For me, moving to Europe was just a matter of having a company say "Yeah, we want to hire this guy"
But how do you get to that point without an interview in person?
For me, it was a case that it was the European HQ of the international company I already worked for (in Australia at the time). However I have other colleagues from non-EU countries who simply applied to job advertisements that they saw and then did interviews via Skype.
Actually, we also just hired a new guy on my team who is also not from the EU - he saw the job advertised through an agency; sent us his CV/Resume; we did our first interview via Skype, but I was unsure because there were still other good candidates, so then we flew him over for a face-to-face interview and he managed to convince me that has was definitely the right candidate.
Most larger companies will be happy to pay for travel for the interview if it's anything higher than grunt work.
Again, see the thing about "rest of the world isn't like the US". There's nothing forcing you to stay there (on original topic: my answer to the submitter would be to consider moving country before he gets too old)
Other than other countries' immigration policies, the language barrier, etc.
Immigration policies: Most of Europe (and many other countries) is very open for anyone with tech skills. For me, moving to Europe was just a matter of having a company say "Yeah, we want to hire this guy; and we're willing to pay over 45k Euro per year" (which ANY tech job will) - automatic approval. Nothing like the green card system in the US.
Language barrier: Learning a new language is NOT a difficult thing to do. I'm a native English speaker, and now speak 4 other languages reasonably well and bits and pieces of two more. It just requires a little effort for a few months - more than worth it for the advantages it gives.
I have a hard time understanding why the parent was modded "Insightful" for this trolling. Just in case someone does think it's insightful:
Why have kids at all? I know it's the social norm and there's some nagging instinct to procreate (Darwin practically insures it) but there are some serious draw backs.
This is true, however to many people, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.
* It's environmentally irresponsible at this point to have kids.
Possibly true; however it's more environmentally unfriendly for those who have kids that will continue to act socially irresponsibly. If the kids are raised with environmental awareness as an important factor, there'll probably be a net benefit for the environment overall. If we only allow the irresponsible and dumb to breed, the environment will suffer far worse.
* Kids are expensive.
Reasonably true, but it depends where you live as to how much of a real burden that is. I understand the "Ask Slashdot" was almost certainly posted by an American and there's a lot of American readership here, but the rest of the world does behave quite differently at times. Here in Germany for having kids we get tax breaks; additional money on top; and lots of important things are free (or close to free). I'd say financially, I'm about the same now as before my wife and I became parents.
(yes, I'm aware it comes out of taxes, so I am indirectly paying all of the costs that way - but I was before she was born anyway; so it's no real difference there)
* Kids make things complicated when you finally wise up and dump the bitch.
That sounds like it was written by a bitter teenager. Some relationships DO last...
Even in the unimaginable case that one day my wife and I go our separate ways, then yes, our daughter will be a complicating factor. But the chance seems so remote, it's a risk I don't even bother thinking about.
* You can love a dog or cat just as much and spend next to nothing on them. (ok not a draw back.. draw sideways?)
Anyone who thinks this has clearly never had children.
* If you're not going to get Social Security what chance to your kids have of getting it?
Again, see the thing about "rest of the world isn't like the US". There's nothing forcing you to stay there (on original topic: my answer to the submitter would be to consider moving country before he gets too old)
* Kids are destructive. No really, you'll work 18 years to house break them and they'll still not be house broken by the time they move out.
Learning to live in society takes time, yes. But I object to the phrase "house breaking" in this fashion. I don't know about you Mr AC, but I was hardly "destructive" since getting past puberty. Or at least, no more so than I still am today (and that can be taken out on non-harmful things like blowing stuff up in computer games from time to time)
* The status symbol of having a baby really only last about a month. After that you're just the average asshole again.
Status symbol? I can't imagine the idea of having a baby as a "status symbol". You have kids because a biological imperative pushes you to do so and then you love them. You don't do it for peer approval!
Not learning your lesson, a few years later you'll be the junky after another hit. It's really hard to just have one.
My wife and I are deliberating about having a second, but if we don't, just one will be fine. My wife's an only child. There are many others in the world as well, disproving that lame argument fairly thoroughly.
Even OSX from a developer that's notorious for removing unnecessary complication still has a complete CLI available for times when you need it and hasn't been able to figure out how to eliminate the need..
The day the do is the day I stop upgrading my Macs.
I'm aware it's "fashionable" to assume Mac users are the less tech-savvy group in general - and this may even be true to a degree - but I'd say there's plenty out there like me, who prefer MacOS as their main operating system, and yet still spend between 25% and 75% of their time in a terminal.
I like the GUI for doing tasks that don't make sense on a terminal (image editing, web browsing, etc) and the command line for general management (editing text; config stuff; file management; remote access to other systems (except where using GUI apps, but that's rare); etc)
I'm entry to senior level (3 years university work, 1 year company work) making ~ 55000 €. Would you consider that as good?
Hmmm... I'd consider it "about right" I guess. You're still young after all, so that's probably around the figure I'd expect if you were to join my group for example. In another five years time, I'd hope that'd be significantly higher though (even if you're doing the exact same work).
Did OS X actually bring-in a lot of new users? Or were they brought-in by the hardware, apps, or advertising, and just happen to use OS X, and would just as easily have used OS9 without complaint? Being an early adopter of a all-new OS is anything but fun.
Can't speak for anyone else of course, but for me OS X brought me in to buying their hardware. I absolutely hated Classic MacOS and had no interest in ever using it outside of work (my work was, and still is, a mix of Windows, MacOS and Linux).
When Mac OS X came out, I found it quite interesting, although still not enough for me to migrate at home. By 10.2, I decided I might get a Mac as a secondary system at home; and then by 10.4 I basically stopped upgrading other systems. At home, I now have three Macs, two Linux systems and one Windows laptop (my wife's).
Are you a regular developer, senior developer or management level?
Mid-to-high level. My title is "Software Development Supervisor". Basically 75% actual development and related tasks, 15% developer support (i.e. "Hey, YttriumOxide, why doesn't this code I wrote work?" from a hundred or so third parties) and 10% management of a small team of other people doing roughly the same thing.
Out of interest, I recall reading somewhere that a similar concept was being considered for essentially "washing" the lungs for dangerous foreign contaminants that are otherwise very difficult to get out. Unfortunately, my Google skills seem to be weak today and I can't find anything about it. As one of the rare few who has actually had some experience with the "breathing liquid" thing, do you know anything about that?
(of course, I imagine it would be an extraordinarily uncomfortable medical procedure, and so your average Joe with lung problems (hence, needing the procedure) is likely going to need to be knocked out first)
What's the difference between a Software Developer and a Software Engineer?
A software developer will be primarily concerned with writing code from the given requirements. A software engineer is concerned with the entire process of producing high quality code, how that code fits into the business, how the requirements are established, how bugs are tracked over time, ensuring code reviews are effective, that testing coverage is appropriate without costing too much, how projects are managed, creating and using metrics, and of course writing high quality code.
Hmmm... I've always thought of it more as:
- Programmer: Writes code from given requirements. Essentially a replaceable part in the machine of turning caffeine in to lines of code.
- Software Developer: Writes high quality code; makes decisions about implementation details that aren't in the spec provided; deals with QA; technology expert on custom systems/hardware/interfaces/etc that the software must work with; assists documentation and QA teams with technical insight.
- Software Engineer: Everything the Software Developer does but with less focus on actual coding; more focus on the bug tracking, code reviews, testing coverage (with costs), project management, metrics, etc.
Of course, the titles are pretty flexible depending on your workplace.
By the above definitions, I fall somewhere between Software Developer and Software Engineer. My actual title is "Software Development Supervisor", which also entails a little management, but thankfully not much and I still spend around 75% of my time coding (or studying code/testing/etc).
I'd be interested to hear the stories from people who did make it over there, any good ones?
Been here in Germany 5 years now. Loving it. The take-home pay is lower due to higher taxes, but that's MORE than offset by the social benefits that my tax money buys. No toll roads anywhere; excellent public transport at amazingly low prices; 10 euro per quarter is the most I'll ever pay for medical attention (regardless of what needs done)...
There are things I don't like about living here, but quality of life in general is very high.
It looks like Canada is #2, Australia #3 as far as IT worker living standard goes.
I can't speak for Canada, but in Sydney, Australia where I spent 6 years, I got sick of paying nearly 50% of my income in rent; toll roads everywhere you go; only 20 days annual leave per year (it's 30 here in Germany); and the expectation to work overtime for no pay, but it being unacceptable to leave early once in a while.
Then there is the culture shock, homesickness, political chaos, social isolation, the German expectation of punctuality.
Not sure what you mean by "political chaos" - the only chaos recently has been rather positive with the Pirate Party doing unexpectedly well. Things are pretty stable here politically for the most part.
The "expectation of punctuality" is also more of a myth than reality. It's very common here that companies set a minimum number of working hours, but don't have fixed work times. Your individual boss may have further requirements, but (at least where I work) it's extremely flexible.
It's the most modernized country in the old world...aka the cool old architecture has been knocked down.
True in some places, but even in towns that were SERIOUSLY blown apart in the war (like Hannover, where I live) there are still a few nice old buildings around. And a lot of the rebuilt stuff is done in nice "older" styles. The "old city" area of Hannover is really quite pretty and I can drive to a nice castle in about 25 minutes from my home.
How could anyone plausibly think that going to Mars would mean greater material prosperity, or more actual freedom?
Or maybe those who would go value things other than material prosperity and freedom?
I myself would've gone had you asked me before I became a father. Now there's someone depending on me to be around and help her our for the next 20 years or so (and probably to a lesser extent for the rest of my life), it's no longer an attractive proposition.
My reasons for going would be that like everyone, I will die one day - whether it be here on Earth in 40 years or there on Mars in 12 (given I leave 10 years from now). In the span of time from my birth to the end of human civilisation, my life itself is pretty darn short. Therefore to be remembered for a significantly longer period through doing something as awesome as landing on Mars (even if it turned out to be practically worthless to do so) would be worth it.
Like I said though, I have a daughter now, so there's other priorities.
As long as we live in a society where the populace has (some) control over the society in which we live; YES THEY ARE.
I love my daughter and want to raise her to have similar beliefs to myself (for reference: critical thinking; scepticism; willingness to change views on new evidence; etc). However if I try to raise her in such a way that is detrimental to the society around me, I fully hope and expect that the society will stop me from doing so. And I'll do my best to stop others from doing so with their children.
She's my daughter, not my property. I do NOT have final say over her life. She IS a member of society and will be expected and required to behave as a fully functional adult within our society once she's old enough to "leave the nest".
Sure, she might buck against the society if needs be - I'm not advocating that society is always right - just that you have very little choice other than to live in it, so you'd better at least be able to survive and conduct yourself properly within it (those who don't do so, don't tend to last long - prison; dead in a gang-war; self-exile to a log cabin in the woods; whatever).
As a young kid, I always wondered how people could NOT notice this. Look at dinosaur feet in cheesy old movies, and look at the feet of most birds. They're so ridiculously similar.
Of course, as a young kid, I kind of had it backwards and thought that the dinosaur puppet makers in the old movies were being lazy and using chicken (or other bird) feet for their puppets and that maybe dinosaurs had totally different feet. When someone explained to me the evolutionary link (and that of course, those old movies were basing the feet off known fossils), I basically just said, "Well yeah, that makes more sense then."
Umm... Last time I checked Russia is a communist country too
It's clearly been a LONG time since you checked... it's been a Federal Republic with a multi-party representative democracy since the 25th of December 1991...
You could of course argue back and forth that they're not a very good democracy, but that's a matter of each person's own opinion.
I have two reasons for enabling "slide to unlock" on my phone. 1: to stop pocket dialing. 2: to stop my son from dialing 111 if he gets my phone. He's two now and has figured out how to unlock already, dial numbers and start angry birds. It would take him another few years to figure out he has to point the phone at me or a photo of me.
My 14 month old daughter can now "slide to unlock" my wife's phone, bring up the address book and press the picture of her dad. She calls me at work at least twice a week. She's a little behind in the speaking department though, so no matter how much I try to get her to say something, she'll remain silent or offer a non-specific squeak/grunt at best (no cause for concern yet, but we're hoping her language skills pick up soon).
So yes, I completely agree that the face recognition would be useful here - my wife's phone contains very little in the way of sensitive data; is never left anywhere when she goes out; and we live in a very low-crime city/country... security is therefore basically irrelevant, we just need a way to stop our daughter racking up pointless phone bills! (although I'll happily get her her own gizmos and toys since she clearly loves anything with buttons and/or screens)
If you were paying someone to install kitchen cabinets or fix your roof and you found htem off in a corner playing Farmville on your network on a netbook wouldn't you be a little pieved? Especially if they billed by the hour?
They are at your house to work and leave. Simple as that and that is capitalism 101.
If they billed by the hour, sure... but I, like most of the white-collar workers here, am a salaried worker, not one paid by the hour. If I paid this theoretical worker a fixed dollar amount for the job to be finished by a certain time, and he said he was taking a break to play Farmville and rest a bit between bits of hard work, but would definitely still finish before the required time, I'd be quite fine with that. I'd even offer him a cup of tea/coffee.
Indeed. As the guy who sets the rules (within the legal framework and employment contracts of course); the basic rules for my groups working time are as follows:
1) Our standard HR employment contracts specify 38.5 hours per week. Since we regularly do overtime, I'll ask that the AVERAGE is kept over 38.5 hours. You do a 60 hour week one week, feel free to take a day or two off and/or a few shorter days to compensate when we're not so busy.
2) Sometimes we need to talk face to face to get stuff sorted. For this, I ask that you be there between 11am and 3pm unless previously notified that you won't be.
3) Sometimes we have meetings with other departments (or video conference calls with other countries) at annoying hours. Sorry, but if you're needed for it, please be there. As with #1, feel free to take the time off elsewhere.
4) Do whatever you want while at the office as long as it doesn't interfere with other team members. Personally, I like to play games for 30 minutes to an hour after lunch to relax. As long as this isn't recorded as "work time", I'm okay with it (e.g. "start at 9am; goof off between 11am and 2pm; leave at 5pm" = perfectly okay as long as that's only recorded as a 5 hour work day rather than 8).
5) I don't record what time you get there, what time you leave, or what time you spend doing non work related stuff. I expect you to record this yourself and I'll just trust you on it.
6) Get the projects done within the timeframes I've set. If you're having trouble, ask me or another co-worker. If you need to, work overtime and then refer to #1 after the project is done.
The people in my team are generally happy with these rules. Some other departments are a little annoyed about #2, since they like scheduling meetings for ridiculous hours like 9am (we're a development group... feel free to schedule a meeting at 6pm, but 9am is just being silly), but that's their problem, not mine.
but games aren't just for kid, actually a lot of games are targeted for >= 15 years old, I really can't imagine some 30 years old playing with stick and a cowboy hat, but they can sure play with a videogame
Stick and cowboy hat, not yet... but I just got back from the playground with my wife and daughter, where I had a great time on the swings for a bit while my daughter played on the slide with her mum. I'd also happily don a cowboy hat and shoot at her with a stick (and get shot by her stick) if that's the game she wants to play.
Best thing about being a dad is that no-one looks at me funny for acting "childish" (not that it stopped me before I was a father, but I did get funny looks).
If you don't go out and "play" sometimes, I highly recommend trying it.
I was tempted to mod this interesting (because it is, although I disagree), but then thought I'd rather reply with my disagreement instead.
If you're talking only the child's own imagination, you're right. However in the real world of imaginary play that the GP was referring to, children play with other children. The "story" is being told by all participants actively, and each can be considered the "artist". Each child experiences what the others convey from their imagination through their actions; and then combines that with their own imagination in to the actions they then perform. I don't see this as being that different from your author as artist scenario (other than being significantly more active).
I'd also have to disagree with your statement "Everyone gets the experience just as intended by the artist". I'd say everyone gets to experience something of what the artist was able to convey to them; and not necessarily what the artist intended. How often do you find yourself or someone else has read something and failed to comprehend the author's intention? As someone who (unfortunately) has to produce documentation from time to time, I'm well aware of misunderstandings of my own written text. The people reading my text certainly did not "get the experience as intended by the artist" but only the experience I was able to successfully convey to them.
For what it is, the Model S is pretty inexpensive in my view. It's almost certainly going to be my next car (I wanted the Roadster, but now I'm a dad my wife forbid me from getting another two seater; so when my current one gets too old, Tesla Model S or similar it is)
"Interesting. Compare my data 4 high-energy nucleons w V1's That increase is attracting attention!"
I've tried four times and can't parse that string, let alone make sense of it. Can someone from the appropriate generation translate it for me, please?
Translation: "Interesting. Compare my [Voyager 2's] data for high-energy nucleons withVoyager 1's [data for high-energy nucleons]. That increase [that is, the increase shown in Voyager 2's high-energy nucleon data over Voyager 1's high-energy nucleon data] is attracting attention!"
Unless you go through proper channels to license the code to the company, then you're inviting trouble. Unless the company is happy for you to pull in external code which prevents sub-licensing then you're screwing the company.
If they're paying you to develop code, unless they have specifically said you can license external code which doesn't allow sublicensing then you are potentially doing something wrong.
Of course you're quite right, but in my case it's not an issue. I'm in charge of decisions regarding code usage in general (with consultation from our legal dept where required of course), so the appropriate person in the company to ask "is that okay?" happens to be me anyway.
For reference, I'm not just a "code monkey" - I spend about 50% of my time coding (or related activities), but the rest is project planning, group management (small team working under me), liaising with third party QA, organising translation and documentation, and so on. Basically I'm in charge of all things development related and the company wants to just give me "loose rough specs" and get a working product out the other end within the budget they've given me. How the app works, behaves and so on - and especially the internals - is totally up to me as long as it fulfills the goal of the rough specs that I was given (these can be and usually are VERY rough - e.g. if they wanted me to write Angry Birds (imagining it didn't already exist), they'd say "write a game where you slingshot birds at stuff which makes it fall down and you have to kill pigs with that" - every detail beyond that would be totally up to me (pure fantasy example, I don't write games))
It's probably also worth noting that software development isn't the primary focus of our company - we're first and foremost a hardware manufacturer and the software I create is basically "to help improve the hardware offering that we have" and make it more attractive to our customers.
As a developer, I was very sure to get very clear rules for this in my employment contract.
Any code that I develop in my own time belongs to me. If I choose to use that code in a project at work, the company is given a royalty-free and warranty-free licence to use that code as they see fit. They may not however sub-license it, claim it as their own, or prevent me from using it in any way. All such code must be specifically marked as such, or it is assumed I created it on company time.
My contract does however also specify that I can not compete with my employer while working here, and as such most of the code I do in private has little re-use value at work and vice-versa.
Also, I've been with the same company for 10 years and will likely stay here for the rest of my working life, so I don't actually spend too much time thinking about it - it's just a safety precaution in case something does happen.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, moving to Europe was just a matter of having a company say "Yeah, we want to hire this guy"
But how do you get to that point without an interview in person?
For me, it was a case that it was the European HQ of the international company I already worked for (in Australia at the time). However I have other colleagues from non-EU countries who simply applied to job advertisements that they saw and then did interviews via Skype.
Actually, we also just hired a new guy on my team who is also not from the EU - he saw the job advertised through an agency; sent us his CV/Resume; we did our first interview via Skype, but I was unsure because there were still other good candidates, so then we flew him over for a face-to-face interview and he managed to convince me that has was definitely the right candidate.
Most larger companies will be happy to pay for travel for the interview if it's anything higher than grunt work.
Again, see the thing about "rest of the world isn't like the US". There's nothing forcing you to stay there (on original topic: my answer to the submitter would be to consider moving country before he gets too old)
Other than other countries' immigration policies, the language barrier, etc.
Immigration policies: Most of Europe (and many other countries) is very open for anyone with tech skills. For me, moving to Europe was just a matter of having a company say "Yeah, we want to hire this guy; and we're willing to pay over 45k Euro per year" (which ANY tech job will) - automatic approval. Nothing like the green card system in the US.
Language barrier: Learning a new language is NOT a difficult thing to do. I'm a native English speaker, and now speak 4 other languages reasonably well and bits and pieces of two more. It just requires a little effort for a few months - more than worth it for the advantages it gives.
I have a hard time understanding why the parent was modded "Insightful" for this trolling. Just in case someone does think it's insightful:
Why have kids at all? I know it's the social norm and there's some nagging instinct to procreate (Darwin practically insures it) but there are some serious draw backs.
This is true, however to many people, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.
* It's environmentally irresponsible at this point to have kids.
Possibly true; however it's more environmentally unfriendly for those who have kids that will continue to act socially irresponsibly. If the kids are raised with environmental awareness as an important factor, there'll probably be a net benefit for the environment overall. If we only allow the irresponsible and dumb to breed, the environment will suffer far worse.
* Kids are expensive.
Reasonably true, but it depends where you live as to how much of a real burden that is. I understand the "Ask Slashdot" was almost certainly posted by an American and there's a lot of American readership here, but the rest of the world does behave quite differently at times. Here in Germany for having kids we get tax breaks; additional money on top; and lots of important things are free (or close to free). I'd say financially, I'm about the same now as before my wife and I became parents.
(yes, I'm aware it comes out of taxes, so I am indirectly paying all of the costs that way - but I was before she was born anyway; so it's no real difference there)
* Kids make things complicated when you finally wise up and dump the bitch.
That sounds like it was written by a bitter teenager. Some relationships DO last...
Even in the unimaginable case that one day my wife and I go our separate ways, then yes, our daughter will be a complicating factor. But the chance seems so remote, it's a risk I don't even bother thinking about.
* You can love a dog or cat just as much and spend next to nothing on them. (ok not a draw back.. draw sideways?)
Anyone who thinks this has clearly never had children.
* If you're not going to get Social Security what chance to your kids have of getting it?
Again, see the thing about "rest of the world isn't like the US". There's nothing forcing you to stay there (on original topic: my answer to the submitter would be to consider moving country before he gets too old)
* Kids are destructive. No really, you'll work 18 years to house break them and they'll still not be house broken by the time they move out.
Learning to live in society takes time, yes. But I object to the phrase "house breaking" in this fashion. I don't know about you Mr AC, but I was hardly "destructive" since getting past puberty. Or at least, no more so than I still am today (and that can be taken out on non-harmful things like blowing stuff up in computer games from time to time)
* The status symbol of having a baby really only last about a month. After that you're just the average asshole again.
Status symbol? I can't imagine the idea of having a baby as a "status symbol". You have kids because a biological imperative pushes you to do so and then you love them. You don't do it for peer approval!
Not learning your lesson, a few years later you'll be the junky after another hit. It's really hard to just have one.
My wife and I are deliberating about having a second, but if we don't, just one will be fine. My wife's an only child. There are many others in the world as well, disproving that lame argument fairly thoroughly.
Even OSX from a developer that's notorious for removing unnecessary complication still has a complete CLI available for times when you need it and hasn't been able to figure out how to eliminate the need..
The day the do is the day I stop upgrading my Macs.
I'm aware it's "fashionable" to assume Mac users are the less tech-savvy group in general - and this may even be true to a degree - but I'd say there's plenty out there like me, who prefer MacOS as their main operating system, and yet still spend between 25% and 75% of their time in a terminal.
I like the GUI for doing tasks that don't make sense on a terminal (image editing, web browsing, etc) and the command line for general management (editing text; config stuff; file management; remote access to other systems (except where using GUI apps, but that's rare); etc)
I'm entry to senior level (3 years university work, 1 year company work) making ~ 55000 €. Would you consider that as good?
Hmmm... I'd consider it "about right" I guess. You're still young after all, so that's probably around the figure I'd expect if you were to join my group for example. In another five years time, I'd hope that'd be significantly higher though (even if you're doing the exact same work).
Did OS X actually bring-in a lot of new users? Or were they brought-in by the hardware, apps, or advertising, and just happen to use OS X, and would just as easily have used OS9 without complaint? Being an early adopter of a all-new OS is anything but fun.
Can't speak for anyone else of course, but for me OS X brought me in to buying their hardware. I absolutely hated Classic MacOS and had no interest in ever using it outside of work (my work was, and still is, a mix of Windows, MacOS and Linux).
When Mac OS X came out, I found it quite interesting, although still not enough for me to migrate at home. By 10.2, I decided I might get a Mac as a secondary system at home; and then by 10.4 I basically stopped upgrading other systems. At home, I now have three Macs, two Linux systems and one Windows laptop (my wife's).
Are you a regular developer, senior developer or management level?
Mid-to-high level. My title is "Software Development Supervisor". Basically 75% actual development and related tasks, 15% developer support (i.e. "Hey, YttriumOxide, why doesn't this code I wrote work?" from a hundred or so third parties) and 10% management of a small team of other people doing roughly the same thing.
Out of interest, I recall reading somewhere that a similar concept was being considered for essentially "washing" the lungs for dangerous foreign contaminants that are otherwise very difficult to get out. Unfortunately, my Google skills seem to be weak today and I can't find anything about it. As one of the rare few who has actually had some experience with the "breathing liquid" thing, do you know anything about that?
(of course, I imagine it would be an extraordinarily uncomfortable medical procedure, and so your average Joe with lung problems (hence, needing the procedure) is likely going to need to be knocked out first)
What's the difference between a Software Developer and a Software Engineer?
A software developer will be primarily concerned with writing code from the given requirements. A software engineer is concerned with the entire process of producing high quality code, how that code fits into the business, how the requirements are established, how bugs are tracked over time, ensuring code reviews are effective, that testing coverage is appropriate without costing too much, how projects are managed, creating and using metrics, and of course writing high quality code.
Hmmm... I've always thought of it more as:
Of course, the titles are pretty flexible depending on your workplace.
By the above definitions, I fall somewhere between Software Developer and Software Engineer. My actual title is "Software Development Supervisor", which also entails a little management, but thankfully not much and I still spend around 75% of my time coding (or studying code/testing/etc).
Where in Munich do you earn 100000$ as a software developer?
If you mean that sounds a little LOW, I'd agree with you. I make a bit more than that living in Hannover.
Munich being significantly more expensive than Hannover, I'd want significantly more pay.
I'd be interested to hear the stories from people who did make it over there, any good ones?
Been here in Germany 5 years now. Loving it. The take-home pay is lower due to higher taxes, but that's MORE than offset by the social benefits that my tax money buys. No toll roads anywhere; excellent public transport at amazingly low prices; 10 euro per quarter is the most I'll ever pay for medical attention (regardless of what needs done)...
There are things I don't like about living here, but quality of life in general is very high.
It looks like Canada is #2, Australia #3 as far as IT worker living standard goes.
I can't speak for Canada, but in Sydney, Australia where I spent 6 years, I got sick of paying nearly 50% of my income in rent; toll roads everywhere you go; only 20 days annual leave per year (it's 30 here in Germany); and the expectation to work overtime for no pay, but it being unacceptable to leave early once in a while.
Then there is the culture shock, homesickness, political chaos, social isolation, the German expectation of punctuality.
Not sure what you mean by "political chaos" - the only chaos recently has been rather positive with the Pirate Party doing unexpectedly well. Things are pretty stable here politically for the most part.
The "expectation of punctuality" is also more of a myth than reality. It's very common here that companies set a minimum number of working hours, but don't have fixed work times. Your individual boss may have further requirements, but (at least where I work) it's extremely flexible.
It's the most modernized country in the old world...aka the cool old architecture has been knocked down.
True in some places, but even in towns that were SERIOUSLY blown apart in the war (like Hannover, where I live) there are still a few nice old buildings around. And a lot of the rebuilt stuff is done in nice "older" styles. The "old city" area of Hannover is really quite pretty and I can drive to a nice castle in about 25 minutes from my home.
How could anyone plausibly think that going to Mars would mean greater material prosperity, or more actual freedom?
Or maybe those who would go value things other than material prosperity and freedom?
I myself would've gone had you asked me before I became a father. Now there's someone depending on me to be around and help her our for the next 20 years or so (and probably to a lesser extent for the rest of my life), it's no longer an attractive proposition.
My reasons for going would be that like everyone, I will die one day - whether it be here on Earth in 40 years or there on Mars in 12 (given I leave 10 years from now). In the span of time from my birth to the end of human civilisation, my life itself is pretty darn short. Therefore to be remembered for a significantly longer period through doing something as awesome as landing on Mars (even if it turned out to be practically worthless to do so) would be worth it.
Like I said though, I have a daughter now, so there's other priorities.
Where can I see the fossil of a the midway-between-dinosaur-and-bird animal?
You can probably start with Google... but if you'd like a link, here's one to a relevant wikipedia article.
If that's not birdlike enough for you, how about this one?
Not my children. Not my responsibility.
As long as we live in a society where the populace has (some) control over the society in which we live; YES THEY ARE.
I love my daughter and want to raise her to have similar beliefs to myself (for reference: critical thinking; scepticism; willingness to change views on new evidence; etc). However if I try to raise her in such a way that is detrimental to the society around me, I fully hope and expect that the society will stop me from doing so. And I'll do my best to stop others from doing so with their children.
She's my daughter, not my property. I do NOT have final say over her life. She IS a member of society and will be expected and required to behave as a fully functional adult within our society once she's old enough to "leave the nest".
Sure, she might buck against the society if needs be - I'm not advocating that society is always right - just that you have very little choice other than to live in it, so you'd better at least be able to survive and conduct yourself properly within it (those who don't do so, don't tend to last long - prison; dead in a gang-war; self-exile to a log cabin in the woods; whatever).
Here's a "60 minutes" episode where they compare chickens with dinosaurs (stand, arms, and feet are similar). http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658449n
As a young kid, I always wondered how people could NOT notice this. Look at dinosaur feet in cheesy old movies, and look at the feet of most birds. They're so ridiculously similar.
Of course, as a young kid, I kind of had it backwards and thought that the dinosaur puppet makers in the old movies were being lazy and using chicken (or other bird) feet for their puppets and that maybe dinosaurs had totally different feet. When someone explained to me the evolutionary link (and that of course, those old movies were basing the feet off known fossils), I basically just said, "Well yeah, that makes more sense then."
Umm ... Last time I checked Russia is a communist country too
It's clearly been a LONG time since you checked... it's been a Federal Republic with a multi-party representative democracy since the 25th of December 1991...
You could of course argue back and forth that they're not a very good democracy, but that's a matter of each person's own opinion.
I have two reasons for enabling "slide to unlock" on my phone. 1: to stop pocket dialing. 2: to stop my son from dialing 111 if he gets my phone. He's two now and has figured out how to unlock already, dial numbers and start angry birds. It would take him another few years to figure out he has to point the phone at me or a photo of me.
My 14 month old daughter can now "slide to unlock" my wife's phone, bring up the address book and press the picture of her dad. She calls me at work at least twice a week. She's a little behind in the speaking department though, so no matter how much I try to get her to say something, she'll remain silent or offer a non-specific squeak/grunt at best (no cause for concern yet, but we're hoping her language skills pick up soon).
So yes, I completely agree that the face recognition would be useful here - my wife's phone contains very little in the way of sensitive data; is never left anywhere when she goes out; and we live in a very low-crime city/country... security is therefore basically irrelevant, we just need a way to stop our daughter racking up pointless phone bills! (although I'll happily get her her own gizmos and toys since she clearly loves anything with buttons and/or screens)
Wouldn't you?
If you were paying someone to install kitchen cabinets or fix your roof and you found htem off in a corner playing Farmville on your network on a netbook wouldn't you be a little pieved? Especially if they billed by the hour?
They are at your house to work and leave. Simple as that and that is capitalism 101.
If they billed by the hour, sure... but I, like most of the white-collar workers here, am a salaried worker, not one paid by the hour.
If I paid this theoretical worker a fixed dollar amount for the job to be finished by a certain time, and he said he was taking a break to play Farmville and rest a bit between bits of hard work, but would definitely still finish before the required time, I'd be quite fine with that. I'd even offer him a cup of tea/coffee.
Indeed. As the guy who sets the rules (within the legal framework and employment contracts of course); the basic rules for my groups working time are as follows:
1) Our standard HR employment contracts specify 38.5 hours per week. Since we regularly do overtime, I'll ask that the AVERAGE is kept over 38.5 hours. You do a 60 hour week one week, feel free to take a day or two off and/or a few shorter days to compensate when we're not so busy.
2) Sometimes we need to talk face to face to get stuff sorted. For this, I ask that you be there between 11am and 3pm unless previously notified that you won't be.
3) Sometimes we have meetings with other departments (or video conference calls with other countries) at annoying hours. Sorry, but if you're needed for it, please be there. As with #1, feel free to take the time off elsewhere.
4) Do whatever you want while at the office as long as it doesn't interfere with other team members. Personally, I like to play games for 30 minutes to an hour after lunch to relax. As long as this isn't recorded as "work time", I'm okay with it (e.g. "start at 9am; goof off between 11am and 2pm; leave at 5pm" = perfectly okay as long as that's only recorded as a 5 hour work day rather than 8).
5) I don't record what time you get there, what time you leave, or what time you spend doing non work related stuff. I expect you to record this yourself and I'll just trust you on it.
6) Get the projects done within the timeframes I've set. If you're having trouble, ask me or another co-worker. If you need to, work overtime and then refer to #1 after the project is done.
The people in my team are generally happy with these rules. Some other departments are a little annoyed about #2, since they like scheduling meetings for ridiculous hours like 9am (we're a development group... feel free to schedule a meeting at 6pm, but 9am is just being silly), but that's their problem, not mine.
but games aren't just for kid, actually a lot of games are targeted for >= 15 years old, I really can't imagine some 30 years old playing with stick and a cowboy hat, but they can sure play with a videogame
Stick and cowboy hat, not yet... but I just got back from the playground with my wife and daughter, where I had a great time on the swings for a bit while my daughter played on the slide with her mum. I'd also happily don a cowboy hat and shoot at her with a stick (and get shot by her stick) if that's the game she wants to play.
Best thing about being a dad is that no-one looks at me funny for acting "childish" (not that it stopped me before I was a father, but I did get funny looks).
If you don't go out and "play" sometimes, I highly recommend trying it.
I was tempted to mod this interesting (because it is, although I disagree), but then thought I'd rather reply with my disagreement instead.
If you're talking only the child's own imagination, you're right. However in the real world of imaginary play that the GP was referring to, children play with other children. The "story" is being told by all participants actively, and each can be considered the "artist".
Each child experiences what the others convey from their imagination through their actions; and then combines that with their own imagination in to the actions they then perform. I don't see this as being that different from your author as artist scenario (other than being significantly more active).
I'd also have to disagree with your statement "Everyone gets the experience just as intended by the artist ". I'd say everyone gets to experience something of what the artist was able to convey to them; and not necessarily what the artist intended. How often do you find yourself or someone else has read something and failed to comprehend the author's intention? As someone who (unfortunately) has to produce documentation from time to time, I'm well aware of misunderstandings of my own written text. The people reading my text certainly did not "get the experience as intended by the artist" but only the experience I was able to successfully convey to them.
We want inexpensive Tesla S
For what it is, the Model S is pretty inexpensive in my view. It's almost certainly going to be my next car (I wanted the Roadster, but now I'm a dad my wife forbid me from getting another two seater; so when my current one gets too old, Tesla Model S or similar it is)
"Interesting. Compare my data 4 high-energy nucleons w V1's That increase is attracting attention!"
I've tried four times and can't parse that string, let alone make sense of it. Can someone from the appropriate generation translate it for me, please?
Translation:
"Interesting. Compare my [Voyager 2's] data for high-energy nucleons with Voyager 1's [data for high-energy nucleons]. That increase [that is, the increase shown in Voyager 2's high-energy nucleon data over Voyager 1's high-energy nucleon data] is attracting attention!"
Unless you go through proper channels to license the code to the company, then you're inviting trouble. Unless the company is happy for you to pull in external code which prevents sub-licensing then you're screwing the company.
If they're paying you to develop code, unless they have specifically said you can license external code which doesn't allow sublicensing then you are potentially doing something wrong.
Of course you're quite right, but in my case it's not an issue. I'm in charge of decisions regarding code usage in general (with consultation from our legal dept where required of course), so the appropriate person in the company to ask "is that okay?" happens to be me anyway.
For reference, I'm not just a "code monkey" - I spend about 50% of my time coding (or related activities), but the rest is project planning, group management (small team working under me), liaising with third party QA, organising translation and documentation, and so on. Basically I'm in charge of all things development related and the company wants to just give me "loose rough specs" and get a working product out the other end within the budget they've given me. How the app works, behaves and so on - and especially the internals - is totally up to me as long as it fulfills the goal of the rough specs that I was given (these can be and usually are VERY rough - e.g. if they wanted me to write Angry Birds (imagining it didn't already exist), they'd say "write a game where you slingshot birds at stuff which makes it fall down and you have to kill pigs with that" - every detail beyond that would be totally up to me (pure fantasy example, I don't write games))
It's probably also worth noting that software development isn't the primary focus of our company - we're first and foremost a hardware manufacturer and the software I create is basically "to help improve the hardware offering that we have" and make it more attractive to our customers.
As a developer, I was very sure to get very clear rules for this in my employment contract.
Any code that I develop in my own time belongs to me. If I choose to use that code in a project at work, the company is given a royalty-free and warranty-free licence to use that code as they see fit. They may not however sub-license it, claim it as their own, or prevent me from using it in any way. All such code must be specifically marked as such, or it is assumed I created it on company time.
My contract does however also specify that I can not compete with my employer while working here, and as such most of the code I do in private has little re-use value at work and vice-versa.
Also, I've been with the same company for 10 years and will likely stay here for the rest of my working life, so I don't actually spend too much time thinking about it - it's just a safety precaution in case something does happen.