If someone on my team acted like this, I would most likely have to fire them. I wouldn't even care about the code. They could keep it. The entire psyche of "not my job description" just irks me. A salesman, not an employee.
Isn't that exactly what the job market is all about? Selling yourself to HR departments and managers?
It may be frustrating to deal with an employee who doesn't do something and gives such lame reason as "not in my job description", but you should look at it from the employee's side of things, too. Employment is an agreement between you and the employee. They agree to perform certain tasks for a set pay. The amount he agreed to work for is based on what he was under the impression you wanted him to do. As the original poster said, he's met those obligations already and has earned his keep. If the employee doesn't stand up for himself and what he agreed to, quite often they will find themselves having to do more or different tasks, and not receiving any additional compensation. You can say the employee is being a stick in the mud, but what's really happening here is the employer is not honoring the original agreement they made in such a situation.
If the employer wants additional work, they should have specified it in the job description when they were hiring the employee, and be prepared to pay the additional salary for the additional work. Unless there's a clause in this job description that the employee signs into servitude and do whatever new tasks the boss dreams up for free, they're being taken advantage of otherwise.
But this cuts both ways. In this example, the employee did the work himself on his own time and now from the tone of his post expects someone to compensate him for that work. That's stupid. He should sold he product to his employer before he started writing it unless he really was just having fun to start out with (in which case he needs to remember that and prepare himself to not get squat). Also, the software seems to be something made to make his department's life easier, and is something his employer is not really interested in to begin with. Maybe the employee should consider the lessening of his department's workload the compensation in itself, and grant the employer only a license to use it -- with support terms/limitations spelled out, and let them decide if they want it then. The ball is in his employer's court in this case, but he shouldn't hold any expectations one way or the other. As he said, this programming was not part of his job, so his employer never agreed to give him one red cent for it. But unless they have some clause in his agreement granting them ownership of it already, he doesn't have to give it to them for free.
They would need to. Warner Bros can't afford a real Louis Vui--- oh wait I forgot who we're talking about. And it's not like they could have just sold the bag afterwards as a collectable prop for more than its original purchased value.
Well now, this is a significantly cheaper way to get more spectrum than buying out T-Mobile. That is the reason why you said you needed to be allowed to buy them, right AT&T? Didn't you say that was the only way to deal with your lack of frequencies for all your customers? There was no other way?
Good thing you had this second chance to approach the problem the find another solution. I'm sure you're happy with all the money you saved doing it this way, too.
You shouldn't trust they are who they say they are if they call you anyway. Lots of people throw out old bank statements without shredding them, and even if they did with their bank statements collecting enough random receipts all paid with the same debit card would give you enough transactions for a time period to make you sounds official. You should request to call the bank back about the matter and then dial them yourself -- from a known general customer service number for the institution, not a direct number the caller might give you.
viaForensics suggest that the data stored in plain text might be sufficient to allow social engineering to obtain a credit card number.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't social engineering the art of tricking people into giving information or access they wouldn't normally? If the security is breached through human gullibility I don't see what method of storing the data is going to protect against that, unless it's storing it where nobody but PCs have access to it and no humans have access to said PC's.
I can socially engineer the card holder to give me their card info and you can't encrypt against that.
What normal kid would do that and shoot it at another person? You can kill someone with all sorts of household items when they're used maliciously. The solution is to hold individuals to a standard of behavior.
Or do you suggest we tell kids they can't play baseball anymore because it's possible to use a bat as a weapon? Maybe we shouldn't allow them to butter their own bread, either.
But do we know if there's any real auditing of records here to see if these operators were "aggressive" enough with their maintenance? I predict some kickbacks and a bunch of rubber-stamping.
Actual use reveals the true life span. Aggressive maintenance can stretch life span even further.
I don't expect commercial power companies to do anything "aggressively" except try and make money while spending as little as possible on the actual running of their business.
Or, you know, you could talk about software as it currently exists. You don't have to manually edit conf files and install things on the command line with modern distributions these days.
I beg to differ. I tried Ubuntu in the 8 and 9 series releases, which wasn't that long ago, and still found myself editing config files just to get sound working in mainstream video players installed through the software repositories.
as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?
i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit. i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life
Have you considered expressing your opinion by not buying them any longer?
The History Channel should do a special about the type of programming they used to play. It would be more on-topic than most of their programming now and slightly dada at the same time.
That's assuming the recipient actually gets the mangled letter afterwards. Mail still gets lost in today's day and age, and without a tampered envelope, a charge of mail tampering is nothing more than a crackpot's rantings.
Actually I DO encode my own files and I'm afraid it is YOU sir whose ignorance is showing because only a handful of players will play MKV and NONE of them, not a single one, supports the entire spec for less than $200.
Support for MKV in the PMP space is poor because MKV support in the stand alone player space was poor to start with. It isn't a commercially developed container format so I think manufactures treat it like a moving target. You might also consider AVI has been around for, what, an entire decade longer? That might influence support for it.
I can get a better picture with better file size with Xvid
H264 gives better picture quality than Xvid. That's not something you can really dispute, as the statement is based in mathematics (not to mention most encoders abandoning Xvid for that very reason, despite the lower system requirements for Xvid playback).
the ONLY gain I have seen for MKV is the ability to have multiple subs, but since i don't watch fansubs I really don't care.
Chaptering support is a frequent reason MKV is chosen, and I don't believe multiple audio tracks are supported in MP4, either.
Sure if you want to buy a $200 unit that is basically an ARM PC in a case it'll play, but at that point why not just get an HTPC?
Because a $200+ PMP fits in one's pocket significantly better than an HTPC?:-P
Hell its less than $50 more and supports more formats. until you can show me where you can get new units for less than $80 a pop that completely support the MKV spec I'm gonna have to say MKV doesn't cut it.
You're measuring technical superiority of the container format based on a metric that has nothing to do with the containers themselves. It's not Matroska's job to get $randomcheapmediaplayermaker interested in supporting their container format, that's the job of the market. It's users going "I want a player that supports High Profile h264 in MKV" that gets them to look for those components needed, and it's their complaining over the last five years that has gotten MKV to the point where its supported even at the level it is. We're gonna have to start bitching all over again now to get Hi10P support in a stand-alone, too.
I can buy sub $80 units all day long that support MP4 and AVI up to 1080p with ZERO skipping or dropped frames, again the only ones I've seen supporting MKV for less than $150 support baseline ONLY.
Only an idiot encodes 1080p into an AVI container, and that "overhead" you speak of is the reason why. Why would you put 1080p files on a PMP to begin with? None are going to allow you to see 1080p resolution (especially not a "sub $200" player). Might as well transcode to a lower resolution and save a few hundred megabytes of memory space for other files.
Slashdot Mirror
It's their nationalism streak.
They must have felt the U.S. was making a parody of their government policy.
If the government is publishing the list of supporters, shouldn't they publish the list of people who have objected?
perhaps nobody has objected?
Uh, they did:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
See "Interests that oppose this bill" and below.
Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".
If someone on my team acted like this, I would most likely have to fire them. I wouldn't even care about the code. They could keep it. The entire psyche of "not my job description" just irks me. A salesman, not an employee.
Isn't that exactly what the job market is all about? Selling yourself to HR departments and managers?
It may be frustrating to deal with an employee who doesn't do something and gives such lame reason as "not in my job description", but you should look at it from the employee's side of things, too. Employment is an agreement between you and the employee. They agree to perform certain tasks for a set pay. The amount he agreed to work for is based on what he was under the impression you wanted him to do. As the original poster said, he's met those obligations already and has earned his keep. If the employee doesn't stand up for himself and what he agreed to, quite often they will find themselves having to do more or different tasks, and not receiving any additional compensation. You can say the employee is being a stick in the mud, but what's really happening here is the employer is not honoring the original agreement they made in such a situation.
If the employer wants additional work, they should have specified it in the job description when they were hiring the employee, and be prepared to pay the additional salary for the additional work. Unless there's a clause in this job description that the employee signs into servitude and do whatever new tasks the boss dreams up for free, they're being taken advantage of otherwise.
But this cuts both ways. In this example, the employee did the work himself on his own time and now from the tone of his post expects someone to compensate him for that work. That's stupid. He should sold he product to his employer before he started writing it unless he really was just having fun to start out with (in which case he needs to remember that and prepare himself to not get squat). Also, the software seems to be something made to make his department's life easier, and is something his employer is not really interested in to begin with. Maybe the employee should consider the lessening of his department's workload the compensation in itself, and grant the employer only a license to use it -- with support terms/limitations spelled out, and let them decide if they want it then. The ball is in his employer's court in this case, but he shouldn't hold any expectations one way or the other. As he said, this programming was not part of his job, so his employer never agreed to give him one red cent for it. But unless they have some clause in his agreement granting them ownership of it already, he doesn't have to give it to them for free.
Of course not. Too pointy. You'll poke your eyes out.
They would need to. Warner Bros can't afford a real Louis Vui--- oh wait I forgot who we're talking about.
And it's not like they could have just sold the bag afterwards as a collectable prop for more than its original purchased value.
Well now, this is a significantly cheaper way to get more spectrum than buying out T-Mobile. That is the reason why you said you needed to be allowed to buy them, right AT&T? Didn't you say that was the only way to deal with your lack of frequencies for all your customers? There was no other way?
Good thing you had this second chance to approach the problem the find another solution. I'm sure you're happy with all the money you saved doing it this way, too.
Moderate: +1, Creepy.
After all, there's no way a terrorist organization could have their own scientists doing research for them into these things.
Who?
The synthetic singer. A holographic pop idol from Japan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTXO7KGHtjI
You shouldn't trust they are who they say they are if they call you anyway. Lots of people throw out old bank statements without shredding them, and even if they did with their bank statements collecting enough random receipts all paid with the same debit card would give you enough transactions for a time period to make you sounds official. You should request to call the bank back about the matter and then dial them yourself -- from a known general customer service number for the institution, not a direct number the caller might give you.
viaForensics suggest that the data stored in plain text might be sufficient to allow social engineering to obtain a credit card number.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't social engineering the art of tricking people into giving information or access they wouldn't normally? If the security is breached through human gullibility I don't see what method of storing the data is going to protect against that, unless it's storing it where nobody but PCs have access to it and no humans have access to said PC's.
I can socially engineer the card holder to give me their card info and you can't encrypt against that.
What normal kid would do that and shoot it at another person? You can kill someone with all sorts of household items when they're used maliciously. The solution is to hold individuals to a standard of behavior.
Or do you suggest we tell kids they can't play baseball anymore because it's possible to use a bat as a weapon? Maybe we shouldn't allow them to butter their own bread, either.
But do we know if there's any real auditing of records here to see if these operators were "aggressive" enough with their maintenance? I predict some kickbacks and a bunch of rubber-stamping.
Too many people in positions of power talk on their cell phones while driving, and like it that way.
Design life span is a best guess.
Actual use reveals the true life span. Aggressive maintenance can stretch life span even further.
I don't expect commercial power companies to do anything "aggressively" except try and make money while spending as little as possible on the actual running of their business.
So first we called them stupid, and now they are grossly overconfident according to another study.
Don't worry. Most will have to ask someone what "grossly overconfident" means so few will feel the sting.
Or, you know, you could talk about software as it currently exists. You don't have to manually edit conf files and install things on the command line with modern distributions these days.
I beg to differ. I tried Ubuntu in the 8 and 9 series releases, which wasn't that long ago, and still found myself editing config files just to get sound working in mainstream video players installed through the software repositories.
In Soviet Russia, our cyberwarfare mean it stux to be YOU!
as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?
i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.
i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life
Have you considered expressing your opinion by not buying them any longer?
Remember when History had history programming?
The History Channel should do a special about the type of programming they used to play. It would be more on-topic than most of their programming now and slightly dada at the same time.
/me throws tomatoes
That's assuming the recipient actually gets the mangled letter afterwards. Mail still gets lost in today's day and age, and without a tampered envelope, a charge of mail tampering is nothing more than a crackpot's rantings.
I notice the contacts are in Austria, not Australia.
Actually I DO encode my own files and I'm afraid it is YOU sir whose ignorance is showing because only a handful of players will play MKV and NONE of them, not a single one, supports the entire spec for less than $200.
Support for MKV in the PMP space is poor because MKV support in the stand alone player space was poor to start with. It isn't a commercially developed container format so I think manufactures treat it like a moving target. You might also consider AVI has been around for, what, an entire decade longer? That might influence support for it.
I can get a better picture with better file size with Xvid
H264 gives better picture quality than Xvid. That's not something you can really dispute, as the statement is based in mathematics (not to mention most encoders abandoning Xvid for that very reason, despite the lower system requirements for Xvid playback).
the ONLY gain I have seen for MKV is the ability to have multiple subs, but since i don't watch fansubs I really don't care.
Chaptering support is a frequent reason MKV is chosen, and I don't believe multiple audio tracks are supported in MP4, either.
Sure if you want to buy a $200 unit that is basically an ARM PC in a case it'll play, but at that point why not just get an HTPC?
Because a $200+ PMP fits in one's pocket significantly better than an HTPC? :-P
Hell its less than $50 more and supports more formats. until you can show me where you can get new units for less than $80 a pop that completely support the MKV spec I'm gonna have to say MKV doesn't cut it.
You're measuring technical superiority of the container format based on a metric that has nothing to do with the containers themselves. It's not Matroska's job to get $randomcheapmediaplayermaker interested in supporting their container format, that's the job of the market. It's users going "I want a player that supports High Profile h264 in MKV" that gets them to look for those components needed, and it's their complaining over the last five years that has gotten MKV to the point where its supported even at the level it is. We're gonna have to start bitching all over again now to get Hi10P support in a stand-alone, too.
I can buy sub $80 units all day long that support MP4 and AVI up to 1080p with ZERO skipping or dropped frames, again the only ones I've seen supporting MKV for less than $150 support baseline ONLY.
Only an idiot encodes 1080p into an AVI container, and that "overhead" you speak of is the reason why. Why would you put 1080p files on a PMP to begin with? None are going to allow you to see 1080p resolution (especially not a "sub $200" player). Might as well transcode to a lower resolution and save a few hundred megabytes of memory space for other files.