I'm in a similar boat as you; I'm 36, have worked professionally in IT since the mid 90's and now I'm back in school to get my bachelors. Except, instead of returning to engineering, I'm setting my sights on the future, say 10-15 years from now, in a completely different field. Why you ask? Read on...
The IT field grows by leaps and bounds on an almost daily basis. Sure, the tried and true technologies that have always been here will always be, but it seems like every day there's a new language or protocol or standard to master. This leaves you with one of two choices from a professional perspective: either spread yourself so thin trying to keep up with all (or a lot) of them, or become so focused on a narrow slice that you effectively get pigeonholed for the rest of your career.
If you're already accomplished in IT, there's far less room for you to grow than the young 20-somethings who have just gotten out of school. If you stay in an engineering capacity, you'll soon find yourself competing with them; being that they're still junior, they'll have more freedom to run circles around you with the latest and greatest.
It's better to pursue a (gasp!) management degree or similar, and take your IT accomplishments with you into the next realm, where you'll be the one with the whiz bang skills that beats the snot out of the resident Excel or PowerPoint wizard.
You're absolutely right about the money factor, although I don't know if I could squarely place the blame on the whiners. (Although, yes, they are a huge factor!) Every time I drive down the highway, I can't help but laugh at the "Your tax dollars at work" repair signs, yet the construction project has been dragging on for years, without so much as a construction crew parked on site.
Scaring people into buying into the idea probably won't work either... perhaps there's some way to tie in sattelite dishes with some sort of distributed computing mechanism, a-la Seti@home. I know that I wouldn't mind contributing unused cycles to sleep a little better at night:)
The article mentions the deisgnation of the asteroid as 2002 EM7. If memory serves me, asteroids and other heavenly bodies are named with the year that they were discovered. Hence, this one in 2002. But the article goes on to say that the only hope of figuring out if one will hit us is to watch its trajectory while it's not in front of the sun, and then extrapolate when it would be expected to collide.
Based on that info, is it safe to assume they had no idea this thing existed at all before it passed us? If that's true, then what's to keep them from missing all the other ones that aren't out in the open and not hiding in the sun's light?
Not that I'm bashing scientists, I have tremendous respect for these guys and I understand that some things go by undetected. At least they didn't issue it a visa after it had passed!
According to the RedHat submission: "Open source and free software is distinct from traditional (proprietary) software in that it is produced by a generally voluntary, collaborative process, and accompanied by a license that pants users the right to:...
So, what RedHat is saying is: Microsoft stole our pants... we want 'em back!
According to the article, the studios are more interested in suing the manufacturers for making the product, rather than you and me for using it: "Nobody's suing people who actually infringe copyrights anymore. Everyone is suing people who make devices," Lemley said. "The [studios] are going after the creation of new technology."
Ok, so let's say they chase all these companies down and kill the PVR industry. Me, wanting the functionality, but having no outlet, decides to build one from a Linux Box and a TV card (which I'm actually doing right now because I'm too broke to buy one and it's fun to hack!). If the Industry Giants catch a whiff of this, do they sue me for "manufacturing" a device?
Here's an invention that they'll probably support -- a device that forces your eyelids open and force-feeds you 2 hours of advertising a day. Any attempt to blink would be a violation of the EULA. Better yet, why don't they buy men-oriented advertising space on women's chests, they know guys are staring at them intently!
Rather than a few words, I kinda submitted a manifesto.... hopefully the DOJ got it, 'cause I sent it from my Hotmail account, and who knows what they're filtering;)
To whom it may concern,
As a server engineer, I am constantly faced with the undue burden that
Microsoft places on my IT department. According to the terms of their varied
licensing agreements, it is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to
be able to perform my professional duties. Although I am not well versed in
law, I would like to point out some examples of how their anti-competitive
business practices hurt the IT industry, and the population at large:
1) When negotiating with Hardware Vendors, it is often difficult to purchase
a server or desktop running a competing operating system. Although I could
purchase, for example, a high end server from Sun, in many cases it would
make financial sense to purchase a less expensive Intel-based machine with
an alternative OS preinstalled on it, or a "blank" machine which I could
then install upon the OS of my choice. Since MS leverages its monopoly power
against hardware vendors, I usually have to pay for a license of Windows
that I will never use.
2) In cases where it is deemed necessary to utilize a Microsoft operating
system or product (for example Microsoft Exchange), IT professionals, are
forced to also use Microsoft Outlook, which invariably means that they are
also forced to use Microsoft Windows if they choose to use the Intel
platform.
3) As a result of Microsoft's lack of attention to the stability and
security of their products, an inordinate amount of time (therfore money) is
spent patching and repairing their products to minimize downtime and to
recover from catastrophic failures, viruses, and unauthorized entry into
systems that the IT department is ultimately responsible for. While constant
vigilance is required of any IT department regarding the maintenance of any
software or hardware product, Microsoft's monopoly in this arena allows them
the lattitude to be negligent without fear of reprisal from their customers.
4) As a result of Microsoft's monopoly, end users cannot easily mix and
match technologies to suit their particular needs. This is especially
infuriating when one considers that many people are dissatisfied with the
quality of their products and services, but have no choice but to continue
using them, due to the fact that their standards prevent people from taking
their existing work and moving it to another system. Microsoft Office is an
excellent example of this, where I cannot easily use a Word document with a
different word processing package, because much of the work I had already
done would need to be re-created. As a hypothetical situation, consider the
scenario where Ford or General Motors created cars that crashed frequently
or were overly easy to steal due to design faults; they would suffer because
the car buying public would simply switch to a competitor. The public would
be satisfied in this case because their transportation needs would be met,
without being forced to still contribute to the offending company. In other
words, if we are dissatisfied with Ford, we could buy a GM without having to
buy Ford gas, Ford oil, Ford air-fresheners, etc. Free competition would
guarantee that any company would ultimately be responsible to ensure that it
produces a quality product with the satisfaction of the end user in mind.
5) Upon inspection, the prescribed remdies are too narrow in their focus to
prevent this sort of behavior in the future. For example, many of the
remedies are in regard to Microsoft software as it is applied to Intel
hardware, however it is painfully obvious that they have many interests
outside of the Intel marketplace, to which the remedies would not apply.
Microsoft could just as easily switch their focus to, let's say, Apple and
abandon the Intel platform. Because so many people are dependant on their
software, they would have little choice but to follow them and be subjected
to the same behavior that they currently employ. Ultimately, anyone who
chooses to create a competing product revolving around the Intel platform
would find themselves with very few customers. Organizations would find that
they now have the added burden of throwing out their existing hardware for
which they will get no return on investment, and be forced to spend
additional money to switch to Microsoft's hardware vendor of choice.
In closing, I realize that I'm stating the obvious, which countless others
have noted before me. However, if my two cents worth can contribute to a
positive outcome in this matter, I'll sleep better at night knowing that I
still have freedom of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in a similar boat as you; I'm 36, have worked professionally in IT since the mid 90's and now I'm back in school to get my bachelors. Except, instead of returning to engineering, I'm setting my sights on the future, say 10-15 years from now, in a completely different field. Why you ask? Read on...
The IT field grows by leaps and bounds on an almost daily basis. Sure, the tried and true technologies that have always been here will always be, but it seems like every day there's a new language or protocol or standard to master. This leaves you with one of two choices from a professional perspective: either spread yourself so thin trying to keep up with all (or a lot) of them, or become so focused on a narrow slice that you effectively get pigeonholed for the rest of your career.
If you're already accomplished in IT, there's far less room for you to grow than the young 20-somethings who have just gotten out of school. If you stay in an engineering capacity, you'll soon find yourself competing with them; being that they're still junior, they'll have more freedom to run circles around you with the latest and greatest.
It's better to pursue a (gasp!) management degree or similar, and take your IT accomplishments with you into the next realm, where you'll be the one with the whiz bang skills that beats the snot out of the resident Excel or PowerPoint wizard.
Oh god, a 500 error! MY EYES! THEY BURN!
Are you kidding? This is Slashdot, a 500 error practically constitutes foreplay. Strong language indeed! :-)
Instant asshole, just add alcohol
i stopped paying for porn the day i discovered a web browser!
Of course, the robotic dogs could always shoot bees...
A beowulf cluster of human pac-men?
Great, can't wait to see the headlines: Dumbass kills self while trying to take picture, family sues gun manufacturer.
You're absolutely right about the money factor, although I don't know if I could squarely place the blame on the whiners. (Although, yes, they are a huge factor!) Every time I drive down the highway, I can't help but laugh at the "Your tax dollars at work" repair signs, yet the construction project has been dragging on for years, without so much as a construction crew parked on site.
:)
Scaring people into buying into the idea probably won't work either... perhaps there's some way to tie in sattelite dishes with some sort of distributed computing mechanism, a-la Seti@home. I know that I wouldn't mind contributing unused cycles to sleep a little better at night
The article mentions the deisgnation of the asteroid as 2002 EM7. If memory serves me, asteroids and other heavenly bodies are named with the year that they were discovered. Hence, this one in 2002. But the article goes on to say that the only hope of figuring out if one will hit us is to watch its trajectory while it's not in front of the sun, and then extrapolate when it would be expected to collide.
Based on that info, is it safe to assume they had no idea this thing existed at all before it passed us? If that's true, then what's to keep them from missing all the other ones that aren't out in the open and not hiding in the sun's light?
Not that I'm bashing scientists, I have tremendous respect for these guys and I understand that some things go by undetected. At least they didn't issue it a visa after it had passed!
So, what RedHat is saying is: Microsoft stole our pants... we want 'em back!
Ok, so let's say they chase all these companies down and kill the PVR industry. Me, wanting the functionality, but having no outlet, decides to build one from a Linux Box and a TV card (which I'm actually doing right now because I'm too broke to buy one and it's fun to hack!). If the Industry Giants catch a whiff of this, do they sue me for "manufacturing" a device?
Here's an invention that they'll probably support -- a device that forces your eyelids open and force-feeds you 2 hours of advertising a day. Any attempt to blink would be a violation of the EULA. Better yet, why don't they buy men-oriented advertising space on women's chests, they know guys are staring at them intently!
Rather than a few words, I kinda submitted a manifesto.... hopefully the DOJ got it, 'cause I sent it from my Hotmail account, and who knows what they're filtering ;)
To whom it may concern,
As a server engineer, I am constantly faced with the undue burden that
Microsoft places on my IT department. According to the terms of their varied
licensing agreements, it is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to
be able to perform my professional duties. Although I am not well versed in
law, I would like to point out some examples of how their anti-competitive
business practices hurt the IT industry, and the population at large:
1) When negotiating with Hardware Vendors, it is often difficult to purchase
a server or desktop running a competing operating system. Although I could
purchase, for example, a high end server from Sun, in many cases it would
make financial sense to purchase a less expensive Intel-based machine with
an alternative OS preinstalled on it, or a "blank" machine which I could
then install upon the OS of my choice. Since MS leverages its monopoly power
against hardware vendors, I usually have to pay for a license of Windows
that I will never use.
2) In cases where it is deemed necessary to utilize a Microsoft operating
system or product (for example Microsoft Exchange), IT professionals, are
forced to also use Microsoft Outlook, which invariably means that they are
also forced to use Microsoft Windows if they choose to use the Intel
platform.
3) As a result of Microsoft's lack of attention to the stability and
security of their products, an inordinate amount of time (therfore money) is
spent patching and repairing their products to minimize downtime and to
recover from catastrophic failures, viruses, and unauthorized entry into
systems that the IT department is ultimately responsible for. While constant
vigilance is required of any IT department regarding the maintenance of any
software or hardware product, Microsoft's monopoly in this arena allows them
the lattitude to be negligent without fear of reprisal from their customers.
4) As a result of Microsoft's monopoly, end users cannot easily mix and
match technologies to suit their particular needs. This is especially
infuriating when one considers that many people are dissatisfied with the
quality of their products and services, but have no choice but to continue
using them, due to the fact that their standards prevent people from taking
their existing work and moving it to another system. Microsoft Office is an
excellent example of this, where I cannot easily use a Word document with a
different word processing package, because much of the work I had already
done would need to be re-created. As a hypothetical situation, consider the
scenario where Ford or General Motors created cars that crashed frequently
or were overly easy to steal due to design faults; they would suffer because
the car buying public would simply switch to a competitor. The public would
be satisfied in this case because their transportation needs would be met,
without being forced to still contribute to the offending company. In other
words, if we are dissatisfied with Ford, we could buy a GM without having to
buy Ford gas, Ford oil, Ford air-fresheners, etc. Free competition would
guarantee that any company would ultimately be responsible to ensure that it
produces a quality product with the satisfaction of the end user in mind.
5) Upon inspection, the prescribed remdies are too narrow in their focus to
prevent this sort of behavior in the future. For example, many of the
remedies are in regard to Microsoft software as it is applied to Intel
hardware, however it is painfully obvious that they have many interests
outside of the Intel marketplace, to which the remedies would not apply.
Microsoft could just as easily switch their focus to, let's say, Apple and
abandon the Intel platform. Because so many people are dependant on their
software, they would have little choice but to follow them and be subjected
to the same behavior that they currently employ. Ultimately, anyone who
chooses to create a competing product revolving around the Intel platform
would find themselves with very few customers. Organizations would find that
they now have the added burden of throwing out their existing hardware for
which they will get no return on investment, and be forced to spend
additional money to switch to Microsoft's hardware vendor of choice.
In closing, I realize that I'm stating the obvious, which countless others
have noted before me. However, if my two cents worth can contribute to a
positive outcome in this matter, I'll sleep better at night knowing that I
still have freedom of choice.
Sincerely,
My real name