Those aren't rock-star developers. As another poster said, you likely have never worked with a rock-star developer.

Nope, worked with them, dismissed several of them because their behaviour was detrimental to the team (one got sacked because he went and told the book keepers that he was more important than they were and should do what he said).

The ones who actually make the team better dont consider themselves to be rockstars. There is a correlation between humility and talent (otherwise known as the Dunning-Kruger effect)

They are rare, but it's awesome when you see somebody that inspires others around them by what they can do.

This is how they like to imagine they are, but not what they're like in reality. In reality they are childish and petulant. If their authority and awesomeness is not recognised they will make everyone else's life hell until it is.

You sound like you work in a big company, on big teams.

Wrong again.

Largest organisation I worked for in that capacity was 80 staff with 20 developers (most in a consulting capacity). In fact that's why I ended up managing the dev teams, we didn't have enough of them to justify their own manager so it fell under my jurisdiction as IT manager.

I had a pair of senior devs who could keep the team together and moving and were great at it, I considered it my job to keep things out of their way so they could do their jobs.

http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...

And self-defense against an oppressive government isn't?

Soot, CO, CO2, and nitric oxides, besides the water vapor. Just like burning diesel fuel, except the proportions are different and the soot is finer.

This, 1000x this.

I hate managing with "rockstar" developers because they're always too arrogant and full of themselves. They detract from the team, argue and refuse to listen to others. As soon as I see anything remotely "rockstar-ish" in an interview they immediately go to the bottom of the pile.

Senior devs are the antithesis. They help the junior devs and often their time is better spent doing this than banging out code even though their code is a lot better than the juniors. Someone who can manage a team is valued for more than just their coding skills, if they've got people skills they are definitely a force multiplier.

You need all the team to be involved in the development of the product, letting one "rockstar" do their own thing means when they leave you've got an codebase no-one has any knowledge on and it's always a matter of when (people win lotto, go on sabbaticals, change career or move to a nicer climate).

Rockstar devs dont need agents, the concept of rockstar devs needs to die.

However the value of you to an agent is how much they can get out of the company for you.

This is how recruiting and head hunting currently works. The company puts out an ad or contacts a recruitment agency, basically they make their intentions known. Recruiters approach the companies on the behalf of the perspective employee and set terms that if the employee is hired they get money. If the employee lasts longer than X months they get a bonus.

All an "agent" will do is double dip. They'll still get the recruiting fee and bonus from the company and then they'll turn around and charge you for their services again.

In this scenario, the money they get from you is just icing on the cake, their working for the company, not you and because of this the recruiter has a vested interest in getting you in the door as cheaply as possible.

NYC is taking away their data overages money

Exactly, it's "shut up and go away" money.

If it were a serious study, it would be 3 or more times that given to a university with an ethics board and peer review would be done... But universities have better things to do.

Because people like to have a whinge about their favourite things. Any mention of the F word on /. brings the "woe is man" crowd out of the woodwork.

At the risk of flame-baiting, in Australia we'd call them a "big girls blouse".

As a blanket statement, I disagree vehemently.

And you'd be wrong.

See also NIS (WRT healthcare rationing), overburdening the taxpayer, the insane EU rules governing everything from gasoline to what constitutes an actual croissant, etc.

First off, I assume you mean the US NIS (National Inpatient Sample) and just because the US government cant get something like healthcare right, doesn't mean others cant. The UK's NHS is far from the worlds best universal health care system, but it the system in the US makes it look positively sublime. One of the major reasons the US cant do anything right in health is the fact private corporations are too far entrenched and the government is too limp wristed to tell them to naff off (that and a large section of your government and population want to see the abuse continue).

Secondly, what EU rules on gasoline and croissants are you on about. Do you mean the Euro standards that determine things like how much sulfur can be in different types of fuel? When you drive a car that is sensitive to that you're actually grateful that someone is making sure that someone isn't shoving too much ethanol in the mix and as someone who breathes air, I'm also grateful that a lot of toxic material is removed.

You might have a point about the rule stating that only fortified wine from the Porto region can be called port, but if that's the biggest complaint you've only demonstrated that the EU is harmless.

This regulatory label was bought to you by the Globex corporation, Globex, we make tomorrow, today. Before we display the regulatory information please watch this short advertisement.

You cant find a citation because it isn't true.

Nissan sells 5,000,000 cars per year and made US$3 billion in profit last FY. Nissan makes good cars that sell well, pretty much the antithesis of American car corporations, so they're quite safe.

The Leaf has sold 100,000 units worldwide since 2010... which is actually 45% of the total EV's sold in that time.

Besides, I wouldn't read too much into names. Nissan made a car called the Skyline that was pretty low to the ground and the Pulsar doesn't emit radiation. Mostly they're picked because it sounds good, Mirai just happens to be good in English as well as Japanese.

If you're in the car when this happens, it's still going to be bad.

I blame hollywood for the common misconception that cars and petrol tanks explode.

Only very high pressure hydrogen stations can pull off such rapid fills, more common lower pressure stations can take several times longer.

And as much as I don't want a large tank of an extremely combustible gas (yes, it's far, far more combustible than gasoline, see above), near me, I really don't want the same amount of hydrogen at extreme pressures.

And it's so pointless. The hydrogen fuel cycle is so wasteful that it defeats its purpose right off the bat.

SOFCs are neat, but they have long warmup times and are bulky. They're efficient in continuous operation but wasteful in short operation. They're not really ideally suited to vehicles.