I'd agree that a lot of people are turned off by NYC. My personal opinion is that it is a noisy, crowded, filth ridden cesspool with an overabundance of rude and/or dangerous people.
My favorite city for big shows is Las Vegas. San Francisco is also most excellent. Other places that have had a pretty good track record include Chicago and Atlanta. Other places I'd rather visit than NYC... just about any other large US City... San Diego, Orlando, Dallas, Denver... Heck I think even Los Angeles would rank higher in my view than NYC.
That little bit generally proves you don't
know much about guns. "Assault rifles" are
not "high powered", and "High Powered" rifles
are not "assault rifles".
It is not surprising that most people don't
know the difference, as the media either
doesn't know either, or intentionally misinforms
people in order to create sensationalist scary
stories.
"High powered" rifles are almost always bolt
actions, although there are a few semi-autos.
There is a little bit of variance on opinion
as to how much power a cartridge has to have
in order to be considered "high power", but
many people consider, for example.30-06
to be on the lower end of the "high power"
range.
Rifles that fire cartidges in this class are
not be at all practical for full-auto use
in a shoulder fired rifle, as they have too
much recoil to be controllable. Not only
that, but the cartridges themselves would be
too heavy to carry sufficent numbers for
sustained fire in an individual weapon and
would require box magazines that would be
of unweildy size for carry by individual
soldiers. Also it takes a big, heavy rifle
to take the beating that a high powered
cartridge dishes out, and that isn't
compatible with the purposes of an "assault
rifle".
"Assault rifles" generally fire medium to low
powered cartridges such as 5.56x45 (a.k.a
5.56 NATO or.223 Remington) or 7.62x39 Russian
or the newer 5.45x39 Russian. They use low
powered cartridges because capacity and low
weight are more important than power, plus
they need to be controllable in rapid fire.
and if you take me that seriously, heh, well then, i'll just have to kill you too:)
Well, I don't take you seriously, but this
really isn't the kind of thing that people
should joke about, as well as it isn't good
to perpetuate the disinformation of the
media.
One thing that will likely become a problem is that people can very easily use informant channels, particularly those that are anonymous like 800 numbers or email to harrass people they don't like. All they have to do is make an accusation against someone and then wait for overzealous officials to tear into that person. Given zero tolerance policies and the general lack of critical investigation into the accuracy of accusations, this could cause a lot of innocent people grief. Even if officials do take time to investigate properly and the innocent are exonnerated, many people will continue to doubt, fear and distrust them for a considerable period after that. And in the schools, guilty until proven innocent is the norm, not the other way around. Sometimes even being proven innocent isn't good enough, especially if it looks like an official goofed. They will often refuse to rescind punishment in order to save face for themselves. Not to mention that the standard for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't seem to figure into school decisions. Kids are considered guilty unless a school official's opinion is that they are innocent beyond any doubt. Kids don't get the option of a trial by their peers either. Schools usually operate as the worst kind of kangaroo court.
I don't know if they can retroactively dock your pay or anything
How could they possibly do that? It said in the message that he hadn't worked at that place for over a year. Any paychecks from them have long since been cashed and most likely spent. Awfully hard for them to get them back now.
but there's nothing to stop them (or me, if I wanted) from reading the message boards and calling up your boss to tell him what you've said.
Well, they had better tread carefully there, because interfering with someone else's employment over something like this is not something that you should do lightly. If they aren't careful, they could find themselves being sued... And given that a jury might very well be sympathetic to the former employee in this case, they would have no guarantee they'd win.
They'd be far better off to just brush this kind of thing off...
I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me.
IANAL, but I'd have to say that this is probably in a grey area. However, companies should keep in mind that even if they know they will win a case, it will cost them money to defend themselves and it can cost them in bad publicity, so it is better for them to avoid getting into this kind of situation to begin with.
Care to give ISBN numbers? And are there stipulations as to what you can and cannot do with the information in those books? Anyway,.doc and.xls are only two of Microsoft's proprietary formats... how many others are so documented?
And since you bring up the price, how much are these books? It seems to be a common misperception that open source advocates won't pay for anything. That isn't quite true. I've bought a lot of things, even things I could have gotten for free. If Linux users weren't willing to pay money for documentation, then I don't know why the Borders and Barnes & Noble bookshelves have a couple hundred Linux related titles. I don't necessarily have anything against paying money for products that are worth it. I don't, however, buy anything from Microsoft, as they don't deserve my money. And as for your assertation that people have't learned about these books because of the price, I would counter to say that I probably don't know about them because Microsoft apparently hasn't done a very good job of publicizing their availability, and the fact that I don't generally spend my time researching things in that environment. Why would I, I don't use it.
I have always felt that Sun got it so wrong when they decided that developers wanted to be able to develop cross-platform, when in truth very few developers find this an advantage.
What planet are you from? In this world cross platform is something that is very important, since there are so many different platforms out there. In many large companies you have to deal with the fact that they aren't a homogenous environment. Often they will have big IBM mainframes in their data center for running legacy applications and some sort of *nix servers for running their newer back end apps and Novell servers for PC file/print services. Throw in a few odd NT/W2K servers for small departmental applications. Perhaps an AS/400 in their accounting department. PC's on many desktops with Macs in advertising and graphic design departments.
Think that isn't common? I used to work in an environment that had that basic IT infrastructure. There are thousands of companies that have similar infrastructures. To make matters more complex, they didn't just have one type of *nix servers but due to mergers and aquisitions they had several different RISC hardware platforms (Sparc, RS/6000 and Alpha).
You can't tell me that in that sort of environment that being able to write one set of code and easily migrate it to any platform you have isn't a great thing.
Java is a big thing in that type of shop because as long as you ignore certain products (cough, Visual J++), and write with the intention of making things portable, compatibility between those different platforms is pretty good.
Sun didn't make up the demand for cross-platform compatibility, the industry has been crying out for it for years.
I do not believe that Sun Microsystems would have behaved any better if you had been a monopoly
Thankfully Sun never has been close to a monopoly, as there have always been enough competitors in their market space to keep them well under 50% of the market. Given that nobody out there expects that HP, IBM or Compaq for example are going to wither up and die tomorrow, I don't see Sun suddenly turning into a monopoly. I think that when any one company in a market gets more than 50% of the market, things tend to go downhill, but the *nix server market has never seen any one company control more than about 40% or so for any significant period of time.
Speculations on what Sun might have done had they become a monopoly instead of Microsoft seem pretty pointless to me. The reality is that in certain markets Microsoft certainly seems to hold monopoly like market shares and power and they certainly seem to have a track record of abusing those powers.
Sun is saying that it is OK for their implementations to be proprietary, but it is not OK for MS to do the same.
Proprietary implementations aren't the same as proprietary formats. While the application that creates a file or document in a particular format might be proprietary, that doesn't mean the file or document format has to be proprietary. For example, Microsoft could keep MS-Word proprietary, but release the.doc format as a public standard. They could, but so far they haven't. What that means is that to write an alternative program that reads.doc formats you have to reverse engineer the format. Contrast that with Sun's proprietary implementation of Java. The Java spec is publicly available, although unfortunately not yet standardized by an independant standards body as many people would like to see. You can sit down and write your own implementation of Java from the spec, as for example the Kaffe and IBM people have to a certain extent.
While sun isn't perfect when it comes to supporting open source or open standards, they are a lot better than Microsoft who openly slams open source and only pays lip service to open standards for PR purposes while continuing their same old 'embrace and extend' patterns.
The typical Linux user does NOT have a multiprocessor machine.
Actually dual Celeron and P2/P3 Linux boxes are
pretty common. While certainly not everyone
has one, I do, and I probably know at least 6
or 7 other people who do as well.
Deciding what a 'typical' user is, now that is
the problem.
Are you kidding? ZDNet is one of the biggest Microsoft apologists around... They do, however tend to go for the sensationalism most of the time... They are kinda like the USA Today of the net...
Another technical flaw in the article is the assertation that the processor in the original IBM PC was the 8086. This is incorrect. I've actually got an original IBM PC sitting in my basement, and it definitely has an 8088 in it. For that matter, even the IBM XT had an 8088 in it. Some early IBM PC clones and other "MS-DOS but not quite compatible" machines like the Zenith Z100 used the 8086, but IBM didn't use the 8086 until later machines like the IBM PC convertable (early attempt at a laptop) or the PS/2 Model 25 and Model 30. The reason that IBM picked the 8088 is that its pinout was designed to be more closely compatible with the Z80, which was the CPU used in IBM's early engineering prototypes for the IBM PC. Those early designs were basically formulaic 8-bit CP/M machines.
It is also worth noting that to a certain extent, history is repeating itself. The Zilog Z80 was itself a clone of the Intel 8080. By the late 70's, Zilog, which was originally an upstart clone chip vendor, had overtaken Intel by building a better and cheaper product. Intel's follow-on to the Z80, the 8085, much like the P4 today was largely a disappointment. Intel was forced to move to 16 bit with the 8086 (and the 'ginsu' 8088) in order to grab back the market they had lost to Zilog. Intel was successful mainly because they succeded in selling the 8088 to IBM, which bailed them out. Zilog's 16 bit processor the Z8000 was a failure because it was too ambitious, and not at all compatible with their 8 bit designs, despite the fact that many people thought it was superior to Intel's 16 bit chips which were largely just warmed over 8 bit designs with larger registers.
It remains to be seen how things will sort out now. For all intents and purposes, Intel's P3 and P4 look to be beaten technically and price/performance wise by AMD. Intel appears to be largely betting on the IA64 to win back the market, but unlike the 8 bit -> 16 bit transition, it is Intel who is betting on a totally new and mostly incompatible architecture for 64 bits rather than AMD, who appears to be charting a much more conservative extension of the basic x86 architecture to 64 bits. If AMD gets software support for their 64 bit architecture before Intel does, which may happen because it is less of a jump, or AMD is able to push 64 bit processors into lower pricepoint boxes quicker, which also seems doable, Intel could be in trouble. One other big thing will be whether the AMD architecture runs existing 32 bit x86 code faster than the Intel IA64 processors do. Since many people will be largely dependant on legacy applications, if AMD can offer the promise of 64 bit applications in the future and better performance for existing 32 bit apps, then Intel will really be hurting.
AMD is supposed to have a SMP chipset for the Socket A proocessors out pretty soon. Then it is up to the motherboard vendors to ship it. Once AMD has broken Intel's monopoly on dual processor systems, it should force Intel to be more price competitive with the PIII Xeon, for example. So why be so down on AMD, if it wasn't from them, your PIII SMP box would have been a lot more expensive.
Right now I could go out and have probably a half dozen good offers in the next week. I'm good at what I do, but its not like I believe I'm god's gift to the IT industry either. I think that most skilled technical people are in about the same position as me if they know where to look and who to talk to.
I've got headhunters calling me all the time, and while I am not looking for another job (I am actually changing jobs with the new year already, for a job I wasn't really looking for), I never completely shut doors with headhunters unless they do something to really piss me off -- in general I give them a polite brush-off with a 'maybe later'. You never know when you'll need them, either to find a new job for yourself (or a friend of yours) or to find a new co-worker.
Another thing to do if you are in a hurry to find a job is post your information on an internet job site (like dice.com for example). If you've got skills and you live in an area (or are willing to relocate to an area) that has IT jobs you will likely have lots of calls from companies and headhunters.
This is just stupid. This is a choice. The employer should have the right (and most courts would rule this way) to terminate employment for willful decisions made by employees.
True up to a point, however this is a decision that is being thrust upon the employee by an arbitrary decision by the company, not something they are choosing willingly. Many people have been successful in wrongful termination suits because the employer effectively forced them out by 'materially changing compensation or job terms and responsibilities' to something that wasn't acceptable. In most of those cases the former employee only got a small amount, but it happens pretty frequently.
Exceptions to this include the family medical leave act and other Pro-Family measures to prevent descrimination for participation in non-job related activities. HOWEVER, choosing not to accept a promotion is most definately job related and the company is well within its rights to dismiss a person for this reason.
Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't mean you still can't sue. Doesn't mean you'll win either, but in either case the company loses because they are out legal fees plus their time.
As another poster so rightly pointed out, refusal of a promotion can be both considered to an indication of faltering job committment
That is pretty wacked thinking even for PHBs.
as well as a perceived insult to other management.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but anyone who thinks this way would seem to have some serious problems with their self esteem.
In both cases the company may be best advised to dismiss the individual.
Perhaps, but what I was saying is that it is pretty stupid to fire someone on such shaky grounds for several reasons. It also shows a lack of communication on management's part, because I would never have made an offer for a promotion to someone unless I was pretty sure ahead of time it is something they would want. I'd certainly never try to force someone into a promotion they didn't want.
Businesses (contrary to popular young person belief [full disclosure: I myself am a young person not suffering from this particular mental disease])
I am not a young person, nor do I suffer from that particular ailment. My points were that it was a bad idea to get rid of an employee for a reason like this because of the potential downside to the employer dealing with a lawsuit, be it successfully defended or not.
are about making money and prospering. If they're not, they should go out of business.
Part of being successful is avoiding stupid decisions that can land you in court.
This means the good of the whole outweighs the good of the one (no matter who he is...even if he's the CEO [which btw, happens all the time]).
Life just isn't that simple. While CEOs get sacked all the time, they are usually given a 'golden parachute' just to keep them from suing, and even then sometimes it doesn't work.
While I'll agree that it is probably a poor business practice, it is NOT and SHOULD NOT be illegal or grounds for litigation.
I didn't necessarily say it should be illegal, but it certainly could be grounds for litigation.
Also, if you work in an at-will employment state (like me), no grounds are required for dismissal and the burdon of proof weighs heavily on those claiming some protected status under the law. Pretty much better be pregnant or covered by the ADA (which seems to be almost anyone nowadays).
As I've said before, just because a case wouldn't be easy doesn't mean it can't be filed.
Anyway, I just hate it when the solution to every problem is litigation.
Again, I agree up to a point. I am not for frivilous litigation, however, I also don't think there should not be any recourse for people at all in any circumstance. The question is where to draw the line.
Move on. If they fire you, you probably don't want your job back. If rehire is not your goal, your suit is vengeful and should be considered frivolous as you are not entitled to the job and are compensated regularly for your work.
While I would agree that in most cases, rehires after a lawsuit are not going to work, there does need to be some way that companies can get spanked when they terminate people for illegal reasons. I'm not saying that for sure that would apply in this case, but I am speaking just generally. Of course the amounts received by the plaintiffs should be reasonable (limited to reasonable damages such as costs related to finding a new job, unemployment benefits, etc), and if punitive damages are assessed against a company, they probably shouldn't go to the plaintiff or his lawyers, they should go to offset the government's costs in administering and enforcing employment law. Basically there should be enough incentive to file groundful suits but not a lot of 'free money' to make ambulance chasing plaintiff's attourneys file every case they can dig up.
Even if a plaintiff knows they probably can't win a case if they are willing to eat their own attourney's fees they can 'punish' a former employer by making them pay their legal fees and lost time, etc. dealing with a case. Right or wrong, that is the way the system works.
Yes, you can sue them. You may not win, but you can almost always sue. In many states this kind of action would likely be in enough of a grey area as far as a "wrongfull termination" suit is concerned. Even if the guy had signed a contract that states something like "at will" employment, that can often be challenged in court.
Note that I am not in favor of frivilous lawsuits, but the reality is that it isn't that difficult to find a lawyer who will file a lawsuit for you in a case like this.
There are 100's of thousands of good IT jobs open out there right now.
In the worst case you can go find a new job in a short period of time. They are only shooting themselves in the foot if they fire you because not only can you likely sue them, they will then be losing TWO people at the top of their IT department instead of just one. They will then incur two times the costs to hire replacements, they will incur more 'downtime' with the new IT manager because he won't have you to learn the shop from and if they have to replace you as well, that is another person who has to come in and learn the shop and your software. They really don't want to have two new people to bring up to speed at once, because that will severely impact the work of at least one or two others. So in all reality, for a while they will be more than two people short staffed.
That being said... One thing you can do is offer to do the job on an interim basis and help them find the new IT manager in the mean time. That may not be the most fun thing in the world, but it makes it look like you are taking an active role in dealing with the situation and as a bonus, it gives you some control to hopefully get someone in who you can get along with. Basically, they make take 'no' more easily if they are off the hook from having to find a replacement manager, especially if you can do it without them having to pay big headhunter's fees. Start tapping your contact pool to see if you can find someone who might be qualified.
One of their possible motives for trying to force promote you is that they may think that they can offer you less of a salary increase than what they'd have to pay a new hire as manager. You shouldn't let them do that. If you get forced into taking the promotion, you should demand more than what the previous manager was getting. Then even if you hate it and end up quitting, you will at least have gotten some bucks out of the deal, a little resume padding and a bump in your salary history that will hopefully land you a better job and more pay later.
Start cursing because the games you want to play don't work properly under Windows 2000.
Repartition hard drive.
Re-install Windows 98 for games.
Find driver CD because new video card is too new for Windows 98 to have shipped with drivers for it.
Re-install games in Windows 98.
Re-install Windows 2000 because Windows 98 blew away Windows 2000 partition.
Re-install all of your other software in Windows 2000.
And don't tell me this doesn't happen all the time, because I work in an office full of gamers most of whom have gone through the above...
Does it really matter? IMO what's important is that PCs with pre-installed Linux are becoming easy to find, removing a major barrier for potential newcomers.
I would agree. I recently got a flier from Dell, and the little words printed below their server machines 'Red Hat Linux available pre-installed at no extra charge' is a big deal when it comes to getting acceptance from corporate america. I personally wasn't too impressed with their prices compared to the Penguin Computing machines we've been getting lately, but a Dell is a much more recognized name than Penguin at this time. Dell's prices aren't bad compared to other 'big name' vendors either.
If you are seriously suggesting that it's in the general desktop using public's interest to use Linux as opposed to MacOS you are completely blind to the reality of how difficult most people find computers to use (on any platform).
How do you come to that sort of conclusion from what I said? I think you've got me a little bit wrong...
Let me clarify... I said that the prediction is that Linux is going to overcome MacOS as the 2nd most popular desktop OS. I don't believe I made a definitive statement about whether it was in the interest of the 'general desktop using public' to use Linux as opposed to MacOS. Neither one of these is predicted to have more than about 6% of the market, and together would likely have only about 10 to 12%. Unfortunately that will still likely leave the 'general desktop using public' stuck with Windows. Both Linux and MacOS are probably still going to be in specialized niche markets for the near future as far as desktop uses go. I'm only going so far as to say that I think that before long Linux's niche market is going to be large enough to make it viable, and that the point where it passes the current largest niche market (that being MacOS) will be a point at which many vendors sit up and take notice. I wasn't particularly saying that Linux is going to steal its market share away from MacOS, although I believe in some cases that may be true, most of Linux's increased market share will come in the form of former Windows users. The loss of its 2nd place status will of course be a blow to Apple, but I don't think it will be fatal to them. People have been predicting Apple's demise every six months for various reasons since I've been paying attention (around 1980) and it hasn't happened yet.
But then - you're a Linux advocate, so no surprise there.
I realize that most people find computers, even Macs difficult to use. I personally would (and often do) recommend MacOS over Windows for the truly computerphobic type person, but most of them seem to choose Windows because it is perceived as 'what everyone else is doing'. I do believe that there is a large portion of the market that needs more than what the 'general desktop using public' does, and those people are targets for Linux. I also think that the Windows advocates are to a certain extent living in denial when they continue claims that Windows is significantly easier than the modern Linux distributions and desktops. Linux has been progressing at a much faster rate than Windows, and in most areas is not far behind Windows, in many areas is on par with Windows and in a few areas has surpassed Windows. As for comparing Linux to MacOS, it of course has a ways to go in overall ease of use, but it is still catching up, and MacOS X is going to speed that up rather than slow that down. Why, you might ask? Because Linux developers will be able to see how MacOS X hides its underlying *nix based roots with GUI frosting and copy and even extend upon that.
One of the other things that may eventually change the balance between Linux and MacOS even for 'general desktop users' is when the balance of application availability shifts. Unless the current trends fall off, that is going to happen in the not too distant future, as the number of Linux applications is growing at a faster rate than that of MacOS, and the advent of MacOS X will also increase that, as it will probably be easier to port applications from MacOS X to Linux than from older versions of MacOS. I suspect that MacOS also won't be hurt by competition from Linux for developer mindshare as much as Windows will be, but unfortunately Windows has a much larger share to be drained off before it will make as big a difference to them.
And finally, it is in fact in the 'general desktop using public's' interest for Linux to be a viable contender for the desktop market, as it will force both Microsoft and Apple to continue to work hard to keep making their offerings easier to use in order to try to stay ahead of Linux where they are and to try to regain the lead where they have lost it. Going back to my previous auto market example... I have no intention on ever buying, for example, a Ford... But I sure as hell am happy that Ford is out there as a competitor to GM. Besides that, what fun would race day be if there weren't a few rivalries...:-)
People do want a choice, but they want their choices to all be pretty safe. Look at the auto market. You can buy a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Volkswagen, whatever (insert the local brands if you aren't in the US). You can be assured that you will be able to easily figure out how to drive it. You will be able to find gas that works in it and tires that fit it. You will be able to find a shop to work on it when you have problems. It wasn't always that way. When the auto industry was at the point where the computer industry is now, things weren't so simple.
And when it comes down to it, do you think that the 'Bloggs' would like it if all of the other car companys shut down because everyone decided that because GM was the biggest car company it wasn't safe to buy anything else?
Linux is on the verge of getting to the point where it is as simple to do the things you are talking about as Windows. In the very near future, now that things like StarOffice are GPL and easy, full featured CD burning software like XCDRoast is maturing, and more games are coming out for Linux your 'Bloggs' will find that they can pretty nearly just shove a Linux CD in their computer and have all of those things installed on their machine. If the Microsoft monopoly on retail markets wavers, they might even be able to buy a retail channel pre-loaded Linux machine with all of that stuff (except probably some of the games) pre-loaded and pre-set up for them.
Frankly, I think you are over estimating how difficult Linux is, even now, and under estimating how difficult Windows can be. I think some of the newer Linux distros are actually easier to install than Windows, if it weren't for the fact that the 'Bloggs' depend on pre-loaded Windows, they probably would never get any of that Microsoft software on their machines. And as for adding new bits of software easily, as someone who has to deal with people who continually screw up their Windows boxes when trying to install things (and I try to avoid such things, but it just happens too often and to too many people that I know), I can tell you it really isn't so easy and foolproof as you'd have everyone believe.
I'm not saying that Linux is perfect or that there aren't places for Windows or MacOS for that matter... But it seems pretty obvious that the market is in dire need for some competition whether the 'Bloggs' know it or not. If it doesn't come from Linux or *BSD, who else is there besides Apple (which is basically going to a *BSD base)?
Hmmm... My LaserJet and Panasonic laser (HP LJ IIp clone) set up and print just fine under Red Hat, SuSE or Mandrake. For that matter so did the old DeskJet Plus I used to have... What kind of printer are you talking about, some GDI based printer?
What the vendors do won't change the fact that most people still want MS products.
Do people really? Or do they just not really have much of a choice when they go to CompUSA or Best Buy? Is it just that people, not knowing much about computers buy Microsoft's products because they are doing 'what everyone else does' rather than because they are actively choosing them? A lot of Microsoft's monopolistic power comes from the fact that they have been able to effectively control retail access to products.
MS is the "standard" on the desktop, if you want to share office documents you need MS products,
No you don't. I don't have any Microsoft products and I have no problem opening up all of the.doc,.xls and.ppt files that people send me. I use either StarOffice 5.2 or Word Perfect Office 2000 (or Word Perfect 8) on my Linux box. I've actually run into less file compatibility problems than some of my Windows-using co-workers who have Office 95 or Office 97 and have had problems opening documents from other co-workers who are using Office 2000.
if you want to play games you need MS products.
That depends on what games you want. While Linux doesn't have as many games as we'd all like, it does have quite a few, and Wine is getting close to being able to run a lot of the others. Besides that, you could always get a console.
Vendor support for Linux will not happen unless a large percentage of the general public wants it.
Vendor suppose for Linux is already starting to happen. Not as fast as I'd like, but signs are that before long Linux will overtake MacOS as the 2nd most popular desktop OS. There is generally always room for at least two players in every market, and a lot of vendors who don't support Linux now will come around once Linux overtakes MacOS. A 'large percentage' may be large enough to be viable at 5 or 6 percent in as large and lucrative a market as this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh. They don't make any effort at all to get it right, do they?
It sure seems like they don't. Unfortunately I think journalistic integrity is about as endangered these days as the bill of rights.
Maybe that is a little cynical. I suppose one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity, but it is awfully tempting to do so.
NYC
I'd agree that a lot of people are turned off by NYC. My personal opinion is that it is a noisy, crowded, filth ridden cesspool with an overabundance of rude and/or dangerous people.
My favorite city for big shows is Las Vegas. San Francisco is also most excellent. Other places that have had a pretty good track record include Chicago and Atlanta. Other places I'd rather visit than NYC... just about any other large US City... San Diego, Orlando, Dallas, Denver... Heck I think even Los Angeles would rank higher in my view than NYC.
high-powered assault rifle
.30-06
to be on the lower end of the "high power"
range.
Rifles that fire cartidges in this class are
not be at all practical for full-auto use
in a shoulder fired rifle, as they have too
much recoil to be controllable. Not only
that, but the cartridges themselves would be
too heavy to carry sufficent numbers for
sustained fire in an individual weapon and
would require box magazines that would be
of unweildy size for carry by individual
soldiers. Also it takes a big, heavy rifle
to take the beating that a high powered
cartridge dishes out, and that isn't
compatible with the purposes of an "assault
rifle".
.223 Remington) or 7.62x39 Russian
or the newer 5.45x39 Russian. They use low
powered cartridges because capacity and low
weight are more important than power, plus
they need to be controllable in rapid fire.
:)
That little bit generally proves you don't know much about guns. "Assault rifles" are not "high powered", and "High Powered" rifles are not "assault rifles".
It is not surprising that most people don't know the difference, as the media either doesn't know either, or intentionally misinforms people in order to create sensationalist scary stories.
"High powered" rifles are almost always bolt actions, although there are a few semi-autos. There is a little bit of variance on opinion as to how much power a cartridge has to have in order to be considered "high power", but many people consider, for example
"Assault rifles" generally fire medium to low powered cartridges such as 5.56x45 (a.k.a 5.56 NATO or
and if you take me that seriously, heh, well then, i'll just have to kill you too
Well, I don't take you seriously, but this really isn't the kind of thing that people should joke about, as well as it isn't good to perpetuate the disinformation of the media.
One thing that will likely become a problem is that people can very easily use informant channels, particularly those that are anonymous like 800 numbers or email to harrass people they don't like. All they have to do is make an accusation against someone and then wait for overzealous officials to tear into that person. Given zero tolerance policies and the general lack of critical investigation into the accuracy of accusations, this could cause a lot of innocent people grief. Even if officials do take time to investigate properly and the innocent are exonnerated, many people will continue to doubt, fear and distrust them for a considerable period after that. And in the schools, guilty until proven innocent is the norm, not the other way around. Sometimes even being proven innocent isn't good enough, especially if it looks like an official goofed. They will often refuse to rescind punishment in order to save face for themselves. Not to mention that the standard for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't seem to figure into school decisions. Kids are considered guilty unless a school official's opinion is that they are innocent beyond any doubt. Kids don't get the option of a trial by their peers either. Schools usually operate as the worst kind of kangaroo court.
I don't know if they can retroactively dock your pay or anything
How could they possibly do that? It said in the message that he hadn't worked at that place for over a year. Any paychecks from them have long since been cashed and most likely spent. Awfully hard for them to get them back now.
but there's nothing to stop them (or me, if I wanted) from reading the message boards and calling up your boss to tell him what you've said.
Well, they had better tread carefully there, because interfering with someone else's employment over something like this is not something that you should do lightly. If they aren't careful, they could find themselves being sued... And given that a jury might very well be sympathetic to the former employee in this case, they would have no guarantee they'd win.
They'd be far better off to just brush this kind of thing off...
I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me.
IANAL, but I'd have to say that this is probably in a grey area. However, companies should keep in mind that even if they know they will win a case, it will cost them money to defend themselves and it can cost them in bad publicity, so it is better for them to avoid getting into this kind of situation to begin with.
Care to give ISBN numbers? And are there stipulations as to what you can and cannot do with the information in those books? Anyway, .doc and .xls are only two of Microsoft's proprietary formats... how many others are so documented?
And since you bring up the price, how much are these books? It seems to be a common misperception that open source advocates won't pay for anything. That isn't quite true. I've bought a lot of things, even things I could have gotten for free. If Linux users weren't willing to pay money for documentation, then I don't know why the Borders and Barnes & Noble bookshelves have a couple hundred Linux related titles. I don't necessarily have anything against paying money for products that are worth it. I don't, however, buy anything from Microsoft, as they don't deserve my money. And as for your assertation that people have't learned about these books because of the price, I would counter to say that I probably don't know about them because Microsoft apparently hasn't done a very good job of publicizing their availability, and the fact that I don't generally spend my time researching things in that environment. Why would I, I don't use it.
I have always felt that Sun got it so wrong when they decided that developers wanted to be able to develop cross-platform, when in truth very few developers find this an advantage.
What planet are you from? In this world cross platform is something that is very important, since there are so many different platforms out there. In many large companies you have to deal with the fact that they aren't a homogenous environment. Often they will have big IBM mainframes in their data center for running legacy applications and some sort of *nix servers for running their newer back end apps and Novell servers for PC file/print services. Throw in a few odd NT/W2K servers for small departmental applications. Perhaps an AS/400 in their accounting department. PC's on many desktops with Macs in advertising and graphic design departments.
Think that isn't common? I used to work in an environment that had that basic IT infrastructure. There are thousands of companies that have similar infrastructures. To make matters more complex, they didn't just have one type of *nix servers but due to mergers and aquisitions they had several different RISC hardware platforms (Sparc, RS/6000 and Alpha).
You can't tell me that in that sort of environment that being able to write one set of code and easily migrate it to any platform you have isn't a great thing.
Java is a big thing in that type of shop because as long as you ignore certain products (cough, Visual J++), and write with the intention of making things portable, compatibility between those different platforms is pretty good.
Sun didn't make up the demand for cross-platform compatibility, the industry has been crying out for it for years.
How about D flat?
I do not believe that Sun Microsystems would have behaved any better if you had been a monopoly
Thankfully Sun never has been close to a monopoly, as there have always been enough competitors in their market space to keep them well under 50% of the market. Given that nobody out there expects that HP, IBM or Compaq for example are going to wither up and die tomorrow, I don't see Sun suddenly turning into a monopoly. I think that when any one company in a market gets more than 50% of the market, things tend to go downhill, but the *nix server market has never seen any one company control more than about 40% or so for any significant period of time.
Speculations on what Sun might have done had they become a monopoly instead of Microsoft seem pretty pointless to me. The reality is that in certain markets Microsoft certainly seems to hold monopoly like market shares and power and they certainly seem to have a track record of abusing those powers.
Sun is saying that it is OK for their implementations to be proprietary, but it is not OK for MS to do the same.
.doc format as a public standard. They could, but so far they haven't. What that means is that to write an alternative program that reads .doc formats you have to reverse engineer the format. Contrast that with Sun's proprietary implementation of Java. The Java spec is publicly available, although unfortunately not yet standardized by an independant standards body as many people would like to see. You can sit down and write your own implementation of Java from the spec, as for example the Kaffe and IBM people have to a certain extent.
Proprietary implementations aren't the same as proprietary formats. While the application that creates a file or document in a particular format might be proprietary, that doesn't mean the file or document format has to be proprietary. For example, Microsoft could keep MS-Word proprietary, but release the
While sun isn't perfect when it comes to supporting open source or open standards, they are a lot better than Microsoft who openly slams open source and only pays lip service to open standards for PR purposes while continuing their same old 'embrace and extend' patterns.
BTW, Linus is from Finland, not Sweden, although ethnically he is swedish and speaks swedish as his 'native' language.
The typical Linux user does NOT have a multiprocessor machine.
Actually dual Celeron and P2/P3 Linux boxes are pretty common. While certainly not everyone has one, I do, and I probably know at least 6 or 7 other people who do as well.
Deciding what a 'typical' user is, now that is the problem.
Are you kidding? ZDNet is one of the biggest Microsoft apologists around... They do, however tend to go for the sensationalism most of the time... They are kinda like the USA Today of the net...
Another technical flaw in the article is the assertation that the processor in the original IBM PC was the 8086. This is incorrect. I've actually got an original IBM PC sitting in my basement, and it definitely has an 8088 in it. For that matter, even the IBM XT had an 8088 in it. Some early IBM PC clones and other "MS-DOS but not quite compatible" machines like the Zenith Z100 used the 8086, but IBM didn't use the 8086 until later machines like the IBM PC convertable (early attempt at a laptop) or the PS/2 Model 25 and Model 30. The reason that IBM picked the 8088 is that its pinout was designed to be more closely compatible with the Z80, which was the CPU used in IBM's early engineering prototypes for the IBM PC. Those early designs were basically formulaic 8-bit CP/M machines.
It is also worth noting that to a certain extent, history is repeating itself. The Zilog Z80 was itself a clone of the Intel 8080. By the late 70's, Zilog, which was originally an upstart clone chip vendor, had overtaken Intel by building a better and cheaper product. Intel's follow-on to the Z80, the 8085, much like the P4 today was largely a disappointment. Intel was forced to move to 16 bit with the 8086 (and the 'ginsu' 8088) in order to grab back the market they had lost to Zilog. Intel was successful mainly because they succeded in selling the 8088 to IBM, which bailed them out. Zilog's 16 bit processor the Z8000 was a failure because it was too ambitious, and not at all compatible with their 8 bit designs, despite the fact that many people thought it was superior to Intel's 16 bit chips which were largely just warmed over 8 bit designs with larger registers.
It remains to be seen how things will sort out now. For all intents and purposes, Intel's P3 and P4 look to be beaten technically and price/performance wise by AMD. Intel appears to be largely betting on the IA64 to win back the market, but unlike the 8 bit -> 16 bit transition, it is Intel who is betting on a totally new and mostly incompatible architecture for 64 bits rather than AMD, who appears to be charting a much more conservative extension of the basic x86 architecture to 64 bits. If AMD gets software support for their 64 bit architecture before Intel does, which may happen because it is less of a jump, or AMD is able to push 64 bit processors into lower pricepoint boxes quicker, which also seems doable, Intel could be in trouble. One other big thing will be whether the AMD architecture runs existing 32 bit x86 code faster than the Intel IA64 processors do. Since many people will be largely dependant on legacy applications, if AMD can offer the promise of 64 bit applications in the future and better performance for existing 32 bit apps, then Intel will really be hurting.
AMD is supposed to have a SMP chipset for the Socket A proocessors out pretty soon. Then it is up to the motherboard vendors to ship it. Once AMD has broken Intel's monopoly on dual processor systems, it should force Intel to be more price competitive with the PIII Xeon, for example. So why be so down on AMD, if it wasn't from them, your PIII SMP box would have been a lot more expensive.
Right now I could go out and have probably a half dozen good offers in the next week. I'm good at what I do, but its not like I believe I'm god's gift to the IT industry either. I think that most skilled technical people are in about the same position as me if they know where to look and who to talk to.
I've got headhunters calling me all the time, and while I am not looking for another job (I am actually changing jobs with the new year already, for a job I wasn't really looking for), I never completely shut doors with headhunters unless they do something to really piss me off -- in general I give them a polite brush-off with a 'maybe later'. You never know when you'll need them, either to find a new job for yourself (or a friend of yours) or to find a new co-worker.
Another thing to do if you are in a hurry to find a job is post your information on an internet job site (like dice.com for example). If you've got skills and you live in an area (or are willing to relocate to an area) that has IT jobs you will likely have lots of calls from companies and headhunters.
This is just stupid. This is a choice. The employer should have the right (and most courts would rule this way) to terminate employment for willful decisions made by employees.
True up to a point, however this is a decision that is being thrust upon the employee by an arbitrary decision by the company, not something they are choosing willingly. Many people have been successful in wrongful termination suits because the employer effectively forced them out by 'materially changing compensation or job terms and responsibilities' to something that wasn't acceptable. In most of those cases the former employee only got a small amount, but it happens pretty frequently.
Exceptions to this include the family medical leave act and other Pro-Family measures to prevent descrimination for participation in non-job related activities. HOWEVER, choosing not to accept a promotion is most definately job related and the company is well within its rights to dismiss a person for this reason.
Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't mean you still can't sue. Doesn't mean you'll win either, but in either case the company loses because they are out legal fees plus their time.
As another poster so rightly pointed out, refusal of a promotion can be both considered to an indication of faltering job committment
That is pretty wacked thinking even for PHBs.
as well as a perceived insult to other management.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but anyone who thinks this way would seem to have some serious problems with their self esteem.
In both cases the company may be best advised to dismiss the individual.
Perhaps, but what I was saying is that it is pretty stupid to fire someone on such shaky grounds for several reasons. It also shows a lack of communication on management's part, because I would never have made an offer for a promotion to someone unless I was pretty sure ahead of time it is something they would want. I'd certainly never try to force someone into a promotion they didn't want.
Businesses (contrary to popular young person belief [full disclosure: I myself am a young person not suffering from this particular mental disease])
I am not a young person, nor do I suffer from that particular ailment. My points were that it was a bad idea to get rid of an employee for a reason like this because of the potential downside to the employer dealing with a lawsuit, be it successfully defended or not.
are about making money and prospering. If they're not, they should go out of business.
Part of being successful is avoiding stupid decisions that can land you in court.
This means the good of the whole outweighs the good of the one (no matter who he is...even if he's the CEO [which btw, happens all the time]).
Life just isn't that simple. While CEOs get sacked all the time, they are usually given a 'golden parachute' just to keep them from suing, and even then sometimes it doesn't work.
While I'll agree that it is probably a poor business practice, it is NOT and SHOULD NOT be illegal or grounds for litigation.
I didn't necessarily say it should be illegal, but it certainly could be grounds for litigation.
Also, if you work in an at-will employment state (like me), no grounds are required for dismissal and the burdon of proof weighs heavily on those claiming some protected status under the law. Pretty much better be pregnant or covered by the ADA (which seems to be almost anyone nowadays).
As I've said before, just because a case wouldn't be easy doesn't mean it can't be filed.
Anyway, I just hate it when the solution to every problem is litigation.
Again, I agree up to a point. I am not for frivilous litigation, however, I also don't think there should not be any recourse for people at all in any circumstance. The question is where to draw the line.
Move on. If they fire you, you probably don't want your job back. If rehire is not your goal, your suit is vengeful and should be considered frivolous as you are not entitled to the job and are compensated regularly for your work.
While I would agree that in most cases, rehires after a lawsuit are not going to work, there does need to be some way that companies can get spanked when they terminate people for illegal reasons. I'm not saying that for sure that would apply in this case, but I am speaking just generally. Of course the amounts received by the plaintiffs should be reasonable (limited to reasonable damages such as costs related to finding a new job, unemployment benefits, etc), and if punitive damages are assessed against a company, they probably shouldn't go to the plaintiff or his lawyers, they should go to offset the government's costs in administering and enforcing employment law. Basically there should be enough incentive to file groundful suits but not a lot of 'free money' to make ambulance chasing plaintiff's attourneys file every case they can dig up.
Even if a plaintiff knows they probably can't win a case if they are willing to eat their own attourney's fees they can 'punish' a former employer by making them pay their legal fees and lost time, etc. dealing with a case. Right or wrong, that is the way the system works.
Yes, you can sue them. You may not win, but you can almost always sue. In many states this kind of action would likely be in enough of a grey area as far as a "wrongfull termination" suit is concerned. Even if the guy had signed a contract that states something like "at will" employment, that can often be challenged in court.
Note that I am not in favor of frivilous lawsuits, but the reality is that it isn't that difficult to find a lawyer who will file a lawsuit for you in a case like this.
There are 100's of thousands of good IT jobs open out there right now.
In the worst case you can go find a new job in a short period of time. They are only shooting themselves in the foot if they fire you because not only can you likely sue them, they will then be losing TWO people at the top of their IT department instead of just one. They will then incur two times the costs to hire replacements, they will incur more 'downtime' with the new IT manager because he won't have you to learn the shop from and if they have to replace you as well, that is another person who has to come in and learn the shop and your software. They really don't want to have two new people to bring up to speed at once, because that will severely impact the work of at least one or two others. So in all reality, for a while they will be more than two people short staffed.
That being said... One thing you can do is offer to do the job on an interim basis and help them find the new IT manager in the mean time. That may not be the most fun thing in the world, but it makes it look like you are taking an active role in dealing with the situation and as a bonus, it gives you some control to hopefully get someone in who you can get along with. Basically, they make take 'no' more easily if they are off the hook from having to find a replacement manager, especially if you can do it without them having to pay big headhunter's fees. Start tapping your contact pool to see if you can find someone who might be qualified.
One of their possible motives for trying to force promote you is that they may think that they can offer you less of a salary increase than what they'd have to pay a new hire as manager. You shouldn't let them do that. If you get forced into taking the promotion, you should demand more than what the previous manager was getting. Then even if you hate it and end up quitting, you will at least have gotten some bucks out of the deal, a little resume padding and a bump in your salary history that will hopefully land you a better job and more pay later.
Plug in card.
Start gaming.
You forgot some steps:
Start cursing because the games you want to play don't work properly under Windows 2000.
Repartition hard drive.
Re-install Windows 98 for games.
Find driver CD because new video card is too new for Windows 98 to have shipped with drivers for it.
Re-install games in Windows 98.
Re-install Windows 2000 because Windows 98 blew away Windows 2000 partition.
Re-install all of your other software in Windows 2000.
And don't tell me this doesn't happen all the time, because I work in an office full of gamers most of whom have gone through the above...
Does it really matter? IMO what's important is that PCs with pre-installed Linux are becoming easy to find, removing a major barrier for potential newcomers.
I would agree. I recently got a flier from Dell, and the little words printed below their server machines 'Red Hat Linux available pre-installed at no extra charge' is a big deal when it comes to getting acceptance from corporate america. I personally wasn't too impressed with their prices compared to the Penguin Computing machines we've been getting lately, but a Dell is a much more recognized name than Penguin at this time. Dell's prices aren't bad compared to other 'big name' vendors either.
If you are seriously suggesting that it's in the general desktop using public's interest to use Linux as opposed to MacOS you are completely blind to the reality of how difficult most people find computers to use (on any platform).
:-)
How do you come to that sort of conclusion from what I said? I think you've got me a little bit wrong...
Let me clarify... I said that the prediction is that Linux is going to overcome MacOS as the 2nd most popular desktop OS. I don't believe I made a definitive statement about whether it was in the interest of the 'general desktop using public' to use Linux as opposed to MacOS. Neither one of these is predicted to have more than about 6% of the market, and together would likely have only about 10 to 12%. Unfortunately that will still likely leave the 'general desktop using public' stuck with Windows. Both Linux and MacOS are probably still going to be in specialized niche markets for the near future as far as desktop uses go. I'm only going so far as to say that I think that before long Linux's niche market is going to be large enough to make it viable, and that the point where it passes the current largest niche market (that being MacOS) will be a point at which many vendors sit up and take notice. I wasn't particularly saying that Linux is going to steal its market share away from MacOS, although I believe in some cases that may be true, most of Linux's increased market share will come in the form of former Windows users. The loss of its 2nd place status will of course be a blow to Apple, but I don't think it will be fatal to them. People have been predicting Apple's demise every six months for various reasons since I've been paying attention (around 1980) and it hasn't happened yet.
But then - you're a Linux advocate, so no surprise there.
I realize that most people find computers, even Macs difficult to use. I personally would (and often do) recommend MacOS over Windows for the truly computerphobic type person, but most of them seem to choose Windows because it is perceived as 'what everyone else is doing'. I do believe that there is a large portion of the market that needs more than what the 'general desktop using public' does, and those people are targets for Linux. I also think that the Windows advocates are to a certain extent living in denial when they continue claims that Windows is significantly easier than the modern Linux distributions and desktops. Linux has been progressing at a much faster rate than Windows, and in most areas is not far behind Windows, in many areas is on par with Windows and in a few areas has surpassed Windows. As for comparing Linux to MacOS, it of course has a ways to go in overall ease of use, but it is still catching up, and MacOS X is going to speed that up rather than slow that down. Why, you might ask? Because Linux developers will be able to see how MacOS X hides its underlying *nix based roots with GUI frosting and copy and even extend upon that.
One of the other things that may eventually change the balance between Linux and MacOS even for 'general desktop users' is when the balance of application availability shifts. Unless the current trends fall off, that is going to happen in the not too distant future, as the number of Linux applications is growing at a faster rate than that of MacOS, and the advent of MacOS X will also increase that, as it will probably be easier to port applications from MacOS X to Linux than from older versions of MacOS. I suspect that MacOS also won't be hurt by competition from Linux for developer mindshare as much as Windows will be, but unfortunately Windows has a much larger share to be drained off before it will make as big a difference to them.
And finally, it is in fact in the 'general desktop using public's' interest for Linux to be a viable contender for the desktop market, as it will force both Microsoft and Apple to continue to work hard to keep making their offerings easier to use in order to try to stay ahead of Linux where they are and to try to regain the lead where they have lost it. Going back to my previous auto market example... I have no intention on ever buying, for example, a Ford... But I sure as hell am happy that Ford is out there as a competitor to GM. Besides that, what fun would race day be if there weren't a few rivalries...
People do want a choice, but they want their choices to all be pretty safe. Look at the auto market. You can buy a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Volkswagen, whatever (insert the local brands if you aren't in the US). You can be assured that you will be able to easily figure out how to drive it. You will be able to find gas that works in it and tires that fit it. You will be able to find a shop to work on it when you have problems. It wasn't always that way. When the auto industry was at the point where the computer industry is now, things weren't so simple.
And when it comes down to it, do you think that the 'Bloggs' would like it if all of the other car companys shut down because everyone decided that because GM was the biggest car company it wasn't safe to buy anything else?
Linux is on the verge of getting to the point where it is as simple to do the things you are talking about as Windows. In the very near future, now that things like StarOffice are GPL and easy, full featured CD burning software like XCDRoast is maturing, and more games are coming out for Linux your 'Bloggs' will find that they can pretty nearly just shove a Linux CD in their computer and have all of those things installed on their machine. If the Microsoft monopoly on retail markets wavers, they might even be able to buy a retail channel pre-loaded Linux machine with all of that stuff (except probably some of the games) pre-loaded and pre-set up for them.
Frankly, I think you are over estimating how difficult Linux is, even now, and under estimating how difficult Windows can be. I think some of the newer Linux distros are actually easier to install than Windows, if it weren't for the fact that the 'Bloggs' depend on pre-loaded Windows, they probably would never get any of that Microsoft software on their machines. And as for adding new bits of software easily, as someone who has to deal with people who continually screw up their Windows boxes when trying to install things (and I try to avoid such things, but it just happens too often and to too many people that I know), I can tell you it really isn't so easy and foolproof as you'd have everyone believe.
I'm not saying that Linux is perfect or that there aren't places for Windows or MacOS for that matter... But it seems pretty obvious that the market is in dire need for some competition whether the 'Bloggs' know it or not. If it doesn't come from Linux or *BSD, who else is there besides Apple (which is basically going to a *BSD base)?
Hmmm... My LaserJet and Panasonic laser (HP LJ IIp clone) set up and print just fine under Red Hat, SuSE or Mandrake. For that matter so did the old DeskJet Plus I used to have... What kind of printer are you talking about, some GDI based printer?
What the vendors do won't change the fact that most people still want MS products.
.doc, .xls and .ppt files that people send me. I use either StarOffice 5.2 or Word Perfect Office 2000 (or Word Perfect 8) on my Linux box. I've actually run into less file compatibility problems than some of my Windows-using co-workers who have Office 95 or Office 97 and have had problems opening documents from other co-workers who are using Office 2000.
Do people really? Or do they just not really have much of a choice when they go to CompUSA or Best Buy? Is it just that people, not knowing much about computers buy Microsoft's products because they are doing 'what everyone else does' rather than because they are actively choosing them? A lot of Microsoft's monopolistic power comes from the fact that they have been able to effectively control retail access to products.
MS is the "standard" on the desktop, if you want to share office documents you need MS products,
No you don't. I don't have any Microsoft products and I have no problem opening up all of the
if you want to play games you need MS products.
That depends on what games you want. While Linux doesn't have as many games as we'd all like, it does have quite a few, and Wine is getting close to being able to run a lot of the others. Besides that, you could always get a console.
Vendor support for Linux will not happen unless a large percentage of the general public wants it.
Vendor suppose for Linux is already starting to happen. Not as fast as I'd like, but signs are that before long Linux will overtake MacOS as the 2nd most popular desktop OS. There is generally always room for at least two players in every market, and a lot of vendors who don't support Linux now will come around once Linux overtakes MacOS. A 'large percentage' may be large enough to be viable at 5 or 6 percent in as large and lucrative a market as this.