When it comes to major corporations. The CEO is there as an ideas person, there are a range of managers to manage the company. Sure American egoistic pseudo celebrity worship tries to create the illusion that it is all the CEO who is to be credited with everything but the reality is, beyond new ideas, revision of existing ones, setting actual directions for the company, the CEO role is no where near a large as claimed. Of course one without ideas and the ability to set new courses to follow is pretty much useless and just occupying a space whilst trying to take credit for every one else's efforts. A good CEO only really needs to be there a few days of every week, needs to effectively delegate and should be spending more time thinking about the future of the company than wastefully spending time bureaucratically micro-managing it (because that is actually all they are good at). Spending a lot of time making sure they have very little to do is part of their function, the more than do as a manager, the less they do as the Chief Executive Officer and that is a straight up fact.
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).
The biggest reason for user optimised search is because of commercial disputes over who gets on the first page and in what order. When you make it user optimised,everyone ends up having to suck it up because the search engine and the owners of the search data are not directly controlling placement, many end users are. Can you augment the user selection with some refinement algorithms, sure but at the core you still want to be able to say oh well it is the way users rate it and it would glaring and extreme over the top censorship to limit user choices.
Google is going to keep getting attacked for this and corporations will corruptly seek to gain commercial search advantage through corrupt lobbyists and biased legislation. Google has a real problem that will only continue to get worse unless is can push some of that responsibility onto others, many, many others. Cheaply recruiting all those trusted others and keeping them going, of course will not be that easy.
Past reputation for the US. They only keep deals if it advantages them to do so, once the advantage ceases so does the deal, just ask Native Americans and all the treaties they signed with the Yankees. I can not see how Edward Snowden can possibly expect to return to the US, ever. The nature of the country and it's government makes that impossible. Why the negotiations, likely an immigration step, simple proof of the impossibility of returning and the legal justification for the certainties of Russian citizen status. Russian moves with RT http://rt.com/ would be an indication that is reaching out to the rest of the world. They are now more likely to create say a multi-national technological development enclave within Russia to attract people from all over the globe to develop Russian commercial technology. That kind of cerebral melting pot is far more effective that a monocultural one and it helps to create an economic climate for other commercial developments in that enclave, tourism, content development etc..
The biggest problem with the study is it seems to miss the whole point of refactoring code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.... It is not about one project, it is all about a coding company and the code it produces over the life time of it's existence, about all of it's projects, past present and future. Is refactoring a technical waste for one project, depends upon the qualities of the initial code produced. Is refactoring a waste over 100 different projects over ten years, of course not and often because far less refactoring effort will be required for latter projects than earlier projects and those latter projects will be far more efficient.
It is much like the principles of TQM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... Does Total Quality management work for one project, rarely the administrative costs will readily out weigh the benefits because there is little or no opportunity to apply the improvements provided by TQM. Will TQM provide benefits for hundred projects over ten years, of course because. As there is plenty of opportunity to apply the benefits gained from the administrative efforts expended on TQM.
Gees bloody easy to go bankrupt from 5% of revenue. Say you built a commercial building and you bought 10 million dollars worth of material and paid 10 million dollars for labour to put in up and the land cost you a further 10 million dollars. Now your plane to sell that building for fifty million dollars and make 20 million dollars profit didn't pan out. You are following me, I hope I didn't make it to complex for you so far? Now people think you building sucks and only want to pay you thirty million dollars for it. You got that part ie no matter what you are asking or what you hoped for you will only break even. You got it, are your sure, I mean by now you should be able to guess exactly where there is going with out me finishing it but I suppose if your silly enough to ask the question, than an answer must follow, well, not always. So you thought no harm no foul, you are going to break even but wait, the person that designed the building wanted 5% of revenue for the design and 5% of thirty million dollars is 1.4 million dollars and you don't have the money but they are demanding it. You not what happens now, yep that last 5% sends you 'BANKRUPT', I mean like duhh, homer. Yep 1% can send you bankrupt if that 1% is more than you have to pay your debts, especially when it is 1% of revenue and not profit. 5% of profits of course is very unlikely to send you bankrupt but 5% of revenue most certainly can do it every time, especially when margins end up being tight or as sometimes is the case in gaming non-existent.
You see, they do not in fiscal reality want 5% of revenue, they want to apply a 5% tax on all investments costs of development and publishing. They want a 5% tax on all project expenditures. Now I know that will also go over your head, so I will explain it. The whole idea for the producer is that revenue will pay the full cost of development and of course generate some profit on the side, so the development cost is a wash in revenue, with profit being the focus but the game engine people want to charge a 5% tax on development costs not on profits.
Now how exactly do you decide what is fair and not fair if you never have investigations? "Is it fair to have investigation" sounds exactly like the kind of questions a very guilty party asks, hmmm. A reasonable just person would only ask about the nature of the investigation and how it was carried out, not whether it occurred or not. Yes, upon suspicion of criminal activities police investigations must always occur. The nature of the investigation logically becomes far more invasive as further incriminating evidence is uncovered or stops are relatively minor levels of invasiveness if no evidence is uncovered that warrants further investigation. Now that is totally straight up logical.
You are a little off track in you car analogy. The space in not just rented it is managed and redistributed to more akin to a taxi service. So if taxi drivers where driving around picking up and distributing illegal materials, are they guilty, hmm, good bloody question and one that most certainly 'NEEDS' to be investigation. Once the investigation is complete, they can then decide whether or not prosecution is appropriate and then of course guilt or innocence can be decide in court. The data hosting and exchange services with it's rather limited and global distributed client base, certainly does put it operations and targeted marketing approach in question. The big focus of course should be on those who produce that content, those that profit from it's distribution come second and those that fund it third as those that fund further content being produced need to also face the consequences for doing so, whether paying for that content directly or paying for it via advertising fees.
The problem here is chasing idiots US ideas of Law Enforcement. Treat police like Law Enforcement as revenue agents with arrest and ticket quotas and you end up with ignorant guard dogs, not police officers. The reality is policing should be based around the idea of exemplary citizens which is basically what they are mean to be. Citizens who step forward in times of crisis to aid the public. This includes initial response emergency medical services, fire fighting and emergency rescue as they are far more spread on the ground than those other services and are in the best position for a rapid response and early assessment to ensure those other services can respond accordingly.
Part of the whole idea of exemplary citizen is of course upholding the law, not forcing others to do so but doing it themselves. When they see others failing to do so, they either just remind them of their responsibilities or initiate an arrest and pass that on higher up the legal chain to the courts where the laws are enforced.
Cheap right wing moronic attitudes have turned what should be exemplary citizens, carefully selected and extensively trained of the highest moral character into base ignorant guard dogs capable of nothing but putting the bite on citizens because revenue first, last and everything in between and sick dreams of privatising it all. From law enforcement, to the courts and, to the jails. Poor and you are guilty of anything a rich person accuses you and of course that rich person is always innocent, just like the feudalism period that so many of the 1% adore.
But all too sadly a really rather accurate portrayal, of the Fox not-News fossil fuelers.
Of course the nuclear mobs are raising the heads and they are the natural enemy of the fossil fuelers. Kill fossil fuel and nuclear investments will basically go 'nuclear' sic. (mining and energy generation). Not to forget certain countries will gain hugely whilst other countries will suffer enormously and for a very few it is a swap from one revenue source to another ie the US would become energy independent, Canada and Australia would make a killing and Russia would swap from one to the other. A whole bunch of fossil fuel export dependent countries would of course go straight down the fiscal gurgler http://dictionary.cambridge.or....
Problem with your silly theory is, making the engine readily available for free means all the developers will end up eating each other's lunch when it comes to revenue. Not only will the majority fail to recover their development cost but they will slide ride into the bankruptcy hole trying to pay for the engine out of what is left. The scam here, is release it enough and a few will get most of the money whilst the rest lose and the sneaky gain here is driving all of the other gaming engines out of the market or similarly bankrupting their developers.
The smart gaming model is, create content first. Comics, books, movies, TV and then follow up with games. Internally developed else it fails as a result of having to pay too much for the content licence, for the engine licence, for publishing charges and for retail costs. Add all of those together and that is a whole lot of percentages with bugger all left to pay for development. Succeed with each step and you will likely succeed with each following step.
To make that work of course, story, story, story, without the story to engage the market you get no follow up. Prime example Jerk Jerk A and Star Trek, the reboot that was a kick in the face for the franchise because it killed interest in the franchise due to really poor story telling and it's failure to engage it's market.
However if you have no idea about what you are doing and were previously able to hide your incompetence behind others, getting everyone back in the office is the best way to steal their ideas and claim them as your own. All they managed to do was lose a lot of their most expensive staff, so with lower revenues there are still better returns, OK, in the short run but in the long, a sure route to collapse.
Jumping into mobile and claiming it as a significant improvement is really stupidly lame ie it is obvious software to hardware adoption, ow wow, differently formatted web pages, what will they think of next.
Lets be honest they hired someone who they thought would bring a lot of google inside information to them, to give them a competitive advantage, only to find a peripheral type who just simply claimed other peoples efforts as their own.
The easiest way to control user ranked web searches is to simply register the users and pay them. The reason for the token payment for each rated search because of course it creates a far more accurate registered user base, those payments need to go somewhere to someone, hence a full validation system ends up in place. Payments can be of the credit against Google services variety, rather than cash payments ie build up credit to purchase Google services or even devices. Ratings to cover quality of page and accuracy relevant to the services and most importantly of all randomly audited quality of the rating itself ie three strikes and you are out.
Catch with this is it is slow to react to new sites and new content on existing sites, benefit is it can supplement other automated methods.
Same old, same old, many hands make light work and Google can draw from tens of millions of user, it just needs to provide more 'retail' user services to exchange for gredits. Catch with really quality search as far as google greed is concerned, the more accurate the less sites you visit, the less time you spend on the search engineer and the less endlessly annoying and shit product adds you see. Google seems pretty much not to give one crap about the quality of the products it promotes or the accuracy in advertising they present, yes, they are Google's responsibility, you present lies, then you are the liar, even when you didn't write the lies.
The statistic is hardly representative of anything because the bulk of Republican are just poor gullible minimum wage idiots sucked in by 1% rich Republicans, those poor Republicans don't earn enough to pay tax worth cheating on, now that is known the world over.
You mean all those people we don't need to do the work yet we need them to buy the product, else we don't have any need to make the product and thus have no need of robots.
So we need to restructure out of wasteful mass consumption and shift to more sustainable with a focus on quality, durability and fit for life (products that last your lifetime, rather than fad or disposable products). So with robotics the model needs to change, from greed based to need based. With robotics who do we get rid of the employers or the employees. It makes far more logical sense to eliminate the employers, rather than the employees. The employees employ the robots thus eliminating the need for employers.
NSA (and they denied it all to the point of perjury), Stingray, data confiscation at borders, Investigative Data Warehouse, police radar to secretly scan inside houses, naked screening at airports, body searches, internal border patrols etc. Sorry but the US government routinely, absolutely routinely lies about all this but yes you are true through clumsy arrogance they always end up being caught out even if it does take a few years. Do any of those idiots spend time masturbating over naked women sunbathing in their own backyards, you know, you just know, that it will be stupidly inevitable that some douche with a badge will end up doing it.