Samba isn't the only way to link Windows and Unix. NFS works just as well. But you have to buy an NFS client for Windows. How long before Windows has one of those in its offerings?
Sounds to me like you're someone who thinks too highly of himself, who couldn't adapt to corporate industry, who hides behind his 'self-employment' as a way to keep from failing in the big time. Sounds like your wife works as your dodge.
Corporations like HP grew to their stature by hiring capable people. Those people take care of the task at hand and adapt to new ones. They don't sit at their desk and say, "I make widgets. You didn't bring me an order for a widget so I can't help you." Those who really rise to the top may not get a lot of coding done. They may have in their day, but mostly now they spend all day making fifteen other people better at their jobs. They are the controllers of the clues, those gems of corporate insight that allow everyone to make sense of their seemingly mindless tasks. Those people are the ones rushing from meeting to meeting.
For the record, I've worked in a government agency, a contractor for a government agency, a small shop, a large corporation. Now I'm a consultant, though not independent (I don't care to work that hard). As a consultant you walk in and are expected to show results from day one. The person who can make or break your project is often that keeper of clues. Find that person (the real one, not the pretender) and you can save yourself a lot of time and headache.
The argument, which I don't agree with, is not really about ownership of a few cells. It's about being uninformed accomplices in an effort whose magnitude was unknown. Their family name has been carried from lab to lab and has become part of the medical nomenclature. What started with their cells has now become the backbone of an entire branch of medical science. Had they said instead, "Nope. Nothing to see here." and cast the cells into the hopper there would be no issue. There is a sentiment, erroneous in my thought, that if you contribute to something significant you should be rewarded in a similar magnitude.
I happen to agree, that they're just discarded cells, like old toenail clippings.
The Mac won't support 200 users. It doesn't support thousands of third-party devices and their drivers. It won't hot-swap power supplies, drives, NICs. The Mac won't let you have four versions of a compiler, eight library revisions, all used simultaneously by a dozen developers. It won't run unattended for hundreds of days without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. You can't rebuild a Mac kernel to fit your specific hardware and user environment.
Without all that, the operating system must not be very well designed.
Ford never told you that you couldn't buy a dodge part and custom install it yourself. I've seen a Hemi in an old T-bucket. It took a bit of welding and patching, but it's there, and no lawsuit from Dodge or Ford.
Who's in anticipation are the MicroSerf contracting firms, who are being paid to push it. I work with an associate from one firm who has told me that he has been asked to spend time learning the M$ way because they're going to push the.Net initiative, likely to the exclusion of Java and *nix.
These firms, who are often hired because they're the "experts", can do a lot to shove.Net down the corporate throat if they wish. Frankly, this scares me much more than the Redmond rhetoric.
Understand about the sharks out there. Not bashing or anything, but if you have real skill and a bit of a reliable reputation, you don't need to have a net presence to stay employed. You don't even have to ask. I haven't even had a printed resume in three years and four contracts. Right now I've got two firms waiting for me to finish the current project before they start their next.
The recruiter is probably assuming that your related abilities will let you latch on to the challenge without much risk. Either he doesn't know your real abilities or he doesn't really know the business he's selling. Either way, I wouldn't do business with him.
Many recruiters need to know, from someone who does know the business, how skills can cross over to other areas. That's why my firm has an active and successful consultant do a tech interview to get the real skill set and then tell them how to market the candidate. And we, the interviewing consultant, never let them sell someone we wouldn't want to work with.
You've got to separate the two. The Prima-donna, despite his idiosyncracies, adds value to the firm. Hi wields his sometimes arcane skills and produces a gem that he can hand off to someone needing the boost. He rides in on the white horse and saves the day. He wants a poster of himself and a plaque with his great feats on the wall somewhere, but those feats are true and worthy.
The Punk has great skill, but drags the firm down. He's secretive about what he does and why, and he grabs a problem, solves it, and simply says its fixed. He doesn't say what's wrong or why, but it does get fixed. He morphs a work request into something he can do because it fits into his skill set rather than show that he can't really do what he's asked. A problem is sovled and the symptoms go away, but it wasn't the original problem. When he pushes others to work in a particular fashion because it fits to his style, he's stifling creativity that may be of great value to the firm. This is the punk.
The second someone lessens the effectiveness of someone else on the team or in the firm he becomes a punk. When he has to change the problem to solve it, he's threatening the enterprise and is becoming a liability.
A prima-donna thrives in the environment given to him and rises to his stature. A punk establishes his stature through smoke and mirrors and tries to make the environment support the illusion.
You're going to move enough resources to the moon to fabricate satellites from the Moon's raw materials, and this is supposed to be an energy savings over sending up a simple satellite? Get a grip.
Once again, it's time to point out that mankind is not destroying the Earth or its ecology, but may be playing a part in the rate of change. And probably a small part at that. Mankind has flourished probably because of the portion of the ecological cycle during which it evolved. We happened to hit it just right. We know that the Earth has been through various ecological cycles during which Man would likely not have survived. We may be noticing that our time in the sun (pun intended) may be fading, and that we may have to adapt to the changes to come. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. Either way, the Earth is going to carry on according to the unchanging rules of the Universe.
I'll state it again. Conservationists and environmental fanatics are not trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save Man. The Earth will still be here, and will still evolve according to the natural laws of the Universe, whether Man is here to witness it or not.
Microsoft wants XML to succeed because it gets them back to square zero, when all data was text-encoded messages. As soon as it catches on, MS will add, SURPRISE! binary encoded data in an XML extension. It'll be revolutionary! And, oh wait, maybe all that text encoding isn't such a good idea. Let's go to binary message formats! Yet another revolution! And all from MS!
Why is textual representation of data such a big deal just because everyone agreed on how to do it? It's still text, and I still have to translate it back to binary when I'm working with numbers. Someone please think back to why we all went binary the last time!
Every example you've shown is one that has been addressed by the government. Valium is a controlled substance. Thalidomyde is no longer used for pregnant women (it is now used in cancer treatment). The cigarette makers are in court and their cat is out of the bag. Progress on these issues may not have been overnight (or completely done), but it makes its way. It's the same with every other issue. Give it time. It is either settled for being genuine or dismissed as being FUD.
People aren't stupid or powerless. They're just slow.
Re:Forgetting something?
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
One more thing you're forgetting. It's impossible to harm the environment! You can upset the balance a bit. You can make it uncomfortable for one species or another. But unless you're wielding godly powers you cannot change the environment. The same laws that made everything sweet and beautiful before that oil spill or radiation leak are going to bring it back around. Maybe not in time to save your summer vacation or to save 20,000 cute little critters, but it will come back.
Don't fool yourself. Conservation isn't about the Earth. It takes care of itself. Conservation is about people.
Speed is the easy problem to solve. They solved it the same way IT has solved client/server capacity problems in the past. More memory, more threads, fewer I/O bottlenecks. This isn't news.
Why doesn't someone solve the real web problems. Why doesn't someone revise HTTP and HTML so that all browsers work the same way? Why doesn't someone make a really usable client-side environment? Why can't someone figure out how to make money from the web without popping all those fscking add windws!
When you're selling, all you care about is how much they're buying. High ideals about which is better technically don't keep the stock holders grinning. They don't care about stable or secure. They care about how many boxes went out and how many checks came in.
Hearing is more passive than sight. Sight is directional and you must direct your line of sight to your subject. Computers can certainly hear, and this is a much closer analogy. The problem here is that the port scanners are picking a computer and screaming in all its 'ears' just to see if anyone's listening.
Perhaps the protocol needs to be revised to be something more polite, where such screaming is limited to a polite request.
You can't jog into any office or store and do a quality of service check by thumbing through the books to see how it's run. You can't check a doctor's quality of service by browsing his patient files. You can't check a home builder's work by dropping in to one of his customers' homes and poking around. When you want quality of service information you check the BBB, local authorities, prior customers, and that sort.
And would you check the security of a "U-lock-It" storage facility by breaking in, even if you weren't intending to steal something?
Port scans aren't exactly "knocking on doors." It's more like sticking your head in the door and trying to see if there's a conversation. You knock on someone's door with a ping. What's more, port scans are often looking for a particular conversation that they can make use of.
The browser war, Microsoft versus software vendors, Microsoft versus OSS, these are all variations on the idea of a monolithic computing environment versus the standard computing model of an OS and apps. Microsoft wants to make its Windows environment a complete system where users are not inclined to add or replace components. Like a car today. Few people replace the radio or the seats, or even wheels and tires. It comes as a unit. Microsoft wants your computer to work this way. That's why it's bundling everything in XP. The rest of the world, especially the Linux/OSS camp, wants to have the computer be a skeleton on which they hang all their neat toys.
I can't imagine why a browser will remain a viable tool in the next few years. Microsoft and others will be putting little pieces of net content into very app, serving small pieces of data content rather than pages and links. The browser and page-based content is a cumbersome way to do business. It's going away some time soon, I'd bet. It's another step to the monolithic computing environment.
Is everyone who wants to publish on the web or otherwise electronically owed a simple solution to all their problems? If your language is not representable in a particular code set DON'T USE IT. If you need to publish in your native language, SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS! Or better yet, USE PAPER!
Problems are solved by those who need to do so. They solve their problems, and if it catches yours too, good for you. If not, get to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Samba isn't the only way to link Windows and Unix. NFS works just as well. But you have to buy an NFS client for Windows. How long before Windows has one of those in its offerings?
Sounds to me like you're someone who thinks too highly of himself, who couldn't adapt to corporate industry, who hides behind his 'self-employment' as a way to keep from failing in the big time. Sounds like your wife works as your dodge.
Corporations like HP grew to their stature by hiring capable people. Those people take care of the task at hand and adapt to new ones. They don't sit at their desk and say, "I make widgets. You didn't bring me an order for a widget so I can't help you." Those who really rise to the top may not get a lot of coding done. They may have in their day, but mostly now they spend all day making fifteen other people better at their jobs. They are the controllers of the clues, those gems of corporate insight that allow everyone to make sense of their seemingly mindless tasks. Those people are the ones rushing from meeting to meeting.
For the record, I've worked in a government agency, a contractor for a government agency, a small shop, a large corporation. Now I'm a consultant, though not independent (I don't care to work that hard). As a consultant you walk in and are expected to show results from day one. The person who can make or break your project is often that keeper of clues. Find that person (the real one, not the pretender) and you can save yourself a lot of time and headache.
"It finally brings a crash-resistant OS to everyday folks." Who does he think he's kidding!
Chile's 'long history of democracy' was quite well funded and pushed by the CIA as well.
The argument, which I don't agree with, is not really about ownership of a few cells. It's about being uninformed accomplices in an effort whose magnitude was unknown. Their family name has been carried from lab to lab and has become part of the medical nomenclature. What started with their cells has now become the backbone of an entire branch of medical science. Had they said instead, "Nope. Nothing to see here." and cast the cells into the hopper there would be no issue. There is a sentiment, erroneous in my thought, that if you contribute to something significant you should be rewarded in a similar magnitude.
I happen to agree, that they're just discarded cells, like old toenail clippings.
The Mac won't support 200 users. It doesn't support thousands of third-party devices and their drivers. It won't hot-swap power supplies, drives, NICs. The Mac won't let you have four versions of a compiler, eight library revisions, all used simultaneously by a dozen developers. It won't run unattended for hundreds of days without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. You can't rebuild a Mac kernel to fit your specific hardware and user environment. Without all that, the operating system must not be very well designed.
There are chicks in Montana? Plural?
Ford never told you that you couldn't buy a dodge part and custom install it yourself. I've seen a Hemi in an old T-bucket. It took a bit of welding and patching, but it's there, and no lawsuit from Dodge or Ford.
Who's in anticipation are the MicroSerf contracting firms, who are being paid to push it. I work with an associate from one firm who has told me that he has been asked to spend time learning the M$ way because they're going to push the .Net initiative, likely to the exclusion of Java and *nix.
.Net down the corporate throat if they wish. Frankly, this scares me much more than the Redmond rhetoric.
These firms, who are often hired because they're the "experts", can do a lot to shove
Understand about the sharks out there. Not bashing or anything, but if you have real skill and a bit of a reliable reputation, you don't need to have a net presence to stay employed. You don't even have to ask. I haven't even had a printed resume in three years and four contracts. Right now I've got two firms waiting for me to finish the current project before they start their next.
The recruiter is probably assuming that your related abilities will let you latch on to the challenge without much risk. Either he doesn't know your real abilities or he doesn't really know the business he's selling. Either way, I wouldn't do business with him.
Many recruiters need to know, from someone who does know the business, how skills can cross over to other areas. That's why my firm has an active and successful consultant do a tech interview to get the real skill set and then tell them how to market the candidate. And we, the interviewing consultant, never let them sell someone we wouldn't want to work with.
You've got to separate the two. The Prima-donna, despite his idiosyncracies, adds value to the firm. Hi wields his sometimes arcane skills and produces a gem that he can hand off to someone needing the boost. He rides in on the white horse and saves the day. He wants a poster of himself and a plaque with his great feats on the wall somewhere, but those feats are true and worthy.
The Punk has great skill, but drags the firm down. He's secretive about what he does and why, and he grabs a problem, solves it, and simply says its fixed. He doesn't say what's wrong or why, but it does get fixed. He morphs a work request into something he can do because it fits into his skill set rather than show that he can't really do what he's asked. A problem is sovled and the symptoms go away, but it wasn't the original problem. When he pushes others to work in a particular fashion because it fits to his style, he's stifling creativity that may be of great value to the firm. This is the punk.
The second someone lessens the effectiveness of someone else on the team or in the firm he becomes a punk. When he has to change the problem to solve it, he's threatening the enterprise and is becoming a liability.
A prima-donna thrives in the environment given to him and rises to his stature. A punk establishes his stature through smoke and mirrors and tries to make the environment support the illusion.
You're going to move enough resources to the moon to fabricate satellites from the Moon's raw materials, and this is supposed to be an energy savings over sending up a simple satellite? Get a grip.
Once again, it's time to point out that mankind is not destroying the Earth or its ecology, but may be playing a part in the rate of change. And probably a small part at that. Mankind has flourished probably because of the portion of the ecological cycle during which it evolved. We happened to hit it just right. We know that the Earth has been through various ecological cycles during which Man would likely not have survived. We may be noticing that our time in the sun (pun intended) may be fading, and that we may have to adapt to the changes to come. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. Either way, the Earth is going to carry on according to the unchanging rules of the Universe.
I'll state it again. Conservationists and environmental fanatics are not trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save Man. The Earth will still be here, and will still evolve according to the natural laws of the Universe, whether Man is here to witness it or not.
Microsoft wants XML to succeed because it gets them back to square zero, when all data was text-encoded messages. As soon as it catches on, MS will add, SURPRISE! binary encoded data in an XML extension. It'll be revolutionary! And, oh wait, maybe all that text encoding isn't such a good idea. Let's go to binary message formats! Yet another revolution! And all from MS!
Why is textual representation of data such a big deal just because everyone agreed on how to do it? It's still text, and I still have to translate it back to binary when I'm working with numbers. Someone please think back to why we all went binary the last time!
Every example you've shown is one that has been addressed by the government. Valium is a controlled substance. Thalidomyde is no longer used for pregnant women (it is now used in cancer treatment). The cigarette makers are in court and their cat is out of the bag. Progress on these issues may not have been overnight (or completely done), but it makes its way. It's the same with every other issue. Give it time. It is either settled for being genuine or dismissed as being FUD.
People aren't stupid or powerless. They're just slow.
One more thing you're forgetting. It's impossible to harm the environment! You can upset the balance a bit. You can make it uncomfortable for one species or another. But unless you're wielding godly powers you cannot change the environment. The same laws that made everything sweet and beautiful before that oil spill or radiation leak are going to bring it back around. Maybe not in time to save your summer vacation or to save 20,000 cute little critters, but it will come back.
Don't fool yourself. Conservation isn't about the Earth. It takes care of itself. Conservation is about people.
Speed is the easy problem to solve. They solved it the same way IT has solved client/server capacity problems in the past. More memory, more threads, fewer I/O bottlenecks. This isn't news.
Why doesn't someone solve the real web problems. Why doesn't someone revise HTTP and HTML so that all browsers work the same way? Why doesn't someone make a really usable client-side environment? Why can't someone figure out how to make money from the web without popping all those fscking add windws!
I keep my CDs in a liquid cooled, lead-lined container filled with pressurized inert gas. Oh, yeah. It's also got a beer tapper on the side.
When you're selling, all you care about is how much they're buying. High ideals about which is better technically don't keep the stock holders grinning. They don't care about stable or secure. They care about how many boxes went out and how many checks came in.
Hearing is more passive than sight. Sight is directional and you must direct your line of sight to your subject. Computers can certainly hear, and this is a much closer analogy. The problem here is that the port scanners are picking a computer and screaming in all its 'ears' just to see if anyone's listening.
Perhaps the protocol needs to be revised to be something more polite, where such screaming is limited to a polite request.
You can't jog into any office or store and do a quality of service check by thumbing through the books to see how it's run. You can't check a doctor's quality of service by browsing his patient files. You can't check a home builder's work by dropping in to one of his customers' homes and poking around. When you want quality of service information you check the BBB, local authorities, prior customers, and that sort.
And would you check the security of a "U-lock-It" storage facility by breaking in, even if you weren't intending to steal something?
Your argument is silly.
Port scans aren't exactly "knocking on doors." It's more like sticking your head in the door and trying to see if there's a conversation. You knock on someone's door with a ping. What's more, port scans are often looking for a particular conversation that they can make use of.
The browser war, Microsoft versus software vendors, Microsoft versus OSS, these are all variations on the idea of a monolithic computing environment versus the standard computing model of an OS and apps. Microsoft wants to make its Windows environment a complete system where users are not inclined to add or replace components. Like a car today. Few people replace the radio or the seats, or even wheels and tires. It comes as a unit. Microsoft wants your computer to work this way. That's why it's bundling everything in XP. The rest of the world, especially the Linux/OSS camp, wants to have the computer be a skeleton on which they hang all their neat toys.
I can't imagine why a browser will remain a viable tool in the next few years. Microsoft and others will be putting little pieces of net content into very app, serving small pieces of data content rather than pages and links. The browser and page-based content is a cumbersome way to do business. It's going away some time soon, I'd bet. It's another step to the monolithic computing environment.
Is everyone who wants to publish on the web or otherwise electronically owed a simple solution to all their problems? If your language is not representable in a particular code set DON'T USE IT. If you need to publish in your native language, SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS! Or better yet, USE PAPER!
Problems are solved by those who need to do so. They solve their problems, and if it catches yours too, good for you. If not, get to work.