Most universities and colleges have facilities to help people with disabilities who are capable of a university education, but require some adjustments to the standard way of doing things in order to accommodate their needs. You may have to go through some testing to determine what they are able to do for you.
Most traditional computer science or engineering programs do require math -- though mind you, higher-level math is very different from basic arithmatic. While you may not be able to complete a degree in these subjects without math, the schools may allow you to take a lot of the non-math coursework.
You may also want to think about what really interests you about technology -- not everyone who loves technology belongs in a computer science or engineering program. (I graduated with a CS degree, but in hindsight I would have been much happier in another program.) If you like this kind of thing, social implications of technology, interdisciplinary programs like cognitive sciences, etc., are other ways to get into technology without the math.
People pay me to write whitepapers. If you want to be paid for this (or even get reputable free online publishing), you must first learn that "thru" is not a word.
You haven't really made it clear why you want to put this in an online repository. Do you want to the world to see your research that you did on your own time? Or have you written something for your company and now you want to do some fast and cheap (and therefore, probably not good) PR and Marketing Communications? Or what?
In any case, most whitepapers (these days) are written by companies promoting their particular approach to a solution (some of these have good tech information, others are basically long bad brochures), by research groups like IDC, or research departments of large companies like IBM. These are typically distributed (or sold) by the companies who produce them -- so if you hit company X's website, you could pull up whitepapers written by company X, or written by IDC for which company X paid $20,000 to acquire distribution rights. Occaisionally, they will work through various partner arrangements to get these posted elsewhere -- like ZDNet, or more specialized areas like BEA's partner website. Usually it's in exchange for something like the ability to co-market in some way.
I'm not really aware of other big general repositories -- companies I've worked for have tried to go for targeted distribution, not some massive online repository. In any case, get some detailed, buzzword-free information on who your audience is, and then ask them a) if they read whitepapers (sales people usually don't), b) if they find them useful, and c) where they get them from. That will tell you where need to put your information.
If you really want to get this information out to a larger audience, you may be better off re-organizing the information as an article instead of a whitepaper. Find a magazine (online or otherwise) that targets your audience, ask them about their writer's guidelines (tech magazines often have these online) and check that they take unsolicited articles. You could then self-publish the whitepaper online, and have the (shorter) article point there.
It's fairly well-known that personal networking is more effective than job boards and newspaper ads. That doesn't mean that job boards are useless -- in fact, I just got an interview off Monster. It does mean, however, the time you spend job hunting on Monster et. al. versus talking to people should be proportionate to your likelihood of success.
Most people I know who are looking for a job spend 90% of their job-hunting time looking online, even though the likelihood of finding a job that way is something like 2%. (Don't have exact stats handy.)
As for headhunters, your success partly depends on what kind of headhunter you have. If they are on retainer with the company (rare), then they get paid regardless of whether or not they find a specific candidate, so chances are they will spend more time recruiting good ones -- otherwise, a bad placement could cost them their retainer.
If they are contracted by the company to find a specific role (more common), than they don't get paid unless they get someone hired, so they're more likely to blanket-bomb the employer with resumes. Worse yet are those headhunters who were not solicited by the company, but are attempting to sell their services to the company anyway. Most companies try to avoid these guys, so you're not at all likely to find something that way.
But in any case, the headhunter does not work for you; your best interests are not their top priority.
From an operational perspective, the wireless and wireline businesses of both Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility are entirely separate. One side doesn't pay much attention to the other. So the sustainability question is not around where the business is going to come from (that's obvious -- who wouldn't want $40 unlimited?) but about how Fido can become increasingly profitable while charging so little.
That is, the big 3 are worried about CityFido pushing the precious ARPU down. Again, attracting new customers is important, but not at the cost of potentially making less per customer. For example, you may have noticed that all the wireless carriers have changed the Evenings clock to start later -- it increases overage minutes, thus increasing ARPU. Customer is screwed over, but hey, higher profits. And since all of them started doing this, competition benefits no one. (I saw a presentation on this a while back; did I mention I'm ashamed of where I work?)
Then again, (just musing here) the sustainability issue may be simply be fear-mongering. Fido, having gone through financial trouble, is probably in the best position to sustain a lower ARPU model since (frankly) they don't need to worry as much about being less profitable than last year. (And with the lowest ARPU in Canada, the CityFido plan probably pushes the numbers up.)
I'm not knocking Fido -- I think the CityFido plan is a good strategy. But the rest of the Canadian industry fear that this will bring profits down.
Oh, just for those who think I flunked geography, I accidentally used internal language, where West Coast = BC+AB, East Coast = ON+PQ, Atlantic = NB+NS+PEI+NF, MB=MB and SK=SK. (It confused me when I started here.)
And the short answer is "it's more expensive because they can get away with it."
But yes, it does come down to basic economic, with the corporate greed angle tossed in. Canada is a smaller market, with fewer competitors (4 national, plus a few regional). So the wireless carriers CAN charge more because the consequences of doing so not as great. Plus, the major carriers tend to follow each other quite closely. If one finds a way to charge more for something and get away with it, the others will quickly follow -- why should the other guy be the only one to make more?
IMO, the Canadian wireless industry is not particularly customer oriented -- they are competitor-oriented. It's not so much about "how can I win more customers through my excellent handsets and plan" as it is about "how can I get my ARPU higher than the competitors and my Churn lower, thus sticking it to the competition when the rankings are published." If the customer happens to benefit, it's a nice consequence.
That's why the CityFido plan (you probably haven't heard of this unless you're in Vancouver, but you can transfer your landline number to a wireless number, and you get $40/month unlimited local calling) sent the Canadian wireless industry into a tizzy. The other 3 national carriers began running some pretty harsh Fido switch promotions -- particularly on the East coast, where Fido is based. Makes some sense on a competitor level (take out Fido where they are strongest) but not on a consumer level (Easterners who've never heard of CityFido can't understand why the big 3 carriers are all going after the little guy.)
Mind you, Fido has had financial difficulties lately, so they probably had to pull a gutsy move like this. The rest of the industry doesn't see how Fido's model is sustainable.
But on the other hand, some stuff just costs more here. Hence the people who cross the boarder every month to shop.
Well, considering the whole point of the book is to *attack* science, not getting the facts right destroys her entire argument. But then, much like Creationist tracts, anti-science books are normally only preaching to the choir anyway, so there isn't much point to getting the facts right, I suppose.
I disagree. I don't think this books attacks science so much as it shows the darker sides of humanity's attitude towards scientific development. So long as the humanity part rings true, any wonkiness in the science part isn't really an issue. At worst, it's distracting to those of us who know the details about the science involved.
But on the other hand, I don't see most fiction as having a mandate to prove something. Fiction is not an argument. You can pick out elements of the story as demonstrating something or another about ourselves, but that doesn't mean this story proves anything.
Re:Its not Science Fiction!
on
Oryx and Crake
·
· Score: 1
I was going to start this post by vehemently stating that "Just because it has a futuristic setting and genetic engineering, does not necessarily mean that Oryx and Crake is sci-fi."
But then I wondered: what -- beyond a setting that is integral to the development of the story -- makes something science fiction?
Personally, I don't think Oryx and Crake is sci-fi -- it just doesn't read like most science fiction. It's more emotional and personal than that, and deals more thoroughly with complex relationships between people.
But could that just meant that it's simply not typical sci-fi? Is that all Atwood really meant when she said that this wasn't sci-fi? (And to the best of my knowledge, the parent post is a paraphrase.)
Frankly, Atwood is too much of a literary powerhouse to need to worry about being accepted as "real" literature. She's written too many critically acclaimed novels, poems and literary essays.
Makes you wonder if this would have been published as Sci-Fi (even if it's atypical) if someone else had written it.
Whether or not you will have more energy on a vegan or vegetarian diet is highly dependant on what your diet was like before and after.
I've been vegetarian (lacto-ovo, though I don't usually eat a lot of cheese or eggs) for over 13 years. Prior to that, I probably ate meat less than a couple of times a month. (No one in my entire family eats meat, but my folks never prevented me from eating it.) In extended family, there are several vegans as well. My spouse's family, on the other hand, is your typical meat-and-potatoes type.
I've lost weight, gained weight and maintained my weight this way. I've gone through periods of having higher and lower energy, and needing more and less sleep. I've regularly eaten healthy, well-balanced meals and I've regularly eaten crappy junk food. Same with the rest of my family. Same with my spouse's family.
Most (certainly not all) the vegetarians/vegans who extol the health and energy benefits of vegetarianism have not been vegetarian for as long as I have -- and certainly not as long as my parents or grandparents. My theory is that these newbie vegetarians are feeling more energetic because:
They have that rush of excitement from trying something new and telling everyone about it.
They're more conscious of what they're eating and ensuring a better balance, with less junk.
Vegetarian, vegan or not -- eating a balanced diet will make you feel better. Eating crap will make you feel worse. For a while in university, I was pretty much living off veggie burgers, fries, and onion rings. Completely vegetarian (even possibly vegan) but I gained 20 pounds on this. And I had no where near the energy of my meat-eating, chain-smoking mother-in-law.
Tape is hardly dying. Especially since, as the article states, "alternatives just aren't well-known yet."
To the best of my awareness, most large enterprises have some kind of massive tape backup system for disaster recovery. Replacing that kind of infrastructure is tricky and worrisome -- any problems in the system can have horrible consequences.
If you're a big bank or insurance company, your disaster recovery plan is probably the last place you want to replace old technology with new for archiving data. Call me paranoid, but I'd be very, very worried about any company who did this.
Most likely, I can see companies initially introducing new archival technologies for faster recovery, but still relying on time-tested tape as the last line of defense. (Perhaps along the lines of making regular tape-backups of the disk snapshots.) Then, I can see slowly weaning off tape for all but the most critical systems.
With all that, I see tape hanging around big finincial companies for longer the the conservative 3-5 years estimate in the article.
Then again, I'm not a CIO.
Re:It's a ridiculously contrived plot device,
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
Two generations is definitely not far fetched. Three maybe. To give you an example - I was dating a girl who we found out later on that her mother went to high school with my mother. Now in a small town that may not be surprising but in New York?
Hence the expression "Truth is stranger than fiction".
I think it was Tolkien who commented that readers actually engage in an UNwilling suspension of disbelief. The sense of reality in a work of fiction is subject to much stronger scrutiny and skepticism than the sense of reality in "real life".
In any case, I thought it was contrived, but not ridiculously so. But I liked comparing the characters of different generations of Shaftoes and Waterhouses, so I suppose I'm willing to suspend more disbelief in order to do so.
Here in the UK items must be "...as described and fit for purpose." (my emphasis). Whilst you could get away with 'selling the sizzle' under the first part when you sell a winter coat as making you look cool even though it's not wind or water proof, by simply describing it as a coat and selling it when the winter clothing is in the stores you'll run afoul of the second part. By requiring an item to be fit for purpose, the law (Trades Descriptions Act (1957)) requires that an item not only conform to the explicitly claimed features but also to any that a reasonable consumer would expect for that class of product. For example a winter coat should be wind and rain proof;
Not necessarily. You could still fit the legal requirement by selling a winter coat that was warmer, more wind proof and rain proof than a fall coat or a spring jacket. Wind might still cut through like a knife, but so long as the wind cuts distinctly more through a fall coat, it's still fit to purpose. To my knowledge, there's no standard, absolute warmth/wind/rain requirement on a winter coat, so it would have to be judged relative to other coats.
Now if the whole garmet industry (gradually) downgraded the wind-proof-ness of EVERY coat, the "standard" for winter coats would become extremely poor, but would still fit the legal requirement. Or if the industry introduced a whole new category of "windproof coats", they might still be allowed to sell winter coats that let the wind in as long as windproof coats were more windproof. Or they could acheive something similar if they subdivided winter coats into "windproof winter coats" and "light winter coats".
A better example might be to look at "low fat" foods. Many aren't particularly low in fat, just distinctly lower in fat than their regular counterparts.
Truth in advertising laws are important and are followed, but (unless there is some sort of outside, measurable, regulatory standard) it's still possible to legally sell products that are poorly fit for purpose, so long are they are distinctly more fit relative to other categories.
I've been a big follower of PIPEDA since its inception, and have used it numerous times to protect my privacy. Basically, under PIPEDA, all Canadians have a right to personal privacy. Any company who takes your information initially is accountable for what happens to that information subsequently -- even if its being handled by a different company.
However, the phone book is potentially a loophole.
Bell Canada asserts that if you choose to list your name and number in the phonebook, you have chosen to allow your name and address to be provided (read: sold) to other any company who wishes to call you up and try to sell you things -- after all, anyone could look up your number in the phyisical paper phone book. And because anyone could look up your number in the paper phone book, there's no problem if Bell -- working through subsidiary and direct marketing companies -- provides the phone book database to companies who wish to call you up and sell you things.
If you do not wish your number to be sold, you have to pay for your number to be unlisted -- you can't simply opt-out of having your number and address sold/shared otherwise. The fact that you have to pay for your right to privacy (no matter how small the amount) arguably violates PIPEDA -- at least, it violates the spirit of the law.
As well, if you must pay for your right to privacy, this could potentially set a precedent for other organizations. Moreover, there's no guarantee that the charge will remain $2.
I've spent a long time on the phone with Bell, its subsidiaries, and direct marketing companies tracing out how my phone number became shared. I've also discovered (by questioning the telemarketers -- which is my right under PIPEDA) that EVERY SINGLE telemarketer to call me has purchased my number from the phone book company.
Pair is awesome. I've also been using them for years without problems. I've recommended pair to many people, all are very happy with their service. It's fast, cheap and reliable.
From what you describe, I think either the Advance ($17.95/month) or the Webmaster ($29.95/month) will cover what you need and then some. Pair is really flexible about their plans as well -- you can usually buy any additional services individually.
If by "don't want to install anything" you mean that you don't want your users to install anything, I'd suggest DeployDirector from Sitraka (www.sitraka.com) as an alternative to Web Start. Like Web Start, DeployDirector will install the client-side application (not applet), install correct version of the JRE, and ensure that the application keeps itself updated. However, with DeployDirector you don't have to have the intial step of installing Web Start. Everything is managed centrally, and DeployDirector will allow you to monitor the application, alert you in the event of an error, rollback, etc. Your users can be completely non-technical -- the tool will even work in a lockdown environment.
If, however, you mean that for security reasons nothing can exist on the client machine, you'll need to go with a wholly web-based (i.e., no applets) solution. You will need to dynamically generate images and image maps. This, however, will result in a huge number of server round-trips and will consequently result in some potentially crappy performance. You may have some options with Droplets -- which are remote GUIs -- but I don't know much if they can do this kind of imaging, and you'll still have higher server roundtrips.
If you can allow something to exist on the user's desktop, you should consider using an actual application -- there are tools to manage getting everything installed correctly without any user intervention, and the performance will be much better than running the whole thing in the browser. Because you already use an applet, it will probably be easier for you to port to a Java application.
I agree. I liked the last Dune mini-series, but primarily because the adaptation was more faithful and the writing itself was better. Paul was better cast (and a better actor). Leto wasn't as well cast; he didn't seem as regal as he did in the movie. I don't recall having a strong opinion on the other cast. (Though I missed seeing Patrick Stewart.)
The portrayal of the Harkonnens was also FAR better. In the mini-series, they cunning, conniving and evil. In the movie, they were just gross.
Biggest problem in the mini-series, though, were the visuals. The sets (particularly the desert) looked fake. The costuming looked cheap -- especially compared to the movie, which had great costumes.
Still, looking forward to this... when/if it comes on Space.
Depending on the restaurant and where you live, it may already be booked up for Valentine's day. If you go restaurant, book now.
That said, cooking her a nice meal is a great idea. Generally, putting your time and effort into doing something scores more points than plunking down some cash.
Some tips if you don't do dinner parties:
Set the table, and take some time to make it look nice. A tablecloth, napkins (cloth if you've got 'em), some candles a nice candle holder, some flowers (or scatter some flower petals over the table, it saves room and doesn't require a vase) -- it doens't have to be Martha Stewart, but make an effort. You can do this ahead of time. (If you're broke, the dollar store is your friend for this one.)
Clean up as you go. Nothing is less romantic than a big pile of dirty dishes.
Except maybe dirty socks and dust bunnies. Clean the house ahead of time too. Make the bed.
Read recipe instructions carefully, and pre-plan your cooking so that everything is ready at the same time. Like, if the main meal needs to bake for an hour, and dinner is a 6, the whole thing needs to be put together by 5. And while it's in the oven, you have an hour to clean up and get on to the next thing. And remember that you only have 2 hands -- you can't stir 3 things contantly at once while chopping veggies. (Think scheduling algorithms. You are the CPU.)
Better yet, find recipes that can be made (or mostly made) in advance. You don't want to be frantically racing around the kitchen while your girlfriend sits alone waiting for you. Less time in the kitchen for you means more time with her.
Don't cook anything heavy. Sure, both of you may love a big meal, but feeling bloated and full is not conducive to romance.
Consider her favourite foods when choosing a recipes. Sounds obvious, but keep that in mind.
That said, plan a meal that makes some sense. A really spicy dish will overpower a delicate one. This isn't hard to do if stick to a theme (Italian, French, Mexican) and keep things simple.
If you're trying a new recipe, and/or you're not an experienced cook, make it ahead of time. Make sure it tastes fine, cooks for the time you expect it to, that you have all the cooking utensils required, etc. Recipes usually need to be adjusted to your kitchen.
For the adventerous: Pay attention to how you serve and plate the food. You don't need to go overboard, but a little parsley never hurts. Put dinner rolls in a basket or a bowl instead of tossing the plastic bag on the table. Don't spread pots all over the table if you can help it.
Hope that helps. It may seem silly, but taking some time to make things look nice (as well as taste good) is part of what restaurants do. Though it may sound like a lot, there really isn't much to it -- you don't need to go overboard, but just take a moment to think about how everything looks. If this isn't something you normally do, you'll really wow her by making the effort.
I'm sure I could answer this question if I read your books and your columns and checked out your blog and fangroup and looked up archival material on your previous interviews and searched on Google and was really motivated.
But I'm lazy. How'd did you get into writing humour columns?
From a completely ill-informed perspective, getting paid to blather on about anything you feel like sounds like the ultimate job for most slashdotters.... Karma whoring for money....
I make tools to manage software deployment. (Actually, I switched sides and market them, but whatever.) Let me tell how the sell cycle for our software goes.
An developer or architect planning a business application considers deployment, maybe takes a look at our tools, decides it's expensive and unnecessary, and figures they can manage themselves with scripts, freeware and a little ingenuity. After all, they're software developers, and therefore brilliant.
The business application gets developed with no additional thought to deployment and suddenly it's about to go Beta.
For the first time, the operations/production folks take a look at it and say "how the heck are we supposed to deploy this POS?"
Some developer hands them a bunch of hacked together scripts.
They Beta and fail. Deployments take too long, require too much downtime, and are buggy, brittle and error-prone.
They fight with it to make it work, and continue to fail. Developers, who should have handed the thing off by now, keep getting pulled in to solve deployment situations that their code can't handle. Budgets run tight, time runs short, management starts screaming.
Eventually, someone remembers these tools we make, and give them a second look.
The operations/production people say "This solves everything. Why did you hand us a bunch of crappy scripts when this does exactly what we need?"
Purchase order comes in.
Our tools aren't the perfect solution to every scenario, but invariably, the development group (whose design decisions have deployment consequences) decide that our tools are unnecessary, even though they aren't the ones who will ultimately use them. We can talk to them about problems we know they will face down the road, but they won't believe it.
So they try. They fail. They call us back. And all because they don't get deployment. Waste of everyone's time.
First, kudos to your father and the VP for standing their ground -- at least, for as long as they could.
I'm long past middle school, but perhaps these parents should meet my parents. My folks are the type where I could bring home a 98% and their response would be "What happened to the other 2 percent? Stop reading storybooks and study more!"
If I so much as hinted that a teacher was unfair, I'd be smacked for it. "Stop blaming the teacher. Blame yourself. Study more! Work harder! You're going to go to a good university." (Not that I thought my teachers were marking unfairly. Some of them marked brutally hard, but they marked everyone hard.)
As far as my folks were concerned when it came to school marks, the only thing not good enough was me.
While I ultimately think that my parents' no-nonsense attitude was (in the end) good for me (or at least my work-ethic), whenever I hear stories like this about parents like this, I can't help but think "Must be nice."
It's because they want you to get really excited about the product (or realize that you really, really need it) BEFORE getting turned off by the really high price.
They also want you to call them and talk to a salesperson. That's why it's so common in B2B -- B2B is much more likely to have large deals, so the salesperson wants to convince you of the inherent value of product and why you need a site-license before quoting the price. (Especially now when companies are more price-sensitive.)
Generally speaking, this isn't a good strategy for consumer products, though jewellery stores (and other luxury retailers) often go this route. You see it (but the price isn't visible), you like it, they have you try it on, you look at how great it looks on you, they tell you how stylish it is, what excellent quality the workmanship is and THEN you find out that it costs way too much. But by this point, you've decided that you really like it so it's easier to convince yourself that it's not THAT much more than you intended to spend... after all, it looks so nice and the workmanship is such excellent quality.... If the price was prominently displayed, you might just keep walking.
It may not be good for the user, but it's generally good sales strategy.
I'm a marketing minion, and at our company, we primarily handle our international sales via software resellers. (Especially in Asia.)
Which reseller is best for you depends largely on how your product fits with the other products they sell. We make development tools. Some of our bigger resellers are Programmers Paradise (North America) and GrapeCity (SE Asia.)
A few issues to consider: packaging and branding (our Japanese resellers have the right to rebrand our products -- in the US they do not), localization, marketing collateral translation, differing ways of selling software in different countries, sales management for resellers, specialized marketing programs, overlap with any of your field or inside sales staff, reseller sales compensation/incentive plans, exclusive distribution rights, etc.
One way to find resellers for your product is to find out if complementary products to yours are sold through a reseller channel (check the websites) and talk to those resellers. It's a good sell for them -- their sales staff can offer more product that way.
Alternatively, try partnering with complementary organizations who have an existing sales presence in the countries you want to sell to -- you may want to offer an incentive program to their customers. This is much more complex to do and manage, but may be more successful.
Note that a lot of this depends on whether you're selling commodity products; these are easier to push through a reseller channel. Larger products -- those requiring extensive field sales/SE involvement -- may be better served by actually having a remote sales office. This is an expensive option, but for some products it's the best way.
I still have my doubts about the whole approach, but this is to some extent an ideological issue (HTTP/HTML for complex real-time client-server interaction just feels wrong to me) so basta for now.
You're not the only one who has doubts about this approach.
Because everything old is new again, many companies are starting to build hybrid J2EE systems which have a Swing GUI as a front-end instead of a broswers. The advantage is (over traditional client-server) that you can have the scalability and transaction-safe benefits of J2EE on the server, but the fast responsiveness and better UI of a GUI on the client. (As well, you can still create purely serverside applications where it's appropriate and reuse the same infrastructure.) It's far fewer roundtrips, since the client only needs to pull or commit data from the server, but can perform all the interim data manipulation and UI work client-side.
To extend your calculator example, imagine a mortgage calculator in a bank branch. The calculator would only need to talk to the server when the bank employee pulls up your customer data, or commits any changes. However, before making changes, you as the customer might want to see how much faster you could pay off the mortgage if you increased your payments, or put in a bigger down payment, or tried a different interest rate plan, etc. All of that should be calculated client-side -- there's very little need to make several server roundtrips for these temporary calculations.
As well, the bank could use that same back-end infrastructure to set up a website to allow you as the customer to check the status of your mortgage and your payments. Customers wouldn't be the same kind of power-user that the bank employee would be, so the number of roundtrips is somewhat less of a problem -- as well, the web version could be a simplified version of the GUI version.
Sun has actually addressed this (they sometimes call this architecture rich-client J2EE) through the JNLP spec and its reference implementatation, Java Web Start. Personally, I think JWS itself has limited use, but the architecture of the rich-client system is nonetheless pretty sound.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't looked at Millstone. I have spent a lot of time with these hybrid, rich-client J2EE systems, though.
If I recall correctly from my IT Law course some years back (taught by lawyers, but IANAL) this practice you refer to is known as copyright marking. Though the Universal Copyright Convention requires this, the Berne Copyright Convention does not. Thus countries who are members of the UCC but not the BCC may require marking, though my understanding is that the majority of countries do not require this.
Now, being educated in Canada, my course dealt with Canadian Law -- where marking is advised but not required. (See Guide to Copyrights from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.) I do not recall what the requirement is for US Law, but don't think the US requires marking either.
So regardless of whether or not there is a copyright symbol, copyright protection may still be there.
Slashdot Mirror
Most universities and colleges have facilities to help people with disabilities who are capable of a university education, but require some adjustments to the standard way of doing things in order to accommodate their needs. You may have to go through some testing to determine what they are able to do for you.
Most traditional computer science or engineering programs do require math -- though mind you, higher-level math is very different from basic arithmatic. While you may not be able to complete a degree in these subjects without math, the schools may allow you to take a lot of the non-math coursework.
You may also want to think about what really interests you about technology -- not everyone who loves technology belongs in a computer science or engineering program. (I graduated with a CS degree, but in hindsight I would have been much happier in another program.) If you like this kind of thing, social implications of technology, interdisciplinary programs like cognitive sciences, etc., are other ways to get into technology without the math.
I'll try. Form factor issues aside for a second:
You (geek) see the iPod mini and think "What's the point? For $50 more I can get 11 GB more."
They (non-geek) see the iPod mini and think "Hey cool! It'll hold all the digital music I need, and it's $50 cheaper."
And then, of course, is form factor. It's smaller, and it comes in colours. But as a geek, I'm sure the latter doesn't matter to you.
People pay me to write whitepapers. If you want to be paid for this (or even get reputable free online publishing), you must first learn that "thru" is not a word.
You haven't really made it clear why you want to put this in an online repository. Do you want to the world to see your research that you did on your own time? Or have you written something for your company and now you want to do some fast and cheap (and therefore, probably not good) PR and Marketing Communications? Or what?
In any case, most whitepapers (these days) are written by companies promoting their particular approach to a solution (some of these have good tech information, others are basically long bad brochures), by research groups like IDC, or research departments of large companies like IBM. These are typically distributed (or sold) by the companies who produce them -- so if you hit company X's website, you could pull up whitepapers written by company X, or written by IDC for which company X paid $20,000 to acquire distribution rights. Occaisionally, they will work through various partner arrangements to get these posted elsewhere -- like ZDNet, or more specialized areas like BEA's partner website. Usually it's in exchange for something like the ability to co-market in some way.
I'm not really aware of other big general repositories -- companies I've worked for have tried to go for targeted distribution, not some massive online repository. In any case, get some detailed, buzzword-free information on who your audience is, and then ask them a) if they read whitepapers (sales people usually don't), b) if they find them useful, and c) where they get them from. That will tell you where need to put your information.
If you really want to get this information out to a larger audience, you may be better off re-organizing the information as an article instead of a whitepaper. Find a magazine (online or otherwise) that targets your audience, ask them about their writer's guidelines (tech magazines often have these online) and check that they take unsolicited articles. You could then self-publish the whitepaper online, and have the (shorter) article point there.
It's fairly well-known that personal networking is more effective than job boards and newspaper ads. That doesn't mean that job boards are useless -- in fact, I just got an interview off Monster. It does mean, however, the time you spend job hunting on Monster et. al. versus talking to people should be proportionate to your likelihood of success.
Most people I know who are looking for a job spend 90% of their job-hunting time looking online, even though the likelihood of finding a job that way is something like 2%. (Don't have exact stats handy.)
As for headhunters, your success partly depends on what kind of headhunter you have. If they are on retainer with the company (rare), then they get paid regardless of whether or not they find a specific candidate, so chances are they will spend more time recruiting good ones -- otherwise, a bad placement could cost them their retainer.
If they are contracted by the company to find a specific role (more common), than they don't get paid unless they get someone hired, so they're more likely to blanket-bomb the employer with resumes. Worse yet are those headhunters who were not solicited by the company, but are attempting to sell their services to the company anyway. Most companies try to avoid these guys, so you're not at all likely to find something that way.
But in any case, the headhunter does not work for you; your best interests are not their top priority.
From an operational perspective, the wireless and wireline businesses of both Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility are entirely separate. One side doesn't pay much attention to the other. So the sustainability question is not around where the business is going to come from (that's obvious -- who wouldn't want $40 unlimited?) but about how Fido can become increasingly profitable while charging so little.
That is, the big 3 are worried about CityFido pushing the precious ARPU down. Again, attracting new customers is important, but not at the cost of potentially making less per customer. For example, you may have noticed that all the wireless carriers have changed the Evenings clock to start later -- it increases overage minutes, thus increasing ARPU. Customer is screwed over, but hey, higher profits. And since all of them started doing this, competition benefits no one. (I saw a presentation on this a while back; did I mention I'm ashamed of where I work?)
Then again, (just musing here) the sustainability issue may be simply be fear-mongering. Fido, having gone through financial trouble, is probably in the best position to sustain a lower ARPU model since (frankly) they don't need to worry as much about being less profitable than last year. (And with the lowest ARPU in Canada, the CityFido plan probably pushes the numbers up.)
I'm not knocking Fido -- I think the CityFido plan is a good strategy. But the rest of the Canadian industry fear that this will bring profits down.
Oh, just for those who think I flunked geography, I accidentally used internal language, where West Coast = BC+AB, East Coast = ON+PQ, Atlantic = NB+NS+PEI+NF, MB=MB and SK=SK. (It confused me when I started here.)
...a fact of which I am deeply ashamed.
And the short answer is "it's more expensive because they can get away with it."
But yes, it does come down to basic economic, with the corporate greed angle tossed in. Canada is a smaller market, with fewer competitors (4 national, plus a few regional). So the wireless carriers CAN charge more because the consequences of doing so not as great. Plus, the major carriers tend to follow each other quite closely. If one finds a way to charge more for something and get away with it, the others will quickly follow -- why should the other guy be the only one to make more?
IMO, the Canadian wireless industry is not particularly customer oriented -- they are competitor-oriented. It's not so much about "how can I win more customers through my excellent handsets and plan" as it is about "how can I get my ARPU higher than the competitors and my Churn lower, thus sticking it to the competition when the rankings are published." If the customer happens to benefit, it's a nice consequence.
That's why the CityFido plan (you probably haven't heard of this unless you're in Vancouver, but you can transfer your landline number to a wireless number, and you get $40/month unlimited local calling) sent the Canadian wireless industry into a tizzy. The other 3 national carriers began running some pretty harsh Fido switch promotions -- particularly on the East coast, where Fido is based. Makes some sense on a competitor level (take out Fido where they are strongest) but not on a consumer level (Easterners who've never heard of CityFido can't understand why the big 3 carriers are all going after the little guy.)
Mind you, Fido has had financial difficulties lately, so they probably had to pull a gutsy move like this. The rest of the industry doesn't see how Fido's model is sustainable.
But on the other hand, some stuff just costs more here. Hence the people who cross the boarder every month to shop.
Well, considering the whole point of the book is to *attack* science, not getting the facts right destroys her entire argument. But then, much like Creationist tracts, anti-science books are normally only preaching to the choir anyway, so there isn't much point to getting the facts right, I suppose.
I disagree. I don't think this books attacks science so much as it shows the darker sides of humanity's attitude towards scientific development. So long as the humanity part rings true, any wonkiness in the science part isn't really an issue. At worst, it's distracting to those of us who know the details about the science involved.
But on the other hand, I don't see most fiction as having a mandate to prove something. Fiction is not an argument. You can pick out elements of the story as demonstrating something or another about ourselves, but that doesn't mean this story proves anything.
I was going to start this post by vehemently stating that "Just because it has a futuristic setting and genetic engineering, does not necessarily mean that Oryx and Crake is sci-fi."
But then I wondered: what -- beyond a setting that is integral to the development of the story -- makes something science fiction?
Personally, I don't think Oryx and Crake is sci-fi -- it just doesn't read like most science fiction. It's more emotional and personal than that, and deals more thoroughly with complex relationships between people.
But could that just meant that it's simply not typical sci-fi? Is that all Atwood really meant when she said that this wasn't sci-fi? (And to the best of my knowledge, the parent post is a paraphrase.)
Frankly, Atwood is too much of a literary powerhouse to need to worry about being accepted as "real" literature. She's written too many critically acclaimed novels, poems and literary essays.
Makes you wonder if this would have been published as Sci-Fi (even if it's atypical) if someone else had written it.
Whether or not you will have more energy on a vegan or vegetarian diet is highly dependant on what your diet was like before and after.
I've been vegetarian (lacto-ovo, though I don't usually eat a lot of cheese or eggs) for over 13 years. Prior to that, I probably ate meat less than a couple of times a month. (No one in my entire family eats meat, but my folks never prevented me from eating it.) In extended family, there are several vegans as well. My spouse's family, on the other hand, is your typical meat-and-potatoes type.
I've lost weight, gained weight and maintained my weight this way. I've gone through periods of having higher and lower energy, and needing more and less sleep. I've regularly eaten healthy, well-balanced meals and I've regularly eaten crappy junk food. Same with the rest of my family. Same with my spouse's family.
Most (certainly not all) the vegetarians/vegans who extol the health and energy benefits of vegetarianism have not been vegetarian for as long as I have -- and certainly not as long as my parents or grandparents. My theory is that these newbie vegetarians are feeling more energetic because:
Vegetarian, vegan or not -- eating a balanced diet will make you feel better. Eating crap will make you feel worse. For a while in university, I was pretty much living off veggie burgers, fries, and onion rings. Completely vegetarian (even possibly vegan) but I gained 20 pounds on this. And I had no where near the energy of my meat-eating, chain-smoking mother-in-law.
Tape is hardly dying. Especially since, as the article states, "alternatives just aren't well-known yet."
To the best of my awareness, most large enterprises have some kind of massive tape backup system for disaster recovery. Replacing that kind of infrastructure is tricky and worrisome -- any problems in the system can have horrible consequences.
If you're a big bank or insurance company, your disaster recovery plan is probably the last place you want to replace old technology with new for archiving data. Call me paranoid, but I'd be very, very worried about any company who did this.
Most likely, I can see companies initially introducing new archival technologies for faster recovery, but still relying on time-tested tape as the last line of defense. (Perhaps along the lines of making regular tape-backups of the disk snapshots.) Then, I can see slowly weaning off tape for all but the most critical systems.
With all that, I see tape hanging around big finincial companies for longer the the conservative 3-5 years estimate in the article.
Then again, I'm not a CIO.
Two generations is definitely not far fetched. Three maybe. To give you an example - I was dating a girl who we found out later on that her mother went to high school with my mother. Now in a small town that may not be surprising but in New York?
Hence the expression "Truth is stranger than fiction".
I think it was Tolkien who commented that readers actually engage in an UNwilling suspension of disbelief. The sense of reality in a work of fiction is subject to much stronger scrutiny and skepticism than the sense of reality in "real life".
In any case, I thought it was contrived, but not ridiculously so. But I liked comparing the characters of different generations of Shaftoes and Waterhouses, so I suppose I'm willing to suspend more disbelief in order to do so.
Here in the UK items must be "...as described and fit for purpose." (my emphasis). Whilst you could get away with 'selling the sizzle' under the first part when you sell a winter coat as making you look cool even though it's not wind or water proof, by simply describing it as a coat and selling it when the winter clothing is in the stores you'll run afoul of the second part. By requiring an item to be fit for purpose, the law (Trades Descriptions Act (1957)) requires that an item not only conform to the explicitly claimed features but also to any that a reasonable consumer would expect for that class of product. For example a winter coat should be wind and rain proof;
Not necessarily. You could still fit the legal requirement by selling a winter coat that was warmer, more wind proof and rain proof than a fall coat or a spring jacket. Wind might still cut through like a knife, but so long as the wind cuts distinctly more through a fall coat, it's still fit to purpose. To my knowledge, there's no standard, absolute warmth/wind/rain requirement on a winter coat, so it would have to be judged relative to other coats.
Now if the whole garmet industry (gradually) downgraded the wind-proof-ness of EVERY coat, the "standard" for winter coats would become extremely poor, but would still fit the legal requirement. Or if the industry introduced a whole new category of "windproof coats", they might still be allowed to sell winter coats that let the wind in as long as windproof coats were more windproof. Or they could acheive something similar if they subdivided winter coats into "windproof winter coats" and "light winter coats".
A better example might be to look at "low fat" foods. Many aren't particularly low in fat, just distinctly lower in fat than their regular counterparts.
Truth in advertising laws are important and are followed, but (unless there is some sort of outside, measurable, regulatory standard) it's still possible to legally sell products that are poorly fit for purpose, so long are they are distinctly more fit relative to other categories.
I've been a big follower of PIPEDA since its inception, and have used it numerous times to protect my privacy. Basically, under PIPEDA, all Canadians have a right to personal privacy. Any company who takes your information initially is accountable for what happens to that information subsequently -- even if its being handled by a different company.
However, the phone book is potentially a loophole.
Bell Canada asserts that if you choose to list your name and number in the phonebook, you have chosen to allow your name and address to be provided (read: sold) to other any company who wishes to call you up and try to sell you things -- after all, anyone could look up your number in the phyisical paper phone book. And because anyone could look up your number in the paper phone book, there's no problem if Bell -- working through subsidiary and direct marketing companies -- provides the phone book database to companies who wish to call you up and sell you things.
If you do not wish your number to be sold, you have to pay for your number to be unlisted -- you can't simply opt-out of having your number and address sold/shared otherwise. The fact that you have to pay for your right to privacy (no matter how small the amount) arguably violates PIPEDA -- at least, it violates the spirit of the law.
As well, if you must pay for your right to privacy, this could potentially set a precedent for other organizations. Moreover, there's no guarantee that the charge will remain $2.
I've spent a long time on the phone with Bell, its subsidiaries, and direct marketing companies tracing out how my phone number became shared. I've also discovered (by questioning the telemarketers -- which is my right under PIPEDA) that EVERY SINGLE telemarketer to call me has purchased my number from the phone book company.
Pair is awesome. I've also been using them for years without problems. I've recommended pair to many people, all are very happy with their service. It's fast, cheap and reliable.
Here is a comparison of their different plans.
From what you describe, I think either the Advance ($17.95/month) or the Webmaster ($29.95/month) will cover what you need and then some. Pair is really flexible about their plans as well -- you can usually buy any additional services individually.
If by "don't want to install anything" you mean that you don't want your users to install anything, I'd suggest DeployDirector from Sitraka (www.sitraka.com) as an alternative to Web Start. Like Web Start, DeployDirector will install the client-side application (not applet), install correct version of the JRE, and ensure that the application keeps itself updated. However, with DeployDirector you don't have to have the intial step of installing Web Start. Everything is managed centrally, and DeployDirector will allow you to monitor the application, alert you in the event of an error, rollback, etc. Your users can be completely non-technical -- the tool will even work in a lockdown environment.
If, however, you mean that for security reasons nothing can exist on the client machine, you'll need to go with a wholly web-based (i.e., no applets) solution. You will need to dynamically generate images and image maps. This, however, will result in a huge number of server round-trips and will consequently result in some potentially crappy performance. You may have some options with Droplets -- which are remote GUIs -- but I don't know much if they can do this kind of imaging, and you'll still have higher server roundtrips.
If you can allow something to exist on the user's desktop, you should consider using an actual application -- there are tools to manage getting everything installed correctly without any user intervention, and the performance will be much better than running the whole thing in the browser. Because you already use an applet, it will probably be easier for you to port to a Java application.
I agree. I liked the last Dune mini-series, but primarily because the adaptation was more faithful and the writing itself was better. Paul was better cast (and a better actor). Leto wasn't as well cast; he didn't seem as regal as he did in the movie. I don't recall having a strong opinion on the other cast. (Though I missed seeing Patrick Stewart.)
The portrayal of the Harkonnens was also FAR better. In the mini-series, they cunning, conniving and evil. In the movie, they were just gross.
Biggest problem in the mini-series, though, were the visuals. The sets (particularly the desert) looked fake. The costuming looked cheap -- especially compared to the movie, which had great costumes.
Still, looking forward to this... when/if it comes on Space.
Depending on the restaurant and where you live, it may already be booked up for Valentine's day. If you go restaurant, book now.
That said, cooking her a nice meal is a great idea. Generally, putting your time and effort into doing something scores more points than plunking down some cash.
Some tips if you don't do dinner parties:
- Set the table, and take some time to make it look nice. A tablecloth, napkins (cloth if you've got 'em), some candles a nice candle holder, some flowers (or scatter some flower petals over the table, it saves room and doesn't require a vase) -- it doens't have to be Martha Stewart, but make an effort. You can do this ahead of time. (If you're broke, the dollar store is your friend for this one.)
- Clean up as you go. Nothing is less romantic than a big pile of dirty dishes.
- Except maybe dirty socks and dust bunnies. Clean the house ahead of time too. Make the bed.
- Read recipe instructions carefully, and pre-plan your cooking so that everything is ready at the same time. Like, if the main meal needs to bake for an hour, and dinner is a 6, the whole thing needs to be put together by 5. And while it's in the oven, you have an hour to clean up and get on to the next thing. And remember that you only have 2 hands -- you can't stir 3 things contantly at once while chopping veggies. (Think scheduling algorithms. You are the CPU.)
- Better yet, find recipes that can be made (or mostly made) in advance. You don't want to be frantically racing around the kitchen while your girlfriend sits alone waiting for you. Less time in the kitchen for you means more time with her.
- Don't cook anything heavy. Sure, both of you may love a big meal, but feeling bloated and full is not conducive to romance.
- Consider her favourite foods when choosing a recipes. Sounds obvious, but keep that in mind.
- That said, plan a meal that makes some sense. A really spicy dish will overpower a delicate one. This isn't hard to do if stick to a theme (Italian, French, Mexican) and keep things simple.
- If you're trying a new recipe, and/or you're not an experienced cook, make it ahead of time. Make sure it tastes fine, cooks for the time you expect it to, that you have all the cooking utensils required, etc. Recipes usually need to be adjusted to your kitchen.
- For the adventerous: Pay attention to how you serve and plate the food. You don't need to go overboard, but a little parsley never hurts. Put dinner rolls in a basket or a bowl instead of tossing the plastic bag on the table. Don't spread pots all over the table if you can help it.
Hope that helps. It may seem silly, but taking some time to make things look nice (as well as taste good) is part of what restaurants do. Though it may sound like a lot, there really isn't much to it -- you don't need to go overboard, but just take a moment to think about how everything looks. If this isn't something you normally do, you'll really wow her by making the effort.I'm sure I could answer this question if I read your books and your columns and checked out your blog and fangroup and looked up archival material on your previous interviews and searched on Google and was really motivated.
But I'm lazy. How'd did you get into writing humour columns?
From a completely ill-informed perspective, getting paid to blather on about anything you feel like sounds like the ultimate job for most slashdotters.... Karma whoring for money....
Thank whatever-you-choose-to-believe-in for you.
I make tools to manage software deployment. (Actually, I switched sides and market them, but whatever.) Let me tell how the sell cycle for our software goes.
Our tools aren't the perfect solution to every scenario, but invariably, the development group (whose design decisions have deployment consequences) decide that our tools are unnecessary, even though they aren't the ones who will ultimately use them. We can talk to them about problems we know they will face down the road, but they won't believe it.
So they try. They fail. They call us back. And all because they don't get deployment. Waste of everyone's time.
First, kudos to your father and the VP for standing their ground -- at least, for as long as they could.
I'm long past middle school, but perhaps these parents should meet my parents. My folks are the type where I could bring home a 98% and their response would be "What happened to the other 2 percent? Stop reading storybooks and study more!"
If I so much as hinted that a teacher was unfair, I'd be smacked for it. "Stop blaming the teacher. Blame yourself. Study more! Work harder! You're going to go to a good university." (Not that I thought my teachers were marking unfairly. Some of them marked brutally hard, but they marked everyone hard.)
As far as my folks were concerned when it came to school marks, the only thing not good enough was me.
While I ultimately think that my parents' no-nonsense attitude was (in the end) good for me (or at least my work-ethic), whenever I hear stories like this about parents like this, I can't help but think "Must be nice."
It's because they want you to get really excited about the product (or realize that you really, really need it) BEFORE getting turned off by the really high price.
They also want you to call them and talk to a salesperson. That's why it's so common in B2B -- B2B is much more likely to have large deals, so the salesperson wants to convince you of the inherent value of product and why you need a site-license before quoting the price. (Especially now when companies are more price-sensitive.)
Generally speaking, this isn't a good strategy for consumer products, though jewellery stores (and other luxury retailers) often go this route. You see it (but the price isn't visible), you like it, they have you try it on, you look at how great it looks on you, they tell you how stylish it is, what excellent quality the workmanship is and THEN you find out that it costs way too much. But by this point, you've decided that you really like it so it's easier to convince yourself that it's not THAT much more than you intended to spend... after all, it looks so nice and the workmanship is such excellent quality.... If the price was prominently displayed, you might just keep walking.
It may not be good for the user, but it's generally good sales strategy.
I'm a marketing minion, and at our company, we primarily handle our international sales via software resellers. (Especially in Asia.)
Which reseller is best for you depends largely on how your product fits with the other products they sell. We make development tools. Some of our bigger resellers are Programmers Paradise (North America) and GrapeCity (SE Asia.)
A few issues to consider: packaging and branding (our Japanese resellers have the right to rebrand our products -- in the US they do not), localization, marketing collateral translation, differing ways of selling software in different countries, sales management for resellers, specialized marketing programs, overlap with any of your field or inside sales staff, reseller sales compensation/incentive plans, exclusive distribution rights, etc.
One way to find resellers for your product is to find out if complementary products to yours are sold through a reseller channel (check the websites) and talk to those resellers. It's a good sell for them -- their sales staff can offer more product that way.
Alternatively, try partnering with complementary organizations who have an existing sales presence in the countries you want to sell to -- you may want to offer an incentive program to their customers. This is much more complex to do and manage, but may be more successful.
Note that a lot of this depends on whether you're selling commodity products; these are easier to push through a reseller channel. Larger products -- those requiring extensive field sales/SE involvement -- may be better served by actually having a remote sales office. This is an expensive option, but for some products it's the best way.
Check out So you wanna make a low-budget movie on SoYouWanna.com.
This is probably a good starting point. You should be able to find some good tips and some additonal references to check out.
I still have my doubts about the whole approach, but this is to some extent an ideological issue (HTTP/HTML for complex real-time client-server interaction just feels wrong to me) so basta for now.
You're not the only one who has doubts about this approach.
Because everything old is new again, many companies are starting to build hybrid J2EE systems which have a Swing GUI as a front-end instead of a broswers. The advantage is (over traditional client-server) that you can have the scalability and transaction-safe benefits of J2EE on the server, but the fast responsiveness and better UI of a GUI on the client. (As well, you can still create purely serverside applications where it's appropriate and reuse the same infrastructure.) It's far fewer roundtrips, since the client only needs to pull or commit data from the server, but can perform all the interim data manipulation and UI work client-side.
To extend your calculator example, imagine a mortgage calculator in a bank branch. The calculator would only need to talk to the server when the bank employee pulls up your customer data, or commits any changes. However, before making changes, you as the customer might want to see how much faster you could pay off the mortgage if you increased your payments, or put in a bigger down payment, or tried a different interest rate plan, etc. All of that should be calculated client-side -- there's very little need to make several server roundtrips for these temporary calculations.
As well, the bank could use that same back-end infrastructure to set up a website to allow you as the customer to check the status of your mortgage and your payments. Customers wouldn't be the same kind of power-user that the bank employee would be, so the number of roundtrips is somewhat less of a problem -- as well, the web version could be a simplified version of the GUI version.
Sun has actually addressed this (they sometimes call this architecture rich-client J2EE) through the JNLP spec and its reference implementatation, Java Web Start. Personally, I think JWS itself has limited use, but the architecture of the rich-client system is nonetheless pretty sound.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't looked at Millstone. I have spent a lot of time with these hybrid, rich-client J2EE systems, though.
If I recall correctly from my IT Law course some years back (taught by lawyers, but IANAL) this practice you refer to is known as copyright marking. Though the Universal Copyright Convention requires this, the Berne Copyright Convention does not. Thus countries who are members of the UCC but not the BCC may require marking, though my understanding is that the majority of countries do not require this.
Now, being educated in Canada, my course dealt with Canadian Law -- where marking is advised but not required. (See Guide to Copyrights from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.) I do not recall what the requirement is for US Law, but don't think the US requires marking either.
So regardless of whether or not there is a copyright symbol, copyright protection may still be there.