I telecommute 50% of my time. This gives me enough physical presence at my work office to be "hands on" with my coworkers and attend meetings that are difficult to teleconference in.
I agree that by telecommuting you do run the risk of missing promotion opportunities since you won't be within the "whisper net" that's in place in all office environments.
Also people who telecommute at 100% regardless of the consequences don't have much weight with management. Their inflexibility makes them less than ideal for most promotions and they run the risk of being too expensive to keep at their current position. Supervisors do take willingness to make the effort to drive to work as a factor in deciding promotions; Not to mention most opportunities for promotion requires a physical presence at the office.
I have notice a trend in the employers around me (most of my coworkers are subcontractors) that telecommuting is losing much of its luster. Telecommuting used to be encouraged as a method to reduce office space requirements and resources but now it's being discouraged and only granted for special circumstances.
You don't have to do the four year marathon. You can do contract work to pay for your tuition. In the end, you'll make up for the tuition spent by making more salary than possible without that degree,
Of course you could go the self employment route, the success stories are few and you'll get paid less than a college grad for your talents.
I think you confused chasing the loyalists out of the country with a guerrilla tactic where an insurgent targets a public place and indiscriminately blows stuff up to kill and maim the general population. I think you are reading too much in the "terrorized" verb in that web site.
Yet, they choose to accept those risks even though it is proved beyond doubt that these are infinitely more dangerous than snorting enough airborne plutonium to cause you to sprout an arm from your forehead, yet people whinge and whine about something that is not only PROVED to be safer, it is also PROVED to be nothing but a BENEFIT to ALL.
Safer than what? What's your proof? Is it cost effective? What long term commitments must be made for each plant?
You can type proved and benefit all you want in all caps; You can even compare nuclear power safety to automobiles, alcohol, and tobacco; Yet at the end of the day have you really made your case for nuclear power generation?
That article compares the radiation exposure from coal stack emissions versus radiation emissions from properly contained nuclear waste and a properly functioning nuclear power plant. It makes no comparisons with Chernovyl or Fukushima disasters. Also the data presented in that article is based on a Science article written in 1978, this is before emissions were being actively scrubbed to meet EPA clean air guidelines that were passed in the '80s.
Can you make a case without using 33 year old data or linking to a propaganda web site that makes its case based on questionable statistics that really shows the sad state of worker safety in China instead of the risk involved in the actual power generation.
I'm not in the coal or power industry, but considering how expensive nuclear power is I think it may be cheaper to increase the safety of coal power generation than it would be to try to build more or take out of mothballs the current generation of nuclear power plants. I think there are safer forms of nuclear power but those are not ready for use outside of a laboratory.
Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen.
You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.
You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.
that's not piracy, that's just rebranding, as the poster you are replying to acknowledged.
Let's me type a little slower since you were so quick in the reply that you didn't seem to comprehend my message.
Consider piracy to be copyright infringement which is the overwhelming view on Slashdot since we have the meme copyright infringement is not equal to theft here. Now consider what constitute copyright infringement of most open source software that is not in the public domain. If you copy the software and rebrand it without releasing the source code then you violated the GPL which amounts to copyright infringement. If you copy the software and rebrand it without acknowledging the original software then you violated most 4 part BSD licenses out there; Again this amounts to copyright infringement.
This is why my answer to the original poster about "How does one pirate open source software?", I said "by copying the software and rebranding it without releasing the source code or acknowledging the original software" if you consider piracy to mean copyright infringement.
I think T-Mobile has reached a state of corporate radioactivity. Their coverage is mediocre, their pricing is nothing extraordinary. and they have the worst phones of any major US carrier.
I disagree. T-mobile has a nice GSM network with pretty good coverage. Their "4G" offerings have expanded considerably since the military has now vacated most of the AWS band. Their pricing is very competitive; To the point where AT&T depended on the iPhone to save their collective asses.
As for your worst phones in the industry comment, how so? T-Mobile was the first to have Android phones, they still have blackberry phones, and the only phone they don't directly support is the iPhone.
The one thing that you didn't mention is customer service. T-Mobile has excellent customer service.
I think your assessment is on the trollish side and a little premature. The fact that ATT desperately needs T-Mobile seems to counter much of your assessment.
Let's not forget that the cost of the drives should be included in the cost of the contract. If your company didn't consider infrastructure costs in its bid then they know better now. Destroy the drives as promised.
In addition to the parent's mention of possible legal ramifications there are possible competitive ramifications too. A competitor will be more than happy to point out your firm's inability to honor all parts of an agreement and stress that they are better equipped to handle the contract terms.
It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...
Don't feel too bad. It's been shown that the majority of the US's tap water is actually cleaner than the bottle water that they purchase at their local large discount supermarket chain. Yet marketing has scared them in to paying money per serving of water instead of taking advantage of the water being piped into their homes in bulk.
Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.
Lawyers do most of the work. It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there.
The main reason for the lack of HTC's and Samsung's lack of litigation could be that it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you... HTC makes Windows phone and Samsung make PCs.
I hit submit too soon. There is some truth in my humor. The facade is that Google has an open sourced development model, not that the product is technically open sourced. I can grab a nightly snapshot of any of the other truly open-source projects that are out there (firefox, linux kernel, etc.) yet Google only made their source code available after their hardware partners release their phones in order to guarantee their partners an exclusive first release.
Google perpetuates the open-source development myth with their "Get Involved" and "Philosophy and Goals", then uses excuses like "accelerated release" or "end user experience" as reasons not to fully embrace the open-source development that they try to associate with their product.
So I hope this explains the Facade part of my comment.
Yes I answered the parent's challenge, but don't get mad at me if my post hits too close to home for you.
What, pray tell, counts as "open source" in Bill's universe?
Delivering the bill of goods that is being advertised. By your reasoning, Microsoft shared source initiative is open source, but that's not the product that's Google is trying to sell.
My point is that it's okay for Google to decide when to release their code.
However they are marketing this OS as open-sourced in every sense of the word, why else would they come up with these excuses for why they delayed the source code release?
If Google has claimed Android to follow an Open Source model, I agree with you, but calling Android simply "Open Source" is still correct.
Okay I'll bite. Googled release the source code because they finally reached a tipping point where the damage to their facade of being open sourced was greater than the benefit they were offering their hardware partners of being the first to release a 4.0 device.
With all their hardware partners releasing their 4.0 phones, Google has no reason to keep the source code to themselves. This way they can keep the facade of being open-source intact and continue to have the loyalty from all their geeky fans.
Rubin says that if Google were to open-source the Honeycomb code now, as it has with other versions of Android at similar periods in their development, it couldn't prevent developers from putting the software on phones "and creating a really bad user experience. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
But isn't the point of open-source software is to allow the enthusiast access to the source code and see what they can do with it?
There is nothing wrong with Google wanting to wait until their hardware partners deliver their products prior to releasing the code, since it is their code. So let's stop pretending that this is open source development model and condemning Google, and treat this as products being delivered by Google that has some source code available (shared source).
Google should just own up to using the shared source model and quit bullshitting us with their "preventing really bad user experience" or "keep a schedule" excuses. You're either have an open source development model or you don't.
Other warnings signs that this is a questionable article: (1) The headline ends with a ? mark, (2) no mention of the percentage of VC applicants that were black, and (3) the story seems to be more an informative advertisement for "NewMe Accelerator" incubator program than a serious piece about institutional bias.
Another interesting bit of information missing from this article is that the census data shows that "The number of businesses owned by minorities increased faster than the number owned by whites" as reported by Bloomberg back in July of 2010.
I don't think those songs are that similar. Besides with the large number of sample based songs on the radio now, why pick on Lady Gaga?
As a person who was alive when the movie Top Gun was out in the theaters and "Take My Breath Away" was played on the radio constantly, I can say that Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" doesn't cause me to almost vomit like "Take My Breath Away".
Not that I listen to Lady Gaga. I just assume she is aspiring to be like Bette Midler.
I approached a 'cycle cop running a speed trap out of his jurisdiction once, I asked him about where the city lines were drawn, he gave me some vague answer about how complicated it is, I gave him a story about how his city police force refused to investigate alarm calls next door because it was outside their jurisdiction, we wished each other a good day and I walked back to the house. He radared one or two more cars as I walked away, then packed up and moved down the street to his jurisdiction.
Im my state, police jurisdiction extends 3 miles from the city limits within unincorporated areas. I find this irritating since people choose to live just outside of the city limits to pay lower property taxes, yet still receive the same level of police and fire protection. I feel like I'm subsidizing their police protection. The city builds its fire stations close enough to the city limits to keep response time low and hoping that they will eventually annex the area. It never happens, they have many special elections over the past two decades but the people are just too smart to pay more for what they already get for cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
I telecommute 50% of my time. This gives me enough physical presence at my work office to be "hands on" with my coworkers and attend meetings that are difficult to teleconference in.
I agree that by telecommuting you do run the risk of missing promotion opportunities since you won't be within the "whisper net" that's in place in all office environments.
Also people who telecommute at 100% regardless of the consequences don't have much weight with management. Their inflexibility makes them less than ideal for most promotions and they run the risk of being too expensive to keep at their current position. Supervisors do take willingness to make the effort to drive to work as a factor in deciding promotions; Not to mention most opportunities for promotion requires a physical presence at the office.
I have notice a trend in the employers around me (most of my coworkers are subcontractors) that telecommuting is losing much of its luster. Telecommuting used to be encouraged as a method to reduce office space requirements and resources but now it's being discouraged and only granted for special circumstances.
At least until they "fix the problem". I hope they don't mess with his red stapler.
You don't have to do the four year marathon. You can do contract work to pay for your tuition. In the end, you'll make up for the tuition spent by making more salary than possible without that degree,
Of course you could go the self employment route, the success stories are few and you'll get paid less than a college grad for your talents.
I think you confused chasing the loyalists out of the country with a guerrilla tactic where an insurgent targets a public place and indiscriminately blows stuff up to kill and maim the general population. I think you are reading too much in the "terrorized" verb in that web site.
Safer than what? What's your proof? Is it cost effective? What long term commitments must be made for each plant?
You can type proved and benefit all you want in all caps; You can even compare nuclear power safety to automobiles, alcohol, and tobacco; Yet at the end of the day have you really made your case for nuclear power generation?
Ben Franklin was a master of propaganda. Please give an example of his propaganda that rises to the level of what we'd consider terrorism.
Yet 70% of the total power consumed in France as measured in 2006 came from fossil fuels.
Also France's nuclear power generation doesn't exactly have a stellar safety record.
Wikipedia's article covers all the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
That article compares the radiation exposure from coal stack emissions versus radiation emissions from properly contained nuclear waste and a properly functioning nuclear power plant. It makes no comparisons with Chernovyl or Fukushima disasters. Also the data presented in that article is based on a Science article written in 1978, this is before emissions were being actively scrubbed to meet EPA clean air guidelines that were passed in the '80s.
Can you make a case without using 33 year old data or linking to a propaganda web site that makes its case based on questionable statistics that really shows the sad state of worker safety in China instead of the risk involved in the actual power generation.
I'm not in the coal or power industry, but considering how expensive nuclear power is I think it may be cheaper to increase the safety of coal power generation than it would be to try to build more or take out of mothballs the current generation of nuclear power plants. I think there are safer forms of nuclear power but those are not ready for use outside of a laboratory.
You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.
You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.
Let's me type a little slower since you were so quick in the reply that you didn't seem to comprehend my message.
Consider piracy to be copyright infringement which is the overwhelming view on Slashdot since we have the meme copyright infringement is not equal to theft here. Now consider what constitute copyright infringement of most open source software that is not in the public domain. If you copy the software and rebrand it without releasing the source code then you violated the GPL which amounts to copyright infringement. If you copy the software and rebrand it without acknowledging the original software then you violated most 4 part BSD licenses out there; Again this amounts to copyright infringement.
This is why my answer to the original poster about "How does one pirate open source software?", I said "by copying the software and rebranding it without releasing the source code or acknowledging the original software" if you consider piracy to mean copyright infringement.
I'll attribute your answer to ADHD.
By copying the software and rebranding it as their own work without releasing the source code or acknowledging the original software.
I assumed you meant pirate as in copyright infringement and not pirate as in arghhhh.
I disagree. T-mobile has a nice GSM network with pretty good coverage. Their "4G" offerings have expanded considerably since the military has now vacated most of the AWS band. Their pricing is very competitive; To the point where AT&T depended on the iPhone to save their collective asses.
As for your worst phones in the industry comment, how so? T-Mobile was the first to have Android phones, they still have blackberry phones, and the only phone they don't directly support is the iPhone.
The one thing that you didn't mention is customer service. T-Mobile has excellent customer service.
I think your assessment is on the trollish side and a little premature. The fact that ATT desperately needs T-Mobile seems to counter much of your assessment.
Let's not forget that the cost of the drives should be included in the cost of the contract. If your company didn't consider infrastructure costs in its bid then they know better now. Destroy the drives as promised.
In addition to the parent's mention of possible legal ramifications there are possible competitive ramifications too. A competitor will be more than happy to point out your firm's inability to honor all parts of an agreement and stress that they are better equipped to handle the contract terms.
Don't feel too bad. It's been shown that the majority of the US's tap water is actually cleaner than the bottle water that they purchase at their local large discount supermarket chain. Yet marketing has scared them in to paying money per serving of water instead of taking advantage of the water being piped into their homes in bulk.
Lawyers do most of the work. It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there.
The main reason for the lack of HTC's and Samsung's lack of litigation could be that it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you... HTC makes Windows phone and Samsung make PCs.
Wasn't #2 used against TomTom several years ago?
I hit submit too soon. There is some truth in my humor. The facade is that Google has an open sourced development model, not that the product is technically open sourced. I can grab a nightly snapshot of any of the other truly open-source projects that are out there (firefox, linux kernel, etc.) yet Google only made their source code available after their hardware partners release their phones in order to guarantee their partners an exclusive first release.
Google perpetuates the open-source development myth with their "Get Involved" and "Philosophy and Goals", then uses excuses like "accelerated release" or "end user experience" as reasons not to fully embrace the open-source development that they try to associate with their product.
So I hope this explains the Facade part of my comment.
Yes I answered the parent's challenge, but don't get mad at me if my post hits too close to home for you.
Delivering the bill of goods that is being advertised. By your reasoning, Microsoft shared source initiative is open source, but that's not the product that's Google is trying to sell.
My point is that it's okay for Google to decide when to release their code.
However they are marketing this OS as open-sourced in every sense of the word, why else would they come up with these excuses for why they delayed the source code release?
But they do. Please read their "Get Involved" page, or their "Philosophy" page.
He said this was a hater's thread... So I obliged him... jesus get some humor.
Okay I'll bite. Googled release the source code because they finally reached a tipping point where the damage to their facade of being open sourced was greater than the benefit they were offering their hardware partners of being the first to release a 4.0 device.
With all their hardware partners releasing their 4.0 phones, Google has no reason to keep the source code to themselves. This way they can keep the facade of being open-source intact and continue to have the loyalty from all their geeky fans.
How's that?
But isn't the point of open-source software is to allow the enthusiast access to the source code and see what they can do with it?
There is nothing wrong with Google wanting to wait until their hardware partners deliver their products prior to releasing the code, since it is their code. So let's stop pretending that this is open source development model and condemning Google, and treat this as products being delivered by Google that has some source code available (shared source).
Google should just own up to using the shared source model and quit bullshitting us with their "preventing really bad user experience" or "keep a schedule" excuses. You're either have an open source development model or you don't.
Don't forget "It's the end of the world as we know it" by R.E.M.
Other warnings signs that this is a questionable article: (1) The headline ends with a ? mark, (2) no mention of the percentage of VC applicants that were black, and (3) the story seems to be more an informative advertisement for "NewMe Accelerator" incubator program than a serious piece about institutional bias.
Another interesting bit of information missing from this article is that the census data shows that "The number of businesses owned by minorities increased faster than the number owned by whites" as reported by Bloomberg back in July of 2010.
I don't think those songs are that similar. Besides with the large number of sample based songs on the radio now, why pick on Lady Gaga?
As a person who was alive when the movie Top Gun was out in the theaters and "Take My Breath Away" was played on the radio constantly, I can say that Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" doesn't cause me to almost vomit like "Take My Breath Away".
Not that I listen to Lady Gaga. I just assume she is aspiring to be like Bette Midler.
Im my state, police jurisdiction extends 3 miles from the city limits within unincorporated areas. I find this irritating since people choose to live just outside of the city limits to pay lower property taxes, yet still receive the same level of police and fire protection. I feel like I'm subsidizing their police protection. The city builds its fire stations close enough to the city limits to keep response time low and hoping that they will eventually annex the area. It never happens, they have many special elections over the past two decades but the people are just too smart to pay more for what they already get for cheap.