Also depends on technical expertise - one of my friends has technical skills that are extremely difficult to get at any price - his company has a dress code and fixed working hours, both of which he ignores with impunity, simply because he knows and they know that he isn't easily replaced, plus he does an exceptional job. Now sometimes he does have to deal with customers, but that makes no difference, it's jeans, t-shirt, long hair and leather jacket all the way.
I'm the same way - both being bikers we always have leather gear close at hand and we just dress as we please. Good management recognises this and they accept it because we provide skills, not fashion shows.
most people who claim that suits are "uncomfortable" formed their opinion at a time when they could only afford cheap suits. A good suit is far more comfortable even than very casual clothes
I've worn tailored suits and they are thoroughly uncomfortable - it is not about fit, it's the horrible material from which they are manufactured. Not to mention horrible nonsense like ties.
Besides which as far as I'm concerned my employer must foot the bill for the acquisition and maintenance if I am compelled to wear a suit, plus my salary is obviously higher to make up for the inconvenience.
Codes wrt hair length and facial hair are just not on.
Then again my technical skills are not easily acquired so I can be picky.
And no suits do not look good, they look pretty stupid and completely ugly in fact. And I don't need pockets, I have a moonbag, my biker jacket and a backpack to carry any goodies I require.
Re:Suit and Tie do not make the programmer.
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much - the whole casual thing emanates from engineers doing real design and development as opposed to those just doing dog work for some corporate.
My question is why do we as a society still wear these antiquated outfits? I have been told they indicate reliability and trustworthiness - firstly any dork can buy a suit - I tend to wonder why someone has to wear a suit to convey these attributes, what are they trying to hide? I'd automatically trust someone in jeans and t-shirt long before I'd just trust someone because they were wearing a victorian outfit.
And when it comes to hair and beards, employers know where they can stick demands for any changes there. Besides which requiring men to have short hair is a clear case of sexual discrimination.
But how do you define a civilian target? A local pub where the secret police like to congregate? The Pentagon?
And what about state terrorism like that carried out by Israel against the Palestinians? Or that perpetrated either by or with the express support of the US in a long list of foreign countries?
If members of some group we deem terrorist believe that they are fighting a dangerous enemy then are they not justified in attacking military and communications targets? Are the civilians not what Nato likes to euphemistically call collateral damage (i.e. foreign civilians and hence expendable)?
Hint: It's not because they care if you play pirated games.
No, it's about protecting scummy local distributors - we have a single distributor here that controls the console market and together with another controls the DVD market. They overcharge for the consoles and games plus they never pass on price reductions on the hardware. Similarly for DVD. To keep this racket going they need hardware that prevents use of non-sanctioned software. They also employ a gang of thugs who intimidate small retailers who provide modifications and parallel imported hardware and software - these thugs currently have numerous cases pending against them including assault, theft of property and impersonating police officers. They have recently started using these same criminals to harass the larger retailers where their threats of cutting off 'legitimate' supply have started to become ineffective.
AFAIK, big (or small) fancy mission critical things like pacemakers and engine control systems do not use most (any?) of the same chips that run the kind of things DRMP is supposed to control.
Ever tried to compile an OS while your virus-checker scans each and every source-file in the entire program, each time you access the file?
No because my virus checker runs after hours when I'm not here.
And if it is popping up alerts every time a source file is altered then it is set up wrong. And they can be told to ignore specific executables, i.e. the one you're compiling every couple of minutes because you're busy writing it.
It's designed to stop a software package from running if it isn't licensed on the machine. I have a really hard time believing that DRM will ever be in anything like heart monitors or any other specially designed hardware.
Because that specially designed hardware generally contains standard processors built on specialised boards intended for the purpose. Our weapon systems are the same, they use Intel processors and standard RAM, but special motherboards intended for our purpose designed rack systems.
We have already had a situation where the license server for our design software went haywire and suddenly we were considered unlicensed, hence locked out of our very expensive software while the vendor dicked around for a week confirming we really owned licenses.
Now what if the same should happen in one of our critical systems while a ship is locked in combat with missiles incoming - it could as we design and build a lot of the system, but some of it is licensed from third parties at great expense?
Of course such processors would never get past our initial evaluation procedures and hence would never get into our systems - and I think many other companies will be the same. That means a thriving market outside the US for uncrippled processors - would Intel fabricate different versions for this purpose and then what is to stop me from buying an unprotected version for home use? We use standard CPUs because they work and are cheap - if they suddenly get very expensive we'll look for alternatives.
She's a cartoon character and therefore her physical appearance is exaggerated. Or do people think the the guys in games are realistic? Or is it realistic for a mummy to come back to life?
There is always a lot of moaning and whining when a female comic character is dressed in a skimpy costume, but dead silence when it's a male character.
Yeah, men like to look at barely dressed women and men like breasts - and when you're a teenager they're especially intriguing, something that is enhanced by the phenomenal lengths girls go to to prevent guys from seeing them.
Fact is Lara Croft would be completely uninteresting if all she had going for her were a couple of oversized mammary glands.
It's the "American Dream". We still give everyone the chance to make more of themselves here in the USA.
Not true at all. You have no more chance of getting an equal opportunity in the US than you do in numerous other countries; possibly less opportunity. Americans can't see it, probably because they think the world begins and ends at their borders, but for the rest of the world the US is definitely no longer first choice when considering migration. Possibly better communications have made more people aware that they will have few employee protections there and have a much greater chance of being exploited by their employer than in many other countries.
Perhaps one person co-ordinating or overseeing things. Doesn't change the fact that Jobs didn't design the Mac interface so the guy still doesn't know what he's talking about.
What you want to avoid is having 50 people all trying to force in their ideas. On the other hand small group design will give a good result without many of the shortcomings that get introduced by a single designer.
Round doorknobs tend to be more aesthetically pleasing, but impossible to use if your hands are in any way greasy (lotion, blood, whatever) and are a pain to use if you're carrying something.
Taps - in the bathroom I like those dual things that provide both hot and cold, but in my kitchen sink I like them separate. Both are generally easier to use if they have proper protrusions, i.e. they shouldn't mirror doorknobs.
Any kind of electrical switch for general use should have a clear indicator of which way is on. I can't imagine what he thinks is wrong with British switches.
Where I live we have both modes of knobs, taps and switches - you know what, we manage to use them all - there are many instances where one or the other type is better, not one solution for everything.
Because that's where your index finger is, simple, obvious and quite correct.
There's nothing wrong with double-clicking, it's simple and trivial to learn - it's a simple motor skill. Frankly anyone who truly cannot do this for any reason other than something like parkinsons should probably be kept under constant supervision in case their utter inco-ordination causes them to injure themselves or others.
The biggest, stupidest design flaw on the Mac was that idiotic single button mouse that required endless key combinations to get anything done. But then the Mac was designed for morons who probably struggle with complicated technology like doorknobs. How do these people manage complex motor tasks like unlocking the steering on their cars or indicating while also operating the steering wheel. No wonder Americans generally drive automatics, imagine if they also had to operate a gear shift AND a clutch.
I think what we're looking at here is basic laziness and total stupidity neither of which should be indulged. People have to learn that things take a bit of effort to learn and it's not like learning to use a GUI requires any real effort.
Except that he seems, like many, to be operating under the clueless assumption that Apple designed some coherent wonderful interface whereas in fact the best in the interface came from the users and the worst from Apple themselves. Worse he seems to have the bizarre belief that Jobs himself designed all this - yeah he may have had some good ideas, but even the stuff genuinely created by Apple was designed by a team.
Worse he seems to have the notion that an OS is one monolithic thing - as long as you decide how things will interface in advance each piece can be done by completely disparate groups.
Basically like many he also has no idea how the open source world operates.
From the article: Designing speaker and video cable takes a lot of science
This certainly isn't true when it comes to speaker cable - the audio cable industry would impress even PT Barnum, I'm sure he didn't realise just what suckers people are.
And note the distinct lack of any actual scientific testing of the cable and no comparison amongst S-Video cables. You'll see the same thing in audiophile magazines in their so-called cable reviews. If we're going to use subjective tests then I can say that the picture I get with my cheap S-video cable looks just like the one they're getting with the Monster Cable.
Reality is that any decent quality cable will give you the same results as a cable that costs thousands of dollars. And when it comes to speaker cable decent grade lamp flex will equal any cable out there unless you happen to have your speakers at least 50m from your amp (differences are only really even significantly measurable at around 100m and up).
The morons who put this bill through are about as clueless as you can get when it comes to technology or even reality. In fact their talk is very much like that of members of the US government.
And it won't get enforced as they simply do not have the resources to police it.
There are questions in this regard, i.e. how robust is the cornea once it has healed? How does it compare to wearing glasses, soft or hard contact lenses? I'd say it is pretty dangerous to take a blow to the eye when wearing any of these and as yet there is no evidence, other than people suffering a blow relatively soon after surgery, that you're at any more risk subsequent to laser surgery than you would be from other corrective measures.
Let's say there was a designer. First off there is no way we can consider this designer perfect - there are design flaws in everything around us. Yes they work, but then so do the things we humans design, but mistakes get made. Furthermore each thing clearly carries elements of other things, often design ideas that should have been discarded. For one thing this means whatever built the world around us did it exactly the way we do it, i.e. build the best thing you can right now and work from there.
And if that is the case then it really makes no difference whether it was some being or what we call evolution, a blind process that builds from what came before. Simplicity means we discard the idea of a being and go with evolution.
The chemicals used by the bobardier beetle are not explosive when mixed. Even if they claim they meant unstable so what, many chemicals are unstable when manufactured outside the human body, but are held stable in the specific conditions under which they are created.
How do they know the beetle never misses, have they watched every one that has ever existed each time it has defended itself?
Attacking flaws in the creation argument is also perfectly acceptable - if their argument is flawed then their so-called science is not correct.
It is simply their lack of imagination that prevents them from imagining a path of mutations that could through natural selection result in the bombardier beetle.
It is an old argument (surprise, surprise the creationists keep bringing up the same ones every time) and it has been shot down repeatedly.
Is it really worth it - there's monthly subscriptions on top of which it's generally MP3 or some other compressed format and only works for a limited time - factor in the download costs and it's hardly worth bothering. Besides I have no interest in the trash the industry generally peddles.
Slashdot Mirror
Also depends on technical expertise - one of my friends has technical skills that are extremely difficult to get at any price - his company has a dress code and fixed working hours, both of which he ignores with impunity, simply because he knows and they know that he isn't easily replaced, plus he does an exceptional job. Now sometimes he does have to deal with customers, but that makes no difference, it's jeans, t-shirt, long hair and leather jacket all the way.
I'm the same way - both being bikers we always have leather gear close at hand and we just dress as we please. Good management recognises this and they accept it because we provide skills, not fashion shows.
I've worn tailored suits and they are thoroughly uncomfortable - it is not about fit, it's the horrible material from which they are manufactured. Not to mention horrible nonsense like ties.
Besides which as far as I'm concerned my employer must foot the bill for the acquisition and maintenance if I am compelled to wear a suit, plus my salary is obviously higher to make up for the inconvenience.
Codes wrt hair length and facial hair are just not on.
Then again my technical skills are not easily acquired so I can be picky.
And no suits do not look good, they look pretty stupid and completely ugly in fact. And I don't need pockets, I have a moonbag, my biker jacket and a backpack to carry any goodies I require.
Pretty much - the whole casual thing emanates from engineers doing real design and development as opposed to those just doing dog work for some corporate.
My question is why do we as a society still wear these antiquated outfits? I have been told they indicate reliability and trustworthiness - firstly any dork can buy a suit - I tend to wonder why someone has to wear a suit to convey these attributes, what are they trying to hide? I'd automatically trust someone in jeans and t-shirt long before I'd just trust someone because they were wearing a victorian outfit.
And when it comes to hair and beards, employers know where they can stick demands for any changes there. Besides which requiring men to have short hair is a clear case of sexual discrimination.
But how do you define a civilian target? A local pub where the secret police like to congregate? The Pentagon?
And what about state terrorism like that carried out by Israel against the Palestinians? Or that perpetrated either by or with the express support of the US in a long list of foreign countries?
If members of some group we deem terrorist believe that they are fighting a dangerous enemy then are they not justified in attacking military and communications targets? Are the civilians not what Nato likes to euphemistically call collateral damage (i.e. foreign civilians and hence expendable)?
It is never as cut and dried as you would imply.
Hint: It's not because they care if you play pirated games.
No, it's about protecting scummy local distributors - we have a single distributor here that controls the console market and together with another controls the DVD market. They overcharge for the consoles and games plus they never pass on price reductions on the hardware. Similarly for DVD. To keep this racket going they need hardware that prevents use of non-sanctioned software. They also employ a gang of thugs who intimidate small retailers who provide modifications and parallel imported hardware and software - these thugs currently have numerous cases pending against them including assault, theft of property and impersonating police officers. They have recently started using these same criminals to harass the larger retailers where their threats of cutting off 'legitimate' supply have started to become ineffective.
AFAIK, big (or small) fancy mission critical things like pacemakers and engine control systems do not use most (any?) of the same chips that run the kind of things DRMP is supposed to control.
You'd be wrong.
Ever tried to compile an OS while your virus-checker scans each and every source-file in the entire program, each time you access the file?
No because my virus checker runs after hours when I'm not here.
And if it is popping up alerts every time a source file is altered then it is set up wrong. And they can be told to ignore specific executables, i.e. the one you're compiling every couple of minutes because you're busy writing it.
Because that specially designed hardware generally contains standard processors built on specialised boards intended for the purpose. Our weapon systems are the same, they use Intel processors and standard RAM, but special motherboards intended for our purpose designed rack systems.
We have already had a situation where the license server for our design software went haywire and suddenly we were considered unlicensed, hence locked out of our very expensive software while the vendor dicked around for a week confirming we really owned licenses.
Now what if the same should happen in one of our critical systems while a ship is locked in combat with missiles incoming - it could as we design and build a lot of the system, but some of it is licensed from third parties at great expense?
Of course such processors would never get past our initial evaluation procedures and hence would never get into our systems - and I think many other companies will be the same. That means a thriving market outside the US for uncrippled processors - would Intel fabricate different versions for this purpose and then what is to stop me from buying an unprotected version for home use? We use standard CPUs because they work and are cheap - if they suddenly get very expensive we'll look for alternatives.
She's a cartoon character and therefore her physical appearance is exaggerated. Or do people think the the guys in games are realistic? Or is it realistic for a mummy to come back to life?
There is always a lot of moaning and whining when a female comic character is dressed in a skimpy costume, but dead silence when it's a male character.
Yeah, men like to look at barely dressed women and men like breasts - and when you're a teenager they're especially intriguing, something that is enhanced by the phenomenal lengths girls go to to prevent guys from seeing them.
Fact is Lara Croft would be completely uninteresting if all she had going for her were a couple of oversized mammary glands.
Not true at all. You have no more chance of getting an equal opportunity in the US than you do in numerous other countries; possibly less opportunity. Americans can't see it, probably because they think the world begins and ends at their borders, but for the rest of the world the US is definitely no longer first choice when considering migration. Possibly better communications have made more people aware that they will have few employee protections there and have a much greater chance of being exploited by their employer than in many other countries.
Perhaps one person co-ordinating or overseeing things. Doesn't change the fact that Jobs didn't design the Mac interface so the guy still doesn't know what he's talking about.
What you want to avoid is having 50 people all trying to force in their ideas. On the other hand small group design will give a good result without many of the shortcomings that get introduced by a single designer.
Round doorknobs tend to be more aesthetically pleasing, but impossible to use if your hands are in any way greasy (lotion, blood, whatever) and are a pain to use if you're carrying something.
Taps - in the bathroom I like those dual things that provide both hot and cold, but in my kitchen sink I like them separate. Both are generally easier to use if they have proper protrusions, i.e. they shouldn't mirror doorknobs.
Any kind of electrical switch for general use should have a clear indicator of which way is on. I can't imagine what he thinks is wrong with British switches.
Where I live we have both modes of knobs, taps and switches - you know what, we manage to use them all - there are many instances where one or the other type is better, not one solution for everything.
And why the left mouse button
Because that's where your index finger is, simple, obvious and quite correct.
There's nothing wrong with double-clicking, it's simple and trivial to learn - it's a simple motor skill. Frankly anyone who truly cannot do this for any reason other than something like parkinsons should probably be kept under constant supervision in case their utter inco-ordination causes them to injure themselves or others.
The biggest, stupidest design flaw on the Mac was that idiotic single button mouse that required endless key combinations to get anything done. But then the Mac was designed for morons who probably struggle with complicated technology like doorknobs. How do these people manage complex motor tasks like unlocking the steering on their cars or indicating while also operating the steering wheel. No wonder Americans generally drive automatics, imagine if they also had to operate a gear shift AND a clutch.
I think what we're looking at here is basic laziness and total stupidity neither of which should be indulged. People have to learn that things take a bit of effort to learn and it's not like learning to use a GUI requires any real effort.
Except that he seems, like many, to be operating under the clueless assumption that Apple designed some coherent wonderful interface whereas in fact the best in the interface came from the users and the worst from Apple themselves. Worse he seems to have the bizarre belief that Jobs himself designed all this - yeah he may have had some good ideas, but even the stuff genuinely created by Apple was designed by a team.
Worse he seems to have the notion that an OS is one monolithic thing - as long as you decide how things will interface in advance each piece can be done by completely disparate groups.
Basically like many he also has no idea how the open source world operates.
it is a *democracy* with free elections and free speech
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Some people are so gullible.
has only "invaded" its (and I laugh at this term) "neighbors" to prevent its own destruction
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It's morons like you that allow these pigs to continue their aggression against their neighbours.
Let's see the US is a threat to numerous countries around the world so let's attack them them. We're justified after all, right?
I hope the court hammers this stupid, thieving little prick into the ground.
Question is will those he has already stolen from be able to get back the money and domain names he has stolen?
From the article:
Designing speaker and video cable takes a lot of science
This certainly isn't true when it comes to speaker cable - the audio cable industry would impress even PT Barnum, I'm sure he didn't realise just what suckers people are.
And note the distinct lack of any actual scientific testing of the cable and no comparison amongst S-Video cables. You'll see the same thing in audiophile magazines in their so-called cable reviews. If we're going to use subjective tests then I can say that the picture I get with my cheap S-video cable looks just like the one they're getting with the Monster Cable.
Reality is that any decent quality cable will give you the same results as a cable that costs thousands of dollars. And when it comes to speaker cable decent grade lamp flex will equal any cable out there unless you happen to have your speakers at least 50m from your amp (differences are only really even significantly measurable at around 100m and up).
The morons who put this bill through are about as clueless as you can get when it comes to technology or even reality. In fact their talk is very much like that of members of the US government.
And it won't get enforced as they simply do not have the resources to police it.
There are questions in this regard, i.e. how robust is the cornea once it has healed? How does it compare to wearing glasses, soft or hard contact lenses? I'd say it is pretty dangerous to take a blow to the eye when wearing any of these and as yet there is no evidence, other than people suffering a blow relatively soon after surgery, that you're at any more risk subsequent to laser surgery than you would be from other corrective measures.
Let's say there was a designer. First off there is no way we can consider this designer perfect - there are design flaws in everything around us. Yes they work, but then so do the things we humans design, but mistakes get made. Furthermore each thing clearly carries elements of other things, often design ideas that should have been discarded. For one thing this means whatever built the world around us did it exactly the way we do it, i.e. build the best thing you can right now and work from there.
And if that is the case then it really makes no difference whether it was some being or what we call evolution, a blind process that builds from what came before. Simplicity means we discard the idea of a being and go with evolution.
That's like saying I looked at my plant and looked at it again a second later, but it hadn't grown, I don't think plants grow.
Come back again when you have been observing nature for a few million years.
This is the fundamental problem with the creationists, that they simply cannot even begin to fathom the timescales involved here.
The chemicals used by the bobardier beetle are not explosive when mixed. Even if they claim they meant unstable so what, many chemicals are unstable when manufactured outside the human body, but are held stable in the specific conditions under which they are created.
How do they know the beetle never misses, have they watched every one that has ever existed each time it has defended itself?
Attacking flaws in the creation argument is also perfectly acceptable - if their argument is flawed then their so-called science is not correct.
It is simply their lack of imagination that prevents them from imagining a path of mutations that could through natural selection result in the bombardier beetle.
It is an old argument (surprise, surprise the creationists keep bringing up the same ones every time) and it has been shot down repeatedly.
Is it really worth it - there's monthly subscriptions on top of which it's generally MP3 or some other compressed format and only works for a limited time - factor in the download costs and it's hardly worth bothering. Besides I have no interest in the trash the industry generally peddles.
There are few things more boring than sport. It's like watching paint peel, but without the exitement.
Yeah, it is damn irritating when they replace entertainment with sport.
Cancelled my subscription to a local channel after this happened one time too many.