"Amateur" is sometimes used as an insult, to mean something isn't very good, and many companies tout themselves as being "professional" i.e. good.
But is the distinction really true? There are many artists that failed to make a living from their art during their lifetime. Does that make them amateurs?
And I think that some of the MS certified "professionals" I've met really don't deserve the name...
Set up a VNC server and put a client on a USB thumb drive, configured to display full screen. Then just plug your USB drive into your friends computer, double click and watch their faces as they see their windows machine instantly converted to a linux one...
This is great use for emergencies. You can have a backup web server configured identically to the main one. If the first web server goes down, just update the IP address in the domain record and your back on-line in five minutes.
Good for those of us which host web sites for clients.
Microsoft paid, what, $400 million for Hotmail. Then they must have paid quite a bit to port the back end to Windows. Now they are going to have increase the hardware of the back end considerably to compete with Gmail. And it's a free service.
Consider this - the gov is contracting civilian security personnel who are paid many times more than the normal troops are. Both the troops and these contractors are paid with your tax dollars. Is that the act of a government that cares?
By integrating MSN search to the "search" feature, Microsoft can theoretically blur the lines between the Internet and the local PC.
You are forgetting MS is now officially a monopoly. Their legal problems have changed the way they do business. They can't be as nasty as they used to be.
competing with Microsoft has historically been a bad move
This is a bit of a meme, and I believe and incorrect one.
Sure, when the PC market was rising Microsoft did really well agressively bagging the OS and Office application markets.
However, it's not been very good moving into established markets, and for a while hasn't even been very good at bagging new, rising markets.
They said they would kill AOL. They didn't even get close. They said they would dominate the software for mobiles market. They haven't. They said they would beat Sony in the game console market, but they haven't.
Once upon a time, everyone in the industry feared Microsoft. Those days are over.
Maybe his win has to do with the fact that the vast majority of aussies live near the ocean.
You North Americans are such bad losers. There are any number of posts here claiming that "other countries" are doing well because they are trained by North American coaches, or because train in the USA.
Now you claim that perhaps the didn't win the swimming because Aussies live near the ocean. Jeeze...
Can't you just accept that sometimes althletes from other countries might be better than the USA ones?
I think the statistic of medals by country is boring - of course bigger countries are likely to get more medals.
I think medals per capita of population is a much more interesting statistic, and show how well certain countries (like Australia) do.
Since nobody else has pointed it out, the results so far seem to suggest that China is actually going to do much better than this prediction suggests.
Re:Please follow her advice.
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When the annual review comes up the people that take pride or work hard will move ahead.
My dad once gave me a piece of advice that stuck with me because it was so out of character of my dad to say it.
He had worked dilligently and hard all his life for a good employer. He did so thinking that that was the way to get to the top - your achiements would be recognised.
What he told me was, it isn't the people like him who get to the top. It's those that know how to "play the game":
* take credit for work you haven't done. This espcially works if you have junior staff that want to get ahead - you can ride on top of them. * quickly dissociate yourself from projects that go wrong. Subtly point the finger of blame at others. * be a nice guy most of the time, but know when the moment is to stab your friends in the back. * get others (especially your subordinates) to do your job for you. They'll probably do it better anyway. * Make friends with people as high up the ladder as you can. Really suck up to them. * etc.
My dad didn't want me to do any of these things, he just didn't want me to spend my working life under a false illusion.
There are a lot of posts here saying that my post is incorrect. I meant to say "productivity per hour" rather than "productivity per capita". And numerous studies show that it is the same or higher in parts of europe compared to the USA. This report, from your own government, has some details:
Re:French productivity per capita is just 72%
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 1
Now, productivity per hour worked IS greater than that of the USA
That is exactly what I meant. I should have been clearer in my original post.
Re:Ah the French...
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let's see, you read this, you get like 1-2 months off every year, then you piss-and-moan about Americans being more successful.
You really don't hear many Europeans moaning about Americans being "more successful". We could be more "successful" (if your definition of success is having more money) here in Europe if we wanted to just by working more.
However, the culture is very different here. Whereas someone like Bill Gates is looked up to in the USA, in Europe very rich people are not socially looked up to very much. In fact, they are generally looked upon as being greedy.
Believe me, the main reason Europeans "piss-and-moan" about the USA is because of your foreign policy, especially under Bush.
Re:Ah the French...
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So, Americans are more successful after all.
Depends on your definition of success. In Europe, "having the most money" is not the sole criteria for success.
As I said in my post, I used to think that environment was more important than gender. These days, I don't have to "reason" about it - I have experience of it. I am talking from the point of view of someone who is a parent, and knows lots of other parents.
You don't have to take it from me. Talk to your mother - I bet she'll laugh if you try to explain to her that little boys and girls behave the way they do because of how their parents behave.
When you have kids of your own, you'll understand.
What I am really getting at is nature vs nurture and I am willing to say many of the societal disparities between women and men aren't natural (while some are).
Tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
I used to think a bit like you do. Let me tell you - having your own kids, and watching other family members and friends have kids, really opens your eyes. Boys and girls are very different, virtually from day one. In fact I think the male/female characteristics are probably more pronounced in young children and mellow as they get older.
There would be a lot of happy parents around if they could influence the behaviour of their children as much as you think they can. I can just imagine it...
"My little boys used to run around screaming and fighting all the time, but then I brought them Barbie dolls and showed them how to cook and now they're calm and spend all day helping me around the house! Parenting's so easy!"
Many boys are given legos. Many girls are given dolls.
The old nature/nurture debate - do girls become girly because we treat them so?
Well, ask a parent. Let me tell you, it really changes the way you see this issue. Girls and boys are different in their behaviours, very different, from an early age.
Slashdot Mirror
"Amateur" is sometimes used as an insult, to mean something isn't very good, and many companies tout themselves as being "professional" i.e. good.
But is the distinction really true? There are many artists that failed to make a living from their art during their lifetime. Does that make them amateurs?
And I think that some of the MS certified "professionals" I've met really don't deserve the name...
Set up a VNC server and put a client on a USB thumb drive, configured to display full screen. Then just plug your USB drive into your friends computer, double click and watch their faces as they see their windows machine instantly converted to a linux one...
What's the point in that?
Yep, my bad. I hope someone with a clue mods me down again!
Not only that, but you can have them with completely different hosts, even in different countries.
I've seen big businesses who have lost their web sites for days because of the hurricane...
This is great use for emergencies. You can have a backup web server configured identically to the main one. If the first web server goes down, just update the IP address in the domain record and your back on-line in five minutes.
Good for those of us which host web sites for clients.
I also read the article. My summary is as follows:
Fabian Pascal is a twit.
Microsoft paid, what, $400 million for Hotmail. Then they must have paid quite a bit to port the back end to Windows. Now they are going to have increase the hardware of the back end considerably to compete with Gmail. And it's a free service.
Is that good business?
So, we've got broadband. What's the next big thing?
I'm serious - I'd love a 10Mbs or 100Mbs connection - when is that kind of thing going to be domestically available? When are we going fiber optic?
You're a bit naieve aren't you?
Consider this - the gov is contracting civilian security personnel who are paid many times more than the normal troops are. Both the troops and these contractors are paid with your tax dollars. Is that the act of a government that cares?
By integrating MSN search to the "search" feature, Microsoft can theoretically blur the lines between the Internet and the local PC.
You are forgetting MS is now officially a monopoly. Their legal problems have changed the way they do business. They can't be as nasty as they used to be.
competing with Microsoft has historically been a bad move
This is a bit of a meme, and I believe and incorrect one.
Sure, when the PC market was rising Microsoft did really well agressively bagging the OS and Office application markets.
However, it's not been very good moving into established markets, and for a while hasn't even been very good at bagging new, rising markets.
They said they would kill AOL. They didn't even get close. They said they would dominate the software for mobiles market. They haven't. They said they would beat Sony in the game console market, but they haven't.
Once upon a time, everyone in the industry feared Microsoft. Those days are over.
Maybe his win has to do with the fact that the vast majority of aussies live near the ocean.
You North Americans are such bad losers. There are any number of posts here claiming that "other countries" are doing well because they are trained by North American coaches, or because train in the USA.
Now you claim that perhaps the didn't win the swimming because Aussies live near the ocean. Jeeze...
Can't you just accept that sometimes althletes from other countries might be better than the USA ones?
I think the statistic of medals by country is boring - of course bigger countries are likely to get more medals.
I think medals per capita of population is a much more interesting statistic, and show how well certain countries (like Australia) do.
Since nobody else has pointed it out, the results so far seem to suggest that China is actually going to do much better than this prediction suggests.
When the annual review comes up the people that take pride or work hard will move ahead.
My dad once gave me a piece of advice that stuck with me because it was so out of character of my dad to say it.
He had worked dilligently and hard all his life for a good employer. He did so thinking that that was the way to get to the top - your achiements would be recognised.
What he told me was, it isn't the people like him who get to the top. It's those that know how to "play the game":
* take credit for work you haven't done. This espcially works if you have junior staff that want to get ahead - you can ride on top of them.
* quickly dissociate yourself from projects that go wrong. Subtly point the finger of blame at others.
* be a nice guy most of the time, but know when the moment is to stab your friends in the back.
* get others (especially your subordinates) to do your job for you. They'll probably do it better anyway.
* Make friends with people as high up the ladder as you can. Really suck up to them.
* etc.
My dad didn't want me to do any of these things, he just didn't want me to spend my working life under a false illusion.
There are a lot of posts here saying that my post is incorrect. I meant to say "productivity per hour" rather than "productivity per capita". And numerous studies show that it is the same or higher in parts of europe compared to the USA. This report, from your own government, has some details:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/07/art3full.pdf
Now, productivity per hour worked IS greater than that of the USA
That is exactly what I meant. I should have been clearer in my original post.
Let's see, you read this, you get like 1-2 months off every year, then you piss-and-moan about Americans being more successful.
You really don't hear many Europeans moaning about Americans being "more successful". We could be more "successful" (if your definition of success is having more money) here in Europe if we wanted to just by working more.
However, the culture is very different here. Whereas someone like Bill Gates is looked up to in the USA, in Europe very rich people are not socially looked up to very much. In fact, they are generally looked upon as being greedy.
Believe me, the main reason Europeans "piss-and-moan" about the USA is because of your foreign policy, especially under Bush.
So, Americans are more successful after all.
Depends on your definition of success. In Europe, "having the most money" is not the sole criteria for success.
I think US citizens should focus on different things, like getting 3 or 4 weeks of vacation per year, not just two.
Absolutely. Holidays actually increase workers productivity.
The French and Germans have loads of holidays compared to North Americans, and yet their productivity per capita is actually higher than in the USA.
This mostly pertains to France, which is similar to other European countries whereby employees stay at one job, for life, and very rarely get fired.
That's one hell of a sweeping generalisation.
Although this is more true of Europe than the USA, it is not true of all jobs (especially IT jobs), nor is it true of all countries.
As I said in my post, I used to think that environment was more important than gender. These days, I don't have to "reason" about it - I have experience of it. I am talking from the point of view of someone who is a parent, and knows lots of other parents.
You don't have to take it from me. Talk to your mother - I bet she'll laugh if you try to explain to her that little boys and girls behave the way they do because of how their parents behave.
When you have kids of your own, you'll understand.
What I am really getting at is nature vs nurture and I am willing to say many of the societal disparities between women and men aren't natural (while some are).
Tell me that again when you have kids of your own.
I used to think a bit like you do. Let me tell you - having your own kids, and watching other family members and friends have kids, really opens your eyes. Boys and girls are very different, virtually from day one. In fact I think the male/female characteristics are probably more pronounced in young children and mellow as they get older.
There would be a lot of happy parents around if they could influence the behaviour of their children as much as you think they can. I can just imagine it...
"My little boys used to run around screaming and fighting all the time, but then I brought them Barbie dolls and showed them how to cook and now they're calm and spend all day helping me around the house! Parenting's so easy!"
Many boys are given legos. Many girls are given dolls.
The old nature/nurture debate - do girls become girly because we treat them so?
Well, ask a parent. Let me tell you, it really changes the way you see this issue. Girls and boys are different in their behaviours, very different, from an early age.
I've always seen him as a good man
Most people who are really really rich got that way by being selfish. Gates included.
Hey, but some Ikea stuff is good. If you want fancy stuff, go somewhere else. But I've been pretty pleased with my purchases from Ikea.