The whole lobbying thing is the consequence of the political structure in the USA (and other countries). "Democracy" as it is implemented in most countries is far from representative:
Non-proportional vote - things like electoral circles means that some people's votes count more than other's. In some cases the winner is not the one with the most votes (hi Bush).
Representative democracy - meaning you elect someone that will "represent" you. When voting you choose someone that you think (but don't know for sure) will vote in the parlement/senate/whatever in the same way you would (most of the time) when a decision has to be taken. If you're wrong you have to wait x years (varies from country to country) before you can choose a new representant.
Clubism - a lot of people always blindly vote in the same party because "it's my party". No read the manifest/prospect/whatever, no think about it, just follow that specific herd
The cult of the image - people never really get to really know the candidates. Sure, you see them on the television, you hear their speaches, you convince yourself that this person is like x because he/she reacted like so in en unexpected situation... all that is just image. How much of that person's televised behaviour is true? How many of the "unexpected situations" are real? How much do the speaches reflect the true opinions of a candidate? And this is someone that's suposed to represent you for the next x years.
Controled information - Secrecy laws, make believe events staged for the cameras, disinformation actions. People don't have the full picture because they don't have all the information. That places the ones with access to more and beter information in a position of greater power. The current system is geared towards providing beter information to (some) of the politicians than to the general public. Transparency goes agains the best interest of most politicians (they will talk about it, even pass laws that look like the will increase transparency, but in practice they usually try to limit the flow of information to the general public), because it exposes more of their actions to the public, thus removing some of their freedom to act in ways that are more "beneficial" to them than to their constituency
Unfortunately, all other of the up to now tried alternatives have proven to be even worse...
So you have to accept that, until someone finds a beter system, you have to work within the system you have. That means that if you have strong opinions about something you have to lobby. In the current system, those that lobby have more real power that does that stay home and complaint that "lobbying is bad". While you complain that "What we need is fewer bosses-by-force, less enforced opinions. Preferably none" somebody else is out there making certain that the choices that are made are the ones they want, not the one you want.
Naturally if you have a beter system, plus a (non-violent) road map (not some vague revolution or whatever) to move from the current system into that one, feel free to share it with us...
The power of quantum computers is the ability to "consider" all combinations of qbit status at once. The more qbits you have the more combinations (quantum status) you can have for the whole system. Reading the status of the qbits will (with a certain probability) make the whole system settle in the most stable status.
To solve a problem in a quantum computer you have to set up the initial status of all qbits so as to maximize the probability that by feeding energy into the system and then examining the result, the final status will be the correct answer. (Note that the final status might sometimes not be the correct answer). The type of mental logic necessary to come up with the correct initial status, should be something completely different from the linear logic used in today's programs.
PS: If each qbit is completly separate of each other, what you have is a very unstable (for now) logical memory. Since qbits are not interacting there are only 2 stable states (say 0 and 1) per qbit and no combination states. No big advance there.
I was born in the city and i've always lived in the city.
I'm an introvert.
I can tell you that having more social activities available doesn't generate in me any strong desire to participate in them. Also, although if you're a person of habits (metro number x at y hours every week day) it's quite likelly that you'll often see the same people, that doesn't mean any conversations with them will start (they're still strangers).
To top it all out, around here it's damned hard to find a nice quiet place, no people, in the middle of the nature. My natural tendency is actually to stay home (only go out to work) - just look at me reading Slashdot in a Saturday...
This subject is not crap, and such allegations and biases against those who are seriously introverted, are why such books as this need to be published. Said biases are not intentional but do exist. In my own experience, I've seen idiotic extroverts get promoted over very intelligent and much more capable introverts. The Extroverts do a much better job of kissing up (even if they aren't doing it on purpose) than the Introverts do.
It all boils down to Marketing. It's easier for an extrovert to sell him/herself than it is for an introvert.
It's my experience that if you want to get promoted it's not enough to be pretty damn good (sometimes it's even a bad thing)*: - You have to let people now how good you are (no self compliments). Let your accomplishments be visible - don't hide that wiz-bang code generator that generates half your code, let people know about it (and come by themselfs to the conclusion that you're pretty damn smart). - Let management know that you think your abilities are being underused in your current position (ie shitty shit, brain-dead, boring work). - Let management know you would like to take on more responsibilities (ie get promoted). - Sell yourself. If you're good enough, your work will speak by itself, but it has to be seen/known by there right people. - Share your feelings ("i feel unrewarded", "i lack challenge", "i need more responsabilities") and your thoughts ("i believe my abilities would be beter used in another task/position", "at this stage, maintenance of X can easily be done by a less experienced person than me") with those that can do something about it.
* Being pretty damn good can be a bad thing when you are too good at doing what you currently do to be promoted to a position where you would do something else
So you talk about the weather. But after a short time, there's nothing more to say and without conversation, here comes the awkward silence.
When the awkward silence moment comes, you can start a conversation about the "awkward silence moments" theme. With a bit of luck you'll both end up talking about people and social situations (and there's a lot to talk about in that area from the simple "something that happened to me once" to the complex "differences in social behaviour between humans and other primates").
Truth be said, if you can see the funny side of the "awkward silence" and share it with the other person, you'll have a beter chance of restarting the conversation.
See I agree with this. When someone starts talking about something and I pop up with an interesting fact, they get annoyed.
You're probably being too sudden poping up the "interesting fact". Quite likelly you come out as interrupting (rudelly) the other person and/or changing the direction of the conversation and/or trying to change people's attention onto to you (when in a group of more than 2 persons).
My advice: - Don't interrup. Look for low points in the conversation to put your ideas in. - Keep the "interesting fact" in mind - later on, maybe you'll have a chance to use it. - If your "interesting fact" does not follow the conversation line - ie an orthogonal piece of info/knowledge/wisdom that's only connected to something that was said and not the whole thema - then it's probably not a good idea to share it. - None of this rules applies to short funny statements. Just don't overdo it (if you're interrupting all the time with jokes you'll be seen as rude).
I know it's hard (i should know). Figuring out what's the right time to intervene, and what NOT to say takes practice. Still, it helps if you have a sense of humor and can see the funny side of things.
To wit: imagine the "Preferred List" technique, where you and Mr. Jones receive a catalog. There is a product which normally lists for $700, but Mr. J's catalog has it for $500, where your catalog has it for $600.
How about if talk to Mr.Jones so that he buys what i want for 500$ and sells it to me for 525$.
That's the other side to price descrimination - if the consumer has the information then he or she might decide to use a purchasing path outside the control of the initial seller.
On the other hand, consumers almost always have incomplete information...
I supose a 100 meters long pointy baloon traveling at 50 kpm straight for the building isn't enough of a giveaway.
PS: Since my numbers were totally and completly made up according to the rule "big and not too fast", convertion to imperial measures can be achieved by simple inventing new numbers using the same rule - the result should be equally valid.
Actually the thought just came to me that an interesting way to fight back would be having filesharing software somehow totally blacklist access to suspicious networks at the PC level (meaning not only filesharing - everything).
The blacklisting should be done at a higher level than machines only - the whole network of the ISP providing RIAA with access should be blacklisted if one or more machines in the network are being used by RIAA (or related entities) to scan for filesharing.
Also, the user of the filesharing program should be given a choice - "Do you want to block access to and from networks where RIAA is scanning filesharers (Yes/No)?"
My basic idea goes down to a bit of social engineering - please follow me on this one: - RIAA contracts with an ISP to provide it with network connectivity to the Internet. - RIAA then uses machine(s) over that network connection to scan filesharing networks. - Said activity is detected (exactly how i don't know) - The whole network for that ISP (or at least a significant portion of it) is blacklisted in millions of machines (all those running the filesharing app). This can be scalled up to bigger sub-networks (the ISP of the ISP) if needed. - Other entities hosted on the same ISP are also in practice cut-off from some of their (potential) customers. Mostly their websites are ineccessible from millions of machines. This is especially bad for online shops and ASPs. - They complain to the ISP. - The ISP, faced with the choice between keeping RIAA as a customer and loosing several other customers or simply dumping RIAA will find that the choice that makes more business sense is dumping RIAA. - Eventually, RIAA and it's associates will become persona non grata to most ISPs (as in, they choose to not take RIAA's business).
The nice thing about it is that it's all absolutelly legit: - Each individual user chooses to accept an autometed cut of contact with those networks that provide access to filesharing scanning. Everyone is in their right to do so. - ISPs choose to not sell their services to RIAA. It is their right to do so.
Now, this whole theory has some holes in it, and a couple of weak points (not to mention no solutions for the technical problem) - still, a distributed, voluntary system that makes it bad business for ISPs to provide access for companies that do filesharing scanning would leverage the power of those "hundreds of millions of users" of the filesharing apps.
Avoid repetition - Cut & paste is you enemy. If you're re-using the same functionality over and over again, package it in a function or object or whatever. For some high-level functionality (for example a database access layer) consider code generation.
What are the gains?
Since you thought before you coded, coding will be less of a 2 steps forward 1 step back process (as in "oops, it won't work this way"). This means faster coding and a clearer, cleaner and simpler results
Avoiding repetition of code will get you a smaller and cleaner code. It will also be clearer, more so depending on naming convention for functions. Additionaly, the "I copied 50 lines of code and changed the variable name everywhere but forgot one place" type of bugs won't be there anymore.
A smaller, clearer and cleaner code base will have less bugs (it's much more easy to loose your track and make mistakes in monster 1000 lines functions than in 100 lines ones). Less bugs means less debugging time. It will also be faster to fix and change in the future - 5 months later when you don't remember very well how the thing works you will much more easily figure it out again. It's less code to maintain. It won't have as many bugs that need to be fixed
The same principles can be applied at higher levels of the software development process (design, architecture, the process in itself)
The higher you go, the more the impact tends to be longer term and higher level (for example: a clean modular architecture will repay the extra effort when you re-use modules across applications).
Things like documentation will bring scalability to your software development process (for example: people can become productive faster in an area of the code they didn't knew.)
In my experience the lower level application of this principles pays itself almost immediatly - you end up delivering faster ('cause you code faster and you debug less).
Using them at higher levels can be more tricky. Since the feedback cycles are longer (it take more time to see to end result of your work), experience will be much more important. Over designing is a risk. Adding un-needed flexibility is a risk. Partitioning things in the wrong way is a risk. It's faster to fix bad code than it is bad design.
Sometimes management will stop the design process because from they're point of view no visible outcome is being produced (some managers need to see some form of program working to feel that things are getting anywhere).
Investing in a beter design is more of a risk. On the other hand the rewards are much vaster - coding can quite ofter be done in half or a third of the time; it's the only way to get things like the modules that are reused all over the products in your company and have saved thousands of man days...)
I mean some people, just talk and talk and they can't shut up. It's not like everybody has the time and patience to listen to someone just rumble about something or other of no interest. It's even worse when they start detouring from the subject of the whole thing like some 1950's valvule computer with one too many holes in the punch-card, i mean those things must have been a pain to program and all. Not to mention they were big. And hot. Which reminds me of that time i is was driving my van on the highway and *shraaap* *oooo* *oooo*
> If I hollow out the case and use it as a planter, is that an illegal modification? Can Microsoft sue me because they're not making their royalty money on the plants I'm growing in my XBOX?
Dude... What kind of plants are you growing in there?
It's not make things happen - it's make the right things happen.
If the product of you work is useless or of little use to the end-users it all ends up being some sort self-masturbatory task.
Half the fun in doing software is when the result of your work is actually used by someone and solves their problems (or improves their business processes, or entertain them or whatever).
For those that don't quite share my type of "fun in doing software" concept just remember one thing - a company that provides little or none added value for it's customers doesn't last long.
>Is this a call to deface Web sites, or generally screw over sysadmins who oftentimes are paid beans to being with? Shameful.
Maybe if hundreds of corporate websites get defaced so easily, they'll actually wake up and START hiring more qualifed sys admins for a decent salary, and STOP over working those they have now.
Sometimes what a problem needs is a good exposing in order for someone to start fixing it. If everythings going along AOK where's the incentive for a business to change the status quo?
You seem to expect that (up to then) clueless managers will suddenly "see the light" and discover there is actually a causal link between overworked sysadmins and increased security risks PLUS admiting it openly PLUS accepting the blame for overworking those same sysadmins... (Instead of... say... blame the sysadmins)
I believe that our efforts should be aimed at identifying and exposing the top managers at SCO.
SCO is a company but it is also a group of people. SCO's current actions have to had been sanctioned by management at the highest level. Someone made a choice, someone said "let's go ahead with this".
So make it personal. By exposing each and every of SCO's top-level managers as being associated and willing participants in this mess their chances of ever again be employeed in a top-level management position (at least in this industry) are highly decreased. This is especially true if they are tracked into any new job they go into and the company that employes them is exposed (thus being smeared along with SCO by their choice of managers) - any company that hires any one of those persons has a business ethics (or more precisely lack of it) that accepts this type of attitude.
Decisions are taken by someone (companies do not take decisions). Those that take the decisions (or are willing participiants in taking those decisions) should be made to assume their responsabilities instead of being allowed to hid behind a SCO-mask.
His management didn't want to if fact they argued against it, the customer insisted. I got the feeling the the customer was also being courted by an other company on the project and the customer was waivering between the know performance of the poster's company, and the other that was probably making wide promises. Hopefully because this is only going to be for a couple of months, (his company said 4-6 weeks) maybe they'll be saved by the 80/20 rule, you can get 80% of a job done in 20% of the time and the customer will not notice the rough edges. Most comercial software seems to ship at 80% complete anyways.
I've seen a lot of this kind of projects. In my experience these are the most likelly outcomes:
It will fail totally and miserably. It will either be rejected by the customer because of lack of quality (as in almost nothing works) or because its will be very, very late and management couldn't come up with a proper excuse. A lot of developers will be totally burnt out (after about 2 weeks of the death march, most will be less productive in 12 hours than they were before in 8). Morale will be crushed, especially for a failure after all that effort
The project will be very late. The basic functionality will be delivered within the deadline but most of it will not. Management manages to convince the customer to wait a little longer for the rest. After 2 or 3 times the allocated time (ie after a grand total of 12 to 18 weeks) most of the functionality will be out. The final product will be highly unreliable. During the product warranty stage (something any smart customer will have clearly stated in the contract) there will be a lot of calls to fix sudden problems. The company will loose money on that project. IF they are luck they might not damage their image with the customer too much (it depends on the speed and quality of their response to critical bug reports from the customer)
Most of the functionality is delivered on time. Management convinces the customer to wait a little longer for the rest. After a couple of weeks the rest wil be delivered. The company doesn't loose too much money and the customer is impressed. The project is considered a success and the manager(s) get bonuses. Management starts to rely on the ability of the team to deliver under this type of situation. A couple of months later another project is sold with similar death march conditions. If it goes well, more projects will follow under the same conditions. Death march projects become an accepted tool to "keep a critical customer". More and more customers start to look "critical". This is the rosiest of scenarios
Not have an SUV that i only drive to and from work.
Or an 80'' plasma television that i use maybe 1 hour a week.
Or the greatest and latest 3D acceleration board - 2 times more expensive than the model bellow - so that i can have RTCW gving 340 fps instead of 330 (not that i have time to play it).
Or a high-end Hi-Fi - used mostly to play trash metal.
Why should i give up all of that just so that i can have a life????
Slashdot Mirror
Image what a Beowulf cluster of BOXEN in Soviet Russia would do you.
No, no, no. You got it all wrong!
...
...
When you don't wear a tinfoil hat, they make you believe the CD you've burned has more errors
It's all an enourmous conspiracy
most countries is far from representative:
Unfortunately, all other of the up to now tried alternatives have proven to be even worse
So you have to accept that, until someone finds a beter system, you have to work within the system you have. That means that if you have strong opinions about something you have to lobby. In the current system, those that lobby have more real power that does that stay home and complaint that "lobbying is bad". While you complain that "What we need is fewer bosses-by-force, less enforced opinions. Preferably none" somebody else is out there making certain that the choices that are made are the ones they want, not the one you want.
Naturally if you have a beter system, plus a (non-violent) road map (not some vague revolution or whatever) to move from the current system into that one, feel free to share it with us...
Forgive me if i don't take your word for it.
Let's see if i got it right:
The power of quantum computers is the ability to "consider" all combinations of qbit status at once. The more qbits you have the more combinations (quantum status) you can have for the whole system. Reading the status of the qbits will (with a certain probability) make the whole system settle in the most stable status.
To solve a problem in a quantum computer you have to set up the initial status of all qbits so as to maximize the probability that by feeding energy into the system and then examining the result, the final status will be the correct answer. (Note that the final status might sometimes not be the correct answer).
The type of mental logic necessary to come up with the correct initial status, should be something completely different from the linear logic used in today's programs.
PS: If each qbit is completly separate of each other, what you have is a very unstable (for now) logical memory. Since qbits are not interacting there are only 2 stable states (say 0 and 1) per qbit and no combination states. No big advance there.
I live in Europe, currently in Holland.
...
I was born in the city and i've always lived in the city.
I'm an introvert.
I can tell you that having more social activities available doesn't generate in me any strong desire to participate in them.
Also, although if you're a person of habits (metro number x at y hours every week day) it's quite likelly that you'll often see the same people, that doesn't mean any conversations with them will start (they're still strangers).
To top it all out, around here it's damned hard to find a nice quiet place, no people, in the middle of the nature. My natural tendency is actually to stay home (only go out to work) - just look at me reading Slashdot in a Saturday
This subject is not crap, and such allegations and biases against those who are seriously introverted, are why such books as this need to be published. Said biases are not intentional but do exist. In my own experience, I've seen idiotic extroverts get promoted over very intelligent and much more capable introverts. The Extroverts do a much better job of kissing up (even if they aren't doing it on purpose) than the Introverts do.
:
It all boils down to Marketing. It's easier for an extrovert to sell him/herself than it is for an introvert.
It's my experience that if you want to get promoted it's not enough to be pretty damn good (sometimes it's even a bad thing)*
- You have to let people now how good you are (no self compliments). Let your accomplishments be visible - don't hide that wiz-bang code generator that generates half your code, let people know about it (and come by themselfs to the conclusion that you're pretty damn smart).
- Let management know that you think your abilities are being underused in your current position (ie shitty shit, brain-dead, boring work).
- Let management know you would like to take on more responsibilities (ie get promoted).
- Sell yourself. If you're good enough, your work will speak by itself, but it has to be seen/known by there right people.
- Share your feelings ("i feel unrewarded", "i lack challenge", "i need more responsabilities") and your thoughts ("i believe my abilities would be beter used in another task/position", "at this stage, maintenance of X can easily be done by a less experienced person than me") with those that can do something about it.
* Being pretty damn good can be a bad thing when you are too good at doing what you currently do to be promoted to a position where you would do something else
So you talk about the weather. But after a short time, there's nothing more to say and without conversation, here comes the awkward silence.
When the awkward silence moment comes, you can start a conversation about the "awkward silence moments" theme. With a bit of luck you'll both end up talking about people and social situations (and there's a lot to talk about in that area from the simple "something that happened to me once" to the complex "differences in social behaviour between humans and other primates").
Truth be said, if you can see the funny side of the "awkward silence" and share it with the other person, you'll have a beter chance of restarting the conversation.
See I agree with this. When someone starts talking about something and I pop up with an interesting fact, they get annoyed.
You're probably being too sudden poping up the "interesting fact". Quite likelly you come out as interrupting (rudelly) the other person and/or changing the direction of the conversation and/or trying to change people's attention onto to you (when in a group of more than 2 persons).
My advice:
- Don't interrup. Look for low points in the conversation to put your ideas in.
- Keep the "interesting fact" in mind - later on, maybe you'll have a chance to use it.
- If your "interesting fact" does not follow the conversation line - ie an orthogonal piece of info/knowledge/wisdom that's only connected to something that was said and not the whole thema - then it's probably not a good idea to share it.
- None of this rules applies to short funny statements. Just don't overdo it (if you're interrupting all the time with jokes you'll be seen as rude).
I know it's hard (i should know). Figuring out what's the right time to intervene, and what NOT to say takes practice.
Still, it helps if you have a sense of humor and can see the funny side of things.
Here it is, shared free of charge, for the benefict of all mankind, the ultimate mouse mod:
You grab a mouse, and you glue a joystick on top of it.
A mostick! Or maybe a Joyouse, you choose.
(genious or what!!!?)
Please do not confuse lack of ethics with lack of inteligence.
To wit: imagine the "Preferred List" technique, where you and Mr. Jones receive a catalog. There is a product which normally lists for $700, but Mr. J's catalog has it for $500, where your catalog has it for $600.
...
How about if talk to Mr.Jones so that he buys what i want for 500$ and sells it to me for 525$.
That's the other side to price descrimination - if the consumer has the information then he or she might decide to use a purchasing path outside the control of the initial seller.
On the other hand, consumers almost always have incomplete information
I supose a 100 meters long pointy baloon traveling at 50 kpm straight for the building isn't enough of a giveaway.
PS: Since my numbers were totally and completly made up according to the rule "big and not too fast", convertion to imperial measures can be achieved by simple inventing new numbers using the same rule - the result should be equally valid.
Actually the thought just came to me that an interesting way to fight back would be having filesharing software somehow totally blacklist access to suspicious networks at the PC level (meaning not only filesharing - everything).
...
The blacklisting should be done at a higher level than machines only - the whole network of the ISP providing RIAA with access should be blacklisted if one or more machines in the network are being used by RIAA (or related entities) to scan for filesharing.
Also, the user of the filesharing program should be given a choice - "Do you want to block access to and from networks where RIAA is scanning filesharers (Yes/No)?"
My basic idea goes down to a bit of social engineering - please follow me on this one:
- RIAA contracts with an ISP to provide it with network connectivity to the Internet.
- RIAA then uses machine(s) over that network connection to scan filesharing networks.
- Said activity is detected (exactly how i don't know)
- The whole network for that ISP (or at least a significant portion of it) is blacklisted in millions of machines (all those running the filesharing app). This can be scalled up to bigger sub-networks (the ISP of the ISP) if needed.
- Other entities hosted on the same ISP are also in practice cut-off from some of their (potential) customers. Mostly their websites are ineccessible from millions of machines. This is especially bad for online shops and ASPs.
- They complain to the ISP.
- The ISP, faced with the choice between keeping RIAA as a customer and loosing several other customers or simply dumping RIAA will find that the choice that makes more business sense is dumping RIAA.
- Eventually, RIAA and it's associates will become persona non grata to most ISPs (as in, they choose to not take RIAA's business).
The nice thing about it is that it's all absolutelly legit:
- Each individual user chooses to accept an autometed cut of contact with those networks that provide access to filesharing scanning. Everyone is in their right to do so.
- ISPs choose to not sell their services to RIAA. It is their right to do so.
Now, this whole theory has some holes in it, and a couple of weak points (not to mention no solutions for the technical problem) - still, a distributed, voluntary system that makes it bad business for ISPs to provide access for companies that do filesharing scanning would leverage the power of those "hundreds of millions of users" of the filesharing apps.
Comments please
- Think before you code.
- Avoid repetition - Cut & paste is you enemy. If you're re-using the same functionality over and over again, package it in a function or object or whatever. For some high-level functionality (for example a database access layer) consider code generation.
What are the gains?- Since you thought before you coded, coding will be less of a 2 steps forward 1 step back process (as in "oops, it won't work this way"). This means faster coding and a clearer, cleaner and simpler results
- Avoiding repetition of code will get you a smaller and cleaner code. It will also be clearer, more so depending on naming convention for functions. Additionaly, the "I copied 50 lines of code and changed the variable name everywhere but forgot one place" type of bugs won't be there anymore.
- A smaller, clearer and cleaner code base will have less bugs (it's much more easy to loose your track and make mistakes in monster 1000 lines functions than in 100 lines ones). Less bugs means less debugging time. It will also be faster to fix and change in the future - 5 months later when you don't remember very well how the thing works you will much more easily figure it out again. It's less code to maintain. It won't have as many bugs that need to be fixed
The same principles can be applied at higher levels of the software development process (design, architecture, the process in itself)The higher you go, the more the impact tends to be longer term and higher level (for example: a clean modular architecture will repay the extra effort when you re-use modules across applications).
Things like documentation will bring scalability to your software development process (for example: people can become productive faster in an area of the code they didn't knew.)
In my experience the lower level application of this principles pays itself almost immediatly - you end up delivering faster ('cause you code faster and you debug less).
Using them at higher levels can be more tricky. Since the feedback cycles are longer (it take more time to see to end result of your work), experience will be much more important. Over designing is a risk. Adding un-needed flexibility is a risk. Partitioning things in the wrong way is a risk. It's faster to fix bad code than it is bad design. Sometimes management will stop the design process because from they're point of view no visible outcome is being produced (some managers need to see some form of program working to feel that things are getting anywhere). ...)
Investing in a beter design is more of a risk. On the other hand the rewards are much vaster - coding can quite ofter be done in half or a third of the time; it's the only way to get things like the modules that are reused all over the products in your company and have saved thousands of man days
You never know when you need to gag someone.
I mean some people, just talk and talk and they can't shut up. It's not like everybody has the time and patience to listen to someone just rumble about something or other of no interest. It's even worse when they start detouring from the subject of the whole thing like some 1950's valvule computer with one too many holes in the punch-card, i mean those things must have been a pain to program and all. Not to mention they were big. And hot. Which reminds me of that time i is was driving my van on the highway and *shraaap* *oooo* *oooo*
> If I hollow out the case and use it as a planter, is that an illegal modification? Can Microsoft sue me because they're not making their royalty money on the plants I'm growing in my XBOX?
Dude... What kind of plants are you growing in there?
Mold???
Fry already peeled shrimps in a pan with (a bit of) palm oil and pork rib. Instead of palm oil you can use pork grease.
Cover the pan with a lid or the palm oil will jump all over the place (it has a strong smell and is difficult to clean).
PS: Geeks can cook too!!!
Hear hear ...
It's not make things happen - it's make the right things happen.
If the product of you work is useless or of little use to the end-users it all ends up being some sort self-masturbatory task.
Half the fun in doing software is when the result of your work is actually used by someone and solves their problems (or improves their business processes, or entertain them or whatever).
For those that don't quite share my type of "fun in doing software" concept just remember one thing - a company that provides little or none added value for it's customers doesn't last long.
>Is this a call to deface Web sites, or generally screw over sysadmins who oftentimes are paid beans to being with? Shameful.
Maybe if hundreds of corporate websites get defaced so easily, they'll actually wake up and START hiring more qualifed sys admins for a decent salary, and STOP over working those they have now.
Sometimes what a problem needs is a good exposing in order for someone to start fixing it. If everythings going along AOK where's the incentive for a business to change the status quo?
You seem to expect that (up to then) clueless managers will suddenly "see the light" and discover there is actually a causal link between overworked sysadmins and increased security risks PLUS admiting it openly PLUS accepting the blame for overworking those same sysadmins
(Instead of
Just don't hold your breath
You just proved his point!
I believe that our efforts should be aimed at identifying and exposing the top managers at SCO.
SCO is a company but it is also a group of people. SCO's current actions have to had been sanctioned by management at the highest level. Someone made a choice, someone said "let's go ahead with this".
So make it personal. By exposing each and every of SCO's top-level managers as being associated and willing participants in this mess their chances of ever again be employeed in a top-level management position (at least in this industry) are highly decreased.
This is especially true if they are tracked into any new job they go into and the company that employes them is exposed (thus being smeared along with SCO by their choice of managers) - any company that hires any one of those persons has a business ethics (or more precisely lack of it) that accepts this type of attitude.
Decisions are taken by someone (companies do not take decisions). Those that take the decisions (or are willing participiants in taking those decisions) should be made to assume their responsabilities instead of being allowed to hid behind a SCO-mask.
See the parallel here???
His management didn't want to if fact they argued against it, the customer insisted. I got the feeling the the customer was also being courted by an other company on the project and the customer was waivering between the know performance of the poster's company, and the other that was probably making wide promises. Hopefully because this is only going to be for a couple of months, (his company said 4-6 weeks) maybe they'll be saved by the 80/20 rule, you can get 80% of a job done in 20% of the time and the customer will not notice the rough edges. Most comercial software seems to ship at 80% complete anyways.
I've seen a lot of this kind of projects. In my experience these are the most likelly outcomes:
What?
Not have an SUV that i only drive to and from work.
Or an 80'' plasma television that i use maybe 1 hour a week.
Or the greatest and latest 3D acceleration board - 2 times more expensive than the model bellow - so that i can have RTCW gving 340 fps instead of 330 (not that i have time to play it).
Or a high-end Hi-Fi - used mostly to play trash metal.
Why should i give up all of that just so that i can have a life????
You must be out of your mind!!!