Most employers aren't going to pay their employees more because they know most of the work is from the machines they use.
Well yes, I think that's the whole point of the book. When machines cause a productivity gain, employers do not want to pass the increased profits along to the workers. They prefer -- indeed they have a fiduciary responsibility -- to keep those profits for shareholders, thanks. Which is good for the shareholders and bad for the workers. So, the gap between rich and poor gets one step wider.
As both a worker and a shareholder, I am not sure whose side to take in this. But the phrase "unsustainable trajectory" does come to mind.
Wikileaks privately told the Guardian reporter the secret password to decrypt the file
Please explain the ethical and practical difference between giving the encryption key to a REPORTER, and publishing the clear text. Because I don't see it.
If it was just another phone that was stolen, would the punishment be as severe? I dont think so.
If it had been just another phone, he would not have been able to sell it for $5,000. IANAL but it seems the penalty for selling stolen goods should be proportional to the value of those goods.
Fiddlesticks, editing fail. I meant, "IF I wanted a multiplayer game, I'd play WoW" and "While the developers may swear up and down that choosing to play it solo won't detract from the experience, I seriously doubt anyone can work out the balance issues to make that happen."
I am seriously disappointed to hear this. I was looking forward to Mass Effect 3. Multiplayer support requires a huge amount of development dollars and talent. Which means, less love for the gameplay experience that matters to me. While the developers may swear up and down that choosing not to playing it solo won't detract from the experience, I seriously doubt anyone can work out the balance issues to make that happen.
I will gladly provide you an estimate of the scope for such a development effort. My consulting fee is $150/hour.
What, you expected people to plan your project for you gratis? Why would anyone do that? It will take days of work to properly estimate something like that.
Also, do not believe that it's a cowardly thing to dump this company and move on to better things if they fail to see the error of their ways.
I didn't say it's cowardly to leave if you can't make a difference. I said it's cowardly to leave before you attempt to make a difference. Not such a fine line, actually.
The way I ask it is, "Tell me about your development tools and release process." Then I shut up and listen until they ask something in return or change the subject.
If your heart acquires strength, you will be able to remove blemishes from others without thinking evil of them.
Mohandas Gandhi
It is unusual for a software shop to be as immature in its tools and processes as your new employer. Rather than join in the chorus of voices condemning your employer, let me suggest an alternative.
Understand the reasons for the current situation. Professionals, especially engineers, usually have a rational basis for their choices. Perhaps they are disillusioned from having wasted time and energy in the past (see Test Automation Snake Oil). Perhaps they have a few heroic individuals who hold everything together and don't see the need for tools. I have no idea. I cannot wrap my brain around how someone would try to get by without revision control but that's immaterial. You have to understand that before you can either change it, or learn to live with it.
Read the IEEE paper, How to Be a Star Engineer. Then, be a star. Help your team see the value in some basic tools like version control. Introduce them. Train your peers. Proceed slowly and patiently. Talk to your managers and senior staff about the risks you can mitigate and be realistic about the costs of doing so. In other words, help your company do better software engineering.
It is very possible they hired you because you come from a disciplined engineering shop and can help them improve their practices.
Or you can take the coward's way out and flee before you try to teach anything or learn anything.
I can certainly see the reluctance to jump on board a movement without understanding its goals. Populist movements have surely led to evil outcomes in the past (Communist revolutions everywhere, the French Revolution, hell even the Crusades). So wanting a clearer idea of what the protesters hope to accomplish just says you have a brain and a sense of moral responsibility.
But, absent a stated agenda from the protesters themselves, don't you feel able to draw your own conclusions about what they want? Don't you feel able to agree with their grievances? In short, until you have a reason to disagree with them, why do you feel the need to reject them?
But they're not the equivalent of the Arab Spring, because they have no solution.
Well, to be fair, I don't think the Arabs had a full solution either. Getting rid of Mubrarak was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for improved social and economic justice in Egypt, for example.
I see a lot of bitterness on Slashdot about the U.S. political system: the sentiment that all the politicians are bought by moneyed interests and are at best indifferent, at worst actively hostile, to the needs of the person in the street or the country as a whole. I see the "Occupy<Location>" protests as expressing the same sentiment.
At this point I think it's more important to build consensus about the need for action, than to determine a specific course of action.
You are absolutely right. Other comments in this thread about the incarceration rate also speak to this point.
My crime detector predicts violent crime within the next 48 hours. Presumably that's what DHS wants us to believe they are searching for with their mind-reading device. I maintain that mine has a lower cost of operation, will catch just as many criminals, and will provoke fewer lawsuits. And I'll give it to DHS for free^H^H^H^H only a few thousand dollars per installation.
If DHS needs to detect thoughtcrime and victimless "crimes" then I admit my detector is not suitable for their purposes.
I have a crime predictor that boasts better than 99.9% accuracy. It always returns "not a criminal."
Seriously, in order for utterly dystopian concept to have any benefits, you'd need a false alarm rate much lower than 0.1%. Even at.01%, for anti-terrorism applications the ratio of false alarms to actual terrorists would be something like 10,000 to 1 -- assuming it had a 100% detection accuracy, which is of course preposterous.
If you are really essential to your employer, they should make you a partner in the business. What have your bonuses, raises, and profit sharing looked like for the last few years? My guess is, if 7K makes a difference to you, then your employer does not value as highly as you (rightly or wrongly) value yourself.
In which case, they'll get by without you. Once you have an offer in hand, you can negotiate with both employers on how much time you'll need for a responsible transition -- say a couple of months. That is loyalty. Your current employer will appreciate you taking time to responsibly hand over your duties, and your future employer should be impressed that you're the kind of person who ties up loose ends.
for many small business owners, taking up a legal defense won’t make financial sense
For $2.5K-$5K each, for the plaintiff to litigate them one by one won't make financial sense, either. For this amount of money, the defendant can afford the risk of litigating pro se (representing himself). All you'd need is one defendant in five to stand up for himself, and the patent troll's business model would collapse. IANAL.
I'm now doing amateur porn-- difficult to resist when it earns an unskilled laborer a grownup sized income for part time hours-- but my image is everywhere online.
I am sure when you signed the papers that you assumed this temporary job would not haunt you for the rest of your life. It really is terrifying the number of people who could bump into you, think you are hot, and then trivially find your images/videos online. I'm thinking about future job interviews, casual acquaintances, college professors, potential boyfriends, the teachers of your kids -- not to mention dangerous stalkers. A choice, that was informed and reasonable at the time, becomes an ex post facto scarlet letter for the rest of your life.
The same thing goes for anyone who does anything other people might find objectionable: say attending a protest rally. But it's especially bad for someone in your line of work.
Slashdot Mirror
As my bishop said, "the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certitude."
One that's less respectable than its predecessors, prostitution and banditry.
Is there anyone who has nothing to hide?
Most employers aren't going to pay their employees more because they know most of the work is from the machines they use.
Well yes, I think that's the whole point of the book. When machines cause a productivity gain, employers do not want to pass the increased profits along to the workers. They prefer -- indeed they have a fiduciary responsibility -- to keep those profits for shareholders, thanks. Which is good for the shareholders and bad for the workers. So, the gap between rich and poor gets one step wider.
As both a worker and a shareholder, I am not sure whose side to take in this. But the phrase "unsustainable trajectory" does come to mind.
Please explain the ethical and practical difference between giving the encryption key to a REPORTER, and publishing the clear text. Because I don't see it.
I fail to see how. Obama's motives may be complicated, but his duty is not. Not in the least.
If it was just another phone that was stolen, would the punishment be as severe? I dont think so.
If it had been just another phone, he would not have been able to sell it for $5,000. IANAL but it seems the penalty for selling stolen goods should be proportional to the value of those goods.
Fiddlesticks, editing fail. I meant, "IF I wanted a multiplayer game, I'd play WoW" and "While the developers may swear up and down that choosing to play it solo won't detract from the experience, I seriously doubt anyone can work out the balance issues to make that happen."
I wanted a multiplayer game, I'd play WoW.
I am seriously disappointed to hear this. I was looking forward to Mass Effect 3. Multiplayer support requires a huge amount of development dollars and talent. Which means, less love for the gameplay experience that matters to me. While the developers may swear up and down that choosing not to playing it solo won't detract from the experience, I seriously doubt anyone can work out the balance issues to make that happen.
They're fixing something that was not broken.
I will gladly provide you an estimate of the scope for such a development effort. My consulting fee is $150/hour.
What, you expected people to plan your project for you gratis? Why would anyone do that? It will take days of work to properly estimate something like that.
I didn't say it's cowardly to leave if you can't make a difference. I said it's cowardly to leave before you attempt to make a difference. Not such a fine line, actually.
The way I ask it is, "Tell me about your development tools and release process." Then I shut up and listen until they ask something in return or change the subject.
Certainly. But the thesis of the article is that good tools won't save a bad process, and I believe that remains an enduring principle.
I would add, management also likes to hear about risks and how they can be reduced or eliminated.
It is unusual for a software shop to be as immature in its tools and processes as your new employer. Rather than join in the chorus of voices condemning your employer, let me suggest an alternative.
Understand the reasons for the current situation. Professionals, especially engineers, usually have a rational basis for their choices. Perhaps they are disillusioned from having wasted time and energy in the past (see Test Automation Snake Oil). Perhaps they have a few heroic individuals who hold everything together and don't see the need for tools. I have no idea. I cannot wrap my brain around how someone would try to get by without revision control but that's immaterial. You have to understand that before you can either change it, or learn to live with it.
Read the IEEE paper, How to Be a Star Engineer. Then, be a star. Help your team see the value in some basic tools like version control. Introduce them. Train your peers. Proceed slowly and patiently. Talk to your managers and senior staff about the risks you can mitigate and be realistic about the costs of doing so. In other words, help your company do better software engineering.
It is very possible they hired you because you come from a disciplined engineering shop and can help them improve their practices.
Or you can take the coward's way out and flee before you try to teach anything or learn anything.
I can certainly see the reluctance to jump on board a movement without understanding its goals. Populist movements have surely led to evil outcomes in the past (Communist revolutions everywhere, the French Revolution, hell even the Crusades). So wanting a clearer idea of what the protesters hope to accomplish just says you have a brain and a sense of moral responsibility.
But, absent a stated agenda from the protesters themselves, don't you feel able to draw your own conclusions about what they want? Don't you feel able to agree with their grievances? In short, until you have a reason to disagree with them, why do you feel the need to reject them?
Who is preventing the videotaping (police or protesters)? I haven't heard about that. Can you elaborate a bit?
Well, to be fair, I don't think the Arabs had a full solution either. Getting rid of Mubrarak was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for improved social and economic justice in Egypt, for example.
I see a lot of bitterness on Slashdot about the U.S. political system: the sentiment that all the politicians are bought by moneyed interests and are at best indifferent, at worst actively hostile, to the needs of the person in the street or the country as a whole. I see the "Occupy<Location>" protests as expressing the same sentiment.
At this point I think it's more important to build consensus about the need for action, than to determine a specific course of action.
You are absolutely right. Other comments in this thread about the incarceration rate also speak to this point.
My crime detector predicts violent crime within the next 48 hours. Presumably that's what DHS wants us to believe they are searching for with their mind-reading device. I maintain that mine has a lower cost of operation, will catch just as many criminals, and will provoke fewer lawsuits. And I'll give it to DHS for free^H^H^H^H only a few thousand dollars per installation.
If DHS needs to detect thoughtcrime and victimless "crimes" then I admit my detector is not suitable for their purposes.
I have a crime predictor that boasts better than 99.9% accuracy. It always returns "not a criminal."
Seriously, in order for utterly dystopian concept to have any benefits, you'd need a false alarm rate much lower than 0.1%. Even at .01%, for anti-terrorism applications the ratio of false alarms to actual terrorists would be something like 10,000 to 1 -- assuming it had a 100% detection accuracy, which is of course preposterous.
If you are really essential to your employer, they should make you a partner in the business. What have your bonuses, raises, and profit sharing looked like for the last few years? My guess is, if 7K makes a difference to you, then your employer does not value as highly as you (rightly or wrongly) value yourself.
In which case, they'll get by without you. Once you have an offer in hand, you can negotiate with both employers on how much time you'll need for a responsible transition -- say a couple of months. That is loyalty. Your current employer will appreciate you taking time to responsibly hand over your duties, and your future employer should be impressed that you're the kind of person who ties up loose ends.
For $2.5K-$5K each, for the plaintiff to litigate them one by one won't make financial sense, either. For this amount of money, the defendant can afford the risk of litigating pro se (representing himself). All you'd need is one defendant in five to stand up for himself, and the patent troll's business model would collapse. IANAL.
I'm now doing amateur porn-- difficult to resist when it earns an unskilled laborer a grownup sized income for part time hours-- but my image is everywhere online.
I am sure when you signed the papers that you assumed this temporary job would not haunt you for the rest of your life. It really is terrifying the number of people who could bump into you, think you are hot, and then trivially find your images/videos online. I'm thinking about future job interviews, casual acquaintances, college professors, potential boyfriends, the teachers of your kids -- not to mention dangerous stalkers. A choice, that was informed and reasonable at the time, becomes an ex post facto scarlet letter for the rest of your life.
The same thing goes for anyone who does anything other people might find objectionable: say attending a protest rally. But it's especially bad for someone in your line of work.
I think the post you linked to was sarcastic.