Donating money toward improving education is a worthy goal, but don't get sentimental. Put the money where it'll do the most good for the most people.
Yeah, nothing says selfless giving like having an organization change their name in your honor. He bought the name of a department at Harvard with his money. This is entirely about sentimentality.
Big endowment schools are simply not the most effective place to donate. If you have a lot of money and it's really where you want to give--or more likely if you're trying to buy someone's way in--sure, nothing's stopping you from donating. But if your goal is improvement of almost anything, it's just dumb.
Is this really about philanthropy at all? His donation bought him the name of the engineering department at Harvard. That was an extremely effective use of his money.
"East Bumfuck Community College John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, even if it would help more people.
What oath did he break? The only oath he took was the one that all federal employees take:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So it can happen or at least it could before money equaled speech.
Now that money equals speech, it's imperative that it happen. It's the most straightforward way to amass enough money to "say" anything.
Management's job should be to ensure institutional knowledge is well documented.
That's not flashy, takes resources away from more visible (to the manager's manager) tasks, and may not even pay off until after the manager has moved on to a better gig. Management's job should include a lot of things that management doesn't actually do because the incentives are structured so that there's no point in actually doing those things. (Which, of course, is a result of failures at even higher levels of management and so on...)
Any piece of modern day electronics of any value is already using an internal voltage booster if low current and long battery life is expected.
"Of any value" is the catch here. Eliminating the boost circuit makes the device cheaper to manufacture and offloads that cost to the operating cost for the user (which means higher profits for the manufacturer). The devices that he's talking about (remote thermometers, rain gauges, etc) probably tie him to a single manufacturer, so there's no competition anyway.
Modern day engineering of consumer devices is almost completely rooted in "value engineering". For an expected level of function, everything that isn't absolutely necessary is cut from the design (from quality of components to niceties like efficient use of batteries). The target for expected level of function is a distribution just to the outside of the warranty period.
I do not know why primary cell voltages are given at their very highest possible voltage and secondary cell voltages are given approximately at the middle of their useful range -- it basically turns the "1.5v vs 1.2v" thing into an apples to orange comparison, when saying "1.5v vs 1.4v" would be far more accurate.
The different chemistries are described this way because of the characteristics of the discharge curves. As you can see here, the NiMH battery (and NiCd is similar) spends most of its life at 1.2V, while the ZnMnO2 batteries have no such plateau.
Under any considerable load, both battery types will drop from 1.5V/1.4V very quickly, so measuring 1.2V across a loaded NiMH battery doesn't mean that 60% of the energy is gone. Self-discharge alone will drop most NiMH/NiCd cells to below 1.4V pretty quickly.
Not at all. That's some populist nonsense that's supposed to end bribery. It's no wonder Google had no hand in it.
What Google needs to make is a system that streamlines bribery, synergizing capitalism and Web 3.0.
That reminds me of the safety showers that we have in every lab. You know what's going to happen when you pull that loop and you know that there's no drain on the floor and it's going to make a big mess, but damn if it's not tempting...
(I have to admit that I pulled one for the fun of it and it did make a big mess as expected. Totally worth it. I don't imagine pressing the halon button would go over quite as well.)
It's like when you ask a girl if she wants to go out with you, and she says no, and you keep asking her hoping she'll give in. Not cool.
It's like when you ask a girl if she wants to go out with you, and she says no, and so you hire a team of psychologists to help you manipulate her into saying yes.
It's not really any less creepy when ad companies do it to get you to part with your money.
It was, "Doing work is bringing your supervisor a solution, not problems."
That sounds like something a manager would say. My advice would be that if you ever become a manager, realize that your job is to facilitate the work of your team.
You, the manager, are not a source of revenue or productivity in your company. Your job is to help the workers who are actually doing the work be as effective as they can. If you let your ego or high salary make you think that the workers are working for your benefit, then you're not doing your job.
Making management a "step up" in the career path has probably contributed the most to ineffective management. It's an important job, but it isn't worth more to the company than the actual workers that they "manage".
It may work if you actually have another offer already lined up. Sometimes it doesn't work, so you need to be ready to take that other offer.
Threatening to leave for another job that you have lined up can get you a raise, but threatening to go start interviewing for jobs doesn't get you shit (except maybe replaced). The one exception is if you are a superstar and "start interviewing" means "gone in a week". Know your cards before you start betting!
In his house at R'lyeh, dead Bennet Hasselton waits dreaming.
Did you even read my post? I was contesting the idea that paying for service from Google gets you any different treatment than using their "free" service.
The post to which I was responding, which I explicitly quoted said:
But it IS reliable and private. It's only NOT private when you take the "Free" options.
But it IS reliable and private. It's only NOT private when you take the "Free" options.
[citation needed]
From the Terms of Service:
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
Neither that, nor their Privacy Policy mention any exceptions for Photos if you pay for them. Where did you get this idea?
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
