Well apparently you had to go past pluto at impulse otherwise. I would assume by traveling "up" you would only need to get as far away from earth as you would otherwise have to travel away from pluto before you can safely go to warp.
I live in a tiny apartment downtown on my salary, while repaying loans, working a job at ~$30,000 a year.
That seems really low for a programmer, regardless of what part of the country you are in.
As a college drop out programmer that started off in IT making less than that doing third shift help desk, I was making more than $30k the first time my title was developer.
For the most part, in Star Trek they intentionally didn't go to warp in-system unless it was an extreme emergency. Even in The Motion Picture they're at sublight until they're well past Pluto.
I always wondered about the two dimensional thinking of that. Why not go UP a few light years at full impulse and then have Scotty stoke the warp core and Sulu floor the gas pedal.
Actually a diocese is closer to the size of a state (as in, one of the United States). There are two dioceses in Virginia, for instance.
I guess it depends on the area and population. The Archdiocese of Newark covers 4 NJ counties. Archdiocese of Brooklyn covers 2 of the 5 counties in NYC. The Archdiocese of NY covers the rest of NYC and up to Dutchess county I believe.
Drones I can understand, they're primarily detailed to doing surveillance or limited to small munitions, but now we're talking about a full bomber that could be remote controlled? Seriously? There's nothing that can't be hacked! If it's controllable by something outside of the craft itself, it is vulnerable to hacking! Oh let's give enemies the opportunity to hack our BOMBERS, with a Nuclear option no less!
Perhaps that's why its optionally manned. If their going to bomb Russia or china, they might man it. If they are going to perform surveying and dropping MREs after a disaster on a humanitarian mission, then they might chose not to man it. Also, the event of a suicide mission, where the Bomber is almost guaranteed to be lost, they can fly it unmanned, ensure it will self destruct.
Exactly what kind of stuff are they hiding that they need or implement better security measures than our intelligence services?
It could simply be a matter of their being less to hide, and lots of it being on paper. The sex abuse scandals probably were covered up at the diocesan level (usually the size of a county or two in the United States). Equate priest with Police officer/Sargent and Bishop with Lieutenant and think thin blue line stuff. That kind of stuff doesn't get recorded on paper. Also, if it did get recorded, it probably got recorded on PAPER not on a hard drive.
Whatever ancient Dan Brown-esque evils Holy Mother Church has to hide is probably only available on paper if it exists. As far as the whole abortion and birth control thing, the church is quite proud and vocal about it.
No. Any form of clause like this is not ok, unless they are offering to pay you during this period. Anything else, and they are infringing on my right to work, and my right to provide for myself.
I only need one job to pay myself (or x contracts if I'm an independent consultant where x is certainly less than 100 if I'm charging by the hour). With my employment history, I've never gone to work for a competitor, was interviewed with one, or even approached by one, so even if I wasn't allowed to it didn't affect my market rate or employability. Maybe if I was more highly specialized, that would be a problem. Perhaps with outsourcing that is a reality for sysadmins since most of them work at ISPs. I don't think that is the case for developers, at least in my market (greater NYC). Honestly, I've had two jobs where I didn't even know the name of a direct competitor, so maybe I just see things different.
A lot of employment contracts actually restrict what type of companies you are allowed to work for for a specified duration of time after your current employment ends. This is to prevent trade secret/etc from falling to competitors and IS perfectly legal as long as the restrictions are reasonable (not 10 years and the limitations not overly broad). Some jurisdictions also require that the limitations be for within a certain area (5Km from previous employement, etc).
Employers are usually pretty lenient about those clauses, because in the end its mutually assured destruction, and if they go after non-egregious cases, they will lose. In the end, their nuclear weapons, the threat of them is better than the actual use.
It is an interesting quirk: Republicans like to crowe about how racist Democrats were (you know, in the 1860s) but in real life, they have no problem with this form of intellectual slavery. I.e. "We paid you for work product that you provided, but by virtue of you being my employee, I own everything you produce."
Your mixing up racism and slavery. Yes American slavery was clearly racist, but not all racism is slavery. Also, this IP slavery is not racist. My current CEO is American Indian and most of the developers are American Indian, and they have to sign a typical draconian IP assignment document. Every previous employer I've had that made me sign a typical draconian IP assignment document, and it was always white executives opressing mostly white employees. I'd be hard pressed to describe what you call IP slavery as a racists institution in its current incarnation.
Finally, with regard to this being a Republican issue, the overwhelmingly Democrat members of the RIAA practice similarly IP enslavement.
By that retarded logic an employee could seemingly be required to do anything by her employer. Where is the line? My ultra-conservative friends say there isn't one: Your employer should have the right to impose any terms they choose on employment, and if you agree, you should have no recourse in court, EEOC, or the media (NDA.)
Now let me argue that point.
When you terminate your employment, you terminate IP assignment. I'm all for a law allowing that. With regard to NDA, if something is truly that bad and institutionalized, someone with nothing to lose will break their NDA, get sued and declare bankruptcy. The checks and balance there is for employers to keep us happy and fed enough for us not te become that desperate. The only sustainable way to do that is for the IP assignment documents to not be draconian
Except that he's absolutely right. This guy quit his job because they are switching to MS products. If he was any good he could learn the new system and continue his work, however he has decided to quit and come appeal to Slashdot's anti-MS mentality. He has unreasonable expectations and probably lacks the skillset to do the new job. He didn't even try.
Did the submitter say he quit his job? Also, I don't think his expectations are that unrealistic. Plenty of startups work on a pure open source stack. That limits you to telecommuting, NY or the valley though. I've never gotten a job through dice/monster personally, but I have gotten interviews and accepted offers from companies that posted the same job on monster/dice. Therefore the problem seems to be that he needs to network, and not go through the big sites.
Now, what the poster has to realize is that some of his coworkers will use windows desktops, and if he works for a company that makes an open source program (e.g. mysql) there will be customers paying for closed source forks, and a windows port of the software. Therefore, he should be careful how he phrases why he wants to leave.
The submitter is probably immature for quitting his job. He can probably learn how to use windows. However, I have to respect his wishes to be true to himself nonetheless.
OK. Thanks for illuminating my ignorance. I guess when you think of it as a right to pursue property it's pretty easy to agree with, unless your definition of "property" is overly broad.
In the broadest sense, as long as everyone else has a right to pursue property, then yes no problems with you doing so. The devil is in the details. Do you regulate monopolies? How do you ensure protection of the environment? How much do you assist the poor in bootstrapping them selves, and who provides that assistance?When does greed become wasteful or harmful to others?
I wanted to evoke the general sentiment of Locke and Jefferson, not a particular document in which those words were used, because the idea is not unique to the United States.
You have a natural right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property and Happiness (I'll argue real-estate, material possessions, and non-material happiness in this comment). You don't have an intrinsic right to property and happiness, just a right to be allowed to earn them. So the government doesn't have to provide you with a job, housing, food, healthcare or internet access for free. They just have to make sure a system is in place to allow you to make those things happen.
Individual societies can decide the implementation details. Maybe that means a social safety net of the government providing all that. Maybe it means an extreme of a true command economy where needs are provided for regardless of ones contribution to society. Maybe it means something extremely libertarian where the only government is civil courts and the only public lands are roads and markets. However, a society is not intrinsically backwards because they decide that internet access is not free, if your free to get a job to pay for an internet connection.
Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.
Well, its an interesting point there. Some will certainly move. Some won't for a variety of reasons, such as their no longer as interested in the person or topic, and never unfollowed. Some of the twitter accounts are probably abandoned. So there is value in the "inertia" of the existing account, despite the fact that a similar sized fanbase could probably be rebuilt.
If you think about it, if you you sell a professional practice (medical, law, or accounting for example), you sell the list of existing clients. The value in this is inertia. If the original professional sends a letter blessing the new owner, a good portion of those customers will stay put, and therefore its a guarantee of a certain revenue stream and goodwill.
Now, things are complicated. The value of a practices customer base is different to different buyers. If one of the employees in the practice buys the practice, he should be able to retain close to 100% the clients he dealt with personally. A blood relative of the original owner probably will get some loyalty. If a H&R Block bought an accounting sole propietorship, they'd probably expect higher turnover of customers.
A twitter account can be similar. If you are a radio station, and replace your morning show host, it might make sense to keep his twitter account and his followers. Some followers are fans of the station and will listen to the new AM personalities. Of course, if the personality moves stations, and keeps the same time slot, that's not always the case.
Re:But what use would I have for it?
on
FreeDOS 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I mean seriously, how am I going to use it?
Running old programs maybe?
POS apps. Embedded apps. Yes all legacy stuff, but even in a VM, emulating UDMA and a DVD drive is useful.
If he lacks the skills and experience to make it happen, then he is just pushing for something that benefits him and not the business.
Maybe he honestly doesn't know if it would benefit the business. Maybe it makes sense for him to put an argument out there. I think it would be very educational for him to put together an good argument, with a little help from slashdot, as to why a separate IT department and presents it to his management. It might be benificial to both him and his employers even if they reject the idea. First of all, if they reject the idea, they might offer an explanation that educates him to why its a bad idea. Secondly, they might see a way to make that department work better. Thirdly, they might offer mentoring on business aspects or communication to this person who has demonstrated some initiative.
If you tell this person, "You don't understand business. Your a bad communicator. You just don't understand." You're destroying a teaching moment.
A truly authorative answer would come from somebody that is actually a subject matter expert on DNS. There are quite a lot of those as well.
Is there anything that a person more knowledgable about DNS can add to that conversation? Are any of the engineers of DNS capable of addressed english experts in the proper manner that will get their answer marked right or upvoted? Would any of those people answer my email?
I reached out to ESR because I thought he would answer, and he can present himself as knowledgeable of arcane rules of english. Not because he knew DNS.
If you lack the domain knowledge, then you lack the skills and experience to make it happen. Then you might probably also lack the awareness and the business knowledge against what you are proposing, meaning you probably shouldn't propose it in the first place.
Well if the person lacks the domain knowledge of television engineering, but not the domain knowledge of IT, he certainly would not fail in a pure IT department if he has suceeded as an IT guy reporting to someone in television engineering. If the person making the proposal has basic understanding the television engineering field, domain expertise in IT, but lacks the domain knowledge of business, then maybe he just needs a starting point to know what questions the business stakeholders will ask. Once this person knows what questions a business stakeholder will ask to see if a proposal makes sense. he can do his own research to put forth a proposal.
Going back to my original example, he knows a separate IT department benefits him, or at least thinks he does. He knows he has to frame it in terms of how it benefits the business. So he wants to know what he doesn't know so he can form that argument.
Maybe he is simply a bad communicator in general, or bad at communicating to the business stakeholders.
From his point of view it would be a good idea, because he sees IT as a separate discipline from engineering (in the sense of the particular discipline of television engineering I presume). He knows it would be better for him if he was in a separate IT department, but he doesn't know how to sell it to the business.
There have been times where I felt I was right, but lacked the domain knowledge to make the case to the other side. For example, look at this question on english.stackexchange.com. I emailed ESR and requested he answer this question because I knew he had 1) good communication skills, 2) a better understanding of English and languages in general then I had, and 3) an understanding of DNS. While I am an OK communicator, I lack the in depth domain knowledge of linguistics to put forth an argument as eloquently as he does.
To put it another way, pretend you wanted a raise. You know why its good for you, and you may understand why you are undervalued. However, you may not know how to sell it to your boss.
China does everything themselves because that makes sense to them at the moment. In fifty years they will probably be outsourcing and not maintaining their infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Well apparently you had to go past pluto at impulse otherwise. I would assume by traveling "up" you would only need to get as far away from earth as you would otherwise have to travel away from pluto before you can safely go to warp.
I live in a tiny apartment downtown on my salary, while repaying loans, working a job at ~$30,000 a year.
That seems really low for a programmer, regardless of what part of the country you are in.
As a college drop out programmer that started off in IT making less than that doing third shift help desk, I was making more than $30k the first time my title was developer.
For the most part, in Star Trek they intentionally didn't go to warp in-system unless it was an extreme emergency. Even in The Motion Picture they're at sublight until they're well past Pluto.
I always wondered about the two dimensional thinking of that. Why not go UP a few light years at full impulse and then have Scotty stoke the warp core and Sulu floor the gas pedal.
Well Andrew S. Tanenbaum is not predisposed to feel strongly about version control systems. Operating systems on the other hand . . .
Actually a diocese is closer to the size of a state (as in, one of the United States). There are two dioceses in Virginia, for instance.
I guess it depends on the area and population. The Archdiocese of Newark covers 4 NJ counties. Archdiocese of Brooklyn covers 2 of the 5 counties in NYC. The Archdiocese of NY covers the rest of NYC and up to Dutchess county I believe.
Drones I can understand, they're primarily detailed to doing surveillance or limited to small munitions, but now we're talking about a full bomber that could be remote controlled? Seriously? There's nothing that can't be hacked! If it's controllable by something outside of the craft itself, it is vulnerable to hacking! Oh let's give enemies the opportunity to hack our BOMBERS, with a Nuclear option no less!
Perhaps that's why its optionally manned. If their going to bomb Russia or china, they might man it. If they are going to perform surveying and dropping MREs after a disaster on a humanitarian mission, then they might chose not to man it. Also, the event of a suicide mission, where the Bomber is almost guaranteed to be lost, they can fly it unmanned, ensure it will self destruct.
Exactly what kind of stuff are they hiding that they need or implement better security measures than our intelligence services?
It could simply be a matter of their being less to hide, and lots of it being on paper. The sex abuse scandals probably were covered up at the diocesan level (usually the size of a county or two in the United States). Equate priest with Police officer/Sargent and Bishop with Lieutenant and think thin blue line stuff. That kind of stuff doesn't get recorded on paper. Also, if it did get recorded, it probably got recorded on PAPER not on a hard drive.
Whatever ancient Dan Brown-esque evils Holy Mother Church has to hide is probably only available on paper if it exists. As far as the whole abortion and birth control thing, the church is quite proud and vocal about it.
Finally, anonymous only wants to steal the Vatican's poster collection.
No. Any form of clause like this is not ok, unless they are offering to pay you during this period. Anything else, and they are infringing on my right to work, and my right to provide for myself.
I only need one job to pay myself (or x contracts if I'm an independent consultant where x is certainly less than 100 if I'm charging by the hour). With my employment history, I've never gone to work for a competitor, was interviewed with one, or even approached by one, so even if I wasn't allowed to it didn't affect my market rate or employability. Maybe if I was more highly specialized, that would be a problem. Perhaps with outsourcing that is a reality for sysadmins since most of them work at ISPs. I don't think that is the case for developers, at least in my market (greater NYC). Honestly, I've had two jobs where I didn't even know the name of a direct competitor, so maybe I just see things different.
A lot of employment contracts actually restrict what type of companies you are allowed to work for for a specified duration of time after your current employment ends. This is to prevent trade secret/etc from falling to competitors and IS perfectly legal as long as the restrictions are reasonable (not 10 years and the limitations not overly broad). Some jurisdictions also require that the limitations be for within a certain area (5Km from previous employement, etc).
Employers are usually pretty lenient about those clauses, because in the end its mutually assured destruction, and if they go after non-egregious cases, they will lose. In the end, their nuclear weapons, the threat of them is better than the actual use.
The contract probably specifies that you can't work in the same industry (say, computer software) for two years in this case.
Two years is a bit draconian. Now if it was more specific, e.g. you can't work for a search engine company, that would be ok.
At the very least, if they take the truck, they shouldn't leave the load of waste money in the street.
It is an interesting quirk: Republicans like to crowe about how racist Democrats were (you know, in the 1860s) but in real life, they have no problem with this form of intellectual slavery. I.e. "We paid you for work product that you provided, but by virtue of you being my employee, I own everything you produce."
Your mixing up racism and slavery. Yes American slavery was clearly racist, but not all racism is slavery. Also, this IP slavery is not racist. My current CEO is American Indian and most of the developers are American Indian, and they have to sign a typical draconian IP assignment document. Every previous employer I've had that made me sign a typical draconian IP assignment document, and it was always white executives opressing mostly white employees. I'd be hard pressed to describe what you call IP slavery as a racists institution in its current incarnation.
Finally, with regard to this being a Republican issue, the overwhelmingly Democrat members of the RIAA practice similarly IP enslavement.
By that retarded logic an employee could seemingly be required to do anything by her employer. Where is the line? My ultra-conservative friends say there isn't one: Your employer should have the right to impose any terms they choose on employment, and if you agree, you should have no recourse in court, EEOC, or the media (NDA.)
Now let me argue that point.
When you terminate your employment, you terminate IP assignment. I'm all for a law allowing that. With regard to NDA, if something is truly that bad and institutionalized, someone with nothing to lose will break their NDA, get sued and declare bankruptcy. The checks and balance there is for employers to keep us happy and fed enough for us not te become that desperate. The only sustainable way to do that is for the IP assignment documents to not be draconian
Except that he's absolutely right. This guy quit his job because they are switching to MS products. If he was any good he could learn the new system and continue his work, however he has decided to quit and come appeal to Slashdot's anti-MS mentality. He has unreasonable expectations and probably lacks the skillset to do the new job. He didn't even try.
Did the submitter say he quit his job? Also, I don't think his expectations are that unrealistic. Plenty of startups work on a pure open source stack. That limits you to telecommuting, NY or the valley though. I've never gotten a job through dice/monster personally, but I have gotten interviews and accepted offers from companies that posted the same job on monster/dice. Therefore the problem seems to be that he needs to network, and not go through the big sites.
Now, what the poster has to realize is that some of his coworkers will use windows desktops, and if he works for a company that makes an open source program (e.g. mysql) there will be customers paying for closed source forks, and a windows port of the software. Therefore, he should be careful how he phrases why he wants to leave.
The submitter is probably immature for quitting his job. He can probably learn how to use windows. However, I have to respect his wishes to be true to himself nonetheless.
OK. Thanks for illuminating my ignorance. I guess when you think of it as a right to pursue property it's pretty easy to agree with, unless your definition of "property" is overly broad.
In the broadest sense, as long as everyone else has a right to pursue property, then yes no problems with you doing so. The devil is in the details. Do you regulate monopolies? How do you ensure protection of the environment? How much do you assist the poor in bootstrapping them selves, and who provides that assistance?When does greed become wasteful or harmful to others?
So, this does beg the question, who stuck the word "property" in there expecting us not to notice?
Actually Jefferson altered John Locke's wording when he wrote Live Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I was making the argument that both are natural rights.
I wanted to evoke the general sentiment of Locke and Jefferson, not a particular document in which those words were used, because the idea is not unique to the United States.
You have a natural right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property and Happiness (I'll argue real-estate, material possessions, and non-material happiness in this comment). You don't have an intrinsic right to property and happiness, just a right to be allowed to earn them. So the government doesn't have to provide you with a job, housing, food, healthcare or internet access for free. They just have to make sure a system is in place to allow you to make those things happen.
Individual societies can decide the implementation details. Maybe that means a social safety net of the government providing all that. Maybe it means an extreme of a true command economy where needs are provided for regardless of ones contribution to society. Maybe it means something extremely libertarian where the only government is civil courts and the only public lands are roads and markets. However, a society is not intrinsically backwards because they decide that internet access is not free, if your free to get a job to pay for an internet connection.
Duh, they're called followers, they would have went with the author creating the content even if he changed his twitter account.
Well, its an interesting point there. Some will certainly move. Some won't for a variety of reasons, such as their no longer as interested in the person or topic, and never unfollowed. Some of the twitter accounts are probably abandoned. So there is value in the "inertia" of the existing account, despite the fact that a similar sized fanbase could probably be rebuilt.
If you think about it, if you you sell a professional practice (medical, law, or accounting for example), you sell the list of existing clients. The value in this is inertia. If the original professional sends a letter blessing the new owner, a good portion of those customers will stay put, and therefore its a guarantee of a certain revenue stream and goodwill.
Now, things are complicated. The value of a practices customer base is different to different buyers. If one of the employees in the practice buys the practice, he should be able to retain close to 100% the clients he dealt with personally. A blood relative of the original owner probably will get some loyalty. If a H&R Block bought an accounting sole propietorship, they'd probably expect higher turnover of customers.
A twitter account can be similar. If you are a radio station, and replace your morning show host, it might make sense to keep his twitter account and his followers. Some followers are fans of the station and will listen to the new AM personalities. Of course, if the personality moves stations, and keeps the same time slot, that's not always the case.
I mean seriously, how am I going to use it?
Running old programs maybe?
POS apps. Embedded apps. Yes all legacy stuff, but even in a VM, emulating UDMA and a DVD drive is useful.
If he lacks the skills and experience to make it happen, then he is just pushing for something that benefits him and not the business.
Maybe he honestly doesn't know if it would benefit the business. Maybe it makes sense for him to put an argument out there. I think it would be very educational for him to put together an good argument, with a little help from slashdot, as to why a separate IT department and presents it to his management. It might be benificial to both him and his employers even if they reject the idea. First of all, if they reject the idea, they might offer an explanation that educates him to why its a bad idea. Secondly, they might see a way to make that department work better. Thirdly, they might offer mentoring on business aspects or communication to this person who has demonstrated some initiative.
If you tell this person, "You don't understand business. Your a bad communicator. You just don't understand." You're destroying a teaching moment.
A truly authorative answer would come from somebody that is actually a subject matter expert on DNS. There are quite a lot of those as well.
Is there anything that a person more knowledgable about DNS can add to that conversation? Are any of the engineers of DNS capable of addressed english experts in the proper manner that will get their answer marked right or upvoted? Would any of those people answer my email?
I reached out to ESR because I thought he would answer, and he can present himself as knowledgeable of arcane rules of english. Not because he knew DNS.
If you lack the domain knowledge, then you lack the skills and experience to make it happen. Then you might probably also lack the awareness and the business knowledge against what you are proposing, meaning you probably shouldn't propose it in the first place.
Well if the person lacks the domain knowledge of television engineering, but not the domain knowledge of IT, he certainly would not fail in a pure IT department if he has suceeded as an IT guy reporting to someone in television engineering. If the person making the proposal has basic understanding the television engineering field, domain expertise in IT, but lacks the domain knowledge of business, then maybe he just needs a starting point to know what questions the business stakeholders will ask. Once this person knows what questions a business stakeholder will ask to see if a proposal makes sense. he can do his own research to put forth a proposal.
Going back to my original example, he knows a separate IT department benefits him, or at least thinks he does. He knows he has to frame it in terms of how it benefits the business. So he wants to know what he doesn't know so he can form that argument.
Read the link itself.
Maybe he is simply a bad communicator in general, or bad at communicating to the business stakeholders. From his point of view it would be a good idea, because he sees IT as a separate discipline from engineering (in the sense of the particular discipline of television engineering I presume). He knows it would be better for him if he was in a separate IT department, but he doesn't know how to sell it to the business. There have been times where I felt I was right, but lacked the domain knowledge to make the case to the other side. For example, look at this question on english.stackexchange.com. I emailed ESR and requested he answer this question because I knew he had 1) good communication skills, 2) a better understanding of English and languages in general then I had, and 3) an understanding of DNS. While I am an OK communicator, I lack the in depth domain knowledge of linguistics to put forth an argument as eloquently as he does. To put it another way, pretend you wanted a raise. You know why its good for you, and you may understand why you are undervalued. However, you may not know how to sell it to your boss.
China does everything themselves because that makes sense to them at the moment. In fifty years they will probably be outsourcing and not maintaining their infrastructure.
Analog: Science Fiction and Fact