Get real. Companies and governments want these, and will ban or undercut anything else.
The problem is that Companies and even Governments (China, India, other Asia, Europe) are competing for markets and customers here, too. They don't work as a monolith.
Just look at the latest Apple TV ad "Rip. Mix. Burn.". The only hardware manufacturer I know of that has a stake in CPRM is Sony and they have a tiny market segment. Hmmm.... maybe that's why MS is doing the Xbox, actually, they would have a big interest in CPRM, too. Tricky business there, they'll have to go head-to-head with all of their customers (Dell, IBM, Compaq, Gateway), eventually.
The hardware manufacturers will do anything to undercut each other, and if that means selling Open computers, then that's what they'll do. There will continue to be a market for general purpose machines with consumers AND businesses.
Competing interests is what markets are all about. Will business stand for lock-in hardware/software solutions (read MS), when they'll be able to deploy Web servers based on Linux/*BSD far more cheaply and effectively. No fscking way.
I do agree that we need to be watchful, if the Governments got together and put together treaties that required this sort of thing then it could be bad. Fortuntely, I think there are a lot of competing interests involved that will make it difficult to build the kind of concensus necessary to put down all general purpose computers.
What business person in their right minds would open source a PROFITABLE product? That makes no sense.
Gee, I dunno, maybe some business person who makes a great deal of money selling books into the open source community?
They are going to abandon the product anyway, so it's not like they are giving up future potential earnings.
If they determine they can make more in good will with their Open Source Community customer base than they could by selling the product to a software concern, then it would certainly make sense to open source it. Seeing as the most likely buyer for such a product would the competition in order to kill it off, which could well risk significant bad feelings with the Open Source community, open sourcing it looks more attractive all the time.
You should see this as a tremendous opportunity for a win-win WITH your employer. Both your employer and the client will probably be thrilled to have something so far along. Marketing software is a lot more than just writing something at night, you know. Having this initial customer ready for your product just as it's ready to field is a big win for you, and your employer found this customer for you. Also, your employer probably has a lot of resources that will go a long way toward making your product a success.
Trying to keep it all for yourself is just greed. If you hate your employer so much that you just can't stand to share in the benefits of this work, then why are you working there at all?
Large relative position uncertainty like you described only applies at the sub-atomic level. An entire atom has a predictable position in space and time.
IANAP (physicist), but I believe that there is some (albeit small) uncertainty with atom positions. I believe that tunneling of hydrogen atoms is how fracto-fusion works. Now, it may well be that it's greatly more probable with a hydrogen atom than a helium atom (and from what I understand, it's not too common with hydrogen atoms), but it does occur.
Don't worry, your dinner table will never re-materialize a meter from where you were about to set your macaroni.
Never is too strong. There is a finite probability that it could. It might be so unlikely that it would occur, on average, once in 5 billion ages of the Universe, but it could happen.
First, I have to say that it seems rather unethical to have done this. Your employer didn't understand the GPL but you snuck it by anyway? Explaining it would have been the right thing to do, rather than giving free software a bad rap by having them discover the terms after the fact. If you were employed by them, you may even have had a legal obligation to make a good-faith effort before taking the code for yourself.
How do you know that the person writing this question didn't make a good-faith effort? All he said was that they didn't understand.
IANAL, but I would think that all that would be required for a good-faith effort is drawing their attention to the fact that it is being licensed under GPL and pointing them to a copy of the GPL for review.
I also question if you legally own it.
I agree with this. The software and all IP arising out of it is almost certainly subject to the contract that your firm has with the DoD. It may be something of a grey area, because the US Government is not allowed to hold copyrights, if I'm not mistaken, but the contract may require that the copyright be held by an entity that licenses the software to the US Government for the use they require.
This being the case, you probably will not be allowed to retain copyright and license it under the GPL if this conflicts with the purposes under which the Government wants to use it.
It's still available and it seems like a really good idea, although I have to admit that I haven't worked with it either.
One BIG problem I've seen in a lot of applications I've been involved with is that you always develop some dependence on files that aren't part of the database. Imported files, configuration files, HTML, XML, etc. etc. You can throw them into the database as BLOBs, but then you have to write queries and update procedures just to do something where fopen() would really do it for you.
If you store those files in the database, then voila, all your application backup worries are handled as part of the database backup. You've automatically got journalling, too. It's seems like a really nice and clean solution.
I remember lots of sites dropping binaries back in the late 80s (yes, I said 80s) because of all the MS-DOS executables and pictures being posted.
There was a time when a LOT of MS-DOS executables were posted. That died down. Archives like SimTel just posted summaries of new stuff and people found that they could use ftp instead. If you only had Usenet and Mail access, there sprung up the FTP Mailer services that would mail you something from an FTP archive.
I also agree that there's still a lot of high quality discussion on Usenet. Some of the comp.lang groups are excellent (.moderated for c and perl, thank you). The comp.sys and comp.os groups can have some good topical news and help.
Hey, if you're looking for some good free content sometime, cruise over to DejaNews and search for dmr@bell-labs.com, bs@research.att.com or mash@mash.engr.sgi.com. This is just name-dropping on my part as there are other non-famous posters to Usenet that have a interesting things to say. If you've been avoiding Usenet, surf DejaNews on some topic that interests you. I think you'll be surprised at what you might learn.
Hewlett-Packard: responsible for confusing generations of calculator users.
This is kinda tasteless, don't you think? A pioneer just died and all you can think to say is that the calculators his company made confused people who couldn't handle RPN?
great idea. let's make the teachers do even more work.
Yes, it is a great idea, but I guess you just don't have the imagination to see it.
First, nobody was talking about making anybody do anything. I feel certain that there are a lot of teachers who are passionate about their subjects and would love to contribute to such a product.
Second, if the Schools could get away with paying less for text books, they'd have more money for, yes you guessed it, more teachers or higher teacher salaries.
less money than they could make working at mcdonalds.
While you might be able to find some odd case where a professional teacher makes less than someone in management at a McDonald's, by and large, the average teacher earns a great deal more than the average burger flipper. Heck, I'd take the low-end teaching job over the McDonald's managers job, which might, possibly be comparable in salary, any day of the week. Fast food restaurants work exempt employees long hours. The work is no fun and you have to ride heard on a bunch of inattentive, disobedient, ritalin-addled teenagers for 16 hours a day.
Twenty years ago, my University used 2 CDC supercomputers to support most all of the research needs of Thirty Thousand students and Thousands of academics.
This included doing literally tens of thousands of pages a day markup-style word processing for which the supercomputers weren't particularly well suited.
Today, I carry at least 30 x the CPU processing power of those supercomputers. Along with more disk space and a network interface (100 Mhz Ethernet) that was probably more than the aggregate networking performed at that University.
Am I even doing 1/1000th of the useful work with all this power? Sure, that computing power was so precious that the staff at the University worked hard to keep it at full utilization at all times while my laptop sits idle most of the day, but that's kind of the point.
Sure, distributed.net and the like try to use all this unused potential, but we're still nowhere near as effective with our resources as we once were.
I realize that there are excuses. When resources are so plentiful, we tend to get wasteful, but shouldn't we be more mindful of using our resources more effectively? It's not just my laptop. But even the servers of 10 years ago to shame, especially in price/performance, but are we really doing that much more with them? Or have we built up layer upon layer of abstraction, middleware, DB Servers, etc. to more than exhaust the advantages. I know that the users (remember them anybody?) are not really much more effective with today's applications than with the character mode applications of ten years ago. In most cases, those character-based applications were more responsive than the applications we're rolling out today.
Sometimes, I think we've long since passed the point of diminishing returns with computing technology. We're applying more and more power to get far fewer incremental improvements.
One of the more popular FUDs against OSS is that it's not secure because crackers can find all the holes and exploit them.
With Open Source, at least those who are seriously concerned about the security of the systems they run can do a thorough and targetted audit of the code to satisfy (to some reasonable degree of satisfaction) themselves that their systems are secure.
With Closed Source, you have to trust the vendor, the disgruntled former employees of the vendor and any cracker who might gain access to the source that there are no exploitable security flaws.
Where Pliant syntax is discussed, it is said that it is original because "The Pliant parser is original in that it doesn't rely on an automaton derived from a grammar. It is simpler, but more customizable and therefore much more powerful. "
I'd like to point out that the parsing extensibility of Pliant can be found in the Forth language and I believe that Rebol may also have some of these advantages. The language Lua also comes to mind as a language with syntactic extensibility.
The authors were already paid for their book and someone decided to sell it.
If the authors were being at all consistent, they'd be lobbying Congress to make used book sales illegal, not pressuring the poor book seller into not entering into an already existent market. Is that what you are advocating? That used book sales should be illegal?
Let's put it this way, is it fair to Amazon that they have to compete with used book sellers if they are only allowed to sell new prints?
Splitting up MS will divorce the interest in the different markets--thus eliminating the abuse that the government has found.
I wonder. Will the MS app development company really be interested in competing in open standards-based application arenas? Or will they attempt to drive everyone else out of the MS-Windows application market? I'm sure that the MS OS company would have no interest whatsoever in supporting open standards in application interfaces, except perhaps for show.
The information monopolies and their conjoined interests require new thinking, not just the "we'll break them up and let the market take care of it..." that worked with Standard Oil over a hundred years ago.
I think new thinking should be applied to the media monopolies that are developing. For example, I think the requirement that AOL open up AIM would do a lot more to level the media playing field than to just have AOL/TW divest of a few TV stations here and there.
I'll have to think about the article's proposals before I come to a decision. Government setting standards in certain areas can be a good thing, but there are risks of course.
I agree. Avoid 'cutting edge' and go for timeless, enduring lessons instead. Most 'cutting edge' technologies end up on the cutting room floor of history.
I would recommend a grounding in Algorithms, writing some 2D graphics to illustrate and visualize the problems and solutions.
Functional programming, which has heavily influenced much of programming language design and has been around for 40 years would be good. Toward this end, I recommend the TeachScheme! materials, which are tutorial, freely available and also emphasize timeless Computer Science lessons.
Once some proficiency has been gained in programming, go for 3D POV and other graphics which can help with learning mathematics.
Of course, technologies that are hear-to-stay, like Linux, C/C++ and Java should also be included at some point.
For socialization in an environment where this person can both excel and gain access to a peer group, you could do a lot worse than competitive scholatic chess. There's almost certainly something going on in your area, but you'll do a LOT better in a major metropolitan area with finding peers. You should be able to get some pointers on this here.
If electronics is the direction, then encourage complete programmable embedded projects. Avoid dabbling, go for palpable result oriented projects that have an end. Achievements that you can both be proud of rather than a lot of dead-ends. You might want to look into the FORTH programming language for flexible programming of small embedded systems.
These would be my choices, but of course, I don't know the 9-year old. You do. However, I do want to get back to the avoiding 'cutting edge' technologies. Would you be going cutting edge for this persons development, or for your ego?
If this person is interested in a particular technology, then by all means, investigate it. You would also do well to encourage Science Fiction and readings on Relativity and Cosmology to fire the imagination.
Why do I care if the internet still works when when I try to connect to/. the packets are dropped in favor of determining how to get the packet to/.
Because, of course, if the net can't determine how to get to/. then it's pointless in trying to connect.
On the other hand, I would think that ports 22 and 23 (and perhaps a few others) should not be dropped just because there's a slew of routes coming through. While we might not be too concerned about port 80 traffic, it would be tragic if we couldn't get in to do good old fashion remote administration during the crisis.
Wrong : you'll never see a French tourist in a foreign country starting to talk to people in the street in French...
I'm an English speaking (well, sort of) American. I was travelling to Norway on business one time so I learned enough "phrase book" Norwegian to get by.
I walked up to a Airline counter in Western Norway after just flying in from Oslo. The man at the counter looked up and, before I could speak, said "Hello, can I help you?"
How did he know I spoke english? There weren't many native english speakers around at the time. Must have been some cultural cues.
Americans probably should try to learn enough of a foreign language to get by, but these days, in many countries, you just don't have to. Perhaps Americans are arrogant, but they are probably more lazy... (Maybe laziness and arrogance are the same thing? Hmmmm...)
Pay is consumerate with difficulty of position, as it should be.
What bull. If this were true, then Nurses would get paid more than Doctors, Bank Tellers more than Loan Officers, the Military would be a well paid job and Firefighters would get more than almost anyone.
You just have this problem where a bunch of petty management types aren't willing to participate in the market for people. It hurts their egos to think that a geek could make more than they do, or more than they made 10 years ago.
Now, I can easily understand where a worker is not worth more than he can bring in in revenue to the company, input from your Finance person is important, that's a reasonable way to set the upper limit on what you'll pay. But just having a bunch of HR and other management types sit around and say "that job's not so hard, it's not fair that they would get X" is just crazy.
If a job is so easy (like watching blinking lights and following a set of procedures), then it should be easy to get someone who can do it cheaply. If you can't find people to do it cheaply, then maybe you don't have an understanding of the job.
If you don't price yourself out of the market, and you know your stuff, you'll find a job very quickly.
You see, this is the attitude that I don't understand. Why is it that hiring manager's think there is some arbitrary amount of money after which they'll pay no more?
These are markets we're talking about. People price themselves exactly at the point where it's a question whether you want to pay that or not. If they are pricing themselves any lower, they are short-changing themselves.
Hire or don't hire, pay or don't pay, but don't say there's a shortage because you won't pay what people are demanding. A shortage is when you can't get something at any price. This is just a tight market where people demand more.
If you want the full experience and unmodified sound - go to the concert. Fully analog, not modified by sampling, algorithms, or anything else.
I agree that the concert hall is a richer experience, for a number of reasons, than my living room or car, but this is changing the subject. An even richer experience can be yours by performing the music, but that's not always practical either.
Does anyone know of any research that shows that sound outside of the range of human hearing adds (or subtracts) from the listening experience?
Sometimes the sounds you don't hear are as important as the ones you do; they can deeply affect your emotions or perceptions of the music to which you are listening.
I used to hear this a lot when CDs first came out. A lot of fringe types claimed that the CD sample rate was too low to produce the really high sounds so important to the complete experience.
I never did see any study that proved this one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be out of the best job in the world if this business model tanks.
---
The problem is that Companies and even Governments (China, India, other Asia, Europe) are competing for markets and customers here, too. They don't work as a monolith.
Just look at the latest Apple TV ad "Rip. Mix. Burn.". The only hardware manufacturer I know of that has a stake in CPRM is Sony and they have a tiny market segment. Hmmm.... maybe that's why MS is doing the Xbox, actually, they would have a big interest in CPRM, too. Tricky business there, they'll have to go head-to-head with all of their customers (Dell, IBM, Compaq, Gateway), eventually.
The hardware manufacturers will do anything to undercut each other, and if that means selling Open computers, then that's what they'll do. There will continue to be a market for general purpose machines with consumers AND businesses.
Competing interests is what markets are all about. Will business stand for lock-in hardware/software solutions (read MS), when they'll be able to deploy Web servers based on Linux/*BSD far more cheaply and effectively. No fscking way.
I do agree that we need to be watchful, if the Governments got together and put together treaties that required this sort of thing then it could be bad. Fortuntely, I think there are a lot of competing interests involved that will make it difficult to build the kind of concensus necessary to put down all general purpose computers.
---
Gee, I dunno, maybe some business person who makes a great deal of money selling books into the open source community?
They are going to abandon the product anyway, so it's not like they are giving up future potential earnings.
If they determine they can make more in good will with their Open Source Community customer base than they could by selling the product to a software concern, then it would certainly make sense to open source it. Seeing as the most likely buyer for such a product would the competition in order to kill it off, which could well risk significant bad feelings with the Open Source community, open sourcing it looks more attractive all the time.
---
You should see this as a tremendous opportunity for a win-win WITH your employer. Both your employer and the client will probably be thrilled to have something so far along. Marketing software is a lot more than just writing something at night, you know. Having this initial customer ready for your product just as it's ready to field is a big win for you, and your employer found this customer for you. Also, your employer probably has a lot of resources that will go a long way toward making your product a success.
Trying to keep it all for yourself is just greed. If you hate your employer so much that you just can't stand to share in the benefits of this work, then why are you working there at all?
---
IANAP (physicist), but I believe that there is some (albeit small) uncertainty with atom positions. I believe that tunneling of hydrogen atoms is how fracto-fusion works. Now, it may well be that it's greatly more probable with a hydrogen atom than a helium atom (and from what I understand, it's not too common with hydrogen atoms), but it does occur.
Never is too strong. There is a finite probability that it could. It might be so unlikely that it would occur, on average, once in 5 billion ages of the Universe, but it could happen.
---
How do you know that the person writing this question didn't make a good-faith effort? All he said was that they didn't understand.
IANAL, but I would think that all that would be required for a good-faith effort is drawing their attention to the fact that it is being licensed under GPL and pointing them to a copy of the GPL for review.
I agree with this. The software and all IP arising out of it is almost certainly subject to the contract that your firm has with the DoD. It may be something of a grey area, because the US Government is not allowed to hold copyrights, if I'm not mistaken, but the contract may require that the copyright be held by an entity that licenses the software to the US Government for the use they require.
This being the case, you probably will not be allowed to retain copyright and license it under the GPL if this conflicts with the purposes under which the Government wants to use it.
---
One BIG problem I've seen in a lot of applications I've been involved with is that you always develop some dependence on files that aren't part of the database. Imported files, configuration files, HTML, XML, etc. etc. You can throw them into the database as BLOBs, but then you have to write queries and update procedures just to do something where fopen() would really do it for you.
If you store those files in the database, then voila, all your application backup worries are handled as part of the database backup. You've automatically got journalling, too. It's seems like a really nice and clean solution.
---
There was a time when a LOT of MS-DOS executables were posted. That died down. Archives like SimTel just posted summaries of new stuff and people found that they could use ftp instead. If you only had Usenet and Mail access, there sprung up the FTP Mailer services that would mail you something from an FTP archive.
I also agree that there's still a lot of high quality discussion on Usenet. Some of the comp.lang groups are excellent (.moderated for c and perl, thank you). The comp.sys and comp.os groups can have some good topical news and help.
Hey, if you're looking for some good free content sometime, cruise over to DejaNews and search for dmr@bell-labs.com, bs@research.att.com or mash@mash.engr.sgi.com. This is just name-dropping on my part as there are other non-famous posters to Usenet that have a interesting things to say. If you've been avoiding Usenet, surf DejaNews on some topic that interests you. I think you'll be surprised at what you might learn.
---
This is kinda tasteless, don't you think? A pioneer just died and all you can think to say is that the calculators his company made confused people who couldn't handle RPN?
---
Yes, it is a great idea, but I guess you just don't have the imagination to see it.
First, nobody was talking about making anybody do anything. I feel certain that there are a lot of teachers who are passionate about their subjects and would love to contribute to such a product.
Second, if the Schools could get away with paying less for text books, they'd have more money for, yes you guessed it, more teachers or higher teacher salaries.
While you might be able to find some odd case where a professional teacher makes less than someone in management at a McDonald's, by and large, the average teacher earns a great deal more than the average burger flipper. Heck, I'd take the low-end teaching job over the McDonald's managers job, which might, possibly be comparable in salary, any day of the week. Fast food restaurants work exempt employees long hours. The work is no fun and you have to ride heard on a bunch of inattentive, disobedient, ritalin-addled teenagers for 16 hours a day.
---
This included doing literally tens of thousands of pages a day markup-style word processing for which the supercomputers weren't particularly well suited.
Today, I carry at least 30 x the CPU processing power of those supercomputers. Along with more disk space and a network interface (100 Mhz Ethernet) that was probably more than the aggregate networking performed at that University.
Am I even doing 1/1000th of the useful work with all this power? Sure, that computing power was so precious that the staff at the University worked hard to keep it at full utilization at all times while my laptop sits idle most of the day, but that's kind of the point.
Sure, distributed.net and the like try to use all this unused potential, but we're still nowhere near as effective with our resources as we once were.
I realize that there are excuses. When resources are so plentiful, we tend to get wasteful, but shouldn't we be more mindful of using our resources more effectively? It's not just my laptop. But even the servers of 10 years ago to shame, especially in price/performance, but are we really doing that much more with them? Or have we built up layer upon layer of abstraction, middleware, DB Servers, etc. to more than exhaust the advantages. I know that the users (remember them anybody?) are not really much more effective with today's applications than with the character mode applications of ten years ago. In most cases, those character-based applications were more responsive than the applications we're rolling out today.
Sometimes, I think we've long since passed the point of diminishing returns with computing technology. We're applying more and more power to get far fewer incremental improvements.
---
With Open Source, at least those who are seriously concerned about the security of the systems they run can do a thorough and targetted audit of the code to satisfy (to some reasonable degree of satisfaction) themselves that their systems are secure.
With Closed Source, you have to trust the vendor, the disgruntled former employees of the vendor and any cracker who might gain access to the source that there are no exploitable security flaws.
---
Interesting links on Self can be found here.
Where Pliant syntax is discussed, it is said that it is original because "The Pliant parser is original in that it doesn't rely on an automaton derived from a grammar. It is simpler, but more customizable and therefore much more powerful. "
I'd like to point out that the parsing extensibility of Pliant can be found in the Forth language and I believe that Rebol may also have some of these advantages. The language Lua also comes to mind as a language with syntactic extensibility.
---
The authors were already paid for their book and someone decided to sell it.
If the authors were being at all consistent, they'd be lobbying Congress to make used book sales illegal, not pressuring the poor book seller into not entering into an already existent market. Is that what you are advocating? That used book sales should be illegal?
Let's put it this way, is it fair to Amazon that they have to compete with used book sellers if they are only allowed to sell new prints?
---
I wonder. Will the MS app development company really be interested in competing in open standards-based application arenas? Or will they attempt to drive everyone else out of the MS-Windows application market? I'm sure that the MS OS company would have no interest whatsoever in supporting open standards in application interfaces, except perhaps for show.
The information monopolies and their conjoined interests require new thinking, not just the "we'll break them up and let the market take care of it..." that worked with Standard Oil over a hundred years ago.
I think new thinking should be applied to the media monopolies that are developing. For example, I think the requirement that AOL open up AIM would do a lot more to level the media playing field than to just have AOL/TW divest of a few TV stations here and there.
I'll have to think about the article's proposals before I come to a decision. Government setting standards in certain areas can be a good thing, but there are risks of course.
---
I agree. Avoid 'cutting edge' and go for timeless, enduring lessons instead. Most 'cutting edge' technologies end up on the cutting room floor of history.
I would recommend a grounding in Algorithms, writing some 2D graphics to illustrate and visualize the problems and solutions.
Functional programming, which has heavily influenced much of programming language design and has been around for 40 years would be good. Toward this end, I recommend the TeachScheme! materials, which are tutorial, freely available and also emphasize timeless Computer Science lessons.
Once some proficiency has been gained in programming, go for 3D POV and other graphics which can help with learning mathematics.
Of course, technologies that are hear-to-stay, like Linux, C/C++ and Java should also be included at some point.
For socialization in an environment where this person can both excel and gain access to a peer group, you could do a lot worse than competitive scholatic chess. There's almost certainly something going on in your area, but you'll do a LOT better in a major metropolitan area with finding peers. You should be able to get some pointers on this here.
If electronics is the direction, then encourage complete programmable embedded projects. Avoid dabbling, go for palpable result oriented projects that have an end. Achievements that you can both be proud of rather than a lot of dead-ends. You might want to look into the FORTH programming language for flexible programming of small embedded systems.
These would be my choices, but of course, I don't know the 9-year old. You do. However, I do want to get back to the avoiding 'cutting edge' technologies. Would you be going cutting edge for this persons development, or for your ego?
If this person is interested in a particular technology, then by all means, investigate it. You would also do well to encourage Science Fiction and readings on Relativity and Cosmology to fire the imagination.
---
Was Rob Pike looking for a job at Microsoft Research when this was reported here on /.?
If the old Bell Labs is imploding, it would be a terrible shame.
---
Because, of course, if the net can't determine how to get to /. then it's pointless in trying to connect.
On the other hand, I would think that ports 22 and 23 (and perhaps a few others) should not be dropped just because there's a slew of routes coming through. While we might not be too concerned about port 80 traffic, it would be tragic if we couldn't get in to do good old fashion remote administration during the crisis.
---
I don't know about most doctors, but mine has appointments starting at 7. I've often had quick appointments and gotten into work by 8:30 or 9.
I find it really hard to choose a Doctor sometimes. Maybe here's another thing to remember to ask about.
-Jordan Henderson
I'm an English speaking (well, sort of) American. I was travelling to Norway on business one time so I learned enough "phrase book" Norwegian to get by.
I walked up to a Airline counter in Western Norway after just flying in from Oslo. The man at the counter looked up and, before I could speak, said "Hello, can I help you?"
How did he know I spoke english? There weren't many native english speakers around at the time. Must have been some cultural cues.
Americans probably should try to learn enough of a foreign language to get by, but these days, in many countries, you just don't have to. Perhaps Americans are arrogant, but they are probably more lazy... (Maybe laziness and arrogance are the same thing? Hmmmm...)
-Jordan Henderson
What bull. If this were true, then Nurses would get paid more than Doctors, Bank Tellers more than Loan Officers, the Military would be a well paid job and Firefighters would get more than almost anyone.
You just have this problem where a bunch of petty management types aren't willing to participate in the market for people. It hurts their egos to think that a geek could make more than they do, or more than they made 10 years ago.
Now, I can easily understand where a worker is not worth more than he can bring in in revenue to the company, input from your Finance person is important, that's a reasonable way to set the upper limit on what you'll pay. But just having a bunch of HR and other management types sit around and say "that job's not so hard, it's not fair that they would get X" is just crazy.
If a job is so easy (like watching blinking lights and following a set of procedures), then it should be easy to get someone who can do it cheaply. If you can't find people to do it cheaply, then maybe you don't have an understanding of the job.
-Jordan Henderson
You see, this is the attitude that I don't understand. Why is it that hiring manager's think there is some arbitrary amount of money after which they'll pay no more?
These are markets we're talking about. People price themselves exactly at the point where it's a question whether you want to pay that or not. If they are pricing themselves any lower, they are short-changing themselves.
Hire or don't hire, pay or don't pay, but don't say there's a shortage because you won't pay what people are demanding. A shortage is when you can't get something at any price. This is just a tight market where people demand more.
-Jordan Henderson
I agree that the concert hall is a richer experience, for a number of reasons, than my living room or car, but this is changing the subject. An even richer experience can be yours by performing the music, but that's not always practical either.
Does anyone know of any research that shows that sound outside of the range of human hearing adds (or subtracts) from the listening experience?
-Jordan Henderson
Not in C9X. It's one of the changes.
-Jordan Henderson
I used to hear this a lot when CDs first came out. A lot of fringe types claimed that the CD sample rate was too low to produce the really high sounds so important to the complete experience.
I never did see any study that proved this one way or the other.
Do you know of any?
-Jordan Henderson