That isn't really phrased as a salary, is it? It sounds like a signing bonus. Which - well, I've never worked around Cupertino. Is $85k really a typical signing bonus?
For a company that has $117b+ in cash reserves and a HUGE PR blunder on their hands with the new Maps, I would assume the incentives for hiring on the key guys to fix that problem would be more substantial.
>> "I have 3 people reporting to me. Designing product. I have them cause this is how you grow...."
>> "Essentially I could design myself and be 10 times quicker."
The first claim here makes no sense in light of the second. If you could do the work 10 times quicker, then do it and keep all three salaries to yourself and use less time than you do right now. There is no "growth" going on if the three people working under you are ten times slower than you could - unless the work they're doing isn't really important to the growth of the company, in which case why are they there?
And then you say this:
"if a candidate does not challenge you in your authority, he or she is crap."
... which makes me thing that either (a) you have not hired good candidates at all, since they are ten times slower than you; or (b) you're leaving out the part of the design review where they show you that you're an idiot and challenge you by producing something you never would have thought of.
In general, though, the feeling I get is that you approach these design reviews knowing that they will be painful, and that all designs presented will be wrong. In which case, again, this seems like an exercise in utter futility.
So - yeah. I don't really understand your point. Maybe you're saying you wish your CEO or whomever had done a better job hiring the people that report to you?
I assume the claim is that, even though right now the process is way slower with all these people giving input, in the long term he is going to be able to push work onto them and end up with his full productivity plus all of their productivity (and they can themselves spread their knowledge to others). If he tries to keep doing everything himself then that hits a real cap of maximum output because there are just only so many hours in a day.
What you've said is true, but it should be noted that not only did Xerox never file a patent suit - nobody filed a software patent suit for at least a decade afterwards. Software patents were at that time unknown. If Xerox had wanted to file a software patent suit, a good lawyer would have disabused them of that notion instantly by pointing out that that wasn't how patents worked then.
So the fact that Xerox didn't file a patent suit doesn't say much, I don't think. That doesn't mean that Xerox wasn't in the wrong or that Apple wasn't in the right; it just means that patent lawsuits really weren't the way people went about these things then.
Conversely, if Xerox had software patents, they would have likely licensed them to Apple anyway.
It's probably likely that not only did Xerox not imagine that software patents were a thing, they probably didn't even imagine that you could copyright the "look and feel" of software.
Hold on - that doesn't seem to say what people want to think it's saying, does it? That's a license to use Smalltalk-80 in products. It isn't a license to use the Xerox Parc system or look and feel at all. I think the point remains: if there had been software patents at the time of the original litigation, Xerox would have won. Am I missing something?
At this point, it seems as though journalism made an extraordinarily dire mistake in relying principally on revenue streams that are entirely distinct from their central business. Shouldn't journalism rather have sought to monetize the thing it does best - journalism? If it had, maybe it wouldn't be in this mess right now.
This seems like a fine point, and I wonder if it's actually true. Has there really been any case of a person being sued or threatened by Craigslist for cross-posting their ad - that is, posting their ad on Craigslist and also somewhere else? Keep in mind we're far afield here of what happened with PadMapper, which didn't have anything to do with anyone cross-posting their own ads.
This policy is new, so there can't be examples of Craigslist using it against users. They probably will never use it against users. However, I don't enter contracts I don't plan to abide by. No one should.
This is flatly not true. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions to encourage - not compel - doctors to use electronic medical records; I really don't think this is such a ridiculous thing, and as someone who's work on medical data before I really think it's becoming more and more necessary to keep costs down. Here's a citation from someone who is concerned about security but who explains correctly that the Affordable Care Act in no way forces anyone to hand over medical records to "the government" :
The thing is that Apple has not so far allowed really and truly dynamic icons on the home screen. This bothers some of us, since we'd like to have some notifications or displays visible from that screen. This is neat because it allows that, although in a limited way.
Is this really true? How many "large online retailers" can you name that have been able to pinpoint an exact shipping date months in advance of the actual release of a product? Apple sure doesn't; they get around this by not even announcing a product until they can pretty much release it immediately.
In fact, as far as I can tell, Google is meeting the standards set by the electronics industry. Heck, in the gaming world, I have known people to put in their credit card details and preorder a game that's supposed to be out in six months, and then wait for a full year before seeing it ship.
Yes, for products that have been released already, it would make sense to demand a shipping date. This is not one of those products. They've given him a much better promise than many companies have in the history of not-yet-released electronic items. Once it's been more than three weeks, maybe we can start to wonder.
Wait, I don't understand quite what you mean. People standing up frequently turns an office into a "mess"? How so?
I guess you must mean that it would disturb the other four people in the office if one of them got up every few minutes. But it seems as though that is down to office design, not how often one person happens to stand up. I worked in a 100-person office for about a year and a half. The floor had nice-sized desk cubicles. The whole time, I strictly maintained a schedule, getting up exactly every half hour to go on a two-minute walk. It never disturbed anybody as far as I know; I didn't make any noise, I made sre my chair wasn't squeaky, and I walked carefully without stomping.
I really feel as though, if you're in a situation where on person getting up disturbs the workflow of multiple other people, then you have an office design problem. It wouldn't even matter if people got up fifteen times a day or three - if they're disturbing others unnecessarily, then you need your office fixed to remove this disturbance.
In particular, please note that the approach of blaming the disturbances on the people getting up seems like a path to terrible management. If my bosses came to me to suggest that they'd rather I tried to stand up less often, I'd be a bit taken aback, and I'd probably reconsider where I chose to work.
