So, they're selecting for the best liars? The problem with any measurement of human beings is that they will absolutely try to game the system. Unless a company can keep the hiring criteria secret, they'll never actually get what they're looking for.
How unusual...a person views the world through a filter based on their personality and preferences and doesn't realize their own biases and that other people might think/work differently...
In other news, for some incomprehensible reason, most non-technical people don't like the CLI. I don't understand why they would hamper themselves by using a lesser interface.
...tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told...
It's a high price to pay to exploit [them]...
The me be clear...middle managers like you are the problem, not competent developers.
The best possible way to launch a product is with a team of six or less high power developers with one manager: a C-level executive who will listen openly and honestly, make the tough decisions quickly, and keep everybody else the fuck out of the way.
Are you going to start adding "in somebody else's airplane" when you say "fly"? Are you going to say "place my life in someone else's hands" instead of "going to the doctor" (or "drive to work" for that matter)?
I've seen this meme about lack of control over your data "in the cloud" on Slashdot for a while, and frankly, it's ridiculous. Every day, you place your financial future, your health, and your life in the hands of complete strangers. Sometimes that trust is justified and sometimes it is not, but what you're advocating is the same as refusing to eat at restaurants, use public transportation, put your money in banks, or do just about anything else in modern civilization that requires that someone else do something for you.
The scientist they interviewed just sounds like he has a lack of experience with lawyers. He complains that the letter was "vague and threatening". Obviously, he's never dealt with lawyers before, because sending vague, threatening letters is *what they do for a living*.
There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down
Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong. There does NOT need to be a way to "take sites like this down", if in fact you could accomplish that in any meaningful way. It's the same basic flaw in any argument for censorship - the idea that if you remove people's access to something you think is undesirable, that it solves the problem. Really, the problem is your own: that you think that the thing you want to censor is undesirable/wrong.
Yes, but the Declaration of Independence said that "We the People" *always* have the right to do away with government that no longer represents our interests (by force if necessary). Of course, whether the American people still have the testicular fortitude to do what is necessary is very much up for debate...
I think the idea of "productivity" is a hold-over of the Industrial Revolution that does not pertain to many of today's jobs; jobs where the unit of work is hard to define, and ultimately irrelevant. Are you telling me you pick your doctor by how many patients he can see in a day? Probably quite the opposite!
In terms of software development, I find that the *effectiveness* of a developer is more important, where effectiveness considers the following (not an exhaustive list):
- Appropriateness of solution
- Thoroughness of implementation (logging, exception handling, graceful failure, input validation, etc.)
- Well-written, parsimonious code that is easy to read and descriptive of what it does
- Works right the first time, no kickbacks from QA or end user
Give me someone who is effective but slow over someone who craps out junk quickly any day of the week and twice on Sunday! In the end, I don't care about productivity metrics, I care that the end users get a useful piece of software that does what they need with a minimum of headaches.
Not really surprised; after all, this is the same US House of Representatives majority that believes the reason we don't have more jobs is that businesses aren't allowed to poison us as much as they'd like.
Compare two men in their late 20's that each earn $60,000/yr. One is single and lives in Texas. The other is married with 2 kids an lives in the Bronx. Do you think that they really should pay the same amount of tax?
Or compare a retired millionaire to an elementary school teacher living in the same town. They both have an income of $30,000/yr. Should they pay the same amount in tax?
Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or having the "wrong" career, or not having the foresight to already be millionaires with no debt before you institute your tax policy...
Oh, it's not hard... it just doesn't make any sense.
Compare two men making $60,000/yr, both in their late 20's: one is single and lives in Texas, and the other is married with 2 kids and lives in the Bronx. It doesn't matter what percent you pick (unless it's zero), it's going to hurt one of those guys more than the other.
Or consider a retired millionaire who has no debt. He can comfortably live on very little income. Are you telling me that he should pay the same amount in tax (or less) as a teacher or firefighter?
Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or pursuing the "wrong" career...
Yes, that's true. However, I wonder why this comment is usually directed at the working classes, when they are the ones upon whom the warfare is being waged. The rich have been conducting class warfare in the US since the Reagan administration, and they are now beginning to reap what they have sown.
I now make more than twice what my father earned at the height of his career in the early 80's, but I have less actual purchasing power. Rotten economics indeed.
I, along with many other Slashdotters, am employed as a software developer. The ONLY permissible work space is an office with a door. Failing that, allow us to work from home.
Yes, I do need to communicate with other people to get my job done. However, I also often need to concentrate for an uninterrupted block of time. The only way to accomplish this is to shut people out of my workspace.
The problem is, changing over to pay-as-you-go won't necessarily increase revenue for telecom or cable companies. I suspect that when the consumer pays a fixed cost per unit bandwidth, we'll find that demand for bandwidth is fairly elastic. Instead of paying more to maintain their current bandwidth usage, most people will cut back on their usage. Which, despite what the telecom companies tell the politicians, is the last thing they want. Rather, they want people to pay more while still maintaining their demand for bandwidth. The "our networks can't handle it" is merely the pretext under which they drag their feet on infrastructure upgrades while protesting "if we only had more money..." in order to perpetuate constant fee increases. If upgrading their infrastructure would increase revenue, they would have done it already.
The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.
What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:
Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market! Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!
but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...
Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD! Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!
This is what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really all about. All of the other things that have been held up as "Net Neutrality" are red herring thrown out by the telecom companies to muddy the water and stall meaningful debate (and I think their strategy is working very well indeed).
Everyone has seen the high bandwidth requirements coming for at least a decade. The telecom companies have seized on this as their moment to secure their dynasty. They absolutely will not upgrade the infrastructure to support the future until they have guarantees (codified in law, if they have their way) that they can continue raping their customers in perpetuity.
Or perhaps you really believed what your corporate overlords told you: that the election that just happened had to do with "fiscal responsibility" and nothing at all to do with deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and the repeal of laws that are unpopular with corporations.
That said, "Net Neutrality" is not about what people think. It's about bringing the internet, and specifically ISP's, under more regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How you you carefully craft regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
So by your logic, I shouldn't get the flu vaccine this year?
It occurs to me that I had essentially the same conversation recently with a European acquaintance regarding the availability of a nice pate or decent wine at grocery stores here in the states.
The problem is with your understanding, not people's dislike of scalping. It's more like if you buy 10 Xboxes from the only Wal-Mart in town and they only have 12 in stock. Oh, and you got to buy them as they came off the delivery truck, because you're good friends with the manager.
What it did NOT say, which nobody realized until about a week later, is that patients were not required to show any ID
...and that's a GOOD thing. Let me give you an analogy to programming: should your business requirements specify a particular algorithm or data structure? Whether or not someone has to show an ID is an implementation issue, not part of stated requirements. Which ID? Driver's License? Passport? Social Security Card? National ID?
Good laws state WHAT should happen, not HOW it happens.
From TFA: "Until recently, publishers believed books were relatively safe from piracy because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What's more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version."
I spent a few minutes looking for a legitimate, for-sale e-book version of The Left Hand of Darkness; there isn't one.
So the publishing companies are simply repeating the mistake of the record labels: being slow to release legitimate downloadable versions of their product while bemoaning the demand for a product they refuse to produce.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you'll have the new Amazon logistics system which tells them what to stock on which shelf in which DC coded up by next Tuesday? Cool.
So, they're selecting for the best liars? The problem with any measurement of human beings is that they will absolutely try to game the system. Unless a company can keep the hiring criteria secret, they'll never actually get what they're looking for.
"The planet will be fine. WE'RE fucked."
How unusual...a person views the world through a filter based on their personality and preferences and doesn't realize their own biases and that other people might think/work differently...
In other news, for some incomprehensible reason, most non-technical people don't like the CLI. I don't understand why they would hamper themselves by using a lesser interface.
...are notoriously unmanageable...
...tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told...
It's a high price to pay to exploit [them]...
The me be clear...middle managers like you are the problem, not competent developers.
The best possible way to launch a product is with a team of six or less high power developers with one manager: a C-level executive who will listen openly and honestly, make the tough decisions quickly, and keep everybody else the fuck out of the way.
Are you going to start adding "in somebody else's airplane" when you say "fly"? Are you going to say "place my life in someone else's hands" instead of "going to the doctor" (or "drive to work" for that matter)?
I've seen this meme about lack of control over your data "in the cloud" on Slashdot for a while, and frankly, it's ridiculous. Every day, you place your financial future, your health, and your life in the hands of complete strangers. Sometimes that trust is justified and sometimes it is not, but what you're advocating is the same as refusing to eat at restaurants, use public transportation, put your money in banks, or do just about anything else in modern civilization that requires that someone else do something for you.
The scientist they interviewed just sounds like he has a lack of experience with lawyers. He complains that the letter was "vague and threatening". Obviously, he's never dealt with lawyers before, because sending vague, threatening letters is *what they do for a living*.
There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down
Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong. There does NOT need to be a way to "take sites like this down", if in fact you could accomplish that in any meaningful way. It's the same basic flaw in any argument for censorship - the idea that if you remove people's access to something you think is undesirable, that it solves the problem. Really, the problem is your own: that you think that the thing you want to censor is undesirable/wrong.
Yes, but the Declaration of Independence said that "We the People" *always* have the right to do away with government that no longer represents our interests (by force if necessary). Of course, whether the American people still have the testicular fortitude to do what is necessary is very much up for debate...
I think the idea of "productivity" is a hold-over of the Industrial Revolution that does not pertain to many of today's jobs; jobs where the unit of work is hard to define, and ultimately irrelevant. Are you telling me you pick your doctor by how many patients he can see in a day? Probably quite the opposite!
In terms of software development, I find that the *effectiveness* of a developer is more important, where effectiveness considers the following (not an exhaustive list):
- Appropriateness of solution
- Thoroughness of implementation (logging, exception handling, graceful failure, input validation, etc.)
- Well-written, parsimonious code that is easy to read and descriptive of what it does
- Works right the first time, no kickbacks from QA or end user
Give me someone who is effective but slow over someone who craps out junk quickly any day of the week and twice on Sunday! In the end, I don't care about productivity metrics, I care that the end users get a useful piece of software that does what they need with a minimum of headaches.
Not really surprised; after all, this is the same US House of Representatives majority that believes the reason we don't have more jobs is that businesses aren't allowed to poison us as much as they'd like.
It's not hard, it just doesn't make any sense.
Compare two men in their late 20's that each earn $60,000/yr. One is single and lives in Texas. The other is married with 2 kids an lives in the Bronx. Do you think that they really should pay the same amount of tax?
Or compare a retired millionaire to an elementary school teacher living in the same town. They both have an income of $30,000/yr. Should they pay the same amount in tax?
Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or having the "wrong" career, or not having the foresight to already be millionaires with no debt before you institute your tax policy...
Oh, it's not hard... it just doesn't make any sense.
Compare two men making $60,000/yr, both in their late 20's: one is single and lives in Texas, and the other is married with 2 kids and lives in the Bronx. It doesn't matter what percent you pick (unless it's zero), it's going to hurt one of those guys more than the other.
Or consider a retired millionaire who has no debt. He can comfortably live on very little income. Are you telling me that he should pay the same amount in tax (or less) as a teacher or firefighter?
Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or pursuing the "wrong" career...
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
~Edsger W. Dijkstra
Yes, that's true. However, I wonder why this comment is usually directed at the working classes, when they are the ones upon whom the warfare is being waged. The rich have been conducting class warfare in the US since the Reagan administration, and they are now beginning to reap what they have sown.
I now make more than twice what my father earned at the height of his career in the early 80's, but I have less actual purchasing power. Rotten economics indeed.
I, along with many other Slashdotters, am employed as a software developer. The ONLY permissible work space is an office with a door. Failing that, allow us to work from home.
Yes, I do need to communicate with other people to get my job done. However, I also often need to concentrate for an uninterrupted block of time. The only way to accomplish this is to shut people out of my workspace.
The problem is, changing over to pay-as-you-go won't necessarily increase revenue for telecom or cable companies. I suspect that when the consumer pays a fixed cost per unit bandwidth, we'll find that demand for bandwidth is fairly elastic. Instead of paying more to maintain their current bandwidth usage, most people will cut back on their usage. Which, despite what the telecom companies tell the politicians, is the last thing they want. Rather, they want people to pay more while still maintaining their demand for bandwidth. The "our networks can't handle it" is merely the pretext under which they drag their feet on infrastructure upgrades while protesting "if we only had more money..." in order to perpetuate constant fee increases. If upgrading their infrastructure would increase revenue, they would have done it already.
The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.
What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:
Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market!
Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!
but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...
Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD!
Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!
This is what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really all about. All of the other things that have been held up as "Net Neutrality" are red herring thrown out by the telecom companies to muddy the water and stall meaningful debate (and I think their strategy is working very well indeed).
Everyone has seen the high bandwidth requirements coming for at least a decade. The telecom companies have seized on this as their moment to secure their dynasty. They absolutely will not upgrade the infrastructure to support the future until they have guarantees (codified in law, if they have their way) that they can continue raping their customers in perpetuity.
Or perhaps you really believed what your corporate overlords told you: that the election that just happened had to do with "fiscal responsibility" and nothing at all to do with deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and the repeal of laws that are unpopular with corporations.
That said, "Net Neutrality" is not about what people think. It's about bringing the internet, and specifically ISP's, under more regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How you you carefully craft regulation to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
So by your logic, I shouldn't get the flu vaccine this year?
All I want to know is if my new Sony TV will come with a free root kit pre-installed at the factory?
It occurs to me that I had essentially the same conversation recently with a European acquaintance regarding the availability of a nice pate or decent wine at grocery stores here in the states.
The problem is with your understanding, not people's dislike of scalping. It's more like if you buy 10 Xboxes from the only Wal-Mart in town and they only have 12 in stock. Oh, and you got to buy them as they came off the delivery truck, because you're good friends with the manager.
What it did NOT say, which nobody realized until about a week later, is that patients were not required to show any ID
...and that's a GOOD thing. Let me give you an analogy to programming: should your business requirements specify a particular algorithm or data structure? Whether or not someone has to show an ID is an implementation issue, not part of stated requirements. Which ID? Driver's License? Passport? Social Security Card? National ID?
Good laws state WHAT should happen, not HOW it happens.
From TFA: "Until recently, publishers believed books were relatively safe from piracy because it was so labor-intensive to scan each page to convert a book to a digital file. What's more, reading books on the computer was relatively unappealing compared with a printed version."
I spent a few minutes looking for a legitimate, for-sale e-book version of The Left Hand of Darkness; there isn't one.
So the publishing companies are simply repeating the mistake of the record labels: being slow to release legitimate downloadable versions of their product while bemoaning the demand for a product they refuse to produce.
Cry me a river...