It's really a bad practice (admittedly common in many larger companies though) to have employees that are incompetent at their job. But, if someone is competent at those boring jobs, I agree that if that's the best and highest use of the person, it makes no sense wasting a more broadly or deeply skilled person on the job. However, if someone is competent at their job, I don't hear them being referred to as "idiots" often. Unfortunately, if these people incorrectly think they are qualified for a "better" job, they seem to often have attitude problems.
I, for example, would be completely incompetent at the job of conductor of the symphony. If I somehow got such a job, I would quickly be declared an "idiot" by patrons and employees alike. However, in a software development environment I'm pretty sure I'm not branded an "idiot" by others around me (although they may occasionally use other terms such as "stubborn", "rude", or "insensitive").
...if they are really an "idiot" relative to the rest of the team.
In my experience, great teams have people with diverse skills. Some may be excellent diagnosticians and just decent coders, some may be great at writing tests that provide relevant coverage but poor at documentation, some may be very good at coming up with very efficient algorithms but not so good at debugging problems that cross many subsystems, and so on. At some point, almost every one of these people is occasionally thought, at least for a few seconds, to be an "idiot" by at least one of their team members (perhaps an unspoken sentiment though).
However, the interesting case is when someone is generally thought to be an idiot by most of the team and has no special skill that the team needs. In that case, the employee needs to go, and go quickly.
A good manager should be able to detect if a person has a useful and unique skill that the team doesn't realize the importance of. This is especially true when that skill is externally focused such as interacting effectively with your corporate customers when technical problems arise. If a person has such a skill that the team doesn't realize the importance of, the manager should (subtly) educate the rest of the group what the value of the person is and work with that person to expose that value to the team.
Some of the best decisions I've made as a manger are getting rid of people -- including those we all thought would be good employees when they were hired just a couple months earlier. It can be hard on the team, but keeping the under-performer around is much harder on the team in the long term (and for the employee who was let go - they are better off finding a job more suited for the skills/interests).
No, it won't have any effect on elections. Libertarian candidates have no chance in a world where people care mostly that their unemployment checks are being extended or that they are getting a rebate on their purchase of an electric car or that they get the EIC or that their kid is being treated like a special snowflake by (incompetent) public schools.
Government in the U.S. has been taking freedom away for a long time, sometimes even in the name of "preserving freedom". People who have accepted, and even supported, the government taking money from one to give to another "who needs it more" long ago gave up their freedom and likely don't even understand the concept of freedom anymore. Sure, when the government does something they don't like, they will scream "freedom" and "rights" (the latter often incorrectly), but they will continue to encourage taking of rights of others when it's to their benefit. Most of at least the last two generations don't recognize freedom when they see it as the heat is slowly turned up on the "central control" pot in which voters are coddled (soon to be boiled).
You are confusing being "cynical" with having a "closed mind".
I suspect cynical people likely think things through more than those who are very trusting.
Those that are very trusting don't see a need to question and think deeply about things other people say, do, or offer (which is why they end up falling for various scams) until after they get screwed and then, in my experience, they don't learn much from it. Cynics, on the other hand, don't accept something to be true just because someone said it and therefore have to evaluate and think about most everything they hear -- making them think and exercise their brains. Also, when they get screwed in spite of their due caution, they tend to think back as to what they missed about the situation that would have prevented them from getting into it.
Of course, you probably shouldn't trust my insight on this as, being a cynic, I am probably biased (but only cynics will understand that or care about that).
they don't smell like anything at all, even when you put your face up to them to test them
They probably don't smell to you. People become desensitized to odors after they have been exposed to them regularly (which is probably fortunate for those working in some areas of sewage treatment plants).
In the early days, Steve Jobs was sure that he didn't have body odor and didn't need to shower because his diet cleansed him. Some of his co-workers reported disagreed with him on that point.
If "some hours" was a named (and, perhaps, "reasonable" - not 1E100 for example) number of hours, this wouldn't be indentured servitude. Generally the consumer received consideration (such as the use of the covered software) so there really isn't "no pay" in a broad sense. However, the arrangement described might fail to meet labor laws (minimum wage and the like).
You can often enter into a contract with another party that restricts you from exercising the full breadth of your enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.
For example, it's common in legal settlements that one, or both, parties are prohibited from revealing the terms of the settlement and, if they do, the offending party suffers financial consequences.
Another example, when you work for a company, you are almost always prohibited from publishing their internal trade secrets.
The EULA's don't override constitutional rights any more than the two examples I gave.
See incorporation doctrine for more info on why most individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can also not be infringed on by subservient governments. Prior to the early 1900's though, the Bill of Rights was understood to restrict only the Federal government.
Yes -- once a cop has an interest in pulling you over, they can usually figure out a legitimate reason to do so by following you for a while (we all break obscure traffic laws regularly).
Although, the "full search" is quite a bit harder for them to do without your consent - they need more than just "reasonable suspicion" for that (and, of course, I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to never give consent and to inquire regularly "Am I free to leave?").
The point is that the sticker alone is not "reasonable suspicion" to justify a "Terry Stop".
Might such a sticker (or the fact you have long hair, are a cute blonde, or drive an old car) call attention to you and cause the police to look more carefully and therefore more likely to actually find "reasonable suspicion" (or more)? Yes. But the sticker would not be cause for a stop legally - the stop will be for something else.
a "protected by Glock" sticker is something that can be used as probable cause for a stop and search in some cities/states.
I don't think so, unless the sticker was obstructing the driver's view (in which case, the text on the sticker would be irrelevant). Such a sticker might cause an officer in a few jurisdictions to look for a "legitimate" reason (missing front license plate in states that require them; broken taillight; starting to signal 90, instead of 100, feet before turning etc...) to stop the car in hopes that there would be an illegal weapon in plain view or something like that.
The sticker is free exercise of speech - it's not an admission of guilt any more than 420 stickers are.
Since it sounds like you have to refactor everything this developer writes or hold their hand while writing it, maybe it would be faster for you to skip those steps and just figure out what code they are about to write and implement it yourself. Then, when they are about half way through coding, mention to your boss (preferable with the developer in question present for dramatic effect) that "Oh, I see Glen[n] is writing the Foserbaum module - I wrote that for amusement a couple days ago and tested it, should I just go ahead and check it in?".
Rinse-and-repeat.
Eventually Glen[n] will either quit or transfer out of humiliation or will get fired.
Interesting, but it was only a three judge panel so I view it as a statistical fluke.
Unfortunately, the soap opera continues and, I expect, the petition to rehear the case en banc will be granted. The full court will then have to decide between following their "feelings", and likely being bench slapped by the SCOTUS, or following the Constitution. Sadly, I'm not hopeful they will do the right thing.
No matter which way the 9th ends up on this case, certainly the SCOTUS will be asked to weigh in and, if the full court ultimately rules against the plaintiff, I imagine cert will be granted as it's a fairly important and crisp legal question that the SCOTUS has not addressed and that seems to fly in the face of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. I am hopeful that SCOTUS will do the right thing.
If this bill were to pass and the second smart gun approved for sale also had the "not intended for self defense" notation in its manual (as it surely would - I doubt any gun manufacturer would open themselves up to lawsuits because defective smart guns failed to work and, as a result, the gun operator was injured or killed), I doubt the law would survive the scrutiny of even the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Much as most of the judges on the Ninth Circuit court hate it, they have to follow Heller (recognizing a Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense) and Chicago (via application of the Incorporation Doctrine and the Fourteenth Amendment to Heller, subjecting state and local governments to the constraints of Heller). Any law which bans the sale of any handgun which is effective for self defense is unlikely to survive.
And, in recent years, many newly "dead" computers don't even have a graphics card/discrete IC to fry. The percent of discarded computers that are "dead" due to a failed (and non-existent) graphics card is going to steadily decline.
I support capital punishment but believe a higher standard of proof should be required to impose it.
Perhaps something like "Beyond all rational doubt" rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be required to impose the death sentence. As well, esp. in capital cases, the jury should be instructed about particularly unreliable types of evidence (notably eyewitness identification of those not well known to the witness or in any but ideal lighting conditions) and be instructed not to rely on such evidence unless there is substantial "reliable" evidence to corroborate it.
Many guilty people would be spared the death sentence (instead subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole) with this higher standard of proof but it would partially address the problem that you can't "undo" an innocent person being executed but, with advancements in science and delayed discovery of evidence or prosecutor misconduct, someone can be released and at least live their remaining life as a free person.
However, I believe we should provide a painless "death" option for anyone sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" who requests it. This system should include safeguards to prevent rash decisions (such as requiring the request be made once a week for eight consecutive weeks, not considering requests made in the first year or two of incarceration, examination by a shrink or board of shrinks, and allowing the decision to be rescinded at any time but doing so would start a new two year window in which a request would not be considered). Those who are truly guilty and know they are almost certain to never be released might elect this option and it would save them pain and us money.
Although I would never want to return to the old days, one thing "high turnaround time" environments do is force developers to carefully desk check their code before compiling it. In this process, most developers (including myself) would find logic errors that testing would probably never find (even very obscure race conditions).
Now, far too many developers skip this step (and code reviews are too superficial) because it seems to get the project "done" faster while in high turnaround time environments skipping this step would mean that the project would likely never complete before it was cancelled due to coast overruns. Now, the customers find those bugs (at which time it either becomes a crisis or the customer just puts up with it and has the sense that "this software is crappy" which can be corrosive to future sales).
It takes quite a bit more discipline to do the desk check now.
yep - both Congress and the SCOTUS are ill equipped to deal with these issues - if a brief/lobbyist doesn't raise the interesting twist/conflict, they probably won't notice it when it comes to technology.
The cable companies may run into a problem doing what you suggest unless they send a separate stream from the antenna designated for your exclusive use to your (and, only your) STB. That would be a lot of duplicated bandwidth on the cable on Superbowl Sunday or after a 9/11 so I imagine quite a bit of infrastructure upgrade would be required.
Aereo seems to avoid the "public performance" in part by sending a dedicated stream to you (and only you), albeit over shared internet infrastructure. (I assume that if 1000 of their customers record the latest episode of Big Bang, they keep 1000 copies of it - if not, their argument would be a bit weaker).
I was intentionally ignoring financial aid. My point was even without aid or doing some of the things you wisely suggest (and certainly many do and have for decades), it's still hard to imagine how a qualified and motivated student exercising even a modicum of good judgement would end up with $150K of student debt from obtaining a BA or BSc.
I was trying to politely point out, by leaving it to the/. reader to reach the obvious conclusion, much of what you pointed out more directly - somehow I got down modded for that:)
What I completely fail to understand is how on Earth can a 22-year-old graduate –as you say– with US$150K in loans. That is just insane. And sick.
If one borrows as much as they can and doesn't focus on their studies, that's not insane or sick, likely just a sign of questionable judgement.
For example, in California the estimated annual costs for a student living off campus attending a UC school is $29,200 including tuition, fees, books, supplies, room, board, transportation, and personal expenses (some of these of course will vary depending on which campus the student is attending). About half of this ($14,700) is for educational related expenses while the rest is for ordinary living expenses that one would incur even if not attending school.
For a fulltime, four year course of study, this amounts to about $120,000 - assuming no grants or scholarships. So, graduating with $150K of debt in California suggests the student is attending an excessively expensive school, fails to work part time to at least cover summer expenses, spends excessively, and/or didn't complete in four years.
The UC system is well respected, and some campuses are very well regarded (Berkeley for example). However, the Cal State system also offers "real" degrees and costs even less.
As well, in some cases, a clever student will likely be able to figure out how to fulfill some general ed requirements at their local Community College reducing costs yet further.
Of course, $150K would be nothing for advanced degrees/training such as Med School (but, only a fool would build up such debt if the career wouldn't allow them to pay the debt off from earnings fairly quickly and, from a life long viewpoint, result in net earnings greater than not pursuing an advanced degree unless it is their desire to donate their education/life to a particular interest or education is a hobby for them).
Low power? Is this really an issue for children, like their parents only let them draw two amps at a time for their main computing device?
In the third world, yes. If you live in a one room "house" with one solar panel, every watt-hour counts - if the laptop has to draw off the "house battery" because the laptop runs out of charge before daylight or another charging opportunity, that's going to mean you can't keep lights on to read by (although, with the advent of much cheaper LED lights, this may not be as much of a problem anymore).
Slashdot Mirror
It's really a bad practice (admittedly common in many larger companies though) to have employees that are incompetent at their job. But, if someone is competent at those boring jobs, I agree that if that's the best and highest use of the person, it makes no sense wasting a more broadly or deeply skilled person on the job. However, if someone is competent at their job, I don't hear them being referred to as "idiots" often. Unfortunately, if these people incorrectly think they are qualified for a "better" job, they seem to often have attitude problems.
I, for example, would be completely incompetent at the job of conductor of the symphony. If I somehow got such a job, I would quickly be declared an "idiot" by patrons and employees alike. However, in a software development environment I'm pretty sure I'm not branded an "idiot" by others around me (although they may occasionally use other terms such as "stubborn", "rude", or "insensitive").
...if they are really an "idiot" relative to the rest of the team.
In my experience, great teams have people with diverse skills. Some may be excellent diagnosticians and just decent coders, some may be great at writing tests that provide relevant coverage but poor at documentation, some may be very good at coming up with very efficient algorithms but not so good at debugging problems that cross many subsystems, and so on. At some point, almost every one of these people is occasionally thought, at least for a few seconds, to be an "idiot" by at least one of their team members (perhaps an unspoken sentiment though).
However, the interesting case is when someone is generally thought to be an idiot by most of the team and has no special skill that the team needs. In that case, the employee needs to go, and go quickly.
A good manager should be able to detect if a person has a useful and unique skill that the team doesn't realize the importance of. This is especially true when that skill is externally focused such as interacting effectively with your corporate customers when technical problems arise. If a person has such a skill that the team doesn't realize the importance of, the manager should (subtly) educate the rest of the group what the value of the person is and work with that person to expose that value to the team.
Some of the best decisions I've made as a manger are getting rid of people -- including those we all thought would be good employees when they were hired just a couple months earlier. It can be hard on the team, but keeping the under-performer around is much harder on the team in the long term (and for the employee who was let go - they are better off finding a job more suited for the skills/interests).
No, it won't have any effect on elections. Libertarian candidates have no chance in a world where people care mostly that their unemployment checks are being extended or that they are getting a rebate on their purchase of an electric car or that they get the EIC or that their kid is being treated like a special snowflake by (incompetent) public schools.
Government in the U.S. has been taking freedom away for a long time, sometimes even in the name of "preserving freedom". People who have accepted, and even supported, the government taking money from one to give to another "who needs it more" long ago gave up their freedom and likely don't even understand the concept of freedom anymore. Sure, when the government does something they don't like, they will scream "freedom" and "rights" (the latter often incorrectly), but they will continue to encourage taking of rights of others when it's to their benefit. Most of at least the last two generations don't recognize freedom when they see it as the heat is slowly turned up on the "central control" pot in which voters are coddled (soon to be boiled).
Go Cubs.
You are confusing being "cynical" with having a "closed mind".
I suspect cynical people likely think things through more than those who are very trusting.
Those that are very trusting don't see a need to question and think deeply about things other people say, do, or offer (which is why they end up falling for various scams) until after they get screwed and then, in my experience, they don't learn much from it. Cynics, on the other hand, don't accept something to be true just because someone said it and therefore have to evaluate and think about most everything they hear -- making them think and exercise their brains. Also, when they get screwed in spite of their due caution, they tend to think back as to what they missed about the situation that would have prevented them from getting into it.
Of course, you probably shouldn't trust my insight on this as, being a cynic, I am probably biased (but only cynics will understand that or care about that).
They probably don't smell to you. People become desensitized to odors after they have been exposed to them regularly (which is probably fortunate for those working in some areas of sewage treatment plants).
In the early days, Steve Jobs was sure that he didn't have body odor and didn't need to shower because his diet cleansed him. Some of his co-workers reported disagreed with him on that point.
Don't be a Steve Jobs WRT body odor!
If "some hours" was a named (and, perhaps, "reasonable" - not 1E100 for example) number of hours, this wouldn't be indentured servitude. Generally the consumer received consideration (such as the use of the covered software) so there really isn't "no pay" in a broad sense. However, the arrangement described might fail to meet labor laws (minimum wage and the like).
You can often enter into a contract with another party that restricts you from exercising the full breadth of your enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.
For example, it's common in legal settlements that one, or both, parties are prohibited from revealing the terms of the settlement and, if they do, the offending party suffers financial consequences.
Another example, when you work for a company, you are almost always prohibited from publishing their internal trade secrets.
The EULA's don't override constitutional rights any more than the two examples I gave.
See incorporation doctrine for more info on why most individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can also not be infringed on by subservient governments. Prior to the early 1900's though, the Bill of Rights was understood to restrict only the Federal government.
Yes -- once a cop has an interest in pulling you over, they can usually figure out a legitimate reason to do so by following you for a while (we all break obscure traffic laws regularly).
Although, the "full search" is quite a bit harder for them to do without your consent - they need more than just "reasonable suspicion" for that (and, of course, I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to never give consent and to inquire regularly "Am I free to leave?").
The point is that the sticker alone is not "reasonable suspicion" to justify a "Terry Stop".
Might such a sticker (or the fact you have long hair, are a cute blonde, or drive an old car) call attention to you and cause the police to look more carefully and therefore more likely to actually find "reasonable suspicion" (or more)? Yes. But the sticker would not be cause for a stop legally - the stop will be for something else.
I don't think so, unless the sticker was obstructing the driver's view (in which case, the text on the sticker would be irrelevant). Such a sticker might cause an officer in a few jurisdictions to look for a "legitimate" reason (missing front license plate in states that require them; broken taillight; starting to signal 90, instead of 100, feet before turning etc...) to stop the car in hopes that there would be an illegal weapon in plain view or something like that.
The sticker is free exercise of speech - it's not an admission of guilt any more than 420 stickers are.
Since it sounds like you have to refactor everything this developer writes or hold their hand while writing it, maybe it would be faster for you to skip those steps and just figure out what code they are about to write and implement it yourself. Then, when they are about half way through coding, mention to your boss (preferable with the developer in question present for dramatic effect) that "Oh, I see Glen[n] is writing the Foserbaum module - I wrote that for amusement a couple days ago and tested it, should I just go ahead and check it in?".
Rinse-and-repeat.
Eventually Glen[n] will either quit or transfer out of humiliation or will get fired.
Interesting, but it was only a three judge panel so I view it as a statistical fluke.
Unfortunately, the soap opera continues and, I expect, the petition to rehear the case en banc will be granted. The full court will then have to decide between following their "feelings", and likely being bench slapped by the SCOTUS, or following the Constitution. Sadly, I'm not hopeful they will do the right thing.
No matter which way the 9th ends up on this case, certainly the SCOTUS will be asked to weigh in and, if the full court ultimately rules against the plaintiff, I imagine cert will be granted as it's a fairly important and crisp legal question that the SCOTUS has not addressed and that seems to fly in the face of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. I am hopeful that SCOTUS will do the right thing.
If this bill were to pass and the second smart gun approved for sale also had the "not intended for self defense" notation in its manual (as it surely would - I doubt any gun manufacturer would open themselves up to lawsuits because defective smart guns failed to work and, as a result, the gun operator was injured or killed), I doubt the law would survive the scrutiny of even the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Much as most of the judges on the Ninth Circuit court hate it, they have to follow Heller (recognizing a Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense) and Chicago (via application of the Incorporation Doctrine and the Fourteenth Amendment to Heller, subjecting state and local governments to the constraints of Heller). Any law which bans the sale of any handgun which is effective for self defense is unlikely to survive.
And, in recent years, many newly "dead" computers don't even have a graphics card/discrete IC to fry. The percent of discarded computers that are "dead" due to a failed (and non-existent) graphics card is going to steadily decline.
I support capital punishment but believe a higher standard of proof should be required to impose it.
Perhaps something like "Beyond all rational doubt" rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be required to impose the death sentence. As well, esp. in capital cases, the jury should be instructed about particularly unreliable types of evidence (notably eyewitness identification of those not well known to the witness or in any but ideal lighting conditions) and be instructed not to rely on such evidence unless there is substantial "reliable" evidence to corroborate it.
Many guilty people would be spared the death sentence (instead subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole) with this higher standard of proof but it would partially address the problem that you can't "undo" an innocent person being executed but, with advancements in science and delayed discovery of evidence or prosecutor misconduct, someone can be released and at least live their remaining life as a free person.
However, I believe we should provide a painless "death" option for anyone sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" who requests it. This system should include safeguards to prevent rash decisions (such as requiring the request be made once a week for eight consecutive weeks, not considering requests made in the first year or two of incarceration, examination by a shrink or board of shrinks, and allowing the decision to be rescinded at any time but doing so would start a new two year window in which a request would not be considered). Those who are truly guilty and know they are almost certain to never be released might elect this option and it would save them pain and us money.
Although I would never want to return to the old days, one thing "high turnaround time" environments do is force developers to carefully desk check their code before compiling it. In this process, most developers (including myself) would find logic errors that testing would probably never find (even very obscure race conditions).
Now, far too many developers skip this step (and code reviews are too superficial) because it seems to get the project "done" faster while in high turnaround time environments skipping this step would mean that the project would likely never complete before it was cancelled due to coast overruns. Now, the customers find those bugs (at which time it either becomes a crisis or the customer just puts up with it and has the sense that "this software is crappy" which can be corrosive to future sales).
It takes quite a bit more discipline to do the desk check now.
yep - both Congress and the SCOTUS are ill equipped to deal with these issues - if a brief/lobbyist doesn't raise the interesting twist/conflict, they probably won't notice it when it comes to technology.
The cable companies may run into a problem doing what you suggest unless they send a separate stream from the antenna designated for your exclusive use to your (and, only your) STB. That would be a lot of duplicated bandwidth on the cable on Superbowl Sunday or after a 9/11 so I imagine quite a bit of infrastructure upgrade would be required.
Aereo seems to avoid the "public performance" in part by sending a dedicated stream to you (and only you), albeit over shared internet infrastructure. (I assume that if 1000 of their customers record the latest episode of Big Bang, they keep 1000 copies of it - if not, their argument would be a bit weaker).
My kingdom for mod points right now :(
I was intentionally ignoring financial aid. My point was even without aid or doing some of the things you wisely suggest (and certainly many do and have for decades), it's still hard to imagine how a qualified and motivated student exercising even a modicum of good judgement would end up with $150K of student debt from obtaining a BA or BSc.
I was trying to politely point out, by leaving it to the /. reader to reach the obvious conclusion, much of what you pointed out more directly - somehow I got down modded for that :)
If one borrows as much as they can and doesn't focus on their studies, that's not insane or sick, likely just a sign of questionable judgement.
For example, in California the estimated annual costs for a student living off campus attending a UC school is $29,200 including tuition, fees, books, supplies, room, board, transportation, and personal expenses (some of these of course will vary depending on which campus the student is attending). About half of this ($14,700) is for educational related expenses while the rest is for ordinary living expenses that one would incur even if not attending school.
For a fulltime, four year course of study, this amounts to about $120,000 - assuming no grants or scholarships. So, graduating with $150K of debt in California suggests the student is attending an excessively expensive school, fails to work part time to at least cover summer expenses, spends excessively, and/or didn't complete in four years.
The UC system is well respected, and some campuses are very well regarded (Berkeley for example). However, the Cal State system also offers "real" degrees and costs even less.
As well, in some cases, a clever student will likely be able to figure out how to fulfill some general ed requirements at their local Community College reducing costs yet further.
Of course, $150K would be nothing for advanced degrees/training such as Med School (but, only a fool would build up such debt if the career wouldn't allow them to pay the debt off from earnings fairly quickly and, from a life long viewpoint, result in net earnings greater than not pursuing an advanced degree unless it is their desire to donate their education/life to a particular interest or education is a hobby for them).
When you sell your house, is the new owner/house encumbered with the agreement you signed with SolarCity? How long does the agreement last?
...I won't be late for meetings anymore.
In the third world, yes. If you live in a one room "house" with one solar panel, every watt-hour counts - if the laptop has to draw off the "house battery" because the laptop runs out of charge before daylight or another charging opportunity, that's going to mean you can't keep lights on to read by (although, with the advent of much cheaper LED lights, this may not be as much of a problem anymore).