Admittedly, when watching the video, one notices that going from 100km/h to 200km/h takes 17 seconds, whereas 200km/h to 300km/h over a minute (probably about 10km in length). The entire 9 minutes of the video cover about 40km in range, i.e. an average speed of 266km/h.
Still, compared to the Bugatti's 1001hp that very Audi S8 is significantly underpowered (although the Bugatti might not make full use of them in terms of acceleration, AFAIK the gearbox won't stand that).
No, it's not the use of the environment variable. It's the use of non-standard packages -- and the will to throw them wherever you like them. If they are placed in a standard directory, e.g. ~/.TeX/ or/usr/share/textmf/tex/latex/ [*] then you don't even need to fiddle around with the environment variable.
Still, you would need s/o to install that very fancy package you liked to use.
[*] Or, you're a nice guy and copy the used style files into the respective working directory which then gets archived, compressed, and sent to the collaborator. That would be the Word approach, clobbering everything into one container, saving a few hassles but eventually leading to different versions of the same style file hidden in the respective document directories.
Anything that changes TEXPATH would inherently make your documents work only on your system.
I see you didn't grok the concept of environment variables.
If *I* prefer to put my stuff in ~/.TeX/ and *you* prefer to put it in c:\misc\texpckgs\, then we can exchange compileable documents *because* we are individually able to adjust TEXPATH to our needs. All you need to tell me (or vice versa) is which standard and non-standard packages are required. It's then up to me (or you) to install them where they can be found and/or update TEXPATH to do so.
As for Dreamweaver to LaTeX: They're both used to layout documents,
Same goes for a gazillion of other tools. Still, there's a difference between tools which put the layouts entirely into your hands, and tools, which have built-in printer/layouter intelligence.
That said, I definitely wouldn't use LaTeX for typesetting fancy magazines or flyers, as many required graphical elements (floating text/pictures being one of them...) are not easily accessible -- and dealing with pictures still is a major pain in the neck.
They also demonstrated the silliest thing about it, or any 200+ MPH car... It takes quite a while to get to those speeds. You may get 0-60 in 3 seconds, but the acceleration drops off rather rapidly. About the only place you can get a car like that up to speed *is* a test track with an enormous straight.
That's not even remotely true. You know, in Germany we *do* have cars on the road that do 260 to 320kph (abt. 160 to 200mph), although usually they get (electronically) limited to 250kph (155mph), and if you want to get an impression how an average car performs on a German autobahn at up to 320kph, have a look at this one:
Sure, there's 45mph missing. But then, this is a (chiptuned) stock car, an unhappy 4.2l Audi A8 which fell into the wrong hands, which does *not* offer 1001hp.
I can't send a LaTeX document to someone else and expect them to be able to edit it and read it, even if they have LaTeX installed.
Then you are using some quite non-standard style files which are not part of the basic texlive installation, nor the full one. If you are using publisher-specific style files (IEEE, ACM, Springer LNCS, GI LNI, and whatnot...), then of course the recipient needs to have them installed to compile your work.
This, however, is most likely the case if you do collaborative work. Otherwise you wouldn't send source, but the compiled PDF.
Unfortunately any program able to handle everyone's different styles for document printing is probably going to be too specialized for everyone to have.
No idea what you are trying to say here. LaTeX will search any style file in dedicated directories. Ever tried updating $TEXPATH?
LaTeX shows that print layouts are a difficult problem. Even on webpages (screen display), to get really good layouts we rely on scripts, styles and templates from other sources, in most cases these are too numerous to make distribution of the document via e-mail trivial. Plus, we use specialized software (e.g. Dreamweaver).
Unfortunately there's no good solution that I know of for this. Simply throwing text and images into a document does not make it readable, and there's no software that can simply take the jumble and make it readable, it takes a human touch to produce a good layout.
Well, there's a reason why there's something like layouters and printers (the people, not the machine). It takes at least experience to design both, eye-friendly *and* appropriate, layouts. Web and printed media is full of examples where someone thought "hey, that program's wizard should do" -- or where they designed everything in Word and Powerpoint, violating each and every rule of proper design.
Care to explain how Dreamweaver relates to LaTeX?
That it takes *knowledge* and *talent* to come up with a pleasant layout is no problem of LaTeX, although for the average joe it is *easier* to cough up a pleasantly-looking document (assuming that he uses a standard design template and not some bogged-up "let's make it look as ugly as it can be" like the ACM style) than with e.g. Word. Kerning, microspacing, orphans, widows, hyphenization, LaTeX will take care of that cause it was *designed* to adhere to such printing rules.
I never grew fond of these so-called controllers where I have to use my left thumb for steering because someone thought, hey, screw those righthanders by putting the movement control on the controller's left side.
I was perfectly happy with the old (digital) joysticks like the Competition Pro or some more robust joyboards which could be fixed to the desk using suction cups, and also offered automatic fire triggering.
Where I can see a use of the WiiMote for more lifelike gameplaying (e.g. Golf, Swordfight, Tennis), I never found these weird "let's replace the joystick by buttons or just a small thumbstick" controls really useful...
If US companies enter the European market, they either use the 1US$=1EUR scheme if the EUR is higher, otherwise the price will of course be adjusted. Remember the 1980s when the US$ was skyrocketing to nearly EUR1,80? Even entry-level US electronics like the Commodore C64, Ensoniq synthesizers were priced insanely high.
The other way round, however, European companies like to match US$ prices, even if that means selling at a loss. Have a look what Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, or Porsche cost in the US compared to their EU prices... But also other pricing is weird: in 2003, I bought a Canon S45. Street price in the US: US$330. Street price in Germany: EUR550. Back then the exchange rate US$:EUR was about 1.20:1.
Clearly, the Europeans are doing something very wrong, and this is not only overtaxation...
Yes, my bad. "Per something" falls into the denominator...
Still you need to differentiate between the maximum power something might deliver and how much energy that finally results in.
If my fridge's compressor does 1.8kW that doesn't tell me, how much energy it consumes. And it it would turn out to be 1.8kWh, I'd better throw it away. Likewise, in the article we don't care how much power each plate might emit at once, but we're interested in how much energy is harvested unter typical operating conditions.
That would be 30kW per square-hour. What kind of metric would that be?
but I can't help thinking, whats wrong with simply saying 30kW?
If you want to refer to power, you use Watt.
If you refer to energy, you use Joule. Alternatively, you may use Watt seconds (Ws) -- which not only is the same but also directly shows that energy is power over time -- or its derivative Watt hours (Wh) or 1000 Watt hours (kWh). If you were a physicist (which you aren't, otherwise your question would be most self-humiliating) then you would eventually be using electron volts (eV). And if you ever wondered what this "kcals" are which are mentioned on your food packs, yes, again energy.
Hence, the article correctly talks about kWh, i.e. the amount of energy produced.
Is this really a new development that the Shuttle gets increasingly fragile or is it just the fact that since Columbia it gets checked extra carefully and therefore revealing what before just went unnoticed?
Frankly, I don't get it why this gets so much attention.
Is really noone of the/. crowd familiar with the VICE family of Commodore emulators? This had *for years* a proper PAL emulation which not only brought back the scanlines, but also allowed to define the level of blurriedness, and even emulates proper color phase handling.
Granted, it doesn't emulate ghosting (signal reflections in the cable) and afterglow effects (at least I'm not aware of).
Still, it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere in the summary, if not TFA.
What I'm getting at is that the robot will have to poop. If it eats, it must poop. All things that eat poop, except, of course, for attractive women, who never do that.
Oh, just because the digestive system of the average animal is so inefficient, it doesn't mean that the robot needs to adhere to such ineffectivity.
The entire amount of carbon contained in the food can be burned into CO2. No poop.
What's left is some spurious stuff and water, so eventually the robot may have to pee, yes, or sweat, assuming that the water will be also used within its cooling system.
MS-DOS was a very good OS for standalone workstations where only one user was going to be interacting with the system and only running one application. The early PC's were not really capable of much more anyway, so DOS did what it was intended to do, and did it well enough at the time.
No. It never was "good", in no case "very good". And it also did not "well enough".
In fact, DOS was a true step back compared to anything that existed at that time and it took a whopping 15 years until it arrived where others were already in the early 80s.
Finance, accounting etc. are also considered technical skills within the industry - they are not technology-related, but they are hard skills.
And I'm not objecting these. As said before, they are vital *especially* for techies who often enough make bad businessmen, either due to a lack of interest or just a wrong perspective. And even if not, they do need accounting and finance to properly rate how their company is doing and see where things are possibly going wrong.
However, this can be also been overdone -- like unfortunately it is today where hardly any long-term perspective counts but just quarterly numbers and how much the shareholder value can be risen. In more sane times it counted that the company had a long-term perspective and was profitable. There was not this mathematically nonsensical idea that a company could increase sales by n% per year. Even less there was this idea that the quarterly numbers could be boosted by just firing a bunch of people which looked good in the books (saved money), but in the end kills the company. Once you start playing that game, it's definitely not the best and brightest who stay til the end.
A recent example of this game is Agere Systems. Spun off from Bell Labs with about 18.500 employees in 2001. In 2003 the numbers were cut down drastically for "concentrating on the core business". Just 6 months after that nonsense started, even the internal research dept was nixed. By 8/2003 there were only 5500 people left, another 4 months later 3500.
What remained (IIRC about 1500 people) was later acquired by LSI Logic.
Quite some fate for originally one of the finest research labs.
But, then, research labs have awful quarterly numbers. All these costs, costs, costs and no revenue... Cause of course the commercialization of eventual findings is done by a different company division. And look how great *they* perform. Hardly any cost, but so much revenue!
a lot of the best people in a lot of these professions act by feel,
Which is completely fine! Another word for this would be "talent". And no matter how hard and long John Dow works, how many hours per week he robots, he will *never* match someone truly talented.
And I have no idea what business studies you are talking about, unless you are equating every non-technical class to be a business studies class (whatever that may entail).
Might be a language clash here as I'm no native speaker and had to look up proper translations for "Betriebswirtschaftslehre (BWL)" (which according to dict.leo.org is "business studies") and "Volkswirtschaftslehre (VWL)" (translated as "economics").
You (like most Slashdotters) think that anything non-technical is mostly useless.
And what exactly let you draw this conclusion?
It's wrong, btw.
The problem with business studies is that they perceive themselves as hard science. At least that's they way they like so sell themselves. And where I fully believe in economics, I wouldn't touch business studies with a 10-foot pole.
Unfortunately, any major decision these days doesn't seem to be made upon economic or scientific decisions, but rather because of some model/promise derived from business studies. Which, in retrospective, are always able to show how their models work for past situations but usually utterly fail for anything in the future. Kinda like those Nostradamus books which get updated and re-sold every year.
And to come back to the original topic, the 60/80/100 hrs working week, it's also those business studies people who favor the idea that you're an "underperformer" if you just work the ordinary working hours and not bring in your entire spare time and a major part of your sleep time.
So when it comes to "non-tech", as you put it, I like to differentiate. There's valuable non-tech like economics (where techies and engineers usually are not quite best, hence any Steve Wozniak typically will need his Steve Jobs) and there's bogus non-tech like business studies.
And they're easy to differentiate. Only the bogus non-tech changes its model with the fashion, even if that means that 10 years later the same people who praised Model X will now advertise a Model Y being the complete difference of Model X.
Talk to any lawyer, management consultant or finance professional in one of the top tier firms.
And you see the contradiction to my posting exactly *where*?
Excuse my frank words, but what you cited here are exactly those jobs which either create one huge pile of cow manure after the other (which is left for others to clean up), or where every food and drink intake becomes a "work meeting". Mostly both.
I do have relatives working at McK and I do know how McK sucks the life out of them, with them finding each and every excuse for why that is good. For *that*, the paycheck is not even remotely big enough. Besides, consulting firms like these are responsible for any major business fuckup: We need to outsource. No, outsourcing is wrong, we need to be fully self-supplying. We need to concentrate the company to its core business and sell everything else. No, we need to amalgamate to acquire a wide, solid base.
Not to mention those financial firms who seeingly created the current world-wide mess.
Thank you, but if that is your point pro 80-100hrs of work per week, I rest my case...
at a previous job I occasionally worked 100 hours a week (thats insane though, only allowed by a crisis allowing you to give up sleep).
The key word here is occasionally. I'm fully aware that there are situations where you just have to kick in the overdrive and get something by insane working hours. BTDT, and more than once. It usually is, however, a sign of bad company management because they either have too much work for too few people or acquired a too big project. Bad planning in both cases. Only emergency situations justify such insane overload.
If you continue that overdrive you'll sooner or later burn out and/or start doing nonsense. Especially sleep deprivation is not exactly known for improving your work performance. Raised stress levels may lead to a temporary productivity boost, but that boost comes at a price.
Unless, of course, your job has a recreational effect on you, which is probably anything but the norm. I know a lot of people who really like their jobs (being one of them myself), but doing some hobbyist stuff, even if somewhat work-related, is something completely different than work. And neither is a replacement for sleep.
The idea you can only work 40 hours a week and the rest is just wasted is crap
It indeed is. Usually the quote of productive work per day is much lower, about the range of 5h.
You mentioned that it's the monotony that kills concentration. True. Zombie work kills. On the other hand, you also need a certain time to adjust to a new task and get that going smoothly. Too frequent task changes (being the norm today with telephone, email, and slashdot interrupts...) will make you feel utterly busy, but in the end being highly unproductive.
Telecommuters like to count as work every minute they have their PC.
Executives count in any minute they're awake, cause even running around with a cup of coffee or having a chat on the toilet is "work".
Regular employees count the sheer presence, regardless of standing outside smoking, drinking coffee with others (that's called meeting), or just browsing slashdot (called recherche).
If you start logging what you really do in those 60/80/100 hrs you most likely will notice that you get done no more than the average worker, eventually even less.
The only people I believe being truly working those insane hours are doctorate candidates in their final year and/or before conference deadlines.
It's sometimes hard to tell if someone's 25 or 18. Or 30 or 21.
But you clearly can tell some 40+ person from a 21 person, so why ID? Just because of a stupid rule?
People who apply rules literally without understanding what those rules are for, those are the morons. Plus the ones who think that mindless application of rules is a good thing.
...start reading on page 15, it'll discuss (a) what they did and (b) how resistant it is against potential counterattacks by the BD+ people.
Mind you, the idea was not to break the underlying encryption scheme (breaking AES could still turn out being hard for the next couple of years...), but rather disable the BD+ security layer.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, when watching the video, one notices that going from 100km/h to 200km/h takes 17 seconds, whereas 200km/h to 300km/h over a minute (probably about 10km in length). The entire 9 minutes of the video cover about 40km in range, i.e. an average speed of 266km/h.
Still, compared to the Bugatti's 1001hp that very Audi S8 is significantly underpowered (although the Bugatti might not make full use of them in terms of acceleration, AFAIK the gearbox won't stand that).
No, it's not the use of the environment variable. It's the use of non-standard packages -- and the will to throw them wherever you like them. If they are placed in a standard directory, e.g. ~/.TeX/ or /usr/share/textmf/tex/latex/ [*] then you don't even need to fiddle around with the environment variable.
Still, you would need s/o to install that very fancy package you liked to use.
[*] Or, you're a nice guy and copy the used style files into the respective working directory which then gets archived, compressed, and sent to the collaborator. That would be the Word approach, clobbering everything into one container, saving a few hassles but eventually leading to different versions of the same style file hidden in the respective document directories.
I see you didn't grok the concept of environment variables.
If *I* prefer to put my stuff in ~/.TeX/ and *you* prefer to put it in c:\misc\texpckgs\, then we can exchange compileable documents *because* we are individually able to adjust TEXPATH to our needs. All you need to tell me (or vice versa) is which standard and non-standard packages are required. It's then up to me (or you) to install them where they can be found and/or update TEXPATH to do so.
Same goes for a gazillion of other tools. Still, there's a difference between tools which put the layouts entirely into your hands, and tools, which have built-in printer/layouter intelligence.
That said, I definitely wouldn't use LaTeX for typesetting fancy magazines or flyers, as many required graphical elements (floating text/pictures being one of them...) are not easily accessible -- and dealing with pictures still is a major pain in the neck.
That's not even remotely true. You know, in Germany we *do* have cars on the road that do 260 to 320kph (abt. 160 to 200mph), although usually they get (electronically) limited to 250kph (155mph), and if you want to get an impression how an average car performs on a German autobahn at up to 320kph, have a look at this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1063940552930517285&ei=9L9RSqn2NZOY2AKKp6GTCA&q=audi+lpg+vmax
Sure, there's 45mph missing. But then, this is a (chiptuned) stock car, an unhappy 4.2l Audi A8 which fell into the wrong hands, which does *not* offer 1001hp.
Then you are using some quite non-standard style files which are not part of the basic texlive installation, nor the full one. If you are using publisher-specific style files (IEEE, ACM, Springer LNCS, GI LNI, and whatnot...), then of course the recipient needs to have them installed to compile your work.
This, however, is most likely the case if you do collaborative work. Otherwise you wouldn't send source, but the compiled PDF.
No idea what you are trying to say here. LaTeX will search any style file in dedicated directories. Ever tried updating $TEXPATH?
Well, there's a reason why there's something like layouters and printers (the people, not the machine). It takes at least experience to design both, eye-friendly *and* appropriate, layouts. Web and printed media is full of examples where someone thought "hey, that program's wizard should do" -- or where they designed everything in Word and Powerpoint, violating each and every rule of proper design.
Care to explain how Dreamweaver relates to LaTeX?
That it takes *knowledge* and *talent* to come up with a pleasant layout is no problem of LaTeX, although for the average joe it is *easier* to cough up a pleasantly-looking document (assuming that he uses a standard design template and not some bogged-up "let's make it look as ugly as it can be" like the ACM style) than with e.g. Word. Kerning, microspacing, orphans, widows, hyphenization, LaTeX will take care of that cause it was *designed* to adhere to such printing rules.
I never grew fond of these so-called controllers where I have to use my left thumb for steering because someone thought, hey, screw those righthanders by putting the movement control on the controller's left side.
I was perfectly happy with the old (digital) joysticks like the Competition Pro or some more robust joyboards which could be fixed to the desk using suction cups, and also offered automatic fire triggering.
Where I can see a use of the WiiMote for more lifelike gameplaying (e.g. Golf, Swordfight, Tennis), I never found these weird "let's replace the joystick by buttons or just a small thumbstick" controls really useful...
Wow, first-time troll modding.
Obviously someone was truly pissed -- or unable to read and understand. But he's forgiven, as reading *and* understanding is a rare gift these days...
Geez. Would it make any sense to compare it to extinct currencies? But if you like DEM3,50 better, well, use that instead.
No, that's not the way it works with the market.
If US companies enter the European market, they either use the 1US$=1EUR scheme if the EUR is higher, otherwise the price will of course be adjusted. Remember the 1980s when the US$ was skyrocketing to nearly EUR1,80? Even entry-level US electronics like the Commodore C64, Ensoniq synthesizers were priced insanely high.
The other way round, however, European companies like to match US$ prices, even if that means selling at a loss. Have a look what Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, or Porsche cost in the US compared to their EU prices... But also other pricing is weird: in 2003, I bought a Canon S45. Street price in the US: US$330. Street price in Germany: EUR550. Back then the exchange rate US$:EUR was about 1.20:1.
Clearly, the Europeans are doing something very wrong, and this is not only overtaxation...
When it comes to beer, I'd always prefer 22fl.oz over a pint...
Yes, my bad. "Per something" falls into the denominator...
Still you need to differentiate between the maximum power something might deliver and how much energy that finally results in.
If my fridge's compressor does 1.8kW that doesn't tell me, how much energy it consumes. And it it would turn out to be 1.8kWh, I'd better throw it away. Likewise, in the article we don't care how much power each plate might emit at once, but we're interested in how much energy is harvested unter typical operating conditions.
That would be 30kW per square-hour. What kind of metric would that be?
If you want to refer to power, you use Watt. If you refer to energy, you use Joule. Alternatively, you may use Watt seconds (Ws) -- which not only is the same but also directly shows that energy is power over time -- or its derivative Watt hours (Wh) or 1000 Watt hours (kWh). If you were a physicist (which you aren't, otherwise your question would be most self-humiliating) then you would eventually be using electron volts (eV). And if you ever wondered what this "kcals" are which are mentioned on your food packs, yes, again energy. Hence, the article correctly talks about kWh, i.e. the amount of energy produced.
Is this really a new development that the Shuttle gets increasingly fragile or is it just the fact that since Columbia it gets checked extra carefully and therefore revealing what before just went unnoticed?
Frankly, I don't get it why this gets so much attention.
Is really noone of the /. crowd familiar with the VICE family of Commodore emulators? This had *for years* a proper PAL emulation which not only brought back the scanlines, but also allowed to define the level of blurriedness, and even emulates proper color phase handling.
Granted, it doesn't emulate ghosting (signal reflections in the cable) and afterglow effects (at least I'm not aware of).
Still, it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere in the summary, if not TFA.
Oh, just because the digestive system of the average animal is so inefficient, it doesn't mean that the robot needs to adhere to such ineffectivity.
The entire amount of carbon contained in the food can be burned into CO2. No poop.
What's left is some spurious stuff and water, so eventually the robot may have to pee, yes, or sweat, assuming that the water will be also used within its cooling system.
No. It never was "good", in no case "very good". And it also did not "well enough".
In fact, DOS was a true step back compared to anything that existed at that time and it took a whopping 15 years until it arrived where others were already in the early 80s.
And I'm not objecting these. As said before, they are vital *especially* for techies who often enough make bad businessmen, either due to a lack of interest or just a wrong perspective. And even if not, they do need accounting and finance to properly rate how their company is doing and see where things are possibly going wrong.
However, this can be also been overdone -- like unfortunately it is today where hardly any long-term perspective counts but just quarterly numbers and how much the shareholder value can be risen. In more sane times it counted that the company had a long-term perspective and was profitable. There was not this mathematically nonsensical idea that a company could increase sales by n% per year. Even less there was this idea that the quarterly numbers could be boosted by just firing a bunch of people which looked good in the books (saved money), but in the end kills the company. Once you start playing that game, it's definitely not the best and brightest who stay til the end.
A recent example of this game is Agere Systems. Spun off from Bell Labs with about 18.500 employees in 2001. In 2003 the numbers were cut down drastically for "concentrating on the core business". Just 6 months after that nonsense started, even the internal research dept was nixed. By 8/2003 there were only 5500 people left, another 4 months later 3500.
What remained (IIRC about 1500 people) was later acquired by LSI Logic.
Quite some fate for originally one of the finest research labs.
But, then, research labs have awful quarterly numbers. All these costs, costs, costs and no revenue... Cause of course the commercialization of eventual findings is done by a different company division. And look how great *they* perform. Hardly any cost, but so much revenue!
Which is completely fine! Another word for this would be "talent". And no matter how hard and long John Dow works, how many hours per week he robots, he will *never* match someone truly talented.
Might be a language clash here as I'm no native speaker and had to look up proper translations for "Betriebswirtschaftslehre (BWL)" (which according to dict.leo.org is "business studies") and "Volkswirtschaftslehre (VWL)" (translated as "economics").
Anyone?
And what exactly let you draw this conclusion?
It's wrong, btw.
The problem with business studies is that they perceive themselves as hard science. At least that's they way they like so sell themselves. And where I fully believe in economics, I wouldn't touch business studies with a 10-foot pole.
Unfortunately, any major decision these days doesn't seem to be made upon economic or scientific decisions, but rather because of some model/promise derived from business studies. Which, in retrospective, are always able to show how their models work for past situations but usually utterly fail for anything in the future. Kinda like those Nostradamus books which get updated and re-sold every year.
And to come back to the original topic, the 60/80/100 hrs working week, it's also those business studies people who favor the idea that you're an "underperformer" if you just work the ordinary working hours and not bring in your entire spare time and a major part of your sleep time.
So when it comes to "non-tech", as you put it, I like to differentiate. There's valuable non-tech like economics (where techies and engineers usually are not quite best, hence any Steve Wozniak typically will need his Steve Jobs) and there's bogus non-tech like business studies.
And they're easy to differentiate. Only the bogus non-tech changes its model with the fashion, even if that means that 10 years later the same people who praised Model X will now advertise a Model Y being the complete difference of Model X.
And you see the contradiction to my posting exactly *where*?
Excuse my frank words, but what you cited here are exactly those jobs which either create one huge pile of cow manure after the other (which is left for others to clean up), or where every food and drink intake becomes a "work meeting". Mostly both.
I do have relatives working at McK and I do know how McK sucks the life out of them, with them finding each and every excuse for why that is good. For *that*, the paycheck is not even remotely big enough. Besides, consulting firms like these are responsible for any major business fuckup: We need to outsource. No, outsourcing is wrong, we need to be fully self-supplying. We need to concentrate the company to its core business and sell everything else. No, we need to amalgamate to acquire a wide, solid base.
Not to mention those financial firms who seeingly created the current world-wide mess.
Thank you, but if that is your point pro 80-100hrs of work per week, I rest my case...
The key word here is occasionally. I'm fully aware that there are situations where you just have to kick in the overdrive and get something by insane working hours. BTDT, and more than once. It usually is, however, a sign of bad company management because they either have too much work for too few people or acquired a too big project. Bad planning in both cases. Only emergency situations justify such insane overload.
If you continue that overdrive you'll sooner or later burn out and/or start doing nonsense. Especially sleep deprivation is not exactly known for improving your work performance. Raised stress levels may lead to a temporary productivity boost, but that boost comes at a price.
Unless, of course, your job has a recreational effect on you, which is probably anything but the norm. I know a lot of people who really like their jobs (being one of them myself), but doing some hobbyist stuff, even if somewhat work-related, is something completely different than work. And neither is a replacement for sleep.
It indeed is. Usually the quote of productive work per day is much lower, about the range of 5h.
You mentioned that it's the monotony that kills concentration. True. Zombie work kills. On the other hand, you also need a certain time to adjust to a new task and get that going smoothly. Too frequent task changes (being the norm today with telephone, email, and slashdot interrupts...) will make you feel utterly busy, but in the end being highly unproductive.
Frankly, I don't believe you.
Telecommuters like to count as work every minute they have their PC.
Executives count in any minute they're awake, cause even running around with a cup of coffee or having a chat on the toilet is "work".
Regular employees count the sheer presence, regardless of standing outside smoking, drinking coffee with others (that's called meeting), or just browsing slashdot (called recherche).
If you start logging what you really do in those 60/80/100 hrs you most likely will notice that you get done no more than the average worker, eventually even less.
The only people I believe being truly working those insane hours are doctorate candidates in their final year and/or before conference deadlines.
You're supposed to take it out afterwards, not let it stick in until the peristalsics do their job.
That you still didn't manage to even get a decent sense of the language of the very country you reside in for almost 18 years now?
No?
Law: No alcohol for underaged.
It's sometimes hard to tell if someone's 25 or 18. Or 30 or 21.
But you clearly can tell some 40+ person from a 21 person, so why ID? Just because of a stupid rule?
People who apply rules literally without understanding what those rules are for, those are the morons. Plus the ones who think that mindless application of rules is a good thing.
...start reading on page 15, it'll discuss (a) what they did and (b) how resistant it is against potential counterattacks by the BD+ people.
Mind you, the idea was not to break the underlying encryption scheme (breaking AES could still turn out being hard for the next couple of years...), but rather disable the BD+ security layer.