For those who don't know the background to this, the UK has, I believe, the most cars/mile of road of anywhere in the world. This has a perceptible impact on the quality of life for everyone. I live in London, where the average speed of traffic has stayed constant for over a century. Cars travel no faster now than horses did in the late 19th century.
The response to this has been to use fuel taxation as a punitive tax - it is seen as a simple way of reducing the distance people travel, since fuel usage is roughly proportional to distance travelled, and everyone knows that as costs increase, consumption goes down.
However, it has emerged that fuel prices are what economists call "Price Inelastic". What this means is that people will buy the same quantity of fuel no matter what the price is.
This means that increased fuel costs have gone to increase the overall friction in the economy, and has generated an enormous amount for the treasury, but hasn't reduced road usage.
Part of the reason for the price inelasticity is the "switching cost". Those who have decided to live in leafy suburbia do not have acceptable mass transit options to get them to work (this is a whole other story). This means that, if fuel prices are increased, their only option is to take the kids out of school and move house. No wonder people don't do it.
This new form of taxation is likely to cause more elasticity in road use because switching costs are significantly reduced - instead of driving at rush hour, and paying 45p/mile you wait an hour and pay 10p/mile. Or you travel in earlier. Or you work from home 2 days a week.
As long as the pricing scheme intelligently reflects real emergent road use, this scheme should reduce congestion significantly, improving quality of life for everyone.
Because the West relies on a democractic government and a capitalist market they are often seen as indivisible.
In reality they are very much seperate. Capitalism is a system in which the purpose of business is wealth creation. Businesses make decisions necessary to make cash for their owners, and we hope that a side-effect of this is innovation, employment and general welfare.
Democracy, on the other hand, is a system for managing society and government. At it's heart, democracy is the principle that all the people of a state should have a meaningful contribution to how it is governed. No more and no less.
It is quite possible to have a non-capitalist democracy and a capitalist dictatorship.
You cannot expect western businesses to defend democracy, when it is completely outside their purview. Very few of Cisco's customers are democracies, the vast majority are other corporations - about as undemocractic as you can get.
They have no reason to care, and that is how it should be. If you want China to become a democracy, then go tell the Chinese. Ultimately, it is up to them.
The UK would have no compunction whatsoever about sending in the navy to occupy sealand if the present incumbents did anything the UK govt. objected to.
I've got a box in a rack hosted by a friend of mine (who is a sysadmin). I use ssh + PINE to read my mail (i know, i know, but i've been using PINE so long i can't get the hang of mutt:-)
i admin the machine myself, so i know it is secure.
It is often not realised by companies that employ technologists that professional development can take different forms for different people.
In many disciplines, professional advancement means going into management - these tend to be areas where there are a lot of people-skills going on, where it makes sense that those who understand their field will also make good managers.
For a lot of engineering jobs, however, this is just not the case. I often draw a parallel with Air Traffic Controllers. They don't go into the job expecting advancement to become Area Manager, Air Traffic or Director, Air Traffic Research - they expect to be Air Traffic Controllers for their whole life - just getting better and better at it.
Where I work, I have structured technical jobs in this way - that there is a clear choice between progression into management and progression into just getting better and better.
If you find yourself being forced into management because there is nowhere else to go, don't stand for it - there are a lot of businesses out there that can do with experience, and wide experience is especially valuable in new fields. No matter if you're getting a bit long in the tooth, if you can demonstrate an agile mind they would be foolish to ignore you.
I can say, however, that my move into management around six years ago has been hugely rewarding. Technical Management is HARD. VERY HARD. It's certainly the most challenging thing I have tried.
Advice I would give to me if I was doing it over again would be, I think:
Don't believe the Hype - there's a whole load of tosh talked about how to manage. Remember that every project and every job need a different approach. There is no silver bullet.
Read Up - however, one thing you need is technique. You will develop a leadership style all of your own over time, but in the beginning you won't know where to start. Read a lot on the subject, don't necessarily believe or emulate any of it, but get a feel for the options.
You have a right to manage - don't take any shit. When I first went into management I thought "I will be different from the rest - I shall understand my staff". All this got me is grief. They have a right to get on with their job as best they know how - same for you. Don't try and become their best friends, just set the boundaries and think ahead - if they are no good, don't council them, sack them. If they are good, make sure they know you appreciate them, and provide a framework for them to develop.
trust your instincts - you will get into a lot of confrontational situations with peers. This is inevitable. Don't get railroaded because they seem to know more than you. Research your subject and don't make rash claims, but then stick to your beliefs. If you are going to make mistakes, make sure you make your mistakes.
Use your time wisely - when you think management will take 20% of your time, you are kidding yourself. I reckon each person you supervise takes 15% of your time - if you aren't putting that amount of effort in you are doing neither of you any good. But remember, management isn't there because it says it ought to be in a book, management is necessary! With that 15% of your time, think about the people you lead, where they want to go now and in the future and make sure your business aims, team aims and individuals aims are aligned. If they aren't, work out why and fix it. That's what you are there for.
Leadership or Management? - techies rarely need managing - good ones wish to be experts in their fields, so you don't need to try and nag them to improve, and most of them are organised. What they tend to need is leadership - understand the difference and apply it.
I could go on like this forever, but basically if you know your subject, treat people like adults and believe in yourself, you shouldn't have too much trouble. Over time you'll find the really difficult bits start happening automatically and then you can start concentrating on the really interesting bits, like strategy.
Enjoy, this could be the best decision you ever made.
I think there are three key factors in option values for startups: 1. management strength and commitment 2. access to capital 3. liquidity risk reductions The key risk in options is their lack of liquidity. You cannot convert them until they vest, which means there's no 'escape hatch'. This is a major risk - even if you think the stock is going up, options are worth way less than real stock because you can't flog them if they start going down. Valuing this risk to you depends on your own financial situation. If you are loaded, and the other 2 factors pan out, then you might as well go for it. If you need cash, they are next to worthless. Remember it is your own financial situation you are attempting to project and affect, not the businesses'!
Mankind's environment has depended upon it's technology since we invented agriculture. The logical conclusion of this is when our environment consists entirely of our technology - a time that is approaching rapidly.
We will cope with this the same way we (and all other life) always has - by adapting. Being tool users, we will probably do this using our tools, be they genetic modification or whatever.
Those that embrace this will survive, and those that do not won't (in a cultural rather than individual sense). I don't see a possibility for limiting our technology without a command economy, and this isn't possible without using the very technology you would wish to repress. Catch 22.
Trying to make a moral case for whether tech is good or bad misses the point - ethics are by their nature subjective, and it isn't our ethics that matter - it will be the ethics of our genetically modified descendants that ultimately decides whether the furrow we plough is good or not.
The purpose of the NSA seems geared to economic espionage directed against the allies of the USA. The interception site at Menwith Hill, (North Yorkshire, UK) is designed primarily for non-military interception, alledgedly intercepting millions of telephone calls (including diplomatic communication) to be passed on to US companies for their commercial advantage.
The NSA (alledgedly) takes the lead in this kind of signals intelligence. This is in my mind a greater threat to the free world than anything a military machine could construct - subverting competition is a far more dangerous threat to the aims of a democractic nation - even the one they are alledgedly supporting.
See http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/ic2kreport.htm for a rather splendid summary of how it all works.
Slashdot Mirror
The only article that expresses a reasonable solution, IMO, is this: Brad Templeton: How to fix the DNS
For those who don't know the background to this, the UK has, I believe, the most cars/mile of road of anywhere in the world. This has a perceptible impact on the quality of life for everyone. I live in London, where the average speed of traffic has stayed constant for over a century. Cars travel no faster now than horses did in the late 19th century.
The response to this has been to use fuel taxation as a punitive tax - it is seen as a simple way of reducing the distance people travel, since fuel usage is roughly proportional to distance travelled, and everyone knows that as costs increase, consumption goes down.
However, it has emerged that fuel prices are what economists call "Price Inelastic". What this means is that people will buy the same quantity of fuel no matter what the price is.
This means that increased fuel costs have gone to increase the overall friction in the economy, and has generated an enormous amount for the treasury, but hasn't reduced road usage.
Part of the reason for the price inelasticity is the "switching cost". Those who have decided to live in leafy suburbia do not have acceptable mass transit options to get them to work (this is a whole other story). This means that, if fuel prices are increased, their only option is to take the kids out of school and move house. No wonder people don't do it.
This new form of taxation is likely to cause more elasticity in road use because switching costs are significantly reduced - instead of driving at rush hour, and paying 45p/mile you wait an hour and pay 10p/mile. Or you travel in earlier. Or you work from home 2 days a week.
As long as the pricing scheme intelligently reflects real emergent road use, this scheme should reduce congestion significantly, improving quality of life for everyone.
Because the West relies on a democractic government and a capitalist market they are often seen as indivisible.
In reality they are very much seperate. Capitalism is a system in which the purpose of business is wealth creation. Businesses make decisions necessary to make cash for their owners, and we hope that a side-effect of this is innovation, employment and general welfare.
Democracy, on the other hand, is a system for managing society and government. At it's heart, democracy is the principle that all the people of a state should have a meaningful contribution to how it is governed. No more and no less.
It is quite possible to have a non-capitalist democracy and a capitalist dictatorship.
You cannot expect western businesses to defend democracy, when it is completely outside their purview. Very few of Cisco's customers are democracies, the vast majority are other corporations - about as undemocractic as you can get.
They have no reason to care, and that is how it should be. If you want China to become a democracy, then go tell the Chinese. Ultimately, it is up to them.
Just get one of these: http://www.sun.com/storage/L700/
In the UK, gambling debts cannot be enforced in court - gambling is legally a "gentlemens agreement", and so neither side can be compelled to pay out.
This doesn't seem to have made much difference in the uptake of gambling of any kind here.
The UK would have no compunction whatsoever about sending in the navy to occupy sealand if the present incumbents did anything the UK govt. objected to.
After all, who is going to stop them?
I have coded a good sixteen languages in my time, but that doesn't mean I can pick up 'Java in a Nutshell' and code great java in two weeks.
Most modern languages come complete with a large set of library classes/frameworks/whatever that can take a long time to really learn and master.
While you are learning you'll use techniques learnt in previous languages that are not ideal for the one you're in.
The only way to be sure.
:-)
I've got a box in a rack hosted by a friend of mine (who is a sysadmin). I use ssh + PINE to read my mail (i know, i know, but i've been using PINE so long i can't get the hang of mutt
i admin the machine myself, so i know it is secure.
In many disciplines, professional advancement means going into management - these tend to be areas where there are a lot of people-skills going on, where it makes sense that those who understand their field will also make good managers.
For a lot of engineering jobs, however, this is just not the case. I often draw a parallel with Air Traffic Controllers. They don't go into the job expecting advancement to become Area Manager, Air Traffic or Director, Air Traffic Research - they expect to be Air Traffic Controllers for their whole life - just getting better and better at it.
Where I work, I have structured technical jobs in this way - that there is a clear choice between progression into management and progression into just getting better and better.
If you find yourself being forced into management because there is nowhere else to go, don't stand for it - there are a lot of businesses out there that can do with experience, and wide experience is especially valuable in new fields. No matter if you're getting a bit long in the tooth, if you can demonstrate an agile mind they would be foolish to ignore you.
I can say, however, that my move into management around six years ago has been hugely rewarding. Technical Management is HARD. VERY HARD. It's certainly the most challenging thing I have tried.
Advice I would give to me if I was doing it over again would be, I think:
I could go on like this forever, but basically if you know your subject, treat people like adults and believe in yourself, you shouldn't have too much trouble. Over time you'll find the really difficult bits start happening automatically and then you can start concentrating on the really interesting bits, like strategy.
Enjoy, this could be the best decision you ever made.
For any of you Arc fans out there - don't you reckon it looks very similar to RISC OS 3 did 7 or 8 years ago?
Here's exactly how it happened: http://www.theregister.co.uk/cont ent/1/12225.html
So why not go and make money doing something else?
Open Source it, and go and do something more interesting!
I think there are three key factors in option values for startups: 1. management strength and commitment 2. access to capital 3. liquidity risk reductions The key risk in options is their lack of liquidity. You cannot convert them until they vest, which means there's no 'escape hatch'. This is a major risk - even if you think the stock is going up, options are worth way less than real stock because you can't flog them if they start going down. Valuing this risk to you depends on your own financial situation. If you are loaded, and the other 2 factors pan out, then you might as well go for it. If you need cash, they are next to worthless. Remember it is your own financial situation you are attempting to project and affect, not the businesses'!
Mankind's environment has depended upon it's technology since we invented agriculture. The logical conclusion of this is when our environment consists entirely of our technology - a time that is approaching rapidly.
We will cope with this the same way we (and all other life) always has - by adapting. Being tool users, we will probably do this using our tools, be they genetic modification or whatever.
Those that embrace this will survive, and those that do not won't (in a cultural rather than individual sense). I don't see a possibility for limiting our technology without a command economy, and this isn't possible without using the very technology you would wish to repress. Catch 22.
Trying to make a moral case for whether tech is good or bad misses the point - ethics are by their nature subjective, and it isn't our ethics that matter - it will be the ethics of our genetically modified descendants that ultimately decides whether the furrow we plough is good or not.
The purpose of the NSA seems geared to economic espionage directed against the allies of the USA. The interception site at Menwith Hill, (North Yorkshire, UK) is designed primarily for non-military interception, alledgedly intercepting millions of telephone calls (including diplomatic communication) to be passed on to US companies for their commercial advantage.
The NSA (alledgedly) takes the lead in this kind of signals intelligence. This is in my mind a greater threat to the free world than anything a military machine could construct - subverting competition is a far more dangerous threat to the aims of a democractic nation - even the one they are alledgedly supporting.
See http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/ic2kreport.htm for a rather splendid summary of how it all works.