On the other hand, if you are a project manager looking for contractors, you really do need someone who is not going to spend 6 months learning the tools (not syntax, but the libraries)
#1. If they're taking 6 months, you've got the wrong person. Anyone who is decently qualified would be able to pick up the new tool in less than a month.
#2. You'd have to be a damn good project manager to be able to spec out the requirements sufficiently that you could hire a contractor like that.
Most companies can't afford (relatively) unlimited development resources, and adaptation takes the most scarce resource in technology development: time.
Which is why you want to hire people who can learn new approaches quickly. And the goods ones can. They know the technology, not the tool. So it becomes an issue of learning the idiosyncrasies of the tool as opposed to other tools that you have used.
The average professional spends 50 minutes a day sending emails after work, according to a survey conducted by Cohesive Knowledge Solutions, a company that trains companies and employees on email efficiency.
And since I spend NO time after work sending any work emails... someone out there is spending an awful lot of time to make up for my slacking.
Goldman said the discussion, "opened up this conversation: Is work done on a BlackBerry out of the office work?"
Anything done on such a device after hours that benefit the employer is considered work, say experts.
I disagree with that. I'd say that "work" would be anything you'd be paid to do (and not fired for doing) in the office. If you do it after hours, it's still work.
I frequently do things after hours that benefit the company I work for. Such as reading.
Representative McDermott voted against it in the House.
Senators Cantwell and Murray voted against it in the Senate.
It's up to you to get involved in politics and make sure your Congress Critters know what YOUR opinion is and WHY you hold that opinion.
I will work to get those three people elected again because they're the best hope we have now of getting this thing repealed.
Do your part and get involved. If your Congress Critters voted for it (or failed to vote at all) then find out which of their opponents would support it and work to get their opponents elected.
So, the current rules say that everything must be under the domain "house.gov".
But the video tools available (how so?) are not what they want. This is flaky.
And the bandwidth can be a problem. I understand that.
So, the simple solution is to allow each Congress Critter to set up his/her own sub-domain.house.gov wherever s/he wants to. With whatever bandwidth s/he wants to purchase. Particularly if it is from a local provider.
They just have very specialized knowledge. The knowledge of how to get themselves elected, keep getting re-elected and moving up the chain of authority.
All of that schmoozing and such does not leave much time for learning anything else.
So they rely upon "advisors" for their "information". And said "information" has to be communicated to them in the least technical terms. Which results in statements about "tubes" and "trucks".
But to be fair to them, my CFO asked a little while ago if the power problems we had were a result of her sending an email to Iceland. After all, it must take a lot more power to push the message that far than to push it across the street.
I think the answers seemed vacuous because people were asking specific questions.
Yep. And isn't that what was asked for? Won't self-motivated people always ask specific questions about subjects that interest them?
The "vacuous" bit was from his comment:
For example, you and I are engaged in a cyber-electronic engagement right now: I'm answering you through cyberspace, as opposed to in person, in order to achieve the effect of informing you.
So you and I are now "engaged" in a "cyber-electronic engagement" because we are both posting to/. here.
In which case "cyber-electronic" is redundant. There is no non-electronic means of accessing "cyberspace" as he uses the term.
And I'm sure that Taco can point to the physical boxes that house slashdot. So "cyberspace" is a little... whatever.
Nice answers. Completely vacuous, but nice. Let's take one of mine:
What, specifically, would be a "cyber-electronic engagement".
...and...
As I mentioned in my preface, I'll try to stick to my lane. I have been given the challenge... 2015 and beyond. Sometimes I feel like I'm part science fiction writer,... proverbial windmill. All that said,... create effects both in cyberspace and through cyberspace.... grouping these "things" under the banner Cyber-Electronics... For example, you and I are engaged in a cyber-electronic engagement right now: I'm answering you through cyberspace, as opposed to in person, in order to achieve the effect of informing you.
Us ex-military types refer to that as "email".
At its foundation... effects generation and management. Traditionally... physical domain... military operations... cognitive effects... cyberspace... cognitive... inform, affect and influence our beliefs, values, dogmas and, ultimately, decisions. One of... luxury of "engaging" (there's that word again) in discussions, debates, and decision processes that actually cause me to think beyond traditional military functions, and I get to "engage" in these forums with some pretty smart, outside-of-the-box thinkers who are not in uniform (and some who are!).
And us ex-military types refer to that as "propaganda". White, black or gray. Usually handled by the Psychological Operations staff.
There has long been a debate about the appropriateness of the military participating in influence operations but if we think about it, influence operations are fundamental to everything we as a society do.
No. There has not been ANY debate about it... provided it is targeted at a declared enemy.
The ONLY debate is about whether the military should be targeting propaganda at our own people AND during peacetime.
Rather than shy away from the debate, we are actively embracing it as we strive to articulate an appropriate role for the Army in cyberspace. The American Public, too, has its role - that of defining the checks and balances that proscribe the acceptable limits of these operations.
The limits were already known. Calling email "a cyber-electronic engagement" does NOT change the facts.
#1. That the CIO could recognize documentation if he saw it (mine cannot).
#2. That the CIO would check that people were following the policy to maintain the documention (mine does not).
#3. That the CIO knows what the mission-critical functions are (mine cannot tell the difference between the email app running on his workstation and NAS).
I was told to find the "problem" on the "network" because one of our programmers was having trouble opening MS Word documents and he told the CIO who remembered that there had been a time about a week or so ago when his email app was very slow. Therefore, it must be a network problem. Go find the network problem. Stop telling him that there isn't one.
The pay is good and I can walk to work AND there is almost no oversight. I can work on what I want the way I want. Except for the times when the CIO feels the need to exercise his authority.
I went through the same process. But none of my instructors every understood the futility of grading homework when I'm paying for the opportunity to attend the class to learn the material.
They should not be wasting their time going over the assignments to see if I'm following the material. That should be my job. They should be spending that time making themselves available for questions I might have on the material.
Sketch it out on a timeline and you'll understand. By the time you know you made a mistake in the traditional process, most of the week will be over and MORE time will be wasted. And you'll end up having to go over material from Monday when you're on Wednesday instead of focusing on the material you just learned on Tuesday (which won't be addressed until Friday then).
For 99% of the courses, 99.9% of the material will NOT change from year to year.
Yet the textbooks are re-released almost every year.
Now, the only downsides I see to having Free (as in Freedom) textbooks available in digital form are:
#1. The answers to the exercises WILL be available on-line. So? If the instructor cannot come up with his/her own exercises then s/he needs to find a new job.
#2. Printing on a laser printer is more expensive than in a print shop. But if students only print out the exercises, they save paper anyway.
They'd have fewer sales, of course. But the fewer sales would be a tiny portion of the sales of their most popular items.
But a company that ignores the most popular items will have a very difficult time making a profit. That's the "tail" portion. Which was claimed to... eventually... be MORE profitable than the most popular items.
Obama will be heavily attacked this fall for any appearance of being 'soft' on terrorism. He's between a rock and a hard place,...
So? Deal with it! He wants to be the President. And he's willing to fold on this issue? Just because he MIGHT not be elected if he doesn't fold?
Courage would be standing up to the Republicans (and the bought and paid-for Democrats) and saying that we do NOT need this law and that it would violate our Constitution.
Folding just so he can be elected... that's the opposite of courage.
Take the fight to the Republicans. Explain to the people HOW this bill is needed or NOT needed. No more of the platitude of "fight terrorism".
A - floppy drive B - floppy drive C - first recognized hard drive D - CD/DVD drive E - first usable network drive letter... Z - last usable network drive letter
Yes, I know that it LOOKS like a lot. But in practice, they get eaten up REAL fast. Particularly if the person who had the job before you had no concept of "advance planning".
And once a drive letter is assigned, and used by an installed program, it can be a real bitch to get it changed. Not to mention that some apps "help" you by requiring a specific drive letter (our accounting app does this).
On my workstation, I have the following LOCAL drive letters. A - USB floppy drive (should I ever need it) B - reserved C - First hard drive (first partition). OS & crap that refuses to install elsewhere. D - First hard drive (third partition). Data & anything I can get off of C.... R - CD/DVD (R is for "Removable"). S - First hard drive (second partition). This is for the swap file and temporary files.... U - First USB attached hard drive / stick / whatever. (U is for "USB").... Z - Second USB attached hard drive with my music files on it.
That leaves 18 drive letters for network drives. Again, it sounds like a lot. But in practice, I end up having to juggle them a lot.
If you expect the system to be telepathic (which you seem to), you are bound to be disappointed. The problem isn't Amazon's algorithm, rather the problem is your unwarranted assumption of its capabilities.
I expect that giving a system 21 pieces of information would make it more accurate than giving it 1 piece of information.
You disagree with that.
Yet I can easily describe a system where it would be more accurate. And I have done so in this forum.
It is easy for you to argue for your limitations. Just don't expect me to subscribe to them.
Does anyone in the USofA really care if Britain allows sitename.xxx.uk ?
Does anyone in Germany care that there is a sitename.mobile.us ?
All the.com and.org and.net and... were okay when the Internet was tiny and mostly USofA only. But it showed a complete lack of forward planning. Decentralize the names. Let each country work it out. Particularly for the countries using alphabets that don't match 100% with USofA English.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care about all the cool features. Just give me a Windows filesystem that doesn't fragment during NORMAL usage.
And be VERY specific about WHY you are doing so.
Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.
#1. If they're taking 6 months, you've got the wrong person. Anyone who is decently qualified would be able to pick up the new tool in less than a month.
#2. You'd have to be a damn good project manager to be able to spec out the requirements sufficiently that you could hire a contractor like that.
Which is why you want to hire people who can learn new approaches quickly. And the goods ones can. They know the technology, not the tool. So it becomes an issue of learning the idiosyncrasies of the tool as opposed to other tools that you have used.
Exactly!
You do NOT have a right to my vote simply because you're running AGAINST someone.
You have to EARN my vote and if someone else is better at earning it, then that person deserves it.
It's called "principles". I you have them, you understand.
If you don't, you'll never understand.
It's about keeping your principles. NOT about winning elections.
Be specific. Exactly HOW is it better?
From everything that I can see, it is WORSE.
Bush clearly stated that he WOULD veto any bill that did not include telecom immunity.
And Bush would blame the DEMOCRATS for not sending him something he could sign.
So Bush has the balls to veto "needed tools for national security" if they came with provisions that he did not like.
But Obama does not.
how are you going to lead the country?
Leaders do NOT compromise their core values.
Anything that they DO compromise on is NOT a core value for them.
Obama "compromised" on the 4th Amendment, his previous statements and telecom immunity with that vote.
Why? Did he suddenly start believing the opposite of what he believed before?
No, he did it because he thought that preemptive capitulation would make him look "strong".
He cravenly caved to a lame duck President.
Kind of like voting for a war ... and then opposing it.
The time for thoughtful consideration is BEFORE the damage is done.
Words are cheap.
From TFA:
And since I spend NO time after work sending any work emails ... someone out there is spending an awful lot of time to make up for my slacking.
I disagree with that. I'd say that "work" would be anything you'd be paid to do (and not fired for doing) in the office. If you do it after hours, it's still work.
I frequently do things after hours that benefit the company I work for. Such as reading.
From Washington state:
Representative McDermott voted against it in the House.
Senators Cantwell and Murray voted against it in the Senate.
It's up to you to get involved in politics and make sure your Congress Critters know what YOUR opinion is and WHY you hold that opinion.
I will work to get those three people elected again because they're the best hope we have now of getting this thing repealed.
Do your part and get involved. If your Congress Critters voted for it (or failed to vote at all) then find out which of their opponents would support it and work to get their opponents elected.
Democracy works, but it takes work.
So, the current rules say that everything must be under the domain "house.gov".
But the video tools available (how so?) are not what they want. This is flaky.
And the bandwidth can be a problem. I understand that.
So, the simple solution is to allow each Congress Critter to set up his/her own sub-domain.house.gov wherever s/he wants to. With whatever bandwidth s/he wants to purchase. Particularly if it is from a local provider.
They just have very specialized knowledge. The knowledge of how to get themselves elected, keep getting re-elected and moving up the chain of authority.
All of that schmoozing and such does not leave much time for learning anything else.
So they rely upon "advisors" for their "information". And said "information" has to be communicated to them in the least technical terms. Which results in statements about "tubes" and "trucks".
But to be fair to them, my CFO asked a little while ago if the power problems we had were a result of her sending an email to Iceland. After all, it must take a lot more power to push the message that far than to push it across the street.
Yep. And isn't that what was asked for? Won't self-motivated people always ask specific questions about subjects that interest them?
The "vacuous" bit was from his comment:
So you and I are now "engaged" in a "cyber-electronic engagement" because we are both posting to /. here.
In which case "cyber-electronic" is redundant. There is no non-electronic means of accessing "cyberspace" as he uses the term.
And I'm sure that Taco can point to the physical boxes that house slashdot. So "cyberspace" is a little ... whatever.
I'll still refer to it as "posting on slashdot".
Nice answers. Completely vacuous, but nice. Let's take one of mine:
Us ex-military types refer to that as "email".
And us ex-military types refer to that as "propaganda". White, black or gray. Usually handled by the Psychological Operations staff.
No. There has not been ANY debate about it ... provided it is targeted at a declared enemy.
The ONLY debate is about whether the military should be targeting propaganda at our own people AND during peacetime.
The limits were already known. Calling email "a cyber-electronic engagement" does NOT change the facts.
#1. That the CIO could recognize documentation if he saw it (mine cannot).
#2. That the CIO would check that people were following the policy to maintain the documention (mine does not).
#3. That the CIO knows what the mission-critical functions are (mine cannot tell the difference between the email app running on his workstation and NAS).
I was told to find the "problem" on the "network" because one of our programmers was having trouble opening MS Word documents and he told the CIO who remembered that there had been a time about a week or so ago when his email app was very slow. Therefore, it must be a network problem. Go find the network problem. Stop telling him that there isn't one.
The pay is good and I can walk to work AND there is almost no oversight. I can work on what I want the way I want. Except for the times when the CIO feels the need to exercise his authority.
... would the address of your local waste recycling center.
Electronic spam is bad because the sender pays almost nothing (just bounces it through zombies).
But if the spammer is paying for PAPER to be delivered ... send more! Drive up their costs and drive them out of business.
Considering all the spyware and such that was installed ... wouldn't an anti-virus company be interested in it?
I went through the same process. But none of my instructors every understood the futility of grading homework when I'm paying for the opportunity to attend the class to learn the material.
They should not be wasting their time going over the assignments to see if I'm following the material. That should be my job. They should be spending that time making themselves available for questions I might have on the material.
Sketch it out on a timeline and you'll understand. By the time you know you made a mistake in the traditional process, most of the week will be over and MORE time will be wasted. And you'll end up having to go over material from Monday when you're on Wednesday instead of focusing on the material you just learned on Tuesday (which won't be addressed until Friday then).
Sad isn't it?
For 99% of the courses, 99.9% of the material will NOT change from year to year.
Yet the textbooks are re-released almost every year.
Now, the only downsides I see to having Free (as in Freedom) textbooks available in digital form are:
#1. The answers to the exercises WILL be available on-line. So? If the instructor cannot come up with his/her own exercises then s/he needs to find a new job.
#2. Printing on a laser printer is more expensive than in a print shop. But if students only print out the exercises, they save paper anyway.
Any others?
They'd have fewer sales, of course. But the fewer sales would be a tiny portion of the sales of their most popular items.
But a company that ignores the most popular items will have a very difficult time making a profit. That's the "tail" portion. Which was claimed to ... eventually ... be MORE profitable than the most popular items.
So? Deal with it! He wants to be the President. And he's willing to fold on this issue? Just because he MIGHT not be elected if he doesn't fold?
Courage would be standing up to the Republicans (and the bought and paid-for Democrats) and saying that we do NOT need this law and that it would violate our Constitution.
Folding just so he can be elected ... that's the opposite of courage.
Take the fight to the Republicans. Explain to the people HOW this bill is needed or NOT needed. No more of the platitude of "fight terrorism".
I kind of supported their decision NOT to issue a .xxx TLD. But mostly because I believe it SHOULD be issued at the country name level.
Example:
sitename.xxx.uk
or
sitename.xxx.seattle.wa.us
Now they've gone in the opposite direction, but they're still as stupid as they were back when they made that first decision.
A - floppy drive ...
B - floppy drive
C - first recognized hard drive
D - CD/DVD drive
E - first usable network drive letter
Z - last usable network drive letter
Yes, I know that it LOOKS like a lot. But in practice, they get eaten up REAL fast. Particularly if the person who had the job before you had no concept of "advance planning".
And once a drive letter is assigned, and used by an installed program, it can be a real bitch to get it changed. Not to mention that some apps "help" you by requiring a specific drive letter (our accounting app does this).
On my workstation, I have the following LOCAL drive letters. ... ... ...
A - USB floppy drive (should I ever need it)
B - reserved
C - First hard drive (first partition). OS & crap that refuses to install elsewhere.
D - First hard drive (third partition). Data & anything I can get off of C.
R - CD/DVD (R is for "Removable").
S - First hard drive (second partition). This is for the swap file and temporary files.
U - First USB attached hard drive / stick / whatever. (U is for "USB").
Z - Second USB attached hard drive with my music files on it.
That leaves 18 drive letters for network drives. Again, it sounds like a lot. But in practice, I end up having to juggle them a lot.
You disagree with that.
Yet I can easily describe a system where it would be more accurate. And I have done so in this forum.
It is easy for you to argue for your limitations. Just don't expect me to subscribe to them.
Let each country manage its own servers.
Does anyone in the USofA really care if Britain allows sitename.xxx.uk ?
Does anyone in Germany care that there is a sitename.mobile.us ?
All the .com and .org and .net and ... were okay when the Internet was tiny and mostly USofA only. But it showed a complete lack of forward planning. Decentralize the names. Let each country work it out. Particularly for the countries using alphabets that don't match 100% with USofA English.