"Best" in this case depends on your needs and resources, not on standards or common practices. Flexibility and "getting the job done" are more important than what everyone else prefers. Do what works for you.
I don't understand the issue. If I ask a robot to get me a drink, how is that any different from me going and getting it for myself? Either way, it's my decision (bad as it might be), and I need to take responsibility for it. How does being disabled -- to whatever degree -- change that? If this were a mental or emotional issue, that might be different. But it isn't. Physical impairment doesn't change one's responsibility for one's own decisions.
Like most such things, it depends on who you talk to, and also your specific situation. I've had bosses that valued general skills and bosses that looked for specific toolsets. The good ones value what the job requires.
'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" It's SO nice to realize that they have their customers' best interests in mind...
I know, I know -- they have to make a profit. But it would be nice if someone would realize that net neutrality is about fairness to the consumer, not about maximizing corporate profits.
Bifocal and trifocal lenses were (and are )intended for situations where the eye is frequently shifting from near to far focal distances; the near focal range is at the bottom because, usually, the closer things are, the lower in your field of view they are likely to be. (Yeah, I know; "Tell me something obvious now.") Progressive lenses take this one better, in that they have a smooth change of focus as your eyes rotate up or down, rather than a step shift.
But in looking at a computer monitor, the whole view field is at a single distance, or at least nearly so; also, at least half of what you see is at or above the middle of your field of view, right where bifocals and trifocals go to "long distance" focus, so you find yourself tipping your head back to get the near focus, and your neck gets real tired, real fast. Best bet? Measure how far your monitor is from your eyes, in normal position, and tell your optometrist you want single-focus reading glasses adjusted for that distance, and don't let him (or her, as the case might be) talk you out of it. They'll cost less and work much better for you than progressive lenses -- but only in this limited case. So, once you have them, use them ONLY when working at your computer.
Most of the comments I see (level 4 or higher) talk about compensation. I come at this from another direction: Productivity.
I generally work hard enough (assuming there is work to do) that if I go over 45 hours a week, I start getting tired, leading to both slowing down and making more mistakes. In general, if I work 50 hours, I produce about the same net worth as if I had worked 40; if I work even more, it just gets worse. Fortunately, I've almost always had bosses who understood this, so it hasn't been an issue. I really feel sorry for those of you who can't say that.
After 10 years in IT, you should already have a good answer to your own question. If you don't, you may already be too far behind the curve. Look at your peers; in particular, look at what the successful ones know that the others don't.
You should understand how computers work. You should understand how systems talk to each other. You should understand how to communicate what you want to the computer. The more of this you do, in fact, know, the better off you'll be in the future. Try to learn it ALL; you won't, but the closer you get the better off you'll be.
Of course, when you start getting close enough to stand out, either you'll be running your own company successfully, or you'll be wondering why those whippersnappers around you are waiting for you to fall over dead. Whatever you do, don't spend your money just because you have it. Either gamble big and win (i.e., get the Big Bucks for designing and building the Next Big Thing) or save carefully so that you won't be depending on Social Security (or the current equivalent when you get that far) to pay for your food, clothing, and shelter.
This has been my experience as well -- although, to be fair, it's been a while since I actually got "RTFM" as an answer. (It's just as well; my response would probably have been, "That's fine, but which FM should I be R'ing?")
To answer the OP's question about what I do: I generally use Google, with as many key words as I need to use to refine the links returned. As an example, when I ran into a problem with not being able to enable my speakers, I Googled "[sound subsystem] speakers not found" and rummaged through the links returned until I found a workaround. That was a year or two ago, BTW, and the problem still hasn't been fixed properly, but at least the workaround is still good. And, yes, I did notify the package owner about what I found. Not only didn't he fix it, he never replied. But at least I had the satisfaction of knowing I'd done what I could.
I've read comments above about loving your job, about pressure from management, about socialism, about Obamacare, and none of them seemed really to address the issue -- at least, as far as I could see. I worked in IT for 25 years, plus another 15 or so in other fields. I absolutely loved programming, the others just paid the bills, but there was one constant: my productivity maxed out at about 45 hours a week. If I worked 50, I didn't get any more done (net, i.e., after fixing errors) than if I had only worked 40; if I worked more than 50, things just got worse. I'm sure I lost some job offers along the way, because I was always careful to ask about overtime and then describe my experience if I was told it would be significant. Yes, I would work overtime if it was necessary; if it needs to be done, then "suck it up" is the rule of the day. But long term, heavy overtime costs more than it gains -- even if it's unpaid.
For 25 years I was a computer programmer (software designer) (systems engineer) (ehh, pick your own title). Then I got laid off and fell back on my hobby, which was brewing beer.
I think I'd do okay.
As asked, the question seems ludicrous; "If you don't want to know, don't ask." But I am sure there are some things (venereal diseases, for example) that doctors are required to inform their patients about. The more important question is, "What will the doctor tell anyone else?" Even if I wouldn't choose to tell others, I would certainly want to know what my insurance company (again, for example) was being told about me.
As has already been mentioned, this is an age-old problem. One of my co-workers many years ago addressed it thusly (after long and bitter discussion): "Okay, you demand that I finish it quickly? All right, I give up; it's finished. Now, when do you want to discuss fixing the bugs?" Never, ever, EVER let anyone talk you into a time commitment you don't think you can meet. If you do, you'll get fired just as surely -- and with much better cause -- as because you won't knuckle under to unreasonable demands.
So, "real world" code isn't clean and elegant. So what? Get over it. In case you haven't noticed it, most of us out here don't look like high school or college athletes, either. Life is a compromise between avoiding problems and getting things done. Look at the problem you've been dealt, do the best you can with it, and go on to the nest one.
If you can't remember that movie, don't worry about it; I've seen the same effect in earlier movies -- usually with calendars rather than books, though; I hope that doesn't invalidate the concept.
I wrote code for a little over 20 years, starting when I was 30-something. Then I got caught in a layoff in the double-whammie of the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11; by the time people were hiring again, my resume had gone completely stale and I was in my mid-50s. Even taking some retooling classes, i couldn't find anyone who would hire me. I ended up retiring out of a retail job that barely paid the bills. Now I'm living on savings and Social Security; fortunately, the savings survived all of the turmoil, so it's enough.
I know I did some things wrong (didn't take XXX classes, spent too much time on YYY job boards, didn't get to the ZZZ networking sessions,...) while looking for another job; that's not the point. If someone offered me a job coding, I'd probably take it, enjoy it, and do it well, but I've given up hope finding it for myself; the repeated "Sorry, we're not interested -- Next!" just got too painful to endure, so I quit trying.
So, why am I grumping about and not adding anything to the conversation? Partly to get it off my chest, and partly to make this one point: The older you get, the harder it is to find someone who will hire you. I don't know why that is, or even if it's true for everyone, but it certainly was for me. If you're over 30, keep an eye on what's happening around you. If it looks like things are going south, jump ship while you still can. It's a lot easier to get a new job if you look while you're still in the old one.
A completely free market doesn't really benefit society as a whole nearly as much as it does the strongest competitors -- who are not necessarily the best citizens. It's a special case of "might makes right" -- not, IMHO, the best basis for an economic or social system. But then, no one worries about walking through the valley of the shadow of death if they think they're the biggest, baddest motherf*cker in the valley.
Apparently the real purpose of class action suits is not compensation for the victims, but rather punishment of the guilty; if that is really the case, it makes sense that the lawyers who did the work should be the big winners. But, in my mind, that a very big "if."
No. If you can't retrain (and you don't know that), it because you've forgotten how to learn, not because of your age. The only way to find out is to try.
But be aware that, at 40, you've crossed over into what passes for middle age in the development world. This isn't necessarily fatal, but it does mean that you can't afford to leave a current job before having the next one secured. Being over 40, having an out-of-date skill set, and not having a current job (in no particular order) are all strikes against you if they apply. You can overcome one; you might overcome two; all three is more than you want to face.
Believe me, I know. I was laid off just before 9/11, with no web or database experience, and that's all anyone wanted then. I never did get back into IT, i spite of taking several classes, and ended up retiring out of retail sales. Even the hiring mangers near my age wouldn't take a chance on an over-40 with no working background in what they were doing.
And, yes, I KNOW that age discrimination is illegal. That doesn't keep it from happening.
Tell him that too much overtime is counter-productive, because the error count goes up faster than the extra work does. Anyone who can work much over 45 hours a week without suffering a drop in effectiveness isn't putting out full effort while working less than that.
If he doesn't agree, find another job fast -- he doesn't know what he's doing.
I have to agree; setting a value to be taxed is the key. But, as several have pointed out, allowing anyone who wishes to force a sale at the value declared for tax purposes would allow the deep pockets to simply steamroller the little guys and also, essentially, destroy the open source movement. As much of a Heinlein fans as I am, I can't see this working for IP.
On the other hand, setting the value based on yearly sales is even less workable, at least for the open source community. The people making most of the money from Linux are the release publishers, not the copyright holder (Linus). Do we really want the paperwork nightmare that would result from trying to manage this?
My own feeling is that the best answer is also the simplest: Cut back the duration of copyright to a more reasonable time -- say, somewhere around 5 to 20 years. I would also, in the case of software, advocate putting the source code in escrow, to be released to the public at the end of the copyright period. There would, of course, be nothing preventing the author from improving the code in the meantime and acquiring new copyrights at any time, but the new copyright would only cover the changes, not the original unmodified code.
Maybe this is too simplistic a viewpoint, but it seems to me that anyone unjustly cut off in this manner could then sue the record company and/or the ISp for having injured his or her reputation falsely, and claim damages based on any number of things. It probably wouldn't too many such suits to make this problem go away.
Maybe I'm reading at too high a filter level, but I haven't seen anyone asking why sports bars get an exemption; it's all been about why churches don't, or why the broadcast can be copyrighted in the first place, or funny asides, or...
My wife and I were just talking about this, and agree that it's not because the sports bars have paid for it; after all, there's no "Huge National Association of Sports Bars" for Fox to collect a fee from. We think that it's probably an agreement with some of the big brewers (Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc.), or perhaps even an agreement of all of the big advertisers; they pay Fox for the exemption in order to increase the value of their ads (more viewers = more effective advertising).
Or maybe Fox simply allows the exemption on their own to justify charging more for the ad time? Nah, that's too logical...
OK, here it is -- my SECOND post on my "new today" Slashdot account. (I pushed the submit button by mistake before getting the paragraphing right -- sorry...)
I wrote software for a living for about 24 years, then got RIF'ed by my employer the Thursday before 9/11. It wasn't for lack of trying -- I did try, hard. But I set my sights too high for too long, and by the time I realized how much competition I had, all of my real tech skills were obsolete. Now I've been working in low-level retail for 6 years and I'm trying to get certified as a school teacher because nobody will even hire me for an entry level job; even customer service jobs ask for experience I don't have.
Am I really not worthy of a job in IT? I dunno, but I think so. When I still had one, I got good reviews and raises, not to mention plenty of casual praise and unofficial "attaboys" from peers and superiors. But breaking back in to the field has proven so difficult that, after seven years of futility, I've given up trying.
Is this a "You losers don't know what real problems are" rant? Not really. I can see why none of the people I talked to wanted to hire me, i.e., they had better candidates to choose from, based on skill sets and age (yes, it really happens). I'd think that proven native ability to think creatively, act within a team, communicate knowledgably with users and customers, and so on would count for something, but apparently not, or maybe the other candidates have all of that as well; again, I don't know.
But I do know this: It's nowhere NEAR as easy as it used to be to get a job, unless I'm simply not applying for the right positions, and I've applied for a lot. Most of the complaints I've seen in this thread are nothing new, and most of them are basically "I want things better." The only one I really have sympathy with is long hours, and the solution to that is find a boss who understands how counterproductive lots of overtime is (basically, after a certain point, the error rate rises faster than the number of hours worked, and useful work done goes into negative numbers per hour).
BTW, am I trolling for job offers? Once again, not really, although I wouldn't object to a good one. As I said, my tech skills are now pretty much obsolete, and even if someone did need them, I'd need to do some heavy "brushing up," plus for reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to move. I really have accepted that my IT career is over and I need to move on. But there are still lots of worse ways to try to make a living.
OK, here it is -- my first post on my "new today" Slashdot account. I've been reading/. for some 8 or 10 years now at least, and never felt motivated to join in -- and, lo and behold, here is a topic I really have an opinion on!
I wrote software for a living for about 24 years, then got RIF'ed by my employer the Thursday before 9/11. It wasn't for lack of trying -- I did try, hard. But I set my sights too high for too long, and by the time I realized how much competition I had, all of my real tech skills were obsolete. Now I've been working in low-level retail for 6 years and I'm trying to get certified as a school teacher because nobody will even hire me for an entry level job; even customer service jobs ask for experience I don't have.
Am I really not worthy of a job in IT? I dunno, but I think so. When I still had one, I got good reviews and raises, not to mention plenty of casual praise and unofficial "attaboys" from peers and superiors. But breaking back in to the field has proven so difficult that, after seven years of futility, I've given up trying.
Is this a "You losers don't know what real problems are" rant? Not really. I can see why none of the people I talked to wanted to hire me, i.e., they had better candidates to choose from, based on skill sets and age (yes, it really happens). I'd think that proven native ability to think creatively, act within a team, communicate knowledgably with users and customers, and so on would count for something, but apparently not, or maybe the other candidates have all of that as well; again, I don't know.
But I do know this: It's nowhere NEAR as easy as it used to be to get a job, unless I'm simply not applying for the right positions, and I've applied for a lot. Most of the complaints I've seen in this thread are nothing new, and most of them are basically "I want things better." The only one I really have sympathy with is long hours, and the solution to that is find a boss who understands how counterproductive lots of overtime is (basically, after a certain point, the error rate rises faster than the number of hours worked, and useful work done goes into negative numbers per hour).
BTW, am I trolling for job offers? Once again, not really, although I wouldn't object to a good one. As I said, my tech skills are now pretty much obsolete, and even if someone did need them, I'd need to do some heavy "brushing up," plus for reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to move. I really have accepted that my IT career is over and I need to move on. But there are still lots of worse ways to try to make a living.
Slashdot Mirror
"Best" in this case depends on your needs and resources, not on standards or common practices. Flexibility and "getting the job done" are more important than what everyone else prefers. Do what works for you.
I don't understand the issue. If I ask a robot to get me a drink, how is that any different from me going and getting it for myself? Either way, it's my decision (bad as it might be), and I need to take responsibility for it. How does being disabled -- to whatever degree -- change that? If this were a mental or emotional issue, that might be different. But it isn't. Physical impairment doesn't change one's responsibility for one's own decisions.
Like most such things, it depends on who you talk to, and also your specific situation. I've had bosses that valued general skills and bosses that looked for specific toolsets. The good ones value what the job requires.
'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" It's SO nice to realize that they have their customers' best interests in mind...
I know, I know -- they have to make a profit. But it would be nice if someone would realize that net neutrality is about fairness to the consumer, not about maximizing corporate profits.
Bifocal and trifocal lenses were (and are )intended for situations where the eye is frequently shifting from near to far focal distances; the near focal range is at the bottom because, usually, the closer things are, the lower in your field of view they are likely to be. (Yeah, I know; "Tell me something obvious now.") Progressive lenses take this one better, in that they have a smooth change of focus as your eyes rotate up or down, rather than a step shift.
But in looking at a computer monitor, the whole view field is at a single distance, or at least nearly so; also, at least half of what you see is at or above the middle of your field of view, right where bifocals and trifocals go to "long distance" focus, so you find yourself tipping your head back to get the near focus, and your neck gets real tired, real fast. Best bet? Measure how far your monitor is from your eyes, in normal position, and tell your optometrist you want single-focus reading glasses adjusted for that distance, and don't let him (or her, as the case might be) talk you out of it. They'll cost less and work much better for you than progressive lenses -- but only in this limited case. So, once you have them, use them ONLY when working at your computer.
Most of the comments I see (level 4 or higher) talk about compensation. I come at this from another direction: Productivity.
I generally work hard enough (assuming there is work to do) that if I go over 45 hours a week, I start getting tired, leading to both slowing down and making more mistakes. In general, if I work 50 hours, I produce about the same net worth as if I had worked 40; if I work even more, it just gets worse. Fortunately, I've almost always had bosses who understood this, so it hasn't been an issue. I really feel sorry for those of you who can't say that.
After 10 years in IT, you should already have a good answer to your own question. If you don't, you may already be too far behind the curve. Look at your peers; in particular, look at what the successful ones know that the others don't.
You should understand how computers work. You should understand how systems talk to each other. You should understand how to communicate what you want to the computer. The more of this you do, in fact, know, the better off you'll be in the future. Try to learn it ALL; you won't, but the closer you get the better off you'll be.
Of course, when you start getting close enough to stand out, either you'll be running your own company successfully, or you'll be wondering why those whippersnappers around you are waiting for you to fall over dead. Whatever you do, don't spend your money just because you have it. Either gamble big and win (i.e., get the Big Bucks for designing and building the Next Big Thing) or save carefully so that you won't be depending on Social Security (or the current equivalent when you get that far) to pay for your food, clothing, and shelter.
This has been my experience as well -- although, to be fair, it's been a while since I actually got "RTFM" as an answer. (It's just as well; my response would probably have been, "That's fine, but which FM should I be R'ing?")
To answer the OP's question about what I do: I generally use Google, with as many key words as I need to use to refine the links returned. As an example, when I ran into a problem with not being able to enable my speakers, I Googled "[sound subsystem] speakers not found" and rummaged through the links returned until I found a workaround. That was a year or two ago, BTW, and the problem still hasn't been fixed properly, but at least the workaround is still good. And, yes, I did notify the package owner about what I found. Not only didn't he fix it, he never replied. But at least I had the satisfaction of knowing I'd done what I could.
I've read comments above about loving your job, about pressure from management, about socialism, about Obamacare, and none of them seemed really to address the issue -- at least, as far as I could see. I worked in IT for 25 years, plus another 15 or so in other fields. I absolutely loved programming, the others just paid the bills, but there was one constant: my productivity maxed out at about 45 hours a week. If I worked 50, I didn't get any more done (net, i.e., after fixing errors) than if I had only worked 40; if I worked more than 50, things just got worse. I'm sure I lost some job offers along the way, because I was always careful to ask about overtime and then describe my experience if I was told it would be significant. Yes, I would work overtime if it was necessary; if it needs to be done, then "suck it up" is the rule of the day. But long term, heavy overtime costs more than it gains -- even if it's unpaid.
For 25 years I was a computer programmer (software designer) (systems engineer) (ehh, pick your own title). Then I got laid off and fell back on my hobby, which was brewing beer. I think I'd do okay.
As asked, the question seems ludicrous; "If you don't want to know, don't ask." But I am sure there are some things (venereal diseases, for example) that doctors are required to inform their patients about. The more important question is, "What will the doctor tell anyone else?" Even if I wouldn't choose to tell others, I would certainly want to know what my insurance company (again, for example) was being told about me.
As has already been mentioned, this is an age-old problem. One of my co-workers many years ago addressed it thusly (after long and bitter discussion): "Okay, you demand that I finish it quickly? All right, I give up; it's finished. Now, when do you want to discuss fixing the bugs?" Never, ever, EVER let anyone talk you into a time commitment you don't think you can meet. If you do, you'll get fired just as surely -- and with much better cause -- as because you won't knuckle under to unreasonable demands.
So, "real world" code isn't clean and elegant. So what? Get over it. In case you haven't noticed it, most of us out here don't look like high school or college athletes, either. Life is a compromise between avoiding problems and getting things done. Look at the problem you've been dealt, do the best you can with it, and go on to the nest one.
If you can't remember that movie, don't worry about it; I've seen the same effect in earlier movies -- usually with calendars rather than books, though; I hope that doesn't invalidate the concept.
I wrote code for a little over 20 years, starting when I was 30-something. Then I got caught in a layoff in the double-whammie of the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11; by the time people were hiring again, my resume had gone completely stale and I was in my mid-50s. Even taking some retooling classes, i couldn't find anyone who would hire me. I ended up retiring out of a retail job that barely paid the bills. Now I'm living on savings and Social Security; fortunately, the savings survived all of the turmoil, so it's enough.
...) while looking for another job; that's not the point. If someone offered me a job coding, I'd probably take it, enjoy it, and do it well, but I've given up hope finding it for myself; the repeated "Sorry, we're not interested -- Next!" just got too painful to endure, so I quit trying.
I know I did some things wrong (didn't take XXX classes, spent too much time on YYY job boards, didn't get to the ZZZ networking sessions,
So, why am I grumping about and not adding anything to the conversation? Partly to get it off my chest, and partly to make this one point: The older you get, the harder it is to find someone who will hire you. I don't know why that is, or even if it's true for everyone, but it certainly was for me. If you're over 30, keep an eye on what's happening around you. If it looks like things are going south, jump ship while you still can. It's a lot easier to get a new job if you look while you're still in the old one.
A completely free market doesn't really benefit society as a whole nearly as much as it does the strongest competitors -- who are not necessarily the best citizens. It's a special case of "might makes right" -- not, IMHO, the best basis for an economic or social system. But then, no one worries about walking through the valley of the shadow of death if they think they're the biggest, baddest motherf*cker in the valley.
Apparently the real purpose of class action suits is not compensation for the victims, but rather punishment of the guilty; if that is really the case, it makes sense that the lawyers who did the work should be the big winners. But, in my mind, that a very big "if."
No. If you can't retrain (and you don't know that), it because you've forgotten how to learn, not because of your age. The only way to find out is to try.
But be aware that, at 40, you've crossed over into what passes for middle age in the development world. This isn't necessarily fatal, but it does mean that you can't afford to leave a current job before having the next one secured. Being over 40, having an out-of-date skill set, and not having a current job (in no particular order) are all strikes against you if they apply. You can overcome one; you might overcome two; all three is more than you want to face.
Believe me, I know. I was laid off just before 9/11, with no web or database experience, and that's all anyone wanted then. I never did get back into IT, i spite of taking several classes, and ended up retiring out of retail sales. Even the hiring mangers near my age wouldn't take a chance on an over-40 with no working background in what they were doing.
And, yes, I KNOW that age discrimination is illegal. That doesn't keep it from happening.
Tell him that too much overtime is counter-productive, because the error count goes up faster than the extra work does. Anyone who can work much over 45 hours a week without suffering a drop in effectiveness isn't putting out full effort while working less than that. If he doesn't agree, find another job fast -- he doesn't know what he's doing.
On the other hand, setting the value based on yearly sales is even less workable, at least for the open source community. The people making most of the money from Linux are the release publishers, not the copyright holder (Linus). Do we really want the paperwork nightmare that would result from trying to manage this?
My own feeling is that the best answer is also the simplest: Cut back the duration of copyright to a more reasonable time -- say, somewhere around 5 to 20 years. I would also, in the case of software, advocate putting the source code in escrow, to be released to the public at the end of the copyright period. There would, of course, be nothing preventing the author from improving the code in the meantime and acquiring new copyrights at any time, but the new copyright would only cover the changes, not the original unmodified code.
Maybe this is too simplistic a viewpoint, but it seems to me that anyone unjustly cut off in this manner could then sue the record company and/or the ISp for having injured his or her reputation falsely, and claim damages based on any number of things. It probably wouldn't too many such suits to make this problem go away.
My wife and I were just talking about this, and agree that it's not because the sports bars have paid for it; after all, there's no "Huge National Association of Sports Bars" for Fox to collect a fee from. We think that it's probably an agreement with some of the big brewers (Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc.), or perhaps even an agreement of all of the big advertisers; they pay Fox for the exemption in order to increase the value of their ads (more viewers = more effective advertising).
Or maybe Fox simply allows the exemption on their own to justify charging more for the ad time? Nah, that's too logical...
OK, here it is -- my SECOND post on my "new today" Slashdot account. (I pushed the submit button by mistake before getting the paragraphing right -- sorry...)
I wrote software for a living for about 24 years, then got RIF'ed by my employer the Thursday before 9/11. It wasn't for lack of trying -- I did try, hard. But I set my sights too high for too long, and by the time I realized how much competition I had, all of my real tech skills were obsolete. Now I've been working in low-level retail for 6 years and I'm trying to get certified as a school teacher because nobody will even hire me for an entry level job; even customer service jobs ask for experience I don't have.
Am I really not worthy of a job in IT? I dunno, but I think so. When I still had one, I got good reviews and raises, not to mention plenty of casual praise and unofficial "attaboys" from peers and superiors. But breaking back in to the field has proven so difficult that, after seven years of futility, I've given up trying.
Is this a "You losers don't know what real problems are" rant? Not really. I can see why none of the people I talked to wanted to hire me, i.e., they had better candidates to choose from, based on skill sets and age (yes, it really happens). I'd think that proven native ability to think creatively, act within a team, communicate knowledgably with users and customers, and so on would count for something, but apparently not, or maybe the other candidates have all of that as well; again, I don't know.
But I do know this: It's nowhere NEAR as easy as it used to be to get a job, unless I'm simply not applying for the right positions, and I've applied for a lot. Most of the complaints I've seen in this thread are nothing new, and most of them are basically "I want things better." The only one I really have sympathy with is long hours, and the solution to that is find a boss who understands how counterproductive lots of overtime is (basically, after a certain point, the error rate rises faster than the number of hours worked, and useful work done goes into negative numbers per hour).
BTW, am I trolling for job offers? Once again, not really, although I wouldn't object to a good one. As I said, my tech skills are now pretty much obsolete, and even if someone did need them, I'd need to do some heavy "brushing up," plus for reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to move. I really have accepted that my IT career is over and I need to move on. But there are still lots of worse ways to try to make a living.
OK, here it is -- my first post on my "new today" Slashdot account. I've been reading /. for some 8 or 10 years now at least, and never felt motivated to join in -- and, lo and behold, here is a topic I really have an opinion on!
I wrote software for a living for about 24 years, then got RIF'ed by my employer the Thursday before 9/11. It wasn't for lack of trying -- I did try, hard. But I set my sights too high for too long, and by the time I realized how much competition I had, all of my real tech skills were obsolete. Now I've been working in low-level retail for 6 years and I'm trying to get certified as a school teacher because nobody will even hire me for an entry level job; even customer service jobs ask for experience I don't have.
Am I really not worthy of a job in IT? I dunno, but I think so. When I still had one, I got good reviews and raises, not to mention plenty of casual praise and unofficial "attaboys" from peers and superiors. But breaking back in to the field has proven so difficult that, after seven years of futility, I've given up trying.
Is this a "You losers don't know what real problems are" rant? Not really. I can see why none of the people I talked to wanted to hire me, i.e., they had better candidates to choose from, based on skill sets and age (yes, it really happens). I'd think that proven native ability to think creatively, act within a team, communicate knowledgably with users and customers, and so on would count for something, but apparently not, or maybe the other candidates have all of that as well; again, I don't know.
But I do know this: It's nowhere NEAR as easy as it used to be to get a job, unless I'm simply not applying for the right positions, and I've applied for a lot. Most of the complaints I've seen in this thread are nothing new, and most of them are basically "I want things better." The only one I really have sympathy with is long hours, and the solution to that is find a boss who understands how counterproductive lots of overtime is (basically, after a certain point, the error rate rises faster than the number of hours worked, and useful work done goes into negative numbers per hour).
BTW, am I trolling for job offers? Once again, not really, although I wouldn't object to a good one. As I said, my tech skills are now pretty much obsolete, and even if someone did need them, I'd need to do some heavy "brushing up," plus for reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to move. I really have accepted that my IT career is over and I need to move on. But there are still lots of worse ways to try to make a living.