|
Right, home or remote, I worked well remote, but not at home.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: work from home I got hardly anything done.
Inability to divorce oneself from the comforts and distractions at home. Not something I ever suffered from and I was always more productive working from home.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I am inherently lazy. That's why I became a developer. 
|
|
|
|
|
Thats the one - least amount of work for the most amount of money and keep the content interesting!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: keep the content interesting
Right, never the same the same thing day after day. 
|
|
|
|
|
I found it cut both ways, if you have all of the resources you need, work will get done faster without distractions. There are a ton of benefits for the employer, but consider all of the benefits the potential benefits and drawbacks for yourself.
I have worked:
- 45 minutes away from my office:
Driving the 1.5 hours a day felt like a waste of time.
- Split between work and home
This was great, however I replaced that extra 1.5 hours working to get more done.
- Exclusively at home
This was fantastic at first. However the lines blurred between work and home. I found I felt like I always needed to be at my computer just in case... Also, isolation started to set in.
- 2 minutes away from home
This felt like a great improvement over working exclusively at home. Very convenient, had this position for 6 years. I didn't realize the drawbacks until I switched to my current job.
- Now I have a 15 minute commute.
Something magical happens on my short drive home... my mind shifts from the problems I was solving that day to how I will enjoy my time at home. When I was working from home, or just next to my office, I never was able to disconnect and isolate the two places.
I appreciate having the capability to login remotely in the evenings so I only have to spend 8 hours a day in the office and if extra time is required, I can do it at leisure at home.
I don't think I will ever accept a job where I work exclusively from home again.
All of my software is powered by a single Watt.
modified 8-Sep-12 10:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
"This was fantastic at first. However the lines blurred between work and home"
> Can't agree more!
dev
|
|
|
|
|
but how would an employer determine if the remote worker is not just surfing pron?
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
|
|
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, the employee is trustworthy. That's rule #1. On the other hand, if the jobs are not getting done, it's going to show quite quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Corporations are people too, my friend. [ITworld]
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking at Nokia's launch of their Windows 8-powered Lumia 820 and 920, Steve Ballmer gets numeric with prediction. [ITworld]
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone needs proof that Ballmer is deluded, this speech is it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a lot of stock left sitting in the warehouses.
|
|
|
|
|
A tweet from MG Siegler says no more updates for the soon-to-be orphaned Twitter for Mac. [ITworld]
|
|
|
|
|
couldn't anyone just write a client which scrapes the web page? not as clean as calling an API but wouldn't that avoid restrictions from Twitter?
|
|
|
|
|
It is David Ebersman. He is Facebook's well-liked, 41-year-old chief financial officer. He's not as well known as Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder and chief executive, or Sheryl Sandberg, its chief operating officer and recently appointed director.
Read this article from TechGig,
David-Ebersman-The-man-behind-Facebook-s-IPO-debacle[^]
|
|
|
|
|
He did a great job for those that dumped thier shares immediately, and getting a lot of money into the company it should not have had. I am sure there are a lot of people who are laughing all the way to the bank. All these officers who get a way with making hundreds of millions and screw their company (and possibly the US Taxpayer) and never have to repay a dime.
|
|
|
|
|
Just before the IPO I read a article that said that the shares were worth $15 maximum - just by comparing value with other companies like Google and Apple. Looks like that article was spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
Nokia touts amazing phone camera, but exaggerates its abilities in staged shots.
"As beings of finite lifespan, our contributions to the sum of human knowledge is one of the greatest endeavors we can undertake and one of the defining characteristics of humanity itself"
|
|
|
|
|
Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos served as his company's pitchman Thursday, introducing seven new or upgraded Kindle devices. But Bezos was a bit confusing with his introductions, so here's a guide to the new Kindles, their prices, release dates and their most important features. From Paperwhite to Fire, everything you need to know in one post.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool!
It doesn't say, but I assume the paperwhite has a touch screen?
Anyone with experience with the Kindle SDK?
|
|
|
|
|
If you get thread-abort, out-of-memory, or stack-overflow exceptions thrown back at you, you don't want to suppress those. Once you run into these, your code has ignored all the red flags and exhausted its resources and whatever it was that you called didn't get its job done and likely sits there as a zombie in an undefined state. That class of exceptions is raining down your call stack like a shower of knife blades. They can't happen. Try... Catch... Oh noooooooo!
|
|
|
|
|
I tried that once as a kid. 3 stitches later.. lesson learned.
|
|
|
|
|
With our push to share the kernel of your software in reusable C# libraries and build a native experience per platform one component that is always missing is what about doing a web UI that also shares some of the code. Until very recently the answer was far from optimal, and included things like: put the kernel on the server and use some .NET stack to ship the HTML to the client. Today there are two solid choices to run your C# code on the browser and share code between the web and your native UIs. C# all the things!
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine an approach to programming where you write down some description of what your code should do, then before running your code you run some automatic tool to see if the code matches the description. That’s Test-driven development, you say! Actually, this is what you are doing when you use static types in most languages too. Types are a description of the code’s inputs and outputs, and the check ensures that inputs and outputs match up and are used consistently. Modern type systems—such as in Haskell or above—are very flexible, and allow these descriptions to be quite detailed; plus they are not too obtrusive in use and often very helpful. Put aside your bad experiences from Java, and prepare to be amazed!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
