1 - access to the market does not require political union. See also: 17 other posts on this topic 2 - Freedom of movement is leading to heavy overpopulation of England, causing infrastructure issues and contributing to a housing price boom. I'd rather have to get a visa to visit the rest of Europe and greatly reduce the net migration that's causing population issues 3 - Global standards are viable without political union. A common regulatory framework may be an advantage in some areas but not others. Right now there's no choice about which regulations with which to comply, and very unequal enforcement. See also the prejudice against British beef despite farming standards being significantly higher than many other European nations 4 - The EU is welcome to be a major player in world politics, but the UK's managed fine as an independent player anyway. China could gobble up the EU with ease - shit, they could probably bankrupt it purely by withholding certain natural resources 5 - 70 years of peace predates the EU, generously ignores the break-up of Yugoslavia and seems to forget the current issues in the Ukraine. As for prosperity, I seem to recall some news articles recently about Greece, Spain, Ireland, Cyprus...
No, you're not a random Brit. You're a random Europhile that seems to misunderstand the British perspective entirely. Most Brits don't want political union, have never had the opportunity to vote on it, resent the way we're treated by the EU, resent paying for it all and would greatly prefer a trade agreement only.
I'm not sure where that 'sulking' is part of this, unless that's your definition for "not letting a Franco-German agreement fuck us over AGAIN".
The point is that you cannot have a common market without common rules, which by definition necessitates that we devolve some of our laws to being made in common with other members of the club.
You can however have a trade agreement without political union. Something the cunts in Brussels don't want.
I think you're taking a simplistic view based on flawed assumptions.
Lets say that I create a new website, and post on it that Fred has been bankrupt, that Sandra was convicted of child pornography and that some cunt in Spain failed to pay their debts.
Google will find my website, index it, and provide search results based on those links. Their history is a total of 3 hours, as that's how long the website's existed.
Google are not dealing with historical documents. They're dealing with "This is present on the web, now".
If you want this material to be off the web, contact me and stop me hosting it. Do not blame Google for finding it, and mentioning that it exists. Google, Bing, DuckDuckWhateverthefuckitis and any other search engine are merely conduits in this regard, they're not hosting the information, they're not managing historical records and the European court fucked up mightily here.
Where's the evidence that the GoF misunderstood Alexander? Where did they tell people not to read deeper and further, including Alexander's books? Where are the people recommending the GoF book and stating that it's the end step?
It's a fucking powerful book BECAUSE it skips the mystical philosophy and goes straight to the "Here's something fucking useful". It's two years down the line that you realise just what you learned, and go off and learn more.
You have to start somewhere, and the GoF book is an excellent start point. Shit, their patterns may not be entirely language agnostic but I've implemented several of them in multiple langauges and I've used their taxonomy to solve non-programming problems. They promised "re-usable" and delivered.
So above in this discussion you're bitching about people using the term "Software Engineer" and now down here you're slating one of the most influential contributions that helped turn programming into a profession.
Several people have recommended the Gang of Four book because.. it's a perfect fucking book for software engineers.
Shit, it's the realised application of an architectural philosophy to software. Or are you going to bitch about A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building too? Just that those were written by someone that knows more about Civil Engineering than most civil engineers..
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki if you want the URL. One of the oldest URLs in my memory that still works.
It's not neatly organised, but I find I go to check one thing and two hours later I start closing the tabs I've opened that I know I'm not going to get around to reading.
It predates, predicted and helped evolve the whole Agile development movement, and all the conversations and insights that led to current best practices are still there.
Only if his job is purely managerial. It doesn't sound like it is - he's covering off multiple roles, all of which would need to be filled in his absence.
The article's point though is that employing 3 people like you is more expensive than getting you to do 8 hours a day not 2-3.
It's right too - assuming your 2-3 hours can scale to a full day.
I'm not sure it can. I know that I can do more in a day than others get done in a week, and I often spend a lot of time just chatting to people, browsing the web, finishing early, etc as a result.
If I didn't get all that 'downtime' then I wouldn't have the contacts/knowledge about the organisation that I use when I'm being 'productive'. If I didn't browse the web I'd lose track of industry changes, trends and activities. If I applied myself solidly then I'd burn out and add no value.
So I don't measure by hours worked. I don't even measure by whether I get my job done, although I do get it done. I measure by the direct cost impacts I have on the company.
E.g. last year in two hours I saved the company around 4 times my annual salary in direct storage costs. This year it's taken me 6 weeks of hard effort (and is stopping me getting my job done) but I've saved the company around 80 times my annual salary in upfront software licence costs, and an ongoing 15 times my salary in support fees.
So as with you, and half the people this article refers to: Am I excess headcount, under-utilised, or an asset to the company?
Do you really think that a specialist degree and a decade of experience counts for nothing?
A doctor can get arsey about their extra work needed to get professional status but it still doesn't mean they can design a network inside-out. Shit, I've been working in IT for two decades and I sure as hell can't.
So the roleplay conversation to which you replied is valid, is useful and is relevant.
If the IT department doesn't like this, then too bad as the users needs outweigh yours -- remember that this is coming from a practicing clinician.
Yeah, we can tell.
The users are fucking lucky to get an IT system. IT departments run under-funded, with stupid regulation, no authority and no appreciation. You've exemplified most of that in one Slashdot post.
I don't give a flying fuck how hard it is for you to access PACS, the network drive, the intranet or any other IT system if the alternative is sharing patient records over the Internet.
So I'm going to inconvenience you to assure secure access. Note how I've already immediately compromised you, as a user. Note too how I don't fucking care, and never will care, because your needs are less important than those of the organisation for which you work.
If the hospital gets continually and repeatedly fined for breaches of security then you end up without a job and patients don't get treatment. So Mr Practicising Clinician, shut the fuck up and stop acting the prima donna pretending other professionals don't know what they're doing.
I work in an IT department for a for-profit corporation and while I certainly have internal clients, ultimately we all work for the corporation and are supposed to look after its interests. Usually making my clients happy is the best thing for the company, but when their personal interests do not coincide with what is best for the company, then it is time to escalate issues and let the executives earn their pay.
Nicely put. The doctors' customers are IT's customers because without them the doctors don't need IT.
Looking out for the interests of the doctors is impossible without understanding their own obligations and requirements around patients. Preventing a doctor from alienating his entire patient base through poor IT implementation sounds like a pretty reasonable IT contribution.
"Sure, get the Head of Compliance to sign off this breach of security standards and I'll get right on it. Yes, he'll require you to sign a personal liability waiver allowing the hospital to recharge any fines it receives due to insecurities arising from your computer"
I hate bureaucracy but good corporate governance exists for a reason. "You can't do this" is seldom the right answer. "You can do this, here is how" is a great response to be able to give, and if the "how" is punitive, painful and personally embarrassing then hey, they shouldn't have asked for something so fucking stupid in the first place.
Sorry but you ask why someone feels entitled, as though there's any reason at all why they shouldn't.
Content producers do not 'own' that content. They have an artificially created legal claim to it, but that doesn't mean they own it, or that they have any entitlement to prevent anybody else from accessing it.
So don't give someone shit for wanting to experience elements of human culture. It belongs to everybody.
My ISP has pointed out to the media companies and to the government that an IP address is not an individual and that (for example) neighbours may use a wifi access point.
Given I have an intentionally open wifi access point I'm glad that my ISP understand this, and appreciate that they wont assume that I am the cause of any illicit use of their service.
My cats can't be named as contract holders because they don't have names. They can and do however use the internet. Legally the actions of a cat in the UK are not the responsibility of the pet owner, so I'm pretty much in the clear on every possible front.
The music industry is even paying for it ã750,000 to set it up, and then ã75,000 a year every year afterwards. I can't help but think the ISPs may even be profiting from this.
£750k and £75k/year _or_ 75% of actual costs, whichever is lower. So no, the ISPs are taking a loss of at least 25% of the cost of implementing this stupid scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
1 - access to the market does not require political union. See also: 17 other posts on this topic
2 - Freedom of movement is leading to heavy overpopulation of England, causing infrastructure issues and contributing to a housing price boom. I'd rather have to get a visa to visit the rest of Europe and greatly reduce the net migration that's causing population issues
3 - Global standards are viable without political union. A common regulatory framework may be an advantage in some areas but not others. Right now there's no choice about which regulations with which to comply, and very unequal enforcement. See also the prejudice against British beef despite farming standards being significantly higher than many other European nations
4 - The EU is welcome to be a major player in world politics, but the UK's managed fine as an independent player anyway. China could gobble up the EU with ease - shit, they could probably bankrupt it purely by withholding certain natural resources
5 - 70 years of peace predates the EU, generously ignores the break-up of Yugoslavia and seems to forget the current issues in the Ukraine. As for prosperity, I seem to recall some news articles recently about Greece, Spain, Ireland, Cyprus...
No, you're not a random Brit. You're a random Europhile that seems to misunderstand the British perspective entirely. Most Brits don't want political union, have never had the opportunity to vote on it, resent the way we're treated by the EU, resent paying for it all and would greatly prefer a trade agreement only.
I'm not sure where that 'sulking' is part of this, unless that's your definition for "not letting a Franco-German agreement fuck us over AGAIN".
The point is that you cannot have a common market without common rules, which by definition necessitates that we devolve some of our laws to being made in common with other members of the club.
You can however have a trade agreement without political union. Something the cunts in Brussels don't want.
Google linking to the world's media listing his name and the case he won - and why - negates the entire fucking point though.
That's "current affairs", it's clearly relevant, and.. well, it's just fucking stupidity all round.
I do understand this distinction. I don't understand why Google can't legally tell me that a newspaper archive contains an article.
Sorry but the court applied faulty logic here and/or the law is wrong.
I think you're taking a simplistic view based on flawed assumptions.
Lets say that I create a new website, and post on it that Fred has been bankrupt, that Sandra was convicted of child pornography and that some cunt in Spain failed to pay their debts.
Google will find my website, index it, and provide search results based on those links. Their history is a total of 3 hours, as that's how long the website's existed.
Google are not dealing with historical documents. They're dealing with "This is present on the web, now".
If you want this material to be off the web, contact me and stop me hosting it. Do not blame Google for finding it, and mentioning that it exists. Google, Bing, DuckDuckWhateverthefuckitis and any other search engine are merely conduits in this regard, they're not hosting the information, they're not managing historical records and the European court fucked up mightily here.
Pretty standard for a 14yo girl.
Great, so you can fix it within 24 hours of finding out that it went wrong, which is likely to be several days too late.
I'm not seeing this as terribly good.
I'm intrigued that the feminists aren't demanding that Amazon employ more women to do a low paid physically demanding and boring job.
Guess they don't want equality after all.
Forgive me if I suggest you're talking shit.
Where's the evidence that the GoF misunderstood Alexander? Where did they tell people not to read deeper and further, including Alexander's books? Where are the people recommending the GoF book and stating that it's the end step?
It's a fucking powerful book BECAUSE it skips the mystical philosophy and goes straight to the "Here's something fucking useful". It's two years down the line that you realise just what you learned, and go off and learn more.
You have to start somewhere, and the GoF book is an excellent start point. Shit, their patterns may not be entirely language agnostic but I've implemented several of them in multiple langauges and I've used their taxonomy to solve non-programming problems. They promised "re-usable" and delivered.
x++;
At which point I reject the code and its comment.
refCount++;
No fucking comment necessary.
You've posted some genuine game-changers, that I'd agree are a fantastic way to step up from programming to software engineering.
I'll throw in one more : The Pragmatic Programmer, by Hunt & Thomas.
So above in this discussion you're bitching about people using the term "Software Engineer" and now down here you're slating one of the most influential contributions that helped turn programming into a profession.
Several people have recommended the Gang of Four book because.. it's a perfect fucking book for software engineers.
Shit, it's the realised application of an architectural philosophy to software. Or are you going to bitch about A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building too? Just that those were written by someone that knows more about Civil Engineering than most civil engineers..
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki if you want the URL. One of the oldest URLs in my memory that still works.
It's not neatly organised, but I find I go to check one thing and two hours later I start closing the tabs I've opened that I know I'm not going to get around to reading.
It predates, predicted and helped evolve the whole Agile development movement, and all the conversations and insights that led to current best practices are still there.
My copy included his paper, "No Silver Bullet". _That_ was worth reading, learning and remembering.
Only if his job is purely managerial. It doesn't sound like it is - he's covering off multiple roles, all of which would need to be filled in his absence.
The article's point though is that employing 3 people like you is more expensive than getting you to do 8 hours a day not 2-3.
It's right too - assuming your 2-3 hours can scale to a full day.
I'm not sure it can. I know that I can do more in a day than others get done in a week, and I often spend a lot of time just chatting to people, browsing the web, finishing early, etc as a result.
If I didn't get all that 'downtime' then I wouldn't have the contacts/knowledge about the organisation that I use when I'm being 'productive'. If I didn't browse the web I'd lose track of industry changes, trends and activities. If I applied myself solidly then I'd burn out and add no value.
So I don't measure by hours worked. I don't even measure by whether I get my job done, although I do get it done. I measure by the direct cost impacts I have on the company.
E.g. last year in two hours I saved the company around 4 times my annual salary in direct storage costs. This year it's taken me 6 weeks of hard effort (and is stopping me getting my job done) but I've saved the company around 80 times my annual salary in upfront software licence costs, and an ongoing 15 times my salary in support fees.
So as with you, and half the people this article refers to: Am I excess headcount, under-utilised, or an asset to the company?
Do you really think that a specialist degree and a decade of experience counts for nothing?
A doctor can get arsey about their extra work needed to get professional status but it still doesn't mean they can design a network inside-out. Shit, I've been working in IT for two decades and I sure as hell can't.
So the roleplay conversation to which you replied is valid, is useful and is relevant.
If the IT department doesn't like this, then too bad as the users needs outweigh yours -- remember that this is coming from a practicing clinician.
Yeah, we can tell.
The users are fucking lucky to get an IT system. IT departments run under-funded, with stupid regulation, no authority and no appreciation. You've exemplified most of that in one Slashdot post.
I don't give a flying fuck how hard it is for you to access PACS, the network drive, the intranet or any other IT system if the alternative is sharing patient records over the Internet.
So I'm going to inconvenience you to assure secure access. Note how I've already immediately compromised you, as a user. Note too how I don't fucking care, and never will care, because your needs are less important than those of the organisation for which you work.
If the hospital gets continually and repeatedly fined for breaches of security then you end up without a job and patients don't get treatment. So Mr Practicising Clinician, shut the fuck up and stop acting the prima donna pretending other professionals don't know what they're doing.
I work in an IT department for a for-profit corporation and while I certainly have internal clients, ultimately we all work for the corporation and are supposed to look after its interests. Usually making my clients happy is the best thing for the company, but when their personal interests do not coincide with what is best for the company, then it is time to escalate issues and let the executives earn their pay.
Nicely put. The doctors' customers are IT's customers because without them the doctors don't need IT.
Looking out for the interests of the doctors is impossible without understanding their own obligations and requirements around patients. Preventing a doctor from alienating his entire patient base through poor IT implementation sounds like a pretty reasonable IT contribution.
So learn how to work it.
"Sure, get the Head of Compliance to sign off this breach of security standards and I'll get right on it. Yes, he'll require you to sign a personal liability waiver allowing the hospital to recharge any fines it receives due to insecurities arising from your computer"
I hate bureaucracy but good corporate governance exists for a reason. "You can't do this" is seldom the right answer. "You can do this, here is how" is a great response to be able to give, and if the "how" is punitive, painful and personally embarrassing then hey, they shouldn't have asked for something so fucking stupid in the first place.
Sorry but you ask why someone feels entitled, as though there's any reason at all why they shouldn't.
Content producers do not 'own' that content. They have an artificially created legal claim to it, but that doesn't mean they own it, or that they have any entitlement to prevent anybody else from accessing it.
So don't give someone shit for wanting to experience elements of human culture. It belongs to everybody.
Please try not to be noticed, but do continue to use a lot of bandwidth to protect our revenue stream.
ISPs don't generally want you to use bandwidth. Just pay for it.
My ISP has pointed out to the media companies and to the government that an IP address is not an individual and that (for example) neighbours may use a wifi access point.
Given I have an intentionally open wifi access point I'm glad that my ISP understand this, and appreciate that they wont assume that I am the cause of any illicit use of their service.
My cats can't be named as contract holders because they don't have names. They can and do however use the internet. Legally the actions of a cat in the UK are not the responsibility of the pet owner, so I'm pretty much in the clear on every possible front.
You could as easily ask why anybody is entitled to prevent him watching it.
The music industry is even paying for it ã750,000 to set it up, and then ã75,000 a year every year afterwards. I can't help but think the ISPs may even be profiting from this.
£750k and £75k/year _or_ 75% of actual costs, whichever is lower. So no, the ISPs are taking a loss of at least 25% of the cost of implementing this stupid scheme.