RedHat probably has lower margins than Oracle, but does it really matter?
You're right, it doesn't really matter. Margins are nice and they might indicate that you are in a strong bargaining position but they are not an indicator of financial success by themselves.
For example Walmart has margins that are really quite low but is anyone going to argue that they are not a very successful company? Of course not. Because their business model is actually predicated on having lower costs than their competition. If it costs less to operate, then they can drive prices down to a point where the competition cannot match them. This means that their margins aren't going to be great, but they don't depend on having large margins anyway for success.
Red Hat has the potential at least (all other things being equal - which they aren't) to do the same thing. Given equal products for a given customer need, Oracle cannot compete with Red Hat on price. And since not all users need all the extras Oracle provides, that puts Red Hat in a good position to undercut Oracle. This doesn't mean Oracle is going to go out of business, but it means that there is room for someone like a Red Hat.
ISO 9000 and its successors are about ensuring that everyone knows what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to be doing it. It really isn't a bad thing even on projects the scale of the space program. ISO 9000 isn't a goal, it is a process. Using it reduces project risks by increasing transparency. If used properly, it even reduces bureaucracy.
That is true *in theory*. Sometimes it even works that way. (rarely in my experience) But more often it is done because it is required by the company you are supplying. Big assembly companies (Ford, GM, Boeing, NASA, etc) need to have ways of managing the complexity of large supplier bases as well as their own processes. So ISO-9000 helps them create transparency in how they are doing things. (in theory) But automotive suppliers don't get QS-9000 certification because they think it is a great idea for them. They do it because Ford and GM require them to. In theory these registration processes help to manage the work flow and can improve the product. More often they are treated as just a few more hoops to jump through.
For those who might not know ISO9000 and it's bretheren (QS-9000, AS-9100, ISO-14000) are really just documentation processes. The overly simplified explanation of that is you establish a process, document it, and then follow it while documenting the fact that you are following it. They are called quality processes but they really are about consistency of processes. Quality in manufacturing terms is about reducing variability. You can have the worst process in the world but if you document it and follow it, you can be ISO-9000 registered. Granted that's a slight exageration, but only slight.
If someone brags that they are making a quality product because they are ISO-9000 registered they are claiming that their products are great because they document how they make them.
Freshmen are not always mature adults, and having someone tell them what to do is not a bad thing.
This is an attitude that has always bothered me because it is only half right. They may not be mature but they are adults with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. If they can't handle the workload for whatever reason, then they probably don't belong in college. I believe in second chances, but I also believe in the benefits of a good kick in the butt.
I also disagree with the notion that they are anyone's problem but their own. If they don't pass the examinations and never come to class, why would any professor have a problem flunking that student? If they blame the professor, well, that's just pathetic, but it isn't the professor's problem. And I say this as someone who earned a few failing grades. It's not always a bad thing.
As long as their are some students who are actively trying to learn, a professor's lecture time isn't wasted. Most college professors I know don't grade student's work themselves anyway, so they aren't wasting time on grading either. (Heaven forbid students take time away from research...) And even if they do grade it themselves, the professor is serving a useful purpose in letting the student know that his work (or work ethic) is unacceptable. If you slack in a job, they fire you. Why should school be any different?
Are you sure you've been to college? No college student I know refers to the professors as "teachers." They're professors or instructors.
OK smartass. Whip out the ol' dictionary and you'll notice that the definition of a professor is "a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school". (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) And you are questioning whether I went to college? Hah!
Isn't assuming that "attendence doesn't matter in most cases" a pretty arrogant assumption?
No. If you need to come to class, come. If you don't, don't. That shouldn't be the teacher's decision to make since the only one hurt by you not attending is you. But most people should attend and try to pay attention since there is a reason they are in class and not teaching it. If you think you can get the material out of a book, that should be your perogative. With the caveat that there is a near 100% chance the teacher (oh excuse me, professor) know's what is important about the subject better than you do.
People who aren't going to pay attention, will not do so even without computers to entertain them. They might just stare off into space with no alternatives but taking away computers doesn't mean they are paying attention.
Being in class and doing anything besides participating in class in an appropriate manner is rude to the teacher and distracting your fellow students. The worst are people who come to class and then sleep. If you aren't interested, don't come. Which bring's me to my next point...
Mandatory attendance in a college class is (in general) stupid. There are fairly few non-lab courses where attendance actually matters. If someone prefers to get their material out of a book, let them. If being in class is important to passing the class, the students will figure that out. Teachers should think of class attendance as feedback on the difficulty of the material and the quality of the lecturing.
Conversely, if you (or your parents) are paying for a college education and you do not make every effort to get as much out of it as possible you are an idiot.
Yes, surfing the net is often more interesting than a lecture, but even a boring lecture often has useful information. Even the worst lectures (and I've had some very bad ones) usually contain something worth knowing. You are going to be dealing with boring meetings, boring tasks, and boring people for the rest of your career. You might as well learn how to get the most out of them.
The teacher's job is not to entertain you, it is to teach you. Effective teaching often correlates with being interesting to listen to but you can learn without being entertained.
Finally, don't be so arrogant and assume you know what is important about a subject better than the teacher. There is usually a reason the teacher is lecturing on the material they choose. They aren't doing it just to annoy you.
First off what kind of engineer are you referring to? It may be true that software engineers lose value as time goes on, but most other engineers gain value over time. Sure, new tools come along and you have to stay current. And some engineers do a bad job of this. But in general, engineers straight out of college know almost nothing. That's right, nothing. They can calculate but haven't worked on any real problems. They're smart and talented but their value can go almost nowhere but up.
How do I know this? I am an engineer with a degree from one of the best universities in the US. Your typical engineer coming out of school you doesn't know dick about how engineering is done in the "Real World". Over 75% of the engineers I meet out of school don't know squat about statistics, CAD/CAM, machining, finance, accounting, FEA, DOE, quality, testing, manufacturing or programming. Not to mention the soft skills like working in groups and managing projects. These are skills you generally get a tiny exposure to in college and then actually learn on the job.
This is not to slam these very same engineers. They're smart people and they pick things up quick enough. But until they've done it in the real world, they aren't very valuable. This hiring manager has it completely backwards. In general engineers with lots of experience are much more valuable.
I've been puzzling over how you can "pre-board" an airplane. Board before you board?
Of course they use the term "de-plane-ing" (not even sure how you would spell that) to mean disembarking from the plane so who knows what they're thinking...
(And for you logic nazi's, I do get it. I just think it's stupid)
At least as far as I can tell. High tech jobs are not much like working in a factory.
Look, I'm an industrial engineer who specialized in manufacturing systems. I've worked in factories and I spent the last few years doing computer simulations of factories. This meant I have spent a LOT of time in factories as well as a lot of time as a high tech worker doing programming. I have lived in both worlds and let me clue you, high tech jobs are cushy by comparison.
Yes high tech workers have their problems. Project managment tends to be poor, hours are long, bosses can be clueless. Lots of folks here on slashdot are well aware of the problems and I don't mean to trivialize them. But I do mean to give a dose of reality.
Working in a factory is in many ways harder. You are on your feet all day, every day, often 6-7 days a week. The work is usually physically tiring, repetitive, and mind numbing not to mention dangerous. (sorry carpal tunnel just doesn't compare to getting run over by a forklift) If someone doesn't show up one day you get to cover for them which means your day just got significantly longer and harder. Even the best plants are not exactly comfortable to be in and are loud, smelly and often dirty. You'll be wearing ear plugs and safety glasses all day long. Any office is plush by comparison.
If you are skilled labor you might pull down a decent wage, though you will never be rich. If you are unskilled labor, you will make minimum wage or close to it, and you will be stuck with the crappiest, most mind numbing jobs you can imagine. And you can be replaced in a heartbeat with pretty much any monkey off the street unless union rules prevent it.
Your co-workers will be a mixed bag of intelligence, but generally uneducated past high school. We're talking the same crowds you find at your typical NASCAR or WWF event. Piss someone off at work and you might find your tires slashed. (especially if your are a manager) Never drive a nice car to work if you work in a factory.
Want to join a union? Let me clue you in about unions. (I'm speaking in generalities here, there are exceptions to everything I'm about to say) They *can* serve a useful purpose but you don't really want to be in one if you can avoid it. Unions are all about rules and they will define job descriptions to the Nth degree. Only certain people are allowed to do certain jobs. Unions will remove much of the flexibility from your job. Want merit based pay increases? Dream on. Unions are about preserving jobs with a relatively high average pay, not promoting individual achievement. You'll get the same pay increase as everyone else no matter how hard you work. And since people know this, they tend to not work very hard. Want a close relationship with managment? Not very likely with a union. You'll often have a shop steward present for every conversation you have with management.
Anyway, the point is that unions are sometimes necessary to avoid a truly abusive work environment, but frankly very few white collar jobs even come close. If you are a skilled worker with talents that are in demand, I cannot see any logical reason you would want to join a union. It would only hurt you in the long run.
To get back to my original point, factory jobs and hi-tech jobs just aren't the same. Sure any job can be hard and you can get a pointy-haired boss who will make your life miserable. But I don't think anyone who has actually spent time in a factory could agree with this author.
Why do you think there is a difference?
on
The Apple Name Game
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For-profit companies that remain viable entities do so because they understand that the primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Understanding this clarifies why they act the way they do. If they can make money by being decent to people, then they will do that. If being complete jack-holes will make money, then they will do that. Note that these are not necessarily exclusive, companies can be both in different situations or even to different groups of people at the same time.
Apple is no different than any other corporation. Sometimes it is in their "interest" to be nice and sometimes it isn't. But you can understand why if you understand their purpose. (even if you disagree with what they do) Apple doesn't exist to make you feel warm and fuzzy. If they do, it is only because it is in their financial interest to do so.
"Not inherently less secure" is a strange way of advocating your position. Double-negatives like this usually betray a defensive mind set. Why didn't they have the conviction to say "we're *more* secure"?
My guess would be that he wasn't saying they were more secure, just that they weren't necessarily less secure. The second later argument is true though misleading. Closed source can be at least as secure as open source even though it tends not to be in practice. Claiming that closed source in general is more secure however would be a very easy argument to shoot down because the results rather strongly show the opposite.
Anyway I don't read this as a double negative, just a very carefully chosen argument. I do think you are right though in that it probably reflects a defensive mindset.
Actually there is more truth to that than you know. They can't keep any files locally and simply have to not rely on the systems for anything critical. Recently they had their computers taken away for 3 weeks (refurbishing offices), which was a terrible inconvenience, but it didn't bring work to a halt. Just made everyone's lives harder than they had to be.
My wife is a doctor. From what I've observed hospitals tend to be penny wise and pound foolish, particularly with regard to their computer systems. Largely for financial reasons they are generally unwilling to hire the IT professionals and spend the $ they need to do the job right.
The computer systems at my wife's medical school were apparently run by a herd of poorly trained monkeys. Systems would crash constantly, admin policies were absurd, and very little was done to fix anything. At her current hospital, the residents in her department are stuck with machines that literally crash 10+ times daily. Nothing is done to fix them because that would take expertise, time and $, all of which are either in short supply or withheld.
Hospitals really need serious IT help and it is a very serious problem. This article just illustrates how pathetically bad they do the job right now. I wish I could say I was surprised by this but I'm not.
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with syncing through the laptop's IrDA port? Just point your palm at it and go.
I have an OLD palm. No IR port. Plus I have to synch it with a desktop machine that lacks IR as well. I suppose I could do that with my wife's (she'd let me use it) but it doesn't really solve the rest of the problems. Plus the IR doesn't integrate with the phone so it's only a half solution.
My biggest issue isn't actually the physical syncing, it's the software on the PC. I currently use Palm Desktop (which is a piece of crap IMO) because I don't really have any alternatives. I will not use Outlook which is the only other software anything will cooperate with. If Mozilla's calendar function worked, it would have most of the functionality I need but it doesn't synch directly. This also prevents me from making good use of linux since I don't have a cross platform app to use.
Fortunately my need for a PDA is pretty low right now. It's not too hard for me to get out the laptop when I need an address (rarely) or my phone if I need a number (commonly). And I can just print my to-do lists so that's not a big deal. Someday it might be though. I'm just surprised that no one else is bothered by the crappy PC software and the rest of it.
Seriously, how many of you are going to buy a printer tomorrow that is parellel-only?
Actually the problem (for me) isn't that I intend to get new devices with parallel or RS-232 interfaces. I agree with you completely that we should migrate to USB and/or Firewire with all due haste.
The problem is that I have an old printer at home which works great (Lexmark 4039-10R) and I'm not about to dump anytime soon. The USB-parallel adapters I've tried simply haven't worked very well and I'm not willing to spend more on them until I'm sure they will work. They're fairly pricey after all. Plus the one's I've tried so far required special drivers (Windows only) which is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned.
I also have the problem that my Palm dock with the USB interface, for reasons I cannot fathom, does not work. So I'm stuck for the moment using RS-232 as well. Plus my linux install (Mandrake 7.2-yes it's old but I haven't had time to upgrade) can't seem to deal with USB for anything except my mouse. So more legacy ports I'm stuck with.
Annoying? You betcha. Will I go "legacy free" asap? Yup. Soon as I can get everything to work. Until then, it's like the floppy. I hate it but I need it once in a blue moon because the hardware and system makers can't seem to provide proper migration paths.
Another example. I'd love to get a Type 3 (the full two slot size) Cardbus firewire & USB 2.0 card for my laptop which only has USB 1.1 right now. Not only does no one make *any* USB/Firewire Cardbus combo card, they all make the interface cards type 2 (one slot) cards which stick out the side of the laptop or use a proprietary interface cable. I'd buy this card in a heartbeat but no one makes it. Sigh. Someday maybe...
There are several reasons why I don't really bother with my Palm anymore. Some are just me, others are more general. Apolgies in advance for the rant but I've been annoyed by this for a while...
Synching is a pain, even as simple as palm makes it. I'm pretty mobile and have a laptop with me most of the time so carrying a docking station or even a cable is more than I want to be bothered with. Fortunately it looks like bluetooth (mmm, Palm Tungsten) might solve this problem for me since my laptop has it built in.
One of the major things I use a palm for is to store phone numbers and my cell phone serves my needs here better than a PDA. Since I usually have a laptop with me, if I really need to look an address up it isn't a big deal for me to just turn on the laptop.
Poor compatibility between calendar and address book software, particularly open source. Basically I'm stuck with either Palm Desktop or Outlook, neither of which particularly suits my needs. (and I refuse to use Outlook for other reasons that should be obious to most people here) I used to have Lotus Notes as an option but not now. Importing & exporting to other applications,not to mention synching, isn't really an option. Mozilla calendar looks promising but isn't there yet. Even just sharing address book and calendar information (the very basics) is way too much of a pain to be bothered with right now.
Related to the previous item, since I use my cell phone, I need to be able to seemlessly exchance data between my laptop, cell phone and pda. Bluetooth (which my Thinkpad has) gives a proper connection medium, but the software is not there for the laptop.
Data entry into PDAs is usually too slow for my needs. Even though I'm pretty efficient with Grafitti, it isn't fast enough. I like the little keyboard on the Zaurus which helps a lot. I'm not going to carry around a separate folding keyboard. (not knocking them, I just don't personally want to carry it) Really I want digital ink available in a lot of cases but not with a microsoft proprietary format. *cough*tablet*cough* After all what is the point of taking notes if you can't doodle or write equations in the same space as your text?
Insufficient integration & flexibility in the apps. The address book, to-do list, calendar and note pad should be able to share data seemlessly. They're part way there but more needs to be done. I hate redundant data.
Basically my PDA gathers dust because of a lot of little things, not any big one. Truthfully the Palm Tungsten and Sharp Zaurus are pretty close to getting me to upgrade but just aren't quite there. The biggest stumbling block for me isn't the device itself, it's the crappy integration with PC hardware that kills the deal. It's just too inconvenient to use the desktop software I want to use, so I don't bother.
It isn't a obsolete term, just an uncommon one. My wife is a doctor and has to dictate patient reports constantly. Guess what they use? Yup, dictaphones. And that is what they call them too. Sure it's nothing more than a voice tape recorder of one type or another but I honestly can't think of a more appropriate term. (more common but not more appropriate)
This is a bogus argument. There are MANY ftp clients that are just drag and drop. Totally simple to use. The corporate intra / extranet can just be a fileshare. Don't forget the concept of "training" and online help. Even the most clueless can handle this concept.
You are much more optimistic in your appraisal of people's capabilities that I am. I speak as someone who has had to walk people (often the same people) through FTP'ing a file literally hundreds of times. They don't get it, don't remember it, and think it is generally a big bother.
And you know what? They are usually right.
FTP from the command line is a horror for non-techies. (not to mention the people that have to walk them through it) GUI FTP clients are ok, but that requires special software and you can't always be sure people have it or even can install it. If it could be done through a web browser that would be swell (and sometimes it can be) but that particular capability of web browsers has never been fully fleshed out. (download is fine, upload has issues) And all of these methods still require you to take the additional step of notifying the intended recipient about the file. It's just plain simpler to email it as an attachment in one step and be done with it.
Basically using FTP is a pain in the arse to non-techies (and I would argue even techies too) so they use email. They don't want to learn another piece of software if the one they already use can do the job. No it isn't designed for the job, but guess what? Users don't care. It fits how they want to work better than FTP does or probably ever will. Using email attachments has become a de-facto standard and is almost certain to remain so.
I don't see this as any different than a host of other protocols & systems that are great for what they do but no longer are ideal because there is a better or simpler or even just a preferred (for whatever reason) way to do things. Gopher, irc, usenet, and ftp have largely been supplanted by the web, instant messanging, web forumns, and email attachments. Sad in some cases but I don't see that changing. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples.
Kinda obvious but easily forgotten. Being able to run windows apps is a two edged sword in many different respects. Access to good applications versus potentially reduced interest in linux development. Ability to run applications not built for linux versus inconsistant ability to run some of those same apps. And now of course, access to Windows apps versus the viruses that often go with them. The good comes along with the bad and there are plenty of unintended consequences to go around. Any engineer will tell you that there are tradeoffs for any design decision. WINE is no exception. Caveat emptor...
Depends on the game
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.
The only games where this could possibly matter are the fastest paced shooter games, and even then it is a marginal problem. Certainly isn't a big enough problem for me to want to take up 300 square miles of desktop space with a glorified vaccuum tube.
Besides there are games besides Quake out there you know. Some of us even play them.
I've read the Folding@Home FAQ looking for information about what they plan to do (from an IP standpoint) with the information they get. The "answers" they provide are pretty vague on the details.
Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a non-profit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Ok, they won't make any money off it, but who might? Who owns any patents? What actually is done with the data? And the non-profit bit tells me nothing. The Vanguard Group is a non-profit too, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in money. (Vanguard is owned by the investors, hence non-profit, but not really) Just because it is a non-profit institution doesn't tell me much. Universities are non-profit but they make a ton of money off of IP. They can do whatever they want but before I commit my processor cycles to helping I'd like to know specifically what I'm helping.
The FAQ goes on to say: Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site.
So the data is going to be available. How? What "levels"? To whom? For how much? Just saying it will be published in journals tells me little. What else will be done with it? Who stands to benefit from the data? (aside from the obvious)
Basically I want to know and am not impressed with their answers. I'd like some candor when it comes to something this important. With SETI@home, who really cares? That won't affect my life. Folding@home might.
This is what I want in a program in rank order. Please note that this is speaking from the standpoint of someone working/programming primarily with general purpose computers, not embedded system, supercomputers, etc. Nor is this an exhaustive list, it's just generally what I want to see.
Functional. If if the program doesn't do what it is supposed to do, nothing else matters.
Reliable. The program should do what it is supposed to do predictably and without crashing.
Easy to use & easy to learn. Kind of a tie, depending on what I'm doing and how much I use the program. I should not have to memorize a huge command set. (though if appropriate it should be an option) Blind navigation spaces should be avoided whenever practical but available if appropriate.
Maintainable. If the programmers can't fix problems or update things, it is unlikely to remain useful. As an end user this is not something I'll see except as the program evolves. Being maintainable for the programmer should NEVER overshadow the importance of a good user interface. A bad interface wastes my time. However, if the program is maintainable, it is likely that problems can be addressed so this maintainability is very important.
Speed. Performs requested functions quickly. Obviously desireable, but not at the expense of the above.
Minimal resources. Uses as little computer resources as appropriate, given the other constraints. I don't really care how small a program is if the system it is running on can handle it and it doesn't interfere with my work.
Tiny, compact code is neat but I don't care about it. Folks here complain about bloat constantly but unless a program's size is actively interfering with your ability to do work and the program's functionality (and I don't mean taking an extra 2 seconds to load) who really cares? If it won't run on your machine, that is one thing. If it's just big, there are probably more important things to worry about. For example I don't really care that Mozilla is big compared to some other browsers. My machine can handle that and it's speed is adequate to my needs. I do care that the program is functional, reliable, easy to use and maintainable, which fortunately it is.
Fact of life. There are always some parts of the world at any given time you want to avoid. So avoid them. The world is a big place with lots of interesting opportunities. What you hear on the evening news are just all the "man bites dog" stories. They make it sound worse than it really is. Yes, someone was injured in some part of the world recently. Not very likely it was or will be you.
Get out. See the world. Enjoy yourself. Have some stories to tell your kids. (and maybe a few you keep for yourself...)
Slashdot Mirror
RedHat probably has lower margins than Oracle, but does it really matter?
You're right, it doesn't really matter. Margins are nice and they might indicate that you are in a strong bargaining position but they are not an indicator of financial success by themselves.
For example Walmart has margins that are really quite low but is anyone going to argue that they are not a very successful company? Of course not. Because their business model is actually predicated on having lower costs than their competition. If it costs less to operate, then they can drive prices down to a point where the competition cannot match them. This means that their margins aren't going to be great, but they don't depend on having large margins anyway for success.
Red Hat has the potential at least (all other things being equal - which they aren't) to do the same thing. Given equal products for a given customer need, Oracle cannot compete with Red Hat on price. And since not all users need all the extras Oracle provides, that puts Red Hat in a good position to undercut Oracle. This doesn't mean Oracle is going to go out of business, but it means that there is room for someone like a Red Hat.
ISO 9000 and its successors are about ensuring that everyone knows what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to be doing it. It really isn't a bad thing even on projects the scale of the space program. ISO 9000 isn't a goal, it is a process. Using it reduces project risks by increasing transparency. If used properly, it even reduces bureaucracy.
That is true *in theory*. Sometimes it even works that way. (rarely in my experience) But more often it is done because it is required by the company you are supplying. Big assembly companies (Ford, GM, Boeing, NASA, etc) need to have ways of managing the complexity of large supplier bases as well as their own processes. So ISO-9000 helps them create transparency in how they are doing things. (in theory) But automotive suppliers don't get QS-9000 certification because they think it is a great idea for them. They do it because Ford and GM require them to. In theory these registration processes help to manage the work flow and can improve the product. More often they are treated as just a few more hoops to jump through.
For those who might not know ISO9000 and it's bretheren (QS-9000, AS-9100, ISO-14000) are really just documentation processes. The overly simplified explanation of that is you establish a process, document it, and then follow it while documenting the fact that you are following it. They are called quality processes but they really are about consistency of processes. Quality in manufacturing terms is about reducing variability. You can have the worst process in the world but if you document it and follow it, you can be ISO-9000 registered. Granted that's a slight exageration, but only slight.
If someone brags that they are making a quality product because they are ISO-9000 registered they are claiming that their products are great because they document how they make them.
Freshmen are not always mature adults, and having someone tell them what to do is not a bad thing.
This is an attitude that has always bothered me because it is only half right. They may not be mature but they are adults with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. If they can't handle the workload for whatever reason, then they probably don't belong in college. I believe in second chances, but I also believe in the benefits of a good kick in the butt.
I also disagree with the notion that they are anyone's problem but their own. If they don't pass the examinations and never come to class, why would any professor have a problem flunking that student? If they blame the professor, well, that's just pathetic, but it isn't the professor's problem. And I say this as someone who earned a few failing grades. It's not always a bad thing.
As long as their are some students who are actively trying to learn, a professor's lecture time isn't wasted. Most college professors I know don't grade student's work themselves anyway, so they aren't wasting time on grading either. (Heaven forbid students take time away from research...) And even if they do grade it themselves, the professor is serving a useful purpose in letting the student know that his work (or work ethic) is unacceptable. If you slack in a job, they fire you. Why should school be any different?
Are you sure you've been to college? No college student I know refers to the professors as "teachers." They're professors or instructors.
OK smartass. Whip out the ol' dictionary and you'll notice that the definition of a professor is "a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school". (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) And you are questioning whether I went to college? Hah!
Isn't assuming that "attendence doesn't matter in most cases" a pretty arrogant assumption?
No. If you need to come to class, come. If you don't, don't. That shouldn't be the teacher's decision to make since the only one hurt by you not attending is you. But most people should attend and try to pay attention since there is a reason they are in class and not teaching it. If you think you can get the material out of a book, that should be your perogative. With the caveat that there is a near 100% chance the teacher (oh excuse me, professor) know's what is important about the subject better than you do.
People who aren't going to pay attention, will not do so even without computers to entertain them. They might just stare off into space with no alternatives but taking away computers doesn't mean they are paying attention.
Being in class and doing anything besides participating in class in an appropriate manner is rude to the teacher and distracting your fellow students. The worst are people who come to class and then sleep. If you aren't interested, don't come. Which bring's me to my next point...
Mandatory attendance in a college class is (in general) stupid. There are fairly few non-lab courses where attendance actually matters. If someone prefers to get their material out of a book, let them. If being in class is important to passing the class, the students will figure that out. Teachers should think of class attendance as feedback on the difficulty of the material and the quality of the lecturing.
Conversely, if you (or your parents) are paying for a college education and you do not make every effort to get as much out of it as possible you are an idiot.
Yes, surfing the net is often more interesting than a lecture, but even a boring lecture often has useful information. Even the worst lectures (and I've had some very bad ones) usually contain something worth knowing. You are going to be dealing with boring meetings, boring tasks, and boring people for the rest of your career. You might as well learn how to get the most out of them.
The teacher's job is not to entertain you, it is to teach you. Effective teaching often correlates with being interesting to listen to but you can learn without being entertained.
Finally, don't be so arrogant and assume you know what is important about a subject better than the teacher. There is usually a reason the teacher is lecturing on the material they choose. They aren't doing it just to annoy you.
First off what kind of engineer are you referring to? It may be true that software engineers lose value as time goes on, but most other engineers gain value over time. Sure, new tools come along and you have to stay current. And some engineers do a bad job of this. But in general, engineers straight out of college know almost nothing. That's right, nothing. They can calculate but haven't worked on any real problems. They're smart and talented but their value can go almost nowhere but up.
How do I know this? I am an engineer with a degree from one of the best universities in the US. Your typical engineer coming out of school you doesn't know dick about how engineering is done in the "Real World". Over 75% of the engineers I meet out of school don't know squat about statistics, CAD/CAM, machining, finance, accounting, FEA, DOE, quality, testing, manufacturing or programming. Not to mention the soft skills like working in groups and managing projects. These are skills you generally get a tiny exposure to in college and then actually learn on the job.
This is not to slam these very same engineers. They're smart people and they pick things up quick enough. But until they've done it in the real world, they aren't very valuable. This hiring manager has it completely backwards. In general engineers with lots of experience are much more valuable.
Since you are apparently unaware, Andersen and Enron both did business in Canada.
Global companies, global problems, eh?
Not a single Enron or Andersen joke to be seen. Come on people, what's this place coming to?
I've been puzzling over how you can "pre-board" an airplane. Board before you board?
Of course they use the term "de-plane-ing" (not even sure how you would spell that) to mean disembarking from the plane so who knows what they're thinking...
(And for you logic nazi's, I do get it. I just think it's stupid)
At least as far as I can tell. High tech jobs are not much like working in a factory.
Look, I'm an industrial engineer who specialized in manufacturing systems. I've worked in factories and I spent the last few years doing computer simulations of factories. This meant I have spent a LOT of time in factories as well as a lot of time as a high tech worker doing programming. I have lived in both worlds and let me clue you, high tech jobs are cushy by comparison.
Yes high tech workers have their problems. Project managment tends to be poor, hours are long, bosses can be clueless. Lots of folks here on slashdot are well aware of the problems and I don't mean to trivialize them. But I do mean to give a dose of reality.
Working in a factory is in many ways harder. You are on your feet all day, every day, often 6-7 days a week. The work is usually physically tiring, repetitive, and mind numbing not to mention dangerous. (sorry carpal tunnel just doesn't compare to getting run over by a forklift) If someone doesn't show up one day you get to cover for them which means your day just got significantly longer and harder. Even the best plants are not exactly comfortable to be in and are loud, smelly and often dirty. You'll be wearing ear plugs and safety glasses all day long. Any office is plush by comparison.
If you are skilled labor you might pull down a decent wage, though you will never be rich. If you are unskilled labor, you will make minimum wage or close to it, and you will be stuck with the crappiest, most mind numbing jobs you can imagine. And you can be replaced in a heartbeat with pretty much any monkey off the street unless union rules prevent it.
Your co-workers will be a mixed bag of intelligence, but generally uneducated past high school. We're talking the same crowds you find at your typical NASCAR or WWF event. Piss someone off at work and you might find your tires slashed. (especially if your are a manager) Never drive a nice car to work if you work in a factory.
Want to join a union? Let me clue you in about unions. (I'm speaking in generalities here, there are exceptions to everything I'm about to say) They *can* serve a useful purpose but you don't really want to be in one if you can avoid it. Unions are all about rules and they will define job descriptions to the Nth degree. Only certain people are allowed to do certain jobs. Unions will remove much of the flexibility from your job. Want merit based pay increases? Dream on. Unions are about preserving jobs with a relatively high average pay, not promoting individual achievement. You'll get the same pay increase as everyone else no matter how hard you work. And since people know this, they tend to not work very hard. Want a close relationship with managment? Not very likely with a union. You'll often have a shop steward present for every conversation you have with management.
Anyway, the point is that unions are sometimes necessary to avoid a truly abusive work environment, but frankly very few white collar jobs even come close. If you are a skilled worker with talents that are in demand, I cannot see any logical reason you would want to join a union. It would only hurt you in the long run.
To get back to my original point, factory jobs and hi-tech jobs just aren't the same. Sure any job can be hard and you can get a pointy-haired boss who will make your life miserable. But I don't think anyone who has actually spent time in a factory could agree with this author.
For-profit companies that remain viable entities do so because they understand that the primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Understanding this clarifies why they act the way they do. If they can make money by being decent to people, then they will do that. If being complete jack-holes will make money, then they will do that. Note that these are not necessarily exclusive, companies can be both in different situations or even to different groups of people at the same time.
Apple is no different than any other corporation. Sometimes it is in their "interest" to be nice and sometimes it isn't. But you can understand why if you understand their purpose. (even if you disagree with what they do) Apple doesn't exist to make you feel warm and fuzzy. If they do, it is only because it is in their financial interest to do so.
"Not inherently less secure" is a strange way of advocating your position. Double-negatives like this usually betray a defensive mind set. Why didn't they have the conviction to say "we're *more* secure"?
My guess would be that he wasn't saying they were more secure, just that they weren't necessarily less secure. The second later argument is true though misleading. Closed source can be at least as secure as open source even though it tends not to be in practice. Claiming that closed source in general is more secure however would be a very easy argument to shoot down because the results rather strongly show the opposite.
Anyway I don't read this as a double negative, just a very carefully chosen argument. I do think you are right though in that it probably reflects a defensive mindset.
Actually there is more truth to that than you know. They can't keep any files locally and simply have to not rely on the systems for anything critical. Recently they had their computers taken away for 3 weeks (refurbishing offices), which was a terrible inconvenience, but it didn't bring work to a halt. Just made everyone's lives harder than they had to be.
My wife is a doctor. From what I've observed hospitals tend to be penny wise and pound foolish, particularly with regard to their computer systems. Largely for financial reasons they are generally unwilling to hire the IT professionals and spend the $ they need to do the job right.
The computer systems at my wife's medical school were apparently run by a herd of poorly trained monkeys. Systems would crash constantly, admin policies were absurd, and very little was done to fix anything. At her current hospital, the residents in her department are stuck with machines that literally crash 10+ times daily. Nothing is done to fix them because that would take expertise, time and $, all of which are either in short supply or withheld.
Hospitals really need serious IT help and it is a very serious problem. This article just illustrates how pathetically bad they do the job right now. I wish I could say I was surprised by this but I'm not.
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with syncing through the laptop's IrDA port? Just point your palm at it and go.
I have an OLD palm. No IR port. Plus I have to synch it with a desktop machine that lacks IR as well. I suppose I could do that with my wife's (she'd let me use it) but it doesn't really solve the rest of the problems. Plus the IR doesn't integrate with the phone so it's only a half solution.
My biggest issue isn't actually the physical syncing, it's the software on the PC. I currently use Palm Desktop (which is a piece of crap IMO) because I don't really have any alternatives. I will not use Outlook which is the only other software anything will cooperate with. If Mozilla's calendar function worked, it would have most of the functionality I need but it doesn't synch directly. This also prevents me from making good use of linux since I don't have a cross platform app to use.
Fortunately my need for a PDA is pretty low right now. It's not too hard for me to get out the laptop when I need an address (rarely) or my phone if I need a number (commonly). And I can just print my to-do lists so that's not a big deal. Someday it might be though. I'm just surprised that no one else is bothered by the crappy PC software and the rest of it.
Seriously, how many of you are going to buy a printer tomorrow that is parellel-only?
Actually the problem (for me) isn't that I intend to get new devices with parallel or RS-232 interfaces. I agree with you completely that we should migrate to USB and/or Firewire with all due haste.
The problem is that I have an old printer at home which works great (Lexmark 4039-10R) and I'm not about to dump anytime soon. The USB-parallel adapters I've tried simply haven't worked very well and I'm not willing to spend more on them until I'm sure they will work. They're fairly pricey after all. Plus the one's I've tried so far required special drivers (Windows only) which is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned.
I also have the problem that my Palm dock with the USB interface, for reasons I cannot fathom, does not work. So I'm stuck for the moment using RS-232 as well. Plus my linux install (Mandrake 7.2-yes it's old but I haven't had time to upgrade) can't seem to deal with USB for anything except my mouse. So more legacy ports I'm stuck with.
Annoying? You betcha. Will I go "legacy free" asap? Yup. Soon as I can get everything to work. Until then, it's like the floppy. I hate it but I need it once in a blue moon because the hardware and system makers can't seem to provide proper migration paths.
Another example. I'd love to get a Type 3 (the full two slot size) Cardbus firewire & USB 2.0 card for my laptop which only has USB 1.1 right now. Not only does no one make *any* USB/Firewire Cardbus combo card, they all make the interface cards type 2 (one slot) cards which stick out the side of the laptop or use a proprietary interface cable. I'd buy this card in a heartbeat but no one makes it. Sigh. Someday maybe...
Basically my PDA gathers dust because of a lot of little things, not any big one. Truthfully the Palm Tungsten and Sharp Zaurus are pretty close to getting me to upgrade but just aren't quite there. The biggest stumbling block for me isn't the device itself, it's the crappy integration with PC hardware that kills the deal. It's just too inconvenient to use the desktop software I want to use, so I don't bother.
It isn't a obsolete term, just an uncommon one. My wife is a doctor and has to dictate patient reports constantly. Guess what they use? Yup, dictaphones. And that is what they call them too. Sure it's nothing more than a voice tape recorder of one type or another but I honestly can't think of a more appropriate term. (more common but not more appropriate)
This is a bogus argument. There are MANY ftp clients that are just drag and drop. Totally simple to use. The corporate intra / extranet can just be a fileshare. Don't forget the concept of "training" and online help. Even the most clueless can handle this concept.
You are much more optimistic in your appraisal of people's capabilities that I am. I speak as someone who has had to walk people (often the same people) through FTP'ing a file literally hundreds of times. They don't get it, don't remember it, and think it is generally a big bother.
And you know what? They are usually right.
FTP from the command line is a horror for non-techies. (not to mention the people that have to walk them through it) GUI FTP clients are ok, but that requires special software and you can't always be sure people have it or even can install it. If it could be done through a web browser that would be swell (and sometimes it can be) but that particular capability of web browsers has never been fully fleshed out. (download is fine, upload has issues) And all of these methods still require you to take the additional step of notifying the intended recipient about the file. It's just plain simpler to email it as an attachment in one step and be done with it.
Basically using FTP is a pain in the arse to non-techies (and I would argue even techies too) so they use email. They don't want to learn another piece of software if the one they already use can do the job. No it isn't designed for the job, but guess what? Users don't care. It fits how they want to work better than FTP does or probably ever will. Using email attachments has become a de-facto standard and is almost certain to remain so.
I don't see this as any different than a host of other protocols & systems that are great for what they do but no longer are ideal because there is a better or simpler or even just a preferred (for whatever reason) way to do things. Gopher, irc, usenet, and ftp have largely been supplanted by the web, instant messanging, web forumns, and email attachments. Sad in some cases but I don't see that changing. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples.
(a + a)(a - a) = a(a - a)
Divide by the common (a - a) factor...
(a - a) = 0
[a*(a - a)] / 0 = undefined
Therefore: Proof = NOT
QED
Kinda obvious but easily forgotten. Being able to run windows apps is a two edged sword in many different respects. Access to good applications versus potentially reduced interest in linux development. Ability to run applications not built for linux versus inconsistant ability to run some of those same apps. And now of course, access to Windows apps versus the viruses that often go with them. The good comes along with the bad and there are plenty of unintended consequences to go around. Any engineer will tell you that there are tradeoffs for any design decision. WINE is no exception. Caveat emptor...
The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.
The only games where this could possibly matter are the fastest paced shooter games, and even then it is a marginal problem. Certainly isn't a big enough problem for me to want to take up 300 square miles of desktop space with a glorified vaccuum tube.
Besides there are games besides Quake out there you know. Some of us even play them.
I've read the Folding@Home FAQ looking for information about what they plan to do (from an IP standpoint) with the information they get. The "answers" they provide are pretty vague on the details.
Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a non-profit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Ok, they won't make any money off it, but who might? Who owns any patents? What actually is done with the data? And the non-profit bit tells me nothing. The Vanguard Group is a non-profit too, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in money. (Vanguard is owned by the investors, hence non-profit, but not really) Just because it is a non-profit institution doesn't tell me much. Universities are non-profit but they make a ton of money off of IP. They can do whatever they want but before I commit my processor cycles to helping I'd like to know specifically what I'm helping.
The FAQ goes on to say:
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site.
So the data is going to be available. How? What "levels"? To whom? For how much? Just saying it will be published in journals tells me little. What else will be done with it? Who stands to benefit from the data? (aside from the obvious)
Basically I want to know and am not impressed with their answers. I'd like some candor when it comes to something this important. With SETI@home, who really cares? That won't affect my life. Folding@home might.
Tiny, compact code is neat but I don't care about it. Folks here complain about bloat constantly but unless a program's size is actively interfering with your ability to do work and the program's functionality (and I don't mean taking an extra 2 seconds to load) who really cares? If it won't run on your machine, that is one thing. If it's just big, there are probably more important things to worry about. For example I don't really care that Mozilla is big compared to some other browsers. My machine can handle that and it's speed is adequate to my needs. I do care that the program is functional, reliable, easy to use and maintainable, which fortunately it is.
Fact of life. There are always some parts of the world at any given time you want to avoid. So avoid them. The world is a big place with lots of interesting opportunities. What you hear on the evening news are just all the "man bites dog" stories. They make it sound worse than it really is. Yes, someone was injured in some part of the world recently. Not very likely it was or will be you.
Get out. See the world. Enjoy yourself. Have some stories to tell your kids. (and maybe a few you keep for yourself...)