print statement and multithreading

Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) tony at lsl.co.uk
Tue Aug 29 04:23:04 EDT 2000


François Pinard wrote:
> > (b) their employers are probably putting in money, too, if only in lost
> > "paid work time", and
>
> Employers often pay flight tickets and other travel expenses, which for
> a few people on committees, sums up to a good amount...

I was lucky to be "wanted" on the committees I was on, but you're right -
this can be a very significant cost.

> > 2. Charging people for the privilege of being on committees
>
> And employers, often, pay for this as well. :-)

Sorry - that was what I meant (a single person paying would just about
*have* to be their own employer!)

> Some printed standards are _very_ expensive, and just not affordable in
> practice for simple people like me.  (A few friends tell me that I could
> get many for free if playing the proper cards, but I do not like games.)

Certainly with BSI, one is entitled to have any standards that are relevant
to what one is working on. This used to be fairly free - one is always
subject to some sort of audit, of course, but one is also expected to put in
the work to know one's field, so that can be quite a wide variety of
standards.

> Sometimes, I have the feeling that standards organisations seem to need
> a lot of money, and run a non-negligible overhead.  But I'm not really in
> the field, and my intuition could be wrong.

Even secretarial backup can be very expensive. Not to mention managers! I
suspect that standards bodies are no worse than any other organisation of
comparable size - it's just that their products are rather invisible to most
people (for someone like BSI, the "meat and veg" of life is probably things
like standards about plumbing and electrical circuits and so on, which are
pretty near unnoticed).

Mind you, I only have a little experience, and that a few years ago (having
children rather stops this kind of thing, since one runs out of spare
time...).

--
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
Give a pedant an inch and they'll take 25.4mm
(once they've established you're talking a post-1959 inch, of course)
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)





More information about the Python-list mailing list