Yes a student should know not to use profanity on the school network, just as he knows not to use it in the school building. (IMHO)
Because, heretofore, using four letter words at school was an unheard of atrocity that would have surprised even dear old mom, right?
Come on. I think I learned the f-bomb well before second grade. He wasn't selling drugs, carrying weapons, threatening a teacher, or being a repeat offender of general delinquency. He didn't even do it at school so you can't argue he was disrupting class. Expulsion is way over the top, this is worth a letter home to mom and dad, with the exact text of his message included.
The most extreme, maybe they should sue him for stealing George Carlin's material.
Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.
I don't know if I agree with the first claim, I don't think floating point was "obvious" when first invented, however long ago that was. However s10e5 is called out in IEEE 754, and has been in use for over a decade. This patent is dated 2011. Either it should be rejected because it's already in practice everywhere before it was filed, or it should be rejected because someone else did it first. Obviously IANAL and don't know if either of these basic principles is actually law, but they should be.
They're able to sue "everyone", because it's part of standard graphics pipelines, and so "everyone" uses it. The first sign you have a bad patent is that too many people who are competitors with one another are on the litigation list.
Nope, not true. Big companies know how to develop with the GPL, and software engineers go through required training to ensure they understand what must be GPL, and what can be proprietary. The problem, I think, is that the scope of the search was "web facing" operations. I see an awful lot of GPL in large Fortune 100 companies in firmware development, and I've worked for 3 of them.
What doesn't happen a lot is that the GPL changes get incorporated into mainstream releases. Not so much because the companies hoard it (the opposite, they're petrified of lawsuits), but because the kinds of software development that occur in commercial enterprise does not necessarily produce good code that you'd want to incorporate in your OSS project.
That's not what the article is saying (it's not talking about the Greek welfare state model). It's pointing out that if you work too much overtime, you get burned out, less productive, and more prone to error.
I don't really know if I believe this completely. I would happily work 50-60 hours a week at a tech job where I could be in perpetual dungeon mode: coding, desinging, testing in the lab. I've been able to work like this a few times, it was paradise and I loved what I did and my wife had to bribe me from my job. Once upon a time, that was how some people in the tech sector worked. We used to have very low stress jobs, and we were paid based on ability to manipulate technology. However these days it's 8 hours of daily meetings, where management has taken away every extra dollar, every extra head, every not fully utilized piece of equipment. It is 40 hours a week of constant strife, stress and suffering.
Then, after the 9-5ers who cause all the trouble have gone home, that's when we can get work done. That's another 2-4 hours after the day ends to try to code, design, test. Usually with too few people, the wrong equipment, and no money to make ends meet. As a result our tempers are frayed, our minds are distracted and melted, and we get home a steaming mass of goo.
If this is how it has to be for companies to be profitable, then we need to go back to 40 hour work weeks. This isn't sustainable, having burnt out people abandoning ship periodically. Knowledge retention never seems to be more than 3 years at best, which is often just a generation or two, guaranteeing we repeat old mistakes and products never mature.
The other comment sums most of it up. But the rules say something to the effect that you must offer the job to qualified, native applicants FIRST, and you must offer the same pay to the H1-B as to the native applicant. If no skilled native applicant takes the job as offered, you may then request an H1B.
So native applicants must jump through two hoops: one they must prove that they are qualified for the usually exaggerated requirements of the application (this interview put me through everything from database programming to analog hw design, which realistically not many people can do, but I can, because I love what I do), and then they offered me a salary well below what I'm worth. It is totally legal, since engineers have very wide salary bands, and simply offering the median for the band is generally well below what anyone with this level of experience is worth. So of course I said no, and since I'm employed by that company now, I can see the name of the person who filled my spot. Call it racism if you want, but with that name there's a very strong chance he's not from around here.
You will have to accept on faith that employers, although they do want the most skilled applicant they can get, are more focused on the cheapest applicant they can get. If I were elected president, I'd abolish H1-B's entirely and start handing out green cards to these people instead. If they're good enough to fill job reqs, they're good enough to get the full blessing and burden of the US labor market.
But really the only shortage in the US is of technicians, there are probably entirely too many engineers both in the US and worldwide. Every argument made in this article that applies to STEM student, applies tenfold to high school students who'd consider trade school. Technicians are treated like absolute shit, but SHOULD be the backbone of our corporations.
I think it's fair to say he should train people on the protocols. They're not rocket science, I2C and SPI in particular are easy easy.
The part that isn't easy to train is how to code on the particular platform he has. Younger people who would jump on a 6 figure salary aren't trained that way anymore, and hacking assembly in mom's basement went out the door quite a while back. It actually takes quite a bit of practice and experience.
I'm sorry but I haven't noticed companies looking for good engineers, or using them well when they have them. I've seen them looking for CHEAP engineers.
This is truer than people reailize. I interviewed for my present employer twice. The first time they offered me a wage way, way below what I was asking and making, but which represented the mid-line pay for a particular pay-grade. I told them to go fish. They call me back 3 months later, immediately after the H1-B application window was filled up in early april, reinterview. Suddenly I get what I'm asking.
The question is why I accepted the second time... it was still the best alternative available.
I'm under the impression that MIT admissions does a lot to try to balance things out. They're in the enviable position of selecting the absolute best of the best, no matter how they split the deck, and from what I've heard from alumni, they're fairly serious about diversity.
This is true, but is it enough to make it worthwhile? A CEO I recall was saying "Hey go to engineering, we have lower unemployment and 25% higher salaries". If I knew in college what I know now, I'm pretty sure that alone would have made me follow mom's advice and be a doctor.
Yes if it was willingly offered. No if it was taken from his server, secure accounts or other forum where he had the reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you display your work for free or for hire...you don't own it anymore. You're free to make as much money as you can from it, but morally I don't feel concerned if people are using your material for other purposes. What the law says is another matter, but these laws aren't for my people.
Bell Labs (aka Lucent Technologies) did pure research, and it did fantasy project R&D both. I worked there I'd know. You can't have one without another. Pure research is worthless (to shareholders) unless someone is looking at it and thinking about how to use it, and fantasy projects are worthless unless someone is trying to productize them. The company went down the shitter as these things lost funding, to borrow a term from a former Lucent CEO, in favor of the "near and clear". To be fair to that CEO, the company was headed down the shitter long before that quote, but every year there was less money for R&D and more wasted in marketing and sales, to find and get customers to buy products that were increasingly obsolete.
Both pure academia and fantasy R&D made the company a lot of money, both in the 5-10 year scope and the 20+ year scope. That these inventions didn't make the gazillion dollars (defined as 10^wallstreet wet dream) they were worth was no one's fault but the suits who only knew they ran a telephone company. Bell Labs was at the heart of some of the most significant electrical engineering and information theory advances in the past century. That they ultimately blew up and went nowhere can only be blamed on the monkey the company had on its back, otherwise known as it's oddly unenlightened management. Where there was an intersection between developments and telephones, they got rich, where the technology wasn't immediately helpful, the resources were squandered.
Google is trying NOT to do that. They definitely good do a better job at taking some of their inventions and making them into a product, or licensing the technology out, but Google is basically printing money, it's good to see them putting it to a good use. Any investor not happy with how google uses its resources is free to sell their shares, and stfu.
The "cloud" has always been about having fewer IT staff, period. Anywhere in the world. It's not, in this case, about firing people but about doing more with less. This is probably progress.
The fact that what staff does exist would likely be in a low cost region is an entirely different process, which happens to be the work of pure Evil, or Wall Street, but I'm being redundant.
Or, it marks him out as an idealist by those who do know better.
I think most of us would like to have no government, but anyone over 15 would start a betting pool to predict how long that would last until it became a violent despotism.
It doesn't mean that either. The proposed methods of observation of space traveling aliens is observing radiation dumps from their warp drives. We haven't seen any such dumps, but that does as little for disproving the existence of space traveling aliens and by disproving that God exists by praying and observing that nothing happens. We don't understand either quantity at all, therefore we don't know how to observe them, therefore we should not be surprised that we cannot observe them.
Wars and other assorted religiously inspired violence can continue for the same reasons they always have: the pragmatic can continue to profit on the corpses of the faithful. Proving God or aliens exist will not stop the wars, it will just change the excuse.
It is probably very cheap since the music is public domain and the speakers is probably already in place. For scientific purposes they should not only compare the classical music with not music but also with a music perceived as crime inducing, such as gangsta rap.
This may work too. Rather than driving away criminal teens, moms with children in carriages are likely to head away from a train station when a round of "He's climbin in your window, snachin' your people up, tryin' to rape 'em. So y'all need to hide your kids..." Either way crime is reduced I guess.
Yes, but is the experience worth an extra $90,000 a year? The value of experience usually hits a plateau, but workers still want wages to continue increasing.
Even I can output over 2x what a college grad can and I haven't been at this 20-30 years, easily. It's not even fair, that's why I'm in a different pay grade, so that I am not in direct competition. Wall Street doesn't see this though, to them an engineer is an engineer, a programmer is a programmer. All that matters are numbers. And to a degree they are right, look at Microsoft and Intel, they're now full of the worlds lousiest employees but the companies are very successful. Their monopoly gives them power, all they have to do is release small iterative improvements to make sure their competitors don't get a foothold. How long has it been since either of these places has produced anything significant? Microsoft can barely churn out an OS these days, and Intel can't sell a graphics chip or a mobile processor to save its soul. You know why? I'll tell you, from direct, personal experience: they're hiring based on headcount cost, not headcount ability. They say a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Welcome to corporate America.
The second half of your argument is "workers still want wages to continue increasing". Yes, and wall street wants profits to continue increasing. However, just because I want more money doesn't mean I get it. If my boss doesn't give me a raise, I can try to get it outside. But if the market won't bear it, I won't get it anywhere. Wall Street however has a lot more knobs to turn than I do, and though no one wants to say it out loud, we've hit the barrier, the only thing left is to squeeze the juice out of your company and hope to sell your interest off to the next guy before anyone notices. With short enough term thinking, you can milk quite a bit before it collapses on you.
Obama finding a job for this guy is great politics, but I don't know if he has a clue what is really going on or any idea of how to fix it, or even any interest. The problem is I know that Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. definitely don't give a shit either way. Gingrich is just more honest about it than others (may I go to hell for accusing the man of honesty).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes a student should know not to use profanity on the school network, just as he knows not to use it in the school building. (IMHO)
Because, heretofore, using four letter words at school was an unheard of atrocity that would have surprised even dear old mom, right?
Come on. I think I learned the f-bomb well before second grade. He wasn't selling drugs, carrying weapons, threatening a teacher, or being a repeat offender of general delinquency. He didn't even do it at school so you can't argue he was disrupting class. Expulsion is way over the top, this is worth a letter home to mom and dad, with the exact text of his message included.
The most extreme, maybe they should sue him for stealing George Carlin's material.
Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.
I don't know if I agree with the first claim, I don't think floating point was "obvious" when first invented, however long ago that was. However s10e5 is called out in IEEE 754, and has been in use for over a decade. This patent is dated 2011. Either it should be rejected because it's already in practice everywhere before it was filed, or it should be rejected because someone else did it first. Obviously IANAL and don't know if either of these basic principles is actually law, but they should be.
They're able to sue "everyone", because it's part of standard graphics pipelines, and so "everyone" uses it. The first sign you have a bad patent is that too many people who are competitors with one another are on the litigation list.
Nope, not true. Big companies know how to develop with the GPL, and software engineers go through required training to ensure they understand what must be GPL, and what can be proprietary. The problem, I think, is that the scope of the search was "web facing" operations. I see an awful lot of GPL in large Fortune 100 companies in firmware development, and I've worked for 3 of them.
What doesn't happen a lot is that the GPL changes get incorporated into mainstream releases. Not so much because the companies hoard it (the opposite, they're petrified of lawsuits), but because the kinds of software development that occur in commercial enterprise does not necessarily produce good code that you'd want to incorporate in your OSS project.
Customers are willing to pay their own kidneys for apple products. Maybe they'll toss in an extra spleen too.
That's not what the article is saying (it's not talking about the Greek welfare state model). It's pointing out that if you work too much overtime, you get burned out, less productive, and more prone to error.
I don't really know if I believe this completely. I would happily work 50-60 hours a week at a tech job where I could be in perpetual dungeon mode: coding, desinging, testing in the lab. I've been able to work like this a few times, it was paradise and I loved what I did and my wife had to bribe me from my job. Once upon a time, that was how some people in the tech sector worked. We used to have very low stress jobs, and we were paid based on ability to manipulate technology. However these days it's 8 hours of daily meetings, where management has taken away every extra dollar, every extra head, every not fully utilized piece of equipment. It is 40 hours a week of constant strife, stress and suffering.
Then, after the 9-5ers who cause all the trouble have gone home, that's when we can get work done. That's another 2-4 hours after the day ends to try to code, design, test. Usually with too few people, the wrong equipment, and no money to make ends meet. As a result our tempers are frayed, our minds are distracted and melted, and we get home a steaming mass of goo.
If this is how it has to be for companies to be profitable, then we need to go back to 40 hour work weeks. This isn't sustainable, having burnt out people abandoning ship periodically. Knowledge retention never seems to be more than 3 years at best, which is often just a generation or two, guaranteeing we repeat old mistakes and products never mature.
I don't think I want to request Global Entry from people who take naked pictures of me, or who wear rubber globes and feel me up.
The other comment sums most of it up. But the rules say something to the effect that you must offer the job to qualified, native applicants FIRST, and you must offer the same pay to the H1-B as to the native applicant. If no skilled native applicant takes the job as offered, you may then request an H1B.
So native applicants must jump through two hoops: one they must prove that they are qualified for the usually exaggerated requirements of the application (this interview put me through everything from database programming to analog hw design, which realistically not many people can do, but I can, because I love what I do), and then they offered me a salary well below what I'm worth. It is totally legal, since engineers have very wide salary bands, and simply offering the median for the band is generally well below what anyone with this level of experience is worth. So of course I said no, and since I'm employed by that company now, I can see the name of the person who filled my spot. Call it racism if you want, but with that name there's a very strong chance he's not from around here.
You will have to accept on faith that employers, although they do want the most skilled applicant they can get, are more focused on the cheapest applicant they can get. If I were elected president, I'd abolish H1-B's entirely and start handing out green cards to these people instead. If they're good enough to fill job reqs, they're good enough to get the full blessing and burden of the US labor market.
But really the only shortage in the US is of technicians, there are probably entirely too many engineers both in the US and worldwide. Every argument made in this article that applies to STEM student, applies tenfold to high school students who'd consider trade school. Technicians are treated like absolute shit, but SHOULD be the backbone of our corporations.
I think it's fair to say he should train people on the protocols. They're not rocket science, I2C and SPI in particular are easy easy.
The part that isn't easy to train is how to code on the particular platform he has. Younger people who would jump on a 6 figure salary aren't trained that way anymore, and hacking assembly in mom's basement went out the door quite a while back. It actually takes quite a bit of practice and experience.
I'm sorry but I haven't noticed companies looking for good engineers, or using them well when they have them. I've seen them looking for CHEAP engineers.
This is truer than people reailize. I interviewed for my present employer twice. The first time they offered me a wage way, way below what I was asking and making, but which represented the mid-line pay for a particular pay-grade. I told them to go fish. They call me back 3 months later, immediately after the H1-B application window was filled up in early april, reinterview. Suddenly I get what I'm asking.
The question is why I accepted the second time... it was still the best alternative available.
I'm under the impression that MIT admissions does a lot to try to balance things out. They're in the enviable position of selecting the absolute best of the best, no matter how they split the deck, and from what I've heard from alumni, they're fairly serious about diversity.
This is true, but is it enough to make it worthwhile? A CEO I recall was saying "Hey go to engineering, we have lower unemployment and 25% higher salaries". If I knew in college what I know now, I'm pretty sure that alone would have made me follow mom's advice and be a doctor.
Of course, the trade-off is that people just show up at your desk needing stuff. But it keeps things interesting.
I find they do this in large companies too, the only difference is you're frequently in other meetings when they stop by.
Yes if it was willingly offered. No if it was taken from his server, secure accounts or other forum where he had the reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you display your work for free or for hire...you don't own it anymore. You're free to make as much money as you can from it, but morally I don't feel concerned if people are using your material for other purposes. What the law says is another matter, but these laws aren't for my people.
Bell Labs (aka Lucent Technologies) did pure research, and it did fantasy project R&D both. I worked there I'd know. You can't have one without another. Pure research is worthless (to shareholders) unless someone is looking at it and thinking about how to use it, and fantasy projects are worthless unless someone is trying to productize them. The company went down the shitter as these things lost funding, to borrow a term from a former Lucent CEO, in favor of the "near and clear". To be fair to that CEO, the company was headed down the shitter long before that quote, but every year there was less money for R&D and more wasted in marketing and sales, to find and get customers to buy products that were increasingly obsolete.
Both pure academia and fantasy R&D made the company a lot of money, both in the 5-10 year scope and the 20+ year scope. That these inventions didn't make the gazillion dollars (defined as 10^wallstreet wet dream) they were worth was no one's fault but the suits who only knew they ran a telephone company. Bell Labs was at the heart of some of the most significant electrical engineering and information theory advances in the past century. That they ultimately blew up and went nowhere can only be blamed on the monkey the company had on its back, otherwise known as it's oddly unenlightened management. Where there was an intersection between developments and telephones, they got rich, where the technology wasn't immediately helpful, the resources were squandered.
Google is trying NOT to do that. They definitely good do a better job at taking some of their inventions and making them into a product, or licensing the technology out, but Google is basically printing money, it's good to see them putting it to a good use. Any investor not happy with how google uses its resources is free to sell their shares, and stfu.
My chair buying budget was eliminated this year as a cost cutting measure. Ballsy is going to have to forage on his own.
get laid
This is about an asteroid that has a 1 in 625 change of hitting earth, not about hell freezing over.
Q's plan of changing the gravitational constant of the universe is my favorite. It has lots of potentially interesting side effects.
The "cloud" has always been about having fewer IT staff, period. Anywhere in the world. It's not, in this case, about firing people but about doing more with less. This is probably progress.
The fact that what staff does exist would likely be in a low cost region is an entirely different process, which happens to be the work of pure Evil, or Wall Street, but I'm being redundant.
Or, it marks him out as an idealist by those who do know better.
I think most of us would like to have no government, but anyone over 15 would start a betting pool to predict how long that would last until it became a violent despotism.
It doesn't mean that either. The proposed methods of observation of space traveling aliens is observing radiation dumps from their warp drives. We haven't seen any such dumps, but that does as little for disproving the existence of space traveling aliens and by disproving that God exists by praying and observing that nothing happens. We don't understand either quantity at all, therefore we don't know how to observe them, therefore we should not be surprised that we cannot observe them.
Wars and other assorted religiously inspired violence can continue for the same reasons they always have: the pragmatic can continue to profit on the corpses of the faithful. Proving God or aliens exist will not stop the wars, it will just change the excuse.
If HOAs were for commie bastards why are there so goddamned many of them in Texas? HOAs are for fascist bastards anywhere on the political spectrum.
Spoiler alert: The live one wins
Only if you peak.
It is probably very cheap since the music is public domain and the speakers is probably already in place. For scientific purposes they should not only compare the classical music with not music but also with a music perceived as crime inducing, such as gangsta rap.
This may work too. Rather than driving away criminal teens, moms with children in carriages are likely to head away from a train station when a round of "He's climbin in your window, snachin' your people up, tryin' to rape 'em. So y'all need to hide your kids..." Either way crime is reduced I guess.
Yes, but is the experience worth an extra $90,000 a year? The value of experience usually hits a plateau, but workers still want wages to continue increasing.
Even I can output over 2x what a college grad can and I haven't been at this 20-30 years, easily. It's not even fair, that's why I'm in a different pay grade, so that I am not in direct competition. Wall Street doesn't see this though, to them an engineer is an engineer, a programmer is a programmer. All that matters are numbers. And to a degree they are right, look at Microsoft and Intel, they're now full of the worlds lousiest employees but the companies are very successful. Their monopoly gives them power, all they have to do is release small iterative improvements to make sure their competitors don't get a foothold. How long has it been since either of these places has produced anything significant? Microsoft can barely churn out an OS these days, and Intel can't sell a graphics chip or a mobile processor to save its soul. You know why? I'll tell you, from direct, personal experience: they're hiring based on headcount cost, not headcount ability. They say a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Welcome to corporate America.
The second half of your argument is "workers still want wages to continue increasing". Yes, and wall street wants profits to continue increasing. However, just because I want more money doesn't mean I get it. If my boss doesn't give me a raise, I can try to get it outside. But if the market won't bear it, I won't get it anywhere. Wall Street however has a lot more knobs to turn than I do, and though no one wants to say it out loud, we've hit the barrier, the only thing left is to squeeze the juice out of your company and hope to sell your interest off to the next guy before anyone notices. With short enough term thinking, you can milk quite a bit before it collapses on you.
Obama finding a job for this guy is great politics, but I don't know if he has a clue what is really going on or any idea of how to fix it, or even any interest. The problem is I know that Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. definitely don't give a shit either way. Gingrich is just more honest about it than others (may I go to hell for accusing the man of honesty).