I'm not going to see it, because it looks to be a really bad movie, at least based on the previews.
But you can boycott a movie for any reason, it's a matter of how many people want to join your cause. Or if you're anti-gay, like that Chick-fil-a guy, you can say something idiotic and actually drive customers TO YOU, by making a political issue of your business.
It's better just not to politicize this and let the movie stand on its own (like Chick-fil-a, home of lousy fast food...)
Most people, including those that have studied the effects, wouldn't get behind that statement.
The question of whether homosexual marriage provides the same social benefits is unknown, but should be reasonably expected, assuming that the relevant aspects of heterosexual marriage holds true for homosexual marriage. What those are, no one has really defined, but I suspect love and monogamy are strong factors. It doesn't seem like homosexual marriage precludes those.
I think this is exactly the problem. I work at a small silicon start-up, and we have two major factions (predictably): hardware and software. The software guys only want to hire a certain type of personality, the alpha-geek innovator. However, and it is a good practice in general as the groups work closely together, they sit on interview panels for hardware engineers, and 90% of the time pan otherwise good, highly qualified applicants. "Not an innovator, very narrow focus, he's a doer not a thinker", or vice versa "He talks well but I'm not sure he has any skills at doing real work". They even pan software architects "because they can't code!". They've called recognized experts everything from gear turners to garbage men.
Software is a different creature in terms of what you can get away with culturally. You have people who see the big picture, possibly work directly with customers, but are also writing code. It's very nice to have such dynamic individuals and it does allow some efficiencies we don't see elsewhere. Outside of that, in other forms of engineering this is very unusual (or even highly undesirable, both by employers and employees). People tend to be specialized along the line of their expertise or chosen career path. They may not be entirely one trick ponies, but it's very uncommon to have highly analytic people in highly creative roles and vice versa. But without both, a product will not occur, or (especially in the case of silicon) that multi-million dollar investment will not work.
This isn't just a problem with Valve, the entire industry in suffering from this type of mentality. Everyone sees their niche, and believes it is a blueprint for the world. I worked for a time at Intel and was shocked at how they treat technicians: contract only, removing them every 1.5 years, bringing in new people to replace them. They had the work, they just didn't want to hire "people like that" as employees (except in a few rare cases). Yet they spent so much time and money continuously training new technicians, being disorganized and unable to "get lab work done", that it was clearly not a financial decision, it was simply a malfunctioning thought process. They truly believed that they weren't going to need that work in the long run, that it was not where they wanted to be. For years, probably over a decade.
There are workable management structures, taken at instances in time. I don't think there are "workable management philosophies" or an algorithm for creating a management structure that works in on all projects and all conditions with all personalities.
Everyone tries to copy a formula, but it's not a formula.
No I think we've all seen Valve/Blizzard deliver excellence time and time again, those other metrics are irrelevant to me as a consumer (all of them, especially the bullshit purchased critics) and i'm not going to play armchair investor, because I'm entirely disinterested in if or how any of these companies make profit. I understand they need to, but I don't care if they do, or how they do, that's their problem.
But I'm not sure that the Valve mentality works well on hardware (high degrees of rigor, lots of labor, and lots of money spent), or that it'd be as easy for someone with her skill-set to have an idea she works on in the background while she contributes to another project which is nearer and clearer. The valve employee manual does mention desks moving around, that all these superstars frequently will simply contribute to other projects. I'm not sure her desk had as many places to go in that environment while she incubates, and possibly her personality didn't include the level of humility required to simply be a contributor, especially if she was feeling resource starved herself.
As far as I can tell this is it. In software it's 'round the clock coding. In hardware it's "people willing to travel and basically live in China". I know some design engineers in Apple, while they may "design in Cupertino", they live 1/4-1/2 of their lives in Shanghai. People in their 30s and 40s with children young aren't going to be very willing to do that, particularly in two-income households (which in California, is virtually a requirement).
It's better to flee the valley and find a more traditional job elsewhere. The paycheck may LOOK lower, but probably goes a lot farther.
But is very real, particularly when dealing with sound and video. Many chips have Dolby capabilities for example, but it's frequently not included in the part because with Dolby comes licensing and compliance that costs money. So it's disabled...
I've used it, it's stupid. Yes, the start menu was just a collection of links, but it was organized usefully, contained what i wanted, and was fast to navigate. The new thing is a giant mess of excess information and crazy animations that serve no good end.
I just want a fucking menu, with letters spelling out hte program I wish to run, that even my 5yo son has been able to read for going on two and a half years now; organized in some fashion perhaps alphabetically, or even by category, or best allow me to reorganize if I wish. I don't know what idiot out there NEEDS pictures, but he probably shouldn't be operating a goddamned computer anyway.
True by definition. Not necessarily the lowest price around though. I've walked out of the same place twice, only to buy the car for $1200 less somewhere else. Just this past weekend in fact.
It's OK, this isn't 1950. Most of us shop for cars on the internet. We show up to a dealership for a test drive, the salesman hands us the keys and sits in the car. He then makes a terrible offer, I say I'm still looking and wander off. We then negotiate the price on the internet, and play dealers off against each other until they won't deal anymore. Then we sign a paper and drive a car away (or in my case, had it delivered).
I haven't spent more than 15 minutes in a dealership in over a decade. Not being able to car shop on Sunday is annoying, but almost moot at this point. I'm bitten far more by the "can't buy alcohol before noon" on sunday blue law. I tend to do my grocery shopping before noon on Sunday since most of my neighbors are at church. The grocery stores are a zoo on weekends otherwise.
I agree but for entirely different reasons, and I would sell my skillset to the defense industry in your shoes. I know someone who is both a EE and a test pilot. He writes his algorithms, and if he sucks he dies! He's still around though.
But seriously, sell it to the right industry, it's actually a very viable combination. The fact that you've already had all the training that goes behind military flying experience (being dropped in a pool and told to escape from his seat, is most frequently discussed), means they have to spend less on you.
It's really not a bad combination if you want to work on planes, and there is a shitload of EE involved in both civilian and military aircraft.
The idea is that 4 years in school with a stamp of approval at the end of it, is a sort of pre-verification that the candidate is worth talking to. RIght now in technology you can accept every resume with a B.S. in EE or CS, and you would never run out of resumes.
Of course, I must be lying since we have this massive tech labor shortage.
Infinity \In*fin"i*ty\, n.; 1. A quantity equal to the calendar year in which mobile gaming takes off, and/or Linux becomes the dominant desktop platform. 2. When unicorns dance the macarena on the moon.
A simplification to be sure. Consoles were big in 1977, stayed big through Nintendo, then PC gaming started to pick up in the late 80s and was incredibly popular through the 90s. Then consoles "grew up" and added 3D chips and someone demonstrated that a dumbed down FPS would run on a console too, and they became dominant again.
People are getting bored with the same lame rehashes, and there's been very little innovation in consoles (partly by definition: they're dominated by a few companies who want to minimize development costs) and PCs are coming back.
The cycle won't end... This free market/command economy thing plays out in many ways in many places and has no consensus.
It doesn't, and the thing we've noted is they're using workstation graphics, which is good for workstations but bad for those of us who just wanted a high quality, high end PC. I've been happily using my macbook pro but I really want a machine that I can play games on, and that has apple's high quality.
Because students, particularly in california, are required to read it for school, and thus the price of an otherwise uninteresting book by an overrated author is inflated to hold some kids hostage.
Slashdot Mirror
Like plantation owners led slaves.
And I am thrilled that he's running MS. If they had someone smart in there, things would be really horrifying in computer-land.
I'm not going to see it, because it looks to be a really bad movie, at least based on the previews.
But you can boycott a movie for any reason, it's a matter of how many people want to join your cause. Or if you're anti-gay, like that Chick-fil-a guy, you can say something idiotic and actually drive customers TO YOU, by making a political issue of your business.
It's better just not to politicize this and let the movie stand on its own (like Chick-fil-a, home of lousy fast food...)
Most people, including those that have studied the effects, wouldn't get behind that statement.
The question of whether homosexual marriage provides the same social benefits is unknown, but should be reasonably expected, assuming that the relevant aspects of heterosexual marriage holds true for homosexual marriage. What those are, no one has really defined, but I suspect love and monogamy are strong factors. It doesn't seem like homosexual marriage precludes those.
I think this is exactly the problem. I work at a small silicon start-up, and we have two major factions (predictably): hardware and software. The software guys only want to hire a certain type of personality, the alpha-geek innovator. However, and it is a good practice in general as the groups work closely together, they sit on interview panels for hardware engineers, and 90% of the time pan otherwise good, highly qualified applicants. "Not an innovator, very narrow focus, he's a doer not a thinker", or vice versa "He talks well but I'm not sure he has any skills at doing real work". They even pan software architects "because they can't code!". They've called recognized experts everything from gear turners to garbage men.
Software is a different creature in terms of what you can get away with culturally. You have people who see the big picture, possibly work directly with customers, but are also writing code. It's very nice to have such dynamic individuals and it does allow some efficiencies we don't see elsewhere. Outside of that, in other forms of engineering this is very unusual (or even highly undesirable, both by employers and employees). People tend to be specialized along the line of their expertise or chosen career path. They may not be entirely one trick ponies, but it's very uncommon to have highly analytic people in highly creative roles and vice versa. But without both, a product will not occur, or (especially in the case of silicon) that multi-million dollar investment will not work.
This isn't just a problem with Valve, the entire industry in suffering from this type of mentality. Everyone sees their niche, and believes it is a blueprint for the world. I worked for a time at Intel and was shocked at how they treat technicians: contract only, removing them every 1.5 years, bringing in new people to replace them. They had the work, they just didn't want to hire "people like that" as employees (except in a few rare cases). Yet they spent so much time and money continuously training new technicians, being disorganized and unable to "get lab work done", that it was clearly not a financial decision, it was simply a malfunctioning thought process. They truly believed that they weren't going to need that work in the long run, that it was not where they wanted to be. For years, probably over a decade.
There are workable management structures, taken at instances in time. I don't think there are "workable management philosophies" or an algorithm for creating a management structure that works in on all projects and all conditions with all personalities.
Everyone tries to copy a formula, but it's not a formula.
No I think we've all seen Valve/Blizzard deliver excellence time and time again, those other metrics are irrelevant to me as a consumer (all of them, especially the bullshit purchased critics) and i'm not going to play armchair investor, because I'm entirely disinterested in if or how any of these companies make profit. I understand they need to, but I don't care if they do, or how they do, that's their problem.
But I'm not sure that the Valve mentality works well on hardware (high degrees of rigor, lots of labor, and lots of money spent), or that it'd be as easy for someone with her skill-set to have an idea she works on in the background while she contributes to another project which is nearer and clearer. The valve employee manual does mention desks moving around, that all these superstars frequently will simply contribute to other projects. I'm not sure her desk had as many places to go in that environment while she incubates, and possibly her personality didn't include the level of humility required to simply be a contributor, especially if she was feeling resource starved herself.
Making people do what needs to be done, in the best interests of the people being lead.
Anything else is just charisma, necessary but not sufficient, and on its own, very dangerous.
As far as I can tell this is it. In software it's 'round the clock coding. In hardware it's "people willing to travel and basically live in China". I know some design engineers in Apple, while they may "design in Cupertino", they live 1/4-1/2 of their lives in Shanghai. People in their 30s and 40s with children young aren't going to be very willing to do that, particularly in two-income households (which in California, is virtually a requirement).
It's better to flee the valley and find a more traditional job elsewhere. The paycheck may LOOK lower, but probably goes a lot farther.
But is very real, particularly when dealing with sound and video. Many chips have Dolby capabilities for example, but it's frequently not included in the part because with Dolby comes licensing and compliance that costs money. So it's disabled...
Assuming their lines are at capacity.
I've used it, it's stupid. Yes, the start menu was just a collection of links, but it was organized usefully, contained what i wanted, and was fast to navigate. The new thing is a giant mess of excess information and crazy animations that serve no good end.
I just want a fucking menu, with letters spelling out hte program I wish to run, that even my 5yo son has been able to read for going on two and a half years now; organized in some fashion perhaps alphabetically, or even by category, or best allow me to reorganize if I wish. I don't know what idiot out there NEEDS pictures, but he probably shouldn't be operating a goddamned computer anyway.
Does the start button work like this: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/28
True by definition. Not necessarily the lowest price around though. I've walked out of the same place twice, only to buy the car for $1200 less somewhere else. Just this past weekend in fact.
Yes, regulation is a tool. When applied correctly, we support it. When applied incorrectly we oppose it.
Pro/anti regulation religion is silly politics.
It's OK, this isn't 1950. Most of us shop for cars on the internet. We show up to a dealership for a test drive, the salesman hands us the keys and sits in the car. He then makes a terrible offer, I say I'm still looking and wander off. We then negotiate the price on the internet, and play dealers off against each other until they won't deal anymore. Then we sign a paper and drive a car away (or in my case, had it delivered).
I haven't spent more than 15 minutes in a dealership in over a decade. Not being able to car shop on Sunday is annoying, but almost moot at this point. I'm bitten far more by the "can't buy alcohol before noon" on sunday blue law. I tend to do my grocery shopping before noon on Sunday since most of my neighbors are at church. The grocery stores are a zoo on weekends otherwise.
I agree but for entirely different reasons, and I would sell my skillset to the defense industry in your shoes. I know someone who is both a EE and a test pilot. He writes his algorithms, and if he sucks he dies! He's still around though.
But seriously, sell it to the right industry, it's actually a very viable combination. The fact that you've already had all the training that goes behind military flying experience (being dropped in a pool and told to escape from his seat, is most frequently discussed), means they have to spend less on you.
It's really not a bad combination if you want to work on planes, and there is a shitload of EE involved in both civilian and military aircraft.
Because they won't check that, and fire you immediately if you are caught lying, right?
Wrong. It happens, it's no good for anyone, and usually hits before the first paycheck.
The idea is that 4 years in school with a stamp of approval at the end of it, is a sort of pre-verification that the candidate is worth talking to. RIght now in technology you can accept every resume with a B.S. in EE or CS, and you would never run out of resumes.
Of course, I must be lying since we have this massive tech labor shortage.
Fair and Balanced Failure
Infinity \In*fin"i*ty\, n.;
1. A quantity equal to the calendar year in which mobile gaming takes off, and/or Linux becomes the dominant desktop platform.
2. When unicorns dance the macarena on the moon.
A simplification to be sure. Consoles were big in 1977, stayed big through Nintendo, then PC gaming started to pick up in the late 80s and was incredibly popular through the 90s. Then consoles "grew up" and added 3D chips and someone demonstrated that a dumbed down FPS would run on a console too, and they became dominant again.
People are getting bored with the same lame rehashes, and there's been very little innovation in consoles (partly by definition: they're dominated by a few companies who want to minimize development costs) and PCs are coming back.
The cycle won't end... This free market/command economy thing plays out in many ways in many places and has no consensus.
It doesn't, and the thing we've noted is they're using workstation graphics, which is good for workstations but bad for those of us who just wanted a high quality, high end PC. I've been happily using my macbook pro but I really want a machine that I can play games on, and that has apple's high quality.
Also noted is DDR3 that's ... interesting.
Because students, particularly in california, are required to read it for school, and thus the price of an otherwise uninteresting book by an overrated author is inflated to hold some kids hostage.
Hey, look, if you're an undergraduate in an engineering school, and what few women you have are LUGs, it's a big deal to you, OK?