Kind of like how Capitalism failed the Soviet Union and is Failing in China.
And since you were obviously not aware, there would be no regulation of banking in a socialist society, as there would be no banking. Sadly the socio-capitalists of the world (China, USSR, et.a l.) ruined the world view by claiming to socialist.
it's simply the rejection of government control over markets. Laws against fraud, theft, and murder would still apply.
I'm confused. On one hand you say the government would not control the market and then immediately turn around and list limitations on the market. If I can't defraud someone to get there money (which is basically what all advertisement is) then that is a control on the market. If I can't hire someone to murder someone, then that is a control on the market, if I can't acquire items at a price I see fit, also known as theft if it's a lesser price than the sellers would like, then there is control on the market.
This has always confused me about objectivists, Neo-libertarians and others supporting laissez-faire anything, they just don't get that control in any fashion what so ever has a potential impact on the effects of the markets. It always seems to come down to the same thing, "People have the right to do what ever they want unless I disagree with it", and that my friends is certainly not freedom.
One can't be a back-end Web Developer. You are either a back-end developer or a web developer. Though I think what you are actually trying to get at is a middle-ware developer, and yes the world is very short of good ones. The again when was the last time a company actually wanted a good programmer (by what ever name or title)?
And for the latest-and-greatest software tech...
Yes, the world is short on D programmers, but then again so is demand.
Is it a rapid increase in the actual condition in industrialized nations, or a rapid increase in the ability to identify the condition?
It's at least partially due to the rapid change in the definition of the condition., and the growth in cultural desire to label all personality traits as a condition.
There would be no point, the current so called democracy doesn't really allow any kind of detailed control - there is too munch money in not changing it, so it won't.
That's a good way to make sure you never have to feel responsible for anything. Just keep telling yourself that there is nothing you can do. Lucky for you those of us that actually understand the system are doing out best to make sure checks and balance are kept.
The only reason the country is in the shape it is in is because the citizens chose for it to be that way, either by direct act or complacency.
That's like saying people who are against capital punishment doesn't go around killing people.
I'm not sure what most of your rant was about but it had little at all to do with my comment and so I'll skip right to the relevant part.
You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to?
I never once even implied that all other countries would stop doing business with China. I very specifically stated "US, and other countries that support IP." All I was pointing out is that the Chinese economy relies very heavily on these countries, (US, Canada, much of Europe) and not only for export but for having products to produce and export.
I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements.
How much more voluntary can things be beyond saying "I will trade with you, but these are the conditions I will trade under." Would you rather a person be forced to trade with others even if the conditions are highly unfavorable to them? If you were saying that the western countries are saying "agree to our contract or we will destroy your country" then you might have a valid argument, but that is not the case you are trying to portray.
A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.
I suggest those people get out and vote for representatives that support their point of view. My guess is that those "lot" of people are not a majority and most likely not those people that actually spent the time and effort to produce works that happen to be easily copyable.
The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.
I agree the US is "one of the worst", just like all other countries that have any amount of power and are capable or breaking agreements. But that does not change the fact that in this case this is just an international organization determining if two international agreements are being honored correctly.
But you would have known this if you knew the meaning of the word "sometimes."
As far as NEEDING the US...China doesn't NEED to export to the US.
You are correct that there are plenty of countries willing to buy Chinese made products. Chinese made American products that is. China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.
And before you think you know jack about world economy and politics just try and comprehend why China agreed to Bern and TRIPS in the first place. It's certainly not because they could stand on there own.
why bother about their laws being implemented outside US borders?
This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS. These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily.
The decision basically states that china is not fully compliant with the Bern Convention, but they are within the letter of the TRIPS agreement.
Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.
This is already a requirement...As an employer, I love this requirement. Anytime an American asks for a raise, I tell them I would then need to raise the pay of all my H1-B employees to stay within the law.
Way to try an pull to wool over the eyes of the American public.
What you are required to pay is a Prevailing wage, which in it self is less than the actual going rate, though it claims to be otherwise. Second the prevailing wage is based on title, and you know as well as anyone else that job duty has nothing at all to do with title. So if you really wanted to you could increase the title of your American workers so that they would not be in the same prevailing wage category as there H1-B coworkers. I believe this is a crooked thing to do, but it happens a lot, and usually the other way around, where an H1-B is hired with a lessor title than their responsibilities would dictate.
Ultimately, until the office of immigration actually starts checking of peoples job duties, there is no way to guarantee that an H1-B is paid on the same level as it would take to hire an American.
And this is not to mention that you are supposed to only be hiring H1-Bs if you can't find an American that is capable and willing to do the job, not if they are capable and willing to do it for what you are willing to pay.
It's an easy thing to fix - require that H1B visa holders receive the same pay and benefits for their work as the rest of the workforce.
There is a superficial requirement that H1-B works be paid according to the "Prevailing Wage." The problem is that the prevailing wage is determined based on job title not actual duties performed. So what is common, very common, is that H1-B workers are hired with a lesser title than there American counter parts. So even though they maybe be doing Senior work they get hired with a Junior or mid title, therefor making them cheaper than there US counter part.
It may not say it specifically in the constitution but it is pretty clear that the only people with rights are those that have to power to influence the rules. This means you either have capital, or the right to vote. It is illegal in most states to employ persons of less than 16 years of age, and it is still legal in the United States to deny the right to vote any person under the age of 18 (note that the constitution does not say that people under 18 can not vote, only that their right to vote is not explicitly protected as it is for all people over 18 years of age).
So again, the constitution does not explicitly state that those under 18 have no rights, but certainly does nothing to protect their rights. And to draw that the entire constitution applies to minors as well as adults because the Supreme court up help one amendment is pretty short sighted.
You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.
The problem with this is that the protection of one "right" is by definition the oppression of another. My right to live is a violation of your right to kill me.
Because of this, for there to be anything but chaos (not anarchy), there needs to be another measure used to determine what is allowed or not allowed in a given system. Politically this tends to be either moral, or economic. I tend toward believing a governments responsibility is one of economics and not morals, but I certainly do not consider myself to be in the majority.
The problem with this assumption simply is that 8-16 cell processors by the time this is viable will be easier to handle and cheaper than a 16 core prozessor, I rather doubt it.
Not sure if you realize this but 16 fully functional Cell processors contains 144 cores (1 in the PPE and 1 in each of 8 SPEs), not 16. The cell already contains more cores than any currently commercially available processor. Intel's top offering right now is the i7 965 ( a 4 core processor that cost over $1k), which is capable of 51.2 GFlops (single precision). The low end Cell used in the PS3 (available to consumers for $400 with a game console included) has already shown to exceed 100GFlops (double precision) while the latest Cell exceeds 400Glops in a dual processor configuration. So as of right now the cost per Gflop of the cell is about 1/5 that of Intel's best offering.
All I am saying is that what will happen in the future is anyone's guess, but Sony, IBM and Toshiba are certainly doing what they can to put the cell up on top.
Also, to think that effectively utilizing a 16 core processor is some how going to be "easier" than utilizing the cell processor (designed for parallelism from the ground up) only shows a lack of understanding programing paradigm.
There are a number of errors in the comment above and a number of oversights.
First it is true that the Graphics processing of the PS3 was originally intended to be handled by a Cell processor, but this is not the same as saying the Cell processor was built to be a graphics processor. The original specs for the PS3 included 4 fully functional cell processors. This would have meant that there would be no need for dedicated GPU. Time and cost made this configuration prohibited.
The reason the PS3 does not have dedicated memory is because it is a very different design. First the PS3 contains a very high speed data bus, which allows the system to keep it's lower amount of memory full of the data it needs at any given time, with no need to store data not actively in use. Secondly the GPU in the PS3 has direct access to almost all of the memory in the system (480MB to be exact). It's just not the same picture that some people would like to paint. Dedicated memory has it's advantages (which is why all high end PC GPUs have such).
Now the reason that Sony, Toshiba and IBM design the Cell and crammed it into a PS3, prematurely, is ingenious, but we wont see this for a number of years. The Cell processor is designed from the ground up to work effective as a single node of a multi processor system. This means that you can include more than one, utilize the same code, and get a much faster program rate. What this means is that for computing today you can use a single Cell processor and have a fast machine. In the future you can have a machine with 4, 8, 16, or more cell processors and have an unbelievable fast machine. On top of that speed you also get a very energy efficient machine. Take a look at the top 500 supercomputer list to see what a difference the cell processor makes. Putting in the PS3 on the other hand was a good move because it meant mass production and greatly reducing costs so that they can finally build the system they want in the next console generation.
Ok I'm to tired to finish this, but as you can see if you look, the cell is an interesting chip with great potential, and has already surpassed other chips a number of applications.
I can. I can sell my car after I tire of it (say 30000 miles). I can sell my TV (and have on ebay) or my stereo (ditto) or my old VCR
Please reread what I said and they try to respond appropriately. I stated clearly, and this time I will add some emphasis:
Imagine if you could sell any other product after you have gotten the maximum usage out of it.
Media is the only product that can get complete usage by more than one owner. Cars, TVs, Stereos, VCRs, etc., all have a limited lifespan, most media does not.
I want ownership so I can keep it until I die, or until I sell it to someone else.
And that's a great thing to want, but the media providers don't want you to have that, and since they control the production they will be choosing how their products are made available. Purchased media may soon be a thing of the past, and it's really the only solution to lost profit from copies and used sales.
Unfortunately I cannot sell Licenses on the used market.
That depends entirely on the license. If it is no transferable then you are correct, much like a plane ticket or some concert tickets or any other non-transferable agreement.
I can collect them, play them, and sell them at almost the same price I originally paid.
And you probably wonder why this form of media distribution is bound to go away. Imagine if you could sell any other product after you have gotten the maximum usage out of it.
With a cartridge, CD, or DVD there's no license to be revoked.
This is after all why the industry is taking this route. The developers put a lot of resources into the product, they don't want to be selling it to an infinite number of users for the price of one sale. They could always take the other approach and just sell them for 100 times what they do no.
Read you licensing agreement before downloading any software. What you are purchasing, and therefor own, is a non-transferable license to use the product, not the actual product. So you are still making a purchase, rather than a rental, it's just not a purchase of any software (this may actually even be true of all software, but that has not been definitively decided by the courts yet).
Or you could make things easy on yourself and use Agile.
I think you misunderstood the question. The Question was "How Do I Manage Seasoned Programmers?" not "How do I keep client's confused by prototypes long enough to drain all the companies capital without actually producing a usable product?"
Slashdot Mirror
It is socialism that has failed us.
Kind of like how Capitalism failed the Soviet Union and is Failing in China.
And since you were obviously not aware, there would be no regulation of banking in a socialist society, as there would be no banking. Sadly the socio-capitalists of the world (China, USSR, et.a l.) ruined the world view by claiming to socialist.
Some country actually tried laissez-faire capitalism once?
Why not, since it's the same argument used to refute Socialism.
it's simply the rejection of government control over markets. Laws against fraud, theft, and murder would still apply.
I'm confused. On one hand you say the government would not control the market and then immediately turn around and list limitations on the market. If I can't defraud someone to get there money (which is basically what all advertisement is) then that is a control on the market. If I can't hire someone to murder someone, then that is a control on the market, if I can't acquire items at a price I see fit, also known as theft if it's a lesser price than the sellers would like, then there is control on the market.
This has always confused me about objectivists, Neo-libertarians and others supporting laissez-faire anything, they just don't get that control in any fashion what so ever has a potential impact on the effects of the markets. It always seems to come down to the same thing, "People have the right to do what ever they want unless I disagree with it", and that my friends is certainly not freedom.
...back-end Web Developers...
Oxymoron.
One can't be a back-end Web Developer. You are either a back-end developer or a web developer. Though I think what you are actually trying to get at is a middle-ware developer, and yes the world is very short of good ones. The again when was the last time a company actually wanted a good programmer (by what ever name or title)?
And for the latest-and-greatest software tech...
Yes, the world is short on D programmers, but then again so is demand.
Is it a rapid increase in the actual condition in industrialized nations, or a rapid increase in the ability to identify the condition?
It's at least partially due to the rapid change in the definition of the condition., and the growth in cultural desire to label all personality traits as a condition.
There would be no point, the current so called democracy doesn't really allow any kind of detailed control - there is too munch money in not changing it, so it won't.
That's a good way to make sure you never have to feel responsible for anything. Just keep telling yourself that there is nothing you can do. Lucky for you those of us that actually understand the system are doing out best to make sure checks and balance are kept.
The only reason the country is in the shape it is in is because the citizens chose for it to be that way, either by direct act or complacency.
That's like saying people who are against capital punishment doesn't go around killing people.
You analogy makes no sense what so ever.
You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to?
I never once even implied that all other countries would stop doing business with China. I very specifically stated "US, and other countries that support IP." All I was pointing out is that the Chinese economy relies very heavily on these countries, (US, Canada, much of Europe) and not only for export but for having products to produce and export.
I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements.
How much more voluntary can things be beyond saying "I will trade with you, but these are the conditions I will trade under." Would you rather a person be forced to trade with others even if the conditions are highly unfavorable to them? If you were saying that the western countries are saying "agree to our contract or we will destroy your country" then you might have a valid argument, but that is not the case you are trying to portray.
A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.
I suggest those people get out and vote for representatives that support their point of view. My guess is that those "lot" of people are not a majority and most likely not those people that actually spent the time and effort to produce works that happen to be easily copyable.
The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.
I agree the US is "one of the worst", just like all other countries that have any amount of power and are capable or breaking agreements. But that does not change the fact that in this case this is just an international organization determining if two international agreements are being honored correctly.
But you would have known this if you knew the meaning of the word "sometimes."
As far as NEEDING the US...China doesn't NEED to export to the US.
You are correct that there are plenty of countries willing to buy Chinese made products. Chinese made American products that is. China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.
And before you think you know jack about world economy and politics just try and comprehend why China agreed to Bern and TRIPS in the first place. It's certainly not because they could stand on there own.
why bother about their laws being implemented outside US borders?
This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS. These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily.
The decision basically states that china is not fully compliant with the Bern Convention, but they are within the letter of the TRIPS agreement.
Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.
Bravo
This is already a requirement...As an employer, I love this requirement. Anytime an American asks for a raise, I tell them I would then need to raise the pay of all my H1-B employees to stay within the law.
Way to try an pull to wool over the eyes of the American public.
What you are required to pay is a Prevailing wage, which in it self is less than the actual going rate, though it claims to be otherwise. Second the prevailing wage is based on title, and you know as well as anyone else that job duty has nothing at all to do with title. So if you really wanted to you could increase the title of your American workers so that they would not be in the same prevailing wage category as there H1-B coworkers. I believe this is a crooked thing to do, but it happens a lot, and usually the other way around, where an H1-B is hired with a lessor title than their responsibilities would dictate.
Ultimately, until the office of immigration actually starts checking of peoples job duties, there is no way to guarantee that an H1-B is paid on the same level as it would take to hire an American.
And this is not to mention that you are supposed to only be hiring H1-Bs if you can't find an American that is capable and willing to do the job, not if they are capable and willing to do it for what you are willing to pay.
It's an easy thing to fix - require that H1B visa holders receive the same pay and benefits for their work as the rest of the workforce.
There is a superficial requirement that H1-B works be paid according to the "Prevailing Wage." The problem is that the prevailing wage is determined based on job title not actual duties performed. So what is common, very common, is that H1-B workers are hired with a lesser title than there American counter parts. So even though they maybe be doing Senior work they get hired with a Junior or mid title, therefor making them cheaper than there US counter part.
It may not say it specifically in the constitution but it is pretty clear that the only people with rights are those that have to power to influence the rules. This means you either have capital, or the right to vote. It is illegal in most states to employ persons of less than 16 years of age, and it is still legal in the United States to deny the right to vote any person under the age of 18 (note that the constitution does not say that people under 18 can not vote, only that their right to vote is not explicitly protected as it is for all people over 18 years of age).
So again, the constitution does not explicitly state that those under 18 have no rights, but certainly does nothing to protect their rights. And to draw that the entire constitution applies to minors as well as adults because the Supreme court up help one amendment is pretty short sighted.
You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.
The problem with this is that the protection of one "right" is by definition the oppression of another. My right to live is a violation of your right to kill me.
Because of this, for there to be anything but chaos (not anarchy), there needs to be another measure used to determine what is allowed or not allowed in a given system. Politically this tends to be either moral, or economic. I tend toward believing a governments responsibility is one of economics and not morals, but I certainly do not consider myself to be in the majority.
The problem with this assumption simply is that 8-16 cell processors by the time this is viable will be easier to handle and cheaper than a 16 core prozessor, I rather doubt it.
Not sure if you realize this but 16 fully functional Cell processors contains 144 cores (1 in the PPE and 1 in each of 8 SPEs), not 16. The cell already contains more cores than any currently commercially available processor. Intel's top offering right now is the i7 965 ( a 4 core processor that cost over $1k), which is capable of 51.2 GFlops (single precision). The low end Cell used in the PS3 (available to consumers for $400 with a game console included) has already shown to exceed 100GFlops (double precision) while the latest Cell exceeds 400Glops in a dual processor configuration. So as of right now the cost per Gflop of the cell is about 1/5 that of Intel's best offering.
All I am saying is that what will happen in the future is anyone's guess, but Sony, IBM and Toshiba are certainly doing what they can to put the cell up on top.
Also, to think that effectively utilizing a 16 core processor is some how going to be "easier" than utilizing the cell processor (designed for parallelism from the ground up) only shows a lack of understanding programing paradigm.
There are a number of errors in the comment above and a number of oversights.
First it is true that the Graphics processing of the PS3 was originally intended to be handled by a Cell processor, but this is not the same as saying the Cell processor was built to be a graphics processor. The original specs for the PS3 included 4 fully functional cell processors. This would have meant that there would be no need for dedicated GPU. Time and cost made this configuration prohibited.
The reason the PS3 does not have dedicated memory is because it is a very different design. First the PS3 contains a very high speed data bus, which allows the system to keep it's lower amount of memory full of the data it needs at any given time, with no need to store data not actively in use. Secondly the GPU in the PS3 has direct access to almost all of the memory in the system (480MB to be exact). It's just not the same picture that some people would like to paint. Dedicated memory has it's advantages (which is why all high end PC GPUs have such).
Now the reason that Sony, Toshiba and IBM design the Cell and crammed it into a PS3, prematurely, is ingenious, but we wont see this for a number of years. The Cell processor is designed from the ground up to work effective as a single node of a multi processor system. This means that you can include more than one, utilize the same code, and get a much faster program rate. What this means is that for computing today you can use a single Cell processor and have a fast machine. In the future you can have a machine with 4, 8, 16, or more cell processors and have an unbelievable fast machine. On top of that speed you also get a very energy efficient machine. Take a look at the top 500 supercomputer list to see what a difference the cell processor makes. Putting in the PS3 on the other hand was a good move because it meant mass production and greatly reducing costs so that they can finally build the system they want in the next console generation.
Ok I'm to tired to finish this, but as you can see if you look, the cell is an interesting chip with great potential, and has already surpassed other chips a number of applications.
I can. I can sell my car after I tire of it (say 30000 miles). I can sell my TV (and have on ebay) or my stereo (ditto) or my old VCR
Please reread what I said and they try to respond appropriately. I stated clearly, and this time I will add some emphasis:
Imagine if you could sell any other product after you have gotten the maximum usage out of it.
Media is the only product that can get complete usage by more than one owner. Cars, TVs, Stereos, VCRs, etc., all have a limited lifespan, most media does not.
I want ownership so I can keep it until I die, or until I sell it to someone else.
And that's a great thing to want, but the media providers don't want you to have that, and since they control the production they will be choosing how their products are made available. Purchased media may soon be a thing of the past, and it's really the only solution to lost profit from copies and used sales.
Unfortunately I cannot sell Licenses on the used market.
That depends entirely on the license. If it is no transferable then you are correct, much like a plane ticket or some concert tickets or any other non-transferable agreement.
I can collect them, play them, and sell them at almost the same price I originally paid.
And you probably wonder why this form of media distribution is bound to go away. Imagine if you could sell any other product after you have gotten the maximum usage out of it.
With a cartridge, CD, or DVD there's no license to be revoked.
This is after all why the industry is taking this route. The developers put a lot of resources into the product, they don't want to be selling it to an infinite number of users for the price of one sale. They could always take the other approach and just sell them for 100 times what they do no.
Read you licensing agreement before downloading any software. What you are purchasing, and therefor own, is a non-transferable license to use the product, not the actual product. So you are still making a purchase, rather than a rental, it's just not a purchase of any software (this may actually even be true of all software, but that has not been definitively decided by the courts yet).
Just wanted to add that you should also read Chief programmer team management of production programming by F. T. Baker. This is the study that eventually lead to Brook's Surgical Teams in Mythical Man Month.
As a programmer I have felt the most empowered, gotten the most enjoyment, and positive feedback, by working in an Agile scrum team.
Please take note that the above comment does says absolutely nothing about productivity.
Or you could make things easy on yourself and use Agile.
I think you misunderstood the question. The Question was "How Do I Manage Seasoned Programmers?" not "How do I keep client's confused by prototypes long enough to drain all the companies capital without actually producing a usable product?"