Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
For the most part, if you limit your search to open-source contributors, you are skewing your results toward single people, mostly men, who may or may not have any social skills outside work, and leaving behind a great many well-adjusted people with well-balanced lives, who are equally great coders.
I think it's natural to want to hire people who have coding deep in their DNA, who enjoy programming in their free time, just as if I were to be hiring a gardener I would want to hire one who had some plants of their own.
I think this is where people who don't have families miss the point (and I realise I'm going out on a limb and assuming you don't). There comes a point where it's no longer about enjoying programming, it's about having other things in your life that are more important. Things like a wife, kids. To the point where you don't even have the time (or energy) to think about doing coding in your free time.
If you're lucky enough to have a wife who is happy for you to spend several evenings per week coding, rather than, say, talking to her. Or spending time with the kids. Or doing housework or the gardening. Or just chillin watching a movie together, then more power to you, hope it works out for you. And if your wife would rather that you leave work at work and do some of this other stuff, then you have a choice - keep your wife, or keep coding.
I find it frustrating when people suggest that I don't enjoy/can't be very good at software development just because I have a wife and kids. Or because I have other interests.
I am shortsighted, and with my glasses on I could still read the bottom line on my most recent eye test, a few months back.
Isn't that the primary function of glasses?
Yes, of course. But if 20-20 were truly "normal" then one would expect my corrected vision to be 20-20. The fact that it is two or three levels better (and believe me, that makes a big difference for distance vision) again suggests that 20-20 isn't "normal". Again, 20-20 is the minimum below which you consider corrective vision.
According to wikipedia average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12
Thing is, 20-20 vision isn't that good. Have you ever actually taken a good look at the chart that determines what 20-20 vision is?
It's normally 3rd or 4th from the bottom of the chart. I am shortsighted, and with my glasses on I could still read the bottom line on my most recent eye test, a few months back.
Calling 20-20 vision "normal" in this discussion is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Especially since the author quotes Wikipedia, which says, and I quote: The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12.
So there you have it, 20/20 isn't "normal", it's the bottom end of what is generally considered to be "normal" and below which one considers corrective vision (my words there).
True "normal" vision is more like 20/16 or 20/12, which gives a resolution of more like 0.8 to 0.6 arcmin - closer to the figures in the original article than in this one, making the original article more truthful than this one, and validating (to me at least) the accusation that Jobs' claim is hyperbole.
Although the "can't own for less than a day" idea strikes me as a bit simplistic and a bandaid to the symptom rather than addressing the problem.
Try this for an idea. Instead of continuous trading from 10am (say) to 4pm (say), have a day-long bookbuild from 10am to 3:59pm. At 4pm all crossed orders are executed according to a published and well known algorithm that, for instance, maximises executed volume. No continuous trading. No day trading (of the type you describe and wish to outlaw with your minimum hold time of 1 day rule).
To avoid gaming the system you could add a random offset to the end of the bookbuild, but the end result is the same, if not better, than your proposal. No intraday volatility, no day trading, no flash trading, nobody gets the jump on anyone else because they have faster computers, no mad panics.
Just an idle thought.
What are you, a stockholder or just a tool?
You seem to imply he can't be both.
As married man with two kids, I always found it unfair the way some of my employers gave me benefits over some of my single co-workers. If I asked to have a day off to go on a field trip with my kids, I'd get approval without little trouble. A single person asking to have a Friday off since friends were coming into town would generally get a refusal.
Don't know about others, but I don't ask for time off. I tell them that I'm taking time off.
I've never had it refused (without *good* reason), and if they did refuse once, they wouldn't get a chance to refuse again.
"ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than f
With a Minister Of Industry making such troubling statements as "[Maxime] Bernier believes that consumers are best served by giving the dominant telecom companies maximum regulatory freedom" along with several questionable decisions on the Internet front, one must wonder if this government minister either fails to grasp what he is dealing with, or is in the pockets of big-telecom in Canada.
With 84% of the internet connections in Canada being controlled by only a few companies, this should concern Canadians, and be a wakeup call to all those who concern themselves with Net Neutrality.
With some ISP's in Canada already subjecting their customers to content or application discrimination, is a full blown attack on Net Neutrality that far away on this side of the border?
Does the government care? Or even understand?"