The most common thing I see is those people who have families or want to work fewer hours move into management (for better or worse for those managed by them) positions where they're still somewhat technical, just not on "the front line."
Just because someone has the requisite technical skills for IT does not mean that they have the people skills needed to manage others. In fact, my experience is that the majority do not. There are exceptions of course.
If you know your stuff, why would your employer want to fire you?
How about this scenario:
You've just had surgery for cancer and are finishing treatment. Your productivity is lower than pre-cancer, but improving weekly as your strength returns. The company is small and is taking a pretty hard hit on group insurance because two of their employees are undergoing cancer treatment. They do a little fishing and find someone (freshly trained) who will work for half and has the energy to get twice as much done (quality doesn't enter the picture somehow).
It took me nine months to find something new. Half that time I was still undergoing treatment.
Would that be an RPG based on the books by Roger Zelazney (sp?)? I haven't been into RPG for years, so pardon the ignorance. Mr. Z had some of the most imaginative story lines I'd ever read. Enjoyed the series and his other books as well.
Ummm (I'm guessing that's how replies to this thread are supposed to start now) I think the reference is to "The Bible" when used in this way. The word Bible is actually derived from the Phonecian city, Byblos. Today the term Bible connotes a complete, authoritative guide. The use of the term 'bible' as the simple equivalent of 'book' is obsolete.
The irony (and poignancy) for those who have first read "Fire" is that the events of "Deepness" occur deep in the Slow Zone, where FTL, human-plus computing and the Singularity are impossible due to the division of our galaxy (and apparently other galaxies) into distinct regions following lines of mean density (the core is the Unthinking Depths, Sol is in the Slow Zone....
I don't think there's any animosity against Mr. Baker. When George was going over the cast selections, decisions had to be made. Kenny just didn't make the short list.
Sometimes suing the party with the deep pockets is what stops this sort of thing by setting precedent. The guy with the deep pockets (AOL in this case) has the resources to fight through the appeals courts and field a crack legal team in the process.
Well, considering that they couldn't mention Oracle by name even if it was involved in performance testing (because of its draconian no-reviews license agreement) I don't see how you can rule it out.
Do any other RDBMS' license agreements have such clauses?
I'm no lawyer, but I would have to wonder if there isn't a constitutionally protected right to free speech that prevents this sort of "license" from having any force.
You could always publish a benchmark and make yours the test case.
I am quite surprised that the Postgres results are almost 3 times that of proprietary databases. That seems kind of fishy - surely the big proprietary databases aren't THAT slow.
Someone who was very familiar with Postgres and not very familiar with Oracle, Informix or whatever else might easily obtain that sort of result. A misconfigured database can creep along at a snail's pace.
Is this some sort of twisted survey to find out what my position on abortion is?
Not at all. My question was with regard to laws that establish a 'bubble' or 'zone' around an abortion clinic that protesters cannot enter, even if it's a public sidewalk in front of the building. Abortion wasn't the issue, protest was and your prior posts seemed to indicate that you would be willing to limit the rights of all abortion protestors because of the illegal actions of a few. You appear to base this upon your belief that all of them are murderous at heart and that their rights should be infringed because they might act on what you believe their desires to be.
I will say again (no matter what you may choose to think of me personally): the city of Philadelphia certainly did deny the protestors their rights, obviously, openly, with intent and premeditation.
I never offered an opinion on you personally, only questioning your statements.
You seem to be reading a great deal into my repeated assertions that I don't care about your issue, and will not take to the streets to support it. I can't help that, but I can tell you that you are totally off the mark in accusing me of advocating the denial of the anti-abortion protesters' rights. I would be quite pleased if the anti-abortionists could figure out how to execise their rights without trampling the rights of (killing) others, and it's not my damned fault that they can't.
You don't care about the rights of protestors to peaceably assemble, to engage in civil disobedience? I'm not referring to bombings and killings, that is an extension of your inferred personal loss that seemingly has clouded your otherwise rational thinking. My issue was the rights of the people to engage in protest. Your earlier posts led me to believe that you had been present at a number of such protests and I incorrectly assumed that you would be aware of the laws I mentioned.
I really must demand you back this up. And what do you imagine I deem corrupt or evil? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Based on your prior posts, I assumed you found the protestors in Seattle to be the good guys and the WTO attendees to be corrupt. You seemed to applaud the impediments the protestors caused that delayed the conference. You also seemed to side with the protestors in Philadelphia against the corrupt politicians and thought blocking the streets perfectly acceptable. If these are not your positions you might try re-reading your own posts unless you were just playing devil's advocate.
No, I pointed out that murder is not civil disobediance. And that I frankly disbelieve mini-me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eduardo when he claims that the anti-abortion crowd is not a bunch of violent freaks.
If someone who had suffered personal loss at the hands of Black Panthers in the 60's made the same statement, replacing 'anti-abortion crowd' with 'blacks' I'm sure that you would be able to see the irrationality of the statement. While ideology is not the same as race, there are many layers on both sides of that issue and tarring all anti's with the same broad brush is irrational. When you look at the civil rights movement you see two reactions to violence. One was the path taken by Martin Luther King, Jr. who taught that all whites were not murderous blackhearts and dreamed of a day when there could be harmony among the races. The other reaction was to become bitter and to tar all whites with the same brush. Those who followed this path often became murderous in their own right and found themselves acting just like those who were the object of their bitterness.
That said, if you want to paint Eric Rudolph as a protestor, and class murder as civil disobediance, I'm willing to discuss it, but be warned: I will expect you to apply the same standard to the WTO, Philly, and LA protestors. E.g. If they bomb the convention hall, you have to admit that it was just civil disobediance, not murder....
You seem to be the one reading too much into the writings of others. Rudolph is a killer and should be brought to justice. Bombs are the tools of terrorists. Even if no person was harmed in an explosion - whether to shut down an abortion clinic or to stop a WTO conference - it is still not an act of civil disobedience.
I'm sorry about your loss by the way. I understand now why you missed the points I was trying to make.
The mayor of Philadelphia obviously disagrees, since he took rather drastic measures to ensure in advance that the protesters would not be allowed to assemble, speak, etc.....
The fact that the bosses are not acting in the interest of the citizen is manifest in actions like throwing a 7 foot chain link fence around Philadelphia city parks the day before the protest...
By removing access to public property it could easily be argued that the city effectively denied the protesters the right to peaceable assembly. Had I not read some of your other posts I would think that we were on common ground here. How do you view similar laws that prevent abortion protesters from approaching abortion clinics? Again, you seem to have no problem with impediments to those you deem corrupt or evil, but have only contempt for those who would exercise the same rights to free speech, assembly and association if the object of their protest is counter to your own beliefs.
Nevertheless, the laws have to come from somewhere. You're denial that said laws are supposed to originate with the people is hollow.
I think you misunderstood my assertion. I agree that the laws are supposed to come from the people, but you and I both know that that isn't often the case. My statement was simply that 'the will of the people' in some instances may not be any better than the will of the power mongers.
Again, though, that sidesteps my original point that the cops (actually the bosses -- mayor, etc) should be acting in the interest of the private citizen, not the corporate or foriegn national interests.
The cops are sworn to uphold the law (so are politicians, but that's another discussion). Civil disobedience is an attempt to awaken the conscience of the people to bad laws. The fact remains that you champion those who protest one law while chastising others who do the same. It seems as though it is not the rights of the people you champion but the rights of those aligned with your way of thinking only.
I thought that it was people like Woz that came up with the really cool stuff, and Jobs was just the man in the suit who sells it to the masses...
I am not an Apple fanatic and have never even owned one of their products. I do have a Next machine that I got a year ago just for the novelty of it but don't really use it (except for the 'guess where the power button is' game). However, I have a great deal of respect for Woz AND Jobs. While Woz was the tech genius behind the creation of the Apple products (and arguably the PC industry as well), Jobs was just as much the marketing savant that opened the collective consciousness of the people to the possibilities of computing at home. I don't see the PC revolution happening with the speed it did without Jobs. He's a guy that thinks outside the box (I hate cliches) all the time.
If Jobs were in the automotive industry, he'd have been the guy coming up with the Dodge Viper's look, but without performance you couldn't justify the Viper's price. That was the problem with Next. It absolutely reeked with cachet but that alone wasn't sufficient to drive sales at the price they were asking.
Well, now, proof is a bit different, isn't it. I'm flinging unsubstantiated accusations, and you're saying "You can't prove it." Your right, I can't....
Surely you're not advocating prosecution without evidence?
Who said anything about prosecuting someone based on the "will of the people"?
Well, I guess I did. You know, the will of the people; the electorate; the ones those lawmakers are supposed to represent....? Get it? Pretty basic stuff from amerikan govt for you to be quibbling with...
Except that the will of the people is often immoral. You're advocating civil disobedience due to laws you consider immoral, but don't have a problem as long as it's 'the will of the people' with no such constraints. Consider Jim Crow laws of the South which represented the will of the majority of southern voters at the time. I'm sure you could come up with modern equivalents that you may find morally reprehensible but the majority of 'the people' support. It seems you only support the will of the people when it coincides with your own viewpoint. Most of us are probably the same way, but I have a problem with giving the appearance of staking a claim to some moral high ground when you seem unwilling to extend the same consideration to others.
I have a Next box (complete with original invoice). Maybe it was the price. $17k US with a printer and a modem and this was the low end machine. There is a significant coolness factor even today, but not at that price.
You have a right to assembly. The delegates at the WTO had a right to assembly too. I have the right to use the streets to go where I want to. If you try to hinder other peoples rights to assembly, I have no problem with your rights being taken away at that point.
You have the right to peacably assemble. You don't have the right to block traffic, break windows, etc. Why would you be willing to toss someone else's rights just because they try to hinder someone else's freedom to peacably assemble? At that point aren't you just as guilty and therefore just as liable to have your own rights removed?
He is being asked, for no reason other than how he is dressed, to surrender his rights.
No. He may have been approached because of his attire, but his response aroused suspicion (and probably raised the hackles of the officer) and that, coupled with the sensitive nature of the place and time might have been sufficient to move him from a position where it would be an unreasonable search to probable cause.
I find it interesting that a number of people here are willing to take the witness of a single individual as an exact narrative. This isn't even the views of an objective third party, but a participant. There may have been something about his actions that brought suspicion rather than his clothing choices alone. Maybe I'm reading something into the prose, but his characterization of the various participants and the eyes boring into his medulla..... c'mon. It sounds like he was creating his own pulp novel. "What's it to you, flatfoot?" The names have been changed, but the attitude still hangs in the air like stale cigarette smoke above the scarred felt of a dimly lit billiard table.
I dont respect the position. I dont agree with half the laws they enforce, so how can I respect the people that enforce them?
Sometimes enforcing bad laws is what gets them changed. That's part of civil disobedience's effectiveness. You're confusing the police with the policy. If you've got a problem with the laws, your problem is with the legislature, not the cops.
...people who become police officers are nothing special, they uphold senseless laws and help support a decaying system. I dont believe in anarchy or anything. But imagine what laws would change if no one agreed to enforce them?
They are nothing special in that they are just people like you and I, but anarchy is exactly what would result if there were not a deterrent force. There are any number of people who refuse to govern themselves and must be held in check by the threat of incarceration or some form of punishment (let's be realistic, recidivism rates are so high in our current system that rehabilitation is not a reality). The system isn't perfect, but it beats chaos. As far as what laws would change if none were enforced.... No laws would change. Why bother? How many antiquated laws are still on the books simply because they are universally ignored and not enforced?
Anytime a group of people start trying to subdivide the tasks a computer can/cannot do it is fairly frightening.
You must be easily frightened.
Many people don't want a multi-purpose, do-all, end-all device. It is often a valid idea to dedicate a box to a single function (firewall for instance). If my mom only wants to access email from home, why buy an $800.00 box that can do more than she wants when a $200.00 box will suffice?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone has the requisite technical skills for IT does not mean that they have the people skills needed to manage others. In fact, my experience is that the majority do not. There are exceptions of course.
How about this scenario:
You've just had surgery for cancer and are finishing treatment. Your productivity is lower than pre-cancer, but improving weekly as your strength returns. The company is small and is taking a pretty hard hit on group insurance because two of their employees are undergoing cancer treatment. They do a little fishing and find someone (freshly trained) who will work for half and has the energy to get twice as much done (quality doesn't enter the picture somehow).
It took me nine months to find something new. Half that time I was still undergoing treatment.
Would that be an RPG based on the books by Roger Zelazney (sp?)? I haven't been into RPG for years, so pardon the ignorance. Mr. Z had some of the most imaginative story lines I'd ever read. Enjoyed the series and his other books as well.
Ummm (I'm guessing that's how replies to this thread are supposed to start now) I think the reference is to "The Bible" when used in this way. The word Bible is actually derived from the Phonecian city, Byblos. Today the term Bible connotes a complete, authoritative guide. The use of the term 'bible' as the simple equivalent of 'book' is obsolete.
Wrong analogy. What you are describing would be posting information on how to build the hardware, not how to interface to it.
Dang! So that's my problem. I'm in the slow zone.
I don't think there's any animosity against Mr. Baker. When George was going over the cast selections, decisions had to be made. Kenny just didn't make the short list.
Is that all? I have a nasty, "Soundblaster compatible" on the mother board that refuses to do more than squeak (and buzz).
It can be argued, but how effectively when you introduce the person who puts their own life in jeopardy to save another?
Sometimes suing the party with the deep pockets is what stops this sort of thing by setting precedent. The guy with the deep pockets (AOL in this case) has the resources to fight through the appeals courts and field a crack legal team in the process.
I think they meant to say that Goldstein was a character in Orson Wells sometime in 1984. He was a big guy afterall.
Do any other RDBMS' license agreements have such clauses?
Informix does.
You could always publish a benchmark and make yours the test case.
Someone who was very familiar with Postgres and not very familiar with Oracle, Informix or whatever else might easily obtain that sort of result. A misconfigured database can creep along at a snail's pace.
The article points out that the companies prohibit publishing benchmark results when you buy their product.
Not at all. My question was with regard to laws that establish a 'bubble' or 'zone' around an abortion clinic that protesters cannot enter, even if it's a public sidewalk in front of the building. Abortion wasn't the issue, protest was and your prior posts seemed to indicate that you would be willing to limit the rights of all abortion protestors because of the illegal actions of a few. You appear to base this upon your belief that all of them are murderous at heart and that their rights should be infringed because they might act on what you believe their desires to be.
I will say again (no matter what you may choose to think of me personally): the city of Philadelphia certainly did deny the protestors their rights, obviously, openly, with intent and premeditation.
I never offered an opinion on you personally, only questioning your statements.
You seem to be reading a great deal into my repeated assertions that I don't care about your issue, and will not take to the streets to support it. I can't help that, but I can tell you that you are totally off the mark in accusing me of advocating the denial of the anti-abortion protesters' rights. I would be quite pleased if the anti-abortionists could figure out how to execise their rights without trampling the rights of (killing) others, and it's not my damned fault that they can't.
You don't care about the rights of protestors to peaceably assemble, to engage in civil disobedience? I'm not referring to bombings and killings, that is an extension of your inferred personal loss that seemingly has clouded your otherwise rational thinking. My issue was the rights of the people to engage in protest. Your earlier posts led me to believe that you had been present at a number of such protests and I incorrectly assumed that you would be aware of the laws I mentioned.
I really must demand you back this up. And what do you imagine I deem corrupt or evil? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Based on your prior posts, I assumed you found the protestors in Seattle to be the good guys and the WTO attendees to be corrupt. You seemed to applaud the impediments the protestors caused that delayed the conference. You also seemed to side with the protestors in Philadelphia against the corrupt politicians and thought blocking the streets perfectly acceptable. If these are not your positions you might try re-reading your own posts unless you were just playing devil's advocate.
No, I pointed out that murder is not civil disobediance. And that I frankly disbelieve mini-me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eduardo when he claims that the anti-abortion crowd is not a bunch of violent freaks.
If someone who had suffered personal loss at the hands of Black Panthers in the 60's made the same statement, replacing 'anti-abortion crowd' with 'blacks' I'm sure that you would be able to see the irrationality of the statement. While ideology is not the same as race, there are many layers on both sides of that issue and tarring all anti's with the same broad brush is irrational. When you look at the civil rights movement you see two reactions to violence. One was the path taken by Martin Luther King, Jr. who taught that all whites were not murderous blackhearts and dreamed of a day when there could be harmony among the races. The other reaction was to become bitter and to tar all whites with the same brush. Those who followed this path often became murderous in their own right and found themselves acting just like those who were the object of their bitterness.
That said, if you want to paint Eric Rudolph as a protestor, and class murder as civil disobediance, I'm willing to discuss it, but be warned: I will expect you to apply the same standard to the WTO, Philly, and LA protestors. E.g. If they bomb the convention hall, you have to admit that it was just civil disobediance, not murder....
You seem to be the one reading too much into the writings of others. Rudolph is a killer and should be brought to justice. Bombs are the tools of terrorists. Even if no person was harmed in an explosion - whether to shut down an abortion clinic or to stop a WTO conference - it is still not an act of civil disobedience.
I'm sorry about your loss by the way. I understand now why you missed the points I was trying to make.
The fact that the bosses are not acting in the interest of the citizen is manifest in actions like throwing a 7 foot chain link fence around Philadelphia city parks the day before the protest...
By removing access to public property it could easily be argued that the city effectively denied the protesters the right to peaceable assembly. Had I not read some of your other posts I would think that we were on common ground here. How do you view similar laws that prevent abortion protesters from approaching abortion clinics? Again, you seem to have no problem with impediments to those you deem corrupt or evil, but have only contempt for those who would exercise the same rights to free speech, assembly and association if the object of their protest is counter to your own beliefs.
Nevertheless, the laws have to come from somewhere. You're denial that said laws are supposed to originate with the people is hollow.
I think you misunderstood my assertion. I agree that the laws are supposed to come from the people, but you and I both know that that isn't often the case. My statement was simply that 'the will of the people' in some instances may not be any better than the will of the power mongers.
Again, though, that sidesteps my original point that the cops (actually the bosses -- mayor, etc) should be acting in the interest of the private citizen, not the corporate or foriegn national interests.
The cops are sworn to uphold the law (so are politicians, but that's another discussion). Civil disobedience is an attempt to awaken the conscience of the people to bad laws. The fact remains that you champion those who protest one law while chastising others who do the same. It seems as though it is not the rights of the people you champion but the rights of those aligned with your way of thinking only.
I am not an Apple fanatic and have never even owned one of their products. I do have a Next machine that I got a year ago just for the novelty of it but don't really use it (except for the 'guess where the power button is' game). However, I have a great deal of respect for Woz AND Jobs. While Woz was the tech genius behind the creation of the Apple products (and arguably the PC industry as well), Jobs was just as much the marketing savant that opened the collective consciousness of the people to the possibilities of computing at home. I don't see the PC revolution happening with the speed it did without Jobs. He's a guy that thinks outside the box (I hate cliches) all the time.
If Jobs were in the automotive industry, he'd have been the guy coming up with the Dodge Viper's look, but without performance you couldn't justify the Viper's price. That was the problem with Next. It absolutely reeked with cachet but that alone wasn't sufficient to drive sales at the price they were asking.
Surely you're not advocating prosecution without evidence?
Well, I guess I did. You know, the will of the people; the electorate; the ones those lawmakers are supposed to represent....? Get it? Pretty basic stuff from amerikan govt for you to be quibbling withExcept that the will of the people is often immoral. You're advocating civil disobedience due to laws you consider immoral, but don't have a problem as long as it's 'the will of the people' with no such constraints. Consider Jim Crow laws of the South which represented the will of the majority of southern voters at the time. I'm sure you could come up with modern equivalents that you may find morally reprehensible but the majority of 'the people' support. It seems you only support the will of the people when it coincides with your own viewpoint. Most of us are probably the same way, but I have a problem with giving the appearance of staking a claim to some moral high ground when you seem unwilling to extend the same consideration to others.
I have a Next box (complete with original invoice). Maybe it was the price. $17k US with a printer and a modem and this was the low end machine. There is a significant coolness factor even today, but not at that price.
Dang! Misspelt peaceably twice!
You have the right to peacably assemble. You don't have the right to block traffic, break windows, etc. Why would you be willing to toss someone else's rights just because they try to hinder someone else's freedom to peacably assemble? At that point aren't you just as guilty and therefore just as liable to have your own rights removed?
No. He may have been approached because of his attire, but his response aroused suspicion (and probably raised the hackles of the officer) and that, coupled with the sensitive nature of the place and time might have been sufficient to move him from a position where it would be an unreasonable search to probable cause.
I find it interesting that a number of people here are willing to take the witness of a single individual as an exact narrative. This isn't even the views of an objective third party, but a participant. There may have been something about his actions that brought suspicion rather than his clothing choices alone. Maybe I'm reading something into the prose, but his characterization of the various participants and the eyes boring into his medulla..... c'mon. It sounds like he was creating his own pulp novel. "What's it to you, flatfoot?" The names have been changed, but the attitude still hangs in the air like stale cigarette smoke above the scarred felt of a dimly lit billiard table.
Sometimes enforcing bad laws is what gets them changed. That's part of civil disobedience's effectiveness. You're confusing the police with the policy. If you've got a problem with the laws, your problem is with the legislature, not the cops.
They are nothing special in that they are just people like you and I, but anarchy is exactly what would result if there were not a deterrent force. There are any number of people who refuse to govern themselves and must be held in check by the threat of incarceration or some form of punishment (let's be realistic, recidivism rates are so high in our current system that rehabilitation is not a reality). The system isn't perfect, but it beats chaos. As far as what laws would change if none were enforced.... No laws would change. Why bother? How many antiquated laws are still on the books simply because they are universally ignored and not enforced?
You must be easily frightened.
Many people don't want a multi-purpose, do-all, end-all device. It is often a valid idea to dedicate a box to a single function (firewall for instance). If my mom only wants to access email from home, why buy an $800.00 box that can do more than she wants when a $200.00 box will suffice?