I'm an engineer almost right out of school, and it's a little crazy how often a task can be automated for insane time savings. In the time I've been in industry, I've probably saved a man-year of time by taking a task involving a billion little tasks and asking myself "How can I automate this? What decisions do I personally need to make?"
They pay me because I've got the skills to solve problems and design solutions to effectively make use of company resources. Why would I assume they want me to stop doing that when it comes to doing my own work?
For 30 years, the Republicans have been the party of bigger government, bigger spending, more recklessness than the Democrats. Until they wake up and start nominating people who actually give a crap about real conservatism, the Democrats are the better bet.
I agree completely. If you're providing solutions based on open source software, it's only responsible to be prepared to stop relying on the windfall of other people's generosity.
I'd say that applies to any solution. Microsoft isn't going to redesign Internet Explorer if they break your site in an upgrade. It's up to you to make sure you're ready to support your own solutions.
"Why give me a gift horse if his teeth are all rotten?"
There are a dozen different reasons for opening your source, and three quarters of those reasons don't require any sort of support.
I always open my source and release stuff I've created because I learned from reading other people's source, and those people learned by reading still other's source. Adding to the community, making more code that people can learn from, or take features they like from, is reason enough for me.
So you come around and want me to add a bunch of features, or fix a bunch of bugs on code I've released. Good for you. I guess I would if you paid me, or if you asked nicely and I was feeling charitable, but I've got no reason to provide free support.
You subscribe to the bathtub curve of reliability. For many components, this isn't an accurate model.
For many components, after you get past infant mortality, the devices remain consistently reliable. I've seen 386s and 486s that are still running, day in day out, today. PDP11s simply don't die, and there are some that are just sitting in a corner quietly doing mission critical tasks in industry.
All you have to do is identify common failure modes and do maintenance to mitigate them. For example, the dominant failure mode of PCs tends to be fan failure due to dust build-up, followed by hard disk failure. The first can be avoided by cleaning the fans regularly on a schedule chosen based on the rate of dust build-up. The second isn't really a dominant failure mode -- I don't know anyone who has ever had to buy a replacement hard drive. Regardless, to protect against failure, simply keep back-ups of important data.
The question is, "Should Microsoft insure that its software compatible with hardware?"
If they want money for their product, their product had better do what it's supposed to do. For an OS, if it doesn't work with the hardware we've got, they won't get a penny from us.
We'll see the final Windows 7 when it comes out, and that's when smart people will make their judgement.
Frankly, I'd love a replacement for XP. It's incredible that I've been running the same OS for 7 years, and a lot of new ideas have come about since then. Vista isn't the answer for me, however, and it's not the answer for a lot of people.
Microsoft changed the driver architecture. It's their problem getting buy-in so companies do a good job on drivers.
Sounds like they're now changing it again for Windows 7, so I don't see Microsoft doing very well at all over the next few years. A company developing brand new drivers is added expense with no payback. If you can't promise some stability, drivers will be slapped together with the idea being "We're going to have to replace them in a year anyway".
One primary purpose of an operating system is to provide a functional layer between hardware and software applications.
If the operating system can't reliably provide a functional layer between hardware and software applications, then why exactly should people be paying for it?
Microsoft doesn't get to do that, they can't just stop being backwards compatible with all the shit software that people have written. They can't change their APIs every five minutes. They can't ignore US law no matter how stupid or idiotic they might believe it to be.
If you carefully select the hardware to marry with Vista, and give it some oomph in the RAM and CPU department, it's a gem
I bet XP is REALLY fast on that hardware.
Vista doesn't really have any new features that make the hassle of switching worth it for me. DX10 is a lock-in trick and I'm not biting, so we're left with a bunch of eye candy I really don't care about, fewer drivers, and very little in terms of reason to switch.
The problem isn't the engineers or programmers. The architecture works as advertised, it's just that the managers who decided what to focus on chose to solve problems that weren't problems, in the process creating much greater problems.
I have repeatedly spoken about how Republicans outspend and outdebt the Democrats as long as most of us have been alife. Since Ford, they've consistently increased inflation adjusted spending at a much greater rate than Democrats.
Ford increased the federal debt at a rate unseen in the 20th century. Reagan increased spending and debt at a greater inflation adjusted rate than any president before him! Carter actually reduced the debt and Clinton managed to nearly balance the budget. Bush 1 followed Reagan's trend and Bush 2 made Reagan the insane debt and spending monster look like fiscally conservative.
If you're a fiscal conservative in the 21st century, you vote Democrat. Sure you might get some entitlement programs you disagree with, but the Republicans are de facto worse.
The ideal would be someone like Ron Paul, but we've seen how well having a consistent and principled, constitutional approach works.
A shift to a more authoritarian rule, a shift to greater government, a shift to higher spending...
You know, if I were an American, and I saw that one political party spent less of my money and one spent way way more, I know who I'd be voting for, even if the party that spent less did so by providing services instead of blowing up camels.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to be old to do that.
I'm an engineer almost right out of school, and it's a little crazy how often a task can be automated for insane time savings. In the time I've been in industry, I've probably saved a man-year of time by taking a task involving a billion little tasks and asking myself "How can I automate this? What decisions do I personally need to make?"
They pay me because I've got the skills to solve problems and design solutions to effectively make use of company resources. Why would I assume they want me to stop doing that when it comes to doing my own work?
Whining about management in a job interview seems like a really stupid thing to do.
My two questions would be,
1. How many hard drives do you have between home and work that 20-30 could fail?
2. What the hell are you doing with them that they're failing at such a rate(assuming you don't have 20,000-30,000 hard drives? Studying EARTHQUAKES?
Talk is cheap. Actions are what matters.
For 30 years, the Republicans have been the party of bigger government, bigger spending, more recklessness than the Democrats. Until they wake up and start nominating people who actually give a crap about real conservatism, the Democrats are the better bet.
Ah, I see now.
I agree completely. If you're providing solutions based on open source software, it's only responsible to be prepared to stop relying on the windfall of other people's generosity.
I'd say that applies to any solution. Microsoft isn't going to redesign Internet Explorer if they break your site in an upgrade. It's up to you to make sure you're ready to support your own solutions.
It's not a legitimate question at all.
"Why give me a gift horse if his teeth are all rotten?"
There are a dozen different reasons for opening your source, and three quarters of those reasons don't require any sort of support.
I always open my source and release stuff I've created because I learned from reading other people's source, and those people learned by reading still other's source. Adding to the community, making more code that people can learn from, or take features they like from, is reason enough for me.
So you come around and want me to add a bunch of features, or fix a bunch of bugs on code I've released. Good for you. I guess I would if you paid me, or if you asked nicely and I was feeling charitable, but I've got no reason to provide free support.
Yeah, those assholes! You should half what you're paying them! No! Quarter it! That'll learn 'em!
If I'm an open source developer, why do I care about any of your problems?
You're getting something for nothing. Quit looking a gift horse in the mouth.
You subscribe to the bathtub curve of reliability. For many components, this isn't an accurate model.
For many components, after you get past infant mortality, the devices remain consistently reliable. I've seen 386s and 486s that are still running, day in day out, today. PDP11s simply don't die, and there are some that are just sitting in a corner quietly doing mission critical tasks in industry.
All you have to do is identify common failure modes and do maintenance to mitigate them. For example, the dominant failure mode of PCs tends to be fan failure due to dust build-up, followed by hard disk failure. The first can be avoided by cleaning the fans regularly on a schedule chosen based on the rate of dust build-up. The second isn't really a dominant failure mode -- I don't know anyone who has ever had to buy a replacement hard drive. Regardless, to protect against failure, simply keep back-ups of important data.
I do so enjoy the melting ice caps.
Increasing global temperatures as a trend over a period of time does not make it true.
Wait....What?
I will run this entire PARKING LOT of '57 Cadillacs for a full year to cause global warming! AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME!
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Totally off topic, but I'm posting from an Aspire One right now too, and I paid the same you did.
Awesome machine. If Microsoft suffers greatly reduced profits when someone sells one, Microsoft is in serious trouble.
I somehow don't think Blizzard is going to argue with the folks with nukes.
At least, not until the zergling rush from Mexico is ready.
Irrelevant.
The question is, "Should Microsoft insure that its software compatible with hardware?"
If they want money for their product, their product had better do what it's supposed to do. For an OS, if it doesn't work with the hardware we've got, they won't get a penny from us.
Talk is cheap and bullshit walks.
We'll see the final Windows 7 when it comes out, and that's when smart people will make their judgement.
Frankly, I'd love a replacement for XP. It's incredible that I've been running the same OS for 7 years, and a lot of new ideas have come about since then. Vista isn't the answer for me, however, and it's not the answer for a lot of people.
Microsoft changed the driver architecture. It's their problem getting buy-in so companies do a good job on drivers.
Sounds like they're now changing it again for Windows 7, so I don't see Microsoft doing very well at all over the next few years. A company developing brand new drivers is added expense with no payback. If you can't promise some stability, drivers will be slapped together with the idea being "We're going to have to replace them in a year anyway".
One primary purpose of an operating system is to provide a functional layer between hardware and software applications.
If the operating system can't reliably provide a functional layer between hardware and software applications, then why exactly should people be paying for it?
Microsoft doesn't get to do that, they can't just stop being backwards compatible with all the shit software that people have written. They can't change their APIs every five minutes. They can't ignore US law no matter how stupid or idiotic they might believe it to be.
Wait. Microsoft?
Are you sure?
If you carefully select the hardware to marry with Vista, and give it some oomph in the RAM and CPU department, it's a gem
I bet XP is REALLY fast on that hardware.
Vista doesn't really have any new features that make the hassle of switching worth it for me. DX10 is a lock-in trick and I'm not biting, so we're left with a bunch of eye candy I really don't care about, fewer drivers, and very little in terms of reason to switch.
The problem isn't the engineers or programmers. The architecture works as advertised, it's just that the managers who decided what to focus on chose to solve problems that weren't problems, in the process creating much greater problems.
Wait. Social libertarians and fiscal conservatives advocate baby murder?
Sorry, I totally missed the memo on that one.
(Oh, I'm sorry, you must think I fall into your quaint "two absolute truths" political system. No, I don't)
I have repeatedly spoken about how Republicans outspend and outdebt the Democrats as long as most of us have been alife. Since Ford, they've consistently increased inflation adjusted spending at a much greater rate than Democrats.
Ford increased the federal debt at a rate unseen in the 20th century. Reagan increased spending and debt at a greater inflation adjusted rate than any president before him! Carter actually reduced the debt and Clinton managed to nearly balance the budget. Bush 1 followed Reagan's trend and Bush 2 made Reagan the insane debt and spending monster look like fiscally conservative.
If you're a fiscal conservative in the 21st century, you vote Democrat. Sure you might get some entitlement programs you disagree with, but the Republicans are de facto worse.
The ideal would be someone like Ron Paul, but we've seen how well having a consistent and principled, constitutional approach works.
Zero isn't negative.
That said, I'd say most people who hate Bush didn't give a crap about him in 2000.
Even as a proxy for policies, Bush is horrible.
A shift to a more authoritarian rule, a shift to greater government, a shift to higher spending...
You know, if I were an American, and I saw that one political party spent less of my money and one spent way way more, I know who I'd be voting for, even if the party that spent less did so by providing services instead of blowing up camels.
Look back, look waaaaay back, to 1956, when we deposed the democratically elected leaders of Iran who had "some balls".
Oh, and today we're funding opposition groups, judging from interviews with Condi Rice from a while back.
When did we suddenly need to become tolerant of needless violence and torture?