Actually, the job market is fairly hot for top-notch startup caliber developers - I've seen it hotter, but it's pretty good right now. Of course, these developers virtually never "look" for a job, they are just a little more susceptible to being enticed away depending on how much they love their current job. Nope, I've got no idea if Zynga has folks of this caliber.
Yes... My first impression is that this shows how stupid their management must. To deal with the "some employees got lazy", just don't grant the lazy employes nearly as significant options in the new stock, "hard working" employees get made whole or better by new options. Little press, little bad PR. Sure, some people think they've been screwed, but to show it they have to reveal how many shares they had and were newly granted - which is probably a violation of company policy (sharing your compensation with other employees) and they get fired for cause.
What really freaks me out about this story is that they had the cleartext password. If I could tell, I'd never do online business with an institution that kept my cleartext password anywhere -- salt+hash only thanks (and, no, that's not a breakfast dish).
It appears that AC is married to someone with a harsh voice. The AC didn't claim that all women, or even all wives, have harsh voices. AC just claimed one person who AC likely spends a lot of time with has a harsh voice.
Although AC could have said "$WIFE_NAME's voice is the only sound more harsh...", that would not have conveyed that AC likely spent a lot of time with that person. For example, if AC had said "Jane's voice is the only sound more harsh...", for all we know 'Jane' could be a checker at the local Walmart and since, presumably, AC doesn't spend that much time with a particular checker at Walmart, the message would have reduced significance.
AC could have used the word spouse instead, but that's rather unnatural and unusual as most people refer to their 'wife' or 'husband' rather than their 'spouse' in normal conversation.
Not all observations or criticisms aimed at anyone but a straight white middle aged able-bodied mail is "racist" or "sexist" or "$GROUPphobic".
But of course for the last part to happen, all "now hiring" notices must give qualified responses to all applicants with no bullshit reasons. "Application was rejected in the first round due to not having the qualifications necessary" not simply "Position was already filled" or the one I hate the most - nothing. If there was one place that I wish the government would intervene, it would have to be a "no false job postings," requiring a qualified response for every applicant, and failing to do so, fined 100$ for every form-mail response or no-answer during the application window. I laugh when I get "because other applicants were better qualified", that is a bullshit reason, meaning "your name isn't indian, so rejected."
This would be a disaster as it would be the end of job postings except those legally required for immigration reasons. Those job postings that remained would likely require an application fee, perhaps $50, to be considered (which would not be unreasonable as the process you describe would cost the employer substantial money).
Although, I can't say I would mind this turn of events. I don't think I've ever hired an engineer who came directly through a public job posting and I've certainly never been hired through that path. It's always been through headhunters or referrals. Over the years, this policy would have saved me a lot of time spent scanning and (quickly) rejecting the resumes from HR that had all the right "keywords" but none of the right actual experience.
To assume that "there were more qualified candidates" is not the real reason for rejection is pretty ignorant and arrogant. Consider if there is one opening resulting in 100 resumes, ten phone screens, three interviews and one hire. In this case, up to 99 people, and almost certainly nine, were not given an offer simply because they were not the most qualified candidate in spite of meeting the minimum "paper" requirements -- not because their name doesn't sound Indian.
I'm pretty sure there just aren't a billion people on the earth with the IQ and bent towards science to be useful - and, in fact, most of the billion will get in the way. The time spent training them, overseeing their work, and keeping them up to date by those who know what they are doing would be better spent by those who know what they are doing, well, doing.
I'm guessing that many software developers here can relate to this. If a mediocre developer who just doesn't "get it" somehow gets hired into a strong team (and, for some reason, doesn't get fired quickly), they usually result in the team getting less done than if the head count was left open. For example, instead of explaining to the mediocre developer for the third time the perils of double-checked locking (in whatever "creative" way the mediocre programer has obfuscated it this time), it's more efficient for the person doing the explaining to just design and implement whatever the mediocre programmer was tasked with.
Of course, smart teams sometimes figure out how to marginalize and ostracize mediocre developers and they leave of their own accord after a while regardless of what management wants but not all teams are sufficiently Machiavellian to execute this maneuver cleanly.
(i.e. we have 7bn productive people learning science instead of most of them trying to scrape a living to earn enough to eat for most of their day).
The vast majority of the 7bn people, even if given 100% of their waking hours to study science (and prerequisite areas such as reading), would not be able to be "productive" in science as a result. Science, as most fields, is moved forward not as much by the number of people involved but by the intelligence and insight of the rare few who have the mental capacity and orientation to do what others with lesser capabilities didn't even consider.
If all 7 bn people studied science, we might end up with an additional 100x (or more) people vaguely literate in science (not a bad thing, but not something that will directly accelerate scientific progress significantly) but perhaps only 2x or 5x more "stars" who would actually advance science science more quickly.
All in all, it would be wasteful for everyone to learn science beyond their level of interest and capability - there are so many other things to do (drink beer, aspire to live in a nicer trailer park, wash one's 4WD baby every day on the front lawn, get one's mullet trimmed more often) that would be more productive for many.
For example, I'm pretty sure that given unlimited time to learn to play the violin, I might be able to earn a couple bucks a day in the subway. However, I would never be a "violinist's violinist" or be remotely qualified to play in any of the top ten symphony orchestras in the United States (let alone the world). Training me in violin would really contribute nothing to society at large except employ a fraction of an additional violin maker and slightly increase employment in the residential soundproofing materials market as a byproduct of my neighbors new soundproofing requirements.
I do much that, but I also dump the loose shreds into half full dumpster and scatter them around. That way someone can't just grab the bag. Also, I figure that once the truck picks it up and smushes it into the back with everyone else's trash, it's even more difficult to find the pieces of.
(I'd burn it, but I live in a highly urban area that frowns on fires, thermite, pumpkin launchers, potato guns and all sorts of other good stuff.)
Of course, some agency like NICE will decide for you what is cost effective. They decided that a "quality adjusted life year" was worth something like $45,500 in 2008 (the quality adjustment is to place less value on a year of life which is diminished by pain or the like). Attempts to do this in the US are met with screams of protest. Although, government agencies in the US, such as the EPA and state highway agencies, do regularly put a financial value on a year of life when making decisions and oddly this doesn't invoke much outrage (perhaps because in the case of the EPA it's generally impossible to prove that the lack of a regulation caused a particular disease or death and in the case of the highway agencies, one assumes they won't be the one to run off the cliff because there's no guardrail). However, Medicare is currently not allowed to consider price in determining what treatments will be covered.
Some of the "overkill" resulting in higher costs in the US system is the result of the lack of rationing.
Similarly, some of the "poorer outcomes" are the result of lack of such rationing - for example because sicker people in the US patients sometimes get treatment which would be denied in some single payer systems (this is true, for example, in end stage renal disease and may be true in the case of extremely premature babies).
The differences in attitudes between the general populace in the US with regards to medical care and some other "first world" countries is quite surprising. For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months. Some years ago I was in the UK talking to a vendor rep over dinner and she mentioned that she would be unavailable for a couple weeks due to upcoming surgery (I gathered it was some sort of abdominal surgery and was elective in its timing -- I can only guess what it might have been but I suspect 1/2 the population couldn't even have had this surgery because they lack the necessary parts) and I commented something like "Well, at least you don't have to pay for it due to your government healthcare system" and she gave me a look of shock and said something like "Oh, no - no one who can avoid it has this done in the government system -- I carry private insurance for things like this". She was a very "middle class" person who was on the marketing/sales side and the company she represented was obviously not a "big bucks" vendor. I don't know if this was common or still is, but it surprised me quite a bit.
I like(d) C. It's a very simple & easy language and easy to compile quickly into fairly efficient code (the latter being very important back in the dark ages). It was a fairly natural transitional language for assembly language programmers. It lets you easily do almost anything that you could have done in assembly (and the rest is usually easily achievable by a handful of tiny assembly routines that did hardware specific stuff and were callable from C).
However, it was not the most advanced language around even at the time. I recall briefly using Simula (which predates 'C' IIRC) in school and loving it and C felt like a step down when I ended up being introduced to it in the commercial world upon graduation. Indeed, 'C' wasn't even interesting enough to teach at my school <mumble/> decades ago.
None of this is meant to take anything from Dennis Ritchie's contributions, accomplishments, and influence all of which were considerable.
Many will remember this as the month Steve Jobs died, as an engineer I'm more likely to remember it as the month Dennis Ritchie died (especially since I own a copy or two of K&R, I own more of his stuff than Apple's stuff (none!) to remind me). Both died too young.
If Steve Yegge were at Apple, he probably would have been walked out by security by now.
(Although, once they build the new Steve Job's Memorial Spacebase, I assume they will have some sort of traction beam to remove employees more efficiently at the push of a button - why wait for and pay for a security officer.)
Well, uncqual isn't a terrorist, let alone a terrorist recruiter. Also, my house is in the United States rather than in another country beyond the reach of the United State's domestic criminal justice system.
So, no worry here.
<Godwin's Law>As far as I know, Hitler never personally killed a single American. Would you argue that he was not a valid military target because, after all, what if President Scary later made up a claim that Uberbah was evil.</Godwin's Law>
I believe a recruiter is a valid military target, as is a bomb maker. About the only invalid target in the military infrastructure is a medic (unless, of course, that medic assumes the role of a combatant in which case s/he's fair game).
since this guy almost certainly never actually attacked anyone
Most generals leading troops in wars have never killed anyone in whatever the current war is -- but I believe they are acceptable targets for the opposing party.
Is your only concern that Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen? If he had not been, would you have an issue with the action - and if so, what issues?
However, note that the First Amendment doesn't say people have the right to peaceably assemble on public property or on private property without the consent of the owner.
In interpreting the First Amendment, the SCOTUS has, like it or not, defined the scope of what is "constitutional" and what is not. They have not determined that it conveys a unfettered right to assemble without restriction on public lands.
I don't know about this case, but peaceful protests may require a permit and may require that certain rules be followed.
For example, depending on local laws, a group of people cannot necessarily completely block a sidewalk and prevent thousands of others from using the sidewalk for its intended purpose unless a permit is secured in advance. If it's illegal to block public sidewalks and prevent legitimate users from using them without a permit, it's still illegal to do so as part of a "peaceful protest".
If, in the name of "peaceful protest", protesters do block the sidewalk without the necessary permits and continue to do so after being warned by the police to allow others through, that's "civil disobedience" and the protestors should expect to be arrested. Of course, the arrests must be conducted in a way that is consistent with laws and department regulations (which does not necessarily mean that those being arrested may not suffer some harm if they do not submit readily to being arrested).
Again, I don't know anything about what's specifically happening in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.
That's what EVERY stock market investor tries to do. Every time someone buys a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is selling it. Every time someone sells a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is buying it.
In the market, every bit of market research you do, every bit of data you buy, every moment you spend educating yourself, and every dollar/minute you spend analyzing the data is to find someone to take advantage of on the other side of every trade you make.
How is arbitrage any different - it's just a different avenue?
If someone currently has Comcast internet access, they are somehow paying big bucks for the service so they obviously think they can afford it.
If the goal is to get service to those who otherwise couldn't afford it, this restriction seems reasonable. There are obviously corner cases (loss of job, death of primary wage earner etc) where someone's situation changes suddenly.
The restriction also is fairly easy to work around for many people by dropping Comcast for 91 days and either doing without or relying on other solutions for internet access (DSL if available, public library, friends and neighbors, school, and the like).
The "bottom 2/3rds" have roughly 2/3s of the vote (it's not quite 2/3 because, compared to the "top 2/3rds", a disproportionate percentage of this group is ineligible to vote due to being in prison or having lost their right to vote due to a felony conviction). It's absurd to say that they "have NO representation". If they choose not to vote or choose not to study the issues and candidates and vote intelligently (even if that is just to vote in their selfish best interests), that is their choice to not be represented. One has a right to chose to be unrepresented in America and that's the choice these folks made.
Of course, the statement is false -- SOME of these (in fact, quite a few) of those in the "bottom 2/3rds" DO vote and sometimes the person they vote for win elections and are even a member of the controlling party in the legislative body they serve in.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the job market is fairly hot for top-notch startup caliber developers - I've seen it hotter, but it's pretty good right now. Of course, these developers virtually never "look" for a job, they are just a little more susceptible to being enticed away depending on how much they love their current job. Nope, I've got no idea if Zynga has folks of this caliber.
Yes... My first impression is that this shows how stupid their management must. To deal with the "some employees got lazy", just don't grant the lazy employes nearly as significant options in the new stock, "hard working" employees get made whole or better by new options. Little press, little bad PR. Sure, some people think they've been screwed, but to show it they have to reveal how many shares they had and were newly granted - which is probably a violation of company policy (sharing your compensation with other employees) and they get fired for cause.
Zynga - not too smart.
What really freaks me out about this story is that they had the cleartext password. If I could tell, I'd never do online business with an institution that kept my cleartext password anywhere -- salt+hash only thanks (and, no, that's not a breakfast dish).
And make sure your lawyer's office isn't in the same tornado alley that your house is in.
How is the AC's comment sexist?
It appears that AC is married to someone with a harsh voice. The AC didn't claim that all women, or even all wives, have harsh voices. AC just claimed one person who AC likely spends a lot of time with has a harsh voice.
Although AC could have said "$WIFE_NAME's voice is the only sound more harsh...", that would not have conveyed that AC likely spent a lot of time with that person. For example, if AC had said "Jane's voice is the only sound more harsh...", for all we know 'Jane' could be a checker at the local Walmart and since, presumably, AC doesn't spend that much time with a particular checker at Walmart, the message would have reduced significance.
AC could have used the word spouse instead, but that's rather unnatural and unusual as most people refer to their 'wife' or 'husband' rather than their 'spouse' in normal conversation.
Not all observations or criticisms aimed at anyone but a straight white middle aged able-bodied mail is "racist" or "sexist" or "$GROUPphobic".
This would be a disaster as it would be the end of job postings except those legally required for immigration reasons. Those job postings that remained would likely require an application fee, perhaps $50, to be considered (which would not be unreasonable as the process you describe would cost the employer substantial money).
Although, I can't say I would mind this turn of events. I don't think I've ever hired an engineer who came directly through a public job posting and I've certainly never been hired through that path. It's always been through headhunters or referrals. Over the years, this policy would have saved me a lot of time spent scanning and (quickly) rejecting the resumes from HR that had all the right "keywords" but none of the right actual experience.
To assume that "there were more qualified candidates" is not the real reason for rejection is pretty ignorant and arrogant. Consider if there is one opening resulting in 100 resumes, ten phone screens, three interviews and one hire. In this case, up to 99 people, and almost certainly nine, were not given an offer simply because they were not the most qualified candidate in spite of meeting the minimum "paper" requirements -- not because their name doesn't sound Indian.
I'm pretty sure there just aren't a billion people on the earth with the IQ and bent towards science to be useful - and, in fact, most of the billion will get in the way. The time spent training them, overseeing their work, and keeping them up to date by those who know what they are doing would be better spent by those who know what they are doing, well, doing.
I'm guessing that many software developers here can relate to this. If a mediocre developer who just doesn't "get it" somehow gets hired into a strong team (and, for some reason, doesn't get fired quickly), they usually result in the team getting less done than if the head count was left open. For example, instead of explaining to the mediocre developer for the third time the perils of double-checked locking (in whatever "creative" way the mediocre programer has obfuscated it this time), it's more efficient for the person doing the explaining to just design and implement whatever the mediocre programmer was tasked with.
Of course, smart teams sometimes figure out how to marginalize and ostracize mediocre developers and they leave of their own accord after a while regardless of what management wants but not all teams are sufficiently Machiavellian to execute this maneuver cleanly.
Isn't Jobs going to get lonely in iHeaven if it's so exclusive?
(Too Soon?)
The vast majority of the 7bn people, even if given 100% of their waking hours to study science (and prerequisite areas such as reading), would not be able to be "productive" in science as a result. Science, as most fields, is moved forward not as much by the number of people involved but by the intelligence and insight of the rare few who have the mental capacity and orientation to do what others with lesser capabilities didn't even consider.
If all 7 bn people studied science, we might end up with an additional 100x (or more) people vaguely literate in science (not a bad thing, but not something that will directly accelerate scientific progress significantly) but perhaps only 2x or 5x more "stars" who would actually advance science science more quickly.
All in all, it would be wasteful for everyone to learn science beyond their level of interest and capability - there are so many other things to do (drink beer, aspire to live in a nicer trailer park, wash one's 4WD baby every day on the front lawn, get one's mullet trimmed more often) that would be more productive for many.
For example, I'm pretty sure that given unlimited time to learn to play the violin, I might be able to earn a couple bucks a day in the subway. However, I would never be a "violinist's violinist" or be remotely qualified to play in any of the top ten symphony orchestras in the United States (let alone the world). Training me in violin would really contribute nothing to society at large except employ a fraction of an additional violin maker and slightly increase employment in the residential soundproofing materials market as a byproduct of my neighbors new soundproofing requirements.
I do much that, but I also dump the loose shreds into half full dumpster and scatter them around. That way someone can't just grab the bag. Also, I figure that once the truck picks it up and smushes it into the back with everyone else's trash, it's even more difficult to find the pieces of.
(I'd burn it, but I live in a highly urban area that frowns on fires, thermite, pumpkin launchers, potato guns and all sorts of other good stuff.)
One can hope so.
Of course, some agency like NICE will decide for you what is cost effective. They decided that a "quality adjusted life year" was worth something like $45,500 in 2008 (the quality adjustment is to place less value on a year of life which is diminished by pain or the like). Attempts to do this in the US are met with screams of protest. Although, government agencies in the US, such as the EPA and state highway agencies, do regularly put a financial value on a year of life when making decisions and oddly this doesn't invoke much outrage (perhaps because in the case of the EPA it's generally impossible to prove that the lack of a regulation caused a particular disease or death and in the case of the highway agencies, one assumes they won't be the one to run off the cliff because there's no guardrail). However, Medicare is currently not allowed to consider price in determining what treatments will be covered.
Some of the "overkill" resulting in higher costs in the US system is the result of the lack of rationing.
Similarly, some of the "poorer outcomes" are the result of lack of such rationing - for example because sicker people in the US patients sometimes get treatment which would be denied in some single payer systems (this is true, for example, in end stage renal disease and may be true in the case of extremely premature babies).
The differences in attitudes between the general populace in the US with regards to medical care and some other "first world" countries is quite surprising. For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months. Some years ago I was in the UK talking to a vendor rep over dinner and she mentioned that she would be unavailable for a couple weeks due to upcoming surgery (I gathered it was some sort of abdominal surgery and was elective in its timing -- I can only guess what it might have been but I suspect 1/2 the population couldn't even have had this surgery because they lack the necessary parts) and I commented something like "Well, at least you don't have to pay for it due to your government healthcare system" and she gave me a look of shock and said something like "Oh, no - no one who can avoid it has this done in the government system -- I carry private insurance for things like this". She was a very "middle class" person who was on the marketing/sales side and the company she represented was obviously not a "big bucks" vendor. I don't know if this was common or still is, but it surprised me quite a bit.
I once tried putting boots on my car. Turned out that tyres really worked much better.
Possibly to discourage/track those who steal cables/pipes/manhole covers etc. to sell for scrap value?
I like(d) C. It's a very simple & easy language and easy to compile quickly into fairly efficient code (the latter being very important back in the dark ages). It was a fairly natural transitional language for assembly language programmers. It lets you easily do almost anything that you could have done in assembly (and the rest is usually easily achievable by a handful of tiny assembly routines that did hardware specific stuff and were callable from C).
/> decades ago.
However, it was not the most advanced language around even at the time. I recall briefly using Simula (which predates 'C' IIRC) in school and loving it and C felt like a step down when I ended up being introduced to it in the commercial world upon graduation. Indeed, 'C' wasn't even interesting enough to teach at my school <mumble
None of this is meant to take anything from Dennis Ritchie's contributions, accomplishments, and influence all of which were considerable.
Many will remember this as the month Steve Jobs died, as an engineer I'm more likely to remember it as the month Dennis Ritchie died (especially since I own a copy or two of K&R, I own more of his stuff than Apple's stuff (none!) to remind me). Both died too young.
R.I.P.
If Steve Yegge were at Apple, he probably would have been walked out by security by now.
(Although, once they build the new Steve Job's Memorial Spacebase, I assume they will have some sort of traction beam to remove employees more efficiently at the push of a button - why wait for and pay for a security officer.)
Follow the money.
Well, uncqual isn't a terrorist, let alone a terrorist recruiter. Also, my house is in the United States rather than in another country beyond the reach of the United State's domestic criminal justice system.
So, no worry here.
<Godwin's Law>As far as I know, Hitler never personally killed a single American. Would you argue that he was not a valid military target because, after all, what if President Scary later made up a claim that Uberbah was evil.</Godwin's Law>
I believe a recruiter is a valid military target, as is a bomb maker. About the only invalid target in the military infrastructure is a medic (unless, of course, that medic assumes the role of a combatant in which case s/he's fair game).
since this guy almost certainly never actually attacked anyone
Most generals leading troops in wars have never killed anyone in whatever the current war is -- but I believe they are acceptable targets for the opposing party.
Is your only concern that Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen? If he had not been, would you have an issue with the action - and if so, what issues?
However, note that the First Amendment doesn't say people have the right to peaceably assemble on public property or on private property without the consent of the owner.
In interpreting the First Amendment, the SCOTUS has, like it or not, defined the scope of what is "constitutional" and what is not. They have not determined that it conveys a unfettered right to assemble without restriction on public lands.
I don't know about this case, but peaceful protests may require a permit and may require that certain rules be followed.
For example, depending on local laws, a group of people cannot necessarily completely block a sidewalk and prevent thousands of others from using the sidewalk for its intended purpose unless a permit is secured in advance. If it's illegal to block public sidewalks and prevent legitimate users from using them without a permit, it's still illegal to do so as part of a "peaceful protest".
If, in the name of "peaceful protest", protesters do block the sidewalk without the necessary permits and continue to do so after being warned by the police to allow others through, that's "civil disobedience" and the protestors should expect to be arrested. Of course, the arrests must be conducted in a way that is consistent with laws and department regulations (which does not necessarily mean that those being arrested may not suffer some harm if they do not submit readily to being arrested).
Again, I don't know anything about what's specifically happening in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.
That's what EVERY stock market investor tries to do. Every time someone buys a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is selling it. Every time someone sells a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is buying it.
In the market, every bit of market research you do, every bit of data you buy, every moment you spend educating yourself, and every dollar/minute you spend analyzing the data is to find someone to take advantage of on the other side of every trade you make.
How is arbitrage any different - it's just a different avenue?
If someone currently has Comcast internet access, they are somehow paying big bucks for the service so they obviously think they can afford it.
If the goal is to get service to those who otherwise couldn't afford it, this restriction seems reasonable. There are obviously corner cases (loss of job, death of primary wage earner etc) where someone's situation changes suddenly.
The restriction also is fairly easy to work around for many people by dropping Comcast for 91 days and either doing without or relying on other solutions for internet access (DSL if available, public library, friends and neighbors, school, and the like).
The "bottom 2/3rds" have roughly 2/3s of the vote (it's not quite 2/3 because, compared to the "top 2/3rds", a disproportionate percentage of this group is ineligible to vote due to being in prison or having lost their right to vote due to a felony conviction). It's absurd to say that they "have NO representation". If they choose not to vote or choose not to study the issues and candidates and vote intelligently (even if that is just to vote in their selfish best interests), that is their choice to not be represented. One has a right to chose to be unrepresented in America and that's the choice these folks made.
Of course, the statement is false -- SOME of these (in fact, quite a few) of those in the "bottom 2/3rds" DO vote and sometimes the person they vote for win elections and are even a member of the controlling party in the legislative body they serve in.