This topic is terrifying!
Productivity only makes sense when you have a static goal, which is not the case in any working environment I've encountered. Instead, I've found that I'm paid for tolerance. When a manager asks me to deliver X, but a marketer suddenly promises Y, I get paid for not killing both of them. When my manager asks me to make 1 + 1 = 3, and a marketer promises a client that 1 + 1 = 6.255, I get paid for not going on a murderous rampage.
Seriously - if it weren't for these wages - programmers would have a worse reputation than postal workers. We get paid to be driven crazy.
Just a clarification on your original question: there is only a general scientific consensus that gloabl warming is occurring. That humans are causing global warming is where the controversy begins. The theory that humans are causing global warming is drawn from a correlation between temperature and industrialization. It is this same sort of correlation that started the 'babies come from storks' mythology (storks stand on warm rooftops during winter, people stay inside more in the winter and occupy their time making babies).
It is entirely possible that humans are accelerating global warming - but many scientists point out that we're at the tail-end of an ice age. Since the earth goes through hot and cold stages, how would we know if this warming was not part of that trend?
Since scientists must follow strict definitions of causation, there can be no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. It's an issue of faith.
That doesn't mean it's not true - just that it's not technically supported by science.
The more interesting question for me is on climate change in general. Humans do not like change; they try to see everything as a 'balance' or 'ecosystem' which is really just a static snapshot in time instead of the dynamic process. This becomes obvious when you hear the term 'upset the balance,' as if a static balance were its natural state. If it were proven without a doubt that global warming was not influenced by humanity at all, would we still try to fight it?
Of course we would. But how would we do that? Hmmm. To believe that change is preventable, we have to believe that we can control the change, which is much easier when you believe we are causing the change the change in the first place. It's a circular argument, but most people are more comfortable with a circular argument than the thought that we are at the whim of forces beyond our control.
eBay is slumping because because its average sale is not attractive to buyers.
It doesn't take a genius to see that $9 for outdated flash memory + $22.15 shipping & handling is not a good deal (apparently your tiny flash memory card will be delivered by an academy award-winning actor).
The quality of eBay is directly proportional to the quality of the average seller, which has been consistently poor since around 2001.
What would happen if the IRS audited all "power sellers" to make sure they're reporting their eBay sales revenue (item prices + inflated shipping and handling)?
This article was more of a teaser than anything - and it certainly worked considering all the replies on distros, widgets, compiled binaries, etc. ad nauseation.
I think most users of both Windows and Linux would agree with the meat of the article (what little there was), but would also point out that the article could have just as easily been called "Windows Can't Kill Linux."
Both have their place. If a person admits that it is cheaper to outfit a business with Windows than with Linux, they have to concede that Linux "...can't kill Windows." If a complete benefit/cost analysis reveals that moving an office from windows to linux generates more cost than gain (with a dollar assigned to inconvenience for people like Gladys in HR), then it's a simple fact that Linux can't kill windows.
My question is, since when was linux trying to kill windows? By its very nature, linux is a cooperative venture; 'killing' windows implies that it's a competitive venture.
This guy could have just as easily wrote an article titled, "The Sky is not the Ground." Or maybe I'll publish my own article: "Apples Can't Kill Oranges." That would certainly get the Johnny Appleseed zealots talking
Slashdot Mirror
This topic is terrifying! Productivity only makes sense when you have a static goal, which is not the case in any working environment I've encountered. Instead, I've found that I'm paid for tolerance. When a manager asks me to deliver X, but a marketer suddenly promises Y, I get paid for not killing both of them. When my manager asks me to make 1 + 1 = 3, and a marketer promises a client that 1 + 1 = 6.255, I get paid for not going on a murderous rampage. Seriously - if it weren't for these wages - programmers would have a worse reputation than postal workers. We get paid to be driven crazy.
Just a clarification on your original question: there is only a general scientific consensus that gloabl warming is occurring. That humans are causing global warming is where the controversy begins. The theory that humans are causing global warming is drawn from a correlation between temperature and industrialization. It is this same sort of correlation that started the 'babies come from storks' mythology (storks stand on warm rooftops during winter, people stay inside more in the winter and occupy their time making babies).
It is entirely possible that humans are accelerating global warming - but many scientists point out that we're at the tail-end of an ice age. Since the earth goes through hot and cold stages, how would we know if this warming was not part of that trend?
Since scientists must follow strict definitions of causation, there can be no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. It's an issue of faith.
That doesn't mean it's not true - just that it's not technically supported by science.
The more interesting question for me is on climate change in general. Humans do not like change; they try to see everything as a 'balance' or 'ecosystem' which is really just a static snapshot in time instead of the dynamic process. This becomes obvious when you hear the term 'upset the balance,' as if a static balance were its natural state. If it were proven without a doubt that global warming was not influenced by humanity at all, would we still try to fight it?
Of course we would. But how would we do that? Hmmm. To believe that change is preventable, we have to believe that we can control the change, which is much easier when you believe we are causing the change the change in the first place. It's a circular argument, but most people are more comfortable with a circular argument than the thought that we are at the whim of forces beyond our control.
eBay is slumping because because its average sale is not attractive to buyers.
It doesn't take a genius to see that $9 for outdated flash memory + $22.15 shipping & handling is not a good deal (apparently your tiny flash memory card will be delivered by an academy award-winning actor).
The quality of eBay is directly proportional to the quality of the average seller, which has been consistently poor since around 2001.
What would happen if the IRS audited all "power sellers" to make sure they're reporting their eBay sales revenue (item prices + inflated shipping and handling)?
This article was more of a teaser than anything - and it certainly worked considering all the replies on distros, widgets, compiled binaries, etc. ad nauseation.
I think most users of both Windows and Linux would agree with the meat of the article (what little there was), but would also point out that the article could have just as easily been called "Windows Can't Kill Linux."
Both have their place. If a person admits that it is cheaper to outfit a business with Windows than with Linux, they have to concede that Linux "...can't kill Windows." If a complete benefit/cost analysis reveals that moving an office from windows to linux generates more cost than gain (with a dollar assigned to inconvenience for people like Gladys in HR), then it's a simple fact that Linux can't kill windows.
My question is, since when was linux trying to kill windows? By its very nature, linux is a cooperative venture; 'killing' windows implies that it's a competitive venture.
This guy could have just as easily wrote an article titled, "The Sky is not the Ground." Or maybe I'll publish my own article: "Apples Can't Kill Oranges." That would certainly get the Johnny Appleseed zealots talking