There are still a lot of really smart people on
There are still a lot of really smart people on
Sure, I can see that. String them along--just as long as they aren't "the guy." (You know, the only guy that understands how the mission-critical systems work. I've seen companies go under when they lose that guy, without a knowledge transfer, which may take months). The replacement coder costs the new going rate, delivering a fraction of the productivity in the months before they have equivalent institutional knowledge and understand the wage refugee's code.
Ironically, even if a penny pinching manager did save a little, it's behaviors like this that drive IT wage inflation.
The pattern I've seen time and again is that even if you find an employer that gives regular raises, the market rate for programmers moves much faster than a lame 3% cost of living raise. So, unless you're an assertive extrovert, with a high tolerance for uncomfortable moments with your boss, you probably aren't demanding a competitive raise each year. Easier to just interview every few years and get a big salary bump.
And the employers who lost you? They'll pay much more to replace you, learn nothing from the experience, then repeat the cycle again in a few years.
People that need debuggers will never be any good.
People who work with trivially-simple applications and never have to deal with someone else's legacy mess will never be any good either.
People are going to be lining up around the block for the "learn slower" electric charge.. if our society's obsession with alcohol is any indication.
Alcohol? The continued success of America's two political parties seems like better evidence.
In other news, Exxon Mobil CEO mercilessly ridicules
If they have links to the petroleum industry perhaps you'd like to share exactly how much they have made and exactly where this money is supposed to have come from.
Admittedly, it has gotten harder. The money used to follow a much more transparent path. See http://www.scientificamerican....
Nicely done. I'd post AC too if I was so ignorant I didn't understand the distinction between climate and weather.
As the old song goes, little things mean a lot. You couldn't see the difference between a little botulin toxin and a lethal dose without a microscope. And I'm sure you wouldn't notice a 0.7 C difference between one room in your house and another, but multiply that amount of energy to a global scale and it starts to add up. Consider what climatologist James Hansen said about the current rate of increase in global warming: “(it's) equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
Climate change became the more popular phrase simply because so many people refused to accept that just because he planet as a whole is warming doesn't mean that every area also gets warmer.
In other words, the word with more play propaganda-wise got used. I go with the more accurate term.
Actually, it was Frank Luntz, a right-wing political consultant that's credited for the name change. He thought "climate change" sounded less scary and easier to ignore. Here's a quick read on Wikipedia with some of the back story on how climate science became a political football:
Naturally, the platform has to be mainstream enough to appeal to everyone possible. The reality is that the party has been co-opted by extremists hostile to some important pieces of science that impact policy. Here's your cites:
There are enough dangerous nuts in the great GOP Venn diagram (and a considerable overlap with elected officials) that the GP is basically correct.
"His speech and music synthesis stuff is solid"
was solid. Now it's decades old and he has done nothing. I have come to understand he wasn't some sort of genius, but just in the right place at the right time.
Really? He just got lucky, like those morons Da Vinci and Einstein? Sounds like a vineyard of sour grapes to me.
I'm really excited, but I doubt the live broadcast will measure up to the bitchin' action movie NASA made of Curiosity's "Seven Minutes of Terror!"
So... Grampa finally croaks at the age of 101. Hasn't been able to see, hear, taste, smell, or think straight for the last 15 years. When his magic soul is divinely uploaded to a new, angelic, ether-based model, is his consciousness just like it was when he died? Senile, socially disengaged, and slow to understand anything going on around him? Or, as many believe, would it be transformed to its former glory, when gramps was a young adult.
O.K... Now think about how differently you looked at the world; the skills, interests, and personality you had when you were much younger. Grandfather is a categorically different person from the vital young man he once was (he'd probably yell at him to get off his lawn if they met). So, in what sense would that angelic being be the same guy that died and not more so a recreation of somebody that existed 75 years ago?
I just can't see how the Judeo-Christian concept of an afterlife is anything but a big pile of paradox.
Amen. If de Grey, Kurzweil, and friends are right, by the end of the century religion and the clamoring for its promised afterlife will naturally extinguish. Who in their right mind would sign up for suppressing their sexual urges, spending their money building churches, and ruining several hours every Sunday, when there's no pay off?