The fundamental premise on which Wikipedia operates is simply that there is no such thing as 'expertise' or cultural importance differentials in the world, and what really matters is viewpoints.
Previous posters are correct - there is no PhD in (to quote) Happy Days-ology. To some people, a thorough examination on the pantheon of Pokemon is just as valuable as, if not more than, the accuracy of any reports of anyone's death, be it Sinbad's or Ken Lay's. For anyone to say differently invokes flamewar. Validity of a topic is apparently a highly subjective characteristic, and that's fine.
But if that means no favoritism, if that means that each and every topic in Wikipedia is of equal 'importance', it means that Wiki users must be willing to accept that because there aren't experts in every field, maybe it means that they can't expect experts for every topic. Since there can't be experts for every topic, it's displaying an unfair bias to have experts on any topic. Therefore, everyone and anyone can post anything they like on any topic, regardless of experience, education, or current medication. And it opens up Wikipedia, and its users and editors, to what has been described
Professors on campuses across the US are beginning to ban references to Wiki entries in any papers, simply because of the inherent instability (not necessarily inaccuracies) of the site.
I concede the wide number of reports regarding Wikipedia's relative accuracy vs. standard sources (encyclopedias, so on) but I have two counters. One, the accuracy of any given Wiki article is subject to a significantly greater fluctuation than any printed book; just because it was right yesterday doesn't mean it is today. Two, the "errors per unit" also included entries on topics not included in standard reference sources (the TV shows, cartoons, and so on) and therefore, statistically speaking, the more academic sources' errors have a greater impact on the error rate.
Ultimately, the accuracy of Wikipedia, or any other potential reference, is only as accurate and trustworthy as its contributors. Only if the contributors are known and credentialed can a source proclaim itself as trustworth, but such a process would violate the "democracy of truthiness" proposed and promoted by a Wiki culture.
If I want to know about physics, I go ask a physicist. If I want to know about music, I go ask a musician. Yes, it means checking with different sources (there's no such thing as true one-stop shopping!) but it also means that if what I'm doing matters I can feel much better about the conclusions I draw from the information.
"What if you received a magazine that only had stories and ads that you were interested in and pertained to you?" he asked. "That would be a magazine that everyone would want to read."
But what kind of magazine would it be? People read Car and Driver, Discover, Time, whatever because, on the whole, most or all of the articles already appeal to the reader. If I only got one magazine, and that one magazine had everything I might want to read in it, it'd transcend the definition of "magazine" and go straight on to "encyclopedia". After all, I'm a guy with a lot of interests - porn^H^H^H^H art, computers, little sports, little world news, little business, etc. etc. etc.
There'd also have to be a fantastic way to keep track of my changing reading habits. I'm not reading the same thing I was a year - or even 6 months! - ago.
There'd also be no more "Did you see the article in BLAH?" If they fine-tune this thing too much, get my profile so unique, it's possible that none of my friends will read the same articles as me, and have no opportunity to do so, since their ultra-huge-personalized-magazine won't include it, and they can't get just that article or 3.99 magazine on the rack anymore.
<humor>
Besides, doctor's offices would be filled with magazines that nobody would want to read
first of all, if they're really interested in identifying and solving problems, they will need to recognize that you guys are the ones that work around said problems all the time, and having them *not be there* is the best way to be working
second, never EVER bring up a problem for which you can't provide any solution whatsoever - then you're just griping...the first thing they're going to ask when you bring something up is "well, what do you think can be done about it, and how reasonably" - if you shrink into your seat and mumble "idunno" into your water, they'll be dismissive for the rest of the evening
third, walk into the meeting and treat them like you want to be treated. if you yell at them for their shortcomings (perceived or no), they may very well just kick you out of dinner/the company then. if you're calm, collected, and professional, a lot more should come out of it long-term (for the company and your work environment) and they'll think a lot more of you personally
Re:Yes, and because you're not other people
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 1
And, as is clear by our postings, I have no problem saying that I did or said something
I'm less than shocked that an AC poster isn't in favor of accountability...
Re:Yes, and because you're not other people
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 1
Let me clarify my position
I have both Linux and Windows XP at home, simply because I work from home on my own computer. I fiddle with both on an equal-time basis, both programming and whatever else comes to mind to do.
I use Microsoft's stuff because I work from home sometimes, but other than that, my WinXP machine is a game box and web surfboard and a break-fix machine.
It's a reality that some people (write books/make movies/write software/make music) for a living, and the expectation that you can have this stuff for flat-out free is being unrealistic, just as most/all of us have jobs and nobody goes to work for free.
Unfortunately, I don't have just loads of free time to play games, watch movies, or read books. Having an actual job (as opposed to the idealistic realm of college!) means that instead of 140 days of vacation with a 9-3 workday, I have 10, with an 8-6+ workday. Therefore, I'm a little pickier about what I *do* watch/read/play. If it's really worth the time, I don't mind supporting the creative source with my money.
I used to be the guy in the dorm who had gigs of songs. Then I looked at what I was doing with all that disk space and laughed - I wasn't listening to all of those songs, I was just downloading "in case" or some other bullshit reason. But I kept coming back to the much smaller group of songs I liked....and finally deleted the songs I didn't ever listen to.
I know that some of you will read this and think I'm some RIAA/MPAA patsy. That's fine, think what you want - I'm my own person, accountable only to me, wife, and puppy.
I only buy DVDs of movies that I think are excellent and worth watching many times over, and rent and/or skip the others.
I buy CDs sparingly, and only because so much of what studios put out these days is crap.
I read a few reviews (not fanboy slavering rants either) before buying games, and am consistently pleased with the results.
Suppose, for a day, that piracy rates dropped to nothing, that people actually paid for every CD, every DVD, every book, and every piece of software. Then, presumably, record labels would say "There's no piracy, there must be some other reason why these albums aren't moving.....maybe it's because they suck!" It's called voting with dollars, and it really does work.
Bottom line
The theory of DRM is to protect copyright holders' rights. The theory of TC is to help stop the swell of viruses and worms and spam and the like.
I'm for both.
As to the first, I think people SHOULD get paid market rates for their work, no matter what market they're in. If not, then we have to re-invent the world economy.
As to the second, I'm a DBA and I hate that so much of my time is spent guarding my machines from script kiddies with nothing better to do.
The fact that we're being asked to trust Microsoft and Bill "Our next release of Windows will be secure! We promise!" Gates to implement DRM and TC is simultaneously laughable and frightening. As I said in the parent post, it's the proposed implementation/implementers that keeps me up at night.
However, to say that the concept, in and of itself, is *completely* lacking in merit is false, knee-jerk reactionary, and the stance of people who will always want everything for nothing.
what's the big hangup here anyway? well...lots....
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To be perfectly honest, I'm not worried about Trusted Computing, "The Theory"
I buy most/all of my software (okay...maybe not M$ Office, but I buy all my games), I don't write viruses, and it should make spam a trivial non-issue.
Blah, blah, blah
However, I am in TOTAL agreement with everyone here that TC is a bad idea in "The Implementation", especially in the (over?) paranoid forecasts in its use.
My computer won't run unsigned software - no more viruses
My computer won't run unsigned software - any publisher can create subscriptions (overpriced ones, at that) and revoke the license 10 times a year
My computer won't open unsigned documents - the macros in the spreadsheet won't crash my computer
My computer won't open unsigned documents - this person has written op-ed columns against BigBadCorporation Inc, and they've revoked that person's software certificate so they can't send anything else
We could all go on and on - however, he says in the top of the article that he's not for it! What he says is basically a "Watch out for these kinds of words and messages from your legistators! These are the words with which they will woo you into consent!"
There is no problem that has a magic bullet. Every decision has good and bad, and I'm firmly convinced that the bad with DRM and TC has little to do with the proposed concept, but with a very foreseeable result and that it grossly outweighs the good.
Information used to be passed word-of-mouth, and evolved to cave paintings, the written text, the printing press, etc. etc. etc. and now the Internet as we know it. There is money to be made in keeping the spread of information in a one-to-many structure - scads and scads of cash - and with that as the primary (if not single!) motivation for those implementing DRM, as well as the politicians they influence, we the consumers will fall into the backdrop as a minor inconvenience.
First of all, I've seen (like many of you) the pretty pictures of Microsoft sales reps showing off the flashy new GUI features of Windows-to-be. Marvel at how they move like fall leaves, twisting and turning in the wind! If the OS is used for work, nobody's going to want to look at a spreadsheet that looks like a bedsheet on a clothesline in spring! All of the effort that went into creating a pretty (but useless) feature or two could've been spent securing the system. So what if they've got a whole division working on DRM - part of the reason why knowledgable consumers don't trust Microsoft with their computers or data is simply because Microsoft hasn't proven to the consumers that they can keep it safe....civil rights 'n' whatever aside - I buy all my games....
Second of all, Ballmer wishes that the researchers would be quiet - but at least he clarifies that he would like for them to keep quiet until a fix can be developed, tested, and released....but how is the public to know about the fix, or the reason for it, without the researchers telling us about it? Also, how often has Microsoft hoped something would just go away, if it were hushed up? If researchers aren't allowed to publish their findings, who's to say a given bug/virus/worm/malady will EVER be addressed?
anyone here think to put together 2 basic assumptions?
1) hackers are people with serious technical skills and (stereo)typically not big on personal skills - those individuals most likely to have their job outsourced/off-shored
2) the frickin' VISA department got blasted, the people that hand out H-1B and L-1B visas to the people coming here to get training and take their jobs
(rest of post assumes this is not a coincidence)
Being vindictive isn't going to solve anything, it's just sticking a finger in the dike. Unless these issues are resolved at a legislative level, people will patch their systems, move to Linux, whatever, and then the old policies will continue to be carried out.
Getting paid for playing is one of the realities I'm having a hard time reconciling these days. I work a full-time job, study to improve myself and earn technical certifications, and am contemplating getting an MBA to try to get my job level above the "available for off-shoring". These guys are complaining that risking the loss of their job to play RTCW isn't balanced by the amount of money they're making.
Do what we're all doing, quit yer bitchin', and get (or keep) a real job. There are lots of gamers who complain that succeeding at their games doesn't have as great a return as athletes playing basketball or baseball or football. Well....of course not - nobody's buying tickets to see you do your best one-shot-one-kill from across a map....try North Korea if that's what you want...
It's entirely possible that a charismatic individual - intelligent, charming, photogenic - is going to turn that around and make the PGL a viable cash cow. If so, I take my hat off to you, sir/ma'am.
Your claim that your choice of leisure is entertaining is self-validating - of course you think it is! It's when you can convince a sufficiently large enough audience that it's entertaining to watch you play computer games - that's when you can start whining about money.
"The prize money is $3,300 dollars a person if you win," said Tahir Zafar, England's representative. "If you work for eight months and you divide up your hours, the amount of money that you make is minimal."
Sounds like you need a JOB!...i'm gonna get Troll-ed for this, but frankly I'm tired of people expecting huge returns without having made any kind of societal contribution
Let's assume for a moment that everyone's fine with Microsoft deciding you need to patch your system. Your home machine downloads the patch and installs it and your machine reboots - you're patched.
Those of us that work as sysadmins/netadmins/DBAs at various companies know that when Microsoft puts a patch out on Windows Update, it's not necessarily tested out to completion. That's part of why patches take so long to proliferate - dependable administrators test them in-house, instead of depending on MS's testers. Let's face it...if Microsofts Quality Assurance team were so sharp (or listened to - it can't ALL be their fault), many of the after-the-fact patches wouldn't be necessary.
Is Microsoft going to take responsibility for auto-installed patches that a) don't work b) make situations worse? Or are they going to take the stance of "The user could've refused our auto-install, but they didn't - they knew the risks."
We all know how hard it can be to opt-out of spam - how difficult will Microsoft make it to opt-out of auto-installed patches...and for those of us that can't/don't, how sure are we that it won't make things worse?
I'd have to wholeheartedly agree - if I had moderator points I'd give you one in a heartbeat.
Most of my pizza money in college came from grandmothers who needed help emailing grandkids or signing up for old-folks cruises on the internet. They didn't need to be told about the flashy new computer they should be running and how I could build them one for 'just a little'
In return, I got a $20, sometimes cookies, and repeat calls all the time from them and their friends, who wanted the same things.
And don't think it's just about the money from those visits either...the ability to deal honestly and easily with customers is what a lot of those outsourced/offshored jobs don't have to have, since their on the other side of the clock from the customers. My current employer has me on the phone 3,4,5 times a week with our customers, simply to provide a direct connection between the customers and the ones building their applications.
Don't discount those people skills - face-to-face skills are one of the things that will help keep your job here and help keep you employable...
I'm betting on "We HAVE to get this game on the shelves, otherwise we lose money because of X"
X = in time to be released same weekend as movie X = it's already been delayed and it's killing us
Don't the publishers realize that releasing sub-par games on schedule is MUCH worse than releasing excellent games behind?
Look at Blizzard - standard-bearer for "when it's done, it'll be fabulous" - Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 are prime examples
Gamers are lenient on deadlines when the game exceeds expectations, but I'm betting that Matrix Revolutions (if they make a game) won't have quite the same reception....
Why DON'T spammers remove us from their lists when we ask? They're working REALLY REALLY hard (with all the filtering, header forging, etc.) to send mail to people that don't want it. If they would just target their email to those who had indicated that they wanted it, and removed us that had indicated they didn't, they'd save themselves a lot of grief, as measured in legal and technical hassle.
Granted, it's easier for them to ignore the "remove me"s, but is the trouble saved in 'not removing' >= the trouble spent in 'getting past spam filters'?
Besides, if the mails were targeted to those that THOUGHT their penis was small and needed extension....doesn't that mean it's not spam anymore? And wouldn't that make their click-through (or whatever) rate higher, therefore making their own attractiveness as a bulk emailer greater to their customers?
does anyone remember the fact that only months after this suit was filed, more(CNN December 1997) than (CNN September 1997) one postal worker opened fire on his co-workers?
My advice would be to go with a company called TechSkills. They've got lots of offices across the US, and - as you seem to prefer - focus more on administration than software dev. I'm working on my Oracle DBA with them (one more test to go!), and they offer all sorts of cert training. The training itself is a combination of CBT, books at home, mentor-led classes (class sizes are limited to 5-7 people max) and all the hands-on you could want.
I'm not a paid employee, just a satisfied customer.
It may well be true that our lifespan is being shortened, but it's up to us to maintain ourselves and our marketability.
Why do football players and other athletes 'time out' after 6, 7, 10 years? It's because that for which they are paid - their bodies - aren't performing as well as they once did. Fact of life. Believe it or not, the same applies to us, just as it does for everyone else.
Programming environments change. Languages change. The 'hot topic' of the day changes. 10 years ago, ASP, JavaScript, VBScript, XML didn't even exist. Now, those things can drive a global company's online presence - and I'm still talking about web technologies here.
Universities teach their students the basics and the theories, and all that degree gives you is a running start, to learn the specifics of whatever that first job is. But what we ALL need to do is keep running. Too many people get a job get comfortable, and don't bother to keep running, keep learning, keep current. When the next big thing comes along, in order to justify paying us over that fresh graduate, we need to be MORE ready to start work. It's our responsibility to pursue education, certification, and training.
Your company might not pay your $6k training bill, when later they can pay a $40k salary instead of your $50k, $60k, $70k, whatever.
Don't kid yourself - we get hired and fired based on cost-benefit analyses, just like everyone else. Don't blame the companies - they're here to make money, and they're not hiding that from anyone. Even if they have some other agenda - making a difference, improving the environment - that company goal can't and won't be accomplished without meeting the bottom line.
Our job - our responsibility to wives, husbands, kids, pets - is to seek out those things that make us better than new college graduates, to seek out those things that make us better than exporting work to those lower cost-of-living countries.
Don't sit in the dark and curse the light. The lifeline of technology is moving, and the decision is on us to move with it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
The fundamental premise on which Wikipedia operates is simply that there is no such thing as 'expertise' or cultural importance differentials in the world, and what really matters is viewpoints.
Previous posters are correct - there is no PhD in (to quote) Happy Days-ology. To some people, a thorough examination on the pantheon of Pokemon is just as valuable as, if not more than, the accuracy of any reports of anyone's death, be it Sinbad's or Ken Lay's. For anyone to say differently invokes flamewar. Validity of a topic is apparently a highly subjective characteristic, and that's fine.
But if that means no favoritism, if that means that each and every topic in Wikipedia is of equal 'importance', it means that Wiki users must be willing to accept that because there aren't experts in every field, maybe it means that they can't expect experts for every topic. Since there can't be experts for every topic, it's displaying an unfair bias to have experts on any topic. Therefore, everyone and anyone can post anything they like on any topic, regardless of experience, education, or current medication. And it opens up Wikipedia, and its users and editors, to what has been described
Professors on campuses across the US are beginning to ban references to Wiki entries in any papers, simply because of the inherent instability (not necessarily inaccuracies) of the site.
I concede the wide number of reports regarding Wikipedia's relative accuracy vs. standard sources (encyclopedias, so on) but I have two counters. One, the accuracy of any given Wiki article is subject to a significantly greater fluctuation than any printed book; just because it was right yesterday doesn't mean it is today. Two, the "errors per unit" also included entries on topics not included in standard reference sources (the TV shows, cartoons, and so on) and therefore, statistically speaking, the more academic sources' errors have a greater impact on the error rate.
Ultimately, the accuracy of Wikipedia, or any other potential reference, is only as accurate and trustworthy as its contributors. Only if the contributors are known and credentialed can a source proclaim itself as trustworth, but such a process would violate the "democracy of truthiness" proposed and promoted by a Wiki culture.
If I want to know about physics, I go ask a physicist. If I want to know about music, I go ask a musician. Yes, it means checking with different sources (there's no such thing as true one-stop shopping!) but it also means that if what I'm doing matters I can feel much better about the conclusions I draw from the information.
to paraphrase the upcoming movie "Bobby Jones..."
If I start taking money for it, I'm not playing for the love of the game anymore
ignorant != dumb
Intelligence is the capacity (or lack thereof) to understand provided information
If someone is ignorant, they merely haven't been provided the information, and therefore have yet to prove their intelligence
For example, I am ignorant of the workings of the neuromuscular system, but my certifications, degrees, and sense of humor belie my intelligence...
Do not mistake ignorance for lack of intelligence.
But what kind of magazine would it be? People read Car and Driver, Discover, Time, whatever because, on the whole, most or all of the articles already appeal to the reader. If I only got one magazine, and that one magazine had everything I might want to read in it, it'd transcend the definition of "magazine" and go straight on to "encyclopedia". After all, I'm a guy with a lot of interests - porn^H^H^H^H art, computers, little sports, little world news, little business, etc. etc. etc.
There'd also have to be a fantastic way to keep track of my changing reading habits. I'm not reading the same thing I was a year - or even 6 months! - ago.
There'd also be no more "Did you see the article in BLAH?" If they fine-tune this thing too much, get my profile so unique, it's possible that none of my friends will read the same articles as me, and have no opportunity to do so, since their ultra-huge-personalized-magazine won't include it, and they can't get just that article or 3.99 magazine on the rack anymore.
Besides, doctor's offices would be filled with magazines that nobody would want to read
first of all, if they're really interested in identifying and solving problems, they will need to recognize that you guys are the ones that work around said problems all the time, and having them *not be there* is the best way to be working
second, never EVER bring up a problem for which you can't provide any solution whatsoever - then you're just griping...the first thing they're going to ask when you bring something up is "well, what do you think can be done about it, and how reasonably" - if you shrink into your seat and mumble "idunno" into your water, they'll be dismissive for the rest of the evening
third, walk into the meeting and treat them like you want to be treated. if you yell at them for their shortcomings (perceived or no), they may very well just kick you out of dinner/the company then. if you're calm, collected, and professional, a lot more should come out of it long-term (for the company and your work environment) and they'll think a lot more of you personally
And, as is clear by our postings, I have no problem saying that I did or said something
I'm less than shocked that an AC poster isn't in favor of accountability...
Let me clarify my position
I have both Linux and Windows XP at home, simply because I work from home on my own computer. I fiddle with both on an equal-time basis, both programming and whatever else comes to mind to do.
I use Microsoft's stuff because I work from home sometimes, but other than that, my WinXP machine is a game box and web surfboard and a break-fix machine.
It's a reality that some people (write books/make movies/write software/make music) for a living, and the expectation that you can have this stuff for flat-out free is being unrealistic, just as most/all of us have jobs and nobody goes to work for free.
Unfortunately, I don't have just loads of free time to play games, watch movies, or read books. Having an actual job (as opposed to the idealistic realm of college!) means that instead of 140 days of vacation with a 9-3 workday, I have 10, with an 8-6+ workday. Therefore, I'm a little pickier about what I *do* watch/read/play. If it's really worth the time, I don't mind supporting the creative source with my money.
I used to be the guy in the dorm who had gigs of songs. Then I looked at what I was doing with all that disk space and laughed - I wasn't listening to all of those songs, I was just downloading "in case" or some other bullshit reason. But I kept coming back to the much smaller group of songs I liked....and finally deleted the songs I didn't ever listen to.
I know that some of you will read this and think I'm some RIAA/MPAA patsy. That's fine, think what you want - I'm my own person, accountable only to me, wife, and puppy.
I only buy DVDs of movies that I think are excellent and worth watching many times over, and rent and/or skip the others.
I buy CDs sparingly, and only because so much of what studios put out these days is crap.
I read a few reviews (not fanboy slavering rants either) before buying games, and am consistently pleased with the results.
Suppose, for a day, that piracy rates dropped to nothing, that people actually paid for every CD, every DVD, every book, and every piece of software. Then, presumably, record labels would say "There's no piracy, there must be some other reason why these albums aren't moving.....maybe it's because they suck!" It's called voting with dollars, and it really does work.
Bottom line
The theory of DRM is to protect copyright holders' rights. The theory of TC is to help stop the swell of viruses and worms and spam and the like.
I'm for both.
As to the first, I think people SHOULD get paid market rates for their work, no matter what market they're in. If not, then we have to re-invent the world economy.
As to the second, I'm a DBA and I hate that so much of my time is spent guarding my machines from script kiddies with nothing better to do.
The fact that we're being asked to trust Microsoft and Bill "Our next release of Windows will be secure! We promise!" Gates to implement DRM and TC is simultaneously laughable and frightening. As I said in the parent post, it's the proposed implementation/implementers that keeps me up at night.
However, to say that the concept, in and of itself, is *completely* lacking in merit is false, knee-jerk reactionary, and the stance of people who will always want everything for nothing.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not worried about Trusted Computing, "The Theory"
I buy most/all of my software (okay...maybe not M$ Office, but I buy all my games), I don't write viruses, and it should make spam a trivial non-issue.
Blah, blah, blah
However, I am in TOTAL agreement with everyone here that TC is a bad idea in "The Implementation", especially in the (over?) paranoid forecasts in its use.
My computer won't run unsigned software - no more viruses
My computer won't run unsigned software - any publisher can create subscriptions (overpriced ones, at that) and revoke the license 10 times a year
My computer won't open unsigned documents - the macros in the spreadsheet won't crash my computer
My computer won't open unsigned documents - this person has written op-ed columns against BigBadCorporation Inc, and they've revoked that person's software certificate so they can't send anything else
We could all go on and on - however, he says in the top of the article that he's not for it! What he says is basically a "Watch out for these kinds of words and messages from your legistators! These are the words with which they will woo you into consent!"
There is no problem that has a magic bullet. Every decision has good and bad, and I'm firmly convinced that the bad with DRM and TC has little to do with the proposed concept, but with a very foreseeable result and that it grossly outweighs the good.
Information used to be passed word-of-mouth, and evolved to cave paintings, the written text, the printing press, etc. etc. etc. and now the Internet as we know it. There is money to be made in keeping the spread of information in a one-to-many structure - scads and scads of cash - and with that as the primary (if not single!) motivation for those implementing DRM, as well as the politicians they influence, we the consumers will fall into the backdrop as a minor inconvenience.
First of all, I've seen (like many of you) the pretty pictures of Microsoft sales reps showing off the flashy new GUI features of Windows-to-be. Marvel at how they move like fall leaves, twisting and turning in the wind! If the OS is used for work, nobody's going to want to look at a spreadsheet that looks like a bedsheet on a clothesline in spring! All of the effort that went into creating a pretty (but useless) feature or two could've been spent securing the system. So what if they've got a whole division working on DRM - part of the reason why knowledgable consumers don't trust Microsoft with their computers or data is simply because Microsoft hasn't proven to the consumers that they can keep it safe....civil rights 'n' whatever aside - I buy all my games....
Second of all, Ballmer wishes that the researchers would be quiet - but at least he clarifies that he would like for them to keep quiet until a fix can be developed, tested, and released....but how is the public to know about the fix, or the reason for it, without the researchers telling us about it? Also, how often has Microsoft hoped something would just go away, if it were hushed up? If researchers aren't allowed to publish their findings, who's to say a given bug/virus/worm/malady will EVER be addressed?
anyone here think to put together 2 basic assumptions?
1) hackers are people with serious technical skills and (stereo)typically not big on personal skills - those individuals most likely to have their job outsourced/off-shored
2) the frickin' VISA department got blasted, the people that hand out H-1B and L-1B visas to the people coming here to get training and take their jobs
(rest of post assumes this is not a coincidence)
Being vindictive isn't going to solve anything, it's just sticking a finger in the dike. Unless these issues are resolved at a legislative level, people will patch their systems, move to Linux, whatever, and then the old policies will continue to be carried out.
Getting paid for playing is one of the realities I'm having a hard time reconciling these days. I work a full-time job, study to improve myself and earn technical certifications, and am contemplating getting an MBA to try to get my job level above the "available for off-shoring". These guys are complaining that risking the loss of their job to play RTCW isn't balanced by the amount of money they're making.
...i'm gonna get Troll-ed for this, but frankly I'm tired of people expecting huge returns without having made any kind of societal contribution
Do what we're all doing, quit yer bitchin', and get (or keep) a real job. There are lots of gamers who complain that succeeding at their games doesn't have as great a return as athletes playing basketball or baseball or football. Well....of course not - nobody's buying tickets to see you do your best one-shot-one-kill from across a map....try North Korea if that's what you want...
It's entirely possible that a charismatic individual - intelligent, charming, photogenic - is going to turn that around and make the PGL a viable cash cow. If so, I take my hat off to you, sir/ma'am.
Your claim that your choice of leisure is entertaining is self-validating - of course you think it is! It's when you can convince a sufficiently large enough audience that it's entertaining to watch you play computer games - that's when you can start whining about money.
"The prize money is $3,300 dollars a person if you win," said Tahir Zafar, England's representative. "If you work for eight months and you divide up your hours, the amount of money that you make is minimal."
Sounds like you need a JOB!
Oracle's getting slammed on this RIGHT NOW in fact...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/952421.asp?0cv=CB10
Let's assume for a moment that everyone's fine with Microsoft deciding you need to patch your system. Your home machine downloads the patch and installs it and your machine reboots - you're patched.
Those of us that work as sysadmins/netadmins/DBAs at various companies know that when Microsoft puts a patch out on Windows Update, it's not necessarily tested out to completion. That's part of why patches take so long to proliferate - dependable administrators test them in-house, instead of depending on MS's testers. Let's face it...if Microsofts Quality Assurance team were so sharp (or listened to - it can't ALL be their fault), many of the after-the-fact patches wouldn't be necessary.
Is Microsoft going to take responsibility for auto-installed patches that a) don't work b) make situations worse? Or are they going to take the stance of "The user could've refused our auto-install, but they didn't - they knew the risks."
We all know how hard it can be to opt-out of spam - how difficult will Microsoft make it to opt-out of auto-installed patches...and for those of us that can't/don't, how sure are we that it won't make things worse?
I'd have to wholeheartedly agree - if I had moderator points I'd give you one in a heartbeat.
Most of my pizza money in college came from grandmothers who needed help emailing grandkids or signing up for old-folks cruises on the internet. They didn't need to be told about the flashy new computer they should be running and how I could build them one for 'just a little'
In return, I got a $20, sometimes cookies, and repeat calls all the time from them and their friends, who wanted the same things.
And don't think it's just about the money from those visits either...the ability to deal honestly and easily with customers is what a lot of those outsourced/offshored jobs don't have to have, since their on the other side of the clock from the customers. My current employer has me on the phone 3,4,5 times a week with our customers, simply to provide a direct connection between the customers and the ones building their applications.
Don't discount those people skills - face-to-face skills are one of the things that will help keep your job here and help keep you employable...
last count @ 19355
I'm betting on "We HAVE to get this game on the shelves, otherwise we lose money because of X"
X = in time to be released same weekend as movie
X = it's already been delayed and it's killing us
Don't the publishers realize that releasing sub-par games on schedule is MUCH worse than releasing excellent games behind?
Look at Blizzard - standard-bearer for "when it's done, it'll be fabulous" - Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 are prime examples
Gamers are lenient on deadlines when the game exceeds expectations, but I'm betting that Matrix Revolutions (if they make a game) won't have quite the same reception....
Why DON'T spammers remove us from their lists when we ask? They're working REALLY REALLY hard (with all the filtering, header forging, etc.) to send mail to people that don't want it. If they would just target their email to those who had indicated that they wanted it, and removed us that had indicated they didn't, they'd save themselves a lot of grief, as measured in legal and technical hassle.
Granted, it's easier for them to ignore the "remove me"s, but is the trouble saved in 'not removing' >= the trouble spent in 'getting past spam filters'?
Besides, if the mails were targeted to those that THOUGHT their penis was small and needed extension....doesn't that mean it's not spam anymore? And wouldn't that make their click-through (or whatever) rate higher, therefore making their own attractiveness as a bulk emailer greater to their customers?
I'm just thinkin' here...
does anyone remember the fact that only months after this suit was filed, more(CNN December 1997) than (CNN September 1997) one postal worker opened fire on his co-workers?
true, you can't block the email address (they want to make sure we get all important messages from the account manager types)
but you CAN set up a rule to delete any email from staff@hotmail.com
i did it, worked fine, cleared the damn thing right on out
don't click on this - this is so off topic it's not even funny
My advice would be to go with a company called TechSkills. They've got lots of offices across the US, and - as you seem to prefer - focus more on administration than software dev. I'm working on my Oracle DBA with them (one more test to go!), and they offer all sorts of cert training. The training itself is a combination of CBT, books at home, mentor-led classes (class sizes are limited to 5-7 people max) and all the hands-on you could want.
I'm not a paid employee, just a satisfied customer.
http://www.techskills.com
It may well be true that our lifespan is being shortened, but it's up to us to maintain ourselves and our marketability.
Why do football players and other athletes 'time out' after 6, 7, 10 years? It's because that for which they are paid - their bodies - aren't performing as well as they once did. Fact of life. Believe it or not, the same applies to us, just as it does for everyone else.
Programming environments change. Languages change. The 'hot topic' of the day changes. 10 years ago, ASP, JavaScript, VBScript, XML didn't even exist. Now, those things can drive a global company's online presence - and I'm still talking about web technologies here.
Universities teach their students the basics and the theories, and all that degree gives you is a running start, to learn the specifics of whatever that first job is. But what we ALL need to do is keep running. Too many people get a job get comfortable, and don't bother to keep running, keep learning, keep current. When the next big thing comes along, in order to justify paying us over that fresh graduate, we need to be MORE ready to start work. It's our responsibility to pursue education, certification, and training.
Your company might not pay your $6k training bill, when later they can pay a $40k salary instead of your $50k, $60k, $70k, whatever.
Don't kid yourself - we get hired and fired based on cost-benefit analyses, just like everyone else. Don't blame the companies - they're here to make money, and they're not hiding that from anyone. Even if they have some other agenda - making a difference, improving the environment - that company goal can't and won't be accomplished without meeting the bottom line.
Our job - our responsibility to wives, husbands, kids, pets - is to seek out those things that make us better than new college graduates, to seek out those things that make us better than exporting work to those lower cost-of-living countries.
Don't sit in the dark and curse the light. The lifeline of technology is moving, and the decision is on us to move with it or not.