Managing technical people
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I have been a manager in different capacities for the past 5 or so years and here is my take on this:
1) Treat people the way you want to be treated. Nobody likes working for a taskmaster or driven to the point of burnout. Treat people (especially people you are responsible for!) with respect and they in turn will respect you and the organization.
2) Make goals, plans, project, expectations, etc clear. Vague, mushy, "changing target, shifting paradigm BS" does not encourage or motivate people.
3) Be flexible in what you do and your people will be as well. If you want someone to fix something at 2 AM, offer them the opportunity to work business hours from home, or from another suitable remote location on a regular basis.
4) Train, educate, teach. Send people to offsite classes. Buy them books and software if they request it. Subscribe to magazines and journals. Send people to conferences and conventions. Invest in your people and they will bring back knowledge and stay for more. If you are worried that CCNA you just paid for will leave after certification than you either hired the wrong person or you have a crappy workplace. Good people stay at good places for more good training and investment.
5) Be honest. If things are bad at the company and there will be layoffs or bancruptcy, let your people know as soon and with as much information as soon as possible. People have mortgages, families, bills. Show some respect.
6) Remember personal lives. Tech workers are no different than other people. What we have all found out in the past few years is that tech workers don't want to sleep under their desks for 10 years. Send them home. Let them spend uninterrupted time with friends, family, and other non-work beings.
7) Free cokes, toys, games, and other fluff is just that - fluff. In today's "Enroned", recessionary times, people want stability, reliability and honesty more than a foozeball table, rollerblade court and hiking trips. Tech workers (for that matter all workers) should not have to worry if paychecks will bounce or be non-existant, if their 401k or pension scheme is solvent, or if their payroll taxes are being filed correctly.
8) Finally, have technical people with leadership qualities lead. I was a sysadmin and network admin before being tapped for a management role. I understand what my people are talking about from experience, not from a book or training class.
Just some thoughts from the last few years. All lessons learned from experience.
Go find a local (not national or even local office of a national company) web hosting company or ISP. Find one that is small but serious (if such a bird still exists out there).
Get an entry level job doing tech support, (yep that means phone support for sometimes trying customers).
Let your employer know you have Unix skills and experience. Most likely, within a few months, you will end up doing backups, patch installations and other mundane, yet mildly educational tasks.
After a year or so of this, start checking job sites and putting out your resume, (if you have hit the proverbial ceiling at your current job).
Find a jr. admin job at a larger company (hint: look for a company that uses a variety of hardware and OS's - best chances for exposure).
Be willing to be the backup tape swapper, user admin, Unix help desk (oh boy, that's fun), whatever.
Oh yeah, don't get married, have kids, expect to have a life, plan on sleeping in, going to bed early or never have a waking hour without a pager and cell phone attached to you.
"Corporations appear to be unchecked, and corporations have little inate social responsibility. They exist to generate profits, not advance social agendas or protect the environment"
The same can be used to describe more than a few politicans, but in the U.S. and abroad.
In our area, both of the online grocers pulled out last fall. The problem? Too wide of a delivery area.
They had to build a big warehouse to store products and then needed a fleet of vehicles to deliver goods. Gas prices went up and added to costs, changing economy (remember, most of the early adapters and users of online services were those most affected by the downturn in the tech market) and dried up VC money to fuel operations. Finally, because there were three or more of these services out there nationally, I believe they overextended themselves to gain marketshare - therefore dooming themselves in the process. There was not a steady group of customers to support the industry.
It is really too bad. It seems like such a simple and successful idea. I have a feeling it is going to be back in the near future.
Read John Ashcroft's statements on privacy, security and encryption. Despite the issues the mainstream media is pushing on us, Ashcroft has some very interesting viewpoints on privacy and security that have yet to be reported here. You might be surprised,(I was) especially coming from the most likely, future chief law enforcement person in the nation.
(Not sure, but I don't think Katz voted for Bush in 2000. Just a hunch.):)
Very often, we do this to ourselves in order to create a "safe" work environment. In the past, I purposefully allowed myself to become the single point of failure in a couple of jobs. Why? Because then my boss would know he could not live without me and my job was safe regardless of my day to day performance.
Clearly, this is wrong, immature and destructive. Insist that another admin be hired, a reasonable on-call schedule created and start using that accrued time off!
From election official
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 5
On ABC this morning they asked roughly the same question "Why don't we have a national standard for voting?".
The election official cited gave two reasons:
1) Different systems in different states and counties ensures that the vote cannot be tampered with at a national level. A single system runs into the possibility of a single means to affect the vote by tampering with the single system.
2) Money. As stated, local governments have to pay for the systems themselves. They do the best they can with the money they have but even well off large areas (such as NYC) as still using 40 year old voting booths because nobody wants to spend the money.
Slashdot aside, there are still large numbers of Americans who have little or no faith in computer systems - especially after this years' number of DOS attacks. The conspiracy theories regarding the "real winner" of a computer tabulated race would abound. Consider this: the punch card system, such as used in Florida, was first used in the US in 1892; the voting machine, (push the handle to the right of the candidate), was first used in 1896. We obviously adapt to new technology slowly in the world of elections.
Gore and Bush had specific strategies for winning the election based upon electoral votes. Another writer contended that the electoral system protected voters from candidates who campaigned only to large voting blocks and ignored the remainder of the population. This is occuring with the current system.
Gore limited his campaigning to a) states with large or significant electoral votes i.e. California, New York, etc. b) that he could win i.e NOT Texas and c) only in large urban populations which traditionally voted for him in '92 and '96 and Democratic i.e. New York City rather than upstate, Pittsburgh rather than rural Pennsylvania, etc. The strategy was to win the large urban areas in high-electoral states and therefore win the election. Gore purposefully avoided most of the middle of America as evident in the returns.
Bush on the other hand based his strategy on the mid-section of America and the rural and suburban voting on the coasts. The Bush strategy stated that if their campaign lost in Florida for instance, they would make it up by picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and Missouri. Bush did little or no campaigning in locations not favorable to his election - New York City, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Baltimore, etc.
The problem with the electoral vote for president is outlined above. Already, both major American parties have figured out where their power bases are and will only campaign in those areas and hope that they will win enough in each major, electoral state in their representative areas to take the whole state. This will continue until the system is changed.
WHAT the system will change into rests largely upon the winner of this election. An admirable action by either candidate upon taking office would be to begin the electoral college's demise as their first act. However, winners rarely change the system that put them in place.
Peace or War in the Mideast (or anywhere else) -
Those who live there will make war on their own with or without the US as they have for thousands of years. For so long, Americans have been told to stop trying to run the world. If anyone wants to fight in the Mideast, they will, whether or not the US does anything. That also applies to most of the rest of the world that has continually told the US to butt out of their affairs. I think it is high time we did.
Separate European military force outside of NATO -
Your country, France, already answered that question in 1966 when you withdrew from NATO. There already is a strong political and economic union in place in Europe, why shouldn't you have a unified military force separate from the US if you want to?
George W Bush is not GWB,Jr. His father's name is George H.W. Bush. Albert Gore IS, however, Albert Gore Jr; he has the same as his father, the late Senator. Both are men of means - GWB has had explicit direction from his father on making large sums of money, Gore inherited money and property from his father upon his death. Both men have major flaws which question their ability to lead.
However, I voted. I voted not because of who is running, but because the person elected will be spending my tax dollars, for better or worse. Second, I voted because there was more than a President running, there were Senators, Congressional candidates, local judges, etc. Finally I voted because I can't stand people who spew slogans and defeatist euphanisms but they do not vote. Voting gives my complaints substance.
By the way, you have a very beautiful country. I have visited it several times and think the people are quite friendly.
Actually, there was the Yellow book first, then the Red and now the Purple. I have the Yellow and Red as well as the O'Reilly and have to say Evi's book is better.
I really wanted to buypass the Talking Heads today and go vote. But that guy is so funny in that big suit waving his arms all over singing "And She Was" and all those other big hits. What as today, now?
"So, you wan't a tax cut even though you pay only minimal taxes already."
From your perspective based upon paying 50% of your income in taxes. Based upon American history and taxes, we are paying the highest amount of taxes ever. This includes higher tax brackets for income and higher fees for purchases such as on gasoline, tobacco and others. The statement of minimal taxes is your perspective which is not shared by a portion of Americans. If asked, "Do you want to pay more taxes than you currently are", my experience has shown that more Americans question what and how our government spends its' current revenue rather than whether or not we are paying enough.
"I think there would be great many ways to spend that money even that many to make the lives of the poorer Americans a little bit better"
Your perspective from your culture is that of taking money from one person and redistributing it through the government to another person is okay. Your perspective is "It works in Finland, it should work in the US". Those are not the sentiments of a number of Americans. Although some Americans agree that wealth redistribution through taxation is effective at curing social ills, others believe that such actions are no better than handouts which a) keep recipients from working towards a better lifestyle through their own efforts and b) have historically failed to elevate people from their current status. Advocates of this philosophy cite the ideas behind Johnson's Great Society and the problems which still exist nearly 40 years later which were supposed to be cured by programs within the Great Society.
"But with that money we have full social security, almost free healthcare and fully free schools."
And another way of saying this is "By taking some people's earned money, we are able to provide things for people who may not have earned money to pay for these same things". It sounds admirable, but there is another philosophy which says, "Let me keep as much of the fruits of my own labor to determine my own educational and financial future".
"I would certainly not wan't to be in America and lose a job. "
Things are not that bad..
There is a shortage of employees in most of America which results in lots of other, available jobs should you lose your current one. Granted that is the nation's current economic status, but in my 23+ years of employment, I have never been without a job without trying.
Those black and white films you have been watching of out-of-work Americans in a soup kitchen line were made during the 1930's Depression.:)
Furthermore, you must not be aware of unemployment insurance and other social programs for the out of work we have in this country. They really do exist!
"Another thing I'm amazed by is the electoral system.. the votes he got go in favor of someone else on the list who got more votes."
Like your statements about the US demonstrate, I am not familiar with the Finnish electoral process, however, I will research it in order to have a better grasp of it. Based solely upon what your have written, it doesn't sound very good to have my vote for candidate X go to candidate Y because X lost. Perhaps I missed something in the translation.
I think in the US, many people have become more amazed and angered by the process of election, rather than the historical system. In the past 15-20 years, it has become apparent to many Americans that the person with the most money and largest party apparatus wins the election. Shades of Communist Russia! My personal gripe is that many times a person with good common sense and intelligence is passed over in favor of a loyal party member and advocate of the system.
In closing, there are many differences between European countries system of government and taxation and the US's. Often, the European perspective fails to take into consideration the diversity of the US as a whole; we are not nearly as homogenous as most European countries are. Therefore, we do have the luxury of an apparent single perspective shared by the majority of our population. I guess we are just a country of upstarts and misfits who may never agree upon anything!
We said this same thing in 1995 when the two big routing points at the time, MAE East and West required routers greater than the Cisco 4000 series which did not have the memory to handle the routing tables.
We also thought by 1997 or 1998 we would be out of the original IP space.
Guess what? There are still tons of IP addresses left and more being recycled everyday. Internet access providers are merging and going bellyup everyday, returning IP space back to other backbone providers. Network security companies are moving public networks to private IP space to keep out scanners and sk's.
This kind of fearmongering has been going on for years and all it leads to is IP hoarding.
In a rare sign of bipartisan cooperation, candidates Gore and Bush have presented their answers for the Slashdot community.
1) War on Drugs
Bush - What is needed is leadership and cooperation. I will lead the nation in drug use and cooperate with whoever wants to help.
Gore - Only the top 1% of Americans will use drugs under Governor Bush's plan. I want a system of targeted drug use for all Americans.
Minority Religions
Bush - I have always liked minority religions. Especially those black people when they sing that gospel music, everyone clapping and dancing and shouting "Amen!". It just makes me happy.
Gore - Let's face it, these religions are only open to the richest 1% of society. I want a religion that is for working families and not for special interest, big religion groups only.
Why give a tax cut?
Bush - Because I need one.
Gore - Smirk - It wouldn't hurt me either.
Electoral reform
Bush - We need to reform, not eliminate the electoral college. Besides, I think Yale played those electoral boys in '67 and we gave them a pretty good whoopin'.
Gore - I did not attend the electoral college because I was serving in Vietnam for working families at the time, fighting against big colleges, big electorals and for a clean electoral environment.
How do you feel about intellectual property?
Bush - I don't have any. Just a ranch in Texas!
Gore - It only benefits the top 1% of property owners. My opponent voted against property taxes in Texas 6 times, thereby hurting schools, the environment and my feelings.
Encryption
Bush - I support it. In Houston, flooding makes many cemetaries unuseable. We have to put our loved ones in crypts or they will float away, just like in 1900 during the big hurricane.
Gore - Encryption only benefits the top 1% of data in this country. Data my opponent cares more about than working families.
Rising Political Protests
Bush - Laura and I raised two beautiful girls, we have no problem raising protests, cattle, chickens, whatever.
Gore - Protests are either for or against working families. As soon as my focus groups get back to me on that, I will have an unmoving opinion.
Asteroid defenses
Bush - I hate those things. Once I was on my horse all day and had a whopper. Give me anything that will prevent those buggers.
Gore - Our asteroid defenses are the best trained, best equipped and highest motivated in the history of the world.
This same argument by political conservative was presented when Clinton took office. That his new taxes - of which there have been several, income, fees, usage, etc - would stifle growth.
As anyone can see, growth was not strangled between 1993 and 2000. Was this recent economic growth due to higher taxation? No, but who cares about facts these days.
Finally. Go to the Office of Management and Budget. Look at the where the money comes from and where it goes. The surplus is not from income taxes or fees or tariffs but from Social Security receipts. The SS money is then applied to General Revenues because by law, it does not have to go to a locked account. Take away the SS revenues and you have a budget deficit. SS revenues are from employees and employers. Lower employment and that number goes down, revenues go down and sooner or later we have another budget deficit.
Demand that the politicians be honest about this so-called "surplus" and Social Security.
When asked about taxation, Ralph Nader believes in lighter taxation on "honest labor". What is the definition of "honest labor" today?
I mean, in the good ol' days, I guess honest labor good be catergorized by some blue workshirt wearing, hardhat guy with a shovel, hammer or rivetgun building the American dream.
What is "honest labor" categorized as today?
Also, Nader claims he wants to tax certain things. For instance he mentions "sprawl". I take it that means urban sprawl. I will admit many of those areas are butt ugly, but who gets taxed? The parent company who bought the land and planned the buildout? The builder? The city or county officials who approved it? The homeowner? [Personally, I just want them to tax the people who come up with those stupid names - Horizon Vista Hills Community, etc. Blah].
Polluters get taxed? Who? Me and my car which is the only option available to me based upon size, use and price? Or me, because I drive a car and there is no mass transportation that works for my needs? Or GM/Chrysler/Ford/etc for only providing internal combustion engine transportation? Is location a factor here? In many Northeast burgs, there is a variety of train, bus, and other mass transportation that the folks in Montana simply don't have. Who gets penalized?
Does anyone have answers for these questions? If not, I am afraid Nader is no different than any other politician who makes statements and policy without telling me how it is going to work.
PS - I have been to the Green Party website. No luck.
England, under the Labour party, is working towards the same thing in GB.
Germany just wrapped up their "Cybercrime" convention, attacking individual "hackers (sic)" as the biggest threat to the Internet and ecommerce.
Clinton holds his emergency summit with Internet companies and wants billions for a "Cybercrime" law enforcement centre in cooperation with the FBI and NSA with broad sweeping powers to prevent Amazon and Ebay from being taken down again - oh, the horror!
And now NZ does this.
Ironically, nearly all of these governments are left-leaning and make claims to be soooo concerned about the rights of the individual citizen, but look who is penalized and whose liberties are at stake here.
The leftist attitude is we are all just cattle to herded and sand to be shoveled and they use their patsies the news media to fan the flames of misinformation and hype.
There is nothing these people hate more than our ability to think for ourselves, move around as we please and question their motives.
6 missions, the best of which will get us some rocks. If we are lucky?
I have learned a few things by watching late night movies. Obviously more than those pencil-heads at NASA.
* The best way to get to Mars is on a V2 rocket. The kind with fins developed by the Germans during WWII and used extensively during our 1950's, RKO pictures-sponsored manned space program.
* Why only get rocks? What about one of those beautiful Martian women? You know, the kind that lives in that city where there are no men, kissing or Coca-Cola?
* Why all the science? You can tell that Mars is habitable because of those canals that line its surface. Mars looks like a big version of Venice, Italy!
* Is the air breathable? You don't need a bunch of gizmos to find out. Have the mission's captain take off his fish bowl helmet and take a deep breath after he tests the oxygen content with his cigarrette lighter.
We'd better quit this probin' pussyfootin' around business. Anyday now one of them Martian saucers will land in New Jersey and start deathraying us!
The problem not addressed regarding 'blue hairs' and Social Security is those 'blue hairs' paid into this catastrophe of a system for far many years. They believed Roosevelt, and put their money into that system and my denying them what they paid forward is tantamount to theft. Rather, we should require that all monies paid into Social Security and Medicare, be locked away from general revenues. If you examine the Office of Management and Budget, you will see that most of the "surplus" lauded about, and planned for future spending by both major party candidates is actually Social Security revenues which are the direct result of higher employment and better paying jobs. Lock those monies away from Congress and the President and SS will be solvent for about, a million years. Why? Because the money, if left alone, will be there for current recipients. See the OMB website and see that the outlays are far smaller than the receipts. Also, as the recipients get older, they die (they also rarely see all of the money they paid into the system BTW). Therefore, the outlays will continue to drop rather than exceed the amount in the pot even with the much vaunted Baby Boomers asking for their payout.
Getting either major party candidate to honestly say where the alledged budget surplus is coming from (Social Security) is a whole other matter; one that would probably upset the 2000 Election apple cart.
Further, pitting older Americans and younger Americans against each other, black vs. white, rich vs. poor and so forth by any candidate is plain wrong. We have enough tribal separation in this country, we don't need more.
HOWEVER, and a big however, by the way, younger workers should be allowed to determine what they want to do with their SS contributions incrementally as time goes forward in order to dismantle the SS system in the future. The money will be there for the older population that are over 50, for instance. Those younger, and supposedly with more time between them and retirement should be allowed to begin moving their contributions to alternative savings plans. In addition, there should be an easier process for completely withdrawing from SS with one major caveat: You withdraw, you don't come back in 10, 20 or 30 years asking for a handout because you spent your retirement money on a BMW, failed stock or your brother-in-law's beeper business that went belly up.
Finally, my profile said I would vote for Browne, if that is any use to any of you. I will not because there are too many government programs I want continued rather than disbanded, shrunk or privatized. Namely, the National Parks department, NASA, the military, the National Transportation Agency, the FAA, the FCC, and a few others come to my mind.
Whatever. I am voting on November 7th rather than spewing euphenisms and defeatist slogans. Like it or not, I have to raise my children in this country and be damned I am going to tell them I did not care enough about their future to ignore my duty to them.
I recently completed a survey and wish to share with you the results:
[Note: the survey involved a set number of questions asked of a participant (me) regarding my happiness with my government]
100% of those surveyed do not trust the federal government
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with their inability to directly affect spending and policy decisions made in their nation's captital.
100% were disappointed with the government's lack of a Guarrantee of Satisfaction or Your Money Back! Heck, even Sears has that!
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with the federal government's past work and plans for future work. Specified were failures in education, welfare, defence and foreign affairs.
100% were disappointed in the term "government funds" when the truth is all funds are "taxpayer money".
100% did not believe politicians were honest or had integrity. All respondents were leary, if not afraid, of any politician who bragged about their record of "public service".
100% of all respondents agreed that positive responses to this poll would be acheived when all of the "persons of dubious ancestry, i.e. children of female dogs and illegitimate offspring" were run out of town on a "rail" and replaced with persons having no prior governing experience.
Finally, 100% of respondents agreed that common sense dictated a "pay as you play" policy. Whereas, persons who paid for the system, were allowed to assist in its' governing. Therefore, non-paying members of society, contributing no funds to its' upkeep, would follow a policy of placating their benefactors until they contribute themselves.
All surveys reflect a +/- of 4% depending upon whether the respondents had had their morning coffee or not.
Many people, especially the beancounters of the world, are strangely pragmatic for some reason.
For instance, the Stephen Kings, JK Rowlings and such make millions selling books in the old fashioned, bound paper way. King alone has sold over a billion dollars worth of these old fashioned books.
Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Crown super book stores are being built at alarming rates throughout the country. These stores have one time construction costs and recurring costs of employment, utilities, rent and taxes. Yet they still build them.
It is nice to imagine a world where an author writes a book and people drop change in his "tip jar" and download it over the 'Net. No stores, no distributor, no editor, no bitchy publisher, just simplicity.
But the reality is the systems works for the people who benefit from it. It makes money, and lots of pinheads in Manhattan publishing companies are making dandy livings keeping things just the way they are. Don't forget, these are the same goons who run most of the newspapers and broadcast content here in the States and do you really think they would figure some way to work themselves out of the equation? Get real.
I have heard enough "techies" (usually young), say the same thing, "Why bother with college?".
Here's why you should bother with college:
- Provable skills
Oh sure, you worked for MomandPopISP.com for 4 years in Backwater, Miss. but what qualifications and certifications do you have on your resume which backs up what you say? Most likely none. This will hurt you later.
- Resume
Sure you can program Perl backwards and forwards and know the latest Cisco IOS, but *most* companies are not going to go past your resume when hiring. *Most* are not going to invite you into a little room and ask you to write some programs and configure your X windowing system. They are going to pick up your resume from a stack of 100 and see who you are on paper without ever meeting you in person.
- Available jobs
Look online at your favorite IT jobs site. 9 times out of 10 they say "BS in CSE or equivalent required". These companies want someone who has a piece of paper that says they accomplished something. The anti-college streak does not exist in HR and hiring departments. There is nothing about "we don't want no book-worm, frat boy, beer-swilling, panty-raiding, daddy's money, college boy" or "3rd grade reading level required".
- More than tech skills
So many times, people who say they don't need college and therefore never went, behave accordingly. They use the words "like" and "you know" over and over again during any explaination. Their spelling and grammar skills are lacking. And their reading comprehension outside of some technical knowledge is non-existent.
- Networking
Forget the 80's yuppie connotations, networking works. College puts someone in an environment with possibly 100's of future contacts who might prove useful with jobs and exiting projects. So many successful companies started in colleges (Dell and Yahoo for instance) when like-minded people were put together in a learning atmosphere.
- Life
Life is more than kernels, switches and code. College exposes human beings such as yourself to the wonders of the world be it through art, literature, or history. In so many cases it is true, if it is not required, many will not do it be it reading, writing or enjoying culture.
You blather out the standard diatribe against "right wing, particularly the religious right". Why don't you old dinosaurs get a clue: The 80's are over. You go on and on about Falwell, Robertson and others as if they really matter any more. They are sad, old figures from a bygone era whose supporters were with them when they started and will not desert them anytime soon.
Poor China. Quit it. Whether China sabre rattles in the Pacific (which they do quite regularly) or threatens trade relations (because they have 1Billion people, most of who can't afford a can of generic soda) because they have 'potentially' the biggest market in the world, they are no different than Ford, or Microsoft. They want domination over world affairs in order to make their voice heard and to change everyone to their way of thinking. They don't deserve sympathy or instant trust for this.
Poor China 2. China has the same, tired old leaders running their country since 1949. Imagine if George Bush the Elder was President from '49 to the present, you would be having fits and staging protest skits or whatever it is you do. They do not have freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of movement. This should not be acceptable to anyone who believes in human rights.
Think for yourself. You are allowed to disagree with Jane Fonda, Peter Buck, Warren Beatty and all the other political and foreign affairs experts who share your viewpoints.
Be honest with yourself. The Chinese government has not changed in over 50 years. During that time they have trampled a peaceful country, Tibet, to the ground, denied basic human rights to their people and killed or imprisoned anyone who defies them in their country. Those are facts. Deal with them. You would not stand for it here would you. Or is it okay, because it is just a bunch of Chinese who don't know what is best for them?
Slashdot Mirror
I have been a manager in different capacities for the past 5 or so years and here is my take on this:
1) Treat people the way you want to be treated. Nobody likes working for a taskmaster or driven to the point of burnout. Treat people (especially people you are responsible for!) with respect and they in turn will respect you and the organization.
2) Make goals, plans, project, expectations, etc clear. Vague, mushy, "changing target, shifting paradigm BS" does not encourage or motivate people.
3) Be flexible in what you do and your people will be as well. If you want someone to fix something at 2 AM, offer them the opportunity to work business hours from home, or from another suitable remote location on a regular basis.
4) Train, educate, teach. Send people to offsite classes. Buy them books and software if they request it. Subscribe to magazines and journals. Send people to conferences and conventions. Invest in your people and they will bring back knowledge and stay for more. If you are worried that CCNA you just paid for will leave after certification than you either hired the wrong person or you have a crappy workplace. Good people stay at good places for more good training and investment.
5) Be honest. If things are bad at the company and there will be layoffs or bancruptcy, let your people know as soon and with as much information as soon as possible. People have mortgages, families, bills. Show some respect.
6) Remember personal lives. Tech workers are no different than other people. What we have all found out in the past few years is that tech workers don't want to sleep under their desks for 10 years. Send them home. Let them spend uninterrupted time with friends, family, and other non-work beings.
7) Free cokes, toys, games, and other fluff is just that - fluff. In today's "Enroned", recessionary times, people want stability, reliability and honesty more than a foozeball table, rollerblade court and hiking trips. Tech workers (for that matter all workers) should not have to worry if paychecks will bounce or be non-existant, if their 401k or pension scheme is solvent, or if their payroll taxes are being filed correctly.
8) Finally, have technical people with leadership qualities lead. I was a sysadmin and network admin before being tapped for a management role. I understand what my people are talking about from experience, not from a book or training class.
Just some thoughts from the last few years. All lessons learned from experience.
" Neither could say what it was. Can you?"
It is either a floor cleaner or a dessert topping.
Don't worry, it's both!
Go find a local (not national or even local office of a national company) web hosting company or ISP. Find one that is small but serious (if such a bird still exists out there).
Get an entry level job doing tech support, (yep that means phone support for sometimes trying customers).
Let your employer know you have Unix skills and experience. Most likely, within a few months, you will end up doing backups, patch installations and other mundane, yet mildly educational tasks.
After a year or so of this, start checking job sites and putting out your resume, (if you have hit the proverbial ceiling at your current job).
Find a jr. admin job at a larger company (hint: look for a company that uses a variety of hardware and OS's - best chances for exposure).
Be willing to be the backup tape swapper, user admin, Unix help desk (oh boy, that's fun), whatever.
Oh yeah, don't get married, have kids, expect to have a life, plan on sleeping in, going to bed early or never have a waking hour without a pager and cell phone attached to you.
"Corporations appear to be unchecked, and corporations have little inate social responsibility. They exist to generate profits, not advance social agendas or protect the environment"
The same can be used to describe more than a few politicans, but in the U.S. and abroad.
In our area, both of the online grocers pulled out last fall. The problem? Too wide of a delivery area.
They had to build a big warehouse to store products and then needed a fleet of vehicles to deliver goods. Gas prices went up and added to costs, changing economy (remember, most of the early adapters and users of online services were those most affected by the downturn in the tech market) and dried up VC money to fuel operations. Finally, because there were three or more of these services out there nationally, I believe they overextended themselves to gain marketshare - therefore dooming themselves in the process. There was not a steady group of customers to support the industry.
It is really too bad. It seems like such a simple and successful idea. I have a feeling it is going to be back in the near future.
Read John Ashcroft's statements on privacy, security and encryption. Despite the issues the mainstream media is pushing on us, Ashcroft has some very interesting viewpoints on privacy and security that have yet to be reported here. You might be surprised,(I was) especially coming from the most likely, future chief law enforcement person in the nation.
:)
(Not sure, but I don't think Katz voted for Bush in 2000. Just a hunch.)
Very often, we do this to ourselves in order to create a "safe" work environment. In the past, I purposefully allowed myself to become the single point of failure in a couple of jobs. Why? Because then my boss would know he could not live without me and my job was safe regardless of my day to day performance.
Clearly, this is wrong, immature and destructive. Insist that another admin be hired, a reasonable on-call schedule created and start using that accrued time off!
On ABC this morning they asked roughly the same question "Why don't we have a national standard for voting?".
The election official cited gave two reasons:
1) Different systems in different states and counties ensures that the vote cannot be tampered with at a national level. A single system runs into the possibility of a single means to affect the vote by tampering with the single system.
2) Money. As stated, local governments have to pay for the systems themselves. They do the best they can with the money they have but even well off large areas (such as NYC) as still using 40 year old voting booths because nobody wants to spend the money.
Slashdot aside, there are still large numbers of Americans who have little or no faith in computer systems - especially after this years' number of DOS attacks. The conspiracy theories regarding the "real winner" of a computer tabulated race would abound. Consider this: the punch card system, such as used in Florida, was first used in the US in 1892; the voting machine, (push the handle to the right of the candidate), was first used in 1896. We obviously adapt to new technology slowly in the world of elections.
Gore and Bush had specific strategies for winning the election based upon electoral votes. Another writer contended that the electoral system protected voters from candidates who campaigned only to large voting blocks and ignored the remainder of the population. This is occuring with the current system.
Gore limited his campaigning to a) states with large or significant electoral votes i.e. California, New York, etc. b) that he could win i.e NOT Texas and c) only in large urban populations which traditionally voted for him in '92 and '96 and Democratic i.e. New York City rather than upstate, Pittsburgh rather than rural Pennsylvania, etc. The strategy was to win the large urban areas in high-electoral states and therefore win the election. Gore purposefully avoided most of the middle of America as evident in the returns.
Bush on the other hand based his strategy on the mid-section of America and the rural and suburban voting on the coasts. The Bush strategy stated that if their campaign lost in Florida for instance, they would make it up by picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and Missouri. Bush did little or no campaigning in locations not favorable to his election - New York City, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Baltimore, etc.
The problem with the electoral vote for president is outlined above. Already, both major American parties have figured out where their power bases are and will only campaign in those areas and hope that they will win enough in each major, electoral state in their representative areas to take the whole state. This will continue until the system is changed.
WHAT the system will change into rests largely upon the winner of this election. An admirable action by either candidate upon taking office would be to begin the electoral college's demise as their first act. However, winners rarely change the system that put them in place.
Thomas,
A few points..
Peace or War in the Mideast (or anywhere else) -
Those who live there will make war on their own with or without the US as they have for thousands of years. For so long, Americans have been told to stop trying to run the world. If anyone wants to fight in the Mideast, they will, whether or not the US does anything. That also applies to most of the rest of the world that has continually told the US to butt out of their affairs. I think it is high time we did.
Separate European military force outside of NATO -
Your country, France, already answered that question in 1966 when you withdrew from NATO. There already is a strong political and economic union in place in Europe, why shouldn't you have a unified military force separate from the US if you want to?
George W Bush is not GWB,Jr. His father's name is George H.W. Bush. Albert Gore IS, however, Albert Gore Jr; he has the same as his father, the late Senator. Both are men of means - GWB has had explicit direction from his father on making large sums of money, Gore inherited money and property from his father upon his death. Both men have major flaws which question their ability to lead.
However, I voted. I voted not because of who is running, but because the person elected will be spending my tax dollars, for better or worse. Second, I voted because there was more than a President running, there were Senators, Congressional candidates, local judges, etc. Finally I voted because I can't stand people who spew slogans and defeatist euphanisms but they do not vote. Voting gives my complaints substance.
By the way, you have a very beautiful country. I have visited it several times and think the people are quite friendly.
Actually, there was the Yellow book first, then the Red and now the Purple. I have the Yellow and Red as well as the O'Reilly and have to say Evi's book is better.
I really wanted to buypass the Talking Heads today and go vote. But that guy is so funny in that big suit waving his arms all over singing "And She Was" and all those other big hits. What as today, now?
"So, you wan't a tax cut even though you pay only minimal taxes already."
:)
.. the votes he got go in favor of someone else on the list who got more votes."
From your perspective based upon paying 50% of your income in taxes. Based upon American history and taxes, we are paying the highest amount of taxes ever. This includes higher tax brackets for income and higher fees for purchases such as on gasoline, tobacco and others. The statement of minimal taxes is your perspective which is not shared by a portion of Americans. If asked, "Do you want to pay more taxes than you currently are", my experience has shown that more Americans question what and how our government spends its' current revenue rather than whether or not we are paying enough.
"I think there would be great many ways to spend that money even that many to make the lives of the poorer Americans a little bit better"
Your perspective from your culture is that of taking money from one person and redistributing it through the government to another person is okay. Your perspective is "It works in Finland, it should work in the US". Those are not the sentiments of a number of Americans. Although some Americans agree that wealth redistribution through taxation is effective at curing social ills, others believe that such actions are no better than handouts which a) keep recipients from working towards a better lifestyle through their own efforts and b) have historically failed to elevate people from their current status. Advocates of this philosophy cite the ideas behind Johnson's Great Society and the problems which still exist nearly 40 years later which were supposed to be cured by programs within the Great Society.
"But with that money we have full social security, almost free healthcare and fully free schools."
And another way of saying this is "By taking some people's earned money, we are able to provide things for people who may not have earned money to pay for these same things". It sounds admirable, but there is another philosophy which says, "Let me keep as much of the fruits of my own labor to determine my own educational and financial future".
"I would certainly not wan't to be in America and lose a job. "
Things are not that bad..
There is a shortage of employees in most of America which results in lots of other, available jobs should you lose your current one. Granted that is the nation's current economic status, but in my 23+ years of employment, I have never been without a job without trying.
Those black and white films you have been watching of out-of-work Americans in a soup kitchen line were made during the 1930's Depression.
Furthermore, you must not be aware of unemployment insurance and other social programs for the out of work we have in this country. They really do exist!
"Another thing I'm amazed by is the electoral system
Like your statements about the US demonstrate, I am not familiar with the Finnish electoral process, however, I will research it in order to have a better grasp of it. Based solely upon what your have written, it doesn't sound very good to have my vote for candidate X go to candidate Y because X lost. Perhaps I missed something in the translation.
I think in the US, many people have become more amazed and angered by the process of election, rather than the historical system. In the past 15-20 years, it has become apparent to many Americans that the person with the most money and largest party apparatus wins the election. Shades of Communist Russia! My personal gripe is that many times a person with good common sense and intelligence is passed over in favor of a loyal party member and advocate of the system.
In closing, there are many differences between European countries system of government and taxation and the US's. Often, the European perspective fails to take into consideration the diversity of the US as a whole; we are not nearly as homogenous as most European countries are. Therefore, we do have the luxury of an apparent single perspective shared by the majority of our population. I guess we are just a country of upstarts and misfits who may never agree upon anything!
We said this same thing in 1995 when the two big routing points at the time, MAE East and West required routers greater than the Cisco 4000 series which did not have the memory to handle the routing tables.
We also thought by 1997 or 1998 we would be out of the original IP space.
Guess what? There are still tons of IP addresses left and more being recycled everyday. Internet access providers are merging and going bellyup everyday, returning IP space back to other backbone providers. Network security companies are moving public networks to private IP space to keep out scanners and sk's.
This kind of fearmongering has been going on for years and all it leads to is IP hoarding.
In a rare sign of bipartisan cooperation, candidates Gore and Bush have presented their answers for the Slashdot community.
1) War on Drugs
Bush - What is needed is leadership and cooperation. I will lead the nation in drug use and cooperate with whoever wants to help.
Gore - Only the top 1% of Americans will use drugs under Governor Bush's plan. I want a system of targeted drug use for all Americans.
Minority Religions
Bush - I have always liked minority religions. Especially those black people when they sing that gospel music, everyone clapping and dancing and shouting "Amen!". It just makes me happy.
Gore - Let's face it, these religions are only open to the richest 1% of society. I want a religion that is for working families and not for special interest, big religion groups only.
Why give a tax cut?
Bush - Because I need one.
Gore - Smirk - It wouldn't hurt me either.
Electoral reform
Bush - We need to reform, not eliminate the electoral college. Besides, I think Yale played those electoral boys in '67 and we gave them a pretty good whoopin'.
Gore - I did not attend the electoral college because I was serving in Vietnam for working families at the time, fighting against big colleges, big electorals and for a clean electoral environment.
How do you feel about intellectual property?
Bush - I don't have any. Just a ranch in Texas!
Gore - It only benefits the top 1% of property owners. My opponent voted against property taxes in Texas 6 times, thereby hurting schools, the environment and my feelings.
Encryption
Bush - I support it. In Houston, flooding makes many cemetaries unuseable. We have to put our loved ones in crypts or they will float away, just like in 1900 during the big hurricane.
Gore - Encryption only benefits the top 1% of data in this country. Data my opponent cares more about than working families.
Rising Political Protests
Bush - Laura and I raised two beautiful girls, we have no problem raising protests, cattle, chickens, whatever.
Gore - Protests are either for or against working families. As soon as my focus groups get back to me on that, I will have an unmoving opinion.
Asteroid defenses
Bush - I hate those things. Once I was on my horse all day and had a whopper. Give me anything that will prevent those buggers.
Gore - Our asteroid defenses are the best trained, best equipped and highest motivated in the history of the world.
The future of the country and humanity
Bush - sounds great.
Gore - vote early, vote often.
This same argument by political conservative was presented when Clinton took office. That his new taxes - of which there have been several, income, fees, usage, etc - would stifle growth.
As anyone can see, growth was not strangled between 1993 and 2000. Was this recent economic growth due to higher taxation? No, but who cares about facts these days.
Finally. Go to the Office of Management and Budget. Look at the where the money comes from and where it goes. The surplus is not from income taxes or fees or tariffs but from Social Security receipts. The SS money is then applied to General Revenues because by law, it does not have to go to a locked account. Take away the SS revenues and you have a budget deficit. SS revenues are from employees and employers. Lower employment and that number goes down, revenues go down and sooner or later we have another budget deficit.
Demand that the politicians be honest about this so-called "surplus" and Social Security.
"They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed."
I guess a tax break for those people wasn't one of the things those contributors asked for. Tongue in cheek.
When asked about taxation, Ralph Nader believes in lighter taxation on "honest labor". What is the definition of "honest labor" today?
I mean, in the good ol' days, I guess honest labor good be catergorized by some blue workshirt wearing, hardhat guy with a shovel, hammer or rivetgun building the American dream.
What is "honest labor" categorized as today?
Also, Nader claims he wants to tax certain things. For instance he mentions "sprawl". I take it that means urban sprawl. I will admit many of those areas are butt ugly, but who gets taxed? The parent company who bought the land and planned the buildout? The builder? The city or county officials who approved it? The homeowner? [Personally, I just want them to tax the people who come up with those stupid names - Horizon Vista Hills Community, etc. Blah].
Polluters get taxed? Who? Me and my car which is the only option available to me based upon size, use and price? Or me, because I drive a car and there is no mass transportation that works for my needs? Or GM/Chrysler/Ford/etc for only providing internal combustion engine transportation? Is location a factor here? In many Northeast burgs, there is a variety of train, bus, and other mass transportation that the folks in Montana simply don't have. Who gets penalized?
Does anyone have answers for these questions? If not, I am afraid Nader is no different than any other politician who makes statements and policy without telling me how it is going to work.
PS - I have been to the Green Party website. No luck.
England, under the Labour party, is working towards the same thing in GB.
Germany just wrapped up their "Cybercrime" convention, attacking individual "hackers (sic)" as the biggest threat to the Internet and ecommerce.
Clinton holds his emergency summit with Internet companies and wants billions for a "Cybercrime" law enforcement centre in cooperation with the FBI and NSA with broad sweeping powers to prevent Amazon and Ebay from being taken down again - oh, the horror!
And now NZ does this.
Ironically, nearly all of these governments are left-leaning and make claims to be soooo concerned about the rights of the individual citizen, but look who is penalized and whose liberties are at stake here.
The leftist attitude is we are all just cattle to herded and sand to be shoveled and they use their patsies the news media to fan the flames of misinformation and hype.
There is nothing these people hate more than our ability to think for ourselves, move around as we please and question their motives.
6 missions, the best of which will get us some rocks. If we are lucky?
I have learned a few things by watching late night movies. Obviously more than those pencil-heads at NASA.
* The best way to get to Mars is on a V2 rocket. The kind with fins developed by the Germans during WWII and used extensively during our 1950's, RKO pictures-sponsored manned space program.
* Why only get rocks? What about one of those beautiful Martian women? You know, the kind that lives in that city where there are no men, kissing or Coca-Cola?
* Why all the science? You can tell that Mars is habitable because of those canals that line its surface. Mars looks like a big version of Venice, Italy!
* Is the air breathable? You don't need a bunch of gizmos to find out. Have the mission's captain take off his fish bowl helmet and take a deep breath after he tests the oxygen content with his cigarrette lighter.
We'd better quit this probin' pussyfootin' around business. Anyday now one of them Martian saucers will land in New Jersey and start deathraying us!
I read the Harry Browne piece:
The problem not addressed regarding 'blue hairs' and Social Security is those 'blue hairs' paid into this catastrophe of a system for far many years. They believed Roosevelt, and put their money into that system and my denying them what they paid forward is tantamount to theft. Rather, we should require that all monies paid into Social Security and Medicare, be locked away from general revenues. If you examine the Office of Management and Budget, you will see that most of the "surplus" lauded about, and planned for future spending by both major party candidates is actually Social Security revenues which are the direct result of higher employment and better paying jobs. Lock those monies away from Congress and the President and SS will be solvent for about, a million years. Why? Because the money, if left alone, will be there for current recipients. See the OMB website and see that the outlays are far smaller than the receipts. Also, as the recipients get older, they die (they also rarely see all of the money they paid into the system BTW). Therefore, the outlays will continue to drop rather than exceed the amount in the pot even with the much vaunted Baby Boomers asking for their payout.
Getting either major party candidate to honestly say where the alledged budget surplus is coming from (Social Security) is a whole other matter; one that would probably upset the 2000 Election apple cart.
Further, pitting older Americans and younger Americans against each other, black vs. white, rich vs. poor and so forth by any candidate is plain wrong. We have enough tribal separation in this country, we don't need more.
HOWEVER, and a big however, by the way, younger workers should be allowed to determine what they want to do with their SS contributions incrementally as time goes forward in order to dismantle the SS system in the future. The money will be there for the older population that are over 50, for instance. Those younger, and supposedly with more time between them and retirement should be allowed to begin moving their contributions to alternative savings plans. In addition, there should be an easier process for completely withdrawing from SS with one major caveat: You withdraw, you don't come back in 10, 20 or 30 years asking for a handout because you spent your retirement money on a BMW, failed stock or your brother-in-law's beeper business that went belly up.
Finally, my profile said I would vote for Browne, if that is any use to any of you. I will not because there are too many government programs I want continued rather than disbanded, shrunk or privatized. Namely, the National Parks department, NASA, the military, the National Transportation Agency, the FAA, the FCC, and a few others come to my mind.
Whatever. I am voting on November 7th rather than spewing euphenisms and defeatist slogans. Like it or not, I have to raise my children in this country and be damned I am going to tell them I did not care enough about their future to ignore my duty to them.
Dear sirs,
I recently completed a survey and wish to share with you the results:
[Note: the survey involved a set number of questions asked of a participant (me) regarding my happiness with my government]
100% of those surveyed do not trust the federal government
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with their inability to directly affect spending and policy decisions made in their nation's captital.
100% were disappointed with the government's lack of a Guarrantee of Satisfaction or Your Money Back! Heck, even Sears has that!
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with the federal government's past work and plans for future work. Specified were failures in education, welfare, defence and foreign affairs.
100% were disappointed in the term "government funds" when the truth is all funds are "taxpayer money".
100% did not believe politicians were honest or had integrity. All respondents were leary, if not afraid, of any politician who bragged about their record of "public service".
100% of all respondents agreed that positive responses to this poll would be acheived when all of the "persons of dubious ancestry, i.e. children of female dogs and illegitimate offspring" were run out of town on a "rail" and replaced with persons having no prior governing experience.
Finally, 100% of respondents agreed that common sense dictated a "pay as you play" policy. Whereas, persons who paid for the system, were allowed to assist in its' governing. Therefore, non-paying members of society, contributing no funds to its' upkeep, would follow a policy of placating their benefactors until they contribute themselves.
All surveys reflect a +/- of 4% depending upon whether the respondents had had their morning coffee or not.
Thank you,
Many people, especially the beancounters of the world, are strangely pragmatic for some reason.
For instance, the Stephen Kings, JK Rowlings and such make millions selling books in the old fashioned, bound paper way. King alone has sold over a billion dollars worth of these old fashioned books.
Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Crown super book stores are being built at alarming rates throughout the country. These stores have one time construction costs and recurring costs of employment, utilities, rent and taxes. Yet they still build them.
It is nice to imagine a world where an author writes a book and people drop change in his "tip jar" and download it over the 'Net. No stores, no distributor, no editor, no bitchy publisher, just simplicity.
But the reality is the systems works for the people who benefit from it. It makes money, and lots of pinheads in Manhattan publishing companies are making dandy livings keeping things just the way they are. Don't forget, these are the same goons who run most of the newspapers and broadcast content here in the States and do you really think they would figure some way to work themselves out of the equation? Get real.
I have heard enough "techies" (usually young), say the same thing, "Why bother with college?".
Here's why you should bother with college:
- Provable skills
Oh sure, you worked for MomandPopISP.com for 4 years in Backwater, Miss. but what qualifications and certifications do you have on your resume which backs up what you say? Most likely none. This will hurt you later.
- Resume
Sure you can program Perl backwards and forwards and know the latest Cisco IOS, but *most* companies are not going to go past your resume when hiring. *Most* are not going to invite you into a little room and ask you to write some programs and configure your X windowing system. They are going to pick up your resume from a stack of 100 and see who you are on paper without ever meeting you in person.
- Available jobs
Look online at your favorite IT jobs site. 9 times out of 10 they say "BS in CSE or equivalent required". These companies want someone who has a piece of paper that says they accomplished something. The anti-college streak does not exist in HR and hiring departments. There is nothing about "we don't want no book-worm, frat boy, beer-swilling, panty-raiding, daddy's money, college boy" or "3rd grade reading level required".
- More than tech skills
So many times, people who say they don't need college and therefore never went, behave accordingly. They use the words "like" and "you know" over and over again during any explaination. Their spelling and grammar skills are lacking. And their reading comprehension outside of some technical knowledge is non-existent.
- Networking
Forget the 80's yuppie connotations, networking works. College puts someone in an environment with possibly 100's of future contacts who might prove useful with jobs and exiting projects. So many successful companies started in colleges (Dell and Yahoo for instance) when like-minded people were put together in a learning atmosphere.
- Life
Life is more than kernels, switches and code. College exposes human beings such as yourself to the wonders of the world be it through art, literature, or history. In so many cases it is true, if it is not required, many will not do it be it reading, writing or enjoying culture.
Why don't you think for yourself?
You blather out the standard diatribe against "right wing, particularly the religious right". Why don't you old dinosaurs get a clue: The 80's are over. You go on and on about Falwell, Robertson and others as if they really matter any more. They are sad, old figures from a bygone era whose supporters were with them when they started and will not desert them anytime soon.
Poor China. Quit it. Whether China sabre rattles in the Pacific (which they do quite regularly) or threatens trade relations (because they have 1Billion people, most of who can't afford a can of generic soda) because they have 'potentially' the biggest market in the world, they are no different than Ford, or Microsoft. They want domination over world affairs in order to make their voice heard and to change everyone to their way of thinking. They don't deserve sympathy or instant trust for this.
Poor China 2. China has the same, tired old leaders running their country since 1949. Imagine if George Bush the Elder was President from '49 to the present, you would be having fits and staging protest skits or whatever it is you do. They do not have freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of movement. This should not be acceptable to anyone who believes in human rights.
Think for yourself. You are allowed to disagree with Jane Fonda, Peter Buck, Warren Beatty and all the other political and foreign affairs experts who share your viewpoints.
Be honest with yourself. The Chinese government has not changed in over 50 years. During that time they have trampled a peaceful country, Tibet, to the ground, denied basic human rights to their people and killed or imprisoned anyone who defies them in their country. Those are facts. Deal with them. You would not stand for it here would you. Or is it okay, because it is just a bunch of Chinese who don't know what is best for them?