Sounds like government is at fault here for guaranteeing the loans.
Ding ding ding!
Companies do that which will make them money. When a loan is backed by the government, there's more profit in making the loan than making sure it is paid off.
If a bitcoin had been a promise to do some computation work in the future, then it may have had some value, because people need computational work done. For example, something like Amazon's compute cloud could potentially back a currency, because the service of running a VM for some number of CPU seconds is fungible and - importantly - people actually want it. No one wants the work that is done to generate a bitcoin, so the coin itself is worthless. Its value is based entirely on the premise that other people will want it in the future, but that's just a pyramid scheme.
Do some research on how they invest their funds; the corporations where they hold their monies; the entire charity is a tax shelter, a self-serving monument to one man's ego. If this drug were truly revolutionary, it would be released for free and made available to the generic drug makers.
If it was released for free, you'd just come back and say they'd charge for it if it was worth anything.
Re:I haven't read the article, but hear me out her
on
Who Killed Videogames?
·
· Score: 1
I was actually about to comment on how surprising it is that it took this long for the games industry to mutate to this model.
Yeah, it wasn't like the games industry figured out they could put games in public spaces where teens congregate and milk them for quarters.
'Rather than predicting the future, the SF genre is much better at inspiring the future. Visionaries read or see cool ideas in their favorite SF books or films, then decide how to make it a reality.' So Anderson assembled a set of visionaries, and asked them where they thought computing is headed
Is this supposed to some take-off of the games guests play on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me? These people are great at "A", so we're going to ask them to do "B"!
Wouldn't it make more sense, since "visionaries" are better at inspiring the future rather than predicting it, to ask the assembled group where they wanted computing to head rather than where they thought it was heading?
Haven't we established they are almost certainly to be wrong about the question as asked?
Because the different heights, body types, voices, bone structure, movements, and mannerisms won't make a difference as long as you have that other person's face.
If you don't want to be recognized, just put on (or take off) a pair of glasses. Works for Clark Kent.
Yes, a company like Microsoft with (literally) a hundred executives ready and dying for the opportunity to step up into Gates' position is less reliant on Gates than a small company with 3 developers with no one ready to step up to fill the most senior developer's shoes.
Wasn't there a recent story about the paucity of developer jobs in Britain? Unless this is programming in a language invented by the OP, someone will be ready to step up to fill those shoes (just not necessarily one of the junior devs in the company).
In the MS example, we don't know how many of those candidates have the ability to fill Gates' shoes, but you're right, there are likely 100s willing to try. And by some of the posts in the previous thread, there will be 100s queuing up to fill this spot.
The OP may be very good at the job and offer many hundreds of LCOR (lines of code over replacement). But that's not the same as irreplaceable.
This fun, since I'm in an argumentative mood, but we've really gotten off the track. If this dev is a single point of failure, that's a concern for the management, not the dev. It could be an opportunity--let me train others to do what I do, and make me their manager--or it could a sign it's time to move on.
If there's 2 groups of 3 devs each, and each group contains a senior dev who is irreplaceable, what happens when 1 senior dev is unavailable? In an ideal world, the 2 junior devs step up to fill the gap until a 3rd dev can be worked in to the group. But in this scenario is sounds like the 1 remaining senior dev becomes irreplaceable to 2 groups. Such a dev can forget any promotions, vacations will be tough to schedule, etc.
It's a sort of job security, but even in tough times, is it the security of a warm coat in the winter or the security of a straight jacket? If you a C-level executive and you're irreplaceable, that's good (for you). If you're a worker bee and you're irreplaceable, that's bad. All the more reason to move on.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
MS goes on without Gates; Apple goes on without Jobs. Think the OP is more central to his company than those guys were to theirs?
Even the solo dev can be replaced. And if you've done such a poor job of documentation that replacing you would be onerous, then you should feel guilty.
I'd like to hear some other opinions of this plan.
My feeling is, if management feels backed in to a corner, they'll match the raise. And then immediately start looking for a replacement. They'll assume "offered a position" means sending out C.V.s and taking interviews. (Were you really sick that day? Were you really late due to car problems?) A raise will be enough to keep you for now, but you've shown disloyalty just by going out and looking for other offers. All you've done is give them advanced warning to replace you before you eventually quit.
Perhaps I'm a cynic (OK, I'm a cynic) but I'd need job security in writing with remuneration significantly better than the original offer before I'd ask for or consider any counter-offer.
Take the new job and laugh all the way to the bank. Seriously, just give them notice, and take the new job.
I agree with the idea of "WWARD?" but I don't think you understand what Ayn Rand would do.
What is the risk of that extra £7k? One thing Rand understood was TANSTAAFL. A £7k raise isn't a good move if the new company goes out of business in 6 months. Or if you're trading in a 10 minutes commute for 90 minutes in traffic.
But more money from a company closer to home with no discernible difference in company stability or advancement potential? Why is this a question? Is there some other factor?
Are you going from Puppies and Rainbows, LLC to Fire & Brimstone, Inc?
Working with friends is nice. Changing jobs doesn't mean they aren't your friends anymore. You do (or should) have a life outside of work. If they're 'work friends' you only see during the day, they'll be replaced by new work friends at the new job.
As for your friends in management, they aren't. I've known plenty of people (and been one of those people) screwed by management they previously thought of as friends. The higher up the friends were, the bigger the screwing.
On the other hand, I've never heard of someone not affected by lay-offs or other company action due to protection from friends. I've seen it happen due to good managers looking out for their employees, but never due to friends.
So seriously, more money and much shorter commute? No diggity, no doubt.
Which opponent does Astrolabe think they'll force into bankruptcy? This move is sure to draw in the orbital lawyer brigades from IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat and pretty much every other OS and device manufacturer in today's tech world. Maybe they thought they'd start small with Olson, but the presiding judge is going to soon be overwhelmed with amicae briefs.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. It's not Astroglide^H^H^H^H^Hlabe v. the world. It's Astrolabe's lawyers v. the Astrolabe bank account. The lawyers aren't looking to win the case, they're looking to maximize billing hours.
They seem to have their act together when it comes to transponder issues, maybe they decided to take it out on folks with account issues. Can't expect a government agency to be nice all the time, can we?
Actually I'd conclude that patents are a main cause that innovation has stagnated in the last 20 years. Innovation depends on sharing knowledge.
You do realize all patents are public, right? If innovation requires shared knowledge, and patents encourage the sharing of knowledge (as opposed to keeping something a trade secret), then doesn't it follow patents encourage innovation?
Or perhaps your assumptions on innovation and patents are incorrect.
There was a time MA would send you a ticket if your transponder failed. If that happened, you just gave them your EZ Pass/Fastlane/whatever system account number and the ticket went away. I know, it happened to me.
But that was years ago. Now they match up the license plate from the picture with the transponder account and you'd never get the ticket. Which makes me wonder, why have the transponders at all?
I don't really how the scenario you describe could happen, unless you didn't have enough in your account to cover the toll. That could be due to an issue with the account, but it's not related a transponder not working.
...but stations like NPR just drives me up the wall with all the things they say that are quite literally untrue (as in, 5 minutes on wikipedia or google would clearly demonstrate them false).
People who do not understand the arguments that scientists make *invariably* dismiss scientists by attacking their motives. It is a roadblock to any serious discussion on any topic -- just a trite cliche used to protect ones ignorance.
Let's look at the situation scientifically. A lab operating in an area with more funding is more likely to produce Ph Ds which will go off and start their own labs. The lab operating in an area with less funding will have fewer opportunities to generate off-spring labs. It's not a question of the motives of any individual scientist, it's the basic idea of natural selection.
Also, if you want insurance companies to pay for it, you need FDA approval.
If I sell a small device with a button you push to call the fire department if you smell smoke, I don't need FDA approval.
If I sell the same device, same exact hardware, but it calls EMS when you've fallen and can't get up, and I want your insurance company to pay for it, I need FDA approval.
The publisher is understandably unhappy with this outcome, and intends to publish the 'world's first unauthorized autobiography' from an early draft Assange submitted.
I don't believe a publisher would not be aware of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, so the claim of being the "first unauthorized autobiography" is a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like government is at fault here for guaranteeing the loans.
Ding ding ding!
Companies do that which will make them money. When a loan is backed by the government, there's more profit in making the loan than making sure it is paid off.
If a bitcoin had been a promise to do some computation work in the future, then it may have had some value, because people need computational work done. For example, something like Amazon's compute cloud could potentially back a currency, because the service of running a VM for some number of CPU seconds is fungible and - importantly - people actually want it. No one wants the work that is done to generate a bitcoin, so the coin itself is worthless. Its value is based entirely on the premise that other people will want it in the future, but that's just a pyramid scheme.
Quoted for truth.
Do some research on how they invest their funds; the corporations where they hold their monies; the entire charity is a tax shelter, a self-serving monument to one man's ego. If this drug were truly revolutionary, it would be released for free and made available to the generic drug makers.
If it was released for free, you'd just come back and say they'd charge for it if it was worth anything.
I was actually about to comment on how surprising it is that it took this long for the games industry to mutate to this model.
Yeah, it wasn't like the games industry figured out they could put games in public spaces where teens congregate and milk them for quarters.
Oh, wait they did.
Old news is 30 years old.
What *is* the difference?
Are the monoliths from Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey witchcraft or science?
There's probably a pithy quote in there somewhere.
Something like, any sufficiently shiny magic is indistinguishable from science.
'Rather than predicting the future, the SF genre is much better at inspiring the future. Visionaries read or see cool ideas in their favorite SF books or films, then decide how to make it a reality.' So Anderson assembled a set of visionaries, and asked them where they thought computing is headed
Is this supposed to some take-off of the games guests play on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me? These people are great at "A", so we're going to ask them to do "B"!
Wouldn't it make more sense, since "visionaries" are better at inspiring the future rather than predicting it, to ask the assembled group where they wanted computing to head rather than where they thought it was heading?
Haven't we established they are almost certainly to be wrong about the question as asked?
Because the different heights, body types, voices, bone structure, movements, and mannerisms won't make a difference as long as you have that other person's face.
If you don't want to be recognized, just put on (or take off) a pair of glasses. Works for Clark Kent.
I wasn't taking about now. It'd take months to design, build, install and test such a device.
Or one montage. Cue "Eye of the Tiger"
This could just be the drones following their human pilots for when the drones start flying themselves. #skynet
Yes, a company like Microsoft with (literally) a hundred executives ready and dying for the opportunity to step up into Gates' position is less reliant on Gates than a small company with 3 developers with no one ready to step up to fill the most senior developer's shoes.
Wasn't there a recent story about the paucity of developer jobs in Britain? Unless this is programming in a language invented by the OP, someone will be ready to step up to fill those shoes (just not necessarily one of the junior devs in the company).
In the MS example, we don't know how many of those candidates have the ability to fill Gates' shoes, but you're right, there are likely 100s willing to try. And by some of the posts in the previous thread, there will be 100s queuing up to fill this spot.
The OP may be very good at the job and offer many hundreds of LCOR (lines of code over replacement). But that's not the same as irreplaceable.
This fun, since I'm in an argumentative mood, but we've really gotten off the track. If this dev is a single point of failure, that's a concern for the management, not the dev. It could be an opportunity--let me train others to do what I do, and make me their manager--or it could a sign it's time to move on.
If there's 2 groups of 3 devs each, and each group contains a senior dev who is irreplaceable, what happens when 1 senior dev is unavailable? In an ideal world, the 2 junior devs step up to fill the gap until a 3rd dev can be worked in to the group. But in this scenario is sounds like the 1 remaining senior dev becomes irreplaceable to 2 groups. Such a dev can forget any promotions, vacations will be tough to schedule, etc.
It's a sort of job security, but even in tough times, is it the security of a warm coat in the winter or the security of a straight jacket? If you a C-level executive and you're irreplaceable, that's good (for you). If you're a worker bee and you're irreplaceable, that's bad. All the more reason to move on.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
MS goes on without Gates; Apple goes on without Jobs. Think the OP is more central to his company than those guys were to theirs?
Even the solo dev can be replaced. And if you've done such a poor job of documentation that replacing you would be onerous, then you should feel guilty.
I'd like to hear some other opinions of this plan.
My feeling is, if management feels backed in to a corner, they'll match the raise. And then immediately start looking for a replacement. They'll assume "offered a position" means sending out C.V.s and taking interviews. (Were you really sick that day? Were you really late due to car problems?) A raise will be enough to keep you for now, but you've shown disloyalty just by going out and looking for other offers. All you've done is give them advanced warning to replace you before you eventually quit.
Perhaps I'm a cynic (OK, I'm a cynic) but I'd need job security in writing with remuneration significantly better than the original offer before I'd ask for or consider any counter-offer.
Take the new job and laugh all the way to the bank. Seriously, just give them notice, and take the new job.
I agree with the idea of "WWARD?" but I don't think you understand what Ayn Rand would do.
What is the risk of that extra £7k? One thing Rand understood was TANSTAAFL. A £7k raise isn't a good move if the new company goes out of business in 6 months. Or if you're trading in a 10 minutes commute for 90 minutes in traffic.
But more money from a company closer to home with no discernible difference in company stability or advancement potential? Why is this a question? Is there some other factor?
Are you going from Puppies and Rainbows, LLC to Fire & Brimstone, Inc?
Working with friends is nice. Changing jobs doesn't mean they aren't your friends anymore. You do (or should) have a life outside of work. If they're 'work friends' you only see during the day, they'll be replaced by new work friends at the new job.
As for your friends in management, they aren't. I've known plenty of people (and been one of those people) screwed by management they previously thought of as friends. The higher up the friends were, the bigger the screwing.
On the other hand, I've never heard of someone not affected by lay-offs or other company action due to protection from friends. I've seen it happen due to good managers looking out for their employees, but never due to friends.
So seriously, more money and much shorter commute? No diggity, no doubt.
Which opponent does Astrolabe think they'll force into bankruptcy? This move is sure to draw in the orbital lawyer brigades from IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat and pretty much every other OS and device manufacturer in today's tech world. Maybe they thought they'd start small with Olson, but the presiding judge is going to soon be overwhelmed with amicae briefs.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. It's not Astroglide^H^H^H^H^Hlabe v. the world. It's Astrolabe's lawyers v. the Astrolabe bank account. The lawyers aren't looking to win the case, they're looking to maximize billing hours.
He[sic] had a huge platform
[sic]? Should Jobs not be referred to as a 'he'? Was Jobs a woman? What am I missing here?
Yeah, that sucks.
They seem to have their act together when it comes to transponder issues, maybe they decided to take it out on folks with account issues. Can't expect a government agency to be nice all the time, can we?
Actually I'd conclude that patents are a main cause that innovation has stagnated in the last 20 years. Innovation depends on sharing knowledge.
You do realize all patents are public, right? If innovation requires shared knowledge, and patents encourage the sharing of knowledge (as opposed to keeping something a trade secret), then doesn't it follow patents encourage innovation?
Or perhaps your assumptions on innovation and patents are incorrect.
Yeah, not so much.
There was a time MA would send you a ticket if your transponder failed. If that happened, you just gave them your EZ Pass/Fastlane/whatever system account number and the ticket went away. I know, it happened to me.
But that was years ago. Now they match up the license plate from the picture with the transponder account and you'd never get the ticket. Which makes me wonder, why have the transponders at all?
I don't really how the scenario you describe could happen, unless you didn't have enough in your account to cover the toll. That could be due to an issue with the account, but it's not related a transponder not working.
The old iPhone 4 page on apple.com has the option to purchase with AT&T, Verizon, or "Or get iPhone unlocked and contract-free".
The page with pre-order info on the 4s does not seem to have this option.
Of course the 4 doesn't have the same flexibility as the 4s with respect to travel.
I had a Sony camera-phone for a few years, with a dedicated shutter button. The experience isn't markedly better than using the volume button.
Most phones I've seen use the volume up/down for zoom in/out when in camera mode.
With a camera using the volume controls for shutter, how do you zoom?
Rather than add a proper camera button like every other phone in existence since cameras were added to phones, you use the "volume up button."
These are the folks who brought you a music player without volume controls. Why would you be surprised by a camera without a shutter button?
...but stations like NPR just drives me up the wall with all the things they say that are quite literally untrue (as in, 5 minutes on wikipedia or google would clearly demonstrate them false).
Can you provide such examples from NPR?
People who do not understand the arguments that scientists make *invariably* dismiss scientists by attacking their motives. It is a roadblock to any serious discussion on any topic -- just a trite cliche used to protect ones ignorance.
Let's look at the situation scientifically. A lab operating in an area with more funding is more likely to produce Ph Ds which will go off and start their own labs. The lab operating in an area with less funding will have fewer opportunities to generate off-spring labs. It's not a question of the motives of any individual scientist, it's the basic idea of natural selection.
Also, if you want insurance companies to pay for it, you need FDA approval.
If I sell a small device with a button you push to call the fire department if you smell smoke, I don't need FDA approval.
If I sell the same device, same exact hardware, but it calls EMS when you've fallen and can't get up, and I want your insurance company to pay for it, I need FDA approval.
The publisher is understandably unhappy with this outcome, and intends to publish the 'world's first unauthorized autobiography' from an early draft Assange submitted.
I don't believe a publisher would not be aware of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, so the claim of being the "first unauthorized autobiography" is a lie.