Reading body language is a learned skill, and for a lot of people who have trouble with it, it's because they don't get enough practise. This is why I force myself to respond in person to support requests that I could probably handle over the phone, walk into fast-food places and get a "to go" order rather than going through the drive-thru, etc.
Re:Artist missed the "art" portion of the project.
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 1
It's not an all or nothing, black or white situation.
Glad to hear that you've changed your mind about that.
Re:Artist missed the "art" portion of the project.
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 1
You're right: you don't know anything about art. You seem to be taking the rather narrow-minded and ironically elitist viewpoint that anything you don't like isn't art.
Look, I'm not taking the extremist Dada or post-modern viewpoint that art is whatever the artist declares to be art. But yeah, being funny can definitely be art. Isn't humor creative? Gods, if art has to be as serious as you insist, then I'm not all that interested in it.
Re:Artist missed the "art" portion of the project.
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 1
My opinion: if you need to know the name of a piece to appreciate it at all, then it's not good art (I can think of no exceptions off hand...).
How about Duchamp's "Fountain"? By itself it's just an up-turned urinal. With the title, it's... something else. And Bruce Nauman's photograph of himself squirting water out of his mouth seems fairly pointless until you know it's entitled "Self Portrait as a Fountain" (at which point it becomes a self-deprecating reference to Duchamp).
There are a lot of art pieces (mostly 20th century and later) that are built on the relationship (usually ironic) between what they look like and what they're labeled. The interconnectedness of text and visuals doesn't make the art any less "good"; it's just more modern.
Re:Inconsistent Metaphor?
on
The Neuron Drive
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is useful criticism. I'd also recommend genericising the drive so it doesn't look like a product placement and the text doesn't capture the viewers eye so strongly so they can't get away from it. The square fans on the smaller neurons don't work for me, either; at least the drive looks like it could be embedded in the larger neuron rather than being tacked onto it.
As an artist,/. isn't exactly the first place I'd go for feedback. (In fact, I'm trying hard to think of an online forum that I would go to.) So don't take the snarky "this is stoopid" remarks too hard, Billy. Just make sure you keep stuff like concept in mind and try our alternative compositions before you commit to one.
You missed the point: That sometimes accepting a disability and using technology to compensate can result in a greater degree of freedom than fighting the disability for the sake of remaining independent of technology. One of my friends gave up walking with crutches for a chair, and he certainly seems better off because of it. It's not a simple question.
The answer to "Is X a panacea for Y?" is always "No." Even the proponents of most religions (well, the more thoughtful ones, at least) will admit that.
One of my best friends uses a fair amount of technology to compensate for his cerebral-palsy-induced inability to walk, most notably a rather expensive motorised chair. But he didn't always. When he and I were in college together, he used crutches and a traditional hand-pushed chair. But he stopped, and got a motorised chair that he now spends nearly all of his time in (and it's not because his condition is degenerating; CP doesn't do that). I disapproved, because I thought he was giving up and using tech as a (no better word for it) crutch. But I was wrong: He still pushes to get out, to do things, to see people, to go places. And the quality of his life is better this way.
My own situation is different. I have one of those brains that's not very well adapted to face-to-face social interaction, and it'd be really appealing to stick to online communication. But as difficult as I sometimes find dealing with people face to face, I have to admit that I tend to be happier when I've been doing that. So I do need to put the tech away sometimes.
Technology has never solved anything. But when used appropriately, it makes it possible for people to solve things.
Even if computer buyers were aware of and understood the difference between an admin-level account and a user-level account, there's still the (understandable but misguided) attitude that they're the ''owner'' of that computer, so ''of course'' they should have admin privileges.
What's so secure about working someplace where, if one of your coworkers gets hit by a bus or jumps ship, you're stuck with an unsolvable mess... and where management is inept enough to let this situation develop?
This is why they remain small businesses; because they can't rise above mediocrity.
Or maybe they just haven't fallen for the assumption that the only measure of success is size. Not every small business owner wants to become Rich DeVos (international MLM outfit) or Fred Meijer (regional grocery chain) or even Doug Kool (local car dealership). Some just want to be their own boss and provide a service to their customers. I wouldn't contemptuously dismiss that as "mediocrity"; I'd call it "perspective".
I have diplomas from my high school and two colleges. The only people who have ever seen any of them (aside from the whoever made them) are me and (in the case of the high school one) my parents.
In a sense, being a "generalist" is like another speciality. Once you start down that career path, it can be hard to get out of that and into some "real" speciality. After all, if someone's looking for a TLA expert, they're probably going to hire the guy with 5 years of experience doing just TLA work, not the guy with 7 years of total work experience but only 3 of that focusing on TLA.
But as a speciality, it has real expertise to it. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that translate into "specialist"-level pay. I've ruminated from time to time over my two decades in the job market, about the apparently-better money I could be making as a "real" specialist. But then I think about how much I'd hate that kind of job, and start to smile a little again.:)
As for the job title... screw it. My last couple jobs I wasn't even sure what my job title was. I asked my current boss once, and she wasn't sure. Probably just some generic verbiage (ironically) ending with "Specialist". Make something up that literally describes what you do (but avoiding anything loaded like "manager"). So if anyone call you on it (they won't), you weren't lying; you just couldn't remember, so you guessed.
(Shortly after I left one job, my co-worker got his (formerly our) title changed from "Computer Systems Specialist" to "Computer Systems Generalist". I liked that so much, I back-ported it to my own resume.)
But try cross-skilling in computers/finance, or computers/law, or computers/management. Then you will be in great demand.
I had a similar thought several years ago, and "cross-skilled" in computers/art-and-design. Turns out I'm not in much demand, especially post-bubble. I'm not complaining, because being "in demand" was just going to be icing on the cake of learning stuff I really wanted to know... but keep in mind that "demand" is not a constant.
For what it's worth, the Gospel of John was the last of the four canonical gospels written, and wasn't finished until ~100 years after the events it describes. Plenty of time for the theopolitics of the 1st Century to influence its composition. (Much as that obviously influenced the Epistles, which were largely attempts by their authors to "correct" theological unorthodoxies and heresies that were appearing among the various Christian sects.)
Don't judge a book by its cover. Or in this case, dont' judge a book by the layout/appearance of its contents. This hardly useful in a book review. When I read, I like to read the author's words; I do not care about the formatting and silly illustrations added by the editor and publisher.
If all you care about are the author's words, and not how they're presented, get the book-on-tape version. Read by Stephen Hawking.
Casting, cinematography, costuming, delivery of lines, etc. all matter in a movie... not just the script. Page layout, anatomy, and backgrounds matter in a graphic novel... not just the word balloons. And typesetting, package design, etc. matter in a book... not just the ms. It may not be the most important factor, but it's certainly a valid point.
My whole resume revolves around the theme of what you call "cross-skilling", but what I like to call (tongue firmly in cheek) "jack-of-all-trading". My ability to work effectively with Windows, Linux, and Mac OS, and to quickly figure out darn near anything else that might be thrown at me is my calling card. Because that's the kind of job I want, as the go-to-guy (or one of a few) for (just about) everything.
In a mid-sized shop, I can see value in making sure that any available techie is competent enough to muddle his way through any emergency situation, regardless of whether it's "his" area. That was how one of my best bosses approached it: I didn't need to know in detail ____'s job and the systems he was responsible for, but I needed to be know enough so that if they broke while he was on vacation, I could patch them up in less time than it took him to get back.
But I don't think it makes as much sense as the shop gets bigger and opportunity (and need) to specialise become greater. If the IT staff consists of dozens of people, and there's really enough work for all them to do, you don't want them wasting time crosstraining on everything. If you're that big you probably need some specialisation... you need some masters of their respective domains, not just a bunch of jacks.
Bottom line: it's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's a "what makes sense for me/for this employer" thing.
Parent's modded Funny, but it's more like Insightful. The point is: scare them.
Tell the Powers That Be that you're afraid that some disgruntled employee might turn them in. You like your job, so that's not gonna be you, and make sure they can see that. But it's a very real danger and you're trying to look out for the company. That's the message to bring them.
With that said (and especially if they still brush you off), you might want to consider just how much you like that job. If the company's asking you to do something unlawful for which you'd have take some of the blame, that's not exactly a company that cares about its people, y'know? I used to be "the PC guy" for a regional retailer that populated its entire corporate office with a single license each for Lotus 123 and WordPerfect. I'd include software in the purchase req. for a new PC, and one of the VPs would say "We already have that." (I finally persuaded them to start buying more licenses... to get more manuals.) Stupid stupid rat creatures. That was a warning sign, and I'm glad I got out when I did (before they imploded from executive incompetence).
I've been running the Betas and Release Candidates of NeoOffice on my G3 iBook, and they run as well as any other substantial apps do. That is, I'm not about to start gushing about how Neo screams on a G3 (because it doesn't), but its not as if Photoshop does, either.
I think Apple should offer some help to Neo Office J or OpenOffice.
It might be swell if they did, but I don't see a compelling motive for them to do so. On one hand, it would mean biting Microsoft, whose support of Office for Mac remains import to "legitimize" the Mac platform. On another hand, it would mean biting... themselves, because their own AppleWorks and iWork are in competition with NeoOffice.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading body language is a learned skill, and for a lot of people who have trouble with it, it's because they don't get enough practise. This is why I force myself to respond in person to support requests that I could probably handle over the phone, walk into fast-food places and get a "to go" order rather than going through the drive-thru, etc.
Glad to hear that you've changed your mind about that.
Look, I'm not taking the extremist Dada or post-modern viewpoint that art is whatever the artist declares to be art. But yeah, being funny can definitely be art. Isn't humor creative? Gods, if art has to be as serious as you insist, then I'm not all that interested in it.
How about Duchamp's "Fountain"? By itself it's just an up-turned urinal. With the title, it's... something else. And Bruce Nauman's photograph of himself squirting water out of his mouth seems fairly pointless until you know it's entitled "Self Portrait as a Fountain" (at which point it becomes a self-deprecating reference to Duchamp).
There are a lot of art pieces (mostly 20th century and later) that are built on the relationship (usually ironic) between what they look like and what they're labeled. The interconnectedness of text and visuals doesn't make the art any less "good"; it's just more modern.
As an artist, /. isn't exactly the first place I'd go for feedback. (In fact, I'm trying hard to think of an online forum that I would go to.) So don't take the snarky "this is stoopid" remarks too hard, Billy. Just make sure you keep stuff like concept in mind and try our alternative compositions before you commit to one.
The punchline is how much they cost: Six dollars a pound.
(As an artist myself: it's funny because it hurts.)
You missed the point: That sometimes accepting a disability and using technology to compensate can result in a greater degree of freedom than fighting the disability for the sake of remaining independent of technology. One of my friends gave up walking with crutches for a chair, and he certainly seems better off because of it. It's not a simple question.
One of my best friends uses a fair amount of technology to compensate for his cerebral-palsy-induced inability to walk, most notably a rather expensive motorised chair. But he didn't always. When he and I were in college together, he used crutches and a traditional hand-pushed chair. But he stopped, and got a motorised chair that he now spends nearly all of his time in (and it's not because his condition is degenerating; CP doesn't do that). I disapproved, because I thought he was giving up and using tech as a (no better word for it) crutch. But I was wrong: He still pushes to get out, to do things, to see people, to go places. And the quality of his life is better this way.
My own situation is different. I have one of those brains that's not very well adapted to face-to-face social interaction, and it'd be really appealing to stick to online communication. But as difficult as I sometimes find dealing with people face to face, I have to admit that I tend to be happier when I've been doing that. So I do need to put the tech away sometimes.
Technology has never solved anything. But when used appropriately, it makes it possible for people to solve things.
Even if computer buyers were aware of and understood the difference between an admin-level account and a user-level account, there's still the (understandable but misguided) attitude that they're the ''owner'' of that computer, so ''of course'' they should have admin privileges.
What's so secure about working someplace where, if one of your coworkers gets hit by a bus or jumps ship, you're stuck with an unsolvable mess... and where management is inept enough to let this situation develop?
Or maybe they just haven't fallen for the assumption that the only measure of success is size. Not every small business owner wants to become Rich DeVos (international MLM outfit) or Fred Meijer (regional grocery chain) or even Doug Kool (local car dealership). Some just want to be their own boss and provide a service to their customers. I wouldn't contemptuously dismiss that as "mediocrity"; I'd call it "perspective".
As long as you're comfortable with the common perception that anyone who does't know Windows is technologically incompetent.
I once tried installing love on both Unix and NT. Turns out it only runs on VMS! :D
I have diplomas from my high school and two colleges. The only people who have ever seen any of them (aside from the whoever made them) are me and (in the case of the high school one) my parents.
But as a speciality, it has real expertise to it. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that translate into "specialist"-level pay. I've ruminated from time to time over my two decades in the job market, about the apparently-better money I could be making as a "real" specialist. But then I think about how much I'd hate that kind of job, and start to smile a little again. :)
As for the job title... screw it. My last couple jobs I wasn't even sure what my job title was. I asked my current boss once, and she wasn't sure. Probably just some generic verbiage (ironically) ending with "Specialist". Make something up that literally describes what you do (but avoiding anything loaded like "manager"). So if anyone call you on it (they won't), you weren't lying; you just couldn't remember, so you guessed.
(Shortly after I left one job, my co-worker got his (formerly our) title changed from "Computer Systems Specialist" to "Computer Systems Generalist". I liked that so much, I back-ported it to my own resume.)
I had a similar thought several years ago, and "cross-skilled" in computers/art-and-design. Turns out I'm not in much demand, especially post-bubble. I'm not complaining, because being "in demand" was just going to be icing on the cake of learning stuff I really wanted to know... but keep in mind that "demand" is not a constant.
Or an arcane mess that no one else knows anything about, let alone understand.
For what it's worth, the Gospel of John was the last of the four canonical gospels written, and wasn't finished until ~100 years after the events it describes. Plenty of time for the theopolitics of the 1st Century to influence its composition. (Much as that obviously influenced the Epistles, which were largely attempts by their authors to "correct" theological unorthodoxies and heresies that were appearing among the various Christian sects.)
If all you care about are the author's words, and not how they're presented, get the book-on-tape version. Read by Stephen Hawking.
Casting, cinematography, costuming, delivery of lines, etc. all matter in a movie... not just the script. Page layout, anatomy, and backgrounds matter in a graphic novel... not just the word balloons. And typesetting, package design, etc. matter in a book... not just the ms. It may not be the most important factor, but it's certainly a valid point.
In a mid-sized shop, I can see value in making sure that any available techie is competent enough to muddle his way through any emergency situation, regardless of whether it's "his" area. That was how one of my best bosses approached it: I didn't need to know in detail ____'s job and the systems he was responsible for, but I needed to be know enough so that if they broke while he was on vacation, I could patch them up in less time than it took him to get back.
But I don't think it makes as much sense as the shop gets bigger and opportunity (and need) to specialise become greater. If the IT staff consists of dozens of people, and there's really enough work for all them to do, you don't want them wasting time crosstraining on everything. If you're that big you probably need some specialisation... you need some masters of their respective domains, not just a bunch of jacks.
Bottom line: it's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's a "what makes sense for me/for this employer" thing.
That's no moon...
Some trucks have more than 4 tires. Ever hear of an "Eighteen-wheeler"?
Tell the Powers That Be that you're afraid that some disgruntled employee might turn them in. You like your job, so that's not gonna be you, and make sure they can see that. But it's a very real danger and you're trying to look out for the company. That's the message to bring them.
With that said (and especially if they still brush you off), you might want to consider just how much you like that job. If the company's asking you to do something unlawful for which you'd have take some of the blame, that's not exactly a company that cares about its people, y'know? I used to be "the PC guy" for a regional retailer that populated its entire corporate office with a single license each for Lotus 123 and WordPerfect. I'd include software in the purchase req. for a new PC, and one of the VPs would say "We already have that." (I finally persuaded them to start buying more licenses... to get more manuals.) Stupid stupid rat creatures. That was a warning sign, and I'm glad I got out when I did (before they imploded from executive incompetence).
I've been running the Betas and Release Candidates of NeoOffice on my G3 iBook, and they run as well as any other substantial apps do. That is, I'm not about to start gushing about how Neo screams on a G3 (because it doesn't), but its not as if Photoshop does, either.
It might be swell if they did, but I don't see a compelling motive for them to do so. On one hand, it would mean biting Microsoft, whose support of Office for Mac remains import to "legitimize" the Mac platform. On another hand, it would mean biting... themselves, because their own AppleWorks and iWork are in competition with NeoOffice.