"Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization"
You know this, I know it as well, but 20 something recruiting agents don't, as neither do HR people or even some technical managers.
I recently had an interview in which I was asked such low level questions (please give me the command line to do this or that) that I wondered if the interviewer actually understood what a systems administrator can do.
If I am told to solve a technical problem I ask the generalities and go and learn the necessary technologies when needed, design, test and implement a solution, with attention to business needs and security.
But then the moron interviewing you is only interested to see if you can memorize man pages then there is no way such company will value the skills you are highlighting.
Linux (and UNIX in general) makes saner assumption about security. They are OSes that were born knowing that more than one person could be using the same computer and, later on, that a computer was not an isolated entity.
These realizations came later to Redmond, who has struggled ever since to understand why certain practices are not secure.
The "certain" perspectives you talk about are from somebody that is illogical and selfish.
I reckon that many people that know they are dying would chose to cut short the indignities of a long death if there was a legal way to obtain final painless relief .
Anybody that has seen a close relative wasted away by disease knows that there would be no cowardice or stupidity in somebody deciding to end life a bit sooner but with some degree of dignity.
From News Corp's own reporting of this in The Times:
" "Mr Murdoch, who is also the chief executive of BSkyB, 39.1 per cent owned by News Corp, made clear that he believed that broadcasters such as Sky should be freed from the long-standing requirement to produce impartial news.
He argued that âoethe mere selection of stories and their place in the running order is itself a process full of unacknowledged partialityâ. The impartiality rule was âoean impingement on the freedom of speechâ. "
For every example of some right wing nut complaining about this there is a counter example.
This pseudo argument about the BBC being biased is getting tired (just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War)...
"but can any nation trust its government enough that having a taxpayer-funded news service a good idea in the long run? I think that's a question worth thinking about."
The BBC has a completely independent governing body.
The UK government of the day assigns a budget but after that it has no editorial input whatsoever.
Any UK government trying to interfere with the BBC editorial content would find itself in the middle of a major political scandal, and most likely would not succeed.
The BBC lost a director general trying to probe that the Iraq war was a fabrication of the British government.
Ironically, Mr Murdoch the father announced his support for Labour in two general elections by means of his porno light tabloid, The Sun.
What the Murdochs want is to be the king makers in UK politics without having to worry about an independent organization actually delving deeper in the UK's political landscape.
There is no single party in the UK that at some point or another hasn't accused the BBC of bias. From the far left loonies of the Respect party to the neo fascists racists in the BNP, all of them whine about the BBC not paying attention to their respective points of view.
Listen to Lord Mandelson in any interviews and you know he has nothing but contempt for the BBC.
What distorters of the truth like you never mention is the many cases in which the BBC has hounded the current Labour government for its many failings. If they were the pushers of "politically-correct left-wing viewpoints", they would continue their task, irrespective of who is the government of the day. That you yourself imply that the BBC point of view actually changes with the times is an indictment about how little control a sector of the British political spectrum has of the BBC. I am sure you will not notice this monumental contradiction in your lame arguments.
Finally, I want to hear what people like you have to offer to the political discourse instead of what you term "political correctness". Normally the only thing you have to offer is low level racism, homophobia and misogyny trying to make that pass as something the UK should be aiming for.
... is that there is an undertone of sense of entitlement.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but I certainly see how that would cross a lot of folks in the IT world, some of whom have overinflated egos.
When the press needs information from people with overinflated egos (sports, show business) they play a self defeating game of who wags the tail.
It feels like you want to bring the same dynamics when dealing with geeks, it may or may not work, but you just need to look at the tabloid and sports media to see the sorry state of such approach to journalism.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. Since I have been unemployed (more than a year ago) I have run two half marathons and several 10K races.
I have looked for jobs in all industries (broadcasting, oil, education, finance, even government).
I even applied for charity work (they don't need more people, they receive 3 or 4 candidates for each request of help they send).
Still haven't got a job.
I think some of you out there, lucky enough to have a job at the moment, don't realize that the current job market is more akin to a slaughter house.
"Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization"
You know this, I know it as well, but 20 something recruiting agents don't, as neither do HR people or even some technical managers.
I recently had an interview in which I was asked such low level questions (please give me the command line to do this or that) that I wondered if the interviewer actually understood what a systems administrator can do.
If I am told to solve a technical problem I ask the generalities and go and learn the necessary technologies when needed, design, test and implement a solution, with attention to business needs and security.
But then the moron interviewing you is only interested to see if you can memorize man pages then there is no way such company will value the skills you are highlighting.
He has been out of work for months.
But one week would have helped him somehow according to you.
Do they teach logic in schools nowadays?
The market is bad, but jobs are available, and people in a bad place will still be looking.
Linux (and UNIX in general) makes saner assumption about security. They are OSes that were born knowing that more than one person could be using the same computer and, later on, that a computer was not an isolated entity.
These realizations came later to Redmond, who has struggled ever since to understand why certain practices are not secure.
No?
That is why Linux, Solaris (or any Unix for that matter) is safer since you can remove any layers of software you don't need.
I would be embarrassed to say I went to a "genius bar".
Honestly, I would just say I went to Apple's support desk, why should I play their stupid language idiocy?
Google can up the offer if needed.
Or they can pay other manufacturers.
And frankly in an era when Google=Internet, which manufacturers will shun it to favour Microsoft?
That would stop MS forcing its idiotic ways on the Internet.
Perhaps then they would try to make good products instead of leveraging their monopolistic position.
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
No, it isn't.
Darn.
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
"From a certain perspective, that is cowardice."
"From a certain perspective, that is stupidity."
The "certain" perspectives you talk about are from somebody that is illogical and selfish.
I reckon that many people that know they are dying would chose to cut short the indignities of a long death if there was a legal way to obtain final painless relief .
Anybody that has seen a close relative wasted away by disease knows that there would be no cowardice or stupidity in somebody deciding to end life a bit sooner but with some degree of dignity.
Or taking the law into your own hands?
That is the last thing I would expect from an honourable person.
From News Corp's own reporting of this in The Times:
"
"Mr Murdoch, who is also the chief executive of BSkyB, 39.1 per cent owned by News Corp, made clear that he believed that broadcasters such as Sky should be freed from the long-standing requirement to produce impartial news.
He argued that âoethe mere selection of stories and their place in the running order is itself a process full of unacknowledged partialityâ. The impartiality rule was âoean impingement on the freedom of speechâ.
"
Full article here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6814178.ece
If you want a world where news are delivered without balancing or opposite points of view to your won, then Mr Murdoch is your man.
I am not saying it. He is saying it himself.
You sound like one of those wacko conspiracy theorists that live in perpetual fear of conspirators that do not exist.
But hey, if that makes you happy, who are we to object?
For every example of some right wing nut complaining about this there is a counter example.
This pseudo argument about the BBC being biased is getting tired (just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War)...
Watch the BBC to your heart's content with the iPlayer service, it is entirely legal and you don't need to pay a licence fee.
"but can any nation trust its government enough that having a taxpayer-funded news service a good idea in the long run? I think that's a question worth thinking about."
The BBC has a completely independent governing body.
The UK government of the day assigns a budget but after that it has no editorial input whatsoever.
Any UK government trying to interfere with the BBC editorial content would find itself in the middle of a major political scandal, and most likely would not succeed.
.... that the BBC does not have a particular bias imprinted.
The BBC lost a director general trying to probe that the Iraq war was a fabrication of the British government.
Ironically, Mr Murdoch the father announced his support for Labour in two general elections by means of his porno light tabloid, The Sun.
What the Murdochs want is to be the king makers in UK politics without having to worry about an independent organization actually delving deeper in the UK's political landscape.
... etc.,etc., etc.
Do they use black helicopters also?
Really ....
I am really fucking tired about this.
There is no single party in the UK that at some point or another hasn't accused the BBC of bias. From the far left loonies of the Respect party to the neo fascists racists in the BNP, all of them whine about the BBC not paying attention to their respective points of view.
Listen to Lord Mandelson in any interviews and you know he has nothing but contempt for the BBC.
What distorters of the truth like you never mention is the many cases in which the BBC has hounded the current Labour government for its many failings. If they were the pushers of "politically-correct left-wing viewpoints", they would continue their task, irrespective of who is the government of the day. That you yourself imply that the BBC point of view actually changes with the times is an indictment about how little control a sector of the British political spectrum has of the BBC. I am sure you will not notice this monumental contradiction in your lame arguments.
Finally, I want to hear what people like you have to offer to the political discourse instead of what you term "political correctness". Normally the only thing you have to offer is low level racism, homophobia and misogyny trying to make that pass as something the UK should be aiming for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8230332.stm
... is that there is an undertone of sense of entitlement.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but I certainly see how that would cross a lot of folks in the IT world, some of whom have overinflated egos.
When the press needs information from people with overinflated egos (sports, show business) they play a self defeating game of who wags the tail.
It feels like you want to bring the same dynamics when dealing with geeks, it may or may not work, but you just need to look at the tabloid and sports media to see the sorry state of such approach to journalism.