You don't know how right you are. There's currently a move afoot in England to give flat Earth equal time based on the idea that the standard model of the universe taught in schools is a political opinion, which is prohibited by law.
Access to a market is never unfettered. For better or worse, we trade some governmental control of access to the market for various benefits (quality control, protection for domestic competition, etc.), so market regulators are thus granted the right to set conditions for market entry.
In this case, we demand that participants not trade with our enemies. ZTE violated that rule. We imposed a limited regime of punishments--a corporate fine and a request that the responsible corporate officers be punished--that the company had to agree to if it wanted to continue to trade in this market. ZTE essentially lied: it's employees weren't punished after all. By violating the terms of its punishment, it effectively opted out of the market.
I'm no economic nationalist, but my concern is that this might push China to create domestic competitors to Qualcomm and the other key US-based parts suppliers, making matters worse for US companies in the long run and likely negatively impacting the US economy. On the other hand, more competition should drive quality up and prices down, which is good for me as a consumer. So I'm conflicted.
Well, yes and no.
The theory is that government, as the agent of the governed, promotes ideals the governed wish to see established. There may be a tension between some of those ideals, such as free speech and the expression of views the majority of the governed may find odious. Corporations may be forced to put up with things they find objectionable, such as paying for employee health care plans that offer contraceptive services. In this case GoDaddy can say they're booting The Daily Stormer because their speech is odious, but they're really doing it for economic reasons.
(And that's OK! Economic pressure is a legitimate means of driving change. In this case the form of the victory is enough, even if its substance can be questioned.)
But a corporation's scope for censoring speech is limited by the norms society imposes, whether de jure or de facto. If it were so inclined GoDaddy might have a hard time booting a site promoting marriage equality because that's a norm a majority of the governed want to promote.
What I'm saying is that GoDaddy is right because you and I both agree with the result (so it pleases us), but it might also be right to allow the site to remain because these idiots have a right to their hateful opinions (so it satisfies our societal norm regarding free speech).
Adding chrome to a design is only more effort in the sense that you have to spend a lot of time adding that chrome. Otherwise, minimalism is at least just as hard because your intent and functionality can't hide behind the pretty blinking lights.
How does Fallingwater reflect a decline in society when compared to Versailles?
Please, please tell me this is a subtly satirical commentary on the current state of popular technology writing. I'm begging you.
I actually listened to the whole thing (and that's a few minutes of my life I wish to have back) and he seems to be focused on scripting languages -- PERL, Javascript, PHP, etc. I'll save you a few minutes: he wants us all to focus our dev efforts on only those language features that are common across his in-scope languages. Further, once you've written something in your favorite scripting language, you should port that "gift" to the other in-scope languages to give your "gift" the widest possible distribution.
In short, Acmeism consists of a quintupling of your workload by asking you to port everything you write multiple times. The whole language evangelism thing apparently bugs him and he's opting out.
I think they don't have a replacement yet, but will replace him eventually. Per TFA, Ballmer isn't the guy the board wants in front of gamers. It's standard operating procedure in cases such as these that the direct reports to a defenestrated department head report to *his* boss until a new department head is found. This also suggests to me that Mattrick was pushed (or jumped before he could be pushed) because of the massive black eye Microsoft suffered. As much as we all enjoy the chair jokes at his expense, I don't expect Ballmer to have direct responsibility for the gaming division for long.
Love the fireworks, though. We need more excuses to
...have those.
Too fast with the clicky.
I don't celebrate the New Year because (1) I don't need an excuse to party/drink and (2) there's nothing so particularly special about incrementing the digit on a calendar that it requires a huge celebration. I'll celebrate a birthday because that's a personal expression of regard for someone you know and care about, but the New Year is highly impersonal.
Love the fireworks, though. We need more excuses to
Was I the only one who saw this right above the Spolsky-likes-group-lunch article and wondered why the Shuttle's afternoon meal had been delayed? Sick kid kept me up last night...
Assuming your last comment wasn't a rhetorical question, you already know the answer to this: Because the perceived value-add of selling an encrypted drive allows them to charge more than simply bundling TrueCrypt with a bog-standard USB drive. The public justification would be that their software is easier to use (and, if they're feeling particularly full of themselves, more secure).
...because it promises more than it delivers. The title implies there's a universally perfect way to cut a pizza so everyone gets an equal share. Well, duh. What TFM tells you is how to figure out if everyone is getting an equal share.
I'll save you some time: Ensure you make an even number of cuts >= 4.
I moved from a technical a more administrative role because it was the natural progression in the career path I've chosen. So one consideration for you is if you have a future in mind that requires a steady upward progression through the organizational hierarchy. Another consideration is how management would view a declination of additional responsibility. I've had some managers who were perfectly OK with having someone stop at a chosen point; others (in the same company) want only--or primarily--upwardly mobile people working for them.
Is the increased responsibility and availability sufficiently compensated? Will you be comfortable managing those who were until recently your peers? Other considerations aside--from a purely avocational perspective--which would you rather do: your current job or the one being offered?
Who mod parent a troll?! Have you no sense of humor, sir?
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
