My paper book is as easy to backup as the mechanism I choose to use. I can choose the easiest method available to the medium.
So... almost impossible then? Copying a file, even a DRM-encumbered file, is far easier than photocopying a book (or repurchasing it, which is the normal "backup" procedure.
To promote what's best for our whole society, rather than selfishly just looking out for our own individual interests. The problem, of course, is defining "best". Ruling exclusively in favor of individual freedom means that collaborative effort is severely hampered, so everyone's stuck at the same low standard of living. Ruling in favor of collaborative corporations leaves the disadvantage with those who aren't part of the corporation.
That was actually the original point of having the Senate and House be made up differently (as Lords and Commons are in the UK) - the Senate, being primarily appointed and serving far longer terms, could look out for the well-being of the country as a whole; they were supposed to come into conflict with the House and provide balance against short-term vote-seeking behavior. Of course, that's not what happened.
If you notice, this person here has to run cracking software just to get their files to play nicely and not destroy itself if this person tries to do the basic tasks of backup or use on an 'unauthorized device'.
How easy is it for you to make a backup of your paper book, anyway?
By default, if you're in a "walled garden" at least, your book license survives your device and a new reader can easily be re-authorized; this is actually far easier than replacing the few books that were in your lost backpack (or, worse yet, your library that burned down with the rest of your house).
It would seem that increasing the on board cache to an un-godly amount would be just as effective and adding a battery or cap to ensure writes were performed if power goes out would minimze the risk from SSD failures.
We actually ran those back in the day. 1GB SCSI disks with 1GB memory on top of them. Expensive as fuck, but boy would they scream.
First, I strongly suggest sticking to QWERTY. You'll find yourself typing on large numbers of other people's keyboards over your career - switching all over the place is hard enough when its something little like someone else's pipe sign being in a silly place.
Even on a laptop you can angle your elbows somewhat out so that your wrists are "straight", using an ergonomic-keyboard position even on a regular flat keyboard like a laptop's. This by itself changes your finger motion significantly. I don't know if that's why, but I basically never use my pinky fingers when I type - and I've been in software professionally since '92 with no particular typing deficiencies.
Why? If spending $1,000 makes you 5-10% more productive, then do it. If you can find a cheaper one, great, but don't screw yourself in the name of a false economy.
Tesla also whined about Top Gear saying it would only get 55 miles per charge during their tests, but that number came from their OWN engineer when Top Gear asked them about it.
And if they regularly discussed the range that ICE cars got on the track, they'd be fine. They didn't talk about running the battery down and then having a long charge time as the problem (cue scenes of the crew sitting around, playing cards, &c) - if they had, no big deal. They talked purely about the limited range being the problem, as if the other cars were going more than 55 miles when fully fueled up - and they weren't, either, but TG never mentioned that. The implication was clear: that the Tesla had a more limited range, rather than a longer refueling cycle.
“Hiring managers have a big pile of résumés to review, and they are always looking for a reason to put you in the ‘no’ pile.”
If you're going through the resume stage, the only goal is to get yourself into the "call" stack rather than the trash pile. When hundreds of resumes come in for a position, its far more important for HR to not let crap through then it is for them to try to find the perfect candidate - the reality is probably that there are several differently (but equally) qualified candidates for the position, and if any one of them is hired then HR and management have done their jobs.
If one of those candidates makes it easy to validate and hire them, and one doesn't, then the first one gets the job.
So, since they've been required to actually pay what they promised their employees, unlike a lot of other pensions these days, they now can't make money. Huh. That doesn't strike me as the model of success we should be pushing for.
Its more like that they've been required to actually pay as much money as everyone who ever works for them might get if they stayed until 65 and then lived a very long time. That's not right either, but its far closer to the actual truth.
I wonder how they determined "active users," since these days its getting easier and easier for anyone with a GMail-based account to find themselves "using" Google+.
By going through an agency, the employer can get rid of you more easily when the job is completed. Laying off employees is hard; not renewing a contract is easy. Also, part of the markup is for payroll overhead and benefits (if any), etc. You wouldn't get all of that even if you were a direct employee.
Actually in my experience the opposite is frequently true. Employees work "at will" and can quit or be fired at any time. Contractors often have things like rolling 30 day windows thus requiring a month of notice either way - you know, because they have "contracts" that spell those things out.
When multiple people are convicted of different things, listing their punishment as a "total" serves purely to make the story more lurid and, thus, to make whatever possibly reasonable point the author intended seem more likely to be incorrect. "Two of the three people credited with hacking financial networks received jail sentences, the longest for 18 months" would still be silly wording but at least not a blatent attempt to exaggerate.
As long as there actually are numerous reports. Newspapers do that all the time - the word they like to use is "alleged". Here you go - "Berlusconi’s Alleged Ties To Mafia Again Resurface". Newspapers have been reporting on rumour for a long time. As long as they ensure that they're reporting on other people making the allegations, instead of making the allegations themselves, they're fine.
In this case though, Google is "reporting" that "lots of people searching for him search for his bankruptcy information." They then, through autocomplete, make it very appealing to search for his bankruptcy information even if all you originally wanted to do was to enter his name to find out the phone number for his medical practice. BTW, if you actually do google just his name (ignoring the current topic), you won't find any bankruptcy information until fairly far down the results list.
In the Berlusconi case, it would be as if 6 newspapers owned by the same company all released that article on the same day, all implicitly referring to the article in the other 5 as proof for the "resurface" point.
Google isnt doing anything except saying "most people searching for 'Guy Hingston' also search for 'Guy Hingston bankruptcy'". This is a fact, and not one that google created or oversaw.
Its also a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy though. If you type "Guy Hin" and it pops up wth "Guy Hingston Bankruptcy" many people will just go DOWN->ENTER, thus giving perpetual search weight to a term that should have been the #1 hit for a very short amount of time and then reverted back.
Also if you actually search for "Guy Hingston" the bankruptcy information is quite a long way down the page, but it gets a more-prominent-than-an-ad spot on the autocomplete bar. Sometimes if the #2 most common search request is substantially different and far less common than what's been entered, Google might be better off not displaying it, so as to avoid having the newspaper "make the news" rather than just "tell the news" as they claim to do.
I find it amusing (actually amusing, not being ironic here) that we both had similar comments but, with minor differences in interpretation of the GPP, posted them as agreements-with and differences-with the point being made by the AC above:)
For that kind of code problem, "fixing the problem" is a big thing. It is in itself an investment - the poor development processes has incurred a development "debt", which requires man-hours to fix. Lots of stuff may have to be rewritten. And in return for all this time, product managers are getting no new features to show the customers - "only" a more stable product.
A more stable product is great. Frequently, however, the product works well but is a PITA to enhance. In those cases, you're offering XX hours of no new features (and a reasonably likelyhood that the new code will have at least one glitch in it just because it hasn't had 3 years of real-life production use) in exchange for the promise that future features will be easier to implement. Sometimes that's a good deal; frequently its not.
The only way of producing good quality code that I know of, is by introducing rigorous quality assurance, and by management realising that code is not ready for release until it has passed all QA tests. Not meeting deadlines is a minor sin, releasing unfinished code is a major one.
And when you miss your first external deadline that has seven figures of penalty attached to it rather than shipping a product with known (documented) minor defects that still helps someone solve their business problems and your own company meet its contractual commitments, you'll be polishing up your resume. Unless its a small O/S pet project, software development is a means to an end not an end of itself.
Easy, you already identified the root of the problem: "product guys don't like to wait". Means you're in a company run by marketing/sales-people caring only for their commissions and next quarterly bonus, not quality-minded people who understands the business of building software.
You've just identified another problem. Chances are very high (but not 100%) that your company is, actually, not in the business of building software. Its quite possibly in the business of solving buisness problems with software, but if the software contains no defects but is late or doesn't actually quite solve the right problem, that's far worse than correctly solving business problems with a few bugs.
Additionaly, know your tolerances. There's a reason that when building a house the carpenter doing the framing - even if they're the same person who builds the cabinets - doesn't spend too much time planing the 2X6s before sheetrocking but may take several days to lovingly carve details in the entryway.
People who criticised autocomplete right from the start for sending every keystroke directly to Google were ignored as "privacy hardliners", if there can be such a thing. Now autocomplete shows the ugly side of its face, but people don't even question it anymore.
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the privacy of the doctor, you're talking about the privacy of the searcher (which is a little weird even out of context, since all autocomplete is doing is pre-sending information that had been keyed into a search box with the explicit intent of sending it to Google to perform searches).
in this case, however, its talking more about the priority of various results. If you google "Guy Hingston", news about his bankruptcy is certainly not prominent on the page (not including recent coverage of his lawsuit), but it is indeed prominent in the autocomplete results.
What the code review should cover, however, are standards like "Have your methods do the thing that matches their name, do one thing, and don't have any avoidable or undocumented side-effects." The nice thing about forcing correct (not too much, not too little) abstraction in a code review is that a) automated tools are terrible at figuring that out, and b) you've locallized your problems - if there are any - to code that can either be refactored if its a problem or just left alone and ignored if its ugly but effective.
Now ask them to compare Dell and Apple. One company did all the right things to make more money, and now it looks like they are up for sale. The other never listened to customers, never listened to stock analysts, never cared about money but only about making great products, and ended up having about $100bn in the bank.
Then look at NeXT who did everything "right" and hemmoraged through obscene amounts of money without ever coming close to breaking even. Like many things in business, its about getting the balance correct.
Slashdot Mirror
My paper book is as easy to backup as the mechanism I choose to use. I can choose the easiest method available to the medium.
So... almost impossible then? Copying a file, even a DRM-encumbered file, is far easier than photocopying a book (or repurchasing it, which is the normal "backup" procedure.
To promote what's best for our whole society, rather than selfishly just looking out for our own individual interests. The problem, of course, is defining "best". Ruling exclusively in favor of individual freedom means that collaborative effort is severely hampered, so everyone's stuck at the same low standard of living. Ruling in favor of collaborative corporations leaves the disadvantage with those who aren't part of the corporation.
That was actually the original point of having the Senate and House be made up differently (as Lords and Commons are in the UK) - the Senate, being primarily appointed and serving far longer terms, could look out for the well-being of the country as a whole; they were supposed to come into conflict with the House and provide balance against short-term vote-seeking behavior. Of course, that's not what happened.
If you notice, this person here has to run cracking software just to get their files to play nicely and not destroy itself if this person tries to do the basic tasks of backup or use on an 'unauthorized device'.
How easy is it for you to make a backup of your paper book, anyway?
By default, if you're in a "walled garden" at least, your book license survives your device and a new reader can easily be re-authorized; this is actually far easier than replacing the few books that were in your lost backpack (or, worse yet, your library that burned down with the rest of your house).
It would seem that increasing the on board cache to an un-godly amount would be just as effective and adding a battery or cap to ensure writes were performed if power goes out would minimze the risk from SSD failures.
We actually ran those back in the day. 1GB SCSI disks with 1GB memory on top of them. Expensive as fuck, but boy would they scream.
First, I strongly suggest sticking to QWERTY. You'll find yourself typing on large numbers of other people's keyboards over your career - switching all over the place is hard enough when its something little like someone else's pipe sign being in a silly place.
Even on a laptop you can angle your elbows somewhat out so that your wrists are "straight", using an ergonomic-keyboard position even on a regular flat keyboard like a laptop's. This by itself changes your finger motion significantly. I don't know if that's why, but I basically never use my pinky fingers when I type - and I've been in software professionally since '92 with no particular typing deficiencies.
if (post.content=="first" && post.position()==0) post.delete();
Remove && post.position()==0 and you'll have a winner.
I'm trying to keep the cost down reasonable,
Why? If spending $1,000 makes you 5-10% more productive, then do it. If you can find a cheaper one, great, but don't screw yourself in the name of a false economy.
Tesla also whined about Top Gear saying it would only get 55 miles per charge during their tests, but that number came from their OWN engineer when Top Gear asked them about it.
And if they regularly discussed the range that ICE cars got on the track, they'd be fine. They didn't talk about running the battery down and then having a long charge time as the problem (cue scenes of the crew sitting around, playing cards, &c) - if they had, no big deal. They talked purely about the limited range being the problem, as if the other cars were going more than 55 miles when fully fueled up - and they weren't, either, but TG never mentioned that. The implication was clear: that the Tesla had a more limited range, rather than a longer refueling cycle.
“Hiring managers have a big pile of résumés to review, and they are always looking for a reason to put you in the ‘no’ pile.”
If you're going through the resume stage, the only goal is to get yourself into the "call" stack rather than the trash pile. When hundreds of resumes come in for a position, its far more important for HR to not let crap through then it is for them to try to find the perfect candidate - the reality is probably that there are several differently (but equally) qualified candidates for the position, and if any one of them is hired then HR and management have done their jobs.
If one of those candidates makes it easy to validate and hire them, and one doesn't, then the first one gets the job.
What species of pear? What color? Whole, sliced, or canned? How ripe? Jelly, maybe? An entire pear tree?
You, sir, have underestimated the intricacy of fruit purchasing!
I misread that as "intimacy of fruit purchasing." Not sure what that says about me, but very glad to re-read it correctly.
Gee, wasn't spam supposed to do that?
Yes. And the reason that it continues to be an issue is that it works. Not much, but far in excess of the cost and burden to the spammer.
So, since they've been required to actually pay what they promised their employees, unlike a lot of other pensions these days, they now can't make money. Huh. That doesn't strike me as the model of success we should be pushing for.
Its more like that they've been required to actually pay as much money as everyone who ever works for them might get if they stayed until 65 and then lived a very long time. That's not right either, but its far closer to the actual truth.
I wonder how they determined "active users," since these days its getting easier and easier for anyone with a GMail-based account to find themselves "using" Google+.
By going through an agency, the employer can get rid of you more easily when the job is completed. Laying off employees is hard; not renewing a contract is easy. Also, part of the markup is for payroll overhead and benefits (if any), etc. You wouldn't get all of that even if you were a direct employee.
Actually in my experience the opposite is frequently true. Employees work "at will" and can quit or be fired at any time. Contractors often have things like rolling 30 day windows thus requiring a month of notice either way - you know, because they have "contracts" that spell those things out.
When multiple people are convicted of different things, listing their punishment as a "total" serves purely to make the story more lurid and, thus, to make whatever possibly reasonable point the author intended seem more likely to be incorrect. "Two of the three people credited with hacking financial networks received jail sentences, the longest for 18 months" would still be silly wording but at least not a blatent attempt to exaggerate.
As long as there actually are numerous reports. Newspapers do that all the time - the word they like to use is "alleged". Here you go - "Berlusconi’s Alleged Ties To Mafia Again Resurface". Newspapers have been reporting on rumour for a long time. As long as they ensure that they're reporting on other people making the allegations, instead of making the allegations themselves, they're fine.
In this case though, Google is "reporting" that "lots of people searching for him search for his bankruptcy information." They then, through autocomplete, make it very appealing to search for his bankruptcy information even if all you originally wanted to do was to enter his name to find out the phone number for his medical practice. BTW, if you actually do google just his name (ignoring the current topic), you won't find any bankruptcy information until fairly far down the results list.
In the Berlusconi case, it would be as if 6 newspapers owned by the same company all released that article on the same day, all implicitly referring to the article in the other 5 as proof for the "resurface" point.
Just wishing? That does show a great lack of initiative.
Shouldn't everyone have the right to a stable relationship?
Google isnt doing anything except saying "most people searching for 'Guy Hingston' also search for 'Guy Hingston bankruptcy'". This is a fact, and not one that google created or oversaw.
Its also a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy though. If you type "Guy Hin" and it pops up wth "Guy Hingston Bankruptcy" many people will just go DOWN->ENTER, thus giving perpetual search weight to a term that should have been the #1 hit for a very short amount of time and then reverted back.
Also if you actually search for "Guy Hingston" the bankruptcy information is quite a long way down the page, but it gets a more-prominent-than-an-ad spot on the autocomplete bar. Sometimes if the #2 most common search request is substantially different and far less common than what's been entered, Google might be better off not displaying it, so as to avoid having the newspaper "make the news" rather than just "tell the news" as they claim to do.
I find it amusing (actually amusing, not being ironic here) that we both had similar comments but, with minor differences in interpretation of the GPP, posted them as agreements-with and differences-with the point being made by the AC above :)
For that kind of code problem, "fixing the problem" is a big thing. It is in itself an investment - the poor development processes has incurred a development "debt", which requires man-hours to fix. Lots of stuff may have to be rewritten. And in return for all this time, product managers are getting no new features to show the customers - "only" a more stable product.
A more stable product is great. Frequently, however, the product works well but is a PITA to enhance. In those cases, you're offering XX hours of no new features (and a reasonably likelyhood that the new code will have at least one glitch in it just because it hasn't had 3 years of real-life production use) in exchange for the promise that future features will be easier to implement. Sometimes that's a good deal; frequently its not.
The only way of producing good quality code that I know of, is by introducing rigorous quality assurance, and by management realising that code is not ready for release until it has passed all QA tests. Not meeting deadlines is a minor sin, releasing unfinished code is a major one.
And when you miss your first external deadline that has seven figures of penalty attached to it rather than shipping a product with known (documented) minor defects that still helps someone solve their business problems and your own company meet its contractual commitments, you'll be polishing up your resume. Unless its a small O/S pet project, software development is a means to an end not an end of itself.
Easy, you already identified the root of the problem: "product guys don't like to wait". Means you're in a company run by marketing/sales-people caring only for their commissions and next quarterly bonus, not quality-minded people who understands the business of building software.
You've just identified another problem. Chances are very high (but not 100%) that your company is, actually, not in the business of building software. Its quite possibly in the business of solving buisness problems with software, but if the software contains no defects but is late or doesn't actually quite solve the right problem, that's far worse than correctly solving business problems with a few bugs.
Additionaly, know your tolerances. There's a reason that when building a house the carpenter doing the framing - even if they're the same person who builds the cabinets - doesn't spend too much time planing the 2X6s before sheetrocking but may take several days to lovingly carve details in the entryway.
People who criticised autocomplete right from the start for sending every keystroke directly to Google were ignored as "privacy hardliners", if there can be such a thing. Now autocomplete shows the ugly side of its face, but people don't even question it anymore.
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the privacy of the doctor, you're talking about the privacy of the searcher (which is a little weird even out of context, since all autocomplete is doing is pre-sending information that had been keyed into a search box with the explicit intent of sending it to Google to perform searches).
in this case, however, its talking more about the priority of various results. If you google "Guy Hingston", news about his bankruptcy is certainly not prominent on the page (not including recent coverage of his lawsuit), but it is indeed prominent in the autocomplete results.
What the code review should cover, however, are standards like "Have your methods do the thing that matches their name, do one thing, and don't have any avoidable or undocumented side-effects." The nice thing about forcing correct (not too much, not too little) abstraction in a code review is that a) automated tools are terrible at figuring that out, and b) you've locallized your problems - if there are any - to code that can either be refactored if its a problem or just left alone and ignored if its ugly but effective.
Now ask them to compare Dell and Apple. One company did all the right things to make more money, and now it looks like they are up for sale. The other never listened to customers, never listened to stock analysts, never cared about money but only about making great products, and ended up having about $100bn in the bank.
Then look at NeXT who did everything "right" and hemmoraged through obscene amounts of money without ever coming close to breaking even. Like many things in business, its about getting the balance correct.