Gates deferred to his bully MBA friend, Ballmer.
Gates deferred to his bully MBA friend, Ballmer.
It is true: that "engineering types" often don't have enough background in business to make smart business decisions. The idea that you can shoehorn an MBA at the top, and still have innovative spark that the founding engineering principals gave it, is absolute horseshit. Maybe there's some envy in there. The MBA-types think that the magic formula is to toss out some stock options, and pump-n-dump the equity, and that will motivate the employees as much as their former roles in creating a technology innovation did before the "professional management" took over. In fact, a lot of low-level engineers are fooled by this, and they continue working their 80 hour weeks. Only to get fucked over when the MBA's cash-out with millions, for inventing precisely nothing.
And yet, I'm pretty sure Boeing's CEO doesn't order the employees to start building planes without wings
In fact, they did. See: the X-37.
In some professional settings, if you try to re-invent the wheel (ie. "draw a circle"), rather than use the canned library from a framework, you won't just be criticized, you will be dismissed. Ugly fact, but still a fact. It's more about rote memorization of
but they are not safe if they are causing or instigating traffic accidents
. . . to include, traffic accidents where no collision occurs. (ie. snarl-ups, traffic misdirection, etc)
Couple this with the fact that as a rule, Economists do NOT cite employment relationships when publishing papers. In any other scientific field, this would be considered an ethical conflict of interest. In Economics, it's just standard practice.
The fact that Economists are actually taken seriously in guidance of national and world economic policy, should be of major concern, because it has had absolutely DIRE consequences for general economic prosperity and stability, and has DIRECTLY contributed to several economic recessions, crises, or crashes. Hundreds of millions of people are suffering extreme poverty that persists generation to generation, all because we have listened to their oh-so-convenient pronouncements.
The profession, as a whole, needs to be discredited, wiped out, and replaced with a serious, rigorous academic discipline.
What online game community doesn't have NPC's?
Oh, you mean versus all that pristine land that coal mines leave behind? Or if you step slightly to the side and consider the tar sands, the utterly blighted landscape left by that mining operation. The tailings ponds leak into the ground water, poisoning everything. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have things living in their exclusion zones. There aren't any exclusion zones for the tar sands, and nothing can live there. If birds land in the tailings ponds--and they do--they pretty much immediately die.
The tar sands are considered a SAFE operation, one that's operating within the bounds of the law. This is what happens when there are NO accidents. With operations like these, who needs meltdowns?
There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.
You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.
Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.
Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.
(...as of about 8-9 years ago) The psych department had its own stats class, taught by a psych professor. You couldn't get an exemption if you had a high-level statistics course under your belt already, they insisted that psych stats were 'special' somehow, and needed to be taught differently.
If by 'special', you mean 'less rigorous' and 'taught by people that literally don't understand the definition of a function', then yes, the classes were special, and failed to prepare the students in any significant way for good statistical analysis.
I'm sure the story is the same at many universities.
Let me tell you a true story of a guy I know.
He and his wife had a child, and afterwards, she lost interest in sex. Her desire never came back, and that was it. He still loved her and she still loved him, but he wanted to have sex. So he did the 'right thing' and divorced her. Now, their story isn't so bad. He divorced her and it was amicable enough, he still visits almost every day (they live down the street from one another) but they live in different homes.
My first advice to that guy would've been to have a consensual open relationship, but absent that possibility, I think that maybe having 'an affair' would've been a better solution than divorce. The result would've been nearly exactly the same (he doesn't even want a relationship with the women he sleeps with), but they wouldn't have had to live in different locations.
Your view of infidelity and relationships isn't wrong, but it's somewhat incomplete. I can easily come up with a slightly worse case for this--they could've been living in the USA, for instance (they're in the UK). That would've meant that she would've lost any health coverage that he brought to the family through his employment. You can modify this scenario subtly in a lot of ways to make it worse, and sometimes the least bad option is going to be cheating on your partner so you can stay married and in the same house and sane so you can raise your kids properly.
As someone that's consensually non-monogamous, this is all just abstract philosophy to me--I think there's too much emphasis put on sexual fidelity in the first place, and not enough on emotional support and availability. You can be monogamous with someone and still be a wholly shitty partner to them.
So don't be too quick to judge the people that were paying for memberships on the site. Some portion of them are CPOS (cheating pieces of shit, in Savage Love parlance), but some of them are almost certainly people (and, according to the analysis, almost certainly men) that want to stay married but can't live in a sexless marriage anymore, or want to explore other parts of their sexuality that their partner can't provide. You don't know the story.
Printers, otherwise known in the industry as Toner Dispensers.
Manufacturers, especially Xerox, internally (and only half-jokingly) refer to printers as Toner Dispensers. It's where they make a massive amount of their revenue from.
Sure, when they're selling a printer for a price in the 10's of $k, they're not exactly making a loss, or only just breaking even on the hardware, there's still a decent amount of margin on this - but the ongoing revenue stream (and the reason they try to get everyone onto managed print services) is in selling toner, and lots of it.
Over the life of a printer (or copier, which is just a big printer with a scanner built into it) the cost of consumables will be far greater than the initial purchase price of the machine. Generally, toner is cheaper on bigger and more expensive printers (which in itself is strange as it's the same toner) - this is why if you're printing a large volume, you're better off getting a more expensive printer with cheaper toner.
You know, I keep hearing this and it keeps boggling my mind.
It would never occur to me to stop doing things if I had free money. I'd do MORE things. I have a good job right now, but I'd really like to go back to school and study something else. If the government were supporting me and tuition were free, I'd definitely do that right away.
So why do so many people say that everyone would stop working? Is it because THEY'D stop working?
And have you noticed that the incredibly wealthy still work? I mean, Jeff Bezos has a whole lot of personal wealth. He could've quit ages ago. Half of silicon valley could retire somewhere slightly cheaper and never work another day in their lives? Why do they even bother to work? Is it because there's more to life than being the idle rich?
The people that seem to do the least are the ones raised in moneyed privilege. Trust fund kids. They want for nothing, so they do nothing. They've got nothing to strive for.
But someone on a guaranteed income--man, they're just paying the rent and affording groceries. It's hardly the high life. Based on my own life experience, they'd be happy to find something better.
So I have to wonder at the internal process of people that say, "Gosh, everyone would stop working." I don't meant to cast aspersions, but are you projecting? Is the reason why you say that about other people because you know that for yourself, you'd rather just sit on the couch and play console games all day? I actually won't judge you if that's what you DO want to do, but stop telling the rest of us that we have no work ethic independent of money.
We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.