While I confess to skimming beyond the first couple of paragraphs, the intro pretty much set the tone: Whatever Microsoft does is wrong, and Linux is the saviour to all things. You can see this hilarious egotistical self-absorbtion by the claim that Microsoft didn't attack "Linux" (what is Open Source but for Linux? Open source didn't exist before Linux, right?) because Linux is "unlike any challenger Microsoft has ever seen" (though it then has some odd wording that seems to clearly state that Microsoft doesn't want anything in Linux, but they want to "embrace and extend" the GPL? Huh?). Is this a joke? It goes on to hilariously talk about how Microsoft is doing PR and is espousing only one side of the argument, a la Edison versus Tesla (which it claims is is an old game in "big business"). And this article isn't doing the EXACT SAME THING? The Linux community is just as guilty of overstating benefits and understating weaknesses, and as a basic personality trait in humanity I think it could hardly be called an aspect of "big business". Beware throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
I'm not even getting into the particular aspects of Microsoft's position, but this article seems like mindless propaganda for the already converted, and this was highlighted by the fact that it mentioned in "talkback after talkback": That's why they are demographic proof of anything: Linux/Open Source fanatics seem to be quite a bit more motivated than BigCompany Co. that simply wants their data systems to work and work well, hence the grossly overwhelming number of GPL enthusiasts rushing to fill every PC Mag talkback channel (while PC Mag rakes in the ad hits laughing their asses off).
DSL is much better, since most provide about your speed for the same price, but a more dependable connection
This entirely depends upon the region/provider/backbone/demand. With my cable modem I get 250KB/second downstream pretty much all day long (50KB/second upstream). A friend who recently switched to DSL (because they work for the company that provides the DSL) from @Home saw their speed drop to 1/5th. I'd be pretty happy with either, but I would definitely take 250KB/second 98% of the time than 50KB/second 100% of the time. (though again there are people who have nothing but trouble with DSL)
By your logic, there is also IP\UDP, IP\SMTP, IP/Telnet and IP\NetBIOS. Get informed.
Wow what a silly argument. However your example of their thought process was errant. Wouldn't it be IP\TCP\SMTP, IP\TCP\Telnet, etc? SMTP & Telnet are protocols that run on top of a TCP connection.
This is pure uninformed hysteria, just like the/. story itself.
Is it? If the device communicates on "The Internet" then it has a TCP/IP stack. If it has a TCP/IP stack then it almost certainly has vulnerabilities, which could be as simple as hogging CPU time (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who, assured of their brilliance, would put the stack on the same CPU that is responsible for beat timing, etc). How many times have idiots claimed "Oh, this is secure...nothing to worry about here" because of their naively utopian vision of how the world works: "Sure it's a classified network that we dropped the web server on...but don't you worry all the web server does is serve up static pages. No threat here...". Whoops, buffer overflow...you are ownzed.
There is no such thing as "hysteria" when it comes to system critical/restricted/confidential systems. I'm waiting for the day that some clown trying to get some hype for the company stock price announces a new intercity stoplight system that's "on the net!" (no particular reason why it SHOULD be...but hey, why not), and shortly thereafter the deaths when someone ownz the system and turns the cities light system all green simultaneously. The people pushing such a system would claim it's "hysteria" to worry about it...don't you worry, it's all covered. Reality has shown time and time and time again that it's quite different in reality.
Software, with very few exclusions, has faults and vulnerabilities. The more lines and the more complex the system (and something like even a TCP/IP stack gets fairly complex), the more likely of vulnerabilities going undetected until it's too late. Still it's amazing seeing people completely ignore historical evidence because what they're doing is so much different.
This is just pure ignorance. Heart waveforms aren't secrets and don't need encryption. All that is needed is simple authentication.
Pure ignorance? What are you, with the NSA? Your message sounds like the beginnings to so many ridiculously unsecure/vulnerable systems out there.
They've got great hackers/coders, and a great publicity engine.
They've got great publicity for sure, however I'm not so sure about the "great hackers". This instance of a "coming soon!" application sounds notoriously trivial (would any programmers out there who think writing a P2P encrypted system is difficult please raise your hands...okay please step out of the career because you're woefully underskilled), though I respect that they are doing it. BackOrifice, while still a notorious trojan that is responsible for a lot of neophyte computer users getting fuxored, did show Microsoft to be very hypocritical regarding SMS when they canned BO.
It's completely idiotic for sure. This is just someone being a wank and dreaming of "synergy" in the most ridiculous of places. Sure maybe it'd be nice if these devices had an encrypted bluetooth/802.11 so they could easily diagnose it, etc., but it is absurd that it will use the internet, and whoever is thinking that is a good idea should be fired and removed from anything even remotely technical.
Yes you could just dive right in there and fix up those errors. It's not like it's an enormous complex software system that isn't a trivial example of a bad variable or something. No you'll just jump like line 742 and fix that typo and everything will be hunky dory.
This whole open source myth is such a ridiculous piece of propaganda. There are products like FreeBSD that have evolved slowly with interest from various people and that is great (i.e. Open source is a convenient way to allow others to join the development at a ground level). But the myth purported by the OSS camp that everyone can just hop in the source and "fix it up" (scratch an itch) is so incredibly inane it has to be the domain of those who have never, ever touched a software system in their life.
At the article detailing Linus' response, I noticed this particular passage:
When Mundie wants you to think about all the work that companies have done in order to get patents, he also wants you to forget about all the work done by people like Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Leonardo da Vinci and a lot of other people who have done a lot more for humanity than most companies have ever done.
There is a huge difference between an observation of the laws of the universe (such as observing the composition of an atom or speculating that E=mc^2) and creating practical utilizations of those realities. It's a rather silly comparison.
In practical terms understanding the human body should not be patentable (i.e. like the absurd gene arguments that have gone on), yet if from that knowledge a drug company creates a chemical manipulator that cures cancer, that SHOULD be patentable. As always those against IP have the luxury of living in a society with all of the benefits of IP while superimposing their beliefs. (In other words a large number of you IP fanatics would never have been born as your ancestors would be dead if it weren't for the IP carrot at the end of the drug research stick)
Microsoft already supposed XSD schemas in the MSXML 4 preview release. Microsoft has been more of a force in pushing the implementation of XML than any other company, so to fault them unjustly seems quite silly.
Any self-respecting sysadmin would have removed all ISAPI mappings except for.asa and.asp on installation (standard security procedure) and this wouldn't be an issue for them. That isn't to say that there probably isn't issue with the ASP ISAPI module, but at least it's heavily tested. Many of the other modules are fringe and likely to be vulnerability candidates.
However the same update requirement (i.e. keep on top of security patches) holds true for every OS and every system.
My question is, why not run apache on Windows NT/2000?
This is a circular question: Why not run IIS rather than Apache? What you really are likely to get in response are zealotry replies about how IIS suxxors and Apache rules. In reality IIS 5.0 is a very high performance, high reliability system that excellently integrates with the security subsystem of NT/2000. But preferences vary and others will likely think differently for reasons that make sense for their needs.
I'm presuming that this is just a troll, but in case you're serious there are a number of holes just like this for Linux, and there remain thousands or millions of Linux servers that haven't properly been patched up (just as there are NT 4 servers with holes 2 years old out in the wild).
The simple thing is that the ECONOMY is not as good as it used to be. That means, deals made three-four months ago don't make sense now. Can you get that?
The economy is stronger than it was 3-4 months ago. Just because the Linux world has crashed, or the.COM world has gone belly up does not mean that "the economy" has faltered. In any case the majority of negativity regarding "the economy" is based on the absurd supposition that it should grow and grow and grow forever. We are never satisfied with "going steady".
Quote from the linuxgram page: "Turbolinux CEO Paul Thomas said the reasons that existed for the merger six months ago no longer exist day because of the flagging economy."
Oh give me a break. Everytime a.COM or hype market (Linux [which is a fine OS but the market hype was irrational], MP3s, etc.) implodes after reality sets in (i.e. "show me the money"), the talking heads come out talking about the flagging economy, to the point that the overwhelming negativity of dreamers affects actual consumer spending and actually disrupts the real economy. Those ridiculous extrapolated charts just aren't coming true in the real world where business models have to actually at least break event.
Then again, perhaps that's what he means: Maybe he means "The rules that govern the economy have failed to change in a manner that would allow us to make money by spending more than we take in. This fundamental of our business plan has not proven true so we must cede defeat.
It's strange but it's like a world of overloaded sensors, and we're all so numb we just don't give a crap anymore.
Seriously though when "The Internet" was but a network hooking a couple of colleges, local BBS' with a very limited market had vibrant online communities, incredible download sections where you fervently awaited the next issue of Commander Keen (I recall begging a sysop to extend my time limit so I could download the Falcon 3 demo as at 600KB I just didn't have enough time...wow is that game really that old...). Now we have enormous bandwidth and literally a world of people to converse with and generally the sense of community has disappeared. I don't want to sound like an "old-timer" talking about how good things used to be, and of course it could be just my perception, but there certainly doesn't seem to be the interest in the computer game market, or really online communities. Have we all been there/done that?
While the lines are a little more blurred in China (where public versus commercial is a little more convoluted), over here the libraries and schools are supported by taxes and as such the idea that they're being used for porn surfing or bomb building techniques offends most taxpayers who already see too much of their money wasted. The same idea goes for why it isn't generally appreciated when public parks are used for orgies, etc.
However in your own home or in commercial businesses : As long as they think it's okay then go nuts. Unfortunately there are some ridiculously controlling laws (i.e. any law related to victimless crime), but overall you have freedom.
Is there anyone out there who's aware of how the Chinese net infrastructure works? i.e. Do all "ISPs" in China hang off of one common backbone that goes through Chinese government routers? If so it seems like it'd be very simple to control the content (albeit thinking of the bandwidth used by 1.2 billion people...that would be pretty extravagant). Who peers with the Chinese connections?
I wouldn't say there would be a lot of cutting edge skills to keep on top of in the coal mining or janitorial fields. Indeed for any static field you learn it and then generally know it and apply it for the rest of your life. The rules that apply to those fields (including the management rules which most companies still don't understand) do not apply to most computer fields.
Software development & IT are both fields unlike most others : You have to constantly be training and retraining, and altering your approach to leverage the developments and knowledge of others. If people get their 4 year CS and think they know all they need to know and are on their way to years of big $, they are in for a huge shock. While it sounds like a cliche, this is a lifestyle more than it's a career.
one can wonder how many of those companies went under from the overspending on 'toys`.
I would wager extremely few. Companies often make a huge deal about getting that IT guy a "toy" Palm for $300, while at the same time flying around the country racking up hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in travel charges, paying managers ridiculous salaries (usually far more perverse that the notorious software developer/IT salary), paying millions to ad shops and legal firms, etc. In the grand scheme of things those toys are usually an absolute drop in the bucket. The sad fact is htat jealousy (as seen in many of the posts in this discussion) inflates these trivial expenses to way more than they really comprise.
Firstly a lot of people have correlated these when they are different fields (generally). IT is generally the guys who administer the servers and install (or plan) the network cable, whereas software development is a whole different discipline.
However I will completely and absolutely agree that there is ZERO doubt that those who enjoy computers and software engineering will far outproduce those who do it purely as a career (in general terms though this is not an absolute and there are exceptions). Those driven by passion will constantly bring new ideas that they garnered playing around with their PC at night (although good management has to be in place to ensure the ideas are applicable and not just doing it for the sake of doing something different), and they will train themselves in the newest technologies just for the sake of doing it. The career programmer on the other hand will be busy amassing collections of "How To" books to fill their shelf, albeit never reading them, while putting up resistance to anything that isn't what they already know. Fossil careerists are the ones who debate against any and every "new" way of doing anything, because it represents work to them : They actually have to learn things. Fossil driven companies are the one's that are likely still running Windows NT 4 shops: That ActiveDirectory and Windows 2000 is too dern confusin'! (Note: There are shops that are still NT 4 because it makes more sense, however in general the fossil shops take many, many years to transition because of an IT crew that doesn't want to negate what they already know)
If there is a longterm downterm the careerists simply will be out of a job. I hate to say it but you can't compete with the guy who spends 40 hours unpaid time per week learning and absorbing because it's what he loves. This isn't like knitting where you learn it and slowly perfect: This is constantly evolving and what you know is being obsoleted so you constantly have to upgrade your skills. The burnout rate among careerists is and will remain incredibly high, and rightly so.
..is why most sites track the information in the first place. For example does Slashdot dispose of all logging for anonymous users within 24 hours, etc? The strange thing is that while many organizations throw their arms up and claim that they're poor victim of a legal system gone awry and they sure wish they could hide the users better, the fact that they've logged away lots of idenfitying information instantly betrays that.
And there is nothing (though note that IANAL) legally requiring these "paper trails" to be logged away by thousands of sites, yet if you do log it then ironically you ARE responsible for it: It's like a self-imposed police state. An example of reaction to this is how a lot of corporations are imposing a "destroy the evidence, before it BECOMES evidence" mandate: Have a policy telling people to delete all emails older than a month/year/whatever, and you have no problems. Leave them hanging around and watch the subpoenas come flying in the door while you provide evidence against yourself about years old skeletons in the closet.
I had a manager who was clueless about email; he
1) always included the original
I agree with the other points, however including the original is hardly a sin, especially when the situation that this conversation is about occurs (i.e. email overload). I had a coworker who apparently didn't know what Reply was, so each of his replies would be fresh new messages. Occasionally he'd reference the subject in the title, though not always (and it wasn't always completely clear even when he did). Each time I'd get a message from him I'd have to do a sort of all sent messages so I could synchronize what exactly he was replying to.
The primary problem with email isn't the content of it, nor the quantity of it, it's purely the sorting. For example several of the postings in here have taken offense to emails regarding "frivilous" things, etc. Personally I filter them to particular folders. If the email is to the entire company or branch I know it is of limited importance so it goes to the particular folder (I'm using Outlook rules, though any real client does this) and that node in the tree will be darker until I have some spare time and browse through them. If it's from my boss it goes to another folder where I immediately check them. If it's marked low priority it goes to the folder that I get around to when I'm ready for some mental downtime (i.e. jokes, etc.).
Email is a fantastic savings in organization, and with the proper use of filtering, and importance flags email can be non-intrusive for most people.
Re:Most people hide behind e-mail and voice mail.
on
Buried in email?
·
· Score: 2
Most people hide behind e-mail and voice mail.
This is an interesting statement and I really don't see how that is a reasonable statement. If someone sends an email it is FROM THEM. If it says "You are an asshole" then they are being 100% forthright and truthful. Perhaps they wouldn't say this face to face for whatever reason (which are multiple, including often saving face for the recipient), however hiding is not taking action, and conveying the information is anything but. Let me put this into a sociological context: I have a friend who is a real social butterfly, and he has particular skills that allow him to dominate conversations (Toastmasters, blah blah blah), giving him the upper hand regardless of his actual technical knowledge. It is his belief that what we're doing here (conversing via a public board) is unnatural and perverse, and it's the domain of only the lowest of people. This medium marginalizes his skills so it offends him greatly. You see to him people should only discuss things over a snifter of brandy at the local club, and anything but just isn't right.
Most office communication should be done face to face or over the phone, not e-mail. Really important issues are *always* communicated in person.
I totally, absolutely, and positively disagree. I have found by professional experience, and this isn't 100% so don't take it as an offense, that the people who have a distaste for email and like to take things "face to face" are people with limited technical skills trying to remorah off of coworkers, people who are old school and have never adapted to technology, or bullshitters. Bullshitters are the kind of people who will do anything and everything to maintain deniability (and you reference this : Perhaps just maybe people want a paper trail because of historical reality jading them for discussing this with people?). I work in the software field and the number of times that particular people have called for face to face meetings to discuss technical issues blows me away. "Uh, why did you use a critical section on line 745?" Gee, I could give you an answer in 2 minutes if I was sitting at my desk and you sent me an email, however sitting here in a conference room talking about this "important" issue regarding software I wrote months ago I can't give a valid answer. Maybe we should call in some managers and more coworkers to ensure that the time wastage is at it's peak, and then afterwards we can all file out certain that we've ACHIEVED something, when in reality we've achieved nothing.
Another interesting thing you say is that since two people in cubicle's are near each other, communications should be verbal. Guess what : That presentation you are working on might be super duper important to you, but maybe, just maybe (and you really have to step back and take a "I am not the center of the universe" perspective to see this) it isn't my top priority right now. Maybe I'm in the middle of debugging some code. Maybe I'm writing a document. By wallowing over and intruding into my work you are imposing your priorities on me. That is the purpose of emails. Got a simple question? EMAIL IT.
Slashdot Mirror
While I confess to skimming beyond the first couple of paragraphs, the intro pretty much set the tone: Whatever Microsoft does is wrong, and Linux is the saviour to all things. You can see this hilarious egotistical self-absorbtion by the claim that Microsoft didn't attack "Linux" (what is Open Source but for Linux? Open source didn't exist before Linux, right?) because Linux is "unlike any challenger Microsoft has ever seen" (though it then has some odd wording that seems to clearly state that Microsoft doesn't want anything in Linux, but they want to "embrace and extend" the GPL? Huh?). Is this a joke? It goes on to hilariously talk about how Microsoft is doing PR and is espousing only one side of the argument, a la Edison versus Tesla (which it claims is is an old game in "big business"). And this article isn't doing the EXACT SAME THING? The Linux community is just as guilty of overstating benefits and understating weaknesses, and as a basic personality trait in humanity I think it could hardly be called an aspect of "big business". Beware throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
I'm not even getting into the particular aspects of Microsoft's position, but this article seems like mindless propaganda for the already converted, and this was highlighted by the fact that it mentioned in "talkback after talkback": That's why they are demographic proof of anything: Linux/Open Source fanatics seem to be quite a bit more motivated than BigCompany Co. that simply wants their data systems to work and work well, hence the grossly overwhelming number of GPL enthusiasts rushing to fill every PC Mag talkback channel (while PC Mag rakes in the ad hits laughing their asses off).
DSL is much better, since most provide about your speed for the same price, but a more dependable connection
This entirely depends upon the region/provider/backbone/demand. With my cable modem I get 250KB/second downstream pretty much all day long (50KB/second upstream). A friend who recently switched to DSL (because they work for the company that provides the DSL) from @Home saw their speed drop to 1/5th. I'd be pretty happy with either, but I would definitely take 250KB/second 98% of the time than 50KB/second 100% of the time. (though again there are people who have nothing but trouble with DSL)
By your logic, there is also IP\UDP, IP\SMTP, IP/Telnet and IP\NetBIOS. Get informed.
Wow what a silly argument. However your example of their thought process was errant. Wouldn't it be IP\TCP\SMTP, IP\TCP\Telnet, etc? SMTP & Telnet are protocols that run on top of a TCP connection.
This is pure uninformed hysteria, just like the /. story itself.
Is it? If the device communicates on "The Internet" then it has a TCP/IP stack. If it has a TCP/IP stack then it almost certainly has vulnerabilities, which could be as simple as hogging CPU time (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who, assured of their brilliance, would put the stack on the same CPU that is responsible for beat timing, etc). How many times have idiots claimed "Oh, this is secure...nothing to worry about here" because of their naively utopian vision of how the world works: "Sure it's a classified network that we dropped the web server on...but don't you worry all the web server does is serve up static pages. No threat here...". Whoops, buffer overflow...you are ownzed.
There is no such thing as "hysteria" when it comes to system critical/restricted/confidential systems. I'm waiting for the day that some clown trying to get some hype for the company stock price announces a new intercity stoplight system that's "on the net!" (no particular reason why it SHOULD be...but hey, why not), and shortly thereafter the deaths when someone ownz the system and turns the cities light system all green simultaneously. The people pushing such a system would claim it's "hysteria" to worry about it...don't you worry, it's all covered. Reality has shown time and time and time again that it's quite different in reality.
Software, with very few exclusions, has faults and vulnerabilities. The more lines and the more complex the system (and something like even a TCP/IP stack gets fairly complex), the more likely of vulnerabilities going undetected until it's too late. Still it's amazing seeing people completely ignore historical evidence because what they're doing is so much different.
This is just pure ignorance. Heart waveforms aren't secrets and don't need encryption. All that is needed is simple authentication.
Pure ignorance? What are you, with the NSA? Your message sounds like the beginnings to so many ridiculously unsecure/vulnerable systems out there.
They've got great hackers/coders, and a great publicity engine.
They've got great publicity for sure, however I'm not so sure about the "great hackers". This instance of a "coming soon!" application sounds notoriously trivial (would any programmers out there who think writing a P2P encrypted system is difficult please raise your hands...okay please step out of the career because you're woefully underskilled), though I respect that they are doing it. BackOrifice, while still a notorious trojan that is responsible for a lot of neophyte computer users getting fuxored, did show Microsoft to be very hypocritical regarding SMS when they canned BO.
It's completely idiotic for sure. This is just someone being a wank and dreaming of "synergy" in the most ridiculous of places. Sure maybe it'd be nice if these devices had an encrypted bluetooth/802.11 so they could easily diagnose it, etc., but it is absurd that it will use the internet, and whoever is thinking that is a good idea should be fired and removed from anything even remotely technical.
Yes you could just dive right in there and fix up those errors. It's not like it's an enormous complex software system that isn't a trivial example of a bad variable or something. No you'll just jump like line 742 and fix that typo and everything will be hunky dory.
This whole open source myth is such a ridiculous piece of propaganda. There are products like FreeBSD that have evolved slowly with interest from various people and that is great (i.e. Open source is a convenient way to allow others to join the development at a ground level). But the myth purported by the OSS camp that everyone can just hop in the source and "fix it up" (scratch an itch) is so incredibly inane it has to be the domain of those who have never, ever touched a software system in their life.
At the article detailing Linus' response, I noticed this particular passage:
When Mundie wants you to think about all the work that companies have done in order to get patents, he also wants you to forget about all the work done by people like Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Leonardo da Vinci and a lot of other people who have done a lot more for humanity than most companies have ever done.
There is a huge difference between an observation of the laws of the universe (such as observing the composition of an atom or speculating that E=mc^2) and creating practical utilizations of those realities. It's a rather silly comparison.
In practical terms understanding the human body should not be patentable (i.e. like the absurd gene arguments that have gone on), yet if from that knowledge a drug company creates a chemical manipulator that cures cancer, that SHOULD be patentable. As always those against IP have the luxury of living in a society with all of the benefits of IP while superimposing their beliefs. (In other words a large number of you IP fanatics would never have been born as your ancestors would be dead if it weren't for the IP carrot at the end of the drug research stick)
Microsoft already supposed XSD schemas in the MSXML 4 preview release. Microsoft has been more of a force in pushing the implementation of XML than any other company, so to fault them unjustly seems quite silly.
Any self-respecting sysadmin would have removed all ISAPI mappings except for .asa and .asp on installation (standard security procedure) and this wouldn't be an issue for them. That isn't to say that there probably isn't issue with the ASP ISAPI module, but at least it's heavily tested. Many of the other modules are fringe and likely to be vulnerability candidates.
However the same update requirement (i.e. keep on top of security patches) holds true for every OS and every system.
My question is, why not run apache on Windows NT/2000?
This is a circular question: Why not run IIS rather than Apache? What you really are likely to get in response are zealotry replies about how IIS suxxors and Apache rules. In reality IIS 5.0 is a very high performance, high reliability system that excellently integrates with the security subsystem of NT/2000. But preferences vary and others will likely think differently for reasons that make sense for their needs.
No holes like this exist in Linux
I'm presuming that this is just a troll, but in case you're serious there are a number of holes just like this for Linux, and there remain thousands or millions of Linux servers that haven't properly been patched up (just as there are NT 4 servers with holes 2 years old out in the wild).
The simple thing is that the ECONOMY is not as good as it used to be. That means, deals made three-four months ago don't make sense now. Can you get that?
U.S. 1Q GDP surges
The economy is stronger than it was 3-4 months ago. Just because the Linux world has crashed, or the .COM world has gone belly up does not mean that "the economy" has faltered. In any case the majority of negativity regarding "the economy" is based on the absurd supposition that it should grow and grow and grow forever. We are never satisfied with "going steady".
Quote from the linuxgram page: "Turbolinux CEO Paul Thomas said the reasons that existed for the merger six months ago no longer exist day because of the flagging economy."
Oh give me a break. Everytime a .COM or hype market (Linux [which is a fine OS but the market hype was irrational], MP3s, etc.) implodes after reality sets in (i.e. "show me the money"), the talking heads come out talking about the flagging economy, to the point that the overwhelming negativity of dreamers affects actual consumer spending and actually disrupts the real economy. Those ridiculous extrapolated charts just aren't coming true in the real world where business models have to actually at least break event.
Then again, perhaps that's what he means: Maybe he means "The rules that govern the economy have failed to change in a manner that would allow us to make money by spending more than we take in. This fundamental of our business plan has not proven true so we must cede defeat.
It's strange but it's like a world of overloaded sensors, and we're all so numb we just don't give a crap anymore.
Seriously though when "The Internet" was but a network hooking a couple of colleges, local BBS' with a very limited market had vibrant online communities, incredible download sections where you fervently awaited the next issue of Commander Keen (I recall begging a sysop to extend my time limit so I could download the Falcon 3 demo as at 600KB I just didn't have enough time...wow is that game really that old...). Now we have enormous bandwidth and literally a world of people to converse with and generally the sense of community has disappeared. I don't want to sound like an "old-timer" talking about how good things used to be, and of course it could be just my perception, but there certainly doesn't seem to be the interest in the computer game market, or really online communities. Have we all been there/done that?
Sorry but I couldn't resist. :-)
While the lines are a little more blurred in China (where public versus commercial is a little more convoluted), over here the libraries and schools are supported by taxes and as such the idea that they're being used for porn surfing or bomb building techniques offends most taxpayers who already see too much of their money wasted. The same idea goes for why it isn't generally appreciated when public parks are used for orgies, etc.
However in your own home or in commercial businesses : As long as they think it's okay then go nuts. Unfortunately there are some ridiculously controlling laws (i.e. any law related to victimless crime), but overall you have freedom.
Is there anyone out there who's aware of how the Chinese net infrastructure works? i.e. Do all "ISPs" in China hang off of one common backbone that goes through Chinese government routers? If so it seems like it'd be very simple to control the content (albeit thinking of the bandwidth used by 1.2 billion people...that would be pretty extravagant). Who peers with the Chinese connections?
I wouldn't say there would be a lot of cutting edge skills to keep on top of in the coal mining or janitorial fields. Indeed for any static field you learn it and then generally know it and apply it for the rest of your life. The rules that apply to those fields (including the management rules which most companies still don't understand) do not apply to most computer fields.
Software development & IT are both fields unlike most others : You have to constantly be training and retraining, and altering your approach to leverage the developments and knowledge of others. If people get their 4 year CS and think they know all they need to know and are on their way to years of big $, they are in for a huge shock. While it sounds like a cliche, this is a lifestyle more than it's a career.
one can wonder how many of those companies went under from the overspending on 'toys`.
I would wager extremely few. Companies often make a huge deal about getting that IT guy a "toy" Palm for $300, while at the same time flying around the country racking up hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in travel charges, paying managers ridiculous salaries (usually far more perverse that the notorious software developer/IT salary), paying millions to ad shops and legal firms, etc. In the grand scheme of things those toys are usually an absolute drop in the bucket. The sad fact is htat jealousy (as seen in many of the posts in this discussion) inflates these trivial expenses to way more than they really comprise.
Firstly a lot of people have correlated these when they are different fields (generally). IT is generally the guys who administer the servers and install (or plan) the network cable, whereas software development is a whole different discipline.
However I will completely and absolutely agree that there is ZERO doubt that those who enjoy computers and software engineering will far outproduce those who do it purely as a career (in general terms though this is not an absolute and there are exceptions). Those driven by passion will constantly bring new ideas that they garnered playing around with their PC at night (although good management has to be in place to ensure the ideas are applicable and not just doing it for the sake of doing something different), and they will train themselves in the newest technologies just for the sake of doing it. The career programmer on the other hand will be busy amassing collections of "How To" books to fill their shelf, albeit never reading them, while putting up resistance to anything that isn't what they already know. Fossil careerists are the ones who debate against any and every "new" way of doing anything, because it represents work to them : They actually have to learn things. Fossil driven companies are the one's that are likely still running Windows NT 4 shops: That ActiveDirectory and Windows 2000 is too dern confusin'! (Note: There are shops that are still NT 4 because it makes more sense, however in general the fossil shops take many, many years to transition because of an IT crew that doesn't want to negate what they already know)
If there is a longterm downterm the careerists simply will be out of a job. I hate to say it but you can't compete with the guy who spends 40 hours unpaid time per week learning and absorbing because it's what he loves. This isn't like knitting where you learn it and slowly perfect: This is constantly evolving and what you know is being obsoleted so you constantly have to upgrade your skills. The burnout rate among careerists is and will remain incredibly high, and rightly so.
..is why most sites track the information in the first place. For example does Slashdot dispose of all logging for anonymous users within 24 hours, etc? The strange thing is that while many organizations throw their arms up and claim that they're poor victim of a legal system gone awry and they sure wish they could hide the users better, the fact that they've logged away lots of idenfitying information instantly betrays that.
And there is nothing (though note that IANAL) legally requiring these "paper trails" to be logged away by thousands of sites, yet if you do log it then ironically you ARE responsible for it: It's like a self-imposed police state. An example of reaction to this is how a lot of corporations are imposing a "destroy the evidence, before it BECOMES evidence" mandate: Have a policy telling people to delete all emails older than a month/year/whatever, and you have no problems. Leave them hanging around and watch the subpoenas come flying in the door while you provide evidence against yourself about years old skeletons in the closet.
I had a manager who was clueless about email; he
1) always included the original
I agree with the other points, however including the original is hardly a sin, especially when the situation that this conversation is about occurs (i.e. email overload). I had a coworker who apparently didn't know what Reply was, so each of his replies would be fresh new messages. Occasionally he'd reference the subject in the title, though not always (and it wasn't always completely clear even when he did). Each time I'd get a message from him I'd have to do a sort of all sent messages so I could synchronize what exactly he was replying to.
The primary problem with email isn't the content of it, nor the quantity of it, it's purely the sorting. For example several of the postings in here have taken offense to emails regarding "frivilous" things, etc. Personally I filter them to particular folders. If the email is to the entire company or branch I know it is of limited importance so it goes to the particular folder (I'm using Outlook rules, though any real client does this) and that node in the tree will be darker until I have some spare time and browse through them. If it's from my boss it goes to another folder where I immediately check them. If it's marked low priority it goes to the folder that I get around to when I'm ready for some mental downtime (i.e. jokes, etc.).
Email is a fantastic savings in organization, and with the proper use of filtering, and importance flags email can be non-intrusive for most people.
Most people hide behind e-mail and voice mail.
This is an interesting statement and I really don't see how that is a reasonable statement. If someone sends an email it is FROM THEM. If it says "You are an asshole" then they are being 100% forthright and truthful. Perhaps they wouldn't say this face to face for whatever reason (which are multiple, including often saving face for the recipient), however hiding is not taking action, and conveying the information is anything but. Let me put this into a sociological context: I have a friend who is a real social butterfly, and he has particular skills that allow him to dominate conversations (Toastmasters, blah blah blah), giving him the upper hand regardless of his actual technical knowledge. It is his belief that what we're doing here (conversing via a public board) is unnatural and perverse, and it's the domain of only the lowest of people. This medium marginalizes his skills so it offends him greatly. You see to him people should only discuss things over a snifter of brandy at the local club, and anything but just isn't right.
Most office communication should be done face to face or over the phone, not e-mail. Really important issues are *always* communicated in person.
I totally, absolutely, and positively disagree. I have found by professional experience, and this isn't 100% so don't take it as an offense, that the people who have a distaste for email and like to take things "face to face" are people with limited technical skills trying to remorah off of coworkers, people who are old school and have never adapted to technology, or bullshitters. Bullshitters are the kind of people who will do anything and everything to maintain deniability (and you reference this : Perhaps just maybe people want a paper trail because of historical reality jading them for discussing this with people?). I work in the software field and the number of times that particular people have called for face to face meetings to discuss technical issues blows me away. "Uh, why did you use a critical section on line 745?" Gee, I could give you an answer in 2 minutes if I was sitting at my desk and you sent me an email, however sitting here in a conference room talking about this "important" issue regarding software I wrote months ago I can't give a valid answer. Maybe we should call in some managers and more coworkers to ensure that the time wastage is at it's peak, and then afterwards we can all file out certain that we've ACHIEVED something, when in reality we've achieved nothing.
Another interesting thing you say is that since two people in cubicle's are near each other, communications should be verbal. Guess what : That presentation you are working on might be super duper important to you, but maybe, just maybe (and you really have to step back and take a "I am not the center of the universe" perspective to see this) it isn't my top priority right now. Maybe I'm in the middle of debugging some code. Maybe I'm writing a document. By wallowing over and intruding into my work you are imposing your priorities on me. That is the purpose of emails. Got a simple question? EMAIL IT.