If you didn't give that dollar to the CEO, it's not like the company will take a dollar off the cost. They know you'll pay it.
My question is, why do these large companies feel compelled to give one person as much money as 500 workers combined? What could that one person possibly be doing that is worth so much money to the company?
I'm not saying that a CEO should only be paid $40K, but let's get real... the company would profit much more by cutting his salary to the 6 figure range plus stock options.
Nowadays, I don't think the question is about right attitudes vs. wrong. Now it is, "We believe that it is wrong, what are we going to do about it?"
Or, put another way, what's going to stop these corporations from protecting their business models? If the consumer wants to be on the winning end, consumers are going to have to give these companies reason to adjust. It's worked like that since ancient times. The main difference is that today's companies are global and require global consumer influence.
You're right, but you're also wrong. While they are all imperative in style (particularly if you argue that object-oriented languages like Java and Python follow the imperative style of state and iteration instead of the functional style of passing values and recursion), they have differences.
One key difference is memory management. C (and C++) allow direct access to pointers; the other languages only use references.
You can't overlook the power of object-oriented design, as you said, "in terms of good practice, smart thinking, and great design." OOD doesn't force you to write better programs, but it allows you to do so. Reuse is a big deal when talking about design, and C comes nowhere close to modern OO languages. Isolation is also key; the more that your code is broken into distinct, isolated components, the more maintainable it tends to be. OO helps this.
The arguments here deal with how effective the language is at promoting good design, not about whether you can make horrible designs in Java or beautiful designs in C... of course you can.
Had this consumer sheep instead opted to use a superior, Open Source operating system, then he could have posted the source code to Sourceforge or something similar, and had the community as a whole inspect the source.
What's stopping him from doing this using Windows?
This would have led to an algorithm that would have required less generations, and used less polygons.
Really? I never knew Windows caused bad algorithms.
I'm as anti-big corporation and anti-Microsoft as anyone I know, but I'm getting a little tired of these posts that have no thought added..NET is about as close to open as anything that Microsoft has developed. Just because Microsoft didn't make Mono doesn't mean that they are against it... they just have no business reason to create something that the open source community can do.
.NET/Mono are excellent runtimes, and C# is a very good and powerful language. Multiple languages compile to the same bytecode so that practically anyone can jump in and start. And it gives a great alternative to Java.
Sure, and I wonder why Amazon didn't just make a tiny change to the page source to break the add-on? They might chase each other for a while, but people will eventually get rid of the add-on if it causes problems every few days.
Why else do you suppose that the terms "piracy" and "pirate" were used to describe copyright infringement? Those terms, when first used in the context of the music industry, were much more powerful and helped the cause of those who were infringed upon.
My problem is that while copyright infringement is about taking something that is not yours, it is NOT about depriving someone else of something that is theirs.* In that way, illegal copying and stealing are two different things and should not be treated equal in the law. Copyright infringement should never be treated as the same crime as stealing. But the opposite is often true... you might get off better being convicted of stealing a car than being convicted of pirating music.
* I'm not talking about being deprived of sales money. That argument could be applied to both stealing a car and copying a CD. Still, the difference would be that in the end, the original owner no longer has the car to use or sell, but he/she still has the master music track and can still sell copies later.
Typical snobbery. As long as you're learning the theory, why shouldn't you do something practical? I'm sick to death of academics who work their asses off to create some wild assed "teaching language" or "teaching OS" just to prevent you from ever actually getting to touch the real thing.
Typical snobbery. As long as you're doing something practical, why shouldn't you learn the theory behind it? I'm sick to death of dime-a-dozen programmers who work their asses off to write unmaintainable, non-reusable procedural code in an object-oriented language because they never learned OOP.
Those "teaching languages" you loathe are pure for a reason; they force you to learn something different so that you can decide when best to use procedural or object-oriented style (or any other for that matter) in a general purpose language. They are rarely ideal for the real world since general-purpose languages allow multiple styles and thus are more popular.
As for a "teaching OS", would you rather your professor show examples using the source for an extremely simple OS, or tell you to read and learn the Linux kernel? And for that matter, when learning how a proprietary OS works, there is no source... thus, creating a "teaching OS" is necessary.
I'd like to add to that. My question is the following: Assume that a mechanism existed to create the universe, and say it was an explosion from a very small particle (a.k.a. Big Bang). Why did the explosion not occur uniformly? In other words, why did it not explode in perfect spheres of energy, never to have enough in a single area again to form mass?
If the explosion was non-uniform (which it must have been to form our universe), then the original particle itself must have been non-uniform. Ok, so what is the nature of that particle? Where did it come from, and why was it not uniform to begin with? Even if you assume that the universe happens in cycles, from Big Bang to Big Crunch over and over again, at some point you have to ask, what started it all and why was it not uniform in nature?
I know this isn't a popular answer, but I believe that there are forces at work which guide our existence that we will never be able to grasp on our plane of existence.
If a truly intelligent computer program were ever created, its knowledge of its existence would be limited to the tools provided to it. With nothing more than a screen and mouse, how would it ever find out details of the physical world? It would exist, but it could never find out the nature of its existence. So, I believe we are the same way.
But come on !! Google is doing the same for years and nobody scream that loud !!
But Google doesn't have a large marketshare in every industry that this technology touches. Microsoft can get this technology out quickly and make Windows, Office, Live, and even third party software so dependent that consumers would never be able to give it up.
Google has no route into forcing their system on consumers.
But Windows XP is dead. Microsoft wants you using Vista, and Vista is one of the hardest OSes to learn after using XP. Microsoft will soon enough ban OEM installs of XP on netbooks, so this talk of XP vs. Linux is mostly useless.
People come to me all the time, asking for help with setting up their wi-fi or trying to figure out some other off-the-wall issue with Vista. And I tell them, hell if I know... I wish they'd switch to Ubuntu. It is no more difficult to learn than Vista.
It makes alot of sense from a business perspective. Think about it:
Comcast discloses policy of capping your bandwidth
As a heavy BT user, you decide to switch to a competing ISP
Other heavy traffic users join you
That ISP gets swamped in your area, and their moderate users decide that they need better service and switch to Comcast
Profit!!!
Sorry if I ruined one of those steps for you... but this scheme might just work out alot better for them in the end by giving them more business from the moderate-use crowd.
Indeed. OS, hardware, software... they all have a significant impact in user experience.
They should do this study with computers coming straight off the shelves of Circuit City, Best Buy, and from online stores like Dell. Install "Mojave". Give these computers to the average user for a year.
Now, ask those people about their experiences. I doubt their answers would be anywhere close. The average response would probably be something like this: "I like how it looks better than XP, but I don't think it's any better really... I still can't find what I need, it's slow, and I think I need more memory or something. Fix that stuff, and some of the annoying boxes that pop up, and I'd probably like it better."
Yes. FTA: "What is now clear is that we will have to, albeit reluctantly, re-evaluate our assessment of ISO/IEC, particularly in its relevance to our various national government interoperability frameworks."
They are only "re-evaluating" the relevance of ISO/IEC in government use. It says nothing about how companies in those countries will continue to rely on ISO standards, and it really only applies to those countries (for now).
You can't compare the two. They have different purposes. For me, the iPhone has a primary purpose of being a mobile internet device, not being a phone. The phone part is simply a convenience.
My super-cheap landline phone never drops calls, never has service interruptions, and never has any of the other problems that Nokia cell phones have. That's because it isn't "primarily" a phone, it is only a phone. See what I'm getting at? You would never make such a comparison.
I'm a 1st-gen $600 iPhone user, and I have no problems. The 3G users only paid $199 for the same device. So at least get your facts straight.
For the record, I think 3G users should get upset and complain to Apple. They simply are not getting the service and quality they were promised.
Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
Not sure, but had it not been for the IOC's intervention, who would have seen or even known about the video to begin with?
Eventually he [the pilot] managed to contact Cork [the air traffic controller] on his phone, telling them about his problem and his intention to approach the airport from the sea.
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
I believe that nobody has a perfect understanding... not myself, not the pastor of my church, nobody. That's not the point, as far as I can tell.
Most prophecy in the Bible is written so that it isn't obvious exactly when or how it will be fulfilled, until it has been fulfilled. For instance, the birth of the Messiah (or Christ) did not have a date, and nobody knew that he would be born in a feeding trough. The point is so that God can show the world that He has a plan, and that He has the power to fulfill it after it has been stated (in other words, he knows the future).
The unfulfilled prophecies, including those in the book of Revelation, are similar for us today. We don't know exactly when it will happen, or how. So, nobody has a perfect knowledge of it.
He's God... if He wants you to know a certain amount of the Bible, He can and will give you the insight to make it happen.
(For those who don't believe in God, please... please, spare me the comments on how I am stupid for my beliefs and how anyone living in a modern world who believes in God is insane... those comments are getting quite old, and prove nothing.)
Make it "cut and paste" friendly, and as small as possible.
That's a really bad idea. Cut and paste causes code cloning, which is among the most difficult maintenance problems.
Code should be designed, when possible, in small chunks (methods, functions, etc.). This keeps the need to think about refactoring to a minimum, since the code is already factored. Well factored code has many other benefits, including easier-to-write unit tests and better understandability.
I maintain software that was originally written by someone as a prototype and eventually given production status. 4 years later, I am still pulling bugs out that relate to code cloning. Think of the guys who will maintain your software, please.
Wow, you must really hate your ex! Posting this on Slashdot is like putting your Social Security Number on the side of a truck and telling people that your identity can't be stolen.
No man - he who dies with the most toys has just lost. The secret is to never ever die !
Such a simple truth that a six year old can understand it.
It amazes me that people today have such an aversion to researching life after death. I'm a Christian, but I'm not saying blindly trust me. If people would do their homework on this issue, maybe we would have a happier, healthier society based on hope instead of fear.
Slashdot Mirror
If you didn't give that dollar to the CEO, it's not like the company will take a dollar off the cost. They know you'll pay it.
My question is, why do these large companies feel compelled to give one person as much money as 500 workers combined? What could that one person possibly be doing that is worth so much money to the company?
I'm not saying that a CEO should only be paid $40K, but let's get real... the company would profit much more by cutting his salary to the 6 figure range plus stock options.
Nowadays, I don't think the question is about right attitudes vs. wrong. Now it is, "We believe that it is wrong, what are we going to do about it?"
Or, put another way, what's going to stop these corporations from protecting their business models? If the consumer wants to be on the winning end, consumers are going to have to give these companies reason to adjust. It's worked like that since ancient times. The main difference is that today's companies are global and require global consumer influence.
You're right, but you're also wrong. While they are all imperative in style (particularly if you argue that object-oriented languages like Java and Python follow the imperative style of state and iteration instead of the functional style of passing values and recursion), they have differences.
One key difference is memory management. C (and C++) allow direct access to pointers; the other languages only use references.
You can't overlook the power of object-oriented design, as you said, "in terms of good practice, smart thinking, and great design." OOD doesn't force you to write better programs, but it allows you to do so. Reuse is a big deal when talking about design, and C comes nowhere close to modern OO languages. Isolation is also key; the more that your code is broken into distinct, isolated components, the more maintainable it tends to be. OO helps this.
The arguments here deal with how effective the language is at promoting good design, not about whether you can make horrible designs in Java or beautiful designs in C... of course you can.
Had this consumer sheep instead opted to use a superior, Open Source operating system, then he could have posted the source code to Sourceforge or something similar, and had the community as a whole inspect the source.
What's stopping him from doing this using Windows?
This would have led to an algorithm that would have required less generations, and used less polygons.
Really? I never knew Windows caused bad algorithms.
I'm as anti-big corporation and anti-Microsoft as anyone I know, but I'm getting a little tired of these posts that have no thought added. .NET is about as close to open as anything that Microsoft has developed. Just because Microsoft didn't make Mono doesn't mean that they are against it... they just have no business reason to create something that the open source community can do.
.NET/Mono are excellent runtimes, and C# is a very good and powerful language. Multiple languages compile to the same bytecode so that practically anyone can jump in and start. And it gives a great alternative to Java.
Sure, and I wonder why Amazon didn't just make a tiny change to the page source to break the add-on? They might chase each other for a while, but people will eventually get rid of the add-on if it causes problems every few days.
Why else do you suppose that the terms "piracy" and "pirate" were used to describe copyright infringement? Those terms, when first used in the context of the music industry, were much more powerful and helped the cause of those who were infringed upon.
My problem is that while copyright infringement is about taking something that is not yours, it is NOT about depriving someone else of something that is theirs.* In that way, illegal copying and stealing are two different things and should not be treated equal in the law. Copyright infringement should never be treated as the same crime as stealing. But the opposite is often true... you might get off better being convicted of stealing a car than being convicted of pirating music.
* I'm not talking about being deprived of sales money. That argument could be applied to both stealing a car and copying a CD. Still, the difference would be that in the end, the original owner no longer has the car to use or sell, but he/she still has the master music track and can still sell copies later.
Typical snobbery. As long as you're learning the theory, why shouldn't you do something practical? I'm sick to death of academics who work their asses off to create some wild assed "teaching language" or "teaching OS" just to prevent you from ever actually getting to touch the real thing.
Typical snobbery. As long as you're doing something practical, why shouldn't you learn the theory behind it? I'm sick to death of dime-a-dozen programmers who work their asses off to write unmaintainable, non-reusable procedural code in an object-oriented language because they never learned OOP.
Those "teaching languages" you loathe are pure for a reason; they force you to learn something different so that you can decide when best to use procedural or object-oriented style (or any other for that matter) in a general purpose language. They are rarely ideal for the real world since general-purpose languages allow multiple styles and thus are more popular.
As for a "teaching OS", would you rather your professor show examples using the source for an extremely simple OS, or tell you to read and learn the Linux kernel? And for that matter, when learning how a proprietary OS works, there is no source... thus, creating a "teaching OS" is necessary.
It is not publicly said whether any flying things are ducks.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
I'd like to add to that. My question is the following: Assume that a mechanism existed to create the universe, and say it was an explosion from a very small particle (a.k.a. Big Bang). Why did the explosion not occur uniformly? In other words, why did it not explode in perfect spheres of energy, never to have enough in a single area again to form mass?
If the explosion was non-uniform (which it must have been to form our universe), then the original particle itself must have been non-uniform. Ok, so what is the nature of that particle? Where did it come from, and why was it not uniform to begin with? Even if you assume that the universe happens in cycles, from Big Bang to Big Crunch over and over again, at some point you have to ask, what started it all and why was it not uniform in nature?
I know this isn't a popular answer, but I believe that there are forces at work which guide our existence that we will never be able to grasp on our plane of existence.
If a truly intelligent computer program were ever created, its knowledge of its existence would be limited to the tools provided to it. With nothing more than a screen and mouse, how would it ever find out details of the physical world? It would exist, but it could never find out the nature of its existence. So, I believe we are the same way.
But come on !! Google is doing the same for years and nobody scream that loud !!
But Google doesn't have a large marketshare in every industry that this technology touches. Microsoft can get this technology out quickly and make Windows, Office, Live, and even third party software so dependent that consumers would never be able to give it up.
Google has no route into forcing their system on consumers.
But Windows XP is dead. Microsoft wants you using Vista, and Vista is one of the hardest OSes to learn after using XP. Microsoft will soon enough ban OEM installs of XP on netbooks, so this talk of XP vs. Linux is mostly useless.
People come to me all the time, asking for help with setting up their wi-fi or trying to figure out some other off-the-wall issue with Vista. And I tell them, hell if I know... I wish they'd switch to Ubuntu. It is no more difficult to learn than Vista.
NOCH ILDLE FTBEHIND
Incorrect. You get a 50%. Well done!
It makes alot of sense from a business perspective. Think about it:
Sorry if I ruined one of those steps for you... but this scheme might just work out alot better for them in the end by giving them more business from the moderate-use crowd.
Indeed. OS, hardware, software... they all have a significant impact in user experience.
They should do this study with computers coming straight off the shelves of Circuit City, Best Buy, and from online stores like Dell. Install "Mojave". Give these computers to the average user for a year.
Now, ask those people about their experiences. I doubt their answers would be anywhere close. The average response would probably be something like this: "I like how it looks better than XP, but I don't think it's any better really... I still can't find what I need, it's slow, and I think I need more memory or something. Fix that stuff, and some of the annoying boxes that pop up, and I'd probably like it better."
Does ISO still matter??
Yes. FTA: "What is now clear is that we will have to, albeit reluctantly, re-evaluate our assessment of ISO/IEC, particularly in its relevance to our various national government interoperability frameworks."
They are only "re-evaluating" the relevance of ISO/IEC in government use. It says nothing about how companies in those countries will continue to rely on ISO standards, and it really only applies to those countries (for now).
You can't compare the two. They have different purposes. For me, the iPhone has a primary purpose of being a mobile internet device, not being a phone. The phone part is simply a convenience.
My super-cheap landline phone never drops calls, never has service interruptions, and never has any of the other problems that Nokia cell phones have. That's because it isn't "primarily" a phone, it is only a phone. See what I'm getting at? You would never make such a comparison.
I'm a 1st-gen $600 iPhone user, and I have no problems. The 3G users only paid $199 for the same device. So at least get your facts straight.
For the record, I think 3G users should get upset and complain to Apple. They simply are not getting the service and quality they were promised.
Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
Not sure, but had it not been for the IOC's intervention, who would have seen or even known about the video to begin with?
Why didn't he just call them?
He did. FTA:
Eventually he [the pilot] managed to contact Cork [the air traffic controller] on his phone, telling them about his problem and his intention to approach the airport from the sea.
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
At least your username isn't your Social Security Number. I'm looking at you, Regions Bank.
Banks are protected from their mistakes by the US Federal Reserve.
Consumers (or lenders, technically) are covered up to the greater of their account balance or $100,000, but identity theft is far from protected.
I believe that nobody has a perfect understanding... not myself, not the pastor of my church, nobody. That's not the point, as far as I can tell.
Most prophecy in the Bible is written so that it isn't obvious exactly when or how it will be fulfilled, until it has been fulfilled. For instance, the birth of the Messiah (or Christ) did not have a date, and nobody knew that he would be born in a feeding trough. The point is so that God can show the world that He has a plan, and that He has the power to fulfill it after it has been stated (in other words, he knows the future).
The unfulfilled prophecies, including those in the book of Revelation, are similar for us today. We don't know exactly when it will happen, or how. So, nobody has a perfect knowledge of it.
He's God... if He wants you to know a certain amount of the Bible, He can and will give you the insight to make it happen.
(For those who don't believe in God, please... please, spare me the comments on how I am stupid for my beliefs and how anyone living in a modern world who believes in God is insane... those comments are getting quite old, and prove nothing.)
Make it "cut and paste" friendly, and as small as possible.
That's a really bad idea. Cut and paste causes code cloning, which is among the most difficult maintenance problems.
Code should be designed, when possible, in small chunks (methods, functions, etc.). This keeps the need to think about refactoring to a minimum, since the code is already factored. Well factored code has many other benefits, including easier-to-write unit tests and better understandability.
I maintain software that was originally written by someone as a prototype and eventually given production status. 4 years later, I am still pulling bugs out that relate to code cloning. Think of the guys who will maintain your software, please.
The 131 page proposal
That's a hell of a lot of napkins...
Not in metric...
4155557368@mycellprovider.com.
Wow, you must really hate your ex! Posting this on Slashdot is like putting your Social Security Number on the side of a truck and telling people that your identity can't be stolen.
No man - he who dies with the most toys has just lost. The secret is to never ever die !
Such a simple truth that a six year old can understand it.
It amazes me that people today have such an aversion to researching life after death. I'm a Christian, but I'm not saying blindly trust me. If people would do their homework on this issue, maybe we would have a happier, healthier society based on hope instead of fear.