That's "Carte Blanche", dear, not "Card Blanche". And stop frothing a bit, if you can. In 1973, when this all happened, the US House and Senate were both controlled by Democrats, and a Republican was President. As for "legitimate purposes", that's largely in the eye of the beholder. Many people would argue we should instead have instead intervened in Syria, where there actually ARE relatively peaceful demonstraters being massacred on the streets.
If the senior guy is making what he agreed to, it should not be relevant what the other guy makes.
Of course, being human, we care. A lot. But the solution is to talk to your employer, tell them you're interested in updating your skills to be of more value to them, and negotiate training/salary issues and MAKE YOURSELF MORE VALUABLE. Easier said than done, but that doesn't change whether it's what you really need to do.
As has been mentioned, in this case "Mister" is a title, not a gender marker. I am quoting. Hmmmm...perhaps I should have use quotation marks and an attribution, but I really thought this quote would be universally recognizable to the/. crowd.
Sorry!
Even a democratic government needs its secrets. Example: A Middle-Eastern leader doesn't think that Iran is a safe neighbor, but for reasons of domestic stability dares not say that publically, nor act against Iran itself. It describes Iran as a "snake" that needs to be beheaded to an American diplomat. Did this need to be made public? No. It helped no-one, and serves only to add to the region's instability.
Someone in the State Department thinks the government of North Korea is unstable. Does this need to be made public for accountability? Again, no. It only serves to add to the problems with diplomacy in the region.
Wikileaks isn't engaged in an assault on dangerous secrecy - it's engaged in an assault on American policy. Where are the Chinese leaks? The North Korean leaks? Oh, yeah. There aren't any.
Assange is, as best I can tell, a moron. I rank this right up there with his saying that the decision to publish his incriminating police files is "disgusting."
Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik...
You can absolutely have employees who are productive enough, and make substantial contribution enough that they get their own set of rules. I've seen those people, and I've *been* those people.
However, you can't have employees that are so difficult to work with that they provide negative contribution to their coworkers' environment. In those cases, you need to either get them away from the coworkers, or get them away.
The best parts of the article were several in which the author gives incorrect explanations of what the computer terms he's using mean. Made my day! This is why I so seldom listen to the press when they're talking tech.:)
I dunno. If your users need to do all their work at the office, this could be great. You either always have connectivity, or nothing would have worked without the net being up anyway.
Otherwise, you run into issues. Not only will this take some serious bandwidth, but if your net connection is down, you are out of luck. I'll be in the "thanks, but I LIKE using my computer even when the ISP is down" category.:)
Really, not letting most users or applications modify the OS is a good thing. Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation.
Now, not letting an application that doesn't want to monkey with the OS get installed is probably going too far. I mean, who's gonna run an OS they can't put an app on? That's broken.
Yeah, that would be because they're only pseudo-libertarians. They're actually much closer to anarchists in many respects.
Amazon and Wikileaks may have had their issues, but these yahoos have made it into MY issue by stopping my holiday shopping at Amazon. Maybe in protect I should shut down their bank's website and ATM network right around your next payday? After all, you can always bank elsewhere.
Really, I am already re-thinking my earlier reply.
The issue here is summed up in one word - "Just". You think you need "Just" a programmer, or "Just" a marketing guy, or "Just" a salesman? You have already told me that you don't really value their contribution to the effort, and additionally that you don't really understand fully what goes in to the work they're doing. Yeah, you have a genius idea. You don't want "Just" a programmer. You want a genius programmer, preferably either with a passion for your cause, or a resume of working in coding similar things. Otherwise, your operating system is being written by "just" a database programmer, and while you will have great search times, you may find other areas coming up short.
I would have to disagree. The difference between wealth and having a second job isn't in whether you can code the idea. Any 15-year-old idiot can probably code an idea, unless it's very complex. How well you can do it is nearly paramount.
You know, for example, that most sort algorithms max out at an efficiency of Clog(n)[element_count], as a rough description. You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent. And no, you can't do that with shell scripts and lines of spaghetti code.
1) As computers get cheaper, they will become less expensive, or will do more for the same price.
2) As computers get smaller, they will take up less space, or do more in the same space. By "Space" I simply mean that they could exist somewhere in the known or unknown universe or multiverse.
Ah, I see how this works. I'm gonna write me a book!
Is the OP insane or on drugs?
on
Linux Radio
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I quote: "However, this concept proves once more the advantages of open source over proprietary software..." WTF??? You could have a machine read ANY pointless information into a 'net radio. It's not like this is useful in any way. If Open Source needs to have its source code read over internet radio to demonstrate an advantage over proprietary software, it needs to crawl into a nice quiet corner, lay down, and die.
You want real advantages? Get reliability, scalability, security. Those are Open Source (potential) advantages. Reading source code on the net radio station? What a waste of time.
You know, if you CANNOT FUNCTION without the data on the computers, you need to have verified backups and a plan for when the machines catch fire. If you can't manage this yourself, there are vendors that specialize in this very thing. Failure on this level probably warrants a firing, when the dust settles.
Amen. By not providing *any* of the truly necessary information, I postulate that this implies that:
1) He doesn't know the stuff he needs to know to build an appropriate solution
2) He doesn't know what he doesn't know
He is below what is frequently referred to as the "threshold of ignorance", and only pain will come of this unless he's ready to tell the/. community WAY more than his employer wants him to about EXACTLY how they do what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
That's "Carte Blanche", dear, not "Card Blanche". And stop frothing a bit, if you can. In 1973, when this all happened, the US House and Senate were both controlled by Democrats, and a Republican was President. As for "legitimate purposes", that's largely in the eye of the beholder. Many people would argue we should instead have instead intervened in Syria, where there actually ARE relatively peaceful demonstraters being massacred on the streets.
Where are the +1 insightful mods when you need them? Parent post is right on!
If the senior guy is making what he agreed to, it should not be relevant what the other guy makes. Of course, being human, we care. A lot. But the solution is to talk to your employer, tell them you're interested in updating your skills to be of more value to them, and negotiate training/salary issues and MAKE YOURSELF MORE VALUABLE. Easier said than done, but that doesn't change whether it's what you really need to do.
OR it could be a memetic alloy terminator *disguised* as a light switch...
At last! Politicians that have realized they shouldn't permit the installation of electronic equipment that is smarter than they are! :)
Did Mark Twain actually say that? Whether he did or not, that's a pretty cool sig. I may borrow that somewhere...
As has been mentioned, in this case "Mister" is a title, not a gender marker. I am quoting. Hmmmm...perhaps I should have use quotation marks and an attribution, but I really thought this quote would be universally recognizable to the /. crowd.
Sorry!
Even a democratic government needs its secrets. Example: A Middle-Eastern leader doesn't think that Iran is a safe neighbor, but for reasons of domestic stability dares not say that publically, nor act against Iran itself. It describes Iran as a "snake" that needs to be beheaded to an American diplomat. Did this need to be made public? No. It helped no-one, and serves only to add to the region's instability. Someone in the State Department thinks the government of North Korea is unstable. Does this need to be made public for accountability? Again, no. It only serves to add to the problems with diplomacy in the region. Wikileaks isn't engaged in an assault on dangerous secrecy - it's engaged in an assault on American policy. Where are the Chinese leaks? The North Korean leaks? Oh, yeah. There aren't any.
Marked "Troll"? Really? It's a true statement of my feelings, and not trolling at all.
Assange is, as best I can tell, a moron. I rank this right up there with his saying that the decision to publish his incriminating police files is "disgusting." Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik...
You can absolutely have employees who are productive enough, and make substantial contribution enough that they get their own set of rules. I've seen those people, and I've *been* those people. However, you can't have employees that are so difficult to work with that they provide negative contribution to their coworkers' environment. In those cases, you need to either get them away from the coworkers, or get them away.
Freakin' Microsoft. Who gave them the contract to upgrade SunOS, anyway?!?
The best parts of the article were several in which the author gives incorrect explanations of what the computer terms he's using mean. Made my day! This is why I so seldom listen to the press when they're talking tech. :)
I dunno. If your users need to do all their work at the office, this could be great. You either always have connectivity, or nothing would have worked without the net being up anyway. Otherwise, you run into issues. Not only will this take some serious bandwidth, but if your net connection is down, you are out of luck. I'll be in the "thanks, but I LIKE using my computer even when the ISP is down" category. :)
Really, not letting most users or applications modify the OS is a good thing. Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation. Now, not letting an application that doesn't want to monkey with the OS get installed is probably going too far. I mean, who's gonna run an OS they can't put an app on? That's broken.
Yeah, that would be because they're only pseudo-libertarians. They're actually much closer to anarchists in many respects. Amazon and Wikileaks may have had their issues, but these yahoos have made it into MY issue by stopping my holiday shopping at Amazon. Maybe in protect I should shut down their bank's website and ATM network right around your next payday? After all, you can always bank elsewhere.
Really, I am already re-thinking my earlier reply. The issue here is summed up in one word - "Just". You think you need "Just" a programmer, or "Just" a marketing guy, or "Just" a salesman? You have already told me that you don't really value their contribution to the effort, and additionally that you don't really understand fully what goes in to the work they're doing. Yeah, you have a genius idea. You don't want "Just" a programmer. You want a genius programmer, preferably either with a passion for your cause, or a resume of working in coding similar things. Otherwise, your operating system is being written by "just" a database programmer, and while you will have great search times, you may find other areas coming up short.
I would have to disagree. The difference between wealth and having a second job isn't in whether you can code the idea. Any 15-year-old idiot can probably code an idea, unless it's very complex. How well you can do it is nearly paramount. You know, for example, that most sort algorithms max out at an efficiency of Clog(n)[element_count], as a rough description. You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent. And no, you can't do that with shell scripts and lines of spaghetti code.
I have fun with my non-resolution-limited PC games, thanks! Left 4 Dead - not a crappy console port. I don't buy most console ports anymore.
I play most of my games at 1920x1280...oh, wait, that's because I use a COMPUTER, not a limited machine, for my gaming. Ooops.
1) As computers get cheaper, they will become less expensive, or will do more for the same price. 2) As computers get smaller, they will take up less space, or do more in the same space. By "Space" I simply mean that they could exist somewhere in the known or unknown universe or multiverse. Ah, I see how this works. I'm gonna write me a book!
I quote: "However, this concept proves once more the advantages of open source over proprietary software..." WTF??? You could have a machine read ANY pointless information into a 'net radio. It's not like this is useful in any way. If Open Source needs to have its source code read over internet radio to demonstrate an advantage over proprietary software, it needs to crawl into a nice quiet corner, lay down, and die. You want real advantages? Get reliability, scalability, security. Those are Open Source (potential) advantages. Reading source code on the net radio station? What a waste of time.
Thank you! Best point I've seen on the topic yet.
You know, if you CANNOT FUNCTION without the data on the computers, you need to have verified backups and a plan for when the machines catch fire. If you can't manage this yourself, there are vendors that specialize in this very thing. Failure on this level probably warrants a firing, when the dust settles.
Amen. By not providing *any* of the truly necessary information, I postulate that this implies that: 1) He doesn't know the stuff he needs to know to build an appropriate solution 2) He doesn't know what he doesn't know He is below what is frequently referred to as the "threshold of ignorance", and only pain will come of this unless he's ready to tell the /. community WAY more than his employer wants him to about EXACTLY how they do what they do.