Agreed 100%. I would also like to add for the original poster that if you are not in a position where you feel that doing more than your job description is actually fulfilling to you in itself no matter if you always get external validation for it or not, chances may be that you are not in a company, environment or position that is right for you.
If you are truly passionate about what you do, you automatically want to do more than expected of you just because it's fun. It makes it much easier to pursue your goals when your goals are not only in external rewards, but also in the work itself.
Also, a great way to direct your career path is to shine in those aspects outside your job direction that you want to pursue. If you want to do more programming, show off your programming skills. If you want to have a management position, show off your leadership skills etc.
No. A real man makes choices for himself and his family. He is proud of his successes (no matter what they may be) and deals with the consequences.
More importantly, though, he knows that his choices are his, and not necessarily the objectively correct ones. He knows that his perception of paths that others take is always more or less flawed, and just because he may not appreciate, or even see, most of the rewards on those paths, they are there, just as others may not see or appreciate the rewards along your path.
While you find your rewards in being able to spend a lot of time to build cars, others may find rewards in being able to spend enough time to do what they are passionate about and get paid enough for doing them to have others build the cars of their dreams for them instead of suffering through building a car that they don't want to build and being able to fulfill their - not your - dream vacations whatever they may be.
Now, granted, some people choose to live up to other peoples expectations rather than their own. Some of them are caught up in career paths that does not lead to their own life goals, but goals of their parents or others. Just as people who choose to pursue other goals in life than careers should not be confused with people who doesn't pursue their goals at all, neither should those who are unhappy because they are living someone elses dream instead of their own be confused with those who are passionate about their careers and use it to pursue their dreams.
Let's say A is North Korea's state owned TV channel. Or let's say it's Apple's app store. It doesn't really matter: in neither case there's any talk of censorship, according to you. After all, North Korea can't be forced to use their resources to help you express yourself.
It's not censorship if a country's state owned TV channel refuses to air certain content. It is, however, censorship if they ban others from starting competing TV channels or ban competing TV-channels from airing certain content.
Remember, Google doesn't build Chrome OS primarily for today's infrastructure. They build for the future, with tomorrow's technology.
A few early adopters will take the hit, accept the flaws of an OS runs best when online in a world where the infrastructure doesn't support it everywhere. These are probably mostly going to be urban people in areas where Turbo 3G and WiFi connections are no problem.
You don't even have to visit the future in order to experience a world where you are can be online virtually everywhere - even in rural areas (and for peanut money). Just visit Scandinavia for instance.
I was on a train between Gothenburg and Stockholm about two years ago. Too cheap to pay for the Internet connection on the train, I used my ~$12/month unlimited Turbo 3G with my laptop. I dropped connectivity 3 times, the longest time was about 5 minutes. That was two years ago and that train goes through some very rural areas!
4G is around the corner, and that is probably what Google has in mind for Chrome OS. High-bandwith and low-latency connectivity available virtually everywhere.
In the near future, Internet connectivity will not be an issue 99.9% of the time in any places most people are ever likely to go. With Google Gears as a backup-solution for those few occations, I don't really see connectivity as being a major problem.
This isn't a "geek" issue. It's a security issue. Even if I wanted to, the organization I work for is restricted by some pretty severe privacy rules, which makes storing on the Cloud (or, more to the point, on someone else's servers) all but impossible.
No, it is a geek issue. Sure, cloud storing isn't for all data and web based apps isn't the best solution in all cases, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of cases where they do make perfect sense.
I wouldn't store anything in the cloud or edit anything in a web app that I wasn't willing to send in an unencrypted e-mail message over the Internet. I also wouldn't use web apps for things that are critical and possible to perform offline, but for everything else, it's definitely mainly a geek issue.
No, they caught on because people obviously care about different things than you do.
See, not many people care if they need to download a 30k executable or a 100k javascript. They also don't care if that executable can perform whatever they need done in 0.2 seconds instead of two seconds for the web app. And they definitely don't care that you think that it's almost parasitic. Really? Why should they care about anything else than getting the job done in the most convenient way?
They care that they can get things done that they doesn't do very often, without having to find, install and run a piece of software locally - and risk getting malware at the same time or slowing down their computers.
Web apps are convenient. The user doesn't have to bog down his computer with tons of applications that he doesn't use very often and he doesn't have to worry (to the same degree) about malware. He will always have the latest version and he can access it no matter if he is at an Internet cafe in Thailand, at a friend's house or home at his desktop.
You may not like it, but web based apps definitely have several advantages over traditional, local apps and they do make sense a lot of time for a lot of people. Especially simple tools that may not be used very often, but also Office Suites (if you want to access your documents from everywhere), translation software or other software that constantly needs updating of data.
Sure, they may not - from a purely technical standpoint - be the most efficient applications. They may use up more bandwidth and total resources than local apps, but as long as they smoothly enough and are simple enough to use, noone except for the most pedantic programmers will care or even notice. They will just notice that it's simpler and takes less effort for them than downloading and installing a local app.
Because a free man who works gets paid and gets to decide what to do with that money.
A slave who works gets room and food, but isn't free to choose to get money in his pocket to do what he wants for instead.
Taxation is money that you've earned but don't have the freedom to decide how they will be spent.
So the less taxes you are forced to pay, the more freedom you have over the resources you've earned and freedom over the resources you've earned is one imortent aspect of freedom.
Plus, the less taxes you pay, the less money the government has to do stupid things with, like sending troops to kill people in foreign countries or overcrowding prisons with people for victimless crimes, so it actually gives you more freedom in two ways.
I don't think the area around Chernobyl will be habitable in 50 years time.
True, it's more like 500 years until it will be considered habitable but although some parts in the excusion zone are quite radioactive, a day trip to the chernobyl exclusion zone (i've been there myself) gives about as much elevated exposure as a trans-atlantic flight and 3000 workers still work on the nuclear power plant (the last reactor was still operational until mid December, 2000).
Breeder reactors.
Breeder reactors with a breeding ratio of > 1 produce more fuel than they consume. Not in a perpetuum mobile-type of way, but by converting non-fissile materials (waste) to fissile materials (fuel).
So called fast breeder reactors that has a breeding ratio of far above one are possible, but not (yet) economically feasible, however breeders that has a ratio of slightly above 1 are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
While it's true that in most parts of the exclusion zone, radioactivity is only slightly elevated and even about 100 yards from the reactor #4 sarcophagus it's only about 60 times the normal background radiation but some parts, like the red forrest are still quite highly radioactive. On one of the pictures I took on a quick stop while driving through the red forrest it even read off the scale (at least 2000 microröntgen/h).
Also, keep in mind that these animals don't just live there, everything they eat or drink is also radioactive.
Feel free to move there if you think the amount of radiation is healthy, but I think I'll pass;-)
I think this is a great idea. Now terrorists don't have to figure out which buildings are government / sensitive buildings. Now they can just attack everything that is blurry. Makes them a lot easier to find for terrorists.
You can't really just walk away from failures in life.
Why not?
Granted death is an exception, but that isn't as likely to happen very soon in real life as in a MMORPG. Other than that you really can walk away from most failures.
I myself have some really serious failures behind me. Some by choice (we all make bad choices sometimes) and some more or less by accident. Sometimes there has been consequences, sometimes more than just a lost level, but I've always been able to walk away with a new lesson learned. So in the end I've gained as much - or sometimes even more - XP from my failures as my successes in real life:-)
Who is the bigger idiot anyways? The student entrepreneur trying to make some extra money or the bank worker who is reporting a good customer to the police for a victimless crime?
What really got my eye was how they just 'asked' Opportunity to listen for it. That is, that those things are so dynamic in what they do and can be 'asked' to do simply amazes me.
It deprives them of important social interaction with their peers and helps build independence from their parents.
Now that's a myth that really needs to be put to the test and busted in Mythbusters (as it already has in the studies that's been made on the subject).
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed 100%. I would also like to add for the original poster that if you are not in a position where you feel that doing more than your job description is actually fulfilling to you in itself no matter if you always get external validation for it or not, chances may be that you are not in a company, environment or position that is right for you.
If you are truly passionate about what you do, you automatically want to do more than expected of you just because it's fun. It makes it much easier to pursue your goals when your goals are not only in external rewards, but also in the work itself.
Also, a great way to direct your career path is to shine in those aspects outside your job direction that you want to pursue. If you want to do more programming, show off your programming skills. If you want to have a management position, show off your leadership skills etc.
No. A real man makes choices for himself and his family. He is proud of his successes (no matter what they may be) and deals with the consequences.
More importantly, though, he knows that his choices are his, and not necessarily the objectively correct ones. He knows that his perception of paths that others take is always more or less flawed, and just because he may not appreciate, or even see, most of the rewards on those paths, they are there, just as others may not see or appreciate the rewards along your path.
While you find your rewards in being able to spend a lot of time to build cars, others may find rewards in being able to spend enough time to do what they are passionate about and get paid enough for doing them to have others build the cars of their dreams for them instead of suffering through building a car that they don't want to build and being able to fulfill their - not your - dream vacations whatever they may be.
Now, granted, some people choose to live up to other peoples expectations rather than their own. Some of them are caught up in career paths that does not lead to their own life goals, but goals of their parents or others. Just as people who choose to pursue other goals in life than careers should not be confused with people who doesn't pursue their goals at all, neither should those who are unhappy because they are living someone elses dream instead of their own be confused with those who are passionate about their careers and use it to pursue their dreams.
Have you ever rejected a book because the special effects aren't there? How about a book with a bad story but lots of nice pictures?
You mean like Playboy Magazine?
Why would someone ever *choose* to live in such an environment? *shivers*
In Soviet Siberia, the environment chooses *you*...
Let's say A is North Korea's state owned TV channel. Or let's say it's Apple's app store. It doesn't really matter: in neither case there's any talk of censorship, according to you. After all, North Korea can't be forced to use their resources to help you express yourself.
It's not censorship if a country's state owned TV channel refuses to air certain content. It is, however, censorship if they ban others from starting competing TV channels or ban competing TV-channels from airing certain content.
Remember, Google doesn't build Chrome OS primarily for today's infrastructure. They build for the future, with tomorrow's technology.
A few early adopters will take the hit, accept the flaws of an OS runs best when online in a world where the infrastructure doesn't support it everywhere. These are probably mostly going to be urban people in areas where Turbo 3G and WiFi connections are no problem.
You don't even have to visit the future in order to experience a world where you are can be online virtually everywhere - even in rural areas (and for peanut money). Just visit Scandinavia for instance.
I was on a train between Gothenburg and Stockholm about two years ago. Too cheap to pay for the Internet connection on the train, I used my ~$12/month unlimited Turbo 3G with my laptop. I dropped connectivity 3 times, the longest time was about 5 minutes. That was two years ago and that train goes through some very rural areas!
4G is around the corner, and that is probably what Google has in mind for Chrome OS. High-bandwith and low-latency connectivity available virtually everywhere.
In the near future, Internet connectivity will not be an issue 99.9% of the time in any places most people are ever likely to go. With Google Gears as a backup-solution for those few occations, I don't really see connectivity as being a major problem.
Why not? Have you ever heard of Spotify, Joost or Voddler?
Note the first abduction didn't happen until it had already been in pulps and film.
Actually, that's not really what Wikipedia says.
This isn't a "geek" issue. It's a security issue. Even if I wanted to, the organization I work for is restricted by some pretty severe privacy rules, which makes storing on the Cloud (or, more to the point, on someone else's servers) all but impossible.
No, it is a geek issue. Sure, cloud storing isn't for all data and web based apps isn't the best solution in all cases, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of cases where they do make perfect sense.
I wouldn't store anything in the cloud or edit anything in a web app that I wasn't willing to send in an unencrypted e-mail message over the Internet. I also wouldn't use web apps for things that are critical and possible to perform offline, but for everything else, it's definitely mainly a geek issue.
No, they caught on because people obviously care about different things than you do.
See, not many people care if they need to download a 30k executable or a 100k javascript. They also don't care if that executable can perform whatever they need done in 0.2 seconds instead of two seconds for the web app. And they definitely don't care that you think that it's almost parasitic. Really? Why should they care about anything else than getting the job done in the most convenient way?
They care that they can get things done that they doesn't do very often, without having to find, install and run a piece of software locally - and risk getting malware at the same time or slowing down their computers.
Web apps are convenient. The user doesn't have to bog down his computer with tons of applications that he doesn't use very often and he doesn't have to worry (to the same degree) about malware. He will always have the latest version and he can access it no matter if he is at an Internet cafe in Thailand, at a friend's house or home at his desktop.
You may not like it, but web based apps definitely have several advantages over traditional, local apps and they do make sense a lot of time for a lot of people. Especially simple tools that may not be used very often, but also Office Suites (if you want to access your documents from everywhere), translation software or other software that constantly needs updating of data.
Sure, they may not - from a purely technical standpoint - be the most efficient applications. They may use up more bandwidth and total resources than local apps, but as long as they smoothly enough and are simple enough to use, noone except for the most pedantic programmers will care or even notice. They will just notice that it's simpler and takes less effort for them than downloading and installing a local app.
Because a free man who works gets paid and gets to decide what to do with that money.
A slave who works gets room and food, but isn't free to choose to get money in his pocket to do what he wants for instead.
Taxation is money that you've earned but don't have the freedom to decide how they will be spent.
So the less taxes you are forced to pay, the more freedom you have over the resources you've earned and freedom over the resources you've earned is one imortent aspect of freedom.
Plus, the less taxes you pay, the less money the government has to do stupid things with, like sending troops to kill people in foreign countries or overcrowding prisons with people for victimless crimes, so it actually gives you more freedom in two ways.
I don't think the area around Chernobyl will be habitable in 50 years time.
True, it's more like 500 years until it will be considered habitable but although some parts in the excusion zone are quite radioactive, a day trip to the chernobyl exclusion zone (i've been there myself) gives about as much elevated exposure as a trans-atlantic flight and 3000 workers still work on the nuclear power plant (the last reactor was still operational until mid December, 2000).
Breeder reactors. Breeder reactors with a breeding ratio of > 1 produce more fuel than they consume. Not in a perpetuum mobile-type of way, but by converting non-fissile materials (waste) to fissile materials (fuel). So called fast breeder reactors that has a breeding ratio of far above one are possible, but not (yet) economically feasible, however breeders that has a ratio of slightly above 1 are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
The money is in Science and not Religion??
So obviously L. Ron Hubbard made the wrong choice...
...I had to resort to old school tactics by buying a map
Wow...talk about a flashack to the 20th century...weird!
While it's true that in most parts of the exclusion zone, radioactivity is only slightly elevated and even about 100 yards from the reactor #4 sarcophagus it's only about 60 times the normal background radiation but some parts, like the red forrest are still quite highly radioactive. On one of the pictures I took on a quick stop while driving through the red forrest it even read off the scale (at least 2000 microröntgen/h).
;-)
Also, keep in mind that these animals don't just live there, everything they eat or drink is also radioactive.
Feel free to move there if you think the amount of radiation is healthy, but I think I'll pass
Dude, lay off the caffeine :-) It was a joke. I can't help how I get modded.
I think this is a great idea. Now terrorists don't have to figure out which buildings are government / sensitive buildings. Now they can just attack everything that is blurry. Makes them a lot easier to find for terrorists.
But I can't wait for the expansion pack!
It used to be called a six pack, now that I'm over 30 it turned into an expansion pack...
Not really worth the wait though if you ask me.
You can't really just walk away from failures in life.
:-)
Why not?
Granted death is an exception, but that isn't as likely to happen very soon in real life as in a MMORPG. Other than that you really can walk away from most failures.
I myself have some really serious failures behind me. Some by choice (we all make bad choices sometimes) and some more or less by accident. Sometimes there has been consequences, sometimes more than just a lost level, but I've always been able to walk away with a new lesson learned. So in the end I've gained as much - or sometimes even more - XP from my failures as my successes in real life
With the cat. Dead AND Alive.
Exactly.
Who is the bigger idiot anyways? The student entrepreneur trying to make some extra money or the bank worker who is reporting a good customer to the police for a victimless crime?
What really got my eye was how they just 'asked' Opportunity to listen for it. That is, that those things are so dynamic in what they do and can be 'asked' to do simply amazes me.
Well, they did say please...
Gary Knowles, U. of Mich. did just that in his study. He interviewed 53 adults who were homeschooled as children.
. mv
Summary: http://www.athomeinamerica.com/Article_4YearStudy
It deprives them of important social interaction with their peers and helps build independence from their parents.
/O - homeschool father.
Now that's a myth that really needs to be put to the test and busted in Mythbusters (as it already has in the studies that's been made on the subject).