Frameworks can be your friend, but there are a number of situations in which you'll need to become "more than friends". It seems like there is a point in every project in which one of the programmers ends up digging into framework code to figure out a problem -- usually a performance problem -- which to some degree defeats the "time-savings" justification for using a framework in the first place.
I can't speak for every employer, but I've done a fair bit of interviewing & hiring over the past year, and my experience indicates that many technical interviewers are looking for employees that have demonstrated an ability to take ownership of (and solve) problems and have demonstrated that they've improved their own work processes/practices and those of their fellow team members. Many desirable candidates became "The Build Lady" or "The Source Control Guy" or something similar because there was a need in their organization, and the candidate decided to fill that need by implementing some solution.
I've shared these observations with a former coworker who is in a situation similar to yours: he has been in the same role, working with the same technologies, for the past decade or so, and he wants to broaden his skills and make himself more employable. My former coworker understands conceptually how he can advance his career, but his own fears often prevent him taking action. I think that he feels that any solution he comes up with needs to be technically brilliant and will perfectly solve whatever problem he is addressing. I've told him that my own experience shows that is not true. Nobody is an expert on everything, and virtually every solution has flaws, so don't let the fear of failure or the fear of the unknown prevent you from trying something new.
Now, maybe the situation that I described isn't relevant to your situation, but it's clearly relevant to some people, so I wanted to share.
I'm not a philosopher, and I don't play one on TV, but my recollection is that many of the Greek philosophers used works of poetry as the starting point for their philosophical discussions. Since the poetry of that day was primarily entertainment, there is significant precendent for using something like The Simpsons as the basis for educational purposes.
Like QuickSilver_999, I think that you're putting words into W's mouth. I don't disagree that your point is valid, that politicians often get caught up in ridiculous semantic arguments, but Bush expressed none of the ideas expressed in this thread. The "insurance" comment by itself is ludicrous, and he didn't clearly explain what he meant. It reflects poorly on Bush, not on people, like you, who plan to vote for him.
No doubt he would have liked to have said what you wrote in your post, but he didn't, and he didn't clearly explain what he meant by his sentence.
I don't want to get into a political debate, mainly because I plan on voting for Mayor McCheese for president, but wouldn't you consider FDIC insurance "real" insurance. I'm not contesting the point that American government needs to be simplified and shrunk, but I also think that the role of government is underappreciated by most conservative thought.
Speaking of bizarre looking sentences, here is what I meant to write:
The insurance quote was from the third debate, and there was no exculpatory context. It seemed just as bizarre during the debate as it seems in print.
Maybe you ought to actually READ my post before you reply. I was just writing a little satire myself, with the express purpose of linking to several of my favorite Onion articles. Thanks for continuing the SlashDot tradition of [over]reacting seriously to humorous posts.
By the way, I'd like to see any data that would substantiate your claim that the Time Warner - AOL deal will somehow benefit me.
As with most articles about large mergers, the article completely glosses over what will happen to the rank and file workers of the merged company. Hopefully, any manager who authorizes layoffs will be sent to Hell's Circle of Total Bastards. In particular, I hope that The Onion's chaplain keeps his job [see Local Lutheran Minister Loves To Fuck His Wife].
My interpretation of the article is somewhat different than that of the poster. I think that the following line does NOT mean that "Research found students to have better recollection after long periods of sleep deprivation"
Although subjects' memory performance was less efficient with sleep deprivation, greater activity in the parietal region was associated with better memory.
My interpretation of that line is that, overall, students had WORSE memory performance when sleep-deprived, but those students who had greater activity in the parietal region performed better than those with lower activity -- but still worse than they would have had with a good night's sleep. Am I correct in my reading?
Thanks for the link. I was trying to locate info about the investment in Intel's SEC filings, but I couldn't find anything. Since the link between the companies is real, I wonder if Intel used their contacts at Phoenix to review Transmeta's research and apply it to EPIC [or vice versa]? Since it's very likely that both companies had strict NDAs in place, any information "sharing" via Phoenix would probably be illegal. Hmmm, maybe I'd better shut up before the P3 in my workstation notifies Intel of my whereabouts.
I have a vague recollection of seeing an article on SlashDot about 18 months ago heralding Intel's investment in Phoenix. That would be an interesting situation, if my recollection is accurate.
Sure, if the six people that were chosen are the progenitors of a new human lineage, the race is bound to be good-looking, but I can't help but wonder why MTV wasn't more loyal to some of the people who helped make them the success that they are today. With that in mind, here is my list of 6 people to carry on our species:
Martha Quinn -- High energy level needed for survival David Byrne -- Intelligent, also can pass on traditions from many cultures to decendents L.L. Cool J -- Muscularity and street smarts are important for survival Madonna -- Superhuman reproductive drive Dan Cortese -- athletic ability & fearlessness honed by MTV Sports stint Lauryn Hill -- Rrrrrarrr; also, intelligent and less likely to burn down shelter than Lisa *Left Eye* Lopez
You obviously haven't seen any of the *Secret Service of the Air* movies, or you'd agree that Reagan is far from a second rate actor -- he was much worse than that.
On a more serious (but no less true) note, I have a hazy recollection of Gorbachev saying that the U.S. military buildup in the 1980's PROLONGED the Cold War because it made the Russians distrust the U.S. far more than they already did, which made them more reluctant to admit that their socioeconomic system was failing.
No doubt that greed is among the most common motivators, particularly in America, but I'm not convinced that your janitor analogy made the point that you intended it to. Perhaps your janitor wants a better job because his wage only permits him to afford a home in a crime-ridden neighborhood with bad schools and hostile police. I see this situation as being more fundamental than greed, it's one of freedom or survival. This brings me back to the point that I was trying to make in my inital post, which is: keeping up with technology, or more to the point of Jon's story, worrying about keeping up with technology, can be the result of factors that I would not characterize as greed or "want".
I'm not sure that Technology can be classified so easily (as a "want"). I think that you'd have to agree that Technology has an economic aspect. For example, if you completely ignored Technology, you would have a tougher time finding a "good" job. I think that this economic aspect of Technology causes a great deal of the frustration that most people experience. Nobody wants to fall behind the technology curve because they could lose control of their economic future.
I agree with many of the negative comments about this piece. I have ordered from Amazon many times, and none of my orders were submitted because Amazon was cool. I order from Amazon for a number of reasons: they have the books that I want, the books that I want are easy to find, I can judge a book's quality by the user comments, and they process my order quickly.
However, Jon does make at least one valid point. In many ways, Amazon functions as a guide to books. There are thousands of technical books available, and it is difficult to know which books are worth their price. Amazon's recommendations help narrow this selection process. However, in order for this "expert" advice to be valid, the customer needs to trust whoever is doing the recommending. Having links to useless crap from nearly every page (not to mention the fact that they sell prime viewing space) gives the impression that Amazon is more interested in making a quick buck than in providing useful and accurate recommendations -- even if there is no real effect of one on the other.
Where were their mothers, huh?
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there has been at least one report on these kids' home lives, a NY Times report that can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/042399colo -school-suspect.html According to the article, "Both Harris and Klebold come from middle-class, two-parent families. Klebold's father, Thomas, is a retired geologist who runs Fountain Real Estate Management from his home. His mother, Susan, has worked for years in the local community college system, counseling disabled students, among other things." There is also a blurb about Harris' family, as well. What the article can't tell you is whether these appearances are deceiving. There is a hint that Harris had some problems at home; when he came to bat during his Little League games, he would rarely (if ever) swing at the pitches that were thrown. According to his former coach, he was not swinging due to his overwhelming fear of failure. In any event, I agree that the parents should have been more involved in their children's lives -- at least enough to have detected an "arms buildup". However, I can't place the blame entirely on their shoulders. People in our country (USA) have a tendency to always look for a single outside factor that is to blame for tragedies such as this one, but reality is always far more complex. People are responsible for their own actions.
Speaking of offensive, how many here believe Christine Hughes, vice president of marketing for Secure Computing, when she says, "Generally, we try to review every site"?
Slashdot Mirror
Frameworks can be your friend, but there are a number of situations in which you'll need to become "more than friends". It seems like there is a point in every project in which one of the programmers ends up digging into framework code to figure out a problem -- usually a performance problem -- which to some degree defeats the "time-savings" justification for using a framework in the first place.
I can't speak for every employer, but I've done a fair bit of interviewing & hiring over the past year, and my experience indicates that many technical interviewers are looking for employees that have demonstrated an ability to take ownership of (and solve) problems and have demonstrated that they've improved their own work processes/practices and those of their fellow team members. Many desirable candidates became "The Build Lady" or "The Source Control Guy" or something similar because there was a need in their organization, and the candidate decided to fill that need by implementing some solution.
I've shared these observations with a former coworker who is in a situation similar to yours: he has been in the same role, working with the same technologies, for the past decade or so, and he wants to broaden his skills and make himself more employable. My former coworker understands conceptually how he can advance his career, but his own fears often prevent him taking action. I think that he feels that any solution he comes up with needs to be technically brilliant and will perfectly solve whatever problem he is addressing. I've told him that my own experience shows that is not true. Nobody is an expert on everything, and virtually every solution has flaws, so don't let the fear of failure or the fear of the unknown prevent you from trying something new.
Now, maybe the situation that I described isn't relevant to your situation, but it's clearly relevant to some people, so I wanted to share.
I'm not a philosopher, and I don't play one on TV, but my recollection is that many of the Greek philosophers used works of poetry as the starting point for their philosophical discussions. Since the poetry of that day was primarily entertainment, there is significant precendent for using something like The Simpsons as the basis for educational purposes.
Like QuickSilver_999, I think that you're putting words into W's mouth. I don't disagree that your point is valid, that politicians often get caught up in ridiculous semantic arguments, but Bush expressed none of the ideas expressed in this thread. The "insurance" comment by itself is ludicrous, and he didn't clearly explain what he meant. It reflects poorly on Bush, not on people, like you, who plan to vote for him.
I don't want to get into a political debate, mainly because I plan on voting for Mayor McCheese for president, but wouldn't you consider FDIC insurance "real" insurance. I'm not contesting the point that American government needs to be simplified and shrunk, but I also think that the role of government is underappreciated by most conservative thought.
Speaking of bizarre looking sentences, here is what I meant to write: The insurance quote was from the third debate, and there was no exculpatory context. It seemed just as bizarre during the debate as it seems in print.
The insurance quote was from the third debate, and there was no exculpatory. It seemed just as bizarre during the debate as it seems in print.
By the way, I'd like to see any data that would substantiate your claim that the Time Warner - AOL deal will somehow benefit me.
As with most articles about large mergers, the article completely glosses over what will happen to the rank and file workers of the merged company. Hopefully, any manager who authorizes layoffs will be sent to Hell's Circle of Total Bastards. In particular, I hope that The Onion's chaplain keeps his job [see Local Lutheran Minister Loves To Fuck His Wife].
Although subjects' memory performance was less efficient with sleep deprivation, greater activity in the parietal region was associated with better memory.
My interpretation of that line is that, overall, students had WORSE memory performance when sleep-deprived, but those students who had greater activity in the parietal region performed better than those with lower activity -- but still worse than they would have had with a good night's sleep. Am I correct in my reading?
From the Slashdot drinking game:
Drink if...
Thanks for the link. I was trying to locate info about the investment in Intel's SEC filings, but I couldn't find anything. Since the link between the companies is real, I wonder if Intel used their contacts at Phoenix to review Transmeta's research and apply it to EPIC [or vice versa]? Since it's very likely that both companies had strict NDAs in place, any information "sharing" via Phoenix would probably be illegal. Hmmm, maybe I'd better shut up before the P3 in my workstation notifies Intel of my whereabouts.
I have a vague recollection of seeing an article on SlashDot about 18 months ago heralding Intel's investment in Phoenix. That would be an interesting situation, if my recollection is accurate.
Sure, if the six people that were chosen are the progenitors of a new human lineage, the race is bound to be good-looking, but I can't help but wonder why MTV wasn't more loyal to some of the people who helped make them the success that they are today. With that in mind, here is my list of 6 people to carry on our species:
Martha Quinn -- High energy level needed for survival
David Byrne -- Intelligent, also can pass on traditions from many cultures to decendents
L.L. Cool J -- Muscularity and street smarts are important for survival
Madonna -- Superhuman reproductive drive
Dan Cortese -- athletic ability & fearlessness honed by MTV Sports stint
Lauryn Hill -- Rrrrrarrr; also, intelligent and less likely to burn down shelter than Lisa *Left Eye* Lopez
You obviously haven't seen any of the *Secret Service of the Air* movies, or you'd agree that Reagan is far from a second rate actor -- he was much worse than that.
On a more serious (but no less true) note, I have a hazy recollection of Gorbachev saying that the U.S. military buildup in the 1980's PROLONGED the Cold War because it made the Russians distrust the U.S. far more than they already did, which made them more reluctant to admit that their socioeconomic system was failing.
No doubt that greed is among the most common motivators, particularly in America, but I'm not convinced that your janitor analogy made the point that you intended it to. Perhaps your janitor wants a better job because his wage only permits him to afford a home in a crime-ridden neighborhood with bad schools and hostile police. I see this situation as being more fundamental than greed, it's one of freedom or survival. This brings me back to the point that I was trying to make in my inital post, which is: keeping up with technology, or more to the point of Jon's story, worrying about keeping up with technology, can be the result of factors that I would not characterize as greed or "want".
I'm not sure that Technology can be classified so easily (as a "want"). I think that you'd have to agree that Technology has an economic aspect. For example, if you completely ignored Technology, you would have a tougher time finding a "good" job. I think that this economic aspect of Technology causes a great deal of the frustration that most people experience. Nobody wants to fall behind the technology curve because they could lose control of their economic future.
I hope that American Singles has contracted a studio to film this momentous event. This could make an excellent nature-style documentary.
I agree with many of the negative comments about this piece. I have ordered from Amazon many times, and none of my orders were submitted because Amazon was cool . I order from Amazon for a number of reasons: they have the books that I want, the books that I want are easy to find, I can judge a book's quality by the user comments, and they process my order quickly.
However, Jon does make at least one valid point. In many ways, Amazon functions as a guide to books. There are thousands of technical books available, and it is difficult to know which books are worth their price. Amazon's recommendations help narrow this selection process. However, in order for this "expert" advice to be valid, the customer needs to trust whoever is doing the recommending. Having links to useless crap from nearly every page (not to mention the fact that they sell prime viewing space) gives the impression that Amazon is more interested in making a quick buck than in providing useful and accurate recommendations -- even if there is no real effect of one on the other.
Actually, there has been at least one report on these kids' home lives, a NY Times report that can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/042399colo -school-suspect.html
According to the article, "Both Harris and Klebold come from middle-class, two-parent families. Klebold's father, Thomas, is a retired geologist who runs Fountain Real Estate Management from his home. His mother, Susan, has worked for years in the local community college system, counseling disabled students, among other things." There is also a blurb about Harris' family, as well. What the article can't tell you is whether these appearances are deceiving. There is a hint that Harris had some problems at home; when he came to bat during his Little League games, he would rarely (if ever) swing at the pitches that were thrown. According to his former coach, he was not swinging due to his overwhelming fear of failure.
In any event, I agree that the parents should have been more involved in their children's lives -- at least enough to have detected an "arms buildup". However, I can't place the blame entirely on their shoulders. People in our country (USA) have a tendency to always look for a single outside factor that is to blame for tragedies such as this one, but reality is always far more complex. People are responsible for their own actions.
Speaking of offensive, how many here believe Christine Hughes, vice president of marketing for Secure Computing, when she says, "Generally, we try to review every site"?