I worked b2b IT cold-calling in the UK too (you aren't based just outside Reading by any chance?), it was the most soul-destroying job I've ever had! All that mattered was the number of calls you made that day, the number of potential opportunities you made and the number you closed. The bosses cared absolutely nothing about how you were doing outside those stats.
I spent all day manipulating people down the phone till I got to talk to the head of the IT department, then trying to manipulate him into buying whatever crap I was selling that day. Whilst some people are happy to do their job and take home their pay check, I prefer to have something for my mind to work on. I couldn't take the mind-numbing boredom of it all in the end and soon quit to go travelling. When I came back I got a proper IT job and it's been a dream! There's little direct repetition, I get to work on interesting projects a lot of the time and most of all I don't have any hard and fast targets foisted on me (like make X number of calls per day).
I have just one job requirement: Make the IT system run well. Do that and my work life goes perfectly.
A couple of months ago when I first heard about the initial proposals in the UK to have a three strike system with regards to illegal file-sharing, I decided to send a letter to my MP (Theresa May). I laid out the most basic points in favor of general file-sharing and why I disagreed with the entertainment industry's indiscriminate crackdown on illegal file-sharers. The main problem I had with the three strike system was that it seemed to skip all due process, the ISP's were to cut off your internet connection on mere accusations. If the evidence is strong enough to convince my ISP that I am illegally file-sharing then surely the evidence is enough to convince a court of law that I am file-sharing. I would much rather be accused of a crime to my face in a court where I can defend myself, than be accused behind my back and have my connection summarily cut (especially seeing as I depend on it for work).
Needless to say I wasn't expecting much more than a quick response saying that my MP was also concerned and that she would keep an eye on it, blah blah blah. Indeed this was almost exactly what I received several months ago. Today however, to my surprise I received a further letter from my MP. It seemed that she had also written a letter with mine attached to John Hutton who is the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I never honestly thought that my letter would get much of a response but it did get one from Shriti Vadera (Under Secretary). My MP forwarded it as follows (with my name replaced):
Dear Ms May,
Thank you for your letter of 19 March to John Hutton on behalf of your constituent, Simian Road, about the 'peer to peer' network users. I am replying as this matter falls within my portfolio.
Mr Road's concerns may have been prompted by recent press reports on this issue, some of which, I'm afraid, were inaccurate. The correct position is as follows:
In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.
The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals: "Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".
The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February: "We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".
The consultation paper, which we are developing in discussion with stakeholders, will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions.
True. However, I specifically said signal, not information for a reason.
The hypothetical situation I was thinking of was an interstellar medium density so low that the "sound" would be transmitted by a single particle travelling through space. Assuming that this particle is going to travel onwards until it hits another particle and transfers its information across, the "signal" (actually meaningful information) would be destroyed. As you cannot predict the exact state of the particle due to quantum effects, the original signal is lost.
"Information" is still transferred but it is not the same information you started with. In summary, there is no way (given solely the information at the receiving end) of reversing the quantum effects in order to retrieve the original "signal".
I'm afraid that's not true. Assuming that a sound wave could travel (particle to particle) in a gas density like that of outer space (1x10^-11 Pa), quantum effects would completely destroy any signal contained years before one particle could collide into the next.
It may not lead to any legal action but it certainly was the number one cause for me to cancel my BT broadband account a couple of months ago. If more and more people hear about this kind of invasive snooping, hopefully BT will be left without any customers at all!
I was a brand new MMO player at that exact point in time. All the hype was about WoW being new and fresh while EQ2 was just a continuation of the original?
I would have said that the main difference between EQ and WoW was timing (stating the obvious?). EQ arrived way before online gaming was mainstream, WoW arrived as it became mainstream. Every major gamer had broadband by that point and WoW was the game that filled the gap.
Yes, of course it had to fill the other criteria of being a great game, addictive, fun and with a good reputation. But it won for the most part because it was the right game at the right time.
I have an Abit IP35 Pro motherboard if anyone is curious as to which chipset I was having trouble with. It was also not version specific as I tried installing both 7.10 and 6.06 Ubuntu and Kubuntu versions.
It's not that I want to complain about Ubuntu (I think it's great), but people tend to gloss over the fact that it still has its weak spots and evangelize on about it being better than Windows at everything.
I'm really very impressed with Ubuntu so far I think it works very well and it's definitely going to be my main development platform from now on (still like my windows games though!).
Ever tried installing Ubuntu on an IP35 chipset? I did last week and it was a real ass.
First had to switch the Sata connections over on my motherboard from the lower 1-4 ports to the5-6 ports, then turn on AHCI in the Bios. Then it won't boot from CD whilst AHCI is on so I turn it back off. Finally found out that I needed to use the alternate install disc and add the -irqpoll setting to get it to even begin installing. Once it was installed it wouldn't boot into Ubuntu properly so I had to turn AHCI back on (which makes it work fine!). Although this has the downside of making me unable to boot from CD, the CD still works in the OS and now that I have everything working I don't care about booting. The slight downside (or upside depending on how you look at it) is that XP then stopped working because of the AHCI. One final reset back to normal Sata, tweak the registry, switch back the bios and I was done.
I'm not hugely tech-savvy but I was quite happy at getting it to work in the end. Just don't tell me that Ubuntu is easy to install!
I've yet to find free wifi in the UK (around where I live anyway). The wifi that I do find is all attached to different service providers too, so you have to sign up for 3 or 4 different wifi providers just living in the same city.
I didn't choose the best version of the parable I admit!
What I meant to say was that so often you see people saying that if it wasn't for closed source software (Windows being the biggest example), the computer industry wouldn't be as far along as it is now. That it was Windows that created the home computing market. I often compare this to the parable of the broken window; just because one good/bad thing happened that made people spend their money (the glazier getting paid) doesn't mean that the money wouldn't have been spent better elsewhere (funding some open source development).
Who is to say that if the closed source culture hadn't been getting the money, that an open source development over the past decade or two wouldn't have been equally as productive, whilst costing substantially less? Even if it was just 0.1% of the money spent on Windows that had instead gone towards supporting full-time Linux developers over the past decade, there is no doubt in my mind that Linux would be far and away the most popular operating system (instead of being relegated to technical best).
Intellectual property IS a false economy in my mind. They say that the software would never get the funding without IP, but I can only compare it to broken windows (pun intended!) where the money could have gone elsewhere and still generated just as much wealth.
but the computing world could survive without it. It could not survive a world without commercial software
It's really quite frustrating to see people fall for that old fallacy. Just because we've seen the money spent in one area doesn't mean that if it we hadn't spent it in that area (closed source development), that what would have taken its place wouldn't have been equally as effective (if not more so). It is remarkably similar to the parable of the broken window where the child breaking a window is said to be fostering the economy by funding the glaziers (the original parable):
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation--"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade--that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs--I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
The moral of the story is that the money would have been spent elsewhere (generating wealth in terms of the article), the 6 francs ($300 for windows - no pun intended!) that were spent on the glazier (closed source) could have been spent at the bakers (open source).
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently there were far more women in computing in "the old days". The dominance of the male geeks is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Death and Taxes...
I worked b2b IT cold-calling in the UK too (you aren't based just outside Reading by any chance?), it was the most soul-destroying job I've ever had! All that mattered was the number of calls you made that day, the number of potential opportunities you made and the number you closed. The bosses cared absolutely nothing about how you were doing outside those stats.
I spent all day manipulating people down the phone till I got to talk to the head of the IT department, then trying to manipulate him into buying whatever crap I was selling that day. Whilst some people are happy to do their job and take home their pay check, I prefer to have something for my mind to work on. I couldn't take the mind-numbing boredom of it all in the end and soon quit to go travelling. When I came back I got a proper IT job and it's been a dream! There's little direct repetition, I get to work on interesting projects a lot of the time and most of all I don't have any hard and fast targets foisted on me (like make X number of calls per day).
I have just one job requirement: Make the IT system run well. Do that and my work life goes perfectly.
Hmm, buggy website. I definitely did not click "Post Anonymously".
I thought it was because H&S officers were officious idiots?
I was going to say Bot-farms and Scripts, but that'll do too.
Needless to say I wasn't expecting much more than a quick response saying that my MP was also concerned and that she would keep an eye on it, blah blah blah. Indeed this was almost exactly what I received several months ago. Today however, to my surprise I received a further letter from my MP. It seemed that she had also written a letter with mine attached to John Hutton who is the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I never honestly thought that my letter would get much of a response but it did get one from Shriti Vadera (Under Secretary). My MP forwarded it as follows (with my name replaced):
Dear Ms May,
Thank you for your letter of 19 March to John Hutton on behalf of your constituent, Simian Road, about the 'peer to peer' network users. I am replying as this matter falls within my portfolio.
Mr Road's concerns may have been prompted by recent press reports on this issue, some of which, I'm afraid, were inaccurate. The correct position is as follows:
In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.
The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals: "Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".
The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February: "We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".
The consultation paper, which we are developing in discussion with stakeholders, will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions.
True. However, I specifically said signal, not information for a reason.
The hypothetical situation I was thinking of was an interstellar medium density so low that the "sound" would be transmitted by a single particle travelling through space. Assuming that this particle is going to travel onwards until it hits another particle and transfers its information across, the "signal" (actually meaningful information) would be destroyed. As you cannot predict the exact state of the particle due to quantum effects, the original signal is lost.
"Information" is still transferred but it is not the same information you started with. In summary, there is no way (given solely the information at the receiving end) of reversing the quantum effects in order to retrieve the original "signal".
I'm afraid that's not true. Assuming that a sound wave could travel (particle to particle) in a gas density like that of outer space (1x10^-11 Pa), quantum effects would completely destroy any signal contained years before one particle could collide into the next.
BANG!
It may not lead to any legal action but it certainly was the number one cause for me to cancel my BT broadband account a couple of months ago. If more and more people hear about this kind of invasive snooping, hopefully BT will be left without any customers at all!
I was a brand new MMO player at that exact point in time. All the hype was about WoW being new and fresh while EQ2 was just a continuation of the original?
The sequel is never as good as the first!
EQ2 always felt more like a graphics upgrade than an entirely new game.
I would have said that the main difference between EQ and WoW was timing (stating the obvious?). EQ arrived way before online gaming was mainstream, WoW arrived as it became mainstream. Every major gamer had broadband by that point and WoW was the game that filled the gap.
Yes, of course it had to fill the other criteria of being a great game, addictive, fun and with a good reputation. But it won for the most part because it was the right game at the right time.
Oh well
Simon.
I have an Abit IP35 Pro motherboard if anyone is curious as to which chipset I was having trouble with. It was also not version specific as I tried installing both 7.10 and 6.06 Ubuntu and Kubuntu versions.
It's not that I want to complain about Ubuntu (I think it's great), but people tend to gloss over the fact that it still has its weak spots and evangelize on about it being better than Windows at everything.
I'm really very impressed with Ubuntu so far I think it works very well and it's definitely going to be my main development platform from now on (still like my windows games though!).
Ever tried installing Ubuntu on an IP35 chipset? I did last week and it was a real ass.
First had to switch the Sata connections over on my motherboard from the lower 1-4 ports to the5-6 ports, then turn on AHCI in the Bios. Then it won't boot from CD whilst AHCI is on so I turn it back off. Finally found out that I needed to use the alternate install disc and add the -irqpoll setting to get it to even begin installing. Once it was installed it wouldn't boot into Ubuntu properly so I had to turn AHCI back on (which makes it work fine!). Although this has the downside of making me unable to boot from CD, the CD still works in the OS and now that I have everything working I don't care about booting. The slight downside (or upside depending on how you look at it) is that XP then stopped working because of the AHCI. One final reset back to normal Sata, tweak the registry, switch back the bios and I was done.
I'm not hugely tech-savvy but I was quite happy at getting it to work in the end. Just don't tell me that Ubuntu is easy to install!
***Puts on Flame-proof coat***
I could have thought of better ways of describing him...
I've yet to find free wifi in the UK (around where I live anyway). The wifi that I do find is all attached to different service providers too, so you have to sign up for 3 or 4 different wifi providers just living in the same city.
Mobile broadband would annihilate wifi over here.
I didn't choose the best version of the parable I admit!
What I meant to say was that so often you see people saying that if it wasn't for closed source software (Windows being the biggest example), the computer industry wouldn't be as far along as it is now. That it was Windows that created the home computing market. I often compare this to the parable of the broken window; just because one good/bad thing happened that made people spend their money (the glazier getting paid) doesn't mean that the money wouldn't have been spent better elsewhere (funding some open source development).
Who is to say that if the closed source culture hadn't been getting the money, that an open source development over the past decade or two wouldn't have been equally as productive, whilst costing substantially less? Even if it was just 0.1% of the money spent on Windows that had instead gone towards supporting full-time Linux developers over the past decade, there is no doubt in my mind that Linux would be far and away the most popular operating system (instead of being relegated to technical best).
Intellectual property IS a false economy in my mind. They say that the software would never get the funding without IP, but I can only compare it to broken windows (pun intended!) where the money could have gone elsewhere and still generated just as much wealth.
It's really quite frustrating to see people fall for that old fallacy. Just because we've seen the money spent in one area doesn't mean that if it we hadn't spent it in that area (closed source development), that what would have taken its place wouldn't have been equally as effective (if not more so). It is remarkably similar to the parable of the broken window where the child breaking a window is said to be fostering the economy by funding the glaziers (the original parable):
The moral of the story is that the money would have been spent elsewhere (generating wealth in terms of the article), the 6 francs ($300 for windows - no pun intended!) that were spent on the glazier (closed source) could have been spent at the bakers (open source).
Woohoo for typos and slow reactions on the stop button!
I dunno. Financial maneuverings tend to have give no indication of quality of product to me.
It gets cooked in flight too!