They could, but of course Google could say that pay correlates to experience and market prices for that.
That would still qualify as indirect discrimination: a measure which is applied equally to everyone but affects people of different ages differently. Unless Google can prove in court that overworking is a proportional and justifiable necessity, they are liable for age discrimination.
...If you want to find bugs in your code, in your website, in your app, you do it the old fashioned way: by paying for them. You buy the eyeballs.
While I applaud any effort to make things more secure, and I completely agree that security is a battle we should be fighting on multiple fronts, both commercial and non-commercial, I am uneasy about some aspects of paying for bugs becoming the new normal. What are we incentivizing, exactly?
Link to Original Source
For many years, he hasn't worked or been an active environmentalist. In fact he works for a marketing company whose blog you can read here: http://greenspiritstrategies.c... and contains many articles in which he openly espouses anti-environmentalist positions such as:
Green godfather says pipeline must be built
Furthermore, the article is published by the Heartland institute, which is notoriously a lobbyist for many not-so-great corporations such as the fossil fuel, tobacco or walmart.
It's part of fogbugz. We use trello.
I work for Joel Spolsky and we have a single estimate: 6-8 weeks.
Estimation is basically useless because it has the unspoken assumption of "perfect design", which is an invalid one: software development is not a repeated exercise, it does not have consistency.
Having a single estimate does this to your projects: much smaller things, just do them; much bigger things, they are too big so don't do them, things vaguely in that scale, do them iteratively but define what you are trying to achieve in writing so you know when to stop.
No project managers, product managers work at a way higher scale (decide which are the projects worth working on).
Because, you know, open sourcing by the devil has to be evil!
In all seriousness though, does this make
I'm 43. After having been sucked in management in two occasions, two years ago I've joined the core team at Stack Overflow as a full stack developer.
I've never been happier.
Age was useful because it gave me more time to enrich my knowledge and experience.
Link to Original Source
I was told that: 1. You don’t do back ups at the Apple Store, and my data would be lost if you fixed my hardware that was defective — in that it would lose my data. I was advised to buy a hard drive at my own expense and back up my data myself at the store. The ludicrous excuse was that it’s for “data protection”. I guess you never heard of waivers. 2. It would take 14 days to replace a simple hard drive at a Apple store. It didn’t need to go anywhere, only upstairs. An operation that takes 15 minutes at most, since you don’t restore my data, takes your “geniuses” 14 days?
Is Apple grown worse after Job's demise?"
Link to Original Source
Consider Christian charities that give without quid pro quo. There are Islamic charities that do similar work. There are Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu charities which similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
Consider non-religious charities that give without quid pro quo. They similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
If you are going to damn every religion because of fanatics, you can choose to damn every human endeavor, no matter how good, for those who would pervert it. You have no depth of perception, and in fact, are no better than the those who you would damn.
I do not damn Christianity because of pedophile priest. I damn it because of their active cover-up of such individuals. I do not damn Muslims because of the Taliban — on the other hand, I am not aware of an active interest in condemning such practices by a large part of Muslim authorities, and actually they seem at least tolerated, and in some Muslims environment, supported if not sponsored.
Saying that religion is "bad" for humanity is an overall kind of argument, i.e. the bad is more than the good. If it were all bad, there would be no religions.
This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.
Erm, it does not say that, not even by a long shot. The hypothesis that the universe has been created does not imply that it has a purpose. Also, if God created the universe who created God?
From this you deduce that we all have a fate or a point? Sorry, but I think you are deluded. It's called wishful thinking.
Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?
No, because delusions don't help them. The truth does.
As I side note: what do I think is the truth? I don't know, however — I think it's probably better not to assume that there is a predefined purpose unless there is some firm evidence of the contrary. I am quite happy thinking and defining my own purpose. It's called philosophy.
I have never ever met an atheist that stated that they didn't believe in god as an act of faith. I am not sure what atheists you have met, but this sounds more like a theist's crap straw man rendition of an atheist than the real life people i know.
You are totally off track. I use Santa because I feel exactly the same way with God -- a childish, superstitious belief.
Mock? I used the proper "great" ablative!