That's fine, since I'm not asking for your sympathy, just pointing out some facts. I love my work, but I'm pretty down about my job. I was only pointing out how someone can hate their job but love their work.
I feel your pain. I love my work, but my job leaves something to be desired. Crap raises for the last ten years don't make up for increases in health insurance and cost of living, so I'm worse off financially now than I was. To add insult to injury, now I'm at the top of my pay grade so I do not even get raises (just lump sum payment of what my raise would be, which does little to help). We just had a "culture survey," and if it wasn't run by an independent third party, I would not have said most of what I said. Even if they figure out it was me and fire me, it would probably be the kick in the pants I need to move on.
As far as Linus goes, I don't begrudge him loving his work. I do wonder, though, off topic, "When I go diving for a week, I look forward to getting back." Most people feel that way after a week away from their routine. Is it just me, or is diving something you spend a day doing, and then do something else? The best vacations I've had, the ones I didn't want to end, we were doing something different every day, not just sitting on a beach for a week. I suppose I could go hiking for a week, or river rafting, but then the experience is vastly different every day (to me, anyway).
I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying it hasn't happened yet. They are both large companies, and they operate in many countries besides the U.S. - and every country they both operate in has to approve. It will happen, just not quite yet.
I think people are going off topic here and comparing wireless to wired/fibered home service. I don't think they're referring to wireless as having latest generation wifi routers in your home receiving GB service. And when they are talking about speeds, they are talking about a single device receiving internet over the cellular network. Some homes are served by wireless, but it's not the speed that one device connected to the routing device would be getting (it would be collectively). For me it's hit and miss - between towers and inside buildings I get very low speed, but my average speed is probably greater than the 10mbs they state in TFS.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. They all have devices - is your home served by a wireless broadband service and they are all sharing? Or are you saying they all individually need more than 10mb each on their wireless devices? I agree with the GP - we're not talking about my home service, where I'm getting 75mbs downloads, but my cell phone service.... for what normal use would a cell phone or 4G tablet, at present, need more than 10mbs?
But they don't talk about viewership - perhaps those prices are commensurate with how much those channels are viewed. I realize that a show like The Walking Dead on AMC will far exceed anything TNT offers, but perhaps there are more total hours viewed on TNT? I really don't know, but the chart, by itself, doesn't really give much of a complete story.
To be completely honest, I work in the television industry, and our parent company is fully aware of the trends. We're not a cable company, though, and you notice that while Hulu and Netflix have some good originals, most of the shows watched start on a network. The TV industry is not standing still, we're just slowly losing cable as a means of delivery... Look who owns Hulu: Disney, Fox, Turner, and even Comcast (through NBC). I do not think Comcast, in particular, is very scared. The networks seem to be adapting. I don't think any of this is surprising to anyone.
The 4D85 was, AFAIR, 16Mhz, and my 386 clone was overclocked to 40Mhz... the SGI was many times faster. It could have been my crap code somehow being optimized better by the SGI compiler over Turbo C, I don't know.
Ahh... responding to my own post. How sad. It was a 4D85. It wasn't rebranded, just not a case you'd expect from SGI. Also wanted to point out my 386 was overclocked to 40Mhz, and my 4D85 was 16Mhz... and still blew away the PC handily.
I used SGIs for three years in grad school, and for another 6 or 7 professionally in a television graphics production environment. My first workstation was actually a rebranded system... something-85, I forget. From there we got a whole lab of Indy workstations, I got an O2 as my desktop; we also had a Crimson, which was the one we could do video-lan programming on to allow us to output to tape one frame at a time.
Even on that first system (the one whose model escapes me, but it was before they gave the systems names), I marveled at how my personal PC, a 386 with a math co-processor and the same amount of RAM as my school SGI was just a complete dog by comparison. I didn't do any specific testing, but I did compile and run some of the same basic non-graphics C programs that I was writing for classes, and there was simply no comparison - the SGI was dozens of times faster, at least, and that's non-graphics programs.
Still, while I marveled at the hardware and how amazing IrisGL was (their closed implementation before OpenGL), I never thought the UI itself was particularly great. Better than my DOS running PC at the time, for sure, but nothing special compared to the Suns or the plain X11 stuff we had hosted on our Convex. I look at the screenshots on the page linked to in the article (yes, they are working as I write this), and am really not impressed. There may be some cool graphics optimizations that, if I thought I needed them, might be interesting... but on the whole, like most SGI (yes, we used them back when it was SGI Inc, not sgi), I have fond memories - but we've moved so far beyond that style desktop that it's silly to think about going back. Seems like one of those "in my day something was better!" moments.
The largest benefit from self driving cars will only come with their ubiquitous use... and that will not happen for a VERY long time. All it takes to royally screw up traffic is one idiot.
I don't know about where you live, but we have specific trash containers lent to us by the waste removal companies. While the vehicles are still human operated, the truck pulls up alongside the house and a mechanical arm picks up our trash and dumps it in a large bin located at the front of the garbage truck. When that starts to fill, they flip it over and dump it in the big bin in the back of the truck and compress it, all without stepping foot outside the truck.
Perhaps the healthcare savings from the ~40 million people per year injured in car crashes, and their increased productivity and incomes, will create a lot of jobs. Plus the 1.3 million people who die every year in car accidents are able to buy nothing currently, and will become active consumers.
It seems like now you are just losing jobs in the healthcare industry. You know how we often discuss taxes here, and some states are net givers, and some states are net takers? If you look at individuals, most are net takers. I'm not suggesting I want people to die, I'm merely suggesting that it doesn't really help the economy, on the whole, that this small fraction of people doesn't die. I do disagree with Marc, though, if only because I can't see where all the new jobs are supposed to come from. The roads are already there, the manufacturing is already there, the movie theaters are already there. Self driving vehicles won't increase the demand for those things.
I do see a LOT of benefits to the ubiquitous use of self driving cars... the flow of traffic will improve, saving people time and money. The number of accidents should drop to nearly zero, saving lives, consumers saving money on insurance, a decline in the need for lawyers (two thumbs up!) and less tying up our court systems with stupid traffic violations. Perhaps having more leisure time and money will increase consumer spending, and that's OK, but I do not think you completely cover all the lost jobs. You will need fewer people working for the insurance companies, you will need fewer body repair shops, much less towing of damaged vehicles, less demand for replacement parts... I personally can't wait for the benefits I will see; however, while it might just be a shortcoming on my part, I don't see the benefits to the economy as a whole - I see more negatives than positives in that respect.
It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you
That's because you're ignoring what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, because you're not letting it sink in: nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying. Nobody. Not the people who wrote the article, and not me. That's why they use words like "could average" instead of "costs at least." My posts reflect that people jumping in and complaining that the number too high just because they can do it cheaper are not understanding the word "average" and not reading the article which details how they come up with the number. I could spend a lot less on a weekend, I could also spend a lot more... what they are saying is if you ask people what they want to do, that's the "average" they come up with.
I'm sure if you ask people what's the "least" they could spend on a weekend family getaway, the "average" would not even approach four digits... but that's not what they are doing.
I have a graduate degree (and never had any student debt), but I will say that some of the best programmers I've worked with either had no degree, or a degree in something completely different. Experience is king.
Well, with that I agree - if fact, the whole article is misleading because it shouldn't take a weekend getaway to pull you off the screens. As a lot of people point out, going to a nearby park is free - my only point was that a weekend getaway, for a family of four, can easily be that much or more (and that's why they say average). It's silly for people to be jumping on the number they give because nobody is arguing you can't get away for less (or more).
You are misunderstanding the point, which is not that you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, but that $2350 is NOT outlandish as an "average" family getaway for a family... you can spend less, you can spend a lot more. In fact, the whole story is ridiculous because it obviously shouldn't even require a weekend getaway to get off the screens, but my argument is merely that the amount they are giving is not some crazy, ridiculous amount for a family of four to travel somewhere and do something. It makes no sense to jump on the point and argue that you can have a weekend getaway for less - nobody is arguing otherwise.
I run Windows on my laptop, but only because the 3D games I play are the only things that don't run well in a VM.
As I pointed out, I work for a media company. We run real time 3D software; I do live virtual applications. I've tested Linux software from a vendor and I liked it a lot - but it was NOT ready for production use. Most of the tools we also require a lot of 3D performance. Maya, AfterEffects, and a number of programs you've likely never heard of. It's still just how it is right now.
Now if you want to support my fathers small accounting business, you can go ahead and set up VMs for his tax software. It's just not practical.
You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.
So yes, you can do things for a whole lot less, you can also do things for a whole lot more. You can't take what they say and then argue you can do it cheaper - nobody is saying you can't. But it depends on what you're doing, and what may be suitable for me, travelling alone, where I might do things as cheaply as possible just for me, is not the same thing I'd do for my family. I can stay at the cheapest hotel imaginable, but if I can afford it, I'm not going to subject my family, on vacation, to that. I could eat the cheapest food possible, travel on standby... I could do a lot of things that would reduce the cost for just me that I would NOT do when bringing my whole family along ostensibly for what should be a memorable (in a positive way) experience.
There's also the point that what I do, personally, if I'm already spending thousands of dollars for my family travel somewhere, I will spend the extra thousand to make it the best experience possible. That's me. That means paying extra for fast/express passes at theme parks; it means saying "yes" when my kids ask if they can get that very expensive T-Shirt. It means paying hundreds of dollars for my family to see the Blue Man Group when went to Universal. I can't imagine paying as much as it cost to go to one of these theme parks, stay at a hotel, pay theme park prices for food, and only go on 1/3 as many rides because I wouldn't spend the extra $400 for express passes.
Last time I traveled on my own (for work), I went hiking. It cost me nothing. But that's not what the article is talking about. The entire gist of the article may be wrong - it doesn't take a weekend family getaway to pull you away from the screen, but the numbers they are giving are for what they presume the average cost for a weekend getaway would be for a family. You can do it cheaper. You can do it more expensively. Nobody argued otherwise.
Now that I can actually agree with. Most people are just browsing; they use email and perhaps every once in a while need to type something up. You can watch your online streaming, listen to your online streaming, and pretty much do everything you need to in Linux... but then I suspect most people in that boat would be happy with a Chromebook.
Really? So he wasn't responding to anything in particular, nothing in the article or the summary; he was just mentioning offhandedly, for no reason at all otherwise, that many green spaces cost nothing to visit?
I'm sure Elon Musk is now sitting on a pile of money in his mansion crying over your insult.
Elon Musk is not an idiot. Maybe the people that bought his cars are; maybe the people overvaluing his company are... but you will have to do a lot better than that to convince me that he is.
It does extend to the whole store... there were at least two other employees working at the same time that seemed just as bad with the people they were "helping." But I guess that someone who works in one of those stores would feel compelled to reply with an insult... I guess it doesn't matter that such stories of these employees are ubiquitous; it must just be me.
What's the difference between a weekend getaway and a vacation? If you're spending some nights away from home, they are essentially one and the same. Sure, I could drive 300 miles away and spend two nights in a cheap hotel, eating at the local greasy spoon, and spend a LOT less for my family... but then what would they do? Sit in the hotel room insta-something or other with their friends the whole time (and during the car ride, also)?
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine, since I'm not asking for your sympathy, just pointing out some facts. I love my work, but I'm pretty down about my job. I was only pointing out how someone can hate their job but love their work.
I feel your pain. I love my work, but my job leaves something to be desired. Crap raises for the last ten years don't make up for increases in health insurance and cost of living, so I'm worse off financially now than I was. To add insult to injury, now I'm at the top of my pay grade so I do not even get raises (just lump sum payment of what my raise would be, which does little to help). We just had a "culture survey," and if it wasn't run by an independent third party, I would not have said most of what I said. Even if they figure out it was me and fire me, it would probably be the kick in the pants I need to move on.
As far as Linus goes, I don't begrudge him loving his work. I do wonder, though, off topic, "When I go diving for a week, I look forward to getting back." Most people feel that way after a week away from their routine. Is it just me, or is diving something you spend a day doing, and then do something else? The best vacations I've had, the ones I didn't want to end, we were doing something different every day, not just sitting on a beach for a week. I suppose I could go hiking for a week, or river rafting, but then the experience is vastly different every day (to me, anyway).
I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying it hasn't happened yet. They are both large companies, and they operate in many countries besides the U.S. - and every country they both operate in has to approve. It will happen, just not quite yet.
Not yet...
I think people are going off topic here and comparing wireless to wired/fibered home service. I don't think they're referring to wireless as having latest generation wifi routers in your home receiving GB service. And when they are talking about speeds, they are talking about a single device receiving internet over the cellular network. Some homes are served by wireless, but it's not the speed that one device connected to the routing device would be getting (it would be collectively). For me it's hit and miss - between towers and inside buildings I get very low speed, but my average speed is probably greater than the 10mbs they state in TFS.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. They all have devices - is your home served by a wireless broadband service and they are all sharing? Or are you saying they all individually need more than 10mb each on their wireless devices? I agree with the GP - we're not talking about my home service, where I'm getting 75mbs downloads, but my cell phone service.... for what normal use would a cell phone or 4G tablet, at present, need more than 10mbs?
But they don't talk about viewership - perhaps those prices are commensurate with how much those channels are viewed. I realize that a show like The Walking Dead on AMC will far exceed anything TNT offers, but perhaps there are more total hours viewed on TNT? I really don't know, but the chart, by itself, doesn't really give much of a complete story.
To be completely honest, I work in the television industry, and our parent company is fully aware of the trends. We're not a cable company, though, and you notice that while Hulu and Netflix have some good originals, most of the shows watched start on a network. The TV industry is not standing still, we're just slowly losing cable as a means of delivery... Look who owns Hulu: Disney, Fox, Turner, and even Comcast (through NBC). I do not think Comcast, in particular, is very scared. The networks seem to be adapting. I don't think any of this is surprising to anyone.
The 4D85 was, AFAIR, 16Mhz, and my 386 clone was overclocked to 40Mhz... the SGI was many times faster. It could have been my crap code somehow being optimized better by the SGI compiler over Turbo C, I don't know.
Ahh... responding to my own post. How sad. It was a 4D85. It wasn't rebranded, just not a case you'd expect from SGI. Also wanted to point out my 386 was overclocked to 40Mhz, and my 4D85 was 16Mhz... and still blew away the PC handily.
I used SGIs for three years in grad school, and for another 6 or 7 professionally in a television graphics production environment. My first workstation was actually a rebranded system... something-85, I forget. From there we got a whole lab of Indy workstations, I got an O2 as my desktop; we also had a Crimson, which was the one we could do video-lan programming on to allow us to output to tape one frame at a time.
Even on that first system (the one whose model escapes me, but it was before they gave the systems names), I marveled at how my personal PC, a 386 with a math co-processor and the same amount of RAM as my school SGI was just a complete dog by comparison. I didn't do any specific testing, but I did compile and run some of the same basic non-graphics C programs that I was writing for classes, and there was simply no comparison - the SGI was dozens of times faster, at least, and that's non-graphics programs.
Still, while I marveled at the hardware and how amazing IrisGL was (their closed implementation before OpenGL), I never thought the UI itself was particularly great. Better than my DOS running PC at the time, for sure, but nothing special compared to the Suns or the plain X11 stuff we had hosted on our Convex. I look at the screenshots on the page linked to in the article (yes, they are working as I write this), and am really not impressed. There may be some cool graphics optimizations that, if I thought I needed them, might be interesting... but on the whole, like most SGI (yes, we used them back when it was SGI Inc, not sgi), I have fond memories - but we've moved so far beyond that style desktop that it's silly to think about going back. Seems like one of those "in my day something was better!" moments.
The largest benefit from self driving cars will only come with their ubiquitous use... and that will not happen for a VERY long time. All it takes to royally screw up traffic is one idiot.
I don't know about where you live, but we have specific trash containers lent to us by the waste removal companies. While the vehicles are still human operated, the truck pulls up alongside the house and a mechanical arm picks up our trash and dumps it in a large bin located at the front of the garbage truck. When that starts to fill, they flip it over and dump it in the big bin in the back of the truck and compress it, all without stepping foot outside the truck.
Perhaps the healthcare savings from the ~40 million people per year injured in car crashes, and their increased productivity and incomes, will create a lot of jobs. Plus the 1.3 million people who die every year in car accidents are able to buy nothing currently, and will become active consumers.
It seems like now you are just losing jobs in the healthcare industry. You know how we often discuss taxes here, and some states are net givers, and some states are net takers? If you look at individuals, most are net takers. I'm not suggesting I want people to die, I'm merely suggesting that it doesn't really help the economy, on the whole, that this small fraction of people doesn't die. I do disagree with Marc, though, if only because I can't see where all the new jobs are supposed to come from. The roads are already there, the manufacturing is already there, the movie theaters are already there. Self driving vehicles won't increase the demand for those things.
I do see a LOT of benefits to the ubiquitous use of self driving cars... the flow of traffic will improve, saving people time and money. The number of accidents should drop to nearly zero, saving lives, consumers saving money on insurance, a decline in the need for lawyers (two thumbs up!) and less tying up our court systems with stupid traffic violations. Perhaps having more leisure time and money will increase consumer spending, and that's OK, but I do not think you completely cover all the lost jobs. You will need fewer people working for the insurance companies, you will need fewer body repair shops, much less towing of damaged vehicles, less demand for replacement parts... I personally can't wait for the benefits I will see; however, while it might just be a shortcoming on my part, I don't see the benefits to the economy as a whole - I see more negatives than positives in that respect.
It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you
That's because you're ignoring what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, because you're not letting it sink in: nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying. Nobody. Not the people who wrote the article, and not me. That's why they use words like "could average" instead of "costs at least." My posts reflect that people jumping in and complaining that the number too high just because they can do it cheaper are not understanding the word "average" and not reading the article which details how they come up with the number. I could spend a lot less on a weekend, I could also spend a lot more... what they are saying is if you ask people what they want to do, that's the "average" they come up with.
I'm sure if you ask people what's the "least" they could spend on a weekend family getaway, the "average" would not even approach four digits... but that's not what they are doing.
I have a graduate degree (and never had any student debt), but I will say that some of the best programmers I've worked with either had no degree, or a degree in something completely different. Experience is king.
Well, with that I agree - if fact, the whole article is misleading because it shouldn't take a weekend getaway to pull you off the screens. As a lot of people point out, going to a nearby park is free - my only point was that a weekend getaway, for a family of four, can easily be that much or more (and that's why they say average). It's silly for people to be jumping on the number they give because nobody is arguing you can't get away for less (or more).
You are misunderstanding the point, which is not that you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, but that $2350 is NOT outlandish as an "average" family getaway for a family... you can spend less, you can spend a lot more. In fact, the whole story is ridiculous because it obviously shouldn't even require a weekend getaway to get off the screens, but my argument is merely that the amount they are giving is not some crazy, ridiculous amount for a family of four to travel somewhere and do something. It makes no sense to jump on the point and argue that you can have a weekend getaway for less - nobody is arguing otherwise.
I run Windows on my laptop, but only because the 3D games I play are the only things that don't run well in a VM.
As I pointed out, I work for a media company. We run real time 3D software; I do live virtual applications. I've tested Linux software from a vendor and I liked it a lot - but it was NOT ready for production use. Most of the tools we also require a lot of 3D performance. Maya, AfterEffects, and a number of programs you've likely never heard of. It's still just how it is right now.
Now if you want to support my fathers small accounting business, you can go ahead and set up VMs for his tax software. It's just not practical.
You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.
So yes, you can do things for a whole lot less, you can also do things for a whole lot more. You can't take what they say and then argue you can do it cheaper - nobody is saying you can't. But it depends on what you're doing, and what may be suitable for me, travelling alone, where I might do things as cheaply as possible just for me, is not the same thing I'd do for my family. I can stay at the cheapest hotel imaginable, but if I can afford it, I'm not going to subject my family, on vacation, to that. I could eat the cheapest food possible, travel on standby... I could do a lot of things that would reduce the cost for just me that I would NOT do when bringing my whole family along ostensibly for what should be a memorable (in a positive way) experience.
There's also the point that what I do, personally, if I'm already spending thousands of dollars for my family travel somewhere, I will spend the extra thousand to make it the best experience possible. That's me. That means paying extra for fast/express passes at theme parks; it means saying "yes" when my kids ask if they can get that very expensive T-Shirt. It means paying hundreds of dollars for my family to see the Blue Man Group when went to Universal. I can't imagine paying as much as it cost to go to one of these theme parks, stay at a hotel, pay theme park prices for food, and only go on 1/3 as many rides because I wouldn't spend the extra $400 for express passes.
Last time I traveled on my own (for work), I went hiking. It cost me nothing. But that's not what the article is talking about. The entire gist of the article may be wrong - it doesn't take a weekend family getaway to pull you away from the screen, but the numbers they are giving are for what they presume the average cost for a weekend getaway would be for a family. You can do it cheaper. You can do it more expensively. Nobody argued otherwise.
Now that I can actually agree with. Most people are just browsing; they use email and perhaps every once in a while need to type something up. You can watch your online streaming, listen to your online streaming, and pretty much do everything you need to in Linux... but then I suspect most people in that boat would be happy with a Chromebook.
Really? So he wasn't responding to anything in particular, nothing in the article or the summary; he was just mentioning offhandedly, for no reason at all otherwise, that many green spaces cost nothing to visit?
I'm sure Elon Musk is now sitting on a pile of money in his mansion crying over your insult.
Elon Musk is not an idiot. Maybe the people that bought his cars are; maybe the people overvaluing his company are... but you will have to do a lot better than that to convince me that he is.
Now if only Slashdot would stop posting click-bait stories, it might actually improve my online experience.
Duh?
It does extend to the whole store... there were at least two other employees working at the same time that seemed just as bad with the people they were "helping." But I guess that someone who works in one of those stores would feel compelled to reply with an insult... I guess it doesn't matter that such stories of these employees are ubiquitous; it must just be me.
I took them outdoors.
What's the difference between a weekend getaway and a vacation? If you're spending some nights away from home, they are essentially one and the same. Sure, I could drive 300 miles away and spend two nights in a cheap hotel, eating at the local greasy spoon, and spend a LOT less for my family... but then what would they do? Sit in the hotel room insta-something or other with their friends the whole time (and during the car ride, also)?