"eg: the soyuz crew who asphixiated during reentry due to a faulty valve. With warning, they could have closed their pressure visors and used suit supplies for a few minutes, but the pressure loss was so gradual that they didn't notice it and simply drifted off"
What a non-example! Do you really think you need the ability to send telemetry to land in order to turn on an alarm on the vehicle as result of a pressure loss detected by a sensor on the vehicle?
"There's no need for a simple system level daemon to have a billion dependencies"
Yes, you are right: there's no need to throw a billion dependencies in half a dozen programming languages for a simple system level daemon.
No, you are wrong: nobody said this is for a "simple system level daemon" and, in fact, there're heavy hints on the contrary: it is an innovative and unique; needs to manage memory usage and disk access, both at a very granular level; it has be cross-platform and performant; it needs cyphered internet access.
"Are you asserting the manager needs to micromanage the employee's time as well to assure efficiency?"
Do you find micromanaging effective?
"What is the incentive for the employee to work overtime (over 40 hours) for free?"
I didn't say that. I said, and I repeat here, that employees have a strong incentive to not make efficient use of their time under these kind of circumnstances. The employee is not incentivized to work for free but forced to do so (or, at least, that's what the employee imagines). Anyway, the amount of hours an employee can do a day has an upper boundary, while the pressure and risk of fail onto him is direct result of his efficiency.
Despite of what may look at first glance, people don't end up working some hours for free because a ligitime reason but because they can be abused that way, so if they are making, say, 10 hours/day, two of them for free, that's what they are going to do, one way or the other. Now, it's up to the employee what a hard or light burden and how much stress is he going to asume within those ten hours. It is just intelligent to take it softly or else, more burden and stress will be thrown on his general direction.
"Fuck the industry! I refuse to buy any new car because of this. (And I'm not just saying that: my new (to me) daily driver is a 1990 Miata."
Not that I don't see your point, since I myself own a 1996 and a 2000 cars, but let's be realist: is it your daily commuter, or is it your weekend fun car? If it is not your daily commuter, what's your daily commuter? Is it also a "pre-electronics" car? Do you expect it to last as long as you?
"So put the xenon lights on yourself if that is important to you. Nothing wrong with modifying your car to suit."
Except that in EU, where I live, most modifications are expensive as hell, since they require safetyness certification.
"It's possible to find almost any modification you could possibly want if you are willing to look hard enough and/or spend enough money on it."
On one hand this isn't a black/white issue: with enough money I could build a fully bespoken car, it's only I don't have such enough money (with enough money I could also buy a top-notch classic and done with it). On the other hand, not all cars are born equal: you can find aftermarket parts to the last bolt for, say, a Mazda MX-5 but after market is almost non-existant for Mercedes SLK, so we are back to square one: it is not that there are not cars that can be spec'ed as desired but to spec the desired car as required.
You know there's no need for a software project to be coded in any single programing language, don't you?
You can properly modularize and then mix and match your project as different modules -or even programs, in different languages, i.e.: C for low level hardware access (and abstraction: first you say you want it multiplatform but then your message implies a monolithic approach !?), maybe C++ for the main logic, python to glue everything together, a toolkit like Qt for a GUI -maybe you don't need it now but it results in a good addition down the road, etc.
"I want a vehicle where I, as the owner, can access all its bits-n-bobs - even the digital ones - to tune it as I desire."
Good luck with that, since the industry is going the opposite direction: on one hand, cars are more and more easierly hackable (in the bad sense of the word) even remotely. On the other hand, they are trying to prevent hacking the cars (in the good sense of the word) by means of higher entry barriers, as you said, and legal coercion (you know, you don't own the car, it's licensed to you because of all the "finelly tuned" software it includes).
"Why should a hack of the navigation or audio system allow access to the braking system?"
Because the infotainment system is tied to the engine start to make sure -as per legal requirement, you can't turn on your DVD while moving. Or in order to give you precise alarms about going above the speed limit. Or to offer a verbal message about the oil engine running low. Or...
These are obviously examples, which can be countered in a one-by-one basis, but the point is that what brings full efficiency to any complex system is... integration, so it's very difficult not to find it.
"Not hard to find relatively bare bones vehicles if you bother to look."
For most people it doesn't work that way because it requires "bare bones" to be on the top of the requirements list, which is usually not the case. I myself have "bare bones" pretty high on the list but, still, not on top.
So the problem is not that "it is not hard to find a bare bones vehicle" but that I can't find the model I want with limited electronics: I want xenon lights, "oh, well, that comes with the comfort package that also comes with lane departure and blind spot alarms and remote start".
Didn't mean to be an insult but my honest assesment of your post(s).
"I don't understand the hostility"
In the end, your mentality hurts both my bottom line and my life quality because once contracts stop being limited to their letter and start being about non-written expectations, justice goes throw the wastepipe.
"I do have a contract. It says that my hours are open-ended"
But the payment is not, right? That's no way to set a contract. I'm glad you are fine with that agreement but it doesn't make it any less insane. I already provided the example of your contract reversed. I'll copy it again here:
"OK, I'll work exactly 45 hours per week but all that I can say about payment is that it will be at least 2000 dollars/week. By the end of the week, depending on my mood, the bills reaching home or anything else I can come with, I'll tell you how much are you going to pay me, anywhere between 2000 and 4000 dollars. Deal?"
Tell me this doesn't look insane.
"My situation is the same as tens of thousands of employees at my current employer, and millions in the US in general."
"The sorrow of many is a fool's consolation" goes the saying.
"I really like that my employer doesn't think about my work in terms of "hours", but rather in terms of results."
So much so that your contract is written in terms of results instead of wages and hours, right? No, you already said that was not the case. There it goes what your employer really thinks of that agreement of yours.
"Making law to prohibit or impede people from making contracts that both parties like, but that the government does not like, is entirely illiberal and is a sad blow against freedom and prosperity."
Law and government have no problem with both parties entering into a sensible agreement -including weeks of much more than 40 hours but an only one side open-ended contract is worse beyond illiberal: is plain illogic and the results demonstrate that it is the current situation the one that is a sad blow against freedom (for the millions that can't reach a decent live level even on multiple jobs for tad more than 40 hours/week) and prosperity (except for the one-percenters and beyond, as shown by the inegality statistical trend).
"So, someone decides they're ok with working longer hours for more money and you conclude that this is so bizarre that they must be a troll?"
No, I explicitly said that I couldn't conclude if he was troll or just stupid. It was reading his post history that inclined me towards troll more than to stupid. Have you any reading comprehension problems, mate?
"Hell, there's a name for it: a workaholic."
Ok, I concede you that and change "either troll or stupid" for "either troll or insane".
"Or maybe he just likes the extra money that he brings in when choosing to work at jobs that demand longer hours."
No, he wasn't choosing jobs that payed better for more hours: all jobs were set for 40 hours. It's only he didn't want to honor his part of the agreement (the number of hours) while his employer did honor his part (the number of dollars).
"No, it's not a choice I'd make myself, but I fail to see how this attitude is so unusual..."
No, it's not unsual, only improper of a healthy human.
Just to make obvious the absurdity -and the expected abuses, please think of a contract layed out in the same terms, only reversed: "OK, I'll work exactly 45 hours per week but all that I can say about payment is that it will be at least 2000 dollars/week. By the end of the week, depending on my mood, the bills reaching home or anything else I can come with, I'll tell you how much are you going to pay me, anywhere between 2000 and 4000 dollars. Deal?"
"he works 47 weeks a year and thus makes about $141,000 a year. That's not outrageous for an experienced, skilled technical professional."
That's not outrageous for a *salaried* experienced, skilled technical professional. For a contractor, which needs to pay for his healthcare, unemployment, retirement, sick days, marketing and accountability all out of his own pocket, much less so.
"I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks"
I really can't conclude if you are a troll or just stupid.
I had a look at your lattest posts, so I'm inclined to think the former.
But just to be constructive and offer some substance to the answer:
What kind of contract is this that gets one side fully tied (the wages) but the other comes with no top boundary (the hours in exchange to the fixed wages)? It isn't neither liberal nor logical.
You say "I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks". You know that your contract could perfectly reflect that fact, right? And instead you set a contract on an "understandment"? One of the pillars of a liberal society is respecting contracts and having a clear and stable legal framework for them but you and your employer decide to blow that off and lie in written.
"Leaning toward contract work, if I work an hour I get paid an hour."
Well, I of course don't know your exact conditions but as a general matter, if you are a contractor, you should be paid tad more than an hour for working an hour (I don't mean it literally but that your hourly rate should have to be quite higher than that of the equivalent salaried, which outcomes to the same).
Even Adam Smith, some 250 years ago, dedicated a few paragraphs to the issue .
"If I parsed the sentence correctly then it should be up to the employee to look for ways to manage his or her time more efficiently."
Humm... yes. That's exactly what a manager's work is: *manage* his or her resources the most efficient way.
And there's an non explicitly laid out understandment there: there's no incentive for the (fool) manager to make better use of their reportees time, but there's also a strong incentive for the (clever) employees to not make efficient use of their time either.
"If you have to rely on your manager then you're in wrong job."
If you didn't understand mine or parent's post, you don't have place being a manager either.
" where is your evidence for the claim that it "definitively... doesn't cure asthma?""
I don't even need a scientific evidence since logic evidence is enough:
* Asthma exists. * If asthma could cure with just "nothing" then there would be no asthma as it would have disapeared on its own. * Homeopathics, by it's own definition holds "nothing" as curing factor. * Therefore, homeopathics can't cure asthma.
"YES â" toys "geared at girls" is stereotyping at its finest!"
And I doubt even that claim. Last I looked at it, toy industry is not specifically defended or promoted by government which means that toys, everyone of them, are geared at making money for the producer and that's all. Toy makers produce toys that they expect to sell better than others. If there's any kind of stereotyping it is not on the side of the toy maker but on the side of the toy buyer.
"Stop painting them in pink"
Paint whichever color you think you'll sell best: mom and pop, think about the future you want for your children and buy (and mainly, educate) accordingly.
"Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy."
So, what you have in the box:
HOMEOPATHIOL, THE DEFINITIVE CURE FOR ASTHMA (this is not a medicine, it doesn't contain any active principle and definitively it doesn't cure asthma)
I see two points: a) It's damn stupid b) It's still false advertisement: it doesn't cure asthma, as the first claim says.
All that you can get is marketroids being more clever so focus get on what they interested in while, at the same time, minimising the impact of what they are forced to say. At the same time public needs to expend resources to be sure they are following the law.
One way or another, they claim homeopathy being a medicine. There's a legal path for medicines, so they need to follow it. As simple as that.
"I would say that it should be allowed to be sold, but, like cigarettes, with a mandatory warning to the effect that it contains no chemicals other than water and has no medical efficacy."
Far from the same issue.
Tobacco labours do their intended function. It is that they have demonstrated side effects poisonus enough as to make mandatory to warn about them.
Homeopathics, on the other hand, have not the intended effects they are sold by, so it becomes false advertisement and outright fraud.
"If people are still willing to buy it then, it's not fraud."
If homeopathics are advertised as what they are, water, and follow the regulatory practices of the bottled water market, then sure, no problem. The point is that the homeopathic producers don't want to compete against, say, Coca-Cola and try to place their products for what they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
"eg: the soyuz crew who asphixiated during reentry due to a faulty valve. With warning, they could have closed their pressure visors and used suit supplies for a few minutes, but the pressure loss was so gradual that they didn't notice it and simply drifted off"
What a non-example! Do you really think you need the ability to send telemetry to land in order to turn on an alarm on the vehicle as result of a pressure loss detected by a sensor on the vehicle?
"There's no need for a simple system level daemon to have a billion dependencies"
Yes, you are right: there's no need to throw a billion dependencies in half a dozen programming languages for a simple system level daemon.
No, you are wrong: nobody said this is for a "simple system level daemon" and, in fact, there're heavy hints on the contrary: it is an innovative and unique; needs to manage memory usage and disk access, both at a very granular level; it has be cross-platform and performant; it needs cyphered internet access.
"Are you asserting the manager needs to micromanage the employee's time as well to assure efficiency?"
Do you find micromanaging effective?
"What is the incentive for the employee to work overtime (over 40 hours) for free?"
I didn't say that. I said, and I repeat here, that employees have a strong incentive to not make efficient use of their time under these kind of circumnstances. The employee is not incentivized to work for free but forced to do so (or, at least, that's what the employee imagines). Anyway, the amount of hours an employee can do a day has an upper boundary, while the pressure and risk of fail onto him is direct result of his efficiency.
Despite of what may look at first glance, people don't end up working some hours for free because a ligitime reason but because they can be abused that way, so if they are making, say, 10 hours/day, two of them for free, that's what they are going to do, one way or the other. Now, it's up to the employee what a hard or light burden and how much stress is he going to asume within those ten hours. It is just intelligent to take it softly or else, more burden and stress will be thrown on his general direction.
"Fuck the industry! I refuse to buy any new car because of this. (And I'm not just saying that: my new (to me) daily driver is a 1990 Miata."
Not that I don't see your point, since I myself own a 1996 and a 2000 cars, but let's be realist: is it your daily commuter, or is it your weekend fun car? If it is not your daily commuter, what's your daily commuter? Is it also a "pre-electronics" car? Do you expect it to last as long as you?
"There's no reason why the infotainment system can't have read-only access to the engine control module"
The truth is that there must be a reason if it is in fact done. Maybe not a reason you find reasonable, but a reason nevertheless.
"So put the xenon lights on yourself if that is important to you. Nothing wrong with modifying your car to suit."
Except that in EU, where I live, most modifications are expensive as hell, since they require safetyness certification.
"It's possible to find almost any modification you could possibly want if you are willing to look hard enough and/or spend enough money on it."
On one hand this isn't a black/white issue: with enough money I could build a fully bespoken car, it's only I don't have such enough money (with enough money I could also buy a top-notch classic and done with it). On the other hand, not all cars are born equal: you can find aftermarket parts to the last bolt for, say, a Mazda MX-5 but after market is almost non-existant for Mercedes SLK, so we are back to square one: it is not that there are not cars that can be spec'ed as desired but to spec the desired car as required.
You know there's no need for a software project to be coded in any single programing language, don't you?
You can properly modularize and then mix and match your project as different modules -or even programs, in different languages, i.e.: C for low level hardware access (and abstraction: first you say you want it multiplatform but then your message implies a monolithic approach !?), maybe C++ for the main logic, python to glue everything together, a toolkit like Qt for a GUI -maybe you don't need it now but it results in a good addition down the road, etc.
"I want a vehicle where I, as the owner, can access all its bits-n-bobs - even the digital ones - to tune it as I desire."
Good luck with that, since the industry is going the opposite direction: on one hand, cars are more and more easierly hackable (in the bad sense of the word) even remotely. On the other hand, they are trying to prevent hacking the cars (in the good sense of the word) by means of higher entry barriers, as you said, and legal coercion (you know, you don't own the car, it's licensed to you because of all the "finelly tuned" software it includes).
"Why should a hack of the navigation or audio system allow access to the braking system?"
Because the infotainment system is tied to the engine start to make sure -as per legal requirement, you can't turn on your DVD while moving. Or in order to give you precise alarms about going above the speed limit. Or to offer a verbal message about the oil engine running low. Or...
These are obviously examples, which can be countered in a one-by-one basis, but the point is that what brings full efficiency to any complex system is... integration, so it's very difficult not to find it.
"Not hard to find relatively bare bones vehicles if you bother to look."
For most people it doesn't work that way because it requires "bare bones" to be on the top of the requirements list, which is usually not the case. I myself have "bare bones" pretty high on the list but, still, not on top.
So the problem is not that "it is not hard to find a bare bones vehicle" but that I can't find the model I want with limited electronics: I want xenon lights, "oh, well, that comes with the comfort package that also comes with lane departure and blind spot alarms and remote start".
"Good job opening with an insult."
Didn't mean to be an insult but my honest assesment of your post(s).
"I don't understand the hostility"
In the end, your mentality hurts both my bottom line and my life quality because once contracts stop being limited to their letter and start being about non-written expectations, justice goes throw the wastepipe.
"I do have a contract. It says that my hours are open-ended"
But the payment is not, right? That's no way to set a contract. I'm glad you are fine with that agreement but it doesn't make it any less insane. I already provided the example of your contract reversed. I'll copy it again here:
"OK, I'll work exactly 45 hours per week but all that I can say about payment is that it will be at least 2000 dollars/week. By the end of the week, depending on my mood, the bills reaching home or anything else I can come with, I'll tell you how much are you going to pay me, anywhere between 2000 and 4000 dollars. Deal?"
Tell me this doesn't look insane.
"My situation is the same as tens of thousands of employees at my current employer, and millions in the US in general."
"The sorrow of many is a fool's consolation" goes the saying.
"I really like that my employer doesn't think about my work in terms of "hours", but rather in terms of results."
So much so that your contract is written in terms of results instead of wages and hours, right? No, you already said that was not the case. There it goes what your employer really thinks of that agreement of yours.
"Making law to prohibit or impede people from making contracts that both parties like, but that the government does not like, is entirely illiberal and is a sad blow against freedom and prosperity."
Law and government have no problem with both parties entering into a sensible agreement -including weeks of much more than 40 hours but an only one side open-ended contract is worse beyond illiberal: is plain illogic and the results demonstrate that it is the current situation the one that is a sad blow against freedom (for the millions that can't reach a decent live level even on multiple jobs for tad more than 40 hours/week) and prosperity (except for the one-percenters and beyond, as shown by the inegality statistical trend).
"So, someone decides they're ok with working longer hours for more money and you conclude that this is so bizarre that they must be a troll?"
No, I explicitly said that I couldn't conclude if he was troll or just stupid. It was reading his post history that inclined me towards troll more than to stupid. Have you any reading comprehension problems, mate?
"Hell, there's a name for it: a workaholic."
Ok, I concede you that and change "either troll or stupid" for "either troll or insane".
"Or maybe he just likes the extra money that he brings in when choosing to work at jobs that demand longer hours."
No, he wasn't choosing jobs that payed better for more hours: all jobs were set for 40 hours. It's only he didn't want to honor his part of the agreement (the number of hours) while his employer did honor his part (the number of dollars).
"No, it's not a choice I'd make myself, but I fail to see how this attitude is so unusual..."
No, it's not unsual, only improper of a healthy human.
Just to make obvious the absurdity -and the expected abuses, please think of a contract layed out in the same terms, only reversed: "OK, I'll work exactly 45 hours per week but all that I can say about payment is that it will be at least 2000 dollars/week. By the end of the week, depending on my mood, the bills reaching home or anything else I can come with, I'll tell you how much are you going to pay me, anywhere between 2000 and 4000 dollars. Deal?"
"he works 47 weeks a year and thus makes about $141,000 a year. That's not outrageous for an experienced, skilled technical professional."
That's not outrageous for a *salaried* experienced, skilled technical professional. For a contractor, which needs to pay for his healthcare, unemployment, retirement, sick days, marketing and accountability all out of his own pocket, much less so.
"What? People are working for free in the USA? What kind of slavery is that?"
Worse than that. It's communist.
"I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks"
I really can't conclude if you are a troll or just stupid.
I had a look at your lattest posts, so I'm inclined to think the former.
But just to be constructive and offer some substance to the answer:
What kind of contract is this that gets one side fully tied (the wages) but the other comes with no top boundary (the hours in exchange to the fixed wages)? It isn't neither liberal nor logical.
You say "I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks". You know that your contract could perfectly reflect that fact, right? And instead you set a contract on an "understandment"? One of the pillars of a liberal society is respecting contracts and having a clear and stable legal framework for them but you and your employer decide to blow that off and lie in written.
"Too bad Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 makes doing that very hard (at least not if you want to not get in trouble with the IRS)"
I am not American. Can you please expand?
"Overtime is supposed to be for unforeseen circumstances."
Well, man, my new yatch ended up being more expensive than I thought, so can you throw some more free time for me, pretty pleeeease?
"Leaning toward contract work, if I work an hour I get paid an hour."
Well, I of course don't know your exact conditions but as a general matter, if you are a contractor, you should be paid tad more than an hour for working an hour (I don't mean it literally but that your hourly rate should have to be quite higher than that of the equivalent salaried, which outcomes to the same).
Even Adam Smith, some 250 years ago, dedicated a few paragraphs to the issue .
"If I parsed the sentence correctly then it should be up to the employee to look for ways to manage his or her time more efficiently."
Humm... yes. That's exactly what a manager's work is: *manage* his or her resources the most efficient way.
And there's an non explicitly laid out understandment there: there's no incentive for the (fool) manager to make better use of their reportees time, but there's also a strong incentive for the (clever) employees to not make efficient use of their time either.
"If you have to rely on your manager then you're in wrong job."
If you didn't understand mine or parent's post, you don't have place being a manager either.
" where is your evidence for the claim that it "definitively ... doesn't cure asthma?""
I don't even need a scientific evidence since logic evidence is enough:
* Asthma exists.
* If asthma could cure with just "nothing" then there would be no asthma as it would have disapeared on its own.
* Homeopathics, by it's own definition holds "nothing" as curing factor.
* Therefore, homeopathics can't cure asthma.
"So, you don't consider it stereotyping for the toy manufacturers to think that pink toys will sell better to girls?"
It's only stereotyping if they are wrong. If they in fact sell better that way, it's just business-as-usual.
"Why making stuff more "girl-ish" (or boy-ish" for that matter)"
Because toy makers think this will favour their bottom line. It's up to buyers to demonstrate them right or wrong.
"YES â" toys "geared at girls" is stereotyping at its finest!"
And I doubt even that claim. Last I looked at it, toy industry is not specifically defended or promoted by government which means that toys, everyone of them, are geared at making money for the producer and that's all. Toy makers produce toys that they expect to sell better than others. If there's any kind of stereotyping it is not on the side of the toy maker but on the side of the toy buyer.
"Stop painting them in pink"
Paint whichever color you think you'll sell best: mom and pop, think about the future you want for your children and buy (and mainly, educate) accordingly.
"Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy."
So, what you have in the box:
HOMEOPATHIOL, THE DEFINITIVE CURE FOR ASTHMA
(this is not a medicine, it doesn't contain any active principle and definitively it doesn't cure asthma)
I see two points:
a) It's damn stupid
b) It's still false advertisement: it doesn't cure asthma, as the first claim says.
All that you can get is marketroids being more clever so focus get on what they interested in while, at the same time, minimising the impact of what they are forced to say. At the same time public needs to expend resources to be sure they are following the law.
One way or another, they claim homeopathy being a medicine. There's a legal path for medicines, so they need to follow it. As simple as that.
"I would say that it should be allowed to be sold, but, like cigarettes, with a mandatory warning to the effect that it contains no chemicals other than water and has no medical efficacy."
Far from the same issue.
Tobacco labours do their intended function. It is that they have demonstrated side effects poisonus enough as to make mandatory to warn about them.
Homeopathics, on the other hand, have not the intended effects they are sold by, so it becomes false advertisement and outright fraud.
"If people are still willing to buy it then, it's not fraud."
If homeopathics are advertised as what they are, water, and follow the regulatory practices of the bottled water market, then sure, no problem. The point is that the homeopathic producers don't want to compete against, say, Coca-Cola and try to place their products for what they are not.