For a variety of reasons I switched back to plain old Mozilla, and certainly
don't visit Google.com directly. Personally I use a bookmark keywords . I've
got "g" mapped to Google, so I just type something like "g galeon screenshots"
in my address bar and I get a search for "galeon screenshots" from Google.
It's such a handy feature that I've got similar keywords for Wikipedia,
Everything2, dictionary.com, FreshMeat, and a few others.
However, if I was only using one search engine, I might use the default behavior build into the address bar. When you type an address in a drop list of suggests appears below. The bottom one is always, "Search ENGINE for 'YOUR KEYWORDS'", where ENGINE is one of the many options you can configure (including Google), and YOUR KEYWORDS are whatever you typed. You just select it and off you go.
If you're really keen on having a search box dedicated to Google, well, besides trying something like Galeon or Firebird, you can install the Googlebar (screenshots). Personally I'm no longer keen on adding search boxes to toolbars, I want less user interface on screen, not more. Less interface means more space for actual web page.
How are you checking PageRankings?
As a general rule I try to not obsess about what piece of software thinks
about my web site or the web sites of others. Knowing PageRanking is certainly
amusing, and it may be marginally useful if you're doing professional web work,
but is it really that critical?
I'll admit, it's a shame Mozilla doesn't provide it, but it's not really
that big of a deal.
As a bonus, it's the best popup blocker ever. I haven't seen one in a year and a half.
Neither have I. It seems a bit odd to co-mingle popup-blocking and searching into a single component, but I guess if it works for you. Mozilla's popup blocking support works great and comes built in to the browser. As a bonus I can also stop sites from doing other irritating things. For example, I've forbidden sites from resizing or moving existing windows or moving windows up and down in the screen ordering. If you're sick of sites doing stupid crawls in your status bar or hiding the real destination for links you can just click "Allow scripts to...Change status bar text."
I do like the tabbed browsing but it's like I have tabbed browsing now; I just have a dozen browsers open. I switch between them along the taskbar. RAM is cheap today gentleman. I don't really care how many of my machine's resources it takes.
Tabbed browsing has never been about resources; that you think it does shows
a serious lack of understanding about modern web browsers. Every major browser
(including IE and Mozilla) will only run one copy of the program, regardless of
how many windows you have open. Tabs are not significantly more efficient than windows.
Tabbed browsing is about organization. The task bar works fine, but it
doesn't scale. If you've got 20 windows open you've just got twenty little
teeny icons with almost no text. XP's grouping helps, but all of the web
browser windows get lumped together. A typical use case would be to have a
window open to a web email site, another window reading a list of bugs assigned
to me and a bunch of tabs for individual bugs I'm loo
The reason ISP's use the word "unlimited" in their advertisements is because it sells more accounts than if they don't.
What a great advertising technique! I'll have to start using it for my own product and service sales! We'll need a good name for it, though. How about "fraud"? Yes, that sounds about right.
Consumers demand to be lied to.
Ummmm, no. Consumer seek out good deals and trust that they aren't being lied to. If someone advertises "Unlimited Internet, $10.00 per month" I'm going to assume that there is some sort of catch (spyware, for example), or that they've got some sort of unusual situation (Say, is the local phone company). But it wouldn't cross my mind that they were simply bald faced liars.
My understanding is that power supplies don't actually need cooling at all. The fan is there to keep the power supply from overheating the rest of the computer. So, how about ripping the power supply out of the computer and replacing it with a fan (which can be much lower speed since it isn't handling the hot power supply. Then put the power supply into a mid-cable wart like laptop power supplies. Does anyone actually offer such a beast? Am I confused and power supplies actually need active cooling on their own?
I believe what killed the Dreamcast wasn't piracy but technical inferiority. The graphics weren't as good as the PS2, it couldn't play back DVDs, and its online support was a joke.
I think you forget the period. The Dreamcast beat the PS2 to market in the US almost a year in advance. At the time, if you wanted the best looking version of the suprise hit Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, you got the Dreamcast version. If you wanted any online play at all, you got a Dreamcast; it would be years before the PS2 had a real offering. The Dreamcast was dead and buried long before there was broadband support for the PS2, suggesting that lack of broadband was a problem is confusing cause and effect. While comparing current PS2 titles to Dreamcast titles does give a healthy edge to the PS2, at the time they were comperable (in much the same way that the PS2 and the X-Box are now comperable). Crazy Taxi and Jet Grind Radio are still great looking games.
If you buy an X-Box - you are still sending MS money - they lose money on the sale based on the cost to produce the unit, but it you didn't buy one MS would lose THAT MUCH MORE money.
That's just silly.
It might be true if Microsoft had a billion X-Boxes sitting around in their
warehouses and had no hope of selling them. In that case, yes, selling them for any amount is better than not selling them at all.
But the reality is that Microsoft continues to produce new X-Boxes as their exissting stockpiles are sold.
My decision to not by an X-Box doesn't mean that there is some sad little X-Box sitting on a shelf that will never be sold. Ultimately (in aggregate with many other non-X-Box-buying people) it means that Microsoft will have decided to produce one less X-Box. Not producing an X-Box is free.
Hey why don't we try the same ideas but with people who make next to nothing.
Next to nothing is relative. I make quite a good wage at the moment, but I
live in the midwest. Someone in Silicon Valley would likely find my salary too
low to cover basic expenses. $11,000 per year wouldn't cover my expenses, but
in India you can live very comfortably for that. From what I understand, you could manage roughly the level of comfort I enjoy for $11,000 a year in India. And I'm sure that some people in manufacturing jobs in India are grousing about the next-to-nothing wages in China.
And by the way, since these people don't vote we can have US politians look the other way why we take advantage of them. And we can ignore all the laws in america that forbid doing things we do not want.
That's a fair concern. One thing that worries me about free trade is that
in the race to the bottom we get into situations that I find morally
reprehensible. I don't want to compete against countries with anti-union laws,
unsafe working conditions, child labor, and the like. There is a minimal level
of human decency that I think is necessary. This level includes a living wage,
but "a living wage" varies from country to country (and many time within a
country. There are people working in restaurants and other service industries
in Silicon Valley who don't earn living wages). So long as India's workers are
being treated as I want to be treated, I can't really complain.
In the long run for an Indian middle class to be truly viable they must mostly produce for their own people. That is definitly what is not happening here.
I'm not sure why this would be true. In general exporting more than you
import is considered a good thing; it makes your nation more wealthy. And I'm
not sure I'd agree that this isn't happening in India. It took the United
States a long time to stand on its own, we can't expect India to change
overnight. As these outsourcing companies grow and learn their business, I
think it's likely we'll see more original work done in India. India has
already developed a thriving native film industry, they're clearly capable of
creative work.
It's really simple to reverse that question to you and ask "Are Indians fundamentally more deserving of well paid jobs than Americans, and why?".
Indeed. And the answer is still no. Or more generally: No country is
fundamentally more deserving of well paid jobs than another country.
If we start taking jobs from India I won't feel bad about it.
You are ascribing motives to the outsourcing rush that do not exist.
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. To be totally clear, I have a deep
distrust of big businesses. Management is outsourcing to India to cut next
quarters costs so they can give themselves big bonuses, even if it means
destroying the lives of their employees and destroying the long term viability.
Capitalism may be the most efficient system, but it's an efficiency oiled with
the blood of workers.
But, I can't deny that while losing jobs sucks for us, India is welcoming
these jobs; their lives are made better.
I'm not ignoring the risk to my personal job. Several years ago I worked
for a certain company. A friend of mine still works there. He's one of the last
engineers; the majority their team was laid off and replaced with outsourced
Indian labor. My friend knows which way the wind is blowing and is looking for
another job. I know that I may face that exact same situation; possibly
soon. I'm deeply worried about it. While I may fear for my job, I still can't
bring myself to be so selfish, to deny my fellow man the same opportunities I have just because he living in another country. Ultimately you're endorsing a "me first, to hell with everyone else attitude." Any claims of patriotism are just a thin veneer over that. I can't live that way, it seems immoral.
One must mix capitalism with a healthy dose of patriotism.
Why? Are Indians fundamentally less deserving of well paid jobs than Americans?
While I am very worried for my career, I just can't bring myself to think, "I was born an American and therefore deserve a higher standard of living, even at the expense of others." Reports are claiming that these $11,000 a year jobs are creating a healthy middle class who enjoys roughly the same sort of lifestyle I do. While I do see the specific appeal of "I would rather have a good job than someone else," it's harder to say, "I would rather my country has jobs instead of your country having jobs." Ultimately we're all on the same planet and we're all human beings.
I love my country, but I can't bring myself to wish ill on other countries, and that's exactly what you're suggesting.
On a barely related note, if you want world peace, we need an international middle class. Once you're reasonably comfortable it's hard to justify putting your life on the line. There are exceptions, but on the whole terrorism is an activity of the poor and desperate.
I've seen many of the examples you give, I can't think of any more to add. But what the hell, I'll bitch about back headhunters.
Tip 1: Vary your "this employer is great" pitch. After the third time of being told that "So-and-So is a real pistol!" for three different companies, I start to think that "is a real pistol" means "is someone I've never met". (Come to think of it, is "is a real pistol" really a good thing? Is the VP liable to go off at any moment? Does he require careful care to avoid accidents? Is he regulated?)
Tip 2: Keep track of your contacts. Getting a message introducing yourself after finding my resume on the internet is fine, but it's a little off-putting if we've exchanged email and phone calls not a year earlier.
Tip 3: Don't say you found my resume on the internet, then ask me to submit my resume to your web form. Feel free to submit it yourself. (Especially since I suspect you're lying, don't really have a job opportunity, but just want to flesh out your database of possible applicants).
Tip 4: Make your web site not look like ass. Clean, simple designs are easy; use one. If you can afford someone to write a stupid Java based hover effect (better implemented with JavaScript or CSS), you can afford a professional looking web site.
When would you want someone who can't think for themselves?
Large, self-perpetuating, beurocratic structure like mindless sheep. Such systems can't handle real questions, often things are done simply because that's how things are done. Truly independent minds complicate things unnecessarily. Such a system also drives the independent minds crazy, so they're likely to leave. Now, such a system is unhealthy, but it's regrettably common.
By way of example, after a layoff one of my friends took a job at exactly such a place. The beurocracy had generated an ominous plan for updating their web site. Said plan called for something like 30 people. My friend was one of those people. He did very little work, I believe he mentioned about 4 hours per week. He wanted to do work, but he was constantly blocked on other groups. He offered to help with their work, but was repeatedly rejected. He offered to tackle items further down the schedule, but was rejected. He was offering unplanned possibilities and the system couldn't adapt. End result, my friend got increasingly frustrated and left, even though he was well compensated and his bosses loved him.
What techniques do you find work best for this? Do you cold call random
people in the company? Hang out suspiciously outside the building? Constantly
hang out in outside places (restaurants especially) where employees hang out? I've been trying it, and all I get are restraining orders for stalking.
3. Discover who needs the help that I can provide,
Interesting. So you're skipping the whole "job listings" idea where a
company advertises the help that it needs, instead chosing to apply for theoretical jobs that might not exist.
4. Use contacts to recommend me to the hiring manager,
A traditional recommendation, check.
5. Research and prepare to answer the question of how hiring me will make/save money,
6. During the interview, take control and give presentation; talk about how I will solve the manager's problems today,
I'm a software engineer. How exactly do I apply this? I've been breaking
into their computer systems and snooping on their email, but it's hard to
identify the key problems. Should I break into the office and rifle through
their paperwork? Should I question the contacts I made in step 2? That would
show that I had enough drive to convince a potential future co-worker to break
their confidentiality agreement. Maybe I should only apply to companies that
publically advertise their future plans and current problems? I have been
thinking about stealing a copy of their source code so I could actually be
prepared to solve problems today.
Another benefit of taking control (And not providing a resume, as you
suggest later), is that it's hard to actually question me on my qualifications
and prior experience, another advantage for me!
7. Ask for job at the end of the interview,
Check.
8. Drop off thank you notes with receptionist.
Aaaaah, here's the key! Not five minutes after I've finished the interview
(in which I presumably thanked them for asking me in), there will be a note in
their inbox, full of thanks, ready to blow fresh smoke up their asses. Shall I
follow it with flowers and perhaps some chocolates? Here I
No resume necessary...
Ah, only apply to companies whose hiring departments are so bored that they'll schedule an interview without even glancing at a resume in advance!
Thanks, I look forward to applying your tips in my future job searches!
Why does this happen? Because the hiring system is seriously screwed up.
Problem 1: Silly requirements. During my brother's job search last year he applied for a job in which is lacked the specified requirements. But seeing as the requirement was "Five years of experience with Windows XP," he thought it might be okay anyway.
Problem 2: Human Resources vs Engineering. Many engineering departments just want smart people. Maybe you don't know the exact technology they're working with, but if you're smart you can quickly learn. Human Resources gets bent out shape if you try to run an ad seeking "Really smart people who like programming, no other requirement," so they demand more details. As a result you get requirements that aren't quite as required as they appear. (If HR is doing the first pass on the resumes you're probably doomed, but sometimes they go directly to real techies).
In the example you give (You want C++ experience, the applicant has VB experience), while I would also be leary of someone who only knows VB, I'd be willing to consider someone with Java or C experience. If the applicant was smart enough the jump to C++ won't be a big deal. Maybe they'll be slightly less efficient for a while, if you're worried about it cut your offer by a reasonable amount.
...my suggestion is to first control his expectations.
It's a good point, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. My experience is that simply getting a simple pick-a-path-to-adventure type text game working is a huge thrill for most (geeky) kids. Sure, it may not be flashy, but they get a feeling of control and power, something they don't normally get (being kids and all).
Furthermore, armed with a good game creation toolkit (I'm woefully out of touch at the moment), you can in fact create neat graphical games while still doing lots of interesting programming. Focusing on specific languages just isn't important at this point, learning some specialized language for a game engine is fine. (It's possible that there aren't any good toolkits out there now, which would be unfortunately... hmmm, that would be a fun project...)
That means all those colorimiters and printer matching profiles and other garbage you have been scammed into buying is useless.
That's just silly. If you want really accurate color reproduction you want color correction profiles and the like. This, of course, is only a small subset of users, but some (people doing high-end photography come to mind) it's really critical.
Now, in theory 255,0,0 should always be pure red, but in practice you run into problems. Your screen has certain fundamental limitations on what it can reproduce. Those limitations are increased by the ambient light in the room you're working in; the brightness of your image appears different when viewed in differing levels of light. If you're switching light sources (from sunlight during the day to an incadenscent light in the event), hues can appear different. Of course, the quality of color off your monitor varies from model to model and from manufacturing batch to manufacturing batch. And over time you can expect the quality to slowly degrade. On top of all of this your printer has its own limitations and exact results will vary from printer to printer.
If you want damn near exact color matching between your monitor and your printer, you're going to have to do some work to calibrate things. Simply assuming 255,0,0 is a particular shade red everywhere isn't going to work.
Things also get wonky when moving from system to system. This is most striking when looking at a web site whose graphics have been created by a graphic designer working on a well calibrated Mac; Windows users will tend to see much darker images.
You might not see this in your area of expertise because you primarily work with people with well adjusted, non-crap equipment.
All that said, you're probably right that gamma correction in file formats is a bad idea. The only people who can possibly benefit from it (random users) never bother configuring things correctly anyway. And for people grumbling that the GIMP lacks this level of color adjustment, while's true that some people care, I know that at least some newspapers manage to print color photographs day-in and day-out without having ever calibrated their colors. It turns out most people can't tell.
Slashdot was busy covering News for Nerds. You may have noticed that Slashdot isn't really a political news site (let alone an overly conservative political opinion source). If there wasn't the electronic aspect, this wouldn't have been on Slashdot. What's interesting from a "News for Nerds" standpoint is that this appears to be electronic trespass. This raises a number of interesting geeky questions. Were the Democratic files reasoanbly protected? There is a report that the Democrats were warned about the security hole several years ago and failed to fix it; given that, what portion of the blame falls on them? It's not entirely clear exactly how the files were obtained, but there are some possibilities (say, accidentally left on a public share) that might suggest that it wasn't actually theft, simply unexpected use of a publically available resource. As a counterpoint, if it was actual breaking into a system you have no reasonable expectation of being on, what will be the punishment, given the generally extreme response to computer trespass these days? Will they get lighter sentences because they're politicians?
I fail to see how the link you provide is particularlly News for Nerds. It's just plain old political commentary. I don't want to see plain old political commentary as articles on Slashdot at all, regardless of who is accused of whatever. The core topics should be technology and other other nerdy areas (including how law and politics interact with technology). Should individual posts get political, so be it, but expecting top level articles on purely political issues is silly.
The Electoral College system neatly confines election problems to one state. I think this is a Good Thing.
The problem is that the only time that the Electrol College system provides his benefit is when things are really close. (If it's a landslide, no one bothers with recounts or other arguments.) As a result, we can just about be assured of an especially bitter fight with divisive politics. For the next four years both sides will continue to argue that they deserve the Presidency and that the other side is illegitiment. There is a very real risk of this attempt to simplify the problem simply making tempers hotter and the bitterness deeper.
On top of that, the Electoral College leads to strategies that have nothing to do with serving voters and everything to do with optimizing game theory. If you live in a strongly leaning state, it's likely that neither candidate will spend much time there. The likely winner knows he has you in the bag and won't bother and the likely loser won't waste time better spent on states with closer races. While there are isolated exceptions (I believe a big part of the Bush strategy in 2000 was to fight hard for a handful states generally thought to be untouchable), in general it holds true (even for Bush in 2000). Given a more representative system (perhaps the electoral college, but requiring them to vote proportionally to popular vote in the state) candidates would have incentive to visit are wider ranging area (primarily those with lots of swing voters).
The electoral collge, as it stands today, is more of a problem than a benefit. The simple shift to proportional voting by the collage would help, but everyone has to do it at once. (I believe one or two states do it now, but the effect is that they're almost entirely ignored; it's a better investment to go for a whole state than to fight over one or two electoral college members).
Foolish consumers, you seem to have misunderstood globalization. Large corporations looking overseas for low cost labor, even at the expense of destroying local livelihoods, is good. Individual consumers seeking to harness international competition to save a few bucks on music is bad.
Next Week: Why taxing the pay you receive for your labor is good, but taxing the dividends I receive for my stock investments is double taxation and a crime against humanity.
I suspect you may find that you've signed copyright over to the institution on anything that you produce in the course of your studies.
It varies from school to school. What you describe is true for some schools, collectively known as "thieving ass-hats," but certainly not for all schools. I know it's not true for the University of Wisconsin.
In that case then, wouldn't you prefer the newest information to be at the TOP, so that once you've read and understood it you can cancel the rest of the transmission...
It's an interesting idea, but in practice almost every email system downloads the entire message in one shot. However, if the quoted text is kept to a bare minimum (and in many cases, "bare minimum" means "absolutely nothing"), it becomes small enough to be irrelevant
I absolutely don't want complete quoting of previous messages at the top, it's just about as bad as quoting entire messages below. Complete top quoting means I need to page through the junk to get to the fresh content (Good old fashed "Me-too"ing!).
I avoided mentioning it at first, I didn't want the conversation to derail into a fight about specific clients. But, my personal taste leans toward the combination of Procmail and
Mutt. It's an acquired taste, and probably not for most new users. I know better than to push it to any but the most hard-core Unix-philes. There are certainly other clients, with GUIs even, that match Mutt's power and may even surpass it; it's just what I use. (For what it's worth, I've heard exceptional things about KMail (KDE) and Mulberry (cross platform) from people I personally know and trust who have to juggle heavy mail loads.)
I'm seeing a number of posts that feel that any use of a competitor's trademarked name is an infringment. That's not the spirit or letter of the law. The key goal is to avoid consumer confusion. If you're not (potentially) confusing consumers, there is no problem.
Now, if my ad for ExampleOffice 10 is entitled "Microsoft Office", that could be confusing. However, if my ad is titled "EXAMPLEOFFICE 10" with body text that reads, "half the price of Microsoft Office," no one is going to be confused. Even if my ad popped up because I paid for the keywords "Microsoft Office." I've clearly labeled myself. No confusion.
(That said, I expect that in some of these cases the advertiser did so something deceptive, like labelling their advertisement, "Microsoft Office" or whatever. That's clearly intended to mislead and confuse and I have no sympathy for them.)
Slashdot Mirror
When I was using Galeon, I would just put a "Search Google" box in my toolbar. (Here's a screenshot with three Google search boxes. Two of them are folded closed to save space). Firebird has similar functionality.
For a variety of reasons I switched back to plain old Mozilla, and certainly don't visit Google.com directly. Personally I use a bookmark keywords . I've got "g" mapped to Google, so I just type something like "g galeon screenshots" in my address bar and I get a search for "galeon screenshots" from Google. It's such a handy feature that I've got similar keywords for Wikipedia, Everything2, dictionary.com, FreshMeat, and a few others.
However, if I was only using one search engine, I might use the default behavior build into the address bar. When you type an address in a drop list of suggests appears below. The bottom one is always, "Search ENGINE for 'YOUR KEYWORDS'", where ENGINE is one of the many options you can configure (including Google), and YOUR KEYWORDS are whatever you typed. You just select it and off you go.
If you're really keen on having a search box dedicated to Google, well, besides trying something like Galeon or Firebird, you can install the Googlebar (screenshots). Personally I'm no longer keen on adding search boxes to toolbars, I want less user interface on screen, not more. Less interface means more space for actual web page.
As a general rule I try to not obsess about what piece of software thinks about my web site or the web sites of others. Knowing PageRanking is certainly amusing, and it may be marginally useful if you're doing professional web work, but is it really that critical?
I'll admit, it's a shame Mozilla doesn't provide it, but it's not really that big of a deal.
Neither have I. It seems a bit odd to co-mingle popup-blocking and searching into a single component, but I guess if it works for you. Mozilla's popup blocking support works great and comes built in to the browser. As a bonus I can also stop sites from doing other irritating things. For example, I've forbidden sites from resizing or moving existing windows or moving windows up and down in the screen ordering. If you're sick of sites doing stupid crawls in your status bar or hiding the real destination for links you can just click "Allow scripts to...Change status bar text."
Tabbed browsing has never been about resources; that you think it does shows a serious lack of understanding about modern web browsers. Every major browser (including IE and Mozilla) will only run one copy of the program, regardless of how many windows you have open. Tabs are not significantly more efficient than windows.
Tabbed browsing is about organization. The task bar works fine, but it doesn't scale. If you've got 20 windows open you've just got twenty little teeny icons with almost no text. XP's grouping helps, but all of the web browser windows get lumped together. A typical use case would be to have a window open to a web email site, another window reading a list of bugs assigned to me and a bunch of tabs for individual bugs I'm loo
Fascinating, I'm sure. But so what?
What a great advertising technique! I'll have to start using it for my own product and service sales! We'll need a good name for it, though. How about "fraud"? Yes, that sounds about right.
Ummmm, no. Consumer seek out good deals and trust that they aren't being lied to. If someone advertises "Unlimited Internet, $10.00 per month" I'm going to assume that there is some sort of catch (spyware, for example), or that they've got some sort of unusual situation (Say, is the local phone company). But it wouldn't cross my mind that they were simply bald faced liars.
My understanding is that power supplies don't actually need cooling at all. The fan is there to keep the power supply from overheating the rest of the computer. So, how about ripping the power supply out of the computer and replacing it with a fan (which can be much lower speed since it isn't handling the hot power supply. Then put the power supply into a mid-cable wart like laptop power supplies. Does anyone actually offer such a beast? Am I confused and power supplies actually need active cooling on their own?
I think you forget the period. The Dreamcast beat the PS2 to market in the US almost a year in advance. At the time, if you wanted the best looking version of the suprise hit Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, you got the Dreamcast version. If you wanted any online play at all, you got a Dreamcast; it would be years before the PS2 had a real offering. The Dreamcast was dead and buried long before there was broadband support for the PS2, suggesting that lack of broadband was a problem is confusing cause and effect. While comparing current PS2 titles to Dreamcast titles does give a healthy edge to the PS2, at the time they were comperable (in much the same way that the PS2 and the X-Box are now comperable). Crazy Taxi and Jet Grind Radio are still great looking games.
That's just silly.
It might be true if Microsoft had a billion X-Boxes sitting around in their warehouses and had no hope of selling them. In that case, yes, selling them for any amount is better than not selling them at all. But the reality is that Microsoft continues to produce new X-Boxes as their exissting stockpiles are sold.
My decision to not by an X-Box doesn't mean that there is some sad little X-Box sitting on a shelf that will never be sold. Ultimately (in aggregate with many other non-X-Box-buying people) it means that Microsoft will have decided to produce one less X-Box. Not producing an X-Box is free.
Yes, yes it should.
.
Fortunately I'm used to being disappointed.
Next to nothing is relative. I make quite a good wage at the moment, but I live in the midwest. Someone in Silicon Valley would likely find my salary too low to cover basic expenses. $11,000 per year wouldn't cover my expenses, but in India you can live very comfortably for that. From what I understand, you could manage roughly the level of comfort I enjoy for $11,000 a year in India. And I'm sure that some people in manufacturing jobs in India are grousing about the next-to-nothing wages in China.
That's a fair concern. One thing that worries me about free trade is that in the race to the bottom we get into situations that I find morally reprehensible. I don't want to compete against countries with anti-union laws, unsafe working conditions, child labor, and the like. There is a minimal level of human decency that I think is necessary. This level includes a living wage, but "a living wage" varies from country to country (and many time within a country. There are people working in restaurants and other service industries in Silicon Valley who don't earn living wages). So long as India's workers are being treated as I want to be treated, I can't really complain.
I'm not sure why this would be true. In general exporting more than you import is considered a good thing; it makes your nation more wealthy. And I'm not sure I'd agree that this isn't happening in India. It took the United States a long time to stand on its own, we can't expect India to change overnight. As these outsourcing companies grow and learn their business, I think it's likely we'll see more original work done in India. India has already developed a thriving native film industry, they're clearly capable of creative work.
Indeed. And the answer is still no. Or more generally: No country is fundamentally more deserving of well paid jobs than another country. If we start taking jobs from India I won't feel bad about it.
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. To be totally clear, I have a deep distrust of big businesses. Management is outsourcing to India to cut next quarters costs so they can give themselves big bonuses, even if it means destroying the lives of their employees and destroying the long term viability. Capitalism may be the most efficient system, but it's an efficiency oiled with the blood of workers.
But, I can't deny that while losing jobs sucks for us, India is welcoming these jobs; their lives are made better.
I'm not ignoring the risk to my personal job. Several years ago I worked for a certain company. A friend of mine still works there. He's one of the last engineers; the majority their team was laid off and replaced with outsourced Indian labor. My friend knows which way the wind is blowing and is looking for another job. I know that I may face that exact same situation; possibly soon. I'm deeply worried about it. While I may fear for my job, I still can't bring myself to be so selfish, to deny my fellow man the same opportunities I have just because he living in another country. Ultimately you're endorsing a "me first, to hell with everyone else attitude." Any claims of patriotism are just a thin veneer over that. I can't live that way, it seems immoral.
Why? Are Indians fundamentally less deserving of well paid jobs than Americans?
While I am very worried for my career, I just can't bring myself to think, "I was born an American and therefore deserve a higher standard of living, even at the expense of others." Reports are claiming that these $11,000 a year jobs are creating a healthy middle class who enjoys roughly the same sort of lifestyle I do. While I do see the specific appeal of "I would rather have a good job than someone else," it's harder to say, "I would rather my country has jobs instead of your country having jobs." Ultimately we're all on the same planet and we're all human beings.
I love my country, but I can't bring myself to wish ill on other countries, and that's exactly what you're suggesting.
On a barely related note, if you want world peace, we need an international middle class. Once you're reasonably comfortable it's hard to justify putting your life on the line. There are exceptions, but on the whole terrorism is an activity of the poor and desperate.
I've seen many of the examples you give, I can't think of any more to add. But what the hell, I'll bitch about back headhunters.
Tip 1: Vary your "this employer is great" pitch. After the third time of being told that "So-and-So is a real pistol!" for three different companies, I start to think that "is a real pistol" means "is someone I've never met". (Come to think of it, is "is a real pistol" really a good thing? Is the VP liable to go off at any moment? Does he require careful care to avoid accidents? Is he regulated?)
Tip 2: Keep track of your contacts. Getting a message introducing yourself after finding my resume on the internet is fine, but it's a little off-putting if we've exchanged email and phone calls not a year earlier.
Tip 3: Don't say you found my resume on the internet, then ask me to submit my resume to your web form. Feel free to submit it yourself. (Especially since I suspect you're lying, don't really have a job opportunity, but just want to flesh out your database of possible applicants).
Tip 4: Make your web site not look like ass. Clean, simple designs are easy; use one. If you can afford someone to write a stupid Java based hover effect (better implemented with JavaScript or CSS), you can afford a professional looking web site.
Large, self-perpetuating, beurocratic structure like mindless sheep. Such systems can't handle real questions, often things are done simply because that's how things are done. Truly independent minds complicate things unnecessarily. Such a system also drives the independent minds crazy, so they're likely to leave. Now, such a system is unhealthy, but it's regrettably common.
By way of example, after a layoff one of my friends took a job at exactly such a place. The beurocracy had generated an ominous plan for updating their web site. Said plan called for something like 30 people. My friend was one of those people. He did very little work, I believe he mentioned about 4 hours per week. He wanted to do work, but he was constantly blocked on other groups. He offered to help with their work, but was repeatedly rejected. He offered to tackle items further down the schedule, but was rejected. He was offering unplanned possibilities and the system couldn't adapt. End result, my friend got increasingly frustrated and left, even though he was well compensated and his bosses loved him.
Easy enough, check!
What techniques do you find work best for this? Do you cold call random people in the company? Hang out suspiciously outside the building? Constantly hang out in outside places (restaurants especially) where employees hang out? I've been trying it, and all I get are restraining orders for stalking.
Interesting. So you're skipping the whole "job listings" idea where a company advertises the help that it needs, instead chosing to apply for theoretical jobs that might not exist.
A traditional recommendation, check.
I'm a software engineer. How exactly do I apply this? I've been breaking into their computer systems and snooping on their email, but it's hard to identify the key problems. Should I break into the office and rifle through their paperwork? Should I question the contacts I made in step 2? That would show that I had enough drive to convince a potential future co-worker to break their confidentiality agreement. Maybe I should only apply to companies that publically advertise their future plans and current problems? I have been thinking about stealing a copy of their source code so I could actually be prepared to solve problems today.
Another benefit of taking control (And not providing a resume, as you suggest later), is that it's hard to actually question me on my qualifications and prior experience, another advantage for me!
Check.
Aaaaah, here's the key! Not five minutes after I've finished the interview (in which I presumably thanked them for asking me in), there will be a note in their inbox, full of thanks, ready to blow fresh smoke up their asses. Shall I follow it with flowers and perhaps some chocolates? Here I
Ah, only apply to companies whose hiring departments are so bored that they'll schedule an interview without even glancing at a resume in advance!
Thanks, I look forward to applying your tips in my future job searches!
Why does this happen? Because the hiring system is seriously screwed up.
Problem 1: Silly requirements. During my brother's job search last year he applied for a job in which is lacked the specified requirements. But seeing as the requirement was "Five years of experience with Windows XP," he thought it might be okay anyway.
Problem 2: Human Resources vs Engineering. Many engineering departments just want smart people. Maybe you don't know the exact technology they're working with, but if you're smart you can quickly learn. Human Resources gets bent out shape if you try to run an ad seeking "Really smart people who like programming, no other requirement," so they demand more details. As a result you get requirements that aren't quite as required as they appear. (If HR is doing the first pass on the resumes you're probably doomed, but sometimes they go directly to real techies).
In the example you give (You want C++ experience, the applicant has VB experience), while I would also be leary of someone who only knows VB, I'd be willing to consider someone with Java or C experience. If the applicant was smart enough the jump to C++ won't be a big deal. Maybe they'll be slightly less efficient for a while, if you're worried about it cut your offer by a reasonable amount.
It's a good point, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. My experience is that simply getting a simple pick-a-path-to-adventure type text game working is a huge thrill for most (geeky) kids. Sure, it may not be flashy, but they get a feeling of control and power, something they don't normally get (being kids and all).
Furthermore, armed with a good game creation toolkit (I'm woefully out of touch at the moment), you can in fact create neat graphical games while still doing lots of interesting programming. Focusing on specific languages just isn't important at this point, learning some specialized language for a game engine is fine. (It's possible that there aren't any good toolkits out there now, which would be unfortunately... hmmm, that would be a fun project...)
That's just silly. If you want really accurate color reproduction you want color correction profiles and the like. This, of course, is only a small subset of users, but some (people doing high-end photography come to mind) it's really critical.
Now, in theory 255,0,0 should always be pure red, but in practice you run into problems. Your screen has certain fundamental limitations on what it can reproduce. Those limitations are increased by the ambient light in the room you're working in; the brightness of your image appears different when viewed in differing levels of light. If you're switching light sources (from sunlight during the day to an incadenscent light in the event), hues can appear different. Of course, the quality of color off your monitor varies from model to model and from manufacturing batch to manufacturing batch. And over time you can expect the quality to slowly degrade. On top of all of this your printer has its own limitations and exact results will vary from printer to printer.
If you want damn near exact color matching between your monitor and your printer, you're going to have to do some work to calibrate things. Simply assuming 255,0,0 is a particular shade red everywhere isn't going to work.
Things also get wonky when moving from system to system. This is most striking when looking at a web site whose graphics have been created by a graphic designer working on a well calibrated Mac; Windows users will tend to see much darker images.
You might not see this in your area of expertise because you primarily work with people with well adjusted, non-crap equipment.
All that said, you're probably right that gamma correction in file formats is a bad idea. The only people who can possibly benefit from it (random users) never bother configuring things correctly anyway. And for people grumbling that the GIMP lacks this level of color adjustment, while's true that some people care, I know that at least some newspapers manage to print color photographs day-in and day-out without having ever calibrated their colors. It turns out most people can't tell.
Slashdot was busy covering News for Nerds. You may have noticed that Slashdot isn't really a political news site (let alone an overly conservative political opinion source). If there wasn't the electronic aspect, this wouldn't have been on Slashdot. What's interesting from a "News for Nerds" standpoint is that this appears to be electronic trespass. This raises a number of interesting geeky questions. Were the Democratic files reasoanbly protected? There is a report that the Democrats were warned about the security hole several years ago and failed to fix it; given that, what portion of the blame falls on them? It's not entirely clear exactly how the files were obtained, but there are some possibilities (say, accidentally left on a public share) that might suggest that it wasn't actually theft, simply unexpected use of a publically available resource. As a counterpoint, if it was actual breaking into a system you have no reasonable expectation of being on, what will be the punishment, given the generally extreme response to computer trespass these days? Will they get lighter sentences because they're politicians?
I fail to see how the link you provide is particularlly News for Nerds. It's just plain old political commentary. I don't want to see plain old political commentary as articles on Slashdot at all, regardless of who is accused of whatever. The core topics should be technology and other other nerdy areas (including how law and politics interact with technology). Should individual posts get political, so be it, but expecting top level articles on purely political issues is silly.
The problem is that the only time that the Electrol College system provides his benefit is when things are really close. (If it's a landslide, no one bothers with recounts or other arguments.) As a result, we can just about be assured of an especially bitter fight with divisive politics. For the next four years both sides will continue to argue that they deserve the Presidency and that the other side is illegitiment. There is a very real risk of this attempt to simplify the problem simply making tempers hotter and the bitterness deeper.
On top of that, the Electoral College leads to strategies that have nothing to do with serving voters and everything to do with optimizing game theory. If you live in a strongly leaning state, it's likely that neither candidate will spend much time there. The likely winner knows he has you in the bag and won't bother and the likely loser won't waste time better spent on states with closer races. While there are isolated exceptions (I believe a big part of the Bush strategy in 2000 was to fight hard for a handful states generally thought to be untouchable), in general it holds true (even for Bush in 2000). Given a more representative system (perhaps the electoral college, but requiring them to vote proportionally to popular vote in the state) candidates would have incentive to visit are wider ranging area (primarily those with lots of swing voters).
The electoral collge, as it stands today, is more of a problem than a benefit. The simple shift to proportional voting by the collage would help, but everyone has to do it at once. (I believe one or two states do it now, but the effect is that they're almost entirely ignored; it's a better investment to go for a whole state than to fight over one or two electoral college members).
Next Week: Why taxing the pay you receive for your labor is good, but taxing the dividends I receive for my stock investments is double taxation and a crime against humanity.
Most of the dead air phone calls you get are probably predictive dialing by telemarketers. I found that my state's do-not-call list basically eliminated them. Of course, these day's it's easy to get on the national do-not-call list.
It varies from school to school. What you describe is true for some schools, collectively known as "thieving ass-hats," but certainly not for all schools. I know it's not true for the University of Wisconsin.
It's an interesting idea, but in practice almost every email system downloads the entire message in one shot. However, if the quoted text is kept to a bare minimum (and in many cases, "bare minimum" means "absolutely nothing"), it becomes small enough to be irrelevant I absolutely don't want complete quoting of previous messages at the top, it's just about as bad as quoting entire messages below. Complete top quoting means I need to page through the junk to get to the fresh content (Good old fashed "Me-too"ing!).
I avoided mentioning it at first, I didn't want the conversation to derail into a fight about specific clients. But, my personal taste leans toward the combination of Procmail and Mutt. It's an acquired taste, and probably not for most new users. I know better than to push it to any but the most hard-core Unix-philes. There are certainly other clients, with GUIs even, that match Mutt's power and may even surpass it; it's just what I use. (For what it's worth, I've heard exceptional things about KMail (KDE) and Mulberry (cross platform) from people I personally know and trust who have to juggle heavy mail loads.)
I'm seeing a number of posts that feel that any use of a competitor's trademarked name is an infringment. That's not the spirit or letter of the law. The key goal is to avoid consumer confusion. If you're not (potentially) confusing consumers, there is no problem.
Now, if my ad for ExampleOffice 10 is entitled "Microsoft Office", that could be confusing. However, if my ad is titled "EXAMPLEOFFICE 10" with body text that reads, "half the price of Microsoft Office," no one is going to be confused. Even if my ad popped up because I paid for the keywords "Microsoft Office." I've clearly labeled myself. No confusion.
(That said, I expect that in some of these cases the advertiser did so something deceptive, like labelling their advertisement, "Microsoft Office" or whatever. That's clearly intended to mislead and confuse and I have no sympathy for them.)
To pick up chicks with, of course.