I have to wonder how much a person's self-esteem has to do with their self-perception. I usually don't think that people with externally-visible low self-esteem are terribly bright. People who are unable to address and/or deal with their inner troubles, for instance, get a very low rating with me. More commonly than not, these "frail" people tend to be women, in my experience (though there are certainly some strong ones). Kinda interesting looking at these observations in writing, and thinking back to how things "used to be" where women were considered the weaker sex - not as mentally bright, not as intrepid, etc. (Contrary to the status quo belief of the 'sexism' of yore, the 'weakness' of women was generally considered to be mental/emotional, not physical.)
Also, testosterone (resulting in an more forward inner drive) probably has something to do with it, I imagine. If someone is driven, they are more likely to manifest their dreams, or to even have those dreams. From what I've seen, guys with more testosterone are not only more extroverted and have higher self-esteem, but also tend to accomplish more than their peers if they're the least bit intelligent.
I've got two children - a daughter, 3, and a son, 6. I don't think my son is more intelligent than my daughter, and don't necessarily think the inverse is true, either. I'm unsure due to age and gender related development. I do know that my daughter tends to learn better: she listens more carefully, and is generally more attentive to what's being told to her. But she's also nowhere near as headstrong or driven as my son, either.
I'd be pleased as punch if things in the US change, but changing them to how they operate in Finland (or any Northern European country, for that matter) is not the way to reduce these things. Sorry, I don't think a 3-month vacation for a rapist is a good idea; he'll just get out and do it again.
I'm all for shorter prison sentences. No more than, say, 5 years for anything. However, there would certainly be sentences above and beyond that, but only a couple: execution should apply for 3rd time offenders, for instance.
Of course, baby steps need to be made. A LOT would need to change first, and it won't be changing in my lifetime.
If he's going to plead guilty when he's not, he has nothing to lose by pleading innocent and giving it his best shot.
You've heard of a plea bargain? He's got quite a lot to lose by not pleading guilty. By pleading guilty, he's getting a reduced sentence. It avoids the trial (and the associated time and costs) while reducing the sentence, but the accused has to plead guilty to get the deal.
So yeah, he's likely got 10+ years of his life to lose, if indeed he tries to go to court. He might win, granted, but people are pretty prejudice against people with child porn. Any crime against children, typically, results in the assumption of guilt in the mind of most people, so finding an impartial jury is going to be impossible.
It doesn't actually work that way - not in practice, at any rate. That's economics theory over-applied.
Let's suppose child porn didn't exist - a hypothetical situation, but also an admitted impossibility. If child porn didn't exist, why would anyone know to make it? How is this "demand" being demonstrated? If some guy says "I want naked pictures" you are not necessarily going to oblige him unless your intent is to do so anyway, correct?
The whole "you create demand for the creator's work" argument is a bit fallacious, I think.
Now, distribution, on the other hand... yeah, that should carry heavy penalties. And the creators should be publicly executed.
Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster, more reliable (than 2 and 3), and uses less memory, right? Oh, huh: it has been out for quite a while (I've been using it since at least April), too.
Nevermind that Firefox 2 really doesn't work all that well anymore. The web is a lot different now than it was then: much more javascript, more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2, and a lot more creative ads (does AdBlock support FF2 anymore?)
I don't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2, but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less.
Nope. People will just stop before clicking (or come back to it later, provided there's an option), call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice. It's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever, or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place. Except, unlike FF and OO, this choice will necessarily be made by every user.
Yet, we can't use titles like architect or engineer; not really, as those titles typically have licensing boards associated with them. It's not professionally honest to refer to one's self as an engineer or architect.
In a broad sense, yes, IT is Information Technologies. I'd argue it covers developers more than "support staff", which I'd lump into Information Systems. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that people refer to many of us "IT types" generically, as if we're faceless automations with little more standing socially than a janitor, and probably not as much as building maintenance. Most people - at least! - recognize building maintenance as having an intrinsic purpose: replacing lights, fixing damage, painting, and so on.
I've had people yell at me over the phone and in person while I've been in "3rd level" technician roles - IE, there were 2 technically adept people underneath me fielding calls, and I had other responsibilities as my primary role. Most people wouldn't dream of yelling at building maintenance if a light bulb goes out or they accidentally hit a hole in the wall.
Actually, you're both wrong. Secretary, at least, connotates a specific role - secretarial work. If not for the gender neutralization of our society, we'd still be using it, because it's a bit more specific and descriptive than "administrative assistant". (Granted, they might be different roles, but they are commonly interchangeable in definition these days, even though 'secretary' describes the role better.)
Calling, say, the only female law clerk, or some female doing a specific role (say, mail cart person or even a senior level position) the "office girl" would be closer than calling a secretary an "office girl".
I take it you haven't been in this situation before, or you'd not be critical of those saying "IT guy" is a bit derogatory. It very much is, in my experience. I once worked at a place where I had ~200 names I had to learn, and I did within a couple months. However, that wasn't before several people complained that I didn't remember their names (which they found insulting) to my manager. Never mind that many of them called me "the new IT guy" months after I started and there was only one of me to remember, or that I had a very peculiar "organic" network topology to learn and memorize at the same time (without any meaningful documentation). It happens, and it costs people their jobs when the level of respect drops below a threshold, into contempt or dislike.
It's not so much economics. There are certain things you can't buy: loyalty, desire, and the will to work on something unattractive.
You can offer the best and brightest the moon and more, but if they can't muster up the give-a-damn, they'll be going somewhere else sooner than later, along with knowledge and experience they will be able to apply elsewhere - against you.
I don't know about that. Counter-Strike 1.6 came out when I was 16 or 17. We - my group of friends - had been playing Counter-Strike since version.8, at least; maybe longer. It'd been at least two years of not-exclusive-but-certainly-predominant gameplay.
Flash forward to just a couple years ago; we're all adults, but we still prefer CS 1.5 or earlier to the 1.6, or 2.0 variants - the gameplay was/is better. Even as teenagers, we didn't upgrade our game servers and kept playing the older versions, because they were better.
Aside from being mildly amused that it's even possible to beat WoW, I am shocked - truly - that the person to "beat" the game first was not from Korea.
Are you serious? We (as in, humanity) neither need nor want Linux to be well documented for the neophyte. It'd be a counter-productive move, resulting in a lot of dissatisfied users.
You've got three, maybe 4, basic kinds of users, in my mind. Yes, stereotyped a bit, but I'm trying to make a point.
1) The technically inept who know it, and "just" use their computer within the limits of their intuition. They don't read much of anything. 2) The technically inept who doesn't know it, trying to change things, getting themselves in trouble. They read documentation, and try to make ends with it. 3) Technically inclined people who don't like to read documentation, but can figure things out with a point/click interface well enough (see: the bulk of Windows administrator types). 4) Technically inclined people who read documentation, and don't need "Windows" style useless documentation which can be inferred easily enough by looking at the menus/etc.
There isn't any room for "beginner" documentation there. A graphical UI is supposed to be self-documenting (which is, I believe, one of the earlier GUI selling points), and if that isn't enough, then you've either got to use something else to get the job done, or there is a fundamental design flaw in the UI which should be rectified.
The one form of beginner/newbie documentation I could recommend being more 'forefront' would be a guide to how the system works (Xorg/kernel/multiuser interaction, etc.), which resources to use to find more info (man, info, apropos, etc.) and so on. It wouldn't have to be long - just a page or so, printed. But it'd certainly push category 4 in teh right direction, as well as provide category 3 with enough information to get what they need, when they have to.
And it's at least another level of magnitude to try and reverse engineer something (vs. engineer it). Ever work on a vehicle? Yeah, it's much, much easier to put it back together once you know how it goes together than it is to take it apart.
You're telling it straight. I was the sysadmin for a small hospital - pretty much the only person who took care of servers and workstations - and I came in several mornings (well, on two separate occasions) to find new systems (and their respective vendors) in "my" server room. Apparently this-or-that department needed something and paid for it, and didn't let me know. There was very little I had any control of there, and despite the title and job description, the institutional attitude was "let me have my WeatherBug on my computer, or you'll get it from the higher-ups". And that's ultimately what happened, I think (more or less).
Having an IT Manager who's only qualification for the position was holding the position, and some secretarial work *cough* years ago probably didn't help. God I'm glad I'm not there, even though it's tarnished my record seemingly permanently.
Except all those tests are money makers for hospitals. So, in this case, digitization of records and the increase in technology has decreased revenue for the hospitals/doctors (never mind the chart transfer fees they can't charge).
It's software on your system which you don't want there, didn't ask for, and can't easily get rid of without a significant investment in time and/or knowledge.
Seems like it fits the definition to me. In Windows, malware usually infests the system (registry, files, processes, etc.), and sometimes it's not all that clandestine about it. This would not be so dissimilar from unwanted software which only remains resident in the user $HOME: due to uniform package manage management and vastly improved upon install scripts/configuration, a reinstall is relatively straight forward (dump package names, reinstall, install packages) and takes a reasonably short period of time (less than a Windows install on its own, for instance). Instead, the offending executable would have to be dug out of $HOME manually (or found with a tool) - either way, it's an agitation and non-trivial if you're unsure of what you're looking for.
Now, is this malware example particularly trivial and not all that attention grabbing? Yes. How did this make FP?
When I was a kid, our house had one computer for a great many years (until I saved up for my own). It ran DOS and Win95 (and it really shouldn't have been with 8M of RAM). I remember Windows broke, whether by intervention or otherwise, and we had a technician come over (who claimed to be able to read the sparse dumps when an app crashed *g*).
Well, that made Dad steaming mad, because it was expensive. The next time it broke, I was told to fix it. And I did, after several days of fucking around trying to figure out what I'd done.
After I got my own computer, I broke Windows several times, as well as Linux. But I got to the point where it wasn't an issue, I'd installed Windows so many times. Thankfully, I had a second computer to help me find answers.
Kids these days, wanting an 'adult' to fix things for them. Figure it out yourself, don't ask for someone else to figure it out!
More often than not, I've noticed that in a smaller environment (ie not a corporate network or server farm where you've got an IT culture) they'll rarely tell you up-front that you're going to be on-call.
One place I worked at didn't tell me there'd be 24h on-call until after I'd moved my family 800 miles. Oh, and it was an hourly position, with no stipulations for "on call". Yeah, that whole situation was fun.
No, it isn't. Calling everyone "IT" is the equivilent to calling a brain surgeon a medical transcriptionist - you know, the ones which write out what all the doctors say, and who have only the requirement of being able to type quickly.
That's what often happens. Some guy with a BS in CS (or IT), a masters or the like, and additional training gets called an "IT guy" with regularity by the other staff where they work. It's inexcusable, because it only happens to IT.
Now we just need to figure out how to make it OK to appear like irritable/grumpy eccentrics, like the doctors pull off.
I'm in the US. I don't put titles on my resume unless they reflect what I do.
For instance, if I'm an "IT Specialist" (a title which almost guarantees the HR types don't know what the job entails, nevermind the possibility that your manager doesn't either) then there's a high probability that I'm going to put something else on my resume. My resume is to sell me, and reflect what I did in the position. It doesn't need to be the title.
This is especially true, because the most common IT/health/electric/law guy is the one on the low end of things. There are a lot more law clerks than lawyers, for instance. Yet most technologists get lumped in as an "IT guy" whereas those in the medical field get the respect of distinction.
It's kinda hard to be distinguished in your field when most people haven't a fucking clue that there's any degree of variation.
A civil engineer can at least explain his role and responsibilities as they contrast to, say, an Engineer In Training, draftsman, or any other position which does things similar to him. (Eg, "I design and specify build requirements for roadways, buildings, etc. whereas my partner, the environmental engineer, works on water spillways and various other things. We have EITs and draftsmen who work under us.")
How would you go about those sentences for IT? "I'm a system administrator, and I uh...." - you can't. You'll have to explain the meanings of: server, network, servers (the software kind) and so on. The best you might be able to do is say you work in the datacenter making the Internet (or file servers) work, but that's either hyperbole or a gross under-representation of what you really do (and not terribly good for job security).
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder how much a person's self-esteem has to do with their self-perception. I usually don't think that people with externally-visible low self-esteem are terribly bright. People who are unable to address and/or deal with their inner troubles, for instance, get a very low rating with me. More commonly than not, these "frail" people tend to be women, in my experience (though there are certainly some strong ones). Kinda interesting looking at these observations in writing, and thinking back to how things "used to be" where women were considered the weaker sex - not as mentally bright, not as intrepid, etc. (Contrary to the status quo belief of the 'sexism' of yore, the 'weakness' of women was generally considered to be mental/emotional, not physical.)
Also, testosterone (resulting in an more forward inner drive) probably has something to do with it, I imagine. If someone is driven, they are more likely to manifest their dreams, or to even have those dreams. From what I've seen, guys with more testosterone are not only more extroverted and have higher self-esteem, but also tend to accomplish more than their peers if they're the least bit intelligent.
I've got two children - a daughter, 3, and a son, 6. I don't think my son is more intelligent than my daughter, and don't necessarily think the inverse is true, either. I'm unsure due to age and gender related development. I do know that my daughter tends to learn better: she listens more carefully, and is generally more attentive to what's being told to her. But she's also nowhere near as headstrong or driven as my son, either.
A while back? Was that before or after the asylums were dismantled, converted to hospitals, and the like?
I'd be pleased as punch if things in the US change, but changing them to how they operate in Finland (or any Northern European country, for that matter) is not the way to reduce these things. Sorry, I don't think a 3-month vacation for a rapist is a good idea; he'll just get out and do it again.
I'm all for shorter prison sentences. No more than, say, 5 years for anything. However, there would certainly be sentences above and beyond that, but only a couple: execution should apply for 3rd time offenders, for instance.
Of course, baby steps need to be made. A LOT would need to change first, and it won't be changing in my lifetime.
If he's going to plead guilty when he's not, he has nothing to lose by pleading innocent and giving it his best shot.
You've heard of a plea bargain? He's got quite a lot to lose by not pleading guilty. By pleading guilty, he's getting a reduced sentence. It avoids the trial (and the associated time and costs) while reducing the sentence, but the accused has to plead guilty to get the deal.
So yeah, he's likely got 10+ years of his life to lose, if indeed he tries to go to court. He might win, granted, but people are pretty prejudice against people with child porn. Any crime against children, typically, results in the assumption of guilt in the mind of most people, so finding an impartial jury is going to be impossible.
It doesn't actually work that way - not in practice, at any rate. That's economics theory over-applied.
Let's suppose child porn didn't exist - a hypothetical situation, but also an admitted impossibility. If child porn didn't exist, why would anyone know to make it? How is this "demand" being demonstrated? If some guy says "I want naked pictures" you are not necessarily going to oblige him unless your intent is to do so anyway, correct?
The whole "you create demand for the creator's work" argument is a bit fallacious, I think.
Now, distribution, on the other hand... yeah, that should carry heavy penalties. And the creators should be publicly executed.
Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster, more reliable (than 2 and 3), and uses less memory, right? Oh, huh: it has been out for quite a while (I've been using it since at least April), too.
Nevermind that Firefox 2 really doesn't work all that well anymore. The web is a lot different now than it was then: much more javascript, more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2, and a lot more creative ads (does AdBlock support FF2 anymore?)
I don't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2, but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less.
Nope. People will just stop before clicking (or come back to it later, provided there's an option), call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice. It's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever, or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place. Except, unlike FF and OO, this choice will necessarily be made by every user.
Yet, we can't use titles like architect or engineer; not really, as those titles typically have licensing boards associated with them. It's not professionally honest to refer to one's self as an engineer or architect.
In a broad sense, yes, IT is Information Technologies. I'd argue it covers developers more than "support staff", which I'd lump into Information Systems. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that people refer to many of us "IT types" generically, as if we're faceless automations with little more standing socially than a janitor, and probably not as much as building maintenance. Most people - at least! - recognize building maintenance as having an intrinsic purpose: replacing lights, fixing damage, painting, and so on.
I've had people yell at me over the phone and in person while I've been in "3rd level" technician roles - IE, there were 2 technically adept people underneath me fielding calls, and I had other responsibilities as my primary role. Most people wouldn't dream of yelling at building maintenance if a light bulb goes out or they accidentally hit a hole in the wall.
Actually, you're both wrong. Secretary, at least, connotates a specific role - secretarial work. If not for the gender neutralization of our society, we'd still be using it, because it's a bit more specific and descriptive than "administrative assistant". (Granted, they might be different roles, but they are commonly interchangeable in definition these days, even though 'secretary' describes the role better.)
Calling, say, the only female law clerk, or some female doing a specific role (say, mail cart person or even a senior level position) the "office girl" would be closer than calling a secretary an "office girl".
I take it you haven't been in this situation before, or you'd not be critical of those saying "IT guy" is a bit derogatory. It very much is, in my experience. I once worked at a place where I had ~200 names I had to learn, and I did within a couple months. However, that wasn't before several people complained that I didn't remember their names (which they found insulting) to my manager. Never mind that many of them called me "the new IT guy" months after I started and there was only one of me to remember, or that I had a very peculiar "organic" network topology to learn and memorize at the same time (without any meaningful documentation). It happens, and it costs people their jobs when the level of respect drops below a threshold, into contempt or dislike.
It's not so much economics. There are certain things you can't buy: loyalty, desire, and the will to work on something unattractive.
You can offer the best and brightest the moon and more, but if they can't muster up the give-a-damn, they'll be going somewhere else sooner than later, along with knowledge and experience they will be able to apply elsewhere - against you.
I don't know about that. Counter-Strike 1.6 came out when I was 16 or 17. We - my group of friends - had been playing Counter-Strike since version .8, at least; maybe longer. It'd been at least two years of not-exclusive-but-certainly-predominant gameplay.
Flash forward to just a couple years ago; we're all adults, but we still prefer CS 1.5 or earlier to the 1.6, or 2.0 variants - the gameplay was/is better. Even as teenagers, we didn't upgrade our game servers and kept playing the older versions, because they were better.
Aside from being mildly amused that it's even possible to beat WoW, I am shocked - truly - that the person to "beat" the game first was not from Korea.
The documentation for troubleshooting is much more thorough than other systems provide: /var/log /proc/ /etc
That should be all you need.
Before you can troubleshoot, however, you need to understand the basic interaction of the system, and the basics of how those components work.
Don't expect to be considered a "professional" if the sum of your job can be written in a concise guide.
Are you serious? We (as in, humanity) neither need nor want Linux to be well documented for the neophyte. It'd be a counter-productive move, resulting in a lot of dissatisfied users.
You've got three, maybe 4, basic kinds of users, in my mind. Yes, stereotyped a bit, but I'm trying to make a point.
1) The technically inept who know it, and "just" use their computer within the limits of their intuition. They don't read much of anything.
2) The technically inept who doesn't know it, trying to change things, getting themselves in trouble. They read documentation, and try to make ends with it.
3) Technically inclined people who don't like to read documentation, but can figure things out with a point/click interface well enough (see: the bulk of Windows administrator types).
4) Technically inclined people who read documentation, and don't need "Windows" style useless documentation which can be inferred easily enough by looking at the menus/etc.
There isn't any room for "beginner" documentation there. A graphical UI is supposed to be self-documenting (which is, I believe, one of the earlier GUI selling points), and if that isn't enough, then you've either got to use something else to get the job done, or there is a fundamental design flaw in the UI which should be rectified.
The one form of beginner/newbie documentation I could recommend being more 'forefront' would be a guide to how the system works (Xorg/kernel/multiuser interaction, etc.), which resources to use to find more info (man, info, apropos, etc.) and so on. It wouldn't have to be long - just a page or so, printed. But it'd certainly push category 4 in teh right direction, as well as provide category 3 with enough information to get what they need, when they have to.
Not if the dropping patient care quality statistics are any indication, no. "Patient care" is not getting better.
And it's at least another level of magnitude to try and reverse engineer something (vs. engineer it). Ever work on a vehicle? Yeah, it's much, much easier to put it back together once you know how it goes together than it is to take it apart.
You're telling it straight. I was the sysadmin for a small hospital - pretty much the only person who took care of servers and workstations - and I came in several mornings (well, on two separate occasions) to find new systems (and their respective vendors) in "my" server room. Apparently this-or-that department needed something and paid for it, and didn't let me know. There was very little I had any control of there, and despite the title and job description, the institutional attitude was "let me have my WeatherBug on my computer, or you'll get it from the higher-ups". And that's ultimately what happened, I think (more or less).
Having an IT Manager who's only qualification for the position was holding the position, and some secretarial work *cough* years ago probably didn't help. God I'm glad I'm not there, even though it's tarnished my record seemingly permanently.
Except all those tests are money makers for hospitals. So, in this case, digitization of records and the increase in technology has decreased revenue for the hospitals/doctors (never mind the chart transfer fees they can't charge).
What is it that makes malware, well, malware?
It's software on your system which you don't want there, didn't ask for, and can't easily get rid of without a significant investment in time and/or knowledge.
Seems like it fits the definition to me. In Windows, malware usually infests the system (registry, files, processes, etc.), and sometimes it's not all that clandestine about it. This would not be so dissimilar from unwanted software which only remains resident in the user $HOME: due to uniform package manage management and vastly improved upon install scripts/configuration, a reinstall is relatively straight forward (dump package names, reinstall, install packages) and takes a reasonably short period of time (less than a Windows install on its own, for instance). Instead, the offending executable would have to be dug out of $HOME manually (or found with a tool) - either way, it's an agitation and non-trivial if you're unsure of what you're looking for.
Now, is this malware example particularly trivial and not all that attention grabbing? Yes. How did this make FP?
When I was a kid, our house had one computer for a great many years (until I saved up for my own). It ran DOS and Win95 (and it really shouldn't have been with 8M of RAM). I remember Windows broke, whether by intervention or otherwise, and we had a technician come over (who claimed to be able to read the sparse dumps when an app crashed *g*).
Well, that made Dad steaming mad, because it was expensive. The next time it broke, I was told to fix it. And I did, after several days of fucking around trying to figure out what I'd done.
After I got my own computer, I broke Windows several times, as well as Linux. But I got to the point where it wasn't an issue, I'd installed Windows so many times. Thankfully, I had a second computer to help me find answers.
Kids these days, wanting an 'adult' to fix things for them. Figure it out yourself, don't ask for someone else to figure it out!
More often than not, I've noticed that in a smaller environment (ie not a corporate network or server farm where you've got an IT culture) they'll rarely tell you up-front that you're going to be on-call.
One place I worked at didn't tell me there'd be 24h on-call until after I'd moved my family 800 miles. Oh, and it was an hourly position, with no stipulations for "on call". Yeah, that whole situation was fun.
No, it isn't. Calling everyone "IT" is the equivilent to calling a brain surgeon a medical transcriptionist - you know, the ones which write out what all the doctors say, and who have only the requirement of being able to type quickly.
That's what often happens. Some guy with a BS in CS (or IT), a masters or the like, and additional training gets called an "IT guy" with regularity by the other staff where they work. It's inexcusable, because it only happens to IT.
Now we just need to figure out how to make it OK to appear like irritable/grumpy eccentrics, like the doctors pull off.
I'm in the US. I don't put titles on my resume unless they reflect what I do.
For instance, if I'm an "IT Specialist" (a title which almost guarantees the HR types don't know what the job entails, nevermind the possibility that your manager doesn't either) then there's a high probability that I'm going to put something else on my resume. My resume is to sell me, and reflect what I did in the position. It doesn't need to be the title.
This is especially true, because the most common IT/health/electric/law guy is the one on the low end of things. There are a lot more law clerks than lawyers, for instance. Yet most technologists get lumped in as an "IT guy" whereas those in the medical field get the respect of distinction.
It's kinda hard to be distinguished in your field when most people haven't a fucking clue that there's any degree of variation.
Not going to happen.
A civil engineer can at least explain his role and responsibilities as they contrast to, say, an Engineer In Training, draftsman, or any other position which does things similar to him. (Eg, "I design and specify build requirements for roadways, buildings, etc. whereas my partner, the environmental engineer, works on water spillways and various other things. We have EITs and draftsmen who work under us.")
How would you go about those sentences for IT? "I'm a system administrator, and I uh...." - you can't. You'll have to explain the meanings of: server, network, servers (the software kind) and so on. The best you might be able to do is say you work in the datacenter making the Internet (or file servers) work, but that's either hyperbole or a gross under-representation of what you really do (and not terribly good for job security).