If the Ukraine succeeds in remaining independent (I've got $250K against it)
What if Ukraine splits into West and East? East joins Russia and West remains independent. Will you get $125K?
Because by the look of things either it will be this or it will remain just as it is now. But then hard to define what "independent" is. Ukraine was always under influence of its much more powerful neighbors.
Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.
I really used to think that as well. What absolutely disgusted me and turned me bitter is when I read about the piracy rate of Humble Indie Bundle:
The bundle came DRM free. You get to decide how much you wanted to pay: Smallest amount you could put in those days was 1 cent (And many did). The proceeds went to charity, developers and further bundles with you able to change how much goes where. Linux, Mac and Windows versions were provided.
There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!
So that just proved to me that pirates are just plain dicks. Piracy for piracy's sake.
So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.
However, 500 have found that they can get the same thing for free by pirating it. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.
Both those activities will end up with you losing $160. How would you "Lose nothing" by gaming.
Furthermore, gaining a skill (Which I assume you undergoing some kind of training) is an investment in yourself. That skill could potentially be recognized as an advantage over other job applicants or a basis for a promotion. So overall that is a wise expenditure of $160.
Gaming on the other hand is completely worthless market-wise. You spent $160 on enjoyment and relaxation that you get from a game. Which could be a perfectly valid expenditure from your personal perspective.
In 1942 men were busy shooting each other. The women were working their asses off in the factories supplying those men with whatever they needed to keep shooting! And were taking care of home and kids at the same time. All between running to the shelters when the bombers were dropping their ordinance.
I have no idea how they got their 7 hours of sleep...
Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".
Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.
Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).
Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.
So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.
However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.
China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.
China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.
So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good luck with that. What other superpower going to help them?
What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?
What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?
Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.
What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?
EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them over this land change. Come back if Russia annexes Kiev.
US: They don't give a shit about Ukraine! You honestly think US will start anything over a useless backwater like Crimean peninsula? Come back when/if Russia annexes Kiev.
Also Cold War was about ideology. There is no ideology involved in the current conflict.
Perhaps my examples are not the best. Plumbers and cabinet makers are professions that pay well eventually. The point I was trying to make that people do indeed spend their free time doing thing what they do for a job.
Stating that craftsman do not work for money (and its benefits) is ridiculous.
This is the part that I just don't understand where both you and the grandparent post got from.This whole thread is about working for pleasure ONCE the income from that activity covers the cost of living. Again the quote from the original post is: "Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head". Quote from the post above that is: "Yes, I work in imaging research, trying to bring about medical imaging progress, with hopefully useful results. I'm not at all motivated by profit. I just want enough money not to starve and enough funding to pay my students and equipment." (Emphasis mine).
No one that I can see has stated in this thread that anyone works for absolute free. We do not dispute that! Your bills needs to be covered first. But beyond covering your needs, profit need not be the motivation!
For example: You have a choice to stay doing a job you love, but only covers your expenses or do what you don't like, but earn triple the amount that you need. In BOTH cases you are NOT working for free! In BOTH cases your living expenses are covered.
What this thread is about is that choosing the former is better for your quality of life than the latter. This is the interesting and complex part that is being discussed. Not simplified "Be a hippy to be happy!" nonsense that you are reading into the discussion.
Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head, increased income has very little impact on happiness, while the things you have to do to get that money can often be quite damaging to it.
Please point to the part where you came up with "lovey dovey feel good philosophy doesn't pay the bills" from? That is an absolutely true statement. Once you have enough money to cover your needs (Needs depend very heavily on your expectations and accepted standard of living), there is no improvement to your quality of life. You do not require to be rich to have financial security to do what you love.
You think widget makers in the widget factory want to build widgets in their off time?
Absolutely!
My father is a cabinet maker. He spends all his working hours working on the factory floor and he is not rich in any sense of a word. However at home he has a shed with a work bench, wood and a hell of a lot of tools. After he comes home he makes stuff just for the pleasure of it. All our friends got custom chairs/tables/drawers/bookshelves that he built out of his own time and money just for fun and a thank you.
My grandfather was a plumber. For his whole life if any of his friends had issues in their home he would fix it up for free. I can assure you, he wasn't rich either.
There is so much more to life than money! Do you think that every single volunteer out there is rich?
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
Really? And here I thought programmers, especially the ones companies are afraid to let go, were the paragons of human empowerment, dispellers of unjust prejudice and generally seekers of higher communion with their fellow peers, lifting everyone to unprecedented levels of infinitely-looped feedback loops of learning and earning of epic proportions.
Companies are afraid to lose these, so as to miss out on all the value-add, right? Right??
Where is this stereotype coming from? There is never any hesitation to get rid of developers. In my 10 years of industry experience: Developers are judged on their performance and office politics just like people of any other position less than a manager. If they do well, they are kept, else they are shown the door.
If we could be allowed to have some pride in our work and have some degree of freedom for creative and innovative outlets
Pride in your work is based entirely on your own expectations you set for yourself. If you are unable to feel pride, YOU need to change not everyone around you.
As for degree of freedom: Developers are being paid a lot for their time. Budgets are always tight (Maybe except if you are some kind of ridiculously large company like Microsoft or Google), so there is no time for fucking around without proven justification. If you can prove that your different way will have measurable benefit to the company's income, justify it to your manager and then feel free.
This is the common issue with developers (Especially those new, fresh out of University): They see themselves as irreplaceable geniuses and want everything in the business to revolve around them.
But in the end, what motivation and performance you can instil in your "idiots" is unlikely to match what you could achieve by replacing them with individuals that are more capable of doing the required work.
The summary is very careful to describe the lowest performing workers as: Every team has someone who at the bottom of its bell curve: an individual who has a hard time keeping up with other team members. Based on this definition, as you replace one, you will still have the lowest performer. Just your measure criteria will be higher. Thus unless you have a team that are all clones of each other, work politics will still find the "idiot" to hold.
Thus, the measure still stands: How do you treat your lowest performers is a good judgement of the company health. Your preference of "Not worth the time/effort. Replace them with someone better." is quite destructive. By following your solution, the team will be forever stuck with overhead of training up the new guy and loss of knowledge of the rapid turnover.
Socialize them well, and they may become more interested in friends than academics.
Where is the downside? A person with excellent social skills and extensive social network will have no problems at all finding a job or being part of society.
Access has its place. Its front-end and integration with other office solutions ensure it is the best quick, light database solution for majority of small businesses.
But the emphasis is on "light". I am sure everyone has dealt with Access files that are used as whole business-tracking applications. Files that approach close to their limit of 4GB. Files that are simultaneously being used by all the users to record their timesheets in. And anytime it is suggested to move to a more proper database engine, everyone screams blood and tears because Access is all they know. It is too much risk to move to some other way, because they always done it this way.
Many slashdoters have IT background, so have dealt with this phenomenon. Unfortunately they blame the tool and not the conservative people. It is much easier to just demonize the software, rather than educate an entrenched user.
It is very hard. I am convinced that changing the way a person thinks is one of the most challenging things in life.
What is helping me improve my social anxiety and depression is seeing a psychologist. Combination of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and medication gives me a small edge to help me cope.
I sympathize with your struggles. I hope you will find what works for you to avoid sinking deeper into that abyss.
I am surprised you haven't heard of this term or confused in its usage. It is quite recent, fairly widespread and obvious. But just in case:
USian (Some spell it "US'ian") refers to people from the United States. Its origin is people from other North and South American countries taking offense to being grouped together with the culture/actions of the USA. Quite fascinating how politics shape spoken language!
It should be clear when you look at the work: US + ian. US stands for "United States" and "ian" is a common post-fix on english words reffering to population groups (eg. Asian, European, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Off topic please.
If the Ukraine succeeds in remaining independent (I've got $250K against it)
What if Ukraine splits into West and East? East joins Russia and West remains independent. Will you get $125K?
Because by the look of things either it will be this or it will remain just as it is now. But then hard to define what "independent" is. Ukraine was always under influence of its much more powerful neighbors.
Offtopic:
I don't know where I heard this. I heard that division by zero equals an infinity on a complex plane.
Is above nonsense? I certainly can't find it googling and slashdot audience is the best community for such a question.
I love vim, but only for Python. I do not know how you would survive using vim for C++ since projects written in that language are always large.
Given the absolute bottomless complexity of C++, what do you use as a debugger?
Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.
I really used to think that as well. What absolutely disgusted me and turned me bitter is when I read about the piracy rate of Humble Indie Bundle:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle
The bundle came DRM free. You get to decide how much you wanted to pay: Smallest amount you could put in those days was 1 cent (And many did). The proceeds went to charity, developers and further bundles with you able to change how much goes where. Linux, Mac and Windows versions were provided.
There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!
So that just proved to me that pirates are just plain dicks. Piracy for piracy's sake.
As you wish.
So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.
However, 500 have found that they can get the same thing for free by pirating it. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.
So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.
Come again?
Both those activities will end up with you losing $160. How would you "Lose nothing" by gaming.
Furthermore, gaining a skill (Which I assume you undergoing some kind of training) is an investment in yourself. That skill could potentially be recognized as an advantage over other job applicants or a basis for a promotion. So overall that is a wise expenditure of $160.
Gaming on the other hand is completely worthless market-wise. You spent $160 on enjoyment and relaxation that you get from a game. Which could be a perfectly valid expenditure from your personal perspective.
Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.
US was very fortunate to escape the ravages of war. Majority of the rest of the world had it much tougher.
Really?!
In 1942 men were busy shooting each other. The women were working their asses off in the factories supplying those men with whatever they needed to keep shooting! And were taking care of home and kids at the same time. All between running to the shelters when the bombers were dropping their ordinance.
I have no idea how they got their 7 hours of sleep...
Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".
Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.
Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).
Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.
So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.
However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.
So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.
I disagree.
China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.
China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.
So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good luck with that. What other superpower going to help them?
What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?
What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?
Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.
What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?
EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them over this land change. Come back if Russia annexes Kiev.
US: They don't give a shit about Ukraine! You honestly think US will start anything over a useless backwater like Crimean peninsula? Come back when/if Russia annexes Kiev.
Also Cold War was about ideology. There is no ideology involved in the current conflict.
Perhaps my examples are not the best. Plumbers and cabinet makers are professions that pay well eventually. The point I was trying to make that people do indeed spend their free time doing thing what they do for a job.
Stating that craftsman do not work for money (and its benefits) is ridiculous.
This is the part that I just don't understand where both you and the grandparent post got from.This whole thread is about working for pleasure ONCE the income from that activity covers the cost of living. Again the quote from the original post is: "Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head". Quote from the post above that is: "Yes, I work in imaging research, trying to bring about medical imaging progress, with hopefully useful results. I'm not at all motivated by profit. I just want enough money not to starve and enough funding to pay my students and equipment." (Emphasis mine).
No one that I can see has stated in this thread that anyone works for absolute free. We do not dispute that! Your bills needs to be covered first. But beyond covering your needs, profit need not be the motivation!
For example: You have a choice to stay doing a job you love, but only covers your expenses or do what you don't like, but earn triple the amount that you need. In BOTH cases you are NOT working for free! In BOTH cases your living expenses are covered.
What this thread is about is that choosing the former is better for your quality of life than the latter. This is the interesting and complex part that is being discussed. Not simplified "Be a hippy to be happy!" nonsense that you are reading into the discussion.
Have a look at the post you replied to:
Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head, increased income has very little impact on happiness, while the things you have to do to get that money can often be quite damaging to it.
Please point to the part where you came up with "lovey dovey feel good philosophy doesn't pay the bills" from? That is an absolutely true statement. Once you have enough money to cover your needs (Needs depend very heavily on your expectations and accepted standard of living), there is no improvement to your quality of life. You do not require to be rich to have financial security to do what you love.
You think widget makers in the widget factory want to build widgets in their off time?
Absolutely!
My father is a cabinet maker. He spends all his working hours working on the factory floor and he is not rich in any sense of a word. However at home he has a shed with a work bench, wood and a hell of a lot of tools. After he comes home he makes stuff just for the pleasure of it. All our friends got custom chairs/tables/drawers/bookshelves that he built out of his own time and money just for fun and a thank you.
My grandfather was a plumber. For his whole life if any of his friends had issues in their home he would fix it up for free. I can assure you, he wasn't rich either.
There is so much more to life than money! Do you think that every single volunteer out there is rich?
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"
Really? And here I thought programmers, especially the ones companies are afraid to let go, were the paragons of human empowerment, dispellers of unjust prejudice and generally seekers of higher communion with their fellow peers, lifting everyone to unprecedented levels of infinitely-looped feedback loops of learning and earning of epic proportions.
Companies are afraid to lose these, so as to miss out on all the value-add, right? Right??
Where is this stereotype coming from? There is never any hesitation to get rid of developers. In my 10 years of industry experience: Developers are judged on their performance and office politics just like people of any other position less than a manager. If they do well, they are kept, else they are shown the door.
If we could be allowed to have some pride in our work and have some degree of freedom for creative and innovative outlets
Pride in your work is based entirely on your own expectations you set for yourself. If you are unable to feel pride, YOU need to change not everyone around you.
As for degree of freedom: Developers are being paid a lot for their time. Budgets are always tight (Maybe except if you are some kind of ridiculously large company like Microsoft or Google), so there is no time for fucking around without proven justification. If you can prove that your different way will have measurable benefit to the company's income, justify it to your manager and then feel free.
This is the common issue with developers (Especially those new, fresh out of University): They see themselves as irreplaceable geniuses and want everything in the business to revolve around them.
But in the end, what motivation and performance you can instil in your "idiots" is unlikely to match what you could achieve by replacing them with individuals that are more capable of doing the required work.
The summary is very careful to describe the lowest performing workers as: Every team has someone who at the bottom of its bell curve: an individual who has a hard time keeping up with other team members. Based on this definition, as you replace one, you will still have the lowest performer. Just your measure criteria will be higher. Thus unless you have a team that are all clones of each other, work politics will still find the "idiot" to hold.
Thus, the measure still stands: How do you treat your lowest performers is a good judgement of the company health. Your preference of "Not worth the time/effort. Replace them with someone better." is quite destructive. By following your solution, the team will be forever stuck with overhead of training up the new guy and loss of knowledge of the rapid turnover.
Socialize them well, and they may become more interested in friends than academics.
Where is the downside? A person with excellent social skills and extensive social network will have no problems at all finding a job or being part of society.
It is not what you know, it's who you know.
Access has its place. Its front-end and integration with other office solutions ensure it is the best quick, light database solution for majority of small businesses.
But the emphasis is on "light". I am sure everyone has dealt with Access files that are used as whole business-tracking applications. Files that approach close to their limit of 4GB. Files that are simultaneously being used by all the users to record their timesheets in. And anytime it is suggested to move to a more proper database engine, everyone screams blood and tears because Access is all they know. It is too much risk to move to some other way, because they always done it this way.
Many slashdoters have IT background, so have dealt with this phenomenon. Unfortunately they blame the tool and not the conservative people. It is much easier to just demonize the software, rather than educate an entrenched user.
SoylentNews needs to get more of the community before entrenched Slashdot members migrate there.
It is a chicken-egg problem and it hasn't reached the breaking point.
It is the handle of a quite a prolific poster here. You can recognize his posts quite easily because of the lengths and massive amount of links.
Therefore, you have to be mentally ill to work in IT! :-)
It is very hard. I am convinced that changing the way a person thinks is one of the most challenging things in life.
What is helping me improve my social anxiety and depression is seeing a psychologist. Combination of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and medication gives me a small edge to help me cope.
I sympathize with your struggles. I hope you will find what works for you to avoid sinking deeper into that abyss.
Exactly right. Hence it is especially popular online.
Funny thing is that I have a Canadian friend that used it in a conversation. But given that guy's general political stances: It is an outlier.
When will this meme finally die?! It was never funny. Just used to point out how fucking retarded some Americans are!
And WTF is a 'USian'?
I am surprised you haven't heard of this term or confused in its usage. It is quite recent, fairly widespread and obvious. But just in case:
USian (Some spell it "US'ian") refers to people from the United States. Its origin is people from other North and South American countries taking offense to being grouped together with the culture/actions of the USA. Quite fascinating how politics shape spoken language!
It should be clear when you look at the work: US + ian. US stands for "United States" and "ian" is a common post-fix on english words reffering to population groups (eg. Asian, European, etc).