online shooter: The value of your game to other players is proportional to how many people play it. If you don't build a large player base quickly, the game will have no staying power, and will be abandoned quickly: It's boom or bust. Realtime just didn't make that great a game, so they went bust.
A pity: They went ahead and built a game nobody played, while the Crackdown franchise was handed to a team that built a sequel that was worse than the original in almost every way. I'd have much rather have a quality Crackdown 2 than the two games we ended up with.
Many states go by license, but once you receive your summons, you can just main a photocopy of a foreign passport to get out of it.
Well, he probably qualifies as an EB-1 for making freaking Linux, so he doesn't have to navigate much of an immigration process: A green card for under 10K between fees and laywer costs, all in under a year.
If you don't have a master's degree, things are not so easy: A programmer with quite a bit of experience but no publications or a master's degree will only qualify as an EB-3. Today, they are giving people green cards to Europeans that received a labor certification in 2004. Yes, a 6 year wait, and that's if you come from Europe. That's why so many Indians get master's degrees in CompSci, even though they don't really have much use for them in the real world: Their line is longer than 6 years if they don't have a masters, but if they do, it's about 2 years last time I checked.
Oh, and all of those require an employee willing to sponsor you, and with those waits, no employer will sponsor you unless you are already working for them, so you have to have already qualified for an H1 visa or a research visa just to start the process, and chances are you need to work with them for a bit before they'll sponsor you.
So if you don't have a degree, manage to get a job with an H1 visa, and stay afloat without changing jobs all that often for about a decade, your best chance of coming in legally is to marry an American. If you can't go through that, you either go somewhere else or go illegal.
No wonder so many people choose illegal immigration.
The problem is that it's easy to follow this rule and forget another important one: If the code you are writing needs a lot of comments, chances are you need to try a different solution, because you are trying one that has the complexity in the wrong places.
The best code has enough comments to be understandable, but it also doesn't have anywhere near as many comments as there is code.
It's not quite like that: Remove the red bracelets, Nazi leaders and SS symbols, and you'll be good to go, so if you are recreating a WWII battlefield, more often than not you won't have to change anything unless you are trying to portray one of the SS divisions.
Which strange world do you come from?
At 25 you shouldn't have hit your peak yet. What in the world are you doing to your life to have trouble keeping up.
Management typically doesn't do much actual guiding.
If your work doesn't let you have a life at 25, you need another one.
The people that should be doing design are typically not 25ers. Have you never worked with a decent software architect?
Even if management was the one way to go, not everyone would be able to go into management without ending up having a whole lot more managers than programmers, which is not exactly a good thing.
Can I get some of those sysadmins that can develop something? Mine couldn't write a 5 line perl script.
It's an issue of competence: If the sysadmins are competent, actually know how to configure the system and have the time to set up the facilities to handle remote logging for application code, separating concerns is a great idea. But people are stuck in situations where admins sadly know less about system configuration than the developers, and are uninterested in learning more about it. If, in that situation, your developers are not horrible, you might be better off giving them access, and even letting them do admin work.
Source control is difficult to use? Where in the world are you working? Even the smallest of shops have access to free source control, which requires minimal administration. How much maintenance do you thing is needed in, say, a mercurial repository?