By communicating on a non-work level you let people in, making them feel more comfortable speaking with you. A good team is one that communicates often and effectively. Above all, by involving yourself in the social dynamic at your work you will gain respect from your colleges. IMHO, respect is very important if you plan on heading a team or department at a later time.
The reboot trick is for all software, not just Windows. You haven't been in IT long enough if you've only seen MS OS require this.
I have a bunch of self contained Linux based boxes we have to restart on a regular basis due to memory leak issues in software. I think the OS on it's own is fine, but start adding garbage on top of any OS and you have trouble. Reboots are a common practice for fixing a number of issues for any software you may come across regardless of OS.
I have Windows Servers that get rebooted only when critical updates are installed. Last time I rebooted the servers it had been up for over 3 months. I also have a Linux based router that runs months at a time before needing a reboot (and it's usually just a precaution).
Yes but you would have a modern box all the time. You would not have to shell another $500 + accessories to stay updated.
The solution they are offering is to provide top notch gaming at low cost. Currently the consoles are good but they fade in comparison to the PC gaming experience.
FYI, I'm not in favour of one or another BUT this approach does solve the H/W limitation issue as long as the latency doesn't become a major negative factor.
I can't find a link to this white paper I remember seeing. It showed the power bill before. For an organization that had 200 employees, all server hardware was in house and the power bill saving was roughly 20%. This bill included more than just computers so this suggest the saving was more than 20%.
It's not just standard for software dev, it's standard procedure for everything that involves understanding ones job.
Unfortunately we don't always have time to see what they do or be in person for that matter. The heavy users of my applications are local but I have dealt with users in remote areas where it's just not possible to justify travelling there to see what they do. Instead you spend more time working with them over the phone and then draft up something. If the draft appears to be good you proceed with a slim down version and let them make further requests.
I remember those years well. Nobody knew where IT was heading, HTML was still young and under-featured for any serious job and MS appeared to be the standard of the future. By 2002 it was clear where things were heading (online content).
I can see how the Koreans would have made that mistake. I think I would have made the same mistake.
It's called technology. If we all waited for the few left behind we would still be working on an alternative to horses for travel. In the mean while there are other options for those left behind. This is one of many reasons why IE got displaced with Chrome and Firefox.
I'm just curious. What technology would you have recommended that was open source in the late 90s? Java?
ActiveX or Java at the time both had the potential to progress to the next level. The only difference is Sun was smart enough to make it cross platform something MS didn't do. I think MS expected it's standard to grow faster and to entice other browsers into implementing ActiveX support.
On a side note, we just purchased a Samsung camera system and the stupid web interface required an ActiveX to be installed. We ended up returning it because it could not run on modern browsers (Excluding IE10).
How's internet going to help them if they don't have a power outlet to hook those computers up? Your assuming they have electricity. This is why they require the knowledge to build these communities so they can grow to a point where infrastructures allow for better education and resourcefulness.
We didn't go from fire to computers in one day. Same goes here. You can't just parachute computers down and expect them to figure it out.
That's exactly what some politicians have been trying to do but people rather hold on to something they think protects them (which truly doesn't) than to evolve their society to the next level. Long live ignorance.
Morality is the only thing that protects you against a government that wants to end you, not those guns in your closet. The day a government gives the order to go take you down with it's military, FBI, NSA or whatever else they have up their sleeve, you won't have a chance. So your argument to baring arms to protect yourself against your own government makes little to no sense. I mean, you're not Rambo, or are you?
Ok, so lets continue to have guns while it takes us hundreds of years to fix a problem we can never fix (Human nature).
We can work on the problem you mention but we should put gun control in place ASAP. It's BS to say gun control won't help the issue. Actually no!!!! Lets give everybody a hand gun instead. What a stupid way of thinking.
Hunting riffles kill to but with 5 shot mags it's hard to shoot down a whole room. That's what gun control is about. It's control, not elimination. Everybody knows there will still be deaths caused by guns, we just won't see 50 people die in the span of 10 seconds.
There are many other reasons why gun control works. It's been proven to work in many 1st world countries.
The efforts in these 3rd world countries are more than providing supplies. They actually show people how to dig wells and find drinkable water. There are communities that have been built on this concept and that have become self sufficient.
Internet requires computers and computer require electricity. To get to the point where computers can help these people, they need to develop infrastructure and that requires people going there and teach them how to build communities. That is where the funding needs to go at this point in time.
I wish I could find the link to the great presentation a professor did on TED. It showed how better healthcare, increase in lifestyle and education directly resulted in reduced births per family.
Sorry but the open source is not what sold Android. It's the more affordable hardware / software. When Android first came out it was garbage and it still sold. You may have purchased it for the reasons you listed but for most people it was pricing or to get away from the Apple walled garden (iTunes). In the end it's not the open source community that invested into making Android, it's Google that did. They built on top of an open source OS but so did other companies.
The way I see it is, if you had you family killed by say "a terrorist" and the NSA told you: "we could have prevented that attack if we were allowed to tap in". You would have a completely different view of the whole issue and would consider Snowden to be a hold back towards American family's security.
On the flip side you could be the 22 year old paranoid tech savvy guy that cares so much about his privacy that Snowden is a hero.
So who is right? The answer is nobody. It's a split debate and some will see data tapping as a good thing and some as a bad thing.
I agree. Although I'm more of an MS product user, I don't see the problem with Gmail. My gmail account works fine and it's free. Who cares if they get access to my personal info. In the end whether it be MS or Google, they can't do this for free forever so they tailor it to be lucrative. As a customer if you want to pay there are plenty of choices but when you try to get what you want in a free product tailored for the masses your reaching to people who don't care about your unique needs.
There is no presumption here. The rule is simple, you CANNOT use the device. Holding the device to your ear or staring at it is considered usage. You want to do something with the device, park and do it.
If people were just a little smarter they would spend $20 on a decent bluetooth headset and use their phone hand's free. I have a Windows phone (and before that an iPhone) and I can do this very easily. I'm sure IOS and Android do it just as well if not better. I can call, text and much more just by talking. That $20 can save lives and lots of headaches.
Exactly. The same reason Windows XP held on for so long. It did the job and continued to do the job. People were used to it and you know people don't like having to learn something new. They just want to get things done.
Don't forget. They are also enemies of progress. I don't plan on buying one but for every one who buys a Tesla there is more R&D money for better and more affordable models.
Slashdot Mirror
By communicating on a non-work level you let people in, making them feel more comfortable speaking with you. A good team is one that communicates often and effectively. Above all, by involving yourself in the social dynamic at your work you will gain respect from your colleges. IMHO, respect is very important if you plan on heading a team or department at a later time.
The reboot trick is for all software, not just Windows. You haven't been in IT long enough if you've only seen MS OS require this.
I have a bunch of self contained Linux based boxes we have to restart on a regular basis due to memory leak issues in software. I think the OS on it's own is fine, but start adding garbage on top of any OS and you have trouble. Reboots are a common practice for fixing a number of issues for any software you may come across regardless of OS.
I have Windows Servers that get rebooted only when critical updates are installed. Last time I rebooted the servers it had been up for over 3 months. I also have a Linux based router that runs months at a time before needing a reboot (and it's usually just a precaution).
Yes but you would have a modern box all the time. You would not have to shell another $500 + accessories to stay updated.
The solution they are offering is to provide top notch gaming at low cost. Currently the consoles are good but they fade in comparison to the PC gaming experience.
FYI, I'm not in favour of one or another BUT this approach does solve the H/W limitation issue as long as the latency doesn't become a major negative factor.
I can see how you would think that going thin client would consume more power but this theory has been tested before and favours the thin client.
Link to one of many studies: http://preilly.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/virtualization-thin-clients-and-energy-consumption/
I can't find a link to this white paper I remember seeing. It showed the power bill before. For an organization that had 200 employees, all server hardware was in house and the power bill saving was roughly 20%. This bill included more than just computers so this suggest the saving was more than 20%.
It's not just standard for software dev, it's standard procedure for everything that involves understanding ones job.
Unfortunately we don't always have time to see what they do or be in person for that matter. The heavy users of my applications are local but I have dealt with users in remote areas where it's just not possible to justify travelling there to see what they do. Instead you spend more time working with them over the phone and then draft up something. If the draft appears to be good you proceed with a slim down version and let them make further requests.
I remember those years well. Nobody knew where IT was heading, HTML was still young and under-featured for any serious job and MS appeared to be the standard of the future. By 2002 it was clear where things were heading (online content).
I can see how the Koreans would have made that mistake. I think I would have made the same mistake.
It's called technology. If we all waited for the few left behind we would still be working on an alternative to horses for travel. In the mean while there are other options for those left behind. This is one of many reasons why IE got displaced with Chrome and Firefox.
I'm just curious. What technology would you have recommended that was open source in the late 90s? Java?
ActiveX or Java at the time both had the potential to progress to the next level. The only difference is Sun was smart enough to make it cross platform something MS didn't do. I think MS expected it's standard to grow faster and to entice other browsers into implementing ActiveX support.
On a side note, we just purchased a Samsung camera system and the stupid web interface required an ActiveX to be installed. We ended up returning it because it could not run on modern browsers (Excluding IE10).
How's internet going to help them if they don't have a power outlet to hook those computers up? Your assuming they have electricity. This is why they require the knowledge to build these communities so they can grow to a point where infrastructures allow for better education and resourcefulness.
We didn't go from fire to computers in one day. Same goes here. You can't just parachute computers down and expect them to figure it out.
That's exactly what some politicians have been trying to do but people rather hold on to something they think protects them (which truly doesn't) than to evolve their society to the next level. Long live ignorance.
Morality is the only thing that protects you against a government that wants to end you, not those guns in your closet. The day a government gives the order to go take you down with it's military, FBI, NSA or whatever else they have up their sleeve, you won't have a chance. So your argument to baring arms to protect yourself against your own government makes little to no sense. I mean, you're not Rambo, or are you?
Ok, so lets continue to have guns while it takes us hundreds of years to fix a problem we can never fix (Human nature).
We can work on the problem you mention but we should put gun control in place ASAP. It's BS to say gun control won't help the issue. Actually no!!!! Lets give everybody a hand gun instead. What a stupid way of thinking.
Hunting riffles kill to but with 5 shot mags it's hard to shoot down a whole room. That's what gun control is about. It's control, not elimination. Everybody knows there will still be deaths caused by guns, we just won't see 50 people die in the span of 10 seconds.
There are many other reasons why gun control works. It's been proven to work in many 1st world countries.
The efforts in these 3rd world countries are more than providing supplies. They actually show people how to dig wells and find drinkable water. There are communities that have been built on this concept and that have become self sufficient.
Internet requires computers and computer require electricity. To get to the point where computers can help these people, they need to develop infrastructure and that requires people going there and teach them how to build communities. That is where the funding needs to go at this point in time.
I want a link to that statement. I knew the second that heavy protocol came out that it would not survive.
I wish I could find the link to the great presentation a professor did on TED. It showed how better healthcare, increase in lifestyle and education directly resulted in reduced births per family.
Sorry but the open source is not what sold Android. It's the more affordable hardware / software. When Android first came out it was garbage and it still sold. You may have purchased it for the reasons you listed but for most people it was pricing or to get away from the Apple walled garden (iTunes). In the end it's not the open source community that invested into making Android, it's Google that did. They built on top of an open source OS but so did other companies.
The way I see it is, if you had you family killed by say "a terrorist" and the NSA told you: "we could have prevented that attack if we were allowed to tap in". You would have a completely different view of the whole issue and would consider Snowden to be a hold back towards American family's security.
On the flip side you could be the 22 year old paranoid tech savvy guy that cares so much about his privacy that Snowden is a hero.
So who is right? The answer is nobody. It's a split debate and some will see data tapping as a good thing and some as a bad thing.
I'm not picky.
I agree. Although I'm more of an MS product user, I don't see the problem with Gmail. My gmail account works fine and it's free. Who cares if they get access to my personal info. In the end whether it be MS or Google, they can't do this for free forever so they tailor it to be lucrative. As a customer if you want to pay there are plenty of choices but when you try to get what you want in a free product tailored for the masses your reaching to people who don't care about your unique needs.
Are you offering?
There is no presumption here. The rule is simple, you CANNOT use the device. Holding the device to your ear or staring at it is considered usage. You want to do something with the device, park and do it.
If people were just a little smarter they would spend $20 on a decent bluetooth headset and use their phone hand's free. I have a Windows phone (and before that an iPhone) and I can do this very easily. I'm sure IOS and Android do it just as well if not better. I can call, text and much more just by talking. That $20 can save lives and lots of headaches.
Am I dreaming or the Dell site says they are already sold out?
Exactly. The same reason Windows XP held on for so long. It did the job and continued to do the job. People were used to it and you know people don't like having to learn something new. They just want to get things done.
Don't forget. They are also enemies of progress. I don't plan on buying one but for every one who buys a Tesla there is more R&D money for better and more affordable models.
Yes it did. It pointed to the FACT that didn't have FACTS.