There was no grand scheme, I just liked talking to them (and they to me, I think). Oh sure, every once in a while I'd send an email--if they weren't in that day and I didn't want to forget the question or whatever. But mainly I just stood up and walked over there to find out what was going on.
The informality allows you to learn a LOT more. Facial expressions and body language are often a more accurate report of the actual status. Plus the person (and the people in the nearby area) will bring up other topics that you also need to know about. Furthermore, the conversations were audible to the other programmers, so THEY got an update as well--making us a more close knit team. (the noise/distraction factor wasn't important in this situation).
As a contrasting example, we programmers were almost entirely isolated from the rest of IS/IT, making our interaction with THEM very weak.
So I propose a small refinement to the model: I imagine their "communications" already include email, telephone and scheduled meetings. Now add a factor that measures physical distance to calculate the probability that the boss and employee talk face to face. If the distance is only a few meters, add a bunch of "face time" to the communication list. If the distance is thousands of feet (or more) add little if any "face time". -- MailOne
"If we think someone is keeping a gun in his desk, we want to be able to check it. If someone is harassing people from our email system, we want to be able to verify it. What I don't want, however, is the creation of a police state..."
Wow, it's like you specifically crafted these three sentences to be one of those "famous last words" things.
You can't BOTH have the power to search anyone's desk/computer at any time AND claim they have any privacy. Especially since your two examples already lead us very far down a very slippery slope. "Might be planning murder" to "might be sending nastygrams" leads very easily to "might be looking for another job" and "might be about to blow the whistle".
Here's a privacy policy: We keep the hell out of your stuff. If you break the law, on your own head be it, we assume no responsibility.
Alternatively, you could have an extremely draconian policy--for people who choose to work in the building. Then have an anything-goes policy if you work from home.
BTW, to people who side with the suits and say "but this stuff belongs to company"--shut up, already. The food in the cafeteria belongs to them too, but I'm allowed to bring the waste products home. More to the point, if I am a net drain on the company's resources, the solution is to fire me and hire someone who is a net producer. It's a lot simpler AND fairer. -- MailOne
I have no real opinion about whether $5 billion is too high or not.
However if we are going to discuss it, we have to at least get the facts straight. First of all, the 7 people are trying to make this a class action suit--which spreads the money out some.
Second, at most importantly, the plaintiffs aren't saying that they personally lost $5 billion due to racism at Microsoft. They want that as *punitive* (means "punishing") damages. If all MS was required to do was give each black person $100k (for lost salary, etc) they wouldn't even notice. The idea is to inflict some pain on the corporation to force them to change.
-- MailOne
I never said there were no good sides to sharing. OBVIOUSLY sharing is good. What I actually said was that "forced sharing...is the antithesis of freedom".
Note the adjective "forced" a property which, in itself, provides none of the benefits you list. Also note that the forced aspect is antithetical to FREEDOM. It may very well be GOOD, but it's not FREE. -- MailOne
"The construction of the Constitution as protecting the citizenry from the governments (state and federal) and from each other came later, after the country began to be run by people who weren't all rich white aristocrats."
Nonsense. The founding fathers had just thrown off the yoke of an oppressive government by means of their own personal guns. And they didn't do it organized into or by state militias like the National Guard, either. The phrase "well-regulated militia" does indicate they were thinking less of individual people holding off evil government forces, but nonetheless they WERE providing for pure civilian entities to "keep and bear arms". -- MailOne
I have to disagree, I stuffed many an envelope when I was a poor student back in '94-'95. Of course, that wasn't my only job duty and I wasn't Working From Home. Nonetheless....
I even asked the boss once, why I (I was working alone) was stuffing envelopes by hand when there are machines that do the same thing. He said something about how people were more likely to open an envelope that had been stamped by a human (actual physical stamp, applied less than perfectly aligned). -- MailOne
"...the argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that."
1) As you point out, I still need something to protect me from the police.
2) The existence of the police was not provided for in the Constitution, therefore guns WERE intended to protect you from other citizens.
3) You've missed a case: protection from other citizens or foreigners if the police don't do their job. Consider gun-owning blacks in the South, especially pre-1960. -- MailOne
"...the things I like about America are its Constitution which safeguards certains rights."
"...I am a wee bit uncomfortable at the lack of a National Health Service that is government funded and the Gun laws make me nervous too, but that is only to be expected."
I don't want to be shot anymore than anyone else does. And if I was shot, naturally I'd love to get free health care. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the two cons you cite are directly related to the main pro.
Sure it'd be great if we all shared--but forced sharing (welfare, national health care, etc) is the antithesis of freedom. Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for guns: in the final analysis, each person has only as much freedom as he or she can personally enforce. Guns (or any other weapon) are an effective means of doing so, which is EXACTLY why ownership thereof is specifically allowed in the Second Amendment. Make all the noises you want about safety, children, Columbine, Wakefield, or whatever--these are no more than the analogue of protected Nazi marches or anti-abortion websites. You've got to take the bad with the good. -- MailOne
Let's keep in mind that Civil Rights (in capitals), while provided for in the Constitution, were never really enforced all that much until the mid- to late-60's. Also keep in mind that politicians are almost always older than 40 and frequently older than 60--making them pre-Civil Rights-era. Just think of the McCarthy era in the 1950's and THEN ask yourself whether freedoms are greater or lesser nowadays.
Also remember that politicians aren't the last word. Joe Lawmaker can pass any law he can get enough votes for....but they are still subject to judgement by the Judicial Branch. There's been a lot of talk about how the Judicial Branch in general and the Supreme Court in particular has been compromised by the election controversy, but on the whole I think the system (the *Judicial* system) works well.
That's not to say I counsel complacence. Don't just sit around saying "it's pretty good, I think I'll stay". The Judicial Branch is passive by design. It can only rule on cases that are brought to it. So go out, find an unjust law and challenge it! Think of it as removing bugs from the legal system. -- MailOne
The special hardware comes standard on some humans. Others can have it installed, but only at considerable expense (and the old hardware has to be deinstalled permanently). Most fellatious believers will tell you, however, that the conversion is probably WELL worth it. -- MailOne
They couldn't rescind "the offer"--there was no offer outstanding. You accepted and filled out the paperwork. The company even acknowledged this fact by giving you a start date. You were their employee already. So, the "offer period" was over.
However, read over any copies you got and see what you agreed to. Can they "fire at will"? If so then you will still have no job. OTOH, maybe they have to give 6 weeks notice for which you theoretically could be paid. It all depends on the contract you signed. However since there WAS a signed and acknowledged contract, they could NOT rescind the offer. -- MailOne
"...I really have problems understanding why companies like VA and Redhat are valued as they are."
"...an entire business model based on people's laziness to download the OS and on selling them tech. support contracts?"
First of all, there are no "companies like VA and RedHat". VA is a hardware company, RedHat is software. Two totally different ball games. VA makes money just like Dell/Compaq/Gateway--selling hardware at a slight markup. They have an advantage, though, in that the software they install has no cost.
RedHat's business model is totally different than VA's...AND totally different from what you describe. RedHat isn't trying to make money from users. Haven't you noticed all the "partnerships" and "tools" RedHat has announced in the last year? THAT'S where the money is. RedHat is giving away the blades AND the low-quality/cost razors and then hoping that Big Names will pay Top Dollar for high-quality/cost razors (or razor consultants, or razor-management tools, or razor-branding, etc). -- MailOne
I have watched Star Wars itself more times than I can count and the other two I have seen several times as well. This includes at least one time of sitting down and watching all three in a row AND seeing them as they were re-released in the theater. And I reiterate: The only memorable, longer-than-a-single-scene chunks are in Star Wars. -- MailOne
If only there were some kind of symbolic object the corporation could give the developer to indicate their appreciation. But not some dead trophy-style object--something dynamic and useful. Something where they could keep the value even if they lost the physical medium (via the use of trades, say). In fact, we could expand this usage from corp to developer until everyone could trade these objects to each other in exchange for goods and services. But what'll we call it? -- MailOne
The first part of "Star Wars" was OK, given the date it was created and the fact that little or no REAL scifi had been made into movies at that time. However, everything AFTER, say, the point where Luke discovers his aunt and uncle dead is a blur for me. I remember many many scenes, but I have no idea which movie they go to. This points to a lack of plot cohesion indicative of a bad movie.
So, everything up to that point PLUS a few memorable scenes in the rest of Star Wars, plus a couple of bits of the other two "originals" together make 1/2 of a good movie. -- MailOne
1) You learn more, much of it useful (no, really). If you want to end up programming, you NEED the stuff (both facts and the way of thinking) a CS degree teaches.
2) You'll prove that you can handle what a CS degree requires--to employers and to yourself.
3) A CIS degree's validity will fade rapidly. A CS degree is like a physics degree--you are learning fundamentals of nature, those things don't change.
That's not to say that you should force yourself through a CS program. If you can't handle it or don't care--don't do it! But if what you want is to Make Money Fast On That Internet Thing, you are wasting your time and money taking a CIS degree at a 4 year, liberal arts college. Just go down to DeVry and take VB and a few accounting classes and you'll be all set. -- MailOne
Here's what you say: "If I'm promoted to IT manager, I'll quit. Now you've lost me either way. If that was your intention, then this discussion is over--I have to go look for a new job, which I will likely find within 30 days. If losing me was NOT your intention, let's begin a reasonable discussion of our differences."
If a reasonable discussion does not begin immediately, start sending out your resume. When you get back a stack of interview requests, go back to Management and show them the physical evidence of the interest in your talents. Go to the interviews. When you get an offer, show it to Management. If they still do nothing, they really want you gone. More likely, though, at some point before you get an offer elsewhere they will get nervous about losing you entirely and start to be reasonable. -- MailOne
In 8th/9th/10th grade I was unpopular (hung out with the losers, didn't go to dances, etc). 11th and 12th grades I was merely neutral (went to some dances, knew a lot of people, but I wasn't a jock or anything). I bring this up not out of relevance, but to show that "I've been there."
My question is: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? What I mean by that is: Many geek teenagers exhibit anti-social characteristics, including: poor hygiene, little or no conversation skills and attitudes (for instance know-it-all-ism) that are off-putting. Do adolescents get into computers because they don't get along and don't understand why, so turn to computers (books, D&D, whatever) as something they can understand/master? Or do adolescents who get into computers/whatever use up so much brain capacity with intellectually challenging tasks they can't learn how to interact with others? Or some third thing?
(Please don't get the impression I'm saying you are a smelly, greasy, know-it-all loser--obviously I've never met you. But the lead-in mentioned being a "pudgy loner" and Katz, so I can assume you aren't dating a cheerleader.) -- MailOne
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought from day one that this "last frontier on Earth" stuff was a bunch of WHOI.
--
MailOne
....for my underlings, anyway.
There was no grand scheme, I just liked talking to them (and they to me, I think). Oh sure, every once in a while I'd send an email--if they weren't in that day and I didn't want to forget the question or whatever. But mainly I just stood up and walked over there to find out what was going on.
The informality allows you to learn a LOT more. Facial expressions and body language are often a more accurate report of the actual status. Plus the person (and the people in the nearby area) will bring up other topics that you also need to know about. Furthermore, the conversations were audible to the other programmers, so THEY got an update as well--making us a more close knit team. (the noise/distraction factor wasn't important in this situation).
As a contrasting example, we programmers were almost entirely isolated from the rest of IS/IT, making our interaction with THEM very weak.
So I propose a small refinement to the model: I imagine their "communications" already include email, telephone and scheduled meetings. Now add a factor that measures physical distance to calculate the probability that the boss and employee talk face to face. If the distance is only a few meters, add a bunch of "face time" to the communication list. If the distance is thousands of feet (or more) add little if any "face time".
--
MailOne
Can I set the chair to "vibrate" when I get an incoming call?
--
MailOne
"If we think someone is keeping a gun in his desk, we want to be able to check it. If someone is harassing people from our email system, we want to be able to verify it. What I don't want, however, is the creation of a police state..."
Wow, it's like you specifically crafted these three sentences to be one of those "famous last words" things.
You can't BOTH have the power to search anyone's desk/computer at any time AND claim they have any privacy. Especially since your two examples already lead us very far down a very slippery slope. "Might be planning murder" to "might be sending nastygrams" leads very easily to "might be looking for another job" and "might be about to blow the whistle".
Here's a privacy policy: We keep the hell out of your stuff. If you break the law, on your own head be it, we assume no responsibility.
Alternatively, you could have an extremely draconian policy--for people who choose to work in the building. Then have an anything-goes policy if you work from home.
BTW, to people who side with the suits and say "but this stuff belongs to company"--shut up, already. The food in the cafeteria belongs to them too, but I'm allowed to bring the waste products home. More to the point, if I am a net drain on the company's resources, the solution is to fire me and hire someone who is a net producer. It's a lot simpler AND fairer.
--
MailOne
I have no real opinion about whether $5 billion is too high or not.
However if we are going to discuss it, we have to at least get the facts straight. First of all, the 7 people are trying to make this a class action suit--which spreads the money out some.
Second, at most importantly, the plaintiffs aren't saying that they personally lost $5 billion due to racism at Microsoft. They want that as *punitive* (means "punishing") damages. If all MS was required to do was give each black person $100k (for lost salary, etc) they wouldn't even notice. The idea is to inflict some pain on the corporation to force them to change.
--
MailOne
"...and 2% milk. So a low-fat frappucino is redundant - they are ONLY lowfat."
Not with 2% milk they're not. "Lowfat" would be at most 1% milk and more likely skim.
--
MailOne
"Ever embed video in a Word 2000 file while drinking a venti half-caf low fat frappucino? You will."
I don't run Windows.
I don't use Word.
I don't drink coffee.
I especially don't drink "frappucino".
And even if I did, it wouldn't be at Starbucks.
So no, I won't be doing this.
--
MailOne
I never said there were no good sides to sharing. OBVIOUSLY sharing is good. What I actually said was that "forced sharing...is the antithesis of freedom".
Note the adjective "forced" a property which, in itself, provides none of the benefits you list. Also note that the forced aspect is antithetical to FREEDOM. It may very well be GOOD, but it's not FREE.
--
MailOne
"The construction of the Constitution as protecting the citizenry from the governments (state and federal) and from each other came later, after the country began to be run by people who weren't all rich white aristocrats."
Nonsense. The founding fathers had just thrown off the yoke of an oppressive government by means of their own personal guns. And they didn't do it organized into or by state militias like the National Guard, either. The phrase "well-regulated militia" does indicate they were thinking less of individual people holding off evil government forces, but nonetheless they WERE providing for pure civilian entities to "keep and bear arms".
--
MailOne
I have to disagree, I stuffed many an envelope when I was a poor student back in '94-'95. Of course, that wasn't my only job duty and I wasn't Working From Home. Nonetheless....
I even asked the boss once, why I (I was working alone) was stuffing envelopes by hand when there are machines that do the same thing. He said something about how people were more likely to open an envelope that had been stamped by a human (actual physical stamp, applied less than perfectly aligned).
--
MailOne
"...the argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that."
1) As you point out, I still need something to protect me from the police.
2) The existence of the police was not provided for in the Constitution, therefore guns WERE intended to protect you from other citizens.
3) You've missed a case: protection from other citizens or foreigners if the police don't do their job. Consider gun-owning blacks in the South, especially pre-1960.
--
MailOne
"...the things I like about America are its Constitution which safeguards certains rights."
"...I am a wee bit uncomfortable at the lack of a National Health Service that is government funded and the Gun laws make me nervous too, but that is only to be expected."
I don't want to be shot anymore than anyone else does. And if I was shot, naturally I'd love to get free health care. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the two cons you cite are directly related to the main pro.
Sure it'd be great if we all shared--but forced sharing (welfare, national health care, etc) is the antithesis of freedom. Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for guns: in the final analysis, each person has only as much freedom as he or she can personally enforce. Guns (or any other weapon) are an effective means of doing so, which is EXACTLY why ownership thereof is specifically allowed in the Second Amendment. Make all the noises you want about safety, children, Columbine, Wakefield, or whatever--these are no more than the analogue of protected Nazi marches or anti-abortion websites. You've got to take the bad with the good.
--
MailOne
Let's keep in mind that Civil Rights (in capitals), while provided for in the Constitution, were never really enforced all that much until the mid- to late-60's. Also keep in mind that politicians are almost always older than 40 and frequently older than 60--making them pre-Civil Rights-era. Just think of the McCarthy era in the 1950's and THEN ask yourself whether freedoms are greater or lesser nowadays.
Also remember that politicians aren't the last word. Joe Lawmaker can pass any law he can get enough votes for....but they are still subject to judgement by the Judicial Branch. There's been a lot of talk about how the Judicial Branch in general and the Supreme Court in particular has been compromised by the election controversy, but on the whole I think the system (the *Judicial* system) works well.
That's not to say I counsel complacence. Don't just sit around saying "it's pretty good, I think I'll stay". The Judicial Branch is passive by design. It can only rule on cases that are brought to it. So go out, find an unjust law and challenge it! Think of it as removing bugs from the legal system.
--
MailOne
Do you need special hardware for that belief?
The special hardware comes standard on some humans. Others can have it installed, but only at considerable expense (and the old hardware has to be deinstalled permanently). Most fellatious believers will tell you, however, that the conversion is probably WELL worth it.
--
MailOne
They couldn't rescind "the offer"--there was no offer outstanding. You accepted and filled out the paperwork. The company even acknowledged this fact by giving you a start date. You were their employee already. So, the "offer period" was over.
However, read over any copies you got and see what you agreed to. Can they "fire at will"? If so then you will still have no job. OTOH, maybe they have to give 6 weeks notice for which you theoretically could be paid. It all depends on the contract you signed. However since there WAS a signed and acknowledged contract, they could NOT rescind the offer.
--
MailOne
"...I really have problems understanding why companies like VA and Redhat are valued as they are."
"...an entire business model based on people's laziness to download the OS and on selling them tech. support contracts?"
First of all, there are no "companies like VA and RedHat". VA is a hardware company, RedHat is software. Two totally different ball games. VA makes money just like Dell/Compaq/Gateway--selling hardware at a slight markup. They have an advantage, though, in that the software they install has no cost.
RedHat's business model is totally different than VA's...AND totally different from what you describe. RedHat isn't trying to make money from users. Haven't you noticed all the "partnerships" and "tools" RedHat has announced in the last year? THAT'S where the money is. RedHat is giving away the blades AND the low-quality/cost razors and then hoping that Big Names will pay Top Dollar for high-quality/cost razors (or razor consultants, or razor-management tools, or razor-branding, etc).
--
MailOne
I have watched Star Wars itself more times than I can count and the other two I have seen several times as well. This includes at least one time of sitting down and watching all three in a row AND seeing them as they were re-released in the theater. And I reiterate: The only memorable, longer-than-a-single-scene chunks are in Star Wars.
--
MailOne
If only there were some kind of symbolic object the corporation could give the developer to indicate their appreciation. But not some dead trophy-style object--something dynamic and useful. Something where they could keep the value even if they lost the physical medium (via the use of trades, say). In fact, we could expand this usage from corp to developer until everyone could trade these objects to each other in exchange for goods and services. But what'll we call it?
--
MailOne
The first part of "Star Wars" was OK, given the date it was created and the fact that little or no REAL scifi had been made into movies at that time. However, everything AFTER, say, the point where Luke discovers his aunt and uncle dead is a blur for me. I remember many many scenes, but I have no idea which movie they go to. This points to a lack of plot cohesion indicative of a bad movie.
So, everything up to that point PLUS a few memorable scenes in the rest of Star Wars, plus a couple of bits of the other two "originals" together make 1/2 of a good movie.
--
MailOne
Why would it be a problem if Episode II sucked? That would just put the total count of sucky Star Wars movies at 4.5.
--
MailOne
"RPM Package Manager"? Is that anything like "scuba apparatus"?
--
MailOne
Just buy the original book by Edwin Abbott (or A. Square)
--
MailOne
...drop out of college and go to tech-school.
There are many reasons to prefer CS to CIS.
1) You learn more, much of it useful (no, really). If you want to end up programming, you NEED the stuff (both facts and the way of thinking) a CS degree teaches.
2) You'll prove that you can handle what a CS degree requires--to employers and to yourself.
3) A CIS degree's validity will fade rapidly. A CS degree is like a physics degree--you are learning fundamentals of nature, those things don't change.
That's not to say that you should force yourself through a CS program. If you can't handle it or don't care--don't do it! But if what you want is to Make Money Fast On That Internet Thing, you are wasting your time and money taking a CIS degree at a 4 year, liberal arts college. Just go down to DeVry and take VB and a few accounting classes and you'll be all set.
--
MailOne
Here's what you say: "If I'm promoted to IT manager, I'll quit. Now you've lost me either way. If that was your intention, then this discussion is over--I have to go look for a new job, which I will likely find within 30 days. If losing me was NOT your intention, let's begin a reasonable discussion of our differences."
If a reasonable discussion does not begin immediately, start sending out your resume. When you get back a stack of interview requests, go back to Management and show them the physical evidence of the interest in your talents. Go to the interviews. When you get an offer, show it to Management. If they still do nothing, they really want you gone. More likely, though, at some point before you get an offer elsewhere they will get nervous about losing you entirely and start to be reasonable.
--
MailOne
In 8th/9th/10th grade I was unpopular (hung out with the losers, didn't go to dances, etc). 11th and 12th grades I was merely neutral (went to some dances, knew a lot of people, but I wasn't a jock or anything). I bring this up not out of relevance, but to show that "I've been there."
My question is: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? What I mean by that is: Many geek teenagers exhibit anti-social characteristics, including: poor hygiene, little or no conversation skills and attitudes (for instance know-it-all-ism) that are off-putting. Do adolescents get into computers because they don't get along and don't understand why, so turn to computers (books, D&D, whatever) as something they can understand/master? Or do adolescents who get into computers/whatever use up so much brain capacity with intellectually challenging tasks they can't learn how to interact with others? Or some third thing?
(Please don't get the impression I'm saying you are a smelly, greasy, know-it-all loser--obviously I've never met you. But the lead-in mentioned being a "pudgy loner" and Katz, so I can assume you aren't dating a cheerleader.)
--
MailOne