I haven't had to face this directly, but I've seen several of my co-workers be "promoted" to managerial positions, and they pretty much universally hate it. Besides just the crazy increase in workload and responsibility, they barely get to do technical work anymore, which I think is the biggest downside for most of them. As an engineer, I've got 2, maybe 3 meetings on my calendar each week, the rest of the time is spent...engineering. My supervisor's calendar, who is supposed to be a lead engineer, is chuck full of meetings, most are non-technical. There are weeks where he doesn't do any engineering at all because he's too busy being a manager.
Obviously, if your job is at stake, it's a tough call to make, especially in this economic climate. Depending on what kind of relationship you have with him, you might be able to just talk to your superior about it, tell them you'd really prefer to keep your old position, but explain that it's not worth your job (assuming that's the case).
But you can apply that logic to deem anything a success: "Well, the reactor melted down and killed millions of people. But overall it was a success, we just have to refine the system."
Re:misuse of the term 'hacker'
on
Hackers vs. Phishers
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Comcast isn't just TV, though: ISP is a big part of their business. I'm not sure how much coverage they provide exactly, but based on the fact that they can afford to buy controlling share of NBC, I'm guessing it's pretty serious. No, it wouldn't be as bas as loosing homes and cars, but can you imagine how contemporary business would suffer if, say, 1% of Internet Infrastructure suddenly shut down?
earnest nailed it, it was a lame attempt at humor. SPDNSY in the title
alludes to SPDY, Google in-development proposed extensions/replacement
for HTTP. It requires SSL/TLS encryption, and may require specific
encryption schemes and strict spelling of orders. The first line was a
hyperbolism (look it up) regarding this. bzip3 is not real, UATE is
real, but only in theory. All the others are legit. The second line
was apparently a poorly thought through crack referring to how all the
results links on Google route through their click-counter page.
Anyway, I'll stop attempting humor now.
They forgot to mention it requires TLS encryption and authentication, bzip3 compression, base64 encoding, little-endian representation, rot13 transcription, and UATE (universal anagram transliteration encryption).
At the risk of not being cynical enough, it is conceivable (if unlikely) that being on top gives them the luxury of actually benefiting from competition. Having someone challenge you can be the push you need to kick it into high gear, especially if you're monstrous enough to not actually be in any real danger from the competition.
Or maybe this VP just doesn't feel like dealing with the pressure of having more engineers under him*.
If you're not going to use the CLI, there's little point to using Linux. A powerful command line environment is the single greatest feature Linux or any UNIX(like) has.
Beg to differ. Inside the deepest bowels of the Linux kernel lies some of the best operating system concepts and implementations man* has even seen. Are you missing something if you're not using the command line? You betch'yuh. But are you still getting a far better operating system than Windows? Definitely.
1. Forums that are simply copies of other forums with no actual contributions.
That's not a Unix/Linux issue, it's a web issue. Forums get archived and copied, not even Linus can prevent that.
2. Installation documentation as the only source for certain unix tools. I don't know how many times I've found Redhat's website insufficient, because it's about how to do an initial install.
Redhat isn't Linux. It's Redhat, that's a company, not an operating system. If you're paying them for their version of Linux, they owe you better support.
3. Too many man pages lack useful examples of how commands options are used and their output. (How hard is it to simply create a few examples?)
True enough.
4. Invariably someone has asked the question I want answered online, but often that's it. There's no posted answer for the question in many forums/newsgroups--the thread's just left dangling.
Again, this has nothing to do with Linux documentation. It could just as well be questions about how to take care of white mold on tomato plants. As a matter of fact, Linus actually circles the entire web every third Sunday, ready and willing to answer all dangling questions, but most web forums don't let you post answers without registering. (Incidentally, Linus' tomato plants are dieing, and he's still waiting for a response).
Look, I know we like to joke around about it in computer circles, but computers are not toaster, nor are they microwaves. If someone's regarding it as something other than what it is (such as an appliance), then whose responsible for the fact that it doesn't work they way they expect?
At the risk of running counter to the Ubunutu philosphy, Linux isn't for everybody. That's why you don't just go to Walmart and pick up a Linux PC (oops...nevermind.). It's a hard lesson to learn: I'll be the first to admit that when I started with Linux I was a typical overzealous evangelist, constantly telling my dad all the reasons he should switch to Linux. It wasn't till one day when he saw me working in a full screen text terminal and said "Uh-oh, looks like you crashed!" that I realized it would be completely inappropriate for him to switch to Linux.
From it's humble Finnish beginnings, Linux has always been one thing: an operating system for the people who built it. The rest of us are opportunists.
Every developer knows that documentation is important. You know what else is important? Core functionality. Protecting against buffer overflows. Preventing seg faults.
It's a bit of a catch-37 (which is not quite as ironic as a catch-22): without proper functionality, the system is useless; without documentation the functionality is inaccessible and the system is therefore useless. So do you spend your time implementing or documenting?
Stale and missing documentation is a legitimate criticism of Linux, just as it is a legitimate criticism of Windows and the majority of both open source and proprietary software you're liable to encounter. The main difference is, you're not paying for anything with (most) Linux. Plus, open source developers are frequently accessible on mailing lists and IRC channels, so if you have a question, you can ask the horse himself, instead of his outsourced stable boy. Last but certainly not least, it's open source, so crack open the code and start figuring it out yourself. Or if you can't, you can always go back to those mailing lists and IRC channels and find someone who can (or more likely, already did).
Nope, that's not what net-neutrality advocates. Don't let the government regulate it, just get the government to pass laws preventing anyone else from regulating it.
"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."
No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water. The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
Interesting. Are ISPs actually considered utilities, or are you suggesting they should be? (That's a genuine question). I think your comparison is a little lacking though: you pay the gas company for gas, not for dishwater. If they pumped dishwater, they wouldn't be holding up their end of the deal. As far as I know, you don't pay Comcast to not regulate your traffic or spy on you (I could be wrong, that may be in the service contract).
Out of curiosity, are you willing to carry your obvious hatred of government to its logical conclusion, which is naturally an anarchist "state". Personally, I agree with (a watered down version of) your general idea that government regulation has a lot of associated dangers. But until people are ready and willing to live without/any/ government at all, certain government controls are necessary to ensure reasonable quality of life for everybody. It's really not a situation where an continuum of compromises is effective: a little bit of government regulation isn't almost as good as no government, because that little bit of regulation demands a chain reaction of follow-up regulations in order to keep things balanced. For instance, you can't reasonably regulate the price of milk without somehow regulating the cost of producing it. Tell farmer's they can only charge 1$ a gallon without ensuring that they can produce it for less, and you end up with a lot of dead dairy farmers and no milk. I only ask because most free marketeers don't consider themselves anarchists, which is half-assed if you ask me.
Anyway, I don't know where you're living that cars, televisions, and Internet access are simply conveniences that you could so easily choose to live without if the price started getting too high. Most people need cars to get to work, and the Internet is becoming increasingly more important for work, commerce, and everyday life (I'm not going to try to argue on behalf of TV; total mind rot). Sure, if the prices were completely unreasonable, then they become unaffordable luxuries, but within a sizeable margin the providers have quite a bit of room to screw you sideways. It's just short sighted to think that people will only pay up to what they feel comfortable with for important amenities. For things that play a major role in your everyday life, you're going to continue to pay for them until it really starts to hurt. Look what happened with gas prices? How many people actually cut down significantly on their consumption when gas hit 5$/gal? There's an expression on the tip of my fingers...something about short and curlies, I think.
Generally, I agree with your comment. But It's interesting to put the Internet (as it stands today) in terms of the important information that provides the "key to power". I'm curious what percentage of network traffic contains information about, say, government abuses, human rights violations, wars, famines, diseases, new technologies, new ideas, etc. as compared to Tiger-gate, Miley Cirus, that naked guy who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter, etc. Just a thought.
I think what you (and many others) aren't getting is that most net-neutrality based arguments for regulation aren't suggesting putting regulation of the Internet in the hands of the government. Don't think FCC, think GPL: the point isn't to put someone in charge, but to prevent anybody from being in charge. Net neutrality isn't about the government coming in and saying "you have to allow X% web content and Y% bit torrent content, and by the way, it's all going to pass through our filters so we can inspect, censor, and regulate." It's about the government saying "Sorry ISP, you're not allowed to place content-specific limits on your customers."
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't had to face this directly, but I've seen several of my co-workers be "promoted" to managerial positions, and they pretty much universally hate it. Besides just the crazy increase in workload and responsibility, they barely get to do technical work anymore, which I think is the biggest downside for most of them. As an engineer, I've got 2, maybe 3 meetings on my calendar each week, the rest of the time is spent...engineering. My supervisor's calendar, who is supposed to be a lead engineer, is chuck full of meetings, most are non-technical. There are weeks where he doesn't do any engineering at all because he's too busy being a manager.
Obviously, if your job is at stake, it's a tough call to make, especially in this economic climate. Depending on what kind of relationship you have with him, you might be able to just talk to your superior about it, tell them you'd really prefer to keep your old position, but explain that it's not worth your job (assuming that's the case).
Best of luck with it.
But you can apply that logic to deem anything a success: "Well, the reactor melted down and killed millions of people. But overall it was a success, we just have to refine the system."
Actually, Real Hackers use punctuation.
Here, I fixed that sentence for you:
Hacking is about finding the most clever route to do pretty much anything.
Comcast isn't just TV, though: ISP is a big part of their business. I'm not sure how much coverage they provide exactly, but based on the fact that they can afford to buy controlling share of NBC, I'm guessing it's pretty serious. No, it wouldn't be as bas as loosing homes and cars, but can you imagine how contemporary business would suffer if, say, 1% of Internet Infrastructure suddenly shut down?
earnest nailed it, it was a lame attempt at humor. SPDNSY in the title alludes to SPDY, Google in-development proposed extensions/replacement for HTTP. It requires SSL/TLS encryption, and may require specific encryption schemes and strict spelling of orders. The first line was a hyperbolism (look it up) regarding this. bzip3 is not real, UATE is real, but only in theory. All the others are legit. The second line was apparently a poorly thought through crack referring to how all the results links on Google route through their click-counter page. Anyway, I'll stop attempting humor now.
Not likely. They'll block by IP with something like Privoxy, not DNS lookup.
They forgot to mention it requires TLS encryption and authentication, bzip3 compression, base64 encoding, little-endian representation, rot13 transcription, and UATE (universal anagram transliteration encryption).
Oh, and everything resolves to Google's proxies.
At the risk of not being cynical enough, it is conceivable (if unlikely) that being on top gives them the luxury of actually benefiting from competition. Having someone challenge you can be the push you need to kick it into high gear, especially if you're monstrous enough to not actually be in any real danger from the competition.
Or maybe this VP just doesn't feel like dealing with the pressure of having more engineers under him*.
* - That's what she said.
That's not ironic, just unfortunate.
Ubuntuforums? Sorry, not really into pokemon.
Never felt that way on Microsoft?
Nah, SPDY will.
If you're not going to use the CLI, there's little point to using Linux. A powerful command line environment is the single greatest feature Linux or any UNIX(like) has.
Beg to differ. Inside the deepest bowels of the Linux kernel lies some of the best operating system concepts and implementations man* has even seen. Are you missing something if you're not using the command line? You betch'yuh. But are you still getting a far better operating system than Windows? Definitely.
* - kind, not page.
1. Forums that are simply copies of other forums with no actual contributions.
That's not a Unix/Linux issue, it's a web issue. Forums get archived and copied, not even Linus can prevent that.
2. Installation documentation as the only source for certain unix tools. I don't know how many times I've found Redhat's website insufficient, because it's about how to do an initial install.
Redhat isn't Linux. It's Redhat, that's a company, not an operating system. If you're paying them for their version of Linux, they owe you better support.
3. Too many man pages lack useful examples of how commands options are used and their output. (How hard is it to simply create a few examples?)
True enough.
4. Invariably someone has asked the question I want answered online, but often that's it. There's no posted answer for the question in many forums/newsgroups--the thread's just left dangling.
Again, this has nothing to do with Linux documentation. It could just as well be questions about how to take care of white mold on tomato plants. As a matter of fact, Linus actually circles the entire web every third Sunday, ready and willing to answer all dangling questions, but most web forums don't let you post answers without registering. (Incidentally, Linus' tomato plants are dieing, and he's still waiting for a response).
Nano? You obviously don't have any anti-virus programs running on that system.
Look, I know we like to joke around about it in computer circles, but computers are not toaster, nor are they microwaves. If someone's regarding it as something other than what it is (such as an appliance), then whose responsible for the fact that it doesn't work they way they expect?
At the risk of running counter to the Ubunutu philosphy, Linux isn't for everybody. That's why you don't just go to Walmart and pick up a Linux PC (oops...nevermind.). It's a hard lesson to learn: I'll be the first to admit that when I started with Linux I was a typical overzealous evangelist, constantly telling my dad all the reasons he should switch to Linux. It wasn't till one day when he saw me working in a full screen text terminal and said "Uh-oh, looks like you crashed!" that I realized it would be completely inappropriate for him to switch to Linux.
From it's humble Finnish beginnings, Linux has always been one thing: an operating system for the people who built it. The rest of us are opportunists.
Conversation != eating.
Well how can anything help you if you don't know what you're looking for?
Every developer knows that documentation is important. You know what else is important? Core functionality. Protecting against buffer overflows. Preventing seg faults. It's a bit of a catch-37 (which is not quite as ironic as a catch-22): without proper functionality, the system is useless; without documentation the functionality is inaccessible and the system is therefore useless. So do you spend your time implementing or documenting?
Stale and missing documentation is a legitimate criticism of Linux, just as it is a legitimate criticism of Windows and the majority of both open source and proprietary software you're liable to encounter. The main difference is, you're not paying for anything with (most) Linux. Plus, open source developers are frequently accessible on mailing lists and IRC channels, so if you have a question, you can ask the horse himself, instead of his outsourced stable boy. Last but certainly not least, it's open source, so crack open the code and start figuring it out yourself. Or if you can't, you can always go back to those mailing lists and IRC channels and find someone who can (or more likely, already did).
Nope, that's not what net-neutrality advocates. Don't let the government regulate it, just get the government to pass laws preventing anyone else from regulating it.
"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."
No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water. The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
Interesting. Are ISPs actually considered utilities, or are you suggesting they should be? (That's a genuine question). I think your comparison is a little lacking though: you pay the gas company for gas, not for dishwater. If they pumped dishwater, they wouldn't be holding up their end of the deal. As far as I know, you don't pay Comcast to not regulate your traffic or spy on you (I could be wrong, that may be in the service contract).
Out of curiosity, are you willing to carry your obvious hatred of government to its logical conclusion, which is naturally an anarchist "state". Personally, I agree with (a watered down version of) your general idea that government regulation has a lot of associated dangers. But until people are ready and willing to live without /any/ government at all, certain government controls are necessary to ensure reasonable quality of life for everybody. It's really not a situation where an continuum of compromises is effective: a little bit of government regulation isn't almost as good as no government, because that little bit of regulation demands a chain reaction of follow-up regulations in order to keep things balanced. For instance, you can't reasonably regulate the price of milk without somehow regulating the cost of producing it. Tell farmer's they can only charge 1$ a gallon without ensuring that they can produce it for less, and you end up with a lot of dead dairy farmers and no milk. I only ask because most free marketeers don't consider themselves anarchists, which is half-assed if you ask me.
Anyway, I don't know where you're living that cars, televisions, and Internet access are simply conveniences that you could so easily choose to live without if the price started getting too high. Most people need cars to get to work, and the Internet is becoming increasingly more important for work, commerce, and everyday life (I'm not going to try to argue on behalf of TV; total mind rot). Sure, if the prices were completely unreasonable, then they become unaffordable luxuries, but within a sizeable margin the providers have quite a bit of room to screw you sideways. It's just short sighted to think that people will only pay up to what they feel comfortable with for important amenities. For things that play a major role in your everyday life, you're going to continue to pay for them until it really starts to hurt. Look what happened with gas prices? How many people actually cut down significantly on their consumption when gas hit 5$/gal? There's an expression on the tip of my fingers...something about short and curlies, I think.
Generally, I agree with your comment. But It's interesting to put the Internet (as it stands today) in terms of the important information that provides the "key to power". I'm curious what percentage of network traffic contains information about, say, government abuses, human rights violations, wars, famines, diseases, new technologies, new ideas, etc. as compared to Tiger-gate, Miley Cirus, that naked guy who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter, etc. Just a thought.
I think what you (and many others) aren't getting is that most net-neutrality based arguments for regulation aren't suggesting putting regulation of the Internet in the hands of the government. Don't think FCC, think GPL: the point isn't to put someone in charge, but to prevent anybody from being in charge. Net neutrality isn't about the government coming in and saying "you have to allow X% web content and Y% bit torrent content, and by the way, it's all going to pass through our filters so we can inspect, censor, and regulate." It's about the government saying "Sorry ISP, you're not allowed to place content-specific limits on your customers."