Earlier in my career, I worked on a payroll system. It's not as straightforward as one might think, as payroll systems rarely are similar. In fact, the term "payroll" should really be replaced with "compensation", and "system" replaced with "rules engine system".
In a simple small business, compensation is probably pretty straightforward. Hourly employees, owner takes a salary. But what if an owner takes a draw against the the equity of the business?
Up the chain a bit, you now may have union dues to account for, bonuses, stock options instead of "cash", severance, and various other--often contractually obligated--quirks. Does health insurance count as compensation from the company? The smartphone with ultra data plan? The company car?
On the political side, what are the basic rules? What are the exemptions the politicians put in for their buddies?
There are a lot of little gotchas in "payroll" systems, and the use case testing needs to be spot on. Because no one wants their paycheck screwed up.
Maybe you don't remember the programming in the old days. It was horrible. It seemed like there was one or two shows a decade that were worth watching. The movies were bad too. We see old movies and old tv shows now that are chosen because they were the watchable ones. Today we are spoiled for choice. There are lots of shows worth watching. Sometimes two a day on the same channel. And there are more than 3 channels now. There used to be very few channels.
It depends how far back you're going for "the old days". The 60's, 70's and 80's had lots of good shows. Twilight Zone, Beverly Hillbillies, Gilligan's Island, Emergency, Mayberry/Andy Griffith, Adam-12, Star Trek:TOS, Addams Family, Dragnet, Brady Bunch, Knight Rider, Airwolf, Cheers, Cosby, Family Ties, Star Trek:TNG, Night Court, St. Elsewhere, Hill Street Blues, MASH, The Muppet Show, MacGuyver and WKRP---just to name a few. Very few shows of similar caliber exist today.
The problem with television isn't the technology of television; it's really too many channels requiring something--ANYTHING--to fill the timeslots and sell advertising in order for people to live life vicariously through television shows instead of going out and living it. As for the technology of television, everything needed to satisfy the needs of 95% of the viewers exists.
Ageism in IT isn't due to knowing too little. It's due to knowing too much.
It's like the Wizard of Oz. When you point out a certain problem or technology is on its third iteration in 20 years, you pull the curtain back, and show the Great Wizard for who he is.
The thing to remember (US-wise) is off-shoring really didn't take off until the late '90s (maybe 2000). Prior to then, a lot of work still needed to get done and it was done in-house. There were a LOT of people in MIS/DP. The post-Y2K recession allowed companies to get rid of many of those folks, and either off-shore or bring in H1-Bs for a fraction of the cost (and less real estate usage).
Unfortunately at the end of the day, it's all about money. While the hiring manager may want the guy with 20 years of proven experience, the people with the money want the guy just entering the market that will work for a fraction of the experienced person's salary. Usually the new hire is somewhere in between.
Actually, it's about both. Everyone wants the 20+ years of experience, just wrapped up in a 24/7 working, caffeine guzzling, lower salary 22 year old.
A company recently offered me a "Position-name-here II" (or Junior-level) position with them, and refused to budge on either the title or salary (which was a 30% cut). I pointed out to them that I'd been at a Senior/Architect level for the past 12+ years of my 20 year career, and it would be difficult to explain the position-drop on my resume in the future, they just laughed. Turns out, their two senior guys have been there around 15 years, and are only "Position-name-here II"'s, and they saw no reason to even provide them the title promotion without a pay raise, as it would only make them more marketable.
During the interview, the managers commented that they weren't used to seeing "CNC machinist training" next to "SUN Certified Java Programmer", and back in school full time for a degree in IT. I thought that this was odd. How can someone that's a "technologist" not have a wide variety of tech skills? Being adaptable and versatile is a necessary survival trait for anyone.
"But what's your vertical?"--every recruiter I've spoken with in the past 5 years.
Let's face it, the Golden Age of Technologists--those with a variety of skills, those who thought through problems and developed solutions, those who tinkered--ended with Y2K. And Sarbanes-Oxley drove a stake through its heart. The name of the game now is being a highly specialized cog in the machine.
First of all, if "because we have the money" is the best persuasive argument you can make, I don't see your career going too far. What is your real justification for obtaining support? Do you do custom development which may expose the need for kernel patches? Or, are you looking out for your own career and thinking RHEL will look really good on your resume?
Second, are you certain your company "has the money" to purchase support? Having been on both sides, I can guarantee the CIO has a far better view of departmental financials and the corporate big picture than you. Add to that one-time purchases are often treated differently than on-going operational expenses in
the budgeting process. (People think IT is black magic; accounting is the root of all evil and makes technology look like child's play.)
My guess is your CIO is facing one of two things. Either there isn't the money to spend, or he's under pressure to keep on-going operational expenses as minimal as possible. There is still the very real possibility of another economic downturn, and companies don't want to be left holding the bag of unneeded expenses. As such, he's asking just how often support would be used and not seeing a justifiable number.
Must be a Euro-weenie, who decides to blame everyone and everything but themselves.
Success or failure is based ENTIRELY upon personal factors--initiative and diligence being the top. There will always be someone or something standing as an obstacle in your life--so how do you improvise, adapt and overcome it? No one will hire you? Wah-wah. Make a frickin' plan and show some initiative.
Hit the streets and knock on every door. Find professional associations, become a member, and attend their meetings. Join Rotary. Cold call people in the field. Look outside your "major" field to other businesses--a vast majority of people find careers in areas that weren't their majors in college. After all, there's not much demand for pre-Byzantinian art history majors. Plan your work and work your plan.
Start your own business. Have a hobby you're good at? Monetize it. Want to stay in your "major field"? Find a couple of "anchor customers", offer to do contract work for bare minimum compensation AND solid referrals--treat them like kings, always. Plan your work and work your plan.
Or, if you're currently in the decision stage--don't go to college. At least a four year one. Grab an AA from a community college on a pay-as-you go basis if you want a degree. Otherwise, plan out a good course of either self-employment, or journeyman work.
And have I mentioned plan plan plan? And work that plan, adjusting and adapting the details continually but keeping the end-goal set in semi-permeable clay.
Personally, I think that's the problem with today's college graduates. Far too many have no planning skills. They go to college not knowing what they want to do (other than party), and four years later emerge with massive debt--still not knowing what they want to do. Or worse, they do know what they want to do, but don't do enough research to realize their dream job maxes out at $45K/year but their college-of-choice will leave them in debt at/over $100K.
There are all sorts of options available. You just have to realize no one's going to hand you something on a silver platter.
It's been 22 years since TekWar was first published; seventeen since the television series gave us a "common" visualization of Tek itself. Since those two milestones, I've found it intriguing how our technological advancement seems to be aiming towards the development of Tek. And not just advancement with computers and the Internet, but within the neuroscience and brain-computer interface fields also. It is within the realm of possibility that Tek--or similar digital drug--will exist within a couple of decades.
Could you talk about how the concept of Tek came about? Was it just a "crazy idea" that hit you while riding one of your horses, or did you sit down by yourself or others to develop a vision of the future and build a story around that? Also, looking around at people addicted to using smartphones everywhere, what are your thoughts regarding a form of Tek coming into existence in the next decade or two?
Thanks for your answer, and thanks also for a great career.
the problem with IT is, for someone 45+, much of your network has deteriorated by attrition--some retire, many leave the industry, some die (7 funerals in 5 years of older colleagues--although one was 46). And it can be difficult to add "younger" people (say 20s-early 30s) to your professional network to keep it growing. Even professionally, people prefer to associate and be associated with people like themselves and within their age-range.
Not that it can't be done, but it becomes more difficult.
"I was always the youngest person wherever I went; now I'm one of the oldest," Ayr says.
Ayr must have some wicked telepathic skills, as I've been saying those exact same words since late 2007. I'd gone to work for a rather insular company back in 2000, and when the company moved out of state, re-entering the job market was night and day. In just 8 years, I'd gone from being the youngest in the room by 15-20 years (think reverse age discrimination) to being the oldest by 8-10. What I found interesting was the major shift in average age downwards in just that short time.
1991...Twenty years ago, and it seems like only yesterday.
Anyway, my first experience with the "web" came around March/April '93 when I fired up NCSA Mosaic.8 or.9 at my alma mater. I'd graduated a couple of years prior, was working for a company in the area, and decided to head back to turn a minor into a major.
That last point is important. You young pups may not realize it--with ubiquitous Internet access from almost any device, and the emphasis on developing and monetizing websites/apps--but back in those days, commercial activity on the Internet was a big "no-no", and in some cases illegal. Unless one was affiliated with an institution of higher learning, a scientific/reseach company, or a defense contractor, one wasn't getting on.
So, there were no broadband or ISP dial-up connections, and high-speed generally meant 56-256Kb/s. Heck, a lot of backbones were T-1s (or multiple bonded T-1's by '93).
So, after playing with Mosaic for a few days, the college network manager (who had been a year ahead of me) saw me messing around with it, and asked me what I thought. My reply: "Not bad. I really like the concept, and think it's going to work great for text. But these graphics...they're going to kill the backbone; it's unfeasible."
Strangely enough (or not), that race is still ongoing today.
People seem to think that e-mail is the equivalent of a sealed envelope letter. It's not. It's the equivalent of a picture postcard, open to the world to see, and therefore bereft of 4th Amendment protections ("plain sight" rule).
If you want 4th Amendment protections for your email, place it in an "encryption envelope" with your favorite e-mail encryption app (PGP, OpenPGP, proprietary, etc). Otherwise, quit yer whining.
I think Forrester is being overly optimistic. CIOs may be ready and willing to spend, but it does not mean the business (read: owner, CEO/Board, CFO) are going to jump on the bandwagon. Each purchase/hire will need to undergo a serious cost-benefit evaluation, and the lowest possible dollar paid. This is a result not only of the recession of the past year-plus, but also the very real and serious concerns businesses have of what upcoming legislation (and associated regulatory environments) is going to cost them.
I have to disagree that SA and SD/SE are separate, full-time disciplines which can't be done well together. Way back when I first started (think late 80's), UN*X sysadmins often were senior level software developers/engineers. I learned both excellent coding and sysadmin techniques at the feet of these gurus, and in time, became a guru myself, moving effortlessly amongst the systems and code.
I will agree that when either SA or SD/SE becomes so time-consuming due to size (number of boxen/VMs or size of development efforts), that splitting the roles is necessary. But to say neither can be done well by the same person is fallacy.
Heh. Be ready for even more politics than when you left six years ago. I'm in a similar boat, and am thinking of heading back into pure sysadmin work. Why? Simply because politics--at least in my location--have become vicious in the dev world.
Politics and holy wars have always been a part of dev and IT in general. But over the past few years, I've watched the intensity and viciousness increase by orders of magnitude to be the worst I've seen over my 20+ years in the industry. For instance, I've watched a CIO of a 100 person IT department reach into the trenches and toss out very good devs simply because he didn't like them. (No, I was not one of those let go.)
Not to say that infrastructure doesn't have it's own politics; but usually not as vicious. In the end, systems run or they don't.
Go back to 1980's. At that time ANYBODY could start up a company and hope for some clients. There was no multi-national corporation breathing down your neck since they did not exist. Look at the case study of Microsoft, Lotus, Apple, Borland, etc. These guys went from nowhere to somewhere. These days in the IT industry that is simply not possible.
Go back to 1980's. At that time ANYBODY could start up a company and hope for some clients. There was no multi-national corporation breathing down your neck since they did not exist. Look at the case study of Microsoft, Lotus, Apple, Borland, etc. These guys went from nowhere to somewhere. These days in the IT industry that is simply not possible.
The past few years has seen the teenage demographic become much more powerful in terms of spending power than it ever has in the past. Lot of this has to do with parents either being too busy or wanting to be their kids' BFF rather their parent. So hand over the credit cards and let the kids shop, or buy them whatever they want to help alleviate the guilt--or more likely to keep them out of your hair.
I've never really hopped on board the Twitter is the next big thing bandwagon myself. To me, it's just a new version of IM with an open API and a couple new features. Of course, IM has never been a big deal to me either, since my "oooh,ahhh!" real-time chat stage finished in the '80s with VAX/VMS phone and UN*X talk.
That said, I do have a Twitter account, and see it as having some good uses beyond following the blather of some celebrity. For me, it's a news feed (Sun, DeveloperWorks, new publications, etc); it's a way to be an active participant in a conference--whether it's 1000 miles away (like last Friday's Crunchup), or going on around me (like a BarCamp); or to advertise my current personal projects and blog entries.
The biggest hype I have for Twitter is that it's perfect for conference participation and conversation material for Q&A panels.
International Business Machines Corp. said Thursday it plans to open a technology service delivery center in Dubuque, Iowa, creating 1,300 jobs in the northeast part of the state.
Anti-libertarian? People who know me well are laughing in the aisle at that one.
First, people and companies are free to enter into contracts with anyone, so long as another is not intentionally and unjustifiably harmed in the process. While the government is not my favorite contractual partner (been there, done that), they are a valid one.
Second, unless the customers are using encryption and the encryption is being broken and contents inside observed, why are you complaining? Unencrypted packets are the equivilent to walking around naked in your backyard. Maybe you have a "privacy" fence or hedge, but that doesn't stop your neighbors from seeing you out of their second story window.
Perhaps the best analogy here would be would be some guy decides to build a private tollway across his ranch land out west, and cuts 60 miles off the trip from A to B. People use it for a fee. The cops come along and ask if they can stand at the toll booths (maybe they suspect illegal activity) and observe the insides of vehicles through their windows (called "plain sight"). The tollway owner says certainly, have at it. Now, if drivers don't want that happening, they have a couple of options. Either don't use the tollway; or, used a vehicle with no windows (a van with sealed cargo area is a great TCP/IP substitue).
Oh, but it's still an invasion of privacy!!!,/. readers cry in near unison.
Of course, none of those screaming have ever heard of--let alone used--anything like tcpdump, ethereal, netstumbler, etc. Just ignore them on the system.
Hypocrites.
If you don't want your "plain sight" traffic monitored, use encryption. Then you do have a Fourth Amendment case.
Third, actually the "Bizzaro-FedEx" example used is pretty good. They do have the right to open your letter/package. If you don't want them to see the contents, it's called doubling--you place another sealed and addressed envelope (or package) inside of their box/envelope. They can still open it, but it becomes a major legal headache for them if they do.
Bottom line is, while I don't necessarily like AT&T doing this, I don't see them doing anything wrong--morally or legally.
Slashdot Mirror
Earlier in my career, I worked on a payroll system. It's not as straightforward as one might think, as payroll systems rarely are similar. In fact, the term "payroll" should really be replaced with "compensation", and "system" replaced with "rules engine system".
In a simple small business, compensation is probably pretty straightforward. Hourly employees, owner takes a salary. But what if an owner takes a draw against the the equity of the business?
Up the chain a bit, you now may have union dues to account for, bonuses, stock options instead of "cash", severance, and various other--often contractually obligated--quirks. Does health insurance count as compensation from the company? The smartphone with ultra data plan? The company car?
On the political side, what are the basic rules? What are the exemptions the politicians put in for their buddies?
There are a lot of little gotchas in "payroll" systems, and the use case testing needs to be spot on. Because no one wants their paycheck screwed up.
Maybe you don't remember the programming in the old days. It was horrible. It seemed like there was one or two shows a decade that were worth watching. The movies were bad too. We see old movies and old tv shows now that are chosen because they were the watchable ones.
Today we are spoiled for choice. There are lots of shows worth watching. Sometimes two a day on the same channel. And there are more than 3 channels now. There used to be very few channels.
It depends how far back you're going for "the old days". The 60's, 70's and 80's had lots of good shows. Twilight Zone, Beverly Hillbillies, Gilligan's Island, Emergency, Mayberry/Andy Griffith, Adam-12, Star Trek:TOS, Addams Family, Dragnet, Brady Bunch, Knight Rider, Airwolf, Cheers, Cosby, Family Ties, Star Trek:TNG, Night Court, St. Elsewhere, Hill Street Blues, MASH, The Muppet Show, MacGuyver and WKRP---just to name a few. Very few shows of similar caliber exist today.
The problem with television isn't the technology of television; it's really too many channels requiring something--ANYTHING--to fill the timeslots and sell advertising in order for people to live life vicariously through television shows instead of going out and living it. As for the technology of television, everything needed to satisfy the needs of 95% of the viewers exists.
It's like the Wizard of Oz. When you point out a certain problem or technology is on its third iteration in 20 years, you pull the curtain back, and show the Great Wizard for who he is.
The thing to remember (US-wise) is off-shoring really didn't take off until the late '90s (maybe 2000). Prior to then, a lot of work still needed to get done and it was done in-house. There were a LOT of people in MIS/DP. The post-Y2K recession allowed companies to get rid of many of those folks, and either off-shore or bring in H1-Bs for a fraction of the cost (and less real estate usage).
Things have changed in the past 11 years.
Unfortunately at the end of the day, it's all about money. While the hiring manager may want the guy with 20 years of proven experience, the people with the money want the guy just entering the market that will work for a fraction of the experienced person's salary. Usually the new hire is somewhere in between.
Actually, it's about both. Everyone wants the 20+ years of experience, just wrapped up in a 24/7 working, caffeine guzzling, lower salary 22 year old.
Needless to say, I declined the position.
During the interview, the managers commented that they weren't used to seeing "CNC machinist training" next to "SUN Certified Java Programmer", and back in school full time for a degree in IT. I thought that this was odd. How can someone that's a "technologist" not have a wide variety of tech skills? Being adaptable and versatile is a necessary survival trait for anyone.
"But what's your vertical?"--every recruiter I've spoken with in the past 5 years.
Let's face it, the Golden Age of Technologists--those with a variety of skills, those who thought through problems and developed solutions, those who tinkered--ended with Y2K. And Sarbanes-Oxley drove a stake through its heart. The name of the game now is being a highly specialized cog in the machine.
First of all, if "because we have the money" is the best persuasive argument you can make, I don't see your career going too far. What is your real justification for obtaining support? Do you do custom development which may expose the need for kernel patches? Or, are you looking out for your own career and thinking RHEL will look really good on your resume? Second, are you certain your company "has the money" to purchase support? Having been on both sides, I can guarantee the CIO has a far better view of departmental financials and the corporate big picture than you. Add to that one-time purchases are often treated differently than on-going operational expenses in the budgeting process. (People think IT is black magic; accounting is the root of all evil and makes technology look like child's play.) My guess is your CIO is facing one of two things. Either there isn't the money to spend, or he's under pressure to keep on-going operational expenses as minimal as possible. There is still the very real possibility of another economic downturn, and companies don't want to be left holding the bag of unneeded expenses. As such, he's asking just how often support would be used and not seeing a justifiable number.
Success or failure is based ENTIRELY upon personal factors--initiative and diligence being the top. There will always be someone or something standing as an obstacle in your life--so how do you improvise, adapt and overcome it? No one will hire you? Wah-wah. Make a frickin' plan and show some initiative.
Hit the streets and knock on every door. Find professional associations, become a member, and attend their meetings. Join Rotary. Cold call people in the field. Look outside your "major" field to other businesses--a vast majority of people find careers in areas that weren't their majors in college. After all, there's not much demand for pre-Byzantinian art history majors. Plan your work and work your plan.
Start your own business. Have a hobby you're good at? Monetize it. Want to stay in your "major field"? Find a couple of "anchor customers", offer to do contract work for bare minimum compensation AND solid referrals--treat them like kings, always. Plan your work and work your plan.
Or, if you're currently in the decision stage--don't go to college. At least a four year one. Grab an AA from a community college on a pay-as-you go basis if you want a degree. Otherwise, plan out a good course of either self-employment, or journeyman work.
And have I mentioned plan plan plan? And work that plan, adjusting and adapting the details continually but keeping the end-goal set in semi-permeable clay.
Personally, I think that's the problem with today's college graduates. Far too many have no planning skills. They go to college not knowing what they want to do (other than party), and four years later emerge with massive debt--still not knowing what they want to do. Or worse, they do know what they want to do, but don't do enough research to realize their dream job maxes out at $45K/year but their college-of-choice will leave them in debt at/over $100K.
There are all sorts of options available. You just have to realize no one's going to hand you something on a silver platter.
It's been 22 years since TekWar was first published; seventeen since the television series gave us a "common" visualization of Tek itself. Since those two milestones, I've found it intriguing how our technological advancement seems to be aiming towards the development of Tek. And not just advancement with computers and the Internet, but within the neuroscience and brain-computer interface fields also. It is within the realm of possibility that Tek--or similar digital drug--will exist within a couple of decades.
Could you talk about how the concept of Tek came about? Was it just a "crazy idea" that hit you while riding one of your horses, or did you sit down by yourself or others to develop a vision of the future and build a story around that? Also, looking around at people addicted to using smartphones everywhere, what are your thoughts regarding a form of Tek coming into existence in the next decade or two?
Thanks for your answer, and thanks also for a great career.
the problem with IT is, for someone 45+, much of your network has deteriorated by attrition--some retire, many leave the industry, some die (7 funerals in 5 years of older colleagues--although one was 46). And it can be difficult to add "younger" people (say 20s-early 30s) to your professional network to keep it growing. Even professionally, people prefer to associate and be associated with people like themselves and within their age-range. Not that it can't be done, but it becomes more difficult.
"I was always the youngest person wherever I went; now I'm one of the oldest," Ayr says.
Ayr must have some wicked telepathic skills, as I've been saying those exact same words since late 2007. I'd gone to work for a rather insular company back in 2000, and when the company moved out of state, re-entering the job market was night and day. In just 8 years, I'd gone from being the youngest in the room by 15-20 years (think reverse age discrimination) to being the oldest by 8-10. What I found interesting was the major shift in average age downwards in just that short time.
1991...Twenty years ago, and it seems like only yesterday.
Anyway, my first experience with the "web" came around March/April '93 when I fired up NCSA Mosaic .8 or .9 at my alma mater. I'd graduated a couple of years prior, was working for a company in the area, and decided to head back to turn a minor into a major.
That last point is important. You young pups may not realize it--with ubiquitous Internet access from almost any device, and the emphasis on developing and monetizing websites/apps--but back in those days, commercial activity on the Internet was a big "no-no", and in some cases illegal. Unless one was affiliated with an institution of higher learning, a scientific/reseach company, or a defense contractor, one wasn't getting on.
So, there were no broadband or ISP dial-up connections, and high-speed generally meant 56-256Kb/s. Heck, a lot of backbones were T-1s (or multiple bonded T-1's by '93).
So, after playing with Mosaic for a few days, the college network manager (who had been a year ahead of me) saw me messing around with it, and asked me what I thought. My reply: "Not bad. I really like the concept, and think it's going to work great for text. But these graphics...they're going to kill the backbone; it's unfeasible."
Strangely enough (or not), that race is still ongoing today.
Could you see Bender in a crossover episode?
Solo yanking open floor panel: "The hyperdrive isn't working again!! What's wrong!?"
Bender under panel: "Hey, we're cuddling in the afterglow here!"
or
"Bite my shiny metal hyperdrive."
People seem to think that e-mail is the equivalent of a sealed envelope letter. It's not. It's the equivalent of a picture postcard, open to the world to see, and therefore bereft of 4th Amendment protections ("plain sight" rule).
If you want 4th Amendment protections for your email, place it in an "encryption envelope" with your favorite e-mail encryption app (PGP, OpenPGP, proprietary, etc). Otherwise, quit yer whining.
I think Forrester is being overly optimistic. CIOs may be ready and willing to spend, but it does not mean the business (read: owner, CEO/Board, CFO) are going to jump on the bandwagon. Each purchase/hire will need to undergo a serious cost-benefit evaluation, and the lowest possible dollar paid. This is a result not only of the recession of the past year-plus, but also the very real and serious concerns businesses have of what upcoming legislation (and associated regulatory environments) is going to cost them.
I have to disagree that SA and SD/SE are separate, full-time disciplines which can't be done well together. Way back when I first started (think late 80's), UN*X sysadmins often were senior level software developers/engineers. I learned both excellent coding and sysadmin techniques at the feet of these gurus, and in time, became a guru myself, moving effortlessly amongst the systems and code.
I will agree that when either SA or SD/SE becomes so time-consuming due to size (number of boxen/VMs or size of development efforts), that splitting the roles is necessary. But to say neither can be done well by the same person is fallacy.
prohibits asking advice about social networks, security and privacy on slashdot.
Heh. Be ready for even more politics than when you left six years ago. I'm in a similar boat, and am thinking of heading back into pure sysadmin work. Why? Simply because politics--at least in my location--have become vicious in the dev world.
Politics and holy wars have always been a part of dev and IT in general. But over the past few years, I've watched the intensity and viciousness increase by orders of magnitude to be the worst I've seen over my 20+ years in the industry.
For instance, I've watched a CIO of a 100 person IT department reach into the trenches and toss out very good devs simply because he didn't like them. (No, I was not one of those let go.)
Not to say that infrastructure doesn't have it's own politics; but usually not as vicious. In the end, systems run or they don't.
Go back to 1980's. At that time ANYBODY could start up a company and hope for some clients. There was no multi-national corporation breathing down your neck since they did not exist. Look at the case study of Microsoft, Lotus, Apple, Borland, etc. These guys went from nowhere to somewhere. These days in the IT industry that is simply not possible.
I was around in the 80's...and you're wrong.
I.B.M.
Go back to 1980's. At that time ANYBODY could start up a company and hope for some clients. There was no multi-national corporation breathing down your neck since they did not exist. Look at the case study of Microsoft, Lotus, Apple, Borland, etc. These guys went from nowhere to somewhere. These days in the IT industry that is simply not possible.
I was in the 80's...and you're wrong.
I.B.M.
Two words: "disposable" and "income".
The past few years has seen the teenage demographic become much more powerful in terms of spending power than it ever has in the past. Lot of this has to do with parents either being too busy or wanting to be their kids' BFF rather their parent. So hand over the credit cards and let the kids shop, or buy them whatever they want to help alleviate the guilt--or more likely to keep them out of your hair.
I've never really hopped on board the Twitter is the next big thing bandwagon myself. To me, it's just a new version of IM with an open API and a couple new features. Of course, IM has never been a big deal to me either, since my "oooh,ahhh!" real-time chat stage finished in the '80s with VAX/VMS phone and UN*X talk.
That said, I do have a Twitter account, and see it as having some good uses beyond following the blather of some celebrity. For me, it's a news feed (Sun, DeveloperWorks, new publications, etc); it's a way to be an active participant in a conference--whether it's 1000 miles away (like last Friday's Crunchup), or going on around me (like a BarCamp); or to advertise my current personal projects and blog entries.
The biggest hype I have for Twitter is that it's perfect for conference participation and conversation material for Q&A panels.
International Business Machines Corp. said Thursday it plans to open a technology service delivery center in Dubuque, Iowa, creating 1,300 jobs in the northeast part of the state.
http://www.startribune.com/science/37635999.html?elr=KArks:DCiUo3PD:3D_V_qD3L:c7cQKUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
Cheaper digs and salaries (average salary ~ $45K), and Iowa and locals are giving around $50-80 million in cash and prizes to get them.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090115/BUSINESS/90115020/-1/BUSINESS04
Anti-libertarian? People who know me well are laughing in the aisle at that one.
/. readers cry in near unison.
First, people and companies are free to enter into contracts with anyone, so long as another is not intentionally and unjustifiably harmed in the process. While the government is not my favorite contractual partner (been there, done that), they are a valid one.
Second, unless the customers are using encryption and the encryption is being broken and contents inside observed, why are you complaining? Unencrypted packets are the equivilent to walking around naked in your backyard. Maybe you have a "privacy" fence or hedge, but that doesn't stop your neighbors from seeing you out of their second story window.
Perhaps the best analogy here would be would be some guy decides to build a private tollway across his ranch land out west, and cuts 60 miles off the trip from A to B. People use it for a fee. The cops come along and ask if they can stand at the toll booths (maybe they suspect illegal activity) and observe the insides of vehicles through their windows (called "plain sight"). The tollway owner says certainly, have at it. Now, if drivers don't want that happening, they have a couple of options. Either don't use the tollway; or, used a vehicle with no windows (a van with sealed cargo area is a great TCP/IP substitue).
Oh, but it's still an invasion of privacy!!!,
Of course, none of those screaming have ever heard of--let alone used--anything like tcpdump, ethereal, netstumbler, etc. Just ignore them on the system.
Hypocrites.
If you don't want your "plain sight" traffic monitored, use encryption. Then you do have a Fourth Amendment case.
Third, actually the "Bizzaro-FedEx" example used is pretty good. They do have the right to open your letter/package. If you don't want them to see the contents, it's called doubling--you place another sealed and addressed envelope (or package) inside of their box/envelope. They can still open it, but it becomes a major legal headache for them if they do.
Bottom line is, while I don't necessarily like AT&T doing this, I don't see them doing anything wrong--morally or legally.