Well the sooner we can destroy the fallacy that coding is something beyond the ken of most mere mortals, the sooner we can get salaries down to what they should be.
I actually think this analogy works really well, and it doesn't even involve cars. There are a lot of people who prepare food for their job. If you want to pay someone $8 per hour, then you're going to get a McDonald's level of quality. If you want a chef who can prepare high quality meals, then you'll have to pay them a lot more than $8 per hour.
Programming is pretty much the same. If all you need is someone to set up your blog software, you can find a kid who just graduated high school who will do it for $20 per hour. If you need a software engineer to design a complex, high-reliability system, and a group of junior engineers and/or experienced programmers to implement the system, it's going to cost a lot more.
My (not really serious) point was that if people dismiss the possibility because the company would have be stupid to make it so obvious, then the company has succeeded is making those people think that there's no connection. I don't actually believe there's some grand conspiracy to hide Apple behind this company, but I thought my reply was kind of funny.
As for it being illegal, hiding the true owners of a company seems pretty common in the US, so if it isn't legal, that law doesn't appear to be enforced very well.
We need to be able to distinguish malpractice from new discovery, i.e. an engineer isn't necessarily at fault when a new kind of material failure occurs that the engineering corpus as a whole has never observed and characterized.
Yes, an engineer is at fault then. Every time.
If I used a plastic that hadn't been tested for durability in a product that's supposed to be durable, I would have my hide stapled to the wall. The buck stops here.
I don't think the point was about untested materials, but about failures that had never been observed before. If a building in New York City is damaged because the steel beams buckle when exposed to the radiation emitted by the venom of a newly-discovered species of South American tree frog, I doubt the engineers and architects would be blamed for using steel beams.
You know what they say : Science is rarely "Eureka!" and more often "Mmm, that's strange..."
And by "they", you mean Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'"
This is an extraordinary claim because it at appears to violate one of the most sacred law of physics (the conservation of momentum) for which we have previously never had even the slightest hint might not hold.
No, we've been here before. Beta decay seemed to violate conservation of momentum and energy, and it took years before physicists discovered that there was another particle with no charge or mass that carried the missing momentum and energy. If these experiments turn out to be correct, we'll certainly end up with some pretty exciting discoveries, but throwing out conservation laws probably won't be on the list.
Last night I saw a Maybelline commercial, advertising Star Wars-themed makeup. Note that this was aimed at adult women, not little girls or teenage girls. That by itself was the Writing On The Wall, telling the story of what's become of the entire Star Wars franchise: It's turned into some sort of a joke.
Um, really? Star Wars has been all about the merchandising potential since the mid-80's. Where do you think "Spaceballs: The Flame Thrower" came from?
Which politicians? The last I heard was McCain. It wasn't that he didn't understand it - it was that he couldn't type due to physical injuries.
Which politician, in today's world (not 1986 or 1996) doesn't know how to use email?
It's been a few years, but Ted Stevens is probably the most (in)famous example of the past decade.
1. Improve education, especially early education of girls. Literate women have fewer babies than illiterate women.
2. Improve healthcare, especially for early childhood diseases. People have fewer babies when they are confident their kids will survive.
3. Public pensions. People will have fewer kids if they don't need them for financial support in old age.
4. Make contraceptives available and affordable. Many women have more kids than they want.
Population growth has declined, often dramatically, everywhere these policies have been adopted.
Phew. Glad I live in the United States. No chance of any of those policies being adopted here.
But if the interest rate is under 1%, and you can get 3-5% return by saving/investing the money instead of spending it to buy the car upfront, why wouldn't you take the loan?
Right, I certainly don't think it's likely that a large number of people would make that much. I only meant that the math doesn't require new spacetime dimensions or something.
Zoning and developers followed the desires of our parents and grandparents. You may not like cars but they were seen as the embodiment of freedom for your ancestors - go anywhere you want, quickly, and on your own schedule.
And of course, whatever our grandparents did, they must have been absolutely correct about everything.
Why? Because they were our grandparents, of course.
At first, I thought that was strange, too. It isn't completely unreasonable though. If you only use your car on the weekends (I take public transit to work during the week), you could possibly rent your car 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, ~50 weeks/year, which gives you that 2000 hours.
I would guess that $10k is enough to cover whatever additional insurance you need, though it might not be much anyway. Insurance is more about the person driving than it is about the car itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the sooner we can destroy the fallacy that coding is something beyond the ken of most mere mortals, the sooner we can get salaries down to what they should be.
I actually think this analogy works really well, and it doesn't even involve cars. There are a lot of people who prepare food for their job. If you want to pay someone $8 per hour, then you're going to get a McDonald's level of quality. If you want a chef who can prepare high quality meals, then you'll have to pay them a lot more than $8 per hour.
Programming is pretty much the same. If all you need is someone to set up your blog software, you can find a kid who just graduated high school who will do it for $20 per hour. If you need a software engineer to design a complex, high-reliability system, and a group of junior engineers and/or experienced programmers to implement the system, it's going to cost a lot more.
There's another option. Some kind of device which spawns new humans when the ship gets to its destination.
But if all they spawn with is a pistol, they'll just get slaughtered by those assholes already camped out there with sniper rifles.
Remember, children, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
My (not really serious) point was that if people dismiss the possibility because the company would have be stupid to make it so obvious, then the company has succeeded is making those people think that there's no connection. I don't actually believe there's some grand conspiracy to hide Apple behind this company, but I thought my reply was kind of funny.
As for it being illegal, hiding the true owners of a company seems pretty common in the US, so if it isn't legal, that law doesn't appear to be enforced very well.
So you think bribery is necessary to keep freedom from being "a joke"???
True freedom means having the freedom to bribe our legislators.
That's The American Way (TM).
You're a construction worker named Thomas, aren't you?
See ya, Jinxo.
If you're trying to 'misdirect', it seems the last thing you'd do is 'style yourself after Steve Jobs'.
If it's misdirection, it's terrible misdirection.
In other words, the misdirection is working perfectly.
Sensationalized headlines are in poor taste. Slashdot can be much better than this.
I assume you mean in some abstract, theoretical way?
We need to be able to distinguish malpractice from new discovery, i.e. an engineer isn't necessarily at fault when a new kind of material failure occurs that the engineering corpus as a whole has never observed and characterized.
Yes, an engineer is at fault then. Every time. If I used a plastic that hadn't been tested for durability in a product that's supposed to be durable, I would have my hide stapled to the wall. The buck stops here.
I don't think the point was about untested materials, but about failures that had never been observed before. If a building in New York City is damaged because the steel beams buckle when exposed to the radiation emitted by the venom of a newly-discovered species of South American tree frog, I doubt the engineers and architects would be blamed for using steel beams.
You know what they say : Science is rarely "Eureka!" and more often "Mmm, that's strange..."
And by "they", you mean Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"
This is an extraordinary claim because it at appears to violate one of the most sacred law of physics (the conservation of momentum) for which we have previously never had even the slightest hint might not hold.
No, we've been here before. Beta decay seemed to violate conservation of momentum and energy, and it took years before physicists discovered that there was another particle with no charge or mass that carried the missing momentum and energy. If these experiments turn out to be correct, we'll certainly end up with some pretty exciting discoveries, but throwing out conservation laws probably won't be on the list.
The US is the ONLY country which has reduced their Co2 emissions.
Company 2 emissions? Joint 2 (wouldn't that be redundant?) emissions?
From what I heard (I've never seen it myself), "I, Robot" was pretty much nothing like the book (which is actually a collection of short stories).
I never knew they made a movie of Nightfall. I liked the book, even though the ending was a great cliffhanger that sadly never got resolved.
Now that I think about it, Nemesis might work as a movie or short series.
Last night I saw a Maybelline commercial, advertising Star Wars-themed makeup. Note that this was aimed at adult women, not little girls or teenage girls. That by itself was the Writing On The Wall, telling the story of what's become of the entire Star Wars franchise: It's turned into some sort of a joke.
Um, really? Star Wars has been all about the merchandising potential since the mid-80's. Where do you think "Spaceballs: The Flame Thrower" came from?
And that being said, it's hard to beat Voyager's use of absurd plot devices to wrap up the last episode.
I pretty much abandoned Star Trek after the last episode of Voyager. It was the kind of story resolution that I'd expect from a movie on MST3K.
Which politicians? The last I heard was McCain. It wasn't that he didn't understand it - it was that he couldn't type due to physical injuries. Which politician, in today's world (not 1986 or 1996) doesn't know how to use email?
It's been a few years, but Ted Stevens is probably the most (in)famous example of the past decade.
Someone should compile a list of all of these puns.
Also summarized by the saying, "Some people have 10 years of experience. Other people have 1 year of experience 10 times."
There's ethic in the textbook industry?!
Yup, there's exactly one ethic: No using children under the age of 5 as a source of paper.
1. Improve education, especially early education of girls. Literate women have fewer babies than illiterate women.
2. Improve healthcare, especially for early childhood diseases. People have fewer babies when they are confident their kids will survive.
3. Public pensions. People will have fewer kids if they don't need them for financial support in old age.
4. Make contraceptives available and affordable. Many women have more kids than they want.
Population growth has declined, often dramatically, everywhere these policies have been adopted.
Phew. Glad I live in the United States. No chance of any of those policies being adopted here.
She can't say anything useful about presence or absence of ninja gorillas.
Great, now I won't be able to sleep for a week.
But if the interest rate is under 1%, and you can get 3-5% return by saving/investing the money instead of spending it to buy the car upfront, why wouldn't you take the loan?
Right, I certainly don't think it's likely that a large number of people would make that much. I only meant that the math doesn't require new spacetime dimensions or something.
Zoning and developers followed the desires of our parents and grandparents. You may not like cars but they were seen as the embodiment of freedom for your ancestors - go anywhere you want, quickly, and on your own schedule.
And of course, whatever our grandparents did, they must have been absolutely correct about everything.
Why? Because they were our grandparents, of course.
At first, I thought that was strange, too. It isn't completely unreasonable though. If you only use your car on the weekends (I take public transit to work during the week), you could possibly rent your car 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, ~50 weeks/year, which gives you that 2000 hours.
I would guess that $10k is enough to cover whatever additional insurance you need, though it might not be much anyway. Insurance is more about the person driving than it is about the car itself.