Yeah... except I've been posting on Slashdot for almost 10 years, I work in the video-game industry and have no connections to Uber. It just annoyed me a little that people assume that because "real" taxis are regulated, that somehow the drivers and cars must be nicer, when, in my experience, the opposite has been true.
Note, if you want proof of my employment I will happily provide it. I'm not a shill.
Actually I've found the opposite is true, as regards regular taxi drivers. I stopped using official yellow cabs in Southern California after my cab driver either fell-asleep or fell into a drug induced stupor while driving on the 405 south towards Irvine. I had to repeatedly hit him on the shoulder to wake him up before we smashed into the side, we were about half a second away from both being dead, I'm deadly serious. I was shaken up all evening.
I heard about Uber after that and started using them, I've only had the best experience with them. Cleaner cars, well spoken, more normal seeming drivers, a much better experience in every way, and cheaper too! In fact, for some reason, now I think about it, "real" cab drivers always seem way sketchier and suspect than all the Uber drivers I've encountered, as though Uber attracts more middle-class people and "real" taxi drivers are more likely to be lower-income and/or under-educated. I've had plenty of "real" taxi drivers seem dodgy, smelly, rude, non-English speaking. None of that with Uber.
I totally agree, the sad things is that I have a ton of interests outside of programming, I read a lot of literature and philosophy, I play the piano, I like to hike, sail, get outdoors when I can. It seems that in the current economic climate, as a programmer one needs to forgo all these activities and spent 100% of one's time at work programming or at home programming, if one want's to get a good job.
I'm actually a strong believer that varied "extracurricular" activities make a better employee. I.e. I'd rather employ an engineer who had varied interests outside of just programming, especially because having lots and varied interests usually indicates that the person is better socially adapted. I've worked with excellent developers before, but who were socially inept, would make female employees uncomfortable, reduce morale because they weren't fun to work with, and so on.
So, at my previous job (at a games company) I regularly worked 8.30 till 8 or 9pm. I'd get home at 10, eat, workout a little, then go to bed. I often worked full weekends (crunch time) and there was no way I could ever code outside of work, I was simply too burned out. In fact, I barely had time to do much else other than eat, sleep, and do chores. As such, if someone tried to find any open source work done by me, well, there is none, but that doesn't mean I can't program.
I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.
Totally agree with you. I'm on a H1 visa too and earning 110k. How did I get this job? I spent three months working 10 hours days studying to improve my skills. Then I went to about 15 interviews which I used as practice to work on my weak points. After each interview I made notes about where I did well and where I failed and then I focused on those weak points. Then, when the interviews came up for the companies I cared about, I nailed them. Result, two offers to two of the best and most well known companies in the world.
There are plenty of jobs out there for people with the talent and the guts to work hard and prove themselves. You can't sit at home twiddling your thumbs and think that just because you got a Comp Sci degree, that the world owes you a 50k+ tech job.
No offense intended, but if you have more than 5 years of experience and you can't get a tech job over 50k, then you're doing something very wrong. I have recruiters bombaring me for a variety of jobs 75k+ and I'm currently on 110k. I have less than 5 years experience.
Maybe it's to do with your location? Move to NY or Cali, practice your interviewing technique, you'll find a job.
Someone mod this guy down, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You think some of the top yacht builders in the world, working for the most exacting clients for millions of dollars have somehow made a huge and epic mistake and made a yacht which actually can't sail at sea at all? Are you crazy? You think you're the only guy in the world who suddenly has identified this fatal floor in the boat? And not the small army of engineers who were working on it for months?
I've sailed on 50 ft yachts with windows on the side and been fine. These windows aren't standard glass like your bathroom mirror, these are custom engineered for the job they do, and they can easily handle some waves hitting them.
Guns are designed to be the best method for one person to kill many other people. Knives don't even come close. Don't even begin to compare knife attacks with someone armed with automatic weapons, it's a meaningless comparison. Guns have no other use other than killing. If the guy yesterday had been armed with a knife, how many people do you think would have died? Comparing knives with guns is a ridiculous and meaningless debate tactic, if they were comparable, why wouldn't we just send out soldiers in with knives rather than M16s and M4s, it would certainly be cheaper.
Are you crazy? Teachers having guns in the classroom? Really? More guns is the answer is it? Do you realize how insane that sounds?
Strange really how the USA has the highest rate of firearms related deaths for Western World Countries. In fact, the USA has a higher rate of firearms deaths than a lot of 3rd world countries too. Strange isn't it that those countries with less guns and stricter gun laws have fewer deaths? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
More guns equals more people dead by guns. End of story.
Switzerland actually has much a much higher amount of gun related death than other Western World countries. In fact, the USA is the only Western World country that has more gun related death per capita than Switzerland. So in fact you're wrong, more guns usually equals more gun deaths. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
This isn't a valid comparison. Guns have one use, for killing. Hand-guns and assault rifles are designed for killing other human beings. Knives are used for cooking and various other peaceful uses, cars are used for travel, rocks are used for building, martial arts for fitness, and so on.
If guns are illegal and there are no gun stores, where are the "fucking lunatics" going to get their guns?
If a teenager wants to shoot up his school, let's say he's a 15 year old boy. Let's say guns are illegal and there are no gun stores. Where is he going to go and buy his pistol or rifle and all that ammo? Is he going to go to the local "criminal hangout" and ask to buy a gun? Even supposing there were such an obvious criminal hangout I doubt he would be able to go there as a pimply faced teenager and get a gun so easily. And that's the point, it's about trying to MAKE IT HARDER to get hold of a gun. If this guy had to spend weeks or months trying to procure a firearm, he might have had second thoughts, people might have noticed his behavior, he might have started feeling better and less depressed, and so on.
What about the domestic dispute between a man and wife that turns nasty and the man has a gun in the cabinet? In one rash moment someone could die. Countries with bans on firearms have much smaller incidences of firearm related deaths, surely this is obvious. More guns = more deaths from guns. It's not rocket science.
Here's the statistics for per capita death rate from firearms. Note that the USA had by far the most per capita deaths amongst all the developed western world countries. The USA has similar rates to countries like South Africa, Montenegro, and Mexico...
I'm not saying you are wrong about the logo, it's a matter of opinion of course. However, I think it's somewhat specious to compare the logos of drinks companies and software companies. When it comes to drinks companies, let's be fair, there's basically no difference between any of the 100 different types Coke, so, in this this case branding is hugely important. In the end, all the drinks have the same "functionality" which is to quench your thirst, taste sugary, and provide you with caffeine. So all Coke can really do is push their name and history and "secret" formula and it's famous logo.
However, when it comes to Microsoft Server software and say Linux server software, these are two very different products with a vast array of differences and relative positives and negatives. The people in charge of choosing whether a database server gets Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server or Linux and MySQL is going to be looking at up-times, security, compatibility, and so on. The point I'm trying to make is that the branding of a company is definitely more important for some companies than others and soda especially is an example of where branding is hugely important, business software, not so much.
Call me crazy but I think this is really a case of "different strokes for different folks." And in general it seems that anything Microsoft does gets criticized at Slashdot. I mean. I've been a member here since 2006 and lurked long before then and I don't recall many instances of people praising anything they've done, so this comment is very unsurprising.
That said, I actually like this logo (yes, feel free to mod me +funny). I think that simple and flat shading evokes modernity and that trying to be fancy and use gradients or otherwise trying to make things pop-out or use 3D-ish looking elements is on its way out.
As far as boring goes, we are talking about a large software company that makes most it's money of licensing software for big business, it's not a games studio or a high-octane energy drink company, the logo was never going to be neon green with a lightning flash. I wouldn't call Apple, Google, or Facebook's logos exciting either, they are functional. These companies live or die based on their products, not their logos.
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm talking about BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY, do you even know what that means? It's like saying that a Playstation game will play on a Playstation 2. This means that PS2 is BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE. Windows 8 is backwards compatible with Windows 7.
How do I know this? I've been developing Windows 8 apps (for Microsoft) since October of last year.
I mean, I know it's the fashion to bag Apple now they're the biggest company in the world, but I thought it was common knowledge that virtually all big companies do everything they can to avoid taxes. In fact, I don't see how it's much different from pretty much every individual in the USA trying to pay as little tax as possible either. If an accountant said, "Oh hi there, I can help you avoid $3000 bucks in taxes and it's all legal" what would you say, no?
Ok so here my two cents as an engineer currently building a Windows 8 game. I've been using Windows 8 since DP4. I.e. Developer Preview 4. Currently I'm using DP6, which is the latest build since the Consumer Preview (CP) was released. I have gotten used to the Metro interface and use it as an app search and launchpad. Basically I see the whole Windows 8 thing as basically a faster, cleaner, sparklier Windows 7 with a revised Start Menu. It's clear some optimizations have been under the hood to make the OS load faster, run faster, and in generally be more efficient.
As far as the Metro interface goes, it's fine. I use it with both my touchscreen monitor and mouse and keyboard. It doesn't make my day to day job any easier or harder, it's just different. Also, keep in mind that as a primarily back-end dev, I need to use all of the more advanced features of Windows and so far haven't found my experience to be any worse than Win 7. The only bad thing right now is the massive buggy mess that is Visual Studio 11.
Win 8 is basically Win 7 with bells on. You can pin Non-Metro apps to the start screen and the app/settings search is fast. I use the start screen merely through my keyboard. Hit Windows key, start typing app-name, hit enter. That's it. As far as Metro apps go, I don't really use any except the game I'm working on,,, which rocks..;)
"Don't take it seriously
The privacy policy, the contact us page — it’s all a joke. We came up with the idea of building a crawler like this and keeping the maintenance price under $300 a month. There was only one way to prove our theory worked — to implement it in practice. So we did. Now, we find ourselves with a big crawler. We knew what it did but we didn’t know how to use it. So we decided to make a joke out of it. That’s the beauty of jokes — you can make them out of anything."
Hi, actual facts incoming based on science. Meth, as in the type meth you would buy on the street is extremely similar (in terms of molecular structure) to some of our favorite legal drugs, namely Adderall and Ritalin. There is nothing different about street Meth that would make it extremely harmful to user that wouldn't also be the case with Ritalin or Adderall.
In fact, I went to a lecture at the Natural History Museum (NYC) from a scientist who has spent years working with Meth addicts. He said himself that the media had created many myths about Meth and Meth addicts, E.g. Meth mouth, the idea that Meth makes you lose your teeth. He said that Meth, in and of itself is not very dangerous or harmful at all, and in fact the dosages that get you high are nowhere near the dosages that it would take to cause brain damage, for example, or to seriously harm you.
The real problem with Meth, and other addictive drugs, is that people get addicted to them, lose their jobs, live on the street, stop eating healthily, stop exercising, stop brushing their teeth or cleaning themselves. THAT is why drug addicts often look bad, not because the drug itself is causing the degradation of the body.
I may be completely missing the point here, but this ruling seems completely unenforceable. How do you stop four friends talking to each other if they are not incarcerated? There are a hundred and one ways to talk to people in this modern age and many of those are anonymous and not easily tracked or monitored.
This just seems like one of those sentences which is "harsh" to make a point but doesn't actually make any difference to how these men will communicate. That said, it's also completely ridiculous that these people with no ill intent were made such an example of, and that they were given a punishment which is illogical and far too much trouble than it's worth to enforce.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... except I've been posting on Slashdot for almost 10 years, I work in the video-game industry and have no connections to Uber. It just annoyed me a little that people assume that because "real" taxis are regulated, that somehow the drivers and cars must be nicer, when, in my experience, the opposite has been true.
Note, if you want proof of my employment I will happily provide it. I'm not a shill.
Actually I've found the opposite is true, as regards regular taxi drivers. I stopped using official yellow cabs in Southern California after my cab driver either fell-asleep or fell into a drug induced stupor while driving on the 405 south towards Irvine. I had to repeatedly hit him on the shoulder to wake him up before we smashed into the side, we were about half a second away from both being dead, I'm deadly serious. I was shaken up all evening.
I heard about Uber after that and started using them, I've only had the best experience with them. Cleaner cars, well spoken, more normal seeming drivers, a much better experience in every way, and cheaper too! In fact, for some reason, now I think about it, "real" cab drivers always seem way sketchier and suspect than all the Uber drivers I've encountered, as though Uber attracts more middle-class people and "real" taxi drivers are more likely to be lower-income and/or under-educated. I've had plenty of "real" taxi drivers seem dodgy, smelly, rude, non-English speaking. None of that with Uber.
I totally agree, the sad things is that I have a ton of interests outside of programming, I read a lot of literature and philosophy, I play the piano, I like to hike, sail, get outdoors when I can. It seems that in the current economic climate, as a programmer one needs to forgo all these activities and spent 100% of one's time at work programming or at home programming, if one want's to get a good job.
I'm actually a strong believer that varied "extracurricular" activities make a better employee. I.e. I'd rather employ an engineer who had varied interests outside of just programming, especially because having lots and varied interests usually indicates that the person is better socially adapted. I've worked with excellent developers before, but who were socially inept, would make female employees uncomfortable, reduce morale because they weren't fun to work with, and so on.
So, at my previous job (at a games company) I regularly worked 8.30 till 8 or 9pm. I'd get home at 10, eat, workout a little, then go to bed. I often worked full weekends (crunch time) and there was no way I could ever code outside of work, I was simply too burned out. In fact, I barely had time to do much else other than eat, sleep, and do chores. As such, if someone tried to find any open source work done by me, well, there is none, but that doesn't mean I can't program.
I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.
Ah ok :) Thanks for clarification!
Totally agree with you. I'm on a H1 visa too and earning 110k. How did I get this job? I spent three months working 10 hours days studying to improve my skills. Then I went to about 15 interviews which I used as practice to work on my weak points. After each interview I made notes about where I did well and where I failed and then I focused on those weak points. Then, when the interviews came up for the companies I cared about, I nailed them. Result, two offers to two of the best and most well known companies in the world.
There are plenty of jobs out there for people with the talent and the guts to work hard and prove themselves. You can't sit at home twiddling your thumbs and think that just because you got a Comp Sci degree, that the world owes you a 50k+ tech job.
No offense intended, but if you have more than 5 years of experience and you can't get a tech job over 50k, then you're doing something very wrong. I have recruiters bombaring me for a variety of jobs 75k+ and I'm currently on 110k. I have less than 5 years experience.
Maybe it's to do with your location? Move to NY or Cali, practice your interviewing technique, you'll find a job.
Yeah, typed out that comment rather quickly and after posting noticed that typo... :)
Someone mod this guy down, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You think some of the top yacht builders in the world, working for the most exacting clients for millions of dollars have somehow made a huge and epic mistake and made a yacht which actually can't sail at sea at all? Are you crazy? You think you're the only guy in the world who suddenly has identified this fatal floor in the boat? And not the small army of engineers who were working on it for months?
I've sailed on 50 ft yachts with windows on the side and been fine. These windows aren't standard glass like your bathroom mirror, these are custom engineered for the job they do, and they can easily handle some waves hitting them.
They had a massacre in Australia, they banned guns, no massacred since. See, I can do that too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences
Guns are designed to be the best method for one person to kill many other people. Knives don't even come close. Don't even begin to compare knife attacks with someone armed with automatic weapons, it's a meaningless comparison. Guns have no other use other than killing. If the guy yesterday had been armed with a knife, how many people do you think would have died? Comparing knives with guns is a ridiculous and meaningless debate tactic, if they were comparable, why wouldn't we just send out soldiers in with knives rather than M16s and M4s, it would certainly be cheaper.
Are you crazy? Teachers having guns in the classroom? Really? More guns is the answer is it? Do you realize how insane that sounds?
Strange really how the USA has the highest rate of firearms related deaths for Western World Countries. In fact, the USA has a higher rate of firearms deaths than a lot of 3rd world countries too. Strange isn't it that those countries with less guns and stricter gun laws have fewer deaths? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
More guns equals more people dead by guns. End of story.
Switzerland actually has much a much higher amount of gun related death than other Western World countries. In fact, the USA is the only Western World country that has more gun related death per capita than Switzerland. So in fact you're wrong, more guns usually equals more gun deaths. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
This isn't a valid comparison. Guns have one use, for killing. Hand-guns and assault rifles are designed for killing other human beings. Knives are used for cooking and various other peaceful uses, cars are used for travel, rocks are used for building, martial arts for fitness, and so on.
If guns are illegal and there are no gun stores, where are the "fucking lunatics" going to get their guns?
If a teenager wants to shoot up his school, let's say he's a 15 year old boy. Let's say guns are illegal and there are no gun stores. Where is he going to go and buy his pistol or rifle and all that ammo? Is he going to go to the local "criminal hangout" and ask to buy a gun? Even supposing there were such an obvious criminal hangout I doubt he would be able to go there as a pimply faced teenager and get a gun so easily. And that's the point, it's about trying to MAKE IT HARDER to get hold of a gun. If this guy had to spend weeks or months trying to procure a firearm, he might have had second thoughts, people might have noticed his behavior, he might have started feeling better and less depressed, and so on.
What about the domestic dispute between a man and wife that turns nasty and the man has a gun in the cabinet? In one rash moment someone could die. Countries with bans on firearms have much smaller incidences of firearm related deaths, surely this is obvious. More guns = more deaths from guns. It's not rocket science.
Here's the statistics for per capita death rate from firearms. Note that the USA had by far the most per capita deaths amongst all the developed western world countries. The USA has similar rates to countries like South Africa, Montenegro, and Mexico...
I'm not saying you are wrong about the logo, it's a matter of opinion of course. However, I think it's somewhat specious to compare the logos of drinks companies and software companies. When it comes to drinks companies, let's be fair, there's basically no difference between any of the 100 different types Coke, so, in this this case branding is hugely important. In the end, all the drinks have the same "functionality" which is to quench your thirst, taste sugary, and provide you with caffeine. So all Coke can really do is push their name and history and "secret" formula and it's famous logo.
However, when it comes to Microsoft Server software and say Linux server software, these are two very different products with a vast array of differences and relative positives and negatives. The people in charge of choosing whether a database server gets Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server or Linux and MySQL is going to be looking at up-times, security, compatibility, and so on. The point I'm trying to make is that the branding of a company is definitely more important for some companies than others and soda especially is an example of where branding is hugely important, business software, not so much.
Call me crazy but I think this is really a case of "different strokes for different folks." And in general it seems that anything Microsoft does gets criticized at Slashdot. I mean. I've been a member here since 2006 and lurked long before then and I don't recall many instances of people praising anything they've done, so this comment is very unsurprising.
That said, I actually like this logo (yes, feel free to mod me +funny). I think that simple and flat shading evokes modernity and that trying to be fancy and use gradients or otherwise trying to make things pop-out or use 3D-ish looking elements is on its way out.
As far as boring goes, we are talking about a large software company that makes most it's money of licensing software for big business, it's not a games studio or a high-octane energy drink company, the logo was never going to be neon green with a lightning flash. I wouldn't call Apple, Google, or Facebook's logos exciting either, they are functional. These companies live or die based on their products, not their logos.
Do not want.
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm talking about BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY, do you even know what that means? It's like saying that a Playstation game will play on a Playstation 2. This means that PS2 is BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE. Windows 8 is backwards compatible with Windows 7.
How do I know this? I've been developing Windows 8 apps (for Microsoft) since October of last year.
Who's the moron?
Sorry to burst your bubble but any app that runs on Windows 7 will also run on Windows 8. It's totally backwards compatible.
I mean, I know it's the fashion to bag Apple now they're the biggest company in the world, but I thought it was common knowledge that virtually all big companies do everything they can to avoid taxes. In fact, I don't see how it's much different from pretty much every individual in the USA trying to pay as little tax as possible either. If an accountant said, "Oh hi there, I can help you avoid $3000 bucks in taxes and it's all legal" what would you say, no?
Ok so here my two cents as an engineer currently building a Windows 8 game. I've been using Windows 8 since DP4. I.e. Developer Preview 4. Currently I'm using DP6, which is the latest build since the Consumer Preview (CP) was released. I have gotten used to the Metro interface and use it as an app search and launchpad. Basically I see the whole Windows 8 thing as basically a faster, cleaner, sparklier Windows 7 with a revised Start Menu. It's clear some optimizations have been under the hood to make the OS load faster, run faster, and in generally be more efficient.
;)
As far as the Metro interface goes, it's fine. I use it with both my touchscreen monitor and mouse and keyboard. It doesn't make my day to day job any easier or harder, it's just different. Also, keep in mind that as a primarily back-end dev, I need to use all of the more advanced features of Windows and so far haven't found my experience to be any worse than Win 7. The only bad thing right now is the massive buggy mess that is Visual Studio 11.
Win 8 is basically Win 7 with bells on. You can pin Non-Metro apps to the start screen and the app/settings search is fast. I use the start screen merely through my keyboard. Hit Windows key, start typing app-name, hit enter. That's it. As far as Metro apps go, I don't really use any except the game I'm working on,,, which rocks..
From the site:
"Don't take it seriously The privacy policy, the contact us page — it’s all a joke. We came up with the idea of building a crawler like this and keeping the maintenance price under $300 a month. There was only one way to prove our theory worked — to implement it in practice. So we did. Now, we find ourselves with a big crawler. We knew what it did but we didn’t know how to use it. So we decided to make a joke out of it. That’s the beauty of jokes — you can make them out of anything."
Hi, actual facts incoming based on science. Meth, as in the type meth you would buy on the street is extremely similar (in terms of molecular structure) to some of our favorite legal drugs, namely Adderall and Ritalin. There is nothing different about street Meth that would make it extremely harmful to user that wouldn't also be the case with Ritalin or Adderall.
In fact, I went to a lecture at the Natural History Museum (NYC) from a scientist who has spent years working with Meth addicts. He said himself that the media had created many myths about Meth and Meth addicts, E.g. Meth mouth, the idea that Meth makes you lose your teeth. He said that Meth, in and of itself is not very dangerous or harmful at all, and in fact the dosages that get you high are nowhere near the dosages that it would take to cause brain damage, for example, or to seriously harm you.
The real problem with Meth, and other addictive drugs, is that people get addicted to them, lose their jobs, live on the street, stop eating healthily, stop exercising, stop brushing their teeth or cleaning themselves. THAT is why drug addicts often look bad, not because the drug itself is causing the degradation of the body.
Reference: http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=2846 (Is meth the same thing as Amphetamines such as prescription drugs like adderall and ritalin?)
I may be completely missing the point here, but this ruling seems completely unenforceable. How do you stop four friends talking to each other if they are not incarcerated? There are a hundred and one ways to talk to people in this modern age and many of those are anonymous and not easily tracked or monitored.
This just seems like one of those sentences which is "harsh" to make a point but doesn't actually make any difference to how these men will communicate. That said, it's also completely ridiculous that these people with no ill intent were made such an example of, and that they were given a punishment which is illogical and far too much trouble than it's worth to enforce.