It IS a common thing in film production; being able to add a video I/O box is a huge asset for a computer being used for media work. A good graphics card isn't always enough, you also need to be able to get an SDI I/O option in order to use software like PreLight, for example.
For serious media production, you need a LOT more computing power than for programming... for working with for example 8K footage in real time while grading, or with dual 4K streams at 120fps... hence Baselight X includes a couple of GPUs.
I'm sure there are other examples, but most programmers aren't anywhere near the most demanding users, as far as computing power goes.
It's fun until you end up debugging someone else's crap, which is most paying coding work these days... and since most companies hire the enthusiastic but not competent type, most code is quite bad.
There's no doubt that it's genuinely malicious, but Trump itself is simply too stupid to pull it off. The malice is from the entities who own it. And of course, by "it" I mean, "The Asshat in the Oval Office" who really doesn't deserve to even be called a person.
Productivity is a measure of output for a given workforce, not working time. Japan's problem isn't one of people surfing the web at work, it's arcane hierarchical structures getting in the way of getting things done.
That's a very optimistic view of american "productivity" based on anecdotal evidence. The reality is that while there are a few places where american workers are actually rewarded for getting things done, most of them are rewarded based on time worked.
Most software shops I've worked in have been spending the vast majority of their workers' time on servicing technical debt, while promoting the people whose primary contribution was that debt.
From a professional point of view, the difference is actually even bigger. The latest generations of GPUs have a heavy emphasis on compute, which is a huge deal for a lot of professional non-linear editing, compositing, and color grading software. Converting raw footage into RGB is also extremely compute heavy, and is nowadays largely GPU based even for 8K Redcode.
It was badly designed for its intended market from the outset, so the trashcan monicker's spot on.
Can you really not find other work? That seems unlikely for a technical worker these days. To put up with 24/7 duty with no extra pay is not something you should put up with. You should demand extra compensation, or leave.
That's why Amazon has such high turnover and is experimenting with a 35-hour work week also...
I disagree. When I was younger I worked 50-80 hour (or longer) weeks.
I worked with people like you, and discovered very quickly that even though a lot of the people I was working with who were working a lot more hours than I was had quite a bit more experience, I was getting a lot more done. And helping them get their stuff done. And rewriting their stuff when it didn't work due to simply being very badly written. And all that in spite of working a lot fewer hours.
It's not like i never take time for vacation, then or now (sometimes a lot). But I don't think there is any value mandating a cap on possible work, I feel like that is the best way to ruin and country and economy and frankly, a whole generation of people.
Reality says the opposite. Never keep overtimers on staff. Ever. The negative work they produce wastes the time of the competent workers, and just slows things down. Teaching people that overtime ok ruins them for the industry as a whole, and it's bringing the entire industry down.
Americans tend to work too hard, and are generally afraid of being labeled lazy, so they work so hard that they miss out on opportunities in life.
They also tend to accomplish a lot less. The ones who work the most hours are invariably the ones creating the most negative work, and they're also the ones getting promoted, leading to a downward spiral. More asses in seats, but less getting done. That's why the US is no longer a leader in many fields, other than how warm we keep our seats.
The problem here is that explanations don't do squat for imbeciles. You've already stated that you are basically choosing your beliefs based on what you wish is true, so you clearly have no value. There is an astonishing amount of information out there based on observations that confirms that the only thing that the actual scientists have gotten wrong is to underestimate the sheer stupidity of humanity.
The only "science" that's been debunked is the propaganda claiming that it's not our fault. Anyone who still disagrees with that is either an imbecile or a schill.
There are in reality two kinds of people when it comes to environmentalism:
Environmentalist and idiots.
In other words, if you don't believe that taking care of our environment is critical for the survival of the species, than you're an idiot... and probably couldn't figure out why your goldfish would die if you didn't change the water periodically.
I've been a software engineer for a long time myself... been hating the industry for years. I'd never advise anyone to go into this field. I always tell them to start reading Dilbert... and that it's a sugar-coated version of reality, rather than fiction. For the real thing, I send them to the DailyWTF, which hopefully would lead anyone worth anything to run screaming from this field of shit that is the world of corporate idiot tech.
Oh and lastly my own personal favorite... I turn 38 years old this year. I now regularly get asked 'Why are you still in IT?'
I get asked that quite a bit also... and my only response is that it paid the bills. Lately, it hasn't even done that. It's miserable work, 90% of it inheriting sheer idiocy instead of doing work that's worth my time, and the work environment is typically terrible. I hate and despise the industry, but its been paying the bills. Hiring lately however has been insanely slow, probably exacerbated by lots of contractors having their contracts end at Microsoft due to the new hard limit on contractor tenure, plus the large layoffs...
Clearly then, productivity is going down, not up... working longer hours is not an increase in productivity, which means that the metric is broken. It IS slavery, and I'm amazed that you put up with 75 hour weeks for a year without bailing. I've run into people who were proud of doing that; they weren't just incompetent, they were outright destructive, partly because they were so completely incompetent, but also because the management measured competence by the number of hours people were working.
More people need to realize that if they're working slave hours, then they're wasting their lives, regardless of their salaries.
If the severance package isn't spectacular, than anyone signing that is basically an idiot, unless the demand to have that clause stricken. Odds are however, since it stipulates "reasonable availability" and no compensation that they'll get no help from any of their laid off staff who are employable, since they'll get jobs. The best will of course simply quit rather than accepting the insult of training their replacements who the bank is already admitting will not be competent enough to do the job they were hired for.
For that matter, in many cases it was taking credit for Apple creating things that Apple hadn't even created, like the mouse, the GUI, FireWire, and so on.
More likely, if he starts talking like he's taking the correct side which is that of the Disney employees, then he'll lose his bribe money from the businessdroids who want more h1-bs.
No, you have copyright completely backward. The point is to prevent intellectual theft by companies like apple. The goal is to enable people who create new products to be compensated for them, and to have a way to enforce their right to get paid when companies like apple try to steal from them... like apple wants to do here.
If I develop a product such a film that people are interested in seeing, then I have a right to charge a fee to let them see it. Copyright exists to enable me to enforce that legally if necessary. Without copyright protection, I would have no legal way to enforce my intellectual property. In other worse, without copyright protection, creators can't create. That's how copyright benefits society, not by forcing creators to give their creations away for nothing. Or are you an apple schill trying to defend apple's willingness to steal from a legion of artists for its own benefit?
A machine that can make apples can be copyrighted, apples cannot. Ergo, your example is horseshit.
You do have a right to audition a song from a musician before purchasing more, if that's your preference; if the artist in question won't let you audition their music, then it comes down to salesmanship.
So... either you have a right to get paid for your work, or you're full of shit. If you're only able to come with a random hole as an example, then you should just give up and admit that you have no value to society. If someone needs a hole dug and you dig it for them, you have a right to be compensated, so once again your example is horseshit.
If someone has a product that you want, then you should compensate them for it. If you aren't interested, then you should not. That is the heart of capitalism, and whether you like Taylor Swift or not, it's what her letter is about.
I'm just saying that people should only be praised for genuine altruism, and this most definitely isn't that. This is a selfish, not a selfless act.
Whether or not it's genuine altruism is irrelevant. Her stand is good for artists who are getting screwed, and her stance is the correct one, even if it IS due to greed, so who cares? She's drawing attention to the rest of the artists who Apple is quite happy to screw over, which is what matters here.
There were arguments about this when the Veronica Mars filmmakers launched a crowd funding campaign to finance the Veronica Mars movie. People said they shouldn't have done that, because they had money. They're ignoring however the fact that by launching such a high-profile crowd funding campaign for a film, they raised awareness of crowd funding for filmmaking and at the same time legitimized it in the eyes of the general public who weren't really on the crowd funding bandwagon yet, making it easier for independent filmmakers to find audiences and finance other film projects through crowd funding. They did the independent film community a lot more good than harm, so who cares that they could have paid for production on their own?
First off, copyright exists to protect the people who create the work, not to protect society. The whole point is to ensure that if someone creates a product that someone else wants such as a song, they have a right to demand to be paid for it in return for letting you listen to it.
It's true that if you go and randomly dig a ditch, there's no reason that you should get paid for it, but by your logic, you don't deserve to get paid for building a house that someone asked you to build. So it's YOU that doesn't deserve to get paid, not everyone else.
But, this again? No you do not have a "right to be paid for your work."
You're basically saying that if YOU make a product and someone else wants it, they can take it and you don't have any right to be paid for it, which is ridiculous.
You cannot go dig ditches, fill them in, and say, "somebody pay me."
This doesn't describe what's going on here in any way.
This type of argument takes advantage of populist narrowmindedness, inability to imagine anything but their boring lives, and, frankly, their stupidity
Truly the only stupidity here is yours. On the one hand you're saying that people don't deserve to be paid for their work, and on the other you're saying that artists deserve to be paid for their work.
Whether YOU like Taylor Swift's music or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Apple wants to give the products that she and a lot of other artists have made away to entice people onto their service without paying those artists for their work. By any logic, this is called stealing. Apple's basically seeking to take advantage of the fact that they are a big company to screw the artists.
Slashdot Mirror
How precisely do you think that air conditioning is going to help the exterior temperatures?
One monopolistic dick sticking it to another...
It IS a common thing in film production; being able to add a video I/O box is a huge asset for a computer being used for media work. A good graphics card isn't always enough, you also need to be able to get an SDI I/O option in order to use software like PreLight, for example.
For serious media production, you need a LOT more computing power than for programming... for working with for example 8K footage in real time while grading, or with dual 4K streams at 120fps... hence Baselight X includes a couple of GPUs.
I'm sure there are other examples, but most programmers aren't anywhere near the most demanding users, as far as computing power goes.
It's fun until you end up debugging someone else's crap, which is most paying coding work these days... and since most companies hire the enthusiastic but not competent type, most code is quite bad.
There's no doubt that it's genuinely malicious, but Trump itself is simply too stupid to pull it off. The malice is from the entities who own it. And of course, by "it" I mean, "The Asshat in the Oval Office" who really doesn't deserve to even be called a person.
Productivity is a measure of output for a given workforce, not working time. Japan's problem isn't one of people surfing the web at work, it's arcane hierarchical structures getting in the way of getting things done.
That's a very optimistic view of american "productivity" based on anecdotal evidence. The reality is that while there are a few places where american workers are actually rewarded for getting things done, most of them are rewarded based on time worked.
Most software shops I've worked in have been spending the vast majority of their workers' time on servicing technical debt, while promoting the people whose primary contribution was that debt.
If you support the ban, then you're an idiot; the biggest threat to our security lies within our borders, and trump it its figurehead.
From a professional point of view, the difference is actually even bigger. The latest generations of GPUs have a heavy emphasis on compute, which is a huge deal for a lot of professional non-linear editing, compositing, and color grading software. Converting raw footage into RGB is also extremely compute heavy, and is nowadays largely GPU based even for 8K Redcode.
It was badly designed for its intended market from the outset, so the trashcan monicker's spot on.
I wasn't jealous... I was annoyed that they were wasting my time and getting rewarded for it.
Can you really not find other work? That seems unlikely for a technical worker these days. To put up with 24/7 duty with no extra pay is not something you should put up with. You should demand extra compensation, or leave.
That's why Amazon has such high turnover and is experimenting with a 35-hour work week also...
I disagree. When I was younger I worked 50-80 hour (or longer) weeks.
I worked with people like you, and discovered very quickly that even though a lot of the people I was working with who were working a lot more hours than I was had quite a bit more experience, I was getting a lot more done. And helping them get their stuff done. And rewriting their stuff when it didn't work due to simply being very badly written. And all that in spite of working a lot fewer hours.
It's not like i never take time for vacation, then or now (sometimes a lot). But I don't think there is any value mandating a cap on possible work, I feel like that is the best way to ruin and country and economy and frankly, a whole generation of people.
Reality says the opposite. Never keep overtimers on staff. Ever. The negative work they produce wastes the time of the competent workers, and just slows things down. Teaching people that overtime ok ruins them for the industry as a whole, and it's bringing the entire industry down.
Americans tend to work too hard, and are generally afraid of being labeled lazy, so they work so hard that they miss out on opportunities in life.
They also tend to accomplish a lot less. The ones who work the most hours are invariably the ones creating the most negative work, and they're also the ones getting promoted, leading to a downward spiral. More asses in seats, but less getting done. That's why the US is no longer a leader in many fields, other than how warm we keep our seats.
The problem here is that explanations don't do squat for imbeciles. You've already stated that you are basically choosing your beliefs based on what you wish is true, so you clearly have no value. There is an astonishing amount of information out there based on observations that confirms that the only thing that the actual scientists have gotten wrong is to underestimate the sheer stupidity of humanity.
In other words, you're an idiot.
The only "science" that's been debunked is the propaganda claiming that it's not our fault. Anyone who still disagrees with that is either an imbecile or a schill.
There are in reality two kinds of people when it comes to environmentalism:
Environmentalist and idiots.
In other words, if you don't believe that taking care of our environment is critical for the survival of the species, than you're an idiot... and probably couldn't figure out why your goldfish would die if you didn't change the water periodically.
I've been a software engineer for a long time myself... been hating the industry for years. I'd never advise anyone to go into this field. I always tell them to start reading Dilbert... and that it's a sugar-coated version of reality, rather than fiction. For the real thing, I send them to the DailyWTF, which hopefully would lead anyone worth anything to run screaming from this field of shit that is the world of corporate idiot tech.
Oh and lastly my own personal favorite... I turn 38 years old this year. I now regularly get asked 'Why are you still in IT?'
I get asked that quite a bit also... and my only response is that it paid the bills. Lately, it hasn't even done that. It's miserable work, 90% of it inheriting sheer idiocy instead of doing work that's worth my time, and the work environment is typically terrible. I hate and despise the industry, but its been paying the bills. Hiring lately however has been insanely slow, probably exacerbated by lots of contractors having their contracts end at Microsoft due to the new hard limit on contractor tenure, plus the large layoffs...
Clearly then, productivity is going down, not up... working longer hours is not an increase in productivity, which means that the metric is broken. It IS slavery, and I'm amazed that you put up with 75 hour weeks for a year without bailing. I've run into people who were proud of doing that; they weren't just incompetent, they were outright destructive, partly because they were so completely incompetent, but also because the management measured competence by the number of hours people were working.
More people need to realize that if they're working slave hours, then they're wasting their lives, regardless of their salaries.
If the severance package isn't spectacular, than anyone signing that is basically an idiot, unless the demand to have that clause stricken. Odds are however, since it stipulates "reasonable availability" and no compensation that they'll get no help from any of their laid off staff who are employable, since they'll get jobs. The best will of course simply quit rather than accepting the insult of training their replacements who the bank is already admitting will not be competent enough to do the job they were hired for.
For that matter, in many cases it was taking credit for Apple creating things that Apple hadn't even created, like the mouse, the GUI, FireWire, and so on.
Based on my experiences interviewing with Google, some of their interviewers are quite bad at interviewing.
More likely, if he starts talking like he's taking the correct side which is that of the Disney employees, then he'll lose his bribe money from the businessdroids who want more h1-bs.
No, you have copyright completely backward. The point is to prevent intellectual theft by companies like apple. The goal is to enable people who create new products to be compensated for them, and to have a way to enforce their right to get paid when companies like apple try to steal from them... like apple wants to do here.
If I develop a product such a film that people are interested in seeing, then I have a right to charge a fee to let them see it. Copyright exists to enable me to enforce that legally if necessary. Without copyright protection, I would have no legal way to enforce my intellectual property. In other worse, without copyright protection, creators can't create. That's how copyright benefits society, not by forcing creators to give their creations away for nothing. Or are you an apple schill trying to defend apple's willingness to steal from a legion of artists for its own benefit?
A machine that can make apples can be copyrighted, apples cannot. Ergo, your example is horseshit.
You do have a right to audition a song from a musician before purchasing more, if that's your preference; if the artist in question won't let you audition their music, then it comes down to salesmanship.
So... either you have a right to get paid for your work, or you're full of shit. If you're only able to come with a random hole as an example, then you should just give up and admit that you have no value to society. If someone needs a hole dug and you dig it for them, you have a right to be compensated, so once again your example is horseshit.
If someone has a product that you want, then you should compensate them for it. If you aren't interested, then you should not. That is the heart of capitalism, and whether you like Taylor Swift or not, it's what her letter is about.
I'm just saying that people should only be praised for genuine altruism, and this most definitely isn't that. This is a selfish, not a selfless act.
Whether or not it's genuine altruism is irrelevant. Her stand is good for artists who are getting screwed, and her stance is the correct one, even if it IS due to greed, so who cares? She's drawing attention to the rest of the artists who Apple is quite happy to screw over, which is what matters here.
There were arguments about this when the Veronica Mars filmmakers launched a crowd funding campaign to finance the Veronica Mars movie. People said they shouldn't have done that, because they had money. They're ignoring however the fact that by launching such a high-profile crowd funding campaign for a film, they raised awareness of crowd funding for filmmaking and at the same time legitimized it in the eyes of the general public who weren't really on the crowd funding bandwagon yet, making it easier for independent filmmakers to find audiences and finance other film projects through crowd funding. They did the independent film community a lot more good than harm, so who cares that they could have paid for production on their own?
The ones who want to make money won't. So what?
First off, copyright exists to protect the people who create the work, not to protect society. The whole point is to ensure that if someone creates a product that someone else wants such as a song, they have a right to demand to be paid for it in return for letting you listen to it.
It's true that if you go and randomly dig a ditch, there's no reason that you should get paid for it, but by your logic, you don't deserve to get paid for building a house that someone asked you to build. So it's YOU that doesn't deserve to get paid, not everyone else.
But, this again? No you do not have a "right to be paid for your work."
You're basically saying that if YOU make a product and someone else wants it, they can take it and you don't have any right to be paid for it, which is ridiculous.
You cannot go dig ditches, fill them in, and say, "somebody pay me."
This doesn't describe what's going on here in any way.
This type of argument takes advantage of populist narrowmindedness, inability to imagine anything but their boring lives, and, frankly, their stupidity
Truly the only stupidity here is yours. On the one hand you're saying that people don't deserve to be paid for their work, and on the other you're saying that artists deserve to be paid for their work.
Whether YOU like Taylor Swift's music or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Apple wants to give the products that she and a lot of other artists have made away to entice people onto their service without paying those artists for their work. By any logic, this is called stealing. Apple's basically seeking to take advantage of the fact that they are a big company to screw the artists.