And the waste in distributing digital media to a place where it is never used and.or the cost of distributing it back when it goes unsold.
And ignores the fact that the distribution channel for digital media piggy-backs on networks and devices that are used for other purposes at the same time (eg: this laptop I am streaming on right now as I type this and as I was working - earlier today).
Many similarities: i) ignoring the fact that the network of material things (CDS/vinyl or hydrocarbons) ii) ignoring the scale questions (how do I pick from my massive library of CDs) iii) ignoring the opportunity costs (eg: wasting time swapping CDs in some physical "player" iv) ignoring the performance benefits... and a catalogue of other smaller mistakes.
Woeful.
And then there is making the dumb assumption that only 1 person is ever listening to a specific track at 1 point in time...
And it is easier to make mass storage solutions more and more efficient over time than it is to find and replace all the plastic that has been shipped to sundry corners of the world.
Or the cost of the energy to heat the space to store the piles and piles of CDs (and vinyl, which takes up even more space) that would be taken up if I used "hardcopies". And the cost the envrionment of the distribution channel (delivery vans, shelves in stores (and heating/cooling for those) and the waste in the distribution of shipping extra CDs to potential markets... And the cost to the environment of the effort wasted in rescuing me from the high-stacked shelves of CDs that fell over when I tried to uncover a CD I hadn't used in years. This sort of per-case analysis is exactly why we are mired in the past.
[...] That means the people NEXT TO YOU are constantly waving hands around instead of being still like they are supposed to.[...]
These are not about hand swipes and sweeping these are about fine control movements (pinched fingers, etc)... project Soli... youtube... give you an idea of the scales of movement we are talking about.
I would consider:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/b...... and then plug a big array into the pi. Then host that in someone else's home (someone I trust of course!).
Cheap shot reference to a temple decoration/symbolic depiction filled with cultural relevance to attempt to refer to the aspects of the universe in a largely pre-science world. Something fashioned by a literary sculptor that has nothing to do with how creation is alleged to have been done by God.
Yes, some Christians might be confused about this, fine. But there are a lot of atheists who hold some really duff, illogical, inane and dumb views/beliefs about what evolution means... Does that make all atheists misguided and undereducated and inconsistent?
The currency we use is the physical representation of the money we all are forced to'believe' exists just because the major governments declare it to be true. The money the banks make and lose with massive speed and hapless abandon is not flat, green and made of paper-like cotton. the proof that money actually exists is shockingly thin and rests solely on the declaration of governments/reserve banks. And it has no evolutionary basis either. And the existence of money is really hard to prove (impossible?) in the standard reductionist scope.
At least a Christian can allege 'courage'in stepping outside of the confines of these 4 dimensions. And yet you stoop to criticise the physical depiction of the universe in a small room using iron age tools in a society where ideas like space and relativity don't even feature in even the most elitist academia. Cheap shot, indeed.
Put simply: you pay your taxes that only exist because it has been decreed that they do. And you pay your taxes with the money that only exists because it has been decreed to exist. Do you believe that all money is roughly that size, is made of paper-like stuff, includes ink and, in the US case, is green? Sadly a lot of people do. Wyatt, exactly, would all that money look like, anyway?
If you believe this, or that reductionism can resolve this question through evolutionary discourse, then you are not really in any to criticise the extreme fringe Christians who misread the bible so badly.
Symbols are a basic fact of society, ancient or modern. We really on symbols even more now than then. And dodgy ones, especially post the abandonment of the good standard. Deal with it, k?
From the linked article:
Enhanced Quality
Encapsulating logic into database column definitions (across a variety of possible architecture) ensures automatic reuse of the logic across use cases.
A simple multiple choice?
When it is little more than a fancy paperweight (ankle bracelet)?
OR
When it is a part of a properly focused, scoped, implemented, managed and targeted product suite?
The fact that the product (hardware wise at least) was deployed in the production environment before *even just* the product reporting was properly in place is hugely symptomatic of what was probably a ridiculously rushed through half-baked plan. There is so much more to what a decent data management system is than what appears to have been implemented in this case!
Slap a bit of extra hardware on a person and think that is going to make a jot's difference to their behavior... ummm... no! Such naivety is rife in the device industry. Medical devices in the medical realm fail to succeed in the market all the time - regardless of the depth and strength of their internal implementation. A monitoring device that publishes data into a system that manages the data, generates information (which is only information if it is timely) and enables folks to prioritize their efforts is worth having. No back office system and it is little more than over-priced office clutter.
Discussions around volcano warning systems and the propensity of people to ignore things that they (even subconsciously) declare as 'crying wolf' are engendered precisely because understaffed departments are full of humans who haven't got the time to change strategic direction (or even get one) when using tools right up on the coal face.
When will people realize the value of things they can't see? For heaven's sake people... the hardware is just the tip of the product iceberg! In a very big proportion of the cases... if you haven't expended as much (or more) effort on the back office system(s) to support the hardware you have completely missed the boat!!!!!
Pretty shinny hardware is (at best) something that just speeds up our lives (adds workload/stress?) for a time and (a big proportion of the time) little more than a fancy - very expensive - paperweight. When that paperweight engenders a false sense of security things get dangerous fast!
Find the ego-stroking/vote-stroking politicians and bean counters and send them packing for being such idiots as to think the device was the whole story!
Anyone spot the need for shades in the room? Perhaps someone at Micrsoft does indeed think the future is that bright...?
And what a team demo like this has to do with bug fixing I don't know?
In terms of directly dealing with the problem(s) and imperfections of a software release... everybody sitting in a room taking notes on someone's demo... I am not sure the world is ready for what real software enginnering really looks like. I (and the vast majority of my team mates) do our best and most productive work when keeping such 'mass migrations to a meeting room' to an absolute minimum.
And, however much the software engineering world is predominantly male, why is there only 1 lady in the room?
Anyone else wonder if this picture was taken for padding the media story? If so, then I have to admit they did work hard at making it look messy and busy. Unfocussed and secondary... but messy and busy, indeed.
I think it's naive to think that people get paid a portion of a corporate's income. The view that if a corporate's income rises then so will salaries of the employee is blindingly simplistic!
Forgetting the (significant, relevant and frequently ignored) issue of the "stickiness of salaries" (prices in the labour market)... a little thought about WHY people get paid what they get paid shows the really simple flaw in the "piracy is starving film company employees" debate!
There is a portion (at least) of your income that is an expression of what the company has to pay you to keep you from doing the work for someone else. Contrast a star's salary (Julia Roberts or Hugh Grant etc etc) with a Grip or a secretary.
A substantial portion of the star's income is the financial incentive to make *this particular movie* or *not to make a movie for someone else at the time*.
Conversely: If someone who works as a Grip or a secretary doesn't want to do the work, they'll just get someone else to do it! Hence: that portion of the employee's salary that is the company's incentive to keep the employee from working for someone else is NEAR ZERO (certainly proportional to the star's salary!).
When a movie company makes more and more money, the salaries of the stars will rise disproportionately - because there is more money for bribes to keep them from making money for someone else!
Whereas the other people who do a lot of the more "mundane"/less visible/"doesn't matter a much WHO does this" will see HUGELY disproportionately LOWER increase in salary.
In short: anyone who believes that cracking down on piracy will make substantial differences to technical/non-visible staff member's salaries IS BEING UNDULY NAIVE.
The additional velocity in the movie making market (because people now presumably spend more on movies) will fuel increases in star's salaries first... the lower visibility employees are a long way down the salary pecking order!
I am not saying the pecking order is right/socially acceptable... it's just a fact of life.
Slashdot Mirror
And the waste in distributing digital media to a place where it is never used and.or the cost of distributing it back when it goes unsold.
And ignores the fact that the distribution channel for digital media piggy-backs on networks and devices that are used for other purposes at the same time (eg: this laptop I am streaming on right now as I type this and as I was working - earlier today).
Many similarities: ... and a catalogue of other smaller mistakes.
i) ignoring the fact that the network of material things (CDS/vinyl or hydrocarbons)
ii) ignoring the scale questions (how do I pick from my massive library of CDs)
iii) ignoring the opportunity costs (eg: wasting time swapping CDs in some physical "player"
iv) ignoring the performance benefits
Woeful.
And then there is making the dumb assumption that only 1 person is ever listening to a specific track at 1 point in time ...
And it is easier to make mass storage solutions more and more efficient over time than it is to find and replace all the plastic that has been shipped to sundry corners of the world.
Or the cost of the energy to heat the space to store the piles and piles of CDs (and vinyl, which takes up even more space) that would be taken up if I used "hardcopies". ...
And the cost the envrionment of the distribution channel (delivery vans, shelves in stores (and heating/cooling for those) and the waste in the distribution of shipping extra CDs to potential markets
And the cost to the environment of the effort wasted in rescuing me from the high-stacked shelves of CDs that fell over when I tried to uncover a CD I hadn't used in years.
This sort of per-case analysis is exactly why we are mired in the past.
[...] That means the people NEXT TO YOU are constantly waving hands around instead of being still like they are supposed to.[...]
These are not about hand swipes and sweeping these are about fine control movements (pinched fingers, etc) ... project Soli ... youtube ... give you an idea of the scales of movement we are talking about.
They better hurry this was published youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - on 29th May 2015.
I would consider: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/b... ... and then plug a big array into the pi. Then host that in someone else's home (someone I trust of course!).
Cheap shot reference to a temple decoration/symbolic depiction filled with cultural relevance to attempt to refer to the aspects of the universe in a largely pre-science world. Something fashioned by a literary sculptor that has nothing to do with how creation is alleged to have been done by God. Yes, some Christians might be confused about this, fine. But there are a lot of atheists who hold some really duff, illogical, inane and dumb views/beliefs about what evolution means ... Does that make all atheists misguided and undereducated and inconsistent?
The currency we use is the physical representation of the money we all are forced to'believe' exists just because the major governments declare it to be true. The money the banks make and lose with massive speed and hapless abandon is not flat, green and made of paper-like cotton. the proof that money actually exists is shockingly thin and rests solely on the declaration of governments/reserve banks. And it has no evolutionary basis either. And the existence of money is really hard to prove (impossible?) in the standard reductionist scope.
At least a Christian can allege 'courage'in stepping outside of the confines of these 4 dimensions. And yet you stoop to criticise the physical depiction of the universe in a small room using iron age tools in a society where ideas like space and relativity don't even feature in even the most elitist academia. Cheap shot, indeed.
Put simply: you pay your taxes that only exist because it has been decreed that they do. And you pay your taxes with the money that only exists because it has been decreed to exist. Do you believe that all money is roughly that size, is made of paper-like stuff, includes ink and, in the US case, is green? Sadly a lot of people do. Wyatt, exactly, would all that money look like, anyway?
If you believe this, or that reductionism can resolve this question through evolutionary discourse, then you are not really in any to criticise the extreme fringe Christians who misread the bible so badly.
Symbols are a basic fact of society, ancient or modern. We really on symbols even more now than then. And dodgy ones, especially post the abandonment of the good standard. Deal with it, k?
... in a schema ... nice! Not.
From the linked article:
Enhanced Quality
Encapsulating logic into database column definitions (across a variety of possible architecture) ensures automatic reuse of the logic across use cases.
I nearly fell of my chair.
A simple multiple choice?
... ummm ... no! Such naivety is rife in the device industry. Medical devices in the medical realm fail to succeed in the market all the time - regardless of the depth and strength of their internal implementation. A monitoring device that publishes data into a system that manages the data, generates information (which is only information if it is timely) and enables folks to prioritize their efforts is worth having. No back office system and it is little more than over-priced office clutter.
... the hardware is just the tip of the product iceberg! In a very big proportion of the cases ... if you haven't expended as much (or more) effort on the back office system(s) to support the hardware you have completely missed the boat!!!!!
When it is little more than a fancy paperweight (ankle bracelet)?
OR
When it is a part of a properly focused, scoped, implemented, managed and targeted product suite?
The fact that the product (hardware wise at least) was deployed in the production environment before *even just* the product reporting was properly in place is hugely symptomatic of what was probably a ridiculously rushed through half-baked plan. There is so much more to what a decent data management system is than what appears to have been implemented in this case!
Slap a bit of extra hardware on a person and think that is going to make a jot's difference to their behavior
Discussions around volcano warning systems and the propensity of people to ignore things that they (even subconsciously) declare as 'crying wolf' are engendered precisely because understaffed departments are full of humans who haven't got the time to change strategic direction (or even get one) when using tools right up on the coal face.
When will people realize the value of things they can't see? For heaven's sake people
Pretty shinny hardware is (at best) something that just speeds up our lives (adds workload/stress?) for a time and (a big proportion of the time) little more than a fancy - very expensive - paperweight. When that paperweight engenders a false sense of security things get dangerous fast!
Find the ego-stroking/vote-stroking politicians and bean counters and send them packing for being such idiots as to think the device was the whole story!
Anyone spot the need for shades in the room? Perhaps someone at Micrsoft does indeed think the future is that bright ...?
And what a team demo like this has to do with bug fixing I don't know?
In terms of directly dealing with the problem(s) and imperfections of a software release ... everybody sitting in a room taking notes on someone's demo ... I am not sure the world is ready for what real software enginnering really looks like. I (and the vast majority of my team mates) do our best and most productive work when keeping such 'mass migrations to a meeting room' to an absolute minimum.
And, however much the software engineering world is predominantly male, why is there only 1 lady in the room?
Anyone else wonder if this picture was taken for padding the media story? If so, then I have to admit they did work hard at making it look messy and busy. Unfocussed and secondary ... but messy and busy, indeed.
AidanapwordI think it's naive to think that people get paid a portion of a corporate's income. The view that if a corporate's income rises then so will salaries of the employee is blindingly simplistic!
... a little thought about WHY people get paid what they get paid shows the really simple flaw in the "piracy is starving film company employees" debate!
... the lower visibility employees are a long way down the salary pecking order!
... it's just a fact of life.
Forgetting the (significant, relevant and frequently ignored) issue of the "stickiness of salaries" (prices in the labour market)
There is a portion (at least) of your income that is an expression of what the company has to pay you to keep you from doing the work for someone else. Contrast a star's salary (Julia Roberts or Hugh Grant etc etc) with a Grip or a secretary.
A substantial portion of the star's income is the financial incentive to make *this particular movie* or *not to make a movie for someone else at the time*.
Conversely: If someone who works as a Grip or a secretary doesn't want to do the work, they'll just get someone else to do it! Hence: that portion of the employee's salary that is the company's incentive to keep the employee from working for someone else is NEAR ZERO (certainly proportional to the star's salary!).
When a movie company makes more and more money, the salaries of the stars will rise disproportionately - because there is more money for bribes to keep them from making money for someone else!
Whereas the other people who do a lot of the more "mundane"/less visible/"doesn't matter a much WHO does this" will see HUGELY disproportionately LOWER increase in salary.
In short: anyone who believes that cracking down on piracy will make substantial differences to technical/non-visible staff member's salaries IS BEING UNDULY NAIVE.
The additional velocity in the movie making market (because people now presumably spend more on movies) will fuel increases in star's salaries first
I am not saying the pecking order is right/socially acceptable