Exactly!!! But now that the oil prices inevitably tanked, "please bail us out!!!"
It's like that asshole friend who got a huge inheritance and blew it on blow and hookers is now complaining that they can't make rent.
I was born in BC, probably older than you and I am pretty sure I've considered what I say very carefully. My hyperbole to you is real concern. And increasing tanker traffic without ensuring there is a way to deal with mistakes (which of course never happen until they do) is very real. Read my above comments and read this as it explains why the lies currently being perpetuated https://www.nationalobserver.c...
Some of us in BC actually care about the planet and about the industries that keep our province an amazing place now and forever and aren't willing to sell them out so Joe Bob in Alberta can have 2 four wheelers, a boat, a $100,000 pickup and a 5 bedroom house. Of course if Joe Bon knew about economics he would have realized his inflated oil economy salary wasn't something he should have banked on.
Not a lot goes over rail and what does is not diluted with chemicals that make it much more dangerous. See this https://altex-energy.com/econo...
This isn't like Lac-Mégantic where there is a bunch of flammable liquid fuel. Instead the rail cars are filled with a solid mass, bitumen if you will. If it spills it's totally not good, but won't run into streams and creeks in the same way a tanker spill would of piped product, it would be like a coal spill. But compared to what bitumen with a spill with heavy bitumen in a diluting agent in a marine environment it's not even close to the same risk. We don't even know what it would take to clean up a bitumen spill in a ocean marine environment https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
Yet the Canadian government and Alberta government are willing to put all this risk on BC. And people form BC are supposed to be cool with that?
It would certainly be a lot better if Canada would invest in building refineries adding Canadian jobs and using it's own oil to produce it's own gas. While many like to blame BC, there was a pipeline to the east that was stopped too. And in all the years Alberta was making making profits hand over fist they failed to ever build enough refineries that could turn their heavy oil into a profitable product they just gave tax breaks and ignored the inevitable ups and downs of an oil economy. Look at Alaska permanent fund or Norway's oil savings funds vs. Alberta's historical fund, there's differences, but end of day Alberta had a lot of money that it squandered for decades, and they didn't plan for the inevitable, and are playing the blame game, and BC is a great scape goat.
A pipeline that would be unprofitable and create a much greater risk of environmental damage due to increased tanker traffic just to sell discounted heavy bitumen at a price that is not sustainable. And all the risk would be on BC and all the profit to promote a dysfunctional Alberta oil industry and those have not provinces that would get equalization payments. But BC residents should shoulder all the risk.
https://www.nationalobserver.c...
While the above link is just an opinion piece, it is much more grounded in reality than the rhetoric being promoted by the the federal government in Canada and the provincial government in Alberta.
If your system is setup correctly you should at least check logs and do every thing you can to try and detect an intrusion whenever there is a possible vulnerability. This is part of a sysadmins job.
For instance, after the whole Debian SSL fiasco we checked over all of our logs for any odd or unknown usage and had everyone change their passwords and replaced all keys.
Of course the severity of the vulnerability dictates the actions that are taken.
Basically a good sysadmin will have detection measures in place and a plan to deal with intrusions because no system is completely secure. And a sysadmins job is to monitor all security issues that occur on software used by the systems that he is in control of. This must be in place so that we can remain reasonably safe and secure as can be expected.
So, absolutely yes, every time there is a critical security issue that could have affected your systems you should be spending some extra time to make sure the systems have not been compromised and cleaning up what you can. I wouldn't want a sysadmin working for me that didn't do his job completely as I have explained.
If your system has a vulnerability anyone could have taken advantage of it. So the cleanup should be the same whether you know it was exploited or not.
You should be following the same procedures just in case. It's actually more likely that an unknown black hat stole information or opened back doors than some student who did it as an exercise, an unasked for service but a service nonetheless.
It's like a neighbor who walks by and happens to notice your back door is ajar and leaves you a note informing you that you should lock it. It's a pretty asshole move to reward that sort of kindness and moral decency by arresting him to for being a good neighbor because technically he may have entered your house without permission.
So a student with little to no professional experience makes a blunder in protocol due to that lack of experience. Perhaps a school should warn him, educate him on the proper way of do things and then thank him for doing their jobs for them for free.
And for those sysadmins that think that ignoring vulnerabilities and sweeping mistakes under the carpet is the way to go. You'll never get a job working at my company.
I think Palm beat Palm. All Windows CE had to do was exist to beat Palm's abysmal mismanagement of their PDA business. Palms are a dying platform and whatever plans Access or Palm or whoever is in charge of things these days is talking about will only be successful if it is the only viable platform to run Duke Nukem Forever on.
Understanding grammar is necessary if you want to speak about languages, discuss their structure and design and usage and to understand the differences between languages. Grammar is a very useful tool to understand languages and the differences between languages.
But to speak a language, especially a first language that has been learned since birth one needs to know little more than elementary grammar. Intransitive verbs, for example, are likely outside of the scope of what 90% of the population needs to know to use a language.
A good analogy is to the common PC. To use a PC, one needs to know how to point, click and type (this is a very simplified list). But to understand computers you need to understand binary a lot of math, logic, electrical engineering, software paradigms, languages, development models, and countless other things. These are the grammar, the rules that make computers work. But for little Jane Smith doing her homework assignment down the street all she needs to know is how to open a document, type, save and print the document.
So like a computer while it's a good idea to teach some one the rules, or in language the grammar. The vast majority of people only need a passing familiarity with the rules to actually use a language effectively. And a much better method of teaching language is to simply correct a person when they break the rules, possibly instructing them how they broke the rules and how to convey their meaning within the rules, rather than try and hammer in a bunch of technical grammatical theory.
It seems like a bad idea to have our supposedly best and brightest individuals wasting their time regurgitating the same material that they learned, over and over again in order to make a buck.
It seems to me that society as a whole would be better served by having these individuals being paid to research and write about new and innovative subjects rather than rehashing the same old shit that's been written a thousand other times. How many geography and calculus text books do we need that tell us essentially the same thing?
Propping up our academics by ripping off those we're trying to educate to become the leading edge minds seems like a good way to make sure we have even less academics. I'd say this looks like an economic way to ensure that only the wealthier segments of the population can afford to get educated. And then once a rich kid becomes educated, becomes and academic himself he perpetuates the cycle by writing another book on calculus for no better reason than he needs to make a buck and this seems like a good idea.
It's a crappy cycle and by freeing the information we're hopefully helping to bring an equilibrium to our education system. If we need to raise more money to support our academic pursuits as a society we should be actively seeking a better way to do it than ripping off students. Just because the old way works doesn't mean it's right and also doesn't mean we shouldn't be scared of rustling the feathers of some already well paid professors.
Does that mean that I should get a fifteen minute spank break every two hours at work? I believe it does. I think this should be fast tracked through legislation right away. I gotta go to the bathroom, back in 15;)
- User control sucks, and it sucks to code for. Yeah, it can be disabled, but you can't count on that in your apps - and it's a bitch on older software. I'm a little curious about why the coding for UAC is so bad. I haven't yet had to code anything for Vista so I'm not sure what new APIS are like and what it is like.
But I wonder why having to follow rules like;
Don't write to system files,
don't write to system wide registry hives,
or Basically don't do something a non administrative user shouldn't be able to do is such a big deal.
While UAC may not be implemented as well as it could be. I see the much bigger problem being a bunch of software that was written expecting to be run by an administrator. It seems UAC gets a bad rap because the default behavior of all previous versions of MS Desktop OS's have been so lax on theirs default setup and security.
This article is a nice generalization, but in my situation it flies in the face of the reality. I'm a recent graduate, 2 years out of school, and as far as I can tell this doesn't describe myself or several of my classmates. Not to say that it doesn't describe some, however I'm sure that I could easily find several older individuals in the field that act the same way as these supposed "Generation Yers"
1. They have no job loyalty, they demand more than they're worth, they disrespect older employees,
I've been with the same company since a year before I graduated and have committed to that company for at least another couple years. As long as my boss treats me fairly in comparison to other emplioyers I'll stay with him as long as I can.
2. Demand more than we're worth.
I'm the lowest paid of all the older software developers in the company, even though I do as much or more than them. I chalk it up to the fact that they have more experience and have earned a slightly higher pay scale. If I was egregiously under paid I may have a problem but I don't have a problem with experience based pay provided we don't have any dead weight (see my next point).
3. No respect for older co-workers?
I've always started out my relationship with any older co-workers with an attitude of respect. I generally ask a lot of questions and make sure that I do my best to explain my decisions in a logical, technical manner so they can be judged on their merits alone. The problem starts occurring when you find an older individual that has decided that because they've been around for 30 years that they can stop learning. For instance I had a contractor come to work for us that professed to have 30 years of experience and has build dozens of applications for hand helds (we contracted him to build a PPC application). He was given a fairly standard MVC design, written by myself, to implement. He then proceeded on to ignore everything in the design docs and do it his own way. There was SQL code in the presentation classes, no real mapping of the database to any sort of object model, exceptions disappeared into unhandled try catch blocks. He didn't really know SQL so he created a workaround to store long lists for searching in flat files instead of indexing the appropriate database tables.Basically he showed a complete lack of ignorance about what he was doing. I'm sure he would have been fine programming C on a Palm. But when it came to using a modern OO framework backed by a SQL database he was completely lost. And rather than admit that he doesn't know what's going on, when I've called him on several technical issues he invariably falls back on the argument of "I've been doing this for 30 years. What have you written?"
So if in the face of ignorance from an older individual at a certain point it's hard to be anything but disrespectful of a moron. However, on the other side of that coin I work with some older programmers who have sage like knowledge of the systems we work on. They understand design concepts and technologies stretching back to when I was a kid playing Duke Nukem on my parents PC. I listen to everything they say, I constantly find myself asking advice to about my decisions because the chances are they'll see something I missed. And any critisism that they offer is generally well founded and should be considered if not followed. To those sort of "Older" employees I have nothing but the utmost respect.
So as an individual who is being generalized by the article I think the autor should really understand that theirs all sorts of personality types out there that fit his descriptions. Age or your generation has less to do with these sorts of behaviors and attitudes than the person who holds them.
I completely agree with the above post. When hiring developers it is much more important to look for smart people, who get things done. Not for someone with a lot of keywords in a resume that match your particular environment. Smart programmers will be able to pick up the languages, concepts, methodologies and design patterns used in your current application whatever platform it's on.
A smart developer will be able to tell you whether your application is built in such a way that it can be maintained and expanded upon or if it's such a mess that it may be better to abandon it to re write on another platform. So the real answer to your question is to hire someone who is smart and let them have a lot of input into the decision about platforms, technology and such.
That being said if you can find a smart programmer who also has experience in your platform and in your business domain, that's the cats behind;)
I do a lot of hiring of developers at the company I work for and I've found that my favorite person to read about hiring and interview practices is Joel Spolsky, check out http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html, it's a great article that I've used as the basis for my own interviewing technique. Also check out his archives at Joel On Software. He comments on interviewing and hiring practices a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly!!! But now that the oil prices inevitably tanked, "please bail us out!!!" It's like that asshole friend who got a huge inheritance and blew it on blow and hookers is now complaining that they can't make rent.
I was born in BC, probably older than you and I am pretty sure I've considered what I say very carefully. My hyperbole to you is real concern. And increasing tanker traffic without ensuring there is a way to deal with mistakes (which of course never happen until they do) is very real. Read my above comments and read this as it explains why the lies currently being perpetuated https://www.nationalobserver.c... Some of us in BC actually care about the planet and about the industries that keep our province an amazing place now and forever and aren't willing to sell them out so Joe Bob in Alberta can have 2 four wheelers, a boat, a $100,000 pickup and a 5 bedroom house. Of course if Joe Bon knew about economics he would have realized his inflated oil economy salary wasn't something he should have banked on.
Not a lot goes over rail and what does is not diluted with chemicals that make it much more dangerous. See this https://altex-energy.com/econo... This isn't like Lac-Mégantic where there is a bunch of flammable liquid fuel. Instead the rail cars are filled with a solid mass, bitumen if you will. If it spills it's totally not good, but won't run into streams and creeks in the same way a tanker spill would of piped product, it would be like a coal spill. But compared to what bitumen with a spill with heavy bitumen in a diluting agent in a marine environment it's not even close to the same risk. We don't even know what it would take to clean up a bitumen spill in a ocean marine environment https://www.theglobeandmail.co... Yet the Canadian government and Alberta government are willing to put all this risk on BC. And people form BC are supposed to be cool with that?
It would certainly be a lot better if Canada would invest in building refineries adding Canadian jobs and using it's own oil to produce it's own gas. While many like to blame BC, there was a pipeline to the east that was stopped too. And in all the years Alberta was making making profits hand over fist they failed to ever build enough refineries that could turn their heavy oil into a profitable product they just gave tax breaks and ignored the inevitable ups and downs of an oil economy. Look at Alaska permanent fund or Norway's oil savings funds vs. Alberta's historical fund, there's differences, but end of day Alberta had a lot of money that it squandered for decades, and they didn't plan for the inevitable, and are playing the blame game, and BC is a great scape goat.
A pipeline that would be unprofitable and create a much greater risk of environmental damage due to increased tanker traffic just to sell discounted heavy bitumen at a price that is not sustainable. And all the risk would be on BC and all the profit to promote a dysfunctional Alberta oil industry and those have not provinces that would get equalization payments. But BC residents should shoulder all the risk. https://www.nationalobserver.c... While the above link is just an opinion piece, it is much more grounded in reality than the rhetoric being promoted by the the federal government in Canada and the provincial government in Alberta.
If your system is setup correctly you should at least check logs and do every thing you can to try and detect an intrusion whenever there is a possible vulnerability. This is part of a sysadmins job.
For instance, after the whole Debian SSL fiasco we checked over all of our logs for any odd or unknown usage and had everyone change their passwords and replaced all keys.
Of course the severity of the vulnerability dictates the actions that are taken.
Basically a good sysadmin will have detection measures in place and a plan to deal with intrusions because no system is completely secure. And a sysadmins job is to monitor all security issues that occur on software used by the systems that he is in control of. This must be in place so that we can remain reasonably safe and secure as can be expected.
So, absolutely yes, every time there is a critical security issue that could have affected your systems you should be spending some extra time to make sure the systems have not been compromised and cleaning up what you can. I wouldn't want a sysadmin working for me that didn't do his job completely as I have explained.
If your system has a vulnerability anyone could have taken advantage of it. So the cleanup should be the same whether you know it was exploited or not. You should be following the same procedures just in case. It's actually more likely that an unknown black hat stole information or opened back doors than some student who did it as an exercise, an unasked for service but a service nonetheless. It's like a neighbor who walks by and happens to notice your back door is ajar and leaves you a note informing you that you should lock it. It's a pretty asshole move to reward that sort of kindness and moral decency by arresting him to for being a good neighbor because technically he may have entered your house without permission. So a student with little to no professional experience makes a blunder in protocol due to that lack of experience. Perhaps a school should warn him, educate him on the proper way of do things and then thank him for doing their jobs for them for free. And for those sysadmins that think that ignoring vulnerabilities and sweeping mistakes under the carpet is the way to go. You'll never get a job working at my company.
documenttaries? I thought those were porn sites ;)
Look at how Windows CE eventually beat Palm.
I think Palm beat Palm. All Windows CE had to do was exist to beat Palm's abysmal mismanagement of their PDA business. Palms are a dying platform and whatever plans Access or Palm or whoever is in charge of things these days is talking about will only be successful if it is the only viable platform to run Duke Nukem Forever on.
Understanding grammar is necessary if you want to speak about languages, discuss their structure and design and usage and to understand the differences between languages. Grammar is a very useful tool to understand languages and the differences between languages.
But to speak a language, especially a first language that has been learned since birth one needs to know little more than elementary grammar. Intransitive verbs, for example, are likely outside of the scope of what 90% of the population needs to know to use a language.
A good analogy is to the common PC. To use a PC, one needs to know how to point, click and type (this is a very simplified list). But to understand computers you need to understand binary a lot of math, logic, electrical engineering, software paradigms, languages, development models, and countless other things. These are the grammar, the rules that make computers work. But for little Jane Smith doing her homework assignment down the street all she needs to know is how to open a document, type, save and print the document.
So like a computer while it's a good idea to teach some one the rules, or in language the grammar. The vast majority of people only need a passing familiarity with the rules to actually use a language effectively. And a much better method of teaching language is to simply correct a person when they break the rules, possibly instructing them how they broke the rules and how to convey their meaning within the rules, rather than try and hammer in a bunch of technical grammatical theory.
It seems like a bad idea to have our supposedly best and brightest individuals wasting their time regurgitating the same material that they learned, over and over again in order to make a buck.
It seems to me that society as a whole would be better served by having these individuals being paid to research and write about new and innovative subjects rather than rehashing the same old shit that's been written a thousand other times. How many geography and calculus text books do we need that tell us essentially the same thing?
Propping up our academics by ripping off those we're trying to educate to become the leading edge minds seems like a good way to make sure we have even less academics. I'd say this looks like an economic way to ensure that only the wealthier segments of the population can afford to get educated. And then once a rich kid becomes educated, becomes and academic himself he perpetuates the cycle by writing another book on calculus for no better reason than he needs to make a buck and this seems like a good idea.
It's a crappy cycle and by freeing the information we're hopefully helping to bring an equilibrium to our education system. If we need to raise more money to support our academic pursuits as a society we should be actively seeking a better way to do it than ripping off students. Just because the old way works doesn't mean it's right and also doesn't mean we shouldn't be scared of rustling the feathers of some already well paid professors.
This article is a nice generalization, but in my situation it flies in the face of the reality. I'm a recent graduate, 2 years out of school, and as far as I can tell this doesn't describe myself or several of my classmates. Not to say that it doesn't describe some, however I'm sure that I could easily find several older individuals in the field that act the same way as these supposed "Generation Yers"
1. They have no job loyalty, they demand more than they're worth, they disrespect older employees,
I've been with the same company since a year before I graduated and have committed to that company for at least another couple years. As long as my boss treats me fairly in comparison to other emplioyers I'll stay with him as long as I can.
2. Demand more than we're worth.
I'm the lowest paid of all the older software developers in the company, even though I do as much or more than them. I chalk it up to the fact that they have more experience and have earned a slightly higher pay scale. If I was egregiously under paid I may have a problem but I don't have a problem with experience based pay provided we don't have any dead weight (see my next point).
3. No respect for older co-workers?
I've always started out my relationship with any older co-workers with an attitude of respect. I generally ask a lot of questions and make sure that I do my best to explain my decisions in a logical, technical manner so they can be judged on their merits alone.
The problem starts occurring when you find an older individual that has decided that because they've been around for 30 years that they can stop learning. For instance I had a contractor come to work for us that professed to have 30 years of experience and has build dozens of applications for hand helds (we contracted him to build a PPC application). He was given a fairly standard MVC design, written by myself, to implement. He then proceeded on to ignore everything in the design docs and do it his own way. There was SQL code in the presentation classes, no real mapping of the database to any sort of object model, exceptions disappeared into unhandled try catch blocks. He didn't really know SQL so he created a workaround to store long lists for searching in flat files instead of indexing the appropriate database tables.Basically he showed a complete lack of ignorance about what he was doing. I'm sure he would have been fine programming C on a Palm. But when it came to using a modern OO framework backed by a SQL database he was completely lost. And rather than admit that he doesn't know what's going on, when I've called him on several technical issues he invariably falls back on the argument of "I've been doing this for 30 years. What have you written?"
So if in the face of ignorance from an older individual at a certain point it's hard to be anything but disrespectful of a moron. However, on the other side of that coin I work with some older programmers who have sage like knowledge of the systems we work on. They understand design concepts and technologies stretching back to when I was a kid playing Duke Nukem on my parents PC. I listen to everything they say, I constantly find myself asking advice to about my decisions because the chances are they'll see something I missed. And any critisism that they offer is generally well founded and should be considered if not followed. To those sort of "Older" employees I have nothing but the utmost respect.
So as an individual who is being generalized by the article I think the autor should really understand that theirs all sorts of personality types out there that fit his descriptions. Age or your generation has less to do with these sorts of behaviors and attitudes than the person who holds them.
I completely agree with the above post. When hiring developers it is much more important to look for smart people, who get things done. Not for someone with a lot of keywords in a resume that match your particular environment. Smart programmers will be able to pick up the languages, concepts, methodologies and design patterns used in your current application whatever platform it's on.
;)
A smart developer will be able to tell you whether your application is built in such a way that it can be maintained and expanded upon or if it's such a mess that it may be better to abandon it to re write on another platform. So the real answer to your question is to hire someone who is smart and let them have a lot of input into the decision about platforms, technology and such.
That being said if you can find a smart programmer who also has experience in your platform and in your business domain, that's the cats behind
I do a lot of hiring of developers at the company I work for and I've found that my favorite person to read about hiring and interview practices is Joel Spolsky, check out http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html, it's a great article that I've used as the basis for my own interviewing technique. Also check out his archives at Joel On Software. He comments on interviewing and hiring practices a lot.