Start by getting your superiors' blessings. Get them to make it a mandate for you. Then you have some authority to make the end user spend some time with the new system. This doesn't mean you need to be an ogre, or a slave-driver; but if you don't make it "a thing that's going to happen" they will drag their feet and ironically get a deeper feeling of the whole thing looming over them.
If you simply say "the decision has been made to move to xyz. It will be a little different. We'll be handling training as follows:" things will move much more efficiently than if you rely on them to adopt it.
You know what could work, if you could just convince the programmers that this little step would be worthwhile...
If you're asked to write code that you know is immoral (spyware for example) code it so that it is easily disabled, and perhaps even comment to that effect in the code: "I think this portion of the application is a bad idea. As such, it can be disabled by changing the value of the following variable."
Where was this two years ago?
on
Paintable LCDs
·
· Score: 2
I painted the baby room 7 goddam times to get the right shade of yellow.
Any company manager that wrote a contract without some provision for digging the company out of huge holes isn't worth his own salary.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really shitty thing this company is doing; but don't think a contract is going to save you. It most likely has a provision for this in there somewhere.
They're selling most of their hard drive business to Hitachi. They will continue to work with Hitachi on research, etc.
Re:Not Really A Concern
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
Should we then just assume that if some agressor like China or Iraq lobs some nukes at us, that it would be pointless to knock any of them down? Should we just let them come on in? "What the hell? There aren't enough caves for all of us."
I'm not so worried about the superpowers starting a nuclear war. Even China, radical as it is, has a concept of the consequences. Mutually Assured Destruction works with them. With Saddam I'm not so sure.
While I'm not a big fan of some of the defense spending ridiculousness (why didn't we scrap that piece of shit b-1 years ago?), I'm convinced the missile shield is worthwhile.
I'll start by admitting my own problems with some of the lengths Campbell carries things to. A little work in the actual field of comparative mythology or comparative religion will quickly get you to a point where Campbell becomes sort of the Reader's Digest kind of treatment.
But beyond that. If Lucas used Campbell's work to write his story, then how much legitimacy does it really have as an amalgam of those archetypal myths? Isn't it a one-off?
This whole thing also assumes that money is the only measure of a life.
The poor farmer in Thailand may know nothing of the internet, may not own a telephone, may not even trade most of his crops for money, trading it rather for other goods and services. Is he poor? Certainly. What's the quality of his life? Well, you'd have to ask him.
He may live longer than you, may never know the dissatisfaction of being laid off. May never suffer the uncertainty of "finding himself" or the perennial angst of therapy. His soul doesn't need any chicken soup.
The truth is, he may be richer than anybody we know.
Except that these folks are the ones who have just accomplished the "evolutionary" work. It's just that the media needs to call everything "revolutionary." So in effect, by saying it's okay to treat these things with those two ridiculous responses, you're saying it's okay to flippantly dismiss that hard work.
Also, it's called sarcasm. He was employing it beautiflly.
I use a David Clark noise cancelling headset when I fly (I'm an instructor, so this is quite often). It's fantastic. It blocks the low frequency noise while still allowing me to hear things like the stall warning, gear horn, etc.
In a single-engine airplane it makes a big difference. In a multi-engine airplane or jet, it's like magic. It makes you wonder how we ever got by without them.
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2
And why do you suppose we did these horrible things? Is it just because we're evil horrible people? And who are these CIA people? Who is our government? Take a look in the mirror, young pal. Our government is you. The CIA is you. The nation is you. You and me; and I have no more animosity toward the world than you do. I want peace no less than you. I care about people and justice as deeply as you.
It's too bad that the world doesn't fall neatly into that plan.
Especially during the Cold War, decisions which now seem ridiculous were of desparate importance. If you're going to blame us for Cambodia, for instance, you must also remember that we got into Vietnam because we didn't want to cede that part of the world to the Communists. While that may seem a trivial sidenote to you, born in 1984/85, it was a very real issue then. The dissolution of the Soviets didn't just happen because of Reagan. It happened because for 50 years, we fought them on every front. We lived in fear of the world being destroyed at any given moment. And that's not hyperbole. We built a planet-killing arsenal of nuclear weapons between us because we felt we'd rather die than live under the oppression of the Communist block.
It's easy to point to the lives that we took. You can add them like some sick grocery bill. It's a little harder to evaluate the lives we saved. There's no defense of numbers. But at 17, you don't really have to evaluate anything, do you? You have the priviledge of narrow-minded dissention. Nobody on this Earth is black and white good or bad.
As an adult, I get enough of this "If we just weren't us, they wouldn't hate us so bad" shit on the news. At least places like this news website should be reserved for some insight past what the media feeds us...
They hate us for sticking our nose in their business when they don't want it; and they hate us for not sticking our nose in their business when they feel they need it.
Perfect case in point: "Why isn't America, the richest nation on Earth, doing something about the famine in Somalia?" So the U.S. starts shipping food over as fast as it can. The warlords steal the food from the people. So the U.S. sends troops in to protect the food/people. "Why is America interfering with poor little Somalia? Why is America hunting the muslim warlords? It must be because they're muslims. The infidels are attacking."
Understanding the issues the EPA has with Halon, the principle was great... remove access to the oxygen. Also understanding that a system large enough to support an entire high-rise is impractical; would that sort of concept have performed better than sprinklers "sprinkling" some water on a fluid fire?
Re:Why I think IBM sucks
on
Linux On Big Iron
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
IBM has consistently given me the best support I've found anywhere. They're patient, competent, and skilled.
The CE's I've dealt with have all been very professional; and have displayed none of the behavior you saw.
In one case, I even had a tech from supportline call me back weeks after he'd already solved a problem for me, to tell me about an alternate method he'd picked up from one of the more senior people. He'd used it on another customer's problem, and called me back to let me know it was an option that I might prefer if it came up again. Now that's service.
Re:Doesn't it say something about society?
on
AdCritic To Return
·
· Score: 2
You know, it's funny. I agree with both of you. I do watch some tv; but the ads are often the best part.
There should be a channel devoted to only the ads.
Are you saying that because most children are abducted by somebody they know, this device will not work as it would with a stranger?
You're right, of course, most are abducted by somebody they know, like a neighbor, or acquaintance of their parents. That doesn't mean this device is useless. You can't keep the kids locked up in the house 24/7; and you can't raise a well-adjusted kid by shadowing them 24/7. Kids play in the neighborhood, at the playground, etc. This device makes sense for those environments.
Nobody has said anything about making this device mandatory. It's an option for parents who, by the way, are not the elected officials who run the family. We're the dictators. King Dad and Queen Mom. We will be solely responsible for the safety of our child; so it is our decision alone to decide how best to go about that.
Libertarianism is great when it's applied with reason. But just like any other philosophy, it's useless if applied blindly.
You obviously don't have kids. Some of what you say is right on the mark. "SPEND TIME" is exactly right. "...do something, ANYTHING special with your kids at least once a week" is another great point.
But "...NO vacations to anywhere without the kids..." is a HORRIBLE idea.
You have absolutely no concept of what 24/7 means until you have a baby, that grows into a toddler, etc. What are you doing to the child in the long run if you just give up your marriage and only do things as a whole family unit? A family starts with a marriage. Mom and Dad, they make the family work. The child can contribute love and enjoyment beyond belief; but not much actual work. To keep the family together requires the parents. And for the parents to be "THE PARENTS" requires that they stay together... be married... be a couple. You NEED, sometimes desparately to remember that.
If your family is going to stay as a single and complete unit, it needs a good marriage at the top of it. And that means spending some time alone once in a while.
Re:Grounds for divorce.
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
I really wish there was anything in life that was that simple.
There must be some issues in your marriage if your spouse is tracking your web visits. He/she must have some reason to suspect that you're cheating/doing bad things. Even if they're totally mistaken, it points to a lack of confidence in you that needs to be addressed. That's the time when your marriage needs you most. It's the worst time to just give up on it and walk out.
As long as you hold your current opinion, you have no business getting married at all.
If they develop a product/protocol of their own that's great. In fact, I wholeheartedly support that.
The thing I don't agree with is the sort of tactic where they take an existing protocol/standard and extend it in such a way that it will only work with other MS products. Then, to add insult to injury, they tout how they support the open standard.
Kerberos is a good example. Take a company running BIND as their DNS server. They decide to implement Active Directory. This means the Domain Controller must be able to update DNS. The NT guys go talk to the UNIX group: "We're taking DNS from you because you can't accept secure updates."
"Sure we do. Use Kerberos."
"We did. It didn't work. We're going to use a MS DNS server because yours is substandard. Send us your zone files by tomorrow morning."
And all of that when everybody on the planet supports the kerberos protocol except for them. And the only reason they changed it was to make it proprietary.
They're working on DHCP too. They've extended the DHCP protocol so that it includes some extra messages. It implements some wacky scheme where it checks with the Active Directory to make sure that it's authorized to hand out addresses. It's billed as a way to prevent rogue DHCP servers from raising hell on your network. The fact is that it only prevents rogue MS DHCP servers and is thus of little use... for now. NT admins who never bother to learn anything about the actual protocol then come to you and say, "We have to use MS DHCP because yours won't participate in the Authorization scheme."
Don't be surprised to find that later on, some kind of dependency is actually developed that does that. Oh, and by the way, the MS DHCP server will only do secure updates to a MS DNS server.
Slashdot Mirror
Start by getting your superiors' blessings. Get them to make it a mandate for you. Then you have some authority to make the end user spend some time with the new system. This doesn't mean you need to be an ogre, or a slave-driver; but if you don't make it "a thing that's going to happen" they will drag their feet and ironically get a deeper feeling of the whole thing looming over them.
If you simply say "the decision has been made to move to xyz. It will be a little different. We'll be handling training as follows:" things will move much more efficiently than if you rely on them to adopt it.
The PG-13 rating was first used for the movie Red Dawn in 1984.
Star Wars likely would have recieved a pg-13 rating if it were made later, due to the violence.
I would further add that if you want to call it GNU/Linux, that's fantastic. If not, that's great, too.
If I comply with the GPL, then get off my back.
You know what could work, if you could just convince the programmers that this little step would be worthwhile...
If you're asked to write code that you know is immoral (spyware for example) code it so that it is easily disabled, and perhaps even comment to that effect in the code: "I think this portion of the application is a bad idea. As such, it can be disabled by changing the value of the following variable."
I painted the baby room 7 goddam times to get the right shade of yellow.
Any company manager that wrote a contract without some provision for digging the company out of huge holes isn't worth his own salary.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really shitty thing this company is doing; but don't think a contract is going to save you. It most likely has a provision for this in there somewhere.
They're selling most of their hard drive business to Hitachi. They will continue to work with Hitachi on research, etc.
Should we then just assume that if some agressor like China or Iraq lobs some nukes at us, that it would be pointless to knock any of them down? Should we just let them come on in? "What the hell? There aren't enough caves for all of us."
I'm not so worried about the superpowers starting a nuclear war. Even China, radical as it is, has a concept of the consequences. Mutually Assured Destruction works with them. With Saddam I'm not so sure.
While I'm not a big fan of some of the defense spending ridiculousness (why didn't we scrap that piece of shit b-1 years ago?), I'm convinced the missile shield is worthwhile.
I'll start by admitting my own problems with some of the lengths Campbell carries things to. A little work in the actual field of comparative mythology or comparative religion will quickly get you to a point where Campbell becomes sort of the Reader's Digest kind of treatment.
But beyond that. If Lucas used Campbell's work to write his story, then how much legitimacy does it really have as an amalgam of those archetypal myths? Isn't it a one-off?
This whole thing also assumes that money is the only measure of a life.
The poor farmer in Thailand may know nothing of the internet, may not own a telephone, may not even trade most of his crops for money, trading it rather for other goods and services. Is he poor? Certainly. What's the quality of his life? Well, you'd have to ask him.
He may live longer than you, may never know the dissatisfaction of being laid off. May never suffer the uncertainty of "finding himself" or the perennial angst of therapy. His soul doesn't need any chicken soup.
The truth is, he may be richer than anybody we know.
I was thinking the same thing.
"At last, the Hillary Step! I've almost reached the sum... aaaargh!"
Except that these folks are the ones who have just accomplished the "evolutionary" work. It's just that the media needs to call everything "revolutionary." So in effect, by saying it's okay to treat these things with those two ridiculous responses, you're saying it's okay to flippantly dismiss that hard work.
Also, it's called sarcasm. He was employing it beautiflly.
I use a David Clark noise cancelling headset when I fly (I'm an instructor, so this is quite often). It's fantastic. It blocks the low frequency noise while still allowing me to hear things like the stall warning, gear horn, etc.
In a single-engine airplane it makes a big difference. In a multi-engine airplane or jet, it's like magic. It makes you wonder how we ever got by without them.
And why do you suppose we did these horrible things? Is it just because we're evil horrible people? And who are these CIA people? Who is our government? Take a look in the mirror, young pal. Our government is you. The CIA is you. The nation is you. You and me; and I have no more animosity toward the world than you do. I want peace no less than you. I care about people and justice as deeply as you.
It's too bad that the world doesn't fall neatly into that plan.
Especially during the Cold War, decisions which now seem ridiculous were of desparate importance. If you're going to blame us for Cambodia, for instance, you must also remember that we got into Vietnam because we didn't want to cede that part of the world to the Communists. While that may seem a trivial sidenote to you, born in 1984/85, it was a very real issue then. The dissolution of the Soviets didn't just happen because of Reagan. It happened because for 50 years, we fought them on every front. We lived in fear of the world being destroyed at any given moment. And that's not hyperbole. We built a planet-killing arsenal of nuclear weapons between us because we felt we'd rather die than live under the oppression of the Communist block.
It's easy to point to the lives that we took. You can add them like some sick grocery bill. It's a little harder to evaluate the lives we saved. There's no defense of numbers. But at 17, you don't really have to evaluate anything, do you? You have the priviledge of narrow-minded dissention. Nobody on this Earth is black and white good or bad.
As an adult, I get enough of this "If we just weren't us, they wouldn't hate us so bad" shit on the news. At least places like this news website should be reserved for some insight past what the media feeds us...
They hate us for sticking our nose in their business when they don't want it; and they hate us for not sticking our nose in their business when they feel they need it.
Perfect case in point: "Why isn't America, the richest nation on Earth, doing something about the famine in Somalia?" So the U.S. starts shipping food over as fast as it can. The warlords steal the food from the people. So the U.S. sends troops in to protect the food/people. "Why is America interfering with poor little Somalia? Why is America hunting the muslim warlords? It must be because they're muslims. The infidels are attacking."
is that the word shit appeared in the post. Linus doesn't talk shit.
Understanding the issues the EPA has with Halon, the principle was great... remove access to the oxygen. Also understanding that a system large enough to support an entire high-rise is impractical; would that sort of concept have performed better than sprinklers "sprinkling" some water on a fluid fire?
IBM has consistently given me the best support I've found anywhere. They're patient, competent, and skilled.
The CE's I've dealt with have all been very professional; and have displayed none of the behavior you saw.
In one case, I even had a tech from supportline call me back weeks after he'd already solved a problem for me, to tell me about an alternate method he'd picked up from one of the more senior people. He'd used it on another customer's problem, and called me back to let me know it was an option that I might prefer if it came up again. Now that's service.
You know, it's funny. I agree with both of you. I do watch some tv; but the ads are often the best part.
There should be a channel devoted to only the ads.
Are you saying that because most children are abducted by somebody they know, this device will not work as it would with a stranger?
You're right, of course, most are abducted by somebody they know, like a neighbor, or acquaintance of their parents. That doesn't mean this device is useless. You can't keep the kids locked up in the house 24/7; and you can't raise a well-adjusted kid by shadowing them 24/7. Kids play in the neighborhood, at the playground, etc. This device makes sense for those environments.
Nobody has said anything about making this device mandatory. It's an option for parents who, by the way, are not the elected officials who run the family. We're the dictators. King Dad and Queen Mom. We will be solely responsible for the safety of our child; so it is our decision alone to decide how best to go about that.
Libertarianism is great when it's applied with reason. But just like any other philosophy, it's useless if applied blindly.
You obviously don't have kids. Some of what you say is right on the mark. "SPEND TIME" is exactly right. "...do something, ANYTHING special with your kids at least once a week" is another great point.
But "...NO vacations to anywhere without the kids..." is a HORRIBLE idea.
You have absolutely no concept of what 24/7 means until you have a baby, that grows into a toddler, etc. What are you doing to the child in the long run if you just give up your marriage and only do things as a whole family unit? A family starts with a marriage. Mom and Dad, they make the family work. The child can contribute love and enjoyment beyond belief; but not much actual work. To keep the family together requires the parents. And for the parents to be "THE PARENTS" requires that they stay together... be married... be a couple. You NEED, sometimes desparately to remember that.
If your family is going to stay as a single and complete unit, it needs a good marriage at the top of it. And that means spending some time alone once in a while.
I really wish there was anything in life that was that simple.
There must be some issues in your marriage if your spouse is tracking your web visits. He/she must have some reason to suspect that you're cheating/doing bad things. Even if they're totally mistaken, it points to a lack of confidence in you that needs to be addressed. That's the time when your marriage needs you most. It's the worst time to just give up on it and walk out.
As long as you hold your current opinion, you have no business getting married at all.
I've tried; but I just can't remember which amendment it was that gave us a right to the internet.
Free speech is a right. There is no right to have your speech heard by everybody you think ought to hear it.
Sorry. It's just not the way it is.
Here here.
A lawyer AND a spammer. He's got two strikes. On more and he's out.
If they develop a product/protocol of their own that's great. In fact, I wholeheartedly support that.
The thing I don't agree with is the sort of tactic where they take an existing protocol/standard and extend it in such a way that it will only work with other MS products. Then, to add insult to injury, they tout how they support the open standard.
Kerberos is a good example. Take a company running BIND as their DNS server. They decide to implement Active Directory. This means the Domain Controller must be able to update DNS. The NT guys go talk to the UNIX group: "We're taking DNS from you because you can't accept secure updates."
"Sure we do. Use Kerberos."
"We did. It didn't work. We're going to use a MS DNS server because yours is substandard. Send us your zone files by tomorrow morning."
And all of that when everybody on the planet supports the kerberos protocol except for them. And the only reason they changed it was to make it proprietary.
They're working on DHCP too. They've extended the DHCP protocol so that it includes some extra messages. It implements some wacky scheme where it checks with the Active Directory to make sure that it's authorized to hand out addresses. It's billed as a way to prevent rogue DHCP servers from raising hell on your network. The fact is that it only prevents rogue MS DHCP servers and is thus of little use... for now. NT admins who never bother to learn anything about the actual protocol then come to you and say, "We have to use MS DHCP because yours won't participate in the Authorization scheme."
Don't be surprised to find that later on, some kind of dependency is actually developed that does that. Oh, and by the way, the MS DHCP server will only do secure updates to a MS DNS server.