The rope course idea is terrible. It doesn't give you a gauge of how people react to business preassures...
You say so, my experience says not.
While it is not the same as what people face at work, it is the understanding of how people react under stress that helps. I spent years working in residential treatment programs and similar situations, which is lifetimes of experience in understanding how to read people and guage their reactions.
what happens if you find a person who is physically unable to do such a course (and really, you can get in trouble for this if you let them go because of it
Oh, really? You assume I have no idea of this. First, there's the experience I just cited. Oh, yes, I spent years working with people who needed special assistance, either in the form of therapy, or in the form of an aid to push them around in their wheel chair. There are other ways to guage people, and I basically deal with each exceptional case as it happens.
I think you completely miss the idea of why someone may be only focused on a paycheck
Go back and re-read the thread. Read my reply to someone else about Maslow's Needs, and check out the link. You are talking about working on code as a "B Need", in other words, a focus on actualization. Such a person knows if they focus on what they want to do, other things fall into place. That is the kind of person I am looking for. This is the type of person who will work for less if the job is more interesting and challenging than another job. It is the kind of person I taught with in residential programs: all those teachers were excellent teachers who were willing to teach in programs that didn't have a summer vacation, required a lot of work teachers in schools never had to deal with (including spending time on camping and hiking trips with the emotionally disturbed students), and, to be honest, were 10 times more dedicated than any teachers I ever worked with the few years I taught in regular schools (both public and private). Their first focus is on the job satisfaction and finding a way to contribute with their skills. Point blank: if you're at that point, it is easily understood. If you're not at that point, if you're still in the "D Need" categories in the pyramid, you just won't get it.
Actually, it says everything about your work ethic.
Yes, people want a paycheck.
But there is far more to it than that. To be honest, this is one of those things that, if you don't get it, you never will.
There are people who love to work as volunteers because they like doing a particular thing or just want to help. They work for the satisfaction. I have a part time job I work in 2 days a month. It is rather unique, and I do it simply because I'm good at it and can do it well. The pay is so low I barely notice the checks in my account. A friend at the same job hasn't been paid in months due to financial hardships the organization is facing. She also does it because of the satisfaction of a job well done and because she enjoys working with the people involved.
Yes, people want to get paid, but there are those who think first of wanting a challenge and enjoying what they do and those who think first of how much they can get and how they can get it. The former are like Scrooge after the three ghosts, while the latter are like him before, and they stand very little chance of ever lifting themselves up and rising above the "What do I get?" attitude. It has a lot to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs. I want the people that have matured to the point where their focus is on esteem or self actualization. In Maslow's terms, you're focused on the "D-Needs", and I want people who have risen above that to the "B-Needs." You are not one who would likely ever end up working for me. You don't get it, and don't care to get it. But that's okay -- you wouldn't want to work for me and I have more than enough people asking to work for me that I've had to turn a lot of them down.
By keeping the focus as I have, those that are hired enjoy the work environment and it allows me to do things with employees that I could not do if I had a group of people who were only concerned about how much I'm going to pay them. I've closed the entire business 3 times for St. Tolkein's day and, on each day, paid to take the entire staff to one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies on its first day out. We've also had a few St. Rowling's days, St. Lee days (as in Stan Lee), St. Lucas Day, and a few others. I have other ways of rewarding my employees with fun activities as well, some on company time, some as offered activities on weekends. I can do this kind of thing because I have people who are more interested in doing a good job than in how big their paycheck is (and yes, I pay well).
Whenever you speak in general, you have to be aware that you are addressing a range, and there are always people outside that range. The wider a range of human experience and expression one is exposed to, the wider the range of potentials and possibilities one can prepare for.
Yes, I handle things quite differently. Basically, I want to scare off people that want the suit-and-tie environment where the boss is always telling them what to do. I like independent thinkers who will keep on top of what has to be done. So I am quite different, but you can be sure at one point the poster or someone reading this will run into those that the generalizations did not cover and will be thankful for the comments of us oddballs that helped her/him realize there is a wide range of attitudes one must prepare for.
I agree with you about the dress code. I know as a whole, people in the workplace are more open minded. However, I am also aware that many people still want employees of other companies to act and dress in an appropriate manner. Ripped, smelly, raggy clothing is unacceptable. If people see the boss in jeans and come in with Daisy Dukes -- well, they're not thinking. I've always looked at those interviewing me in jobs I've had so I knew what to wear on the first day. Then I'd observe others and never dress worse than the employees who were doing well at their jobs and getting along with management.
And, since you point out, I am outside of the "in general" range, I'd like to add that I've talked with HR people in other companies, as well as in education, where I used to work. They pretty much agree with what I said about asking about pay, vacation, or benefits. Those are to be left to final negotiations (including, as someone pointed out, pre-existing commitments that require time off). Anyone bringing those points up before negotiations is either really inexperienced and not interested enough to find out what works, or is more interested in just collecting a check then in doing a good job.
If you were asking for a job at my company and asked that, I would laugh at the question. In part because I don't believe in hiding reactions and feelings, but also because questions like that and a focus on salary, holidays, benefits, and such show a focus on something other than an interest or desire to work in my company. They show a desire, and likely LACK of interest, in working for anyone who will hire the applicant.
In one post here, someone said that they know the bottom line you want the job is the paycheck. Such a person would never end up working for me. If all you want is money, go join Amway and spend your time lying to everyone to get rich. If all an honest person wants is the paycheck, then their focus is on money and I'd much rather see them working as a stock broker than coding for me. That tells me they don't have a passion for correct code (we release code on the programmers' schedule, and have never released anything before the lead programmer could swear it was ready for client use). It tells me they don't want a challenge in a job, just something that will give them a paycheck. These are terms that should be discussed either in what you know is the last interview, or as you're about to accept the offer.
If you come in and ask me what the dress code is, I'll laugh, just as I would if I heard the line someone else mentioned here ("My biggest fault is I'm a workaholic!" -- I always say, "I have a life and other people in it. If you're that socially unbalanced, come back after your therapist feels you've worked through it."). I wear t-shirts or polo shirts and blue jeans in the office. If I go to meet clients, I wear something nice, but still go for a bit of the "geek" look. For my coders it is the same thing. (I've found it helps, in our case, if clients see us as computer geeks first and business people second.) So if you ask the boss, who is wearing blue jeans (and, during most months, sandals), what the dress code is -- well, you're probably not smart enough to work for me.
As to seeing if it is a good fit, I'm REAL nasty about that. I try to wait to hire until I'm hiring a small group of people. Then, as a team building exercise, on the first day or so, we do a ropes course. Since they're still under evaluation, this lets us see if they freak at the idea of a little challenge, how they respond to possible fear and pressure, and often, since it's the first day and not part of the interview, gives us a good idea if they'll really work with others, boss people around, or let everyone else do the hard work. It's true some people have already done ropes courses, but unless they've done them over and over recently, it still brings out more of how they work under different conditions than anything else I can think of.
There is a big difference between persuasion and logic. For example, if you ever have a chance to hear an Amway/Quixtar "dealer" give their sales pitch, it is VERY presuasive, but devoid of logic and long on mis-truths. They're just so wrapped up in it, they don't see that.
Other examples: "You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
"I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"
"You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell."
"You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it."
Actually, more the movie. I was in high school when the show was on and was too busy doing homework to see much of the show. I didn't want to mention the book because it seems very few people have read it. I was amazed at the fast pace of the book. It just zipped along and certainly drove home its point better than the movie. There were also a number of great points in the book that were ignored in the movie. (I've been to Dallas and in one of the shopping malls that was inside the City of Domes and in the fountain, downtown (in Fort Worth, I think) that was the water works where the water came out of the city. There was absolutely nowhere for Logan and Jessica to dive into -- great bit of editing to make it look like they did!)
I searched a long time to find "Logan's World," the sequel to the book, but I could never find it.
It's more like when you reach 40, your life clock (that crystal on your palm) turns from red to black and you're on Lastday. At the end of the day, you go to Carousel, where you float into the air and explode. If you're lucky, you come back and get to do it again.
Since you're near 40, I'm sure you're thinking of running. Don't bother. There are Sandmen who will stop you, and then you don't get to go on Carousel for a chance to come back.
You hook a mini-generator up to that little wheel your hamsters like to run around in.
But, then again, your way works if your the typical geek that needs to lose weight, but a stationary cycle works a little better. (Actually, I tried an exhibit at the local science museum, and when I'm in shape, I can pedal hard enough to light at least 4 60 watt bulbs, which would power a smaller system (240 watts).
That's why God invented the UPS. The last one I bought was $90, but you can get them for much less, use the networking connections, and install the software that'll automatically shut down the system.
I don't use a huge UPS (actually I have two). I've noticed that if we get a power outage that's more than a flicker (i.e. lasting longer than 2 minutes, while circuits reset), that it'll likely be out for 45 minutes or more. So I don't worry about keeping my systems going for longer than 5 minutes (which is the 2 minutes plus 3 to shut them down -- which will change when I finally have time to set them up to communicate with the UPS).
There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right.
Where did you get the idea someone has to be right? There is room for understanding and different viewpoints in much more than you think.
You've been watching too much cable news.
No, I've just learned it from life experience and watching and working with people over and over.
Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.
So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.
Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.
Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.
This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively.
In other words, "This is my opinion, and I think I'm intelligent and well educated and reasonable, so, of course, I don't see any bias when I say that is what ALL reasonable and educated people should think. It's reasonable and educated because it agrees with my point of view."
While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.
There's always at least two sides to any discussion and if you think there is only one valid side, then perhaps you missed something in your education.
I really don't see why anyone is surprised at this. Microsoft has a proven and long track record. Ever since they first started in business, they do what is good for them, whether it hurts the customers overall or not. It's like the schoolyard bully -- kids are smart enough to know that when the bully suddenly starts doing something nice for you, it's to get something from you. There have been a number of cases of Microsoft using their products to obtain information from their customers or trying to control their customers and what is done with their products. Why would anyone expect them to not do that?
I remember when I finally upgraded from my Amiga to a system I could run Windows 95 on. I was thrilled and had no reason to doubt Microsoft or anything about them, but, after watching them over the years, I learned that their business model has never focused on quality of product, security, or anything that helps the customer, just on brute force. They are the schoolyard bully, have proven it many times, and there is no way I will consider buying their products until I see the light dawning on them that it is possible to treat your customers with respect. (The only thing I've bought from them in 5 years is 1 copy of each version of Windows I needed to test my software for my clients -- and that is all it is used for -- testing the final product before it is shipped to clients. And, no, I'm not using pirated copies of their work!)
Yes-- that's it! John Christopher. I think that trilogy is just as good as many sci-fi and fantasy classics for younger audiences, but it just isn't that well known.
And another one is the original "The Neverending Story" by Michael Ende.
On the same line, when I went to see the latest HP movie, I saw a bumbersticker, "Republicans for Voldemort." I'm sure you can turn it into a partisan attack if you feel the need, but I would have found it just as funny if it were "Democrats for Voldemort."
I'd 2nd, 4rd, and 4th "A Wrinkle in Time", as well as the sequals that come after it.
There's also another series I thought was wonderful, but I can't remember the exact titles. I think they were: - The White Mountains - The City of Gold and Lead - The Pool of Fire.
It's about Earth after aliens have taken over and people are "capped" at 13 or so, and immediately start behaving differently. (Capping includes getting a wire-mesh gadget put over their skull.)
If they're young enough, or don't mind something for a younger audience, all 14 of the Oz books by L. Frank Baum are a world of fun. The series was continued by other authors when Baum died.
There's also the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, like John Carter of Mars, Tarzan, Carson of Venus, and the Pellucidar books.
First, I have to say I'm truly awed that you have that much data. You must really love collecting pr0n -- er, have a lot of sound and video files.
I recently had to set up two new servers. One is for business, and one is for personal data. For both, I used RAID 5. They run NFS and Samba, with different directories shared as needed to other systems. RAID 5 is EXTREMELY simple to set up (it's a one line command, once you install mdadm, which, on Debian, installed like a dream), and I'd just suggest Googling for mdadm and tutorial. You'll get several tutorials. There's really no need to pay for hardware RAID cards on Linux (unless you're using an old, slow system). Besides, until you get into the range of something like $300, the RAID cards all do the work through drivers anyway, so you might as well just get a cheap ($10-$20) PCI IDE Controller card to add to your existing IDE channels. Just make sure it works on Linux and is NOT Adaptec (they fsck with the drive order).
On both my systems, all the drives are the same size and model number. I figure you can't always tell if a 160GB drive is 160GB or 140GB, and I didn't want to mess with that. RAID 5 takes 3 drives, but with mdadm, you can add a spare for failover (and the monitoring daemon will e-mail an account on that system in case of failure, so you have a warning to replace the bad drive). My only concern about using the same model for all drives is that there may be a flaw in that model. I found drives that were given a large number of good reviews at NewEgg.
You can also add more spares and more devices with mdadm, or replace faulty devices (not hot swappable, unless you have special hardware, and I don't even know if Linux supports that).
One last note on mdadm: when you first set up a RAID 5 array with it, you'll get an immediate warning of something like a degraded event. This is normal. I think (can't remember details) mdadm and the kernel (mdadm is by the person who wrote the RAID code for the Linux kernel) don't do an exact version of RAID 5 and, instead, use something that lets it rebuild on a new drive faster than it would otherwise.
I notice she doesn't even bring up the point that there is a lot of evidence that the first Thanksgiving in the New World was held in Virginia (I believe at Berkley Plantation). There's evidence both ways, but the VA Thanksgiving has enough backing it that it can't be ignored.
But suggesting to most Americans that it wasn't the Pilgrims must be a little too much for some to consider.
A true Slashdotter would know there is really a 6 hour version of the Wrath of Khan and already have the DVD, both a copy from P2P obtained before the release date, and the official one with the hologram cover and an autographed picture of the Enterprise (but such a person would NOT be wondering how the Enterprise signed a picture).
There has never been a time or a place where this has not been the case.
Yes, that's true, but there have been diferences in degree. With public education, the divide wasn't as bad as it has been, but it is definitely getting worse. But these vanilla tapioca versions of the classics, or reducing them to snippets is just letting a lot of idiots think they know something they don't. Twain said a classic is "something everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read." I enjoy the classics, and a lot of my reading is text from Project Gutenburg on my Palm Pilot. I have a gut dislike for these super-lite versions that let people think they have read a classic without ever having actually read it.
If an artform, or a particular piece of art, has genuine, lasting mass appeal, it is normally exorcized...
I think that is mostly true, although one point of classics is that they have appealed to many people over many generations. There are some notable exceptions to this, though. I think Sherlock Holmes fits as one as do some of the better adventure stories (Three Musketeers, Treasure Island, etc -- although some are consider more "kids' stories").
It reminds me a heck of a lot of the speech Captain Beatty gavein Fahrenheit 451, where he talks about how this line offended a group, so it got trimmed, that line bothered someone else who didn't understand it, so it got nixed, and so on, until it got to the point where nobody had the patience to read the whole work, and eventually, books were eliminated (in the film, newspapers were in comic form without any words). Contrary to what some have said in other threads, Shakespeare is not that hard to understand -- if you're willing to make an effort at first, it gets easy once you get over that "hump".
I don't think we'll lose the classics, but I think we're heading toward a tiered society (if we're not there already) composed of the literate and well educated and the underclass who stay in non-thinking jobs, a lot like Metropolis.
Whenever I read news like this, I want to write Ray Bradbury and say I knew he was right from when I first read F451, and it's a damn shame he wasn't wrong.
Herein lies the problem. My point, and I checked my original post. What I pointed out was that everyone was making a judgement rather quickly -- without knowing if they knew all the facts. I pointed out that we are talking about someone cynical enough to have made donations before that coincided with a corporate agenda. I pointed out what past history has shown, and that more should be taken into consideration before making a judgement.
I have this notion in my head that ALL available facts should be considered before making a judgement. It's just this silly idea I have. I did not "instinctively shout Trojan". I actually was standing up against those who were immediately shouting, "Saint!" (In whatever form, since you have shown you are quite literal.)
And this seems to have bothered you rather deeply -- that I dare say don't make a judgement that he is so wonderful until you know all the facts. Go back and look at my first post in this thread and you'll see that is what I was doing/saying.
I certainly can separate the person from the act. I just consider history of behavior and circumstances before I make a judgement.
As to IQ, average can be a number, but in IQ, there is a range considered normal, which is often referred to as average. I know this because I spent years working with all kinds of tests like this, including IQs. It's been a while, but I *think* we referred to anywhere from 90-110 as average. If you want to research the facts (and I know the idea of knowing all the facts before making a decision or judgement is somewhat of an anathema to you -- since that was my point in the first place -- the one to which you objected), you'll see normal or average IQ is defined as a range -- or at least it was as late as the 1990s when I worked in treatment and had to administer IQ tests -- as well as interpret and score them. Your words were, most members have an above average IQ, both within the group and within the general population. So while you now say you were talking about a skewed group, that is NOT what you were talking about. You specifically stated it was within the group AND the general population. There was no misunderstanding. You addressed both in one sentence, and specifically pointed out that most in the general population were above average. That was what you said, it was wrong, and that is not disputable.
You want me to call you a jerk then fine
No, I don't want you to. My point is that was what you were doing -- you were the one starting with ad hominem attacks. I suppose it was easier to call me a jerk than to examine your points and mine and realize you were on thin ground.
As to your last list, you've shown a misunderstanding of average, specifically in statistics, yet you say I have no expertise. You say I see it all in black and white, but provide no proof, then call me stupid, and say I'm talking about myself -- well, you go on and on, basically trying to prove my points false and me "stupid" or otherwise nasty -- again, this is ad hominem. It means attacking the person instead of the argument. When you have been unable to support your points, or made incorrect statements which I then held you accountable for, if you find you don't have proof to support you (or after I have shown your proof to be incorrect), you start calling me names, attacking my "insecurities" and saying *I* can't understand my environment.
It's clear this discussion is pointless. You bring up a point, I show you, quite clearly why it is wrong, and you twist words to make it into something else. You take what I say literally, showing an inability to understand figurative language, yet say I live in a black and white world. You make a statement, I prove it wrong, then you say that isn't what you said, when it is precisely what you said. You make statements with no proof, which you actually don't have enough info to prove (like "you have no expertise"), and consider them tru
I have not indicated if I think Bill is good or evil. I do however give him the credit he deserves for his gift.
Ahh.... I see. I use a general phrase to describe comments and actions and you find it necessary to interpret it literally, instead of seeing it as an overall comment on behavior.
What I am doing is pointing out that he may or may not, but that it is a good idea to know all the facts BEFORE making a judgement. I saw many of the same comments about his Foundation's gift of $200 million to fight aids in India. However, all that was said by people BEFORE they realized or knew that at that same time MS was making a big push in India to create a focus on Windows and Office and off of FOSS. Few people noticed articles on the same day that talked about the push MS was making to make inroads in India. Many of those same articles pointed out MS was spending $400 million on advertising and promotion in India. This isn't an urban legend, it isn't made up. If you don't believe me, a few minutes with Google and you can find artilces to back it up. In 30 seconds, I found two articles, one about the donation, one about the promotions. I considered taking more time to find one article about each with dates on the same day, but you are so smart, I'm sure you can find two such articles immediately.
In such a case, do we give him credit for being such a good person who is doing something wonderful, or for being so cynical that he would make sure his gifts are given under conditions with improve his own profit potential? I'm sure a little of both, but when you see that MS is spending TWICE the amount of the gift on advertising, and that this was still at a time when he was CEO, then indications are he is more likely spending his charity money where it will help him, whether it helps others or not. Perhaps if the advertising budget were smaller and the gift were larger, it might be easier to believe his motives were more about helping then creating good will that will help himself.
It is fairly obvious from your posts that your understanding of human behaviour is based on the simplistic "saints and sinners"
Actually, no. However, in the space of a discussion here, it is difficult to get into the depth and complexities that make up a human's psyche. I spent close to ten years working in treatment situations. I've seen more of human behavior than most people can imagine. Most importantly, working in treatment, you see people under stress and trying to actuall understand what they are doing. This means you can't work in such a situation long without quickly learning how to see not only how people act, but to quickly understand what is driving their behavior. As I said, though, in a discussion like this, it is hard to dive into detail of behavior. As for watching others build/lose their fortune, you do a good job of phrasing that whole part in an insulting manner to belittle what I was saying, but you completely skip over (if you even know) that observation leads to understanding. You say it is simplistic, which may be partly true, but that does not lessen the point that someone who behaves cruelly and inconsiderately toward others has shown a pattern, over time, of who they are and how they behave. Sometimes people change, but it is more likely they do not change their attitudes much over a lifetime. If they see other people as tools and as something that can be used, and have behaved that way for decades, they are not likely to change unless they are forced to -- especially if they are more inclined toward activities their society views as negative than simply unproductive. Now, since you are so sure I'm a simpleton, do I need to go into this and what I learned in treatment about why people change, or can you figure it out?
The points here include that those of us who have watched him for years have seen that he was against setting up the charity in the first place (his wife and Father, and I believe, Mother -- not sure if she was involved -- conv
Slashdot Mirror
The rope course idea is terrible. It doesn't give you a gauge of how people react to business preassures...
You say so, my experience says not.
While it is not the same as what people face at work, it is the understanding of how people react under stress that helps. I spent years working in residential treatment programs and similar situations, which is lifetimes of experience in understanding how to read people and guage their reactions.
what happens if you find a person who is physically unable to do such a course (and really, you can get in trouble for this if you let them go because of it
Oh, really? You assume I have no idea of this. First, there's the experience I just cited. Oh, yes, I spent years working with people who needed special assistance, either in the form of therapy, or in the form of an aid to push them around in their wheel chair. There are other ways to guage people, and I basically deal with each exceptional case as it happens.
I think you completely miss the idea of why someone may be only focused on a paycheck
Go back and re-read the thread. Read my reply to someone else about Maslow's Needs, and check out the link. You are talking about working on code as a "B Need", in other words, a focus on actualization. Such a person knows if they focus on what they want to do, other things fall into place. That is the kind of person I am looking for. This is the type of person who will work for less if the job is more interesting and challenging than another job. It is the kind of person I taught with in residential programs: all those teachers were excellent teachers who were willing to teach in programs that didn't have a summer vacation, required a lot of work teachers in schools never had to deal with (including spending time on camping and hiking trips with the emotionally disturbed students), and, to be honest, were 10 times more dedicated than any teachers I ever worked with the few years I taught in regular schools (both public and private). Their first focus is on the job satisfaction and finding a way to contribute with their skills. Point blank: if you're at that point, it is easily understood. If you're not at that point, if you're still in the "D Need" categories in the pyramid, you just won't get it.
Actually, it says everything about your work ethic.
Yes, people want a paycheck.
But there is far more to it than that. To be honest, this is one of those things that, if you don't get it, you never will.
There are people who love to work as volunteers because they like doing a particular thing or just want to help. They work for the satisfaction. I have a part time job I work in 2 days a month. It is rather unique, and I do it simply because I'm good at it and can do it well. The pay is so low I barely notice the checks in my account. A friend at the same job hasn't been paid in months due to financial hardships the organization is facing. She also does it because of the satisfaction of a job well done and because she enjoys working with the people involved.
Yes, people want to get paid, but there are those who think first of wanting a challenge and enjoying what they do and those who think first of how much they can get and how they can get it. The former are like Scrooge after the three ghosts, while the latter are like him before, and they stand very little chance of ever lifting themselves up and rising above the "What do I get?" attitude. It has a lot to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs. I want the people that have matured to the point where their focus is on esteem or self actualization. In Maslow's terms, you're focused on the "D-Needs", and I want people who have risen above that to the "B-Needs." You are not one who would likely ever end up working for me. You don't get it, and don't care to get it. But that's okay -- you wouldn't want to work for me and I have more than enough people asking to work for me that I've had to turn a lot of them down.
By keeping the focus as I have, those that are hired enjoy the work environment and it allows me to do things with employees that I could not do if I had a group of people who were only concerned about how much I'm going to pay them. I've closed the entire business 3 times for St. Tolkein's day and, on each day, paid to take the entire staff to one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies on its first day out. We've also had a few St. Rowling's days, St. Lee days (as in Stan Lee), St. Lucas Day, and a few others. I have other ways of rewarding my employees with fun activities as well, some on company time, some as offered activities on weekends. I can do this kind of thing because I have people who are more interested in doing a good job than in how big their paycheck is (and yes, I pay well).
Whenever you speak in general, you have to be aware that you are addressing a range, and there are always people outside that range. The wider a range of human experience and expression one is exposed to, the wider the range of potentials and possibilities one can prepare for.
Yes, I handle things quite differently. Basically, I want to scare off people that want the suit-and-tie environment where the boss is always telling them what to do. I like independent thinkers who will keep on top of what has to be done. So I am quite different, but you can be sure at one point the poster or someone reading this will run into those that the generalizations did not cover and will be thankful for the comments of us oddballs that helped her/him realize there is a wide range of attitudes one must prepare for.
I agree with you about the dress code. I know as a whole, people in the workplace are more open minded. However, I am also aware that many people still want employees of other companies to act and dress in an appropriate manner. Ripped, smelly, raggy clothing is unacceptable. If people see the boss in jeans and come in with Daisy Dukes -- well, they're not thinking. I've always looked at those interviewing me in jobs I've had so I knew what to wear on the first day. Then I'd observe others and never dress worse than the employees who were doing well at their jobs and getting along with management.
And, since you point out, I am outside of the "in general" range, I'd like to add that I've talked with HR people in other companies, as well as in education, where I used to work. They pretty much agree with what I said about asking about pay, vacation, or benefits. Those are to be left to final negotiations (including, as someone pointed out, pre-existing commitments that require time off). Anyone bringing those points up before negotiations is either really inexperienced and not interested enough to find out what works, or is more interested in just collecting a check then in doing a good job.
If you were asking for a job at my company and asked that, I would laugh at the question. In part because I don't believe in hiding reactions and feelings, but also because questions like that and a focus on salary, holidays, benefits, and such show a focus on something other than an interest or desire to work in my company. They show a desire, and likely LACK of interest, in working for anyone who will hire the applicant.
In one post here, someone said that they know the bottom line you want the job is the paycheck. Such a person would never end up working for me. If all you want is money, go join Amway and spend your time lying to everyone to get rich. If all an honest person wants is the paycheck, then their focus is on money and I'd much rather see them working as a stock broker than coding for me. That tells me they don't have a passion for correct code (we release code on the programmers' schedule, and have never released anything before the lead programmer could swear it was ready for client use). It tells me they don't want a challenge in a job, just something that will give them a paycheck. These are terms that should be discussed either in what you know is the last interview, or as you're about to accept the offer.
If you come in and ask me what the dress code is, I'll laugh, just as I would if I heard the line someone else mentioned here ("My biggest fault is I'm a workaholic!" -- I always say, "I have a life and other people in it. If you're that socially unbalanced, come back after your therapist feels you've worked through it."). I wear t-shirts or polo shirts and blue jeans in the office. If I go to meet clients, I wear something nice, but still go for a bit of the "geek" look. For my coders it is the same thing. (I've found it helps, in our case, if clients see us as computer geeks first and business people second.) So if you ask the boss, who is wearing blue jeans (and, during most months, sandals), what the dress code is -- well, you're probably not smart enough to work for me.
As to seeing if it is a good fit, I'm REAL nasty about that. I try to wait to hire until I'm hiring a small group of people. Then, as a team building exercise, on the first day or so, we do a ropes course. Since they're still under evaluation, this lets us see if they freak at the idea of a little challenge, how they respond to possible fear and pressure, and often, since it's the first day and not part of the interview, gives us a good idea if they'll really work with others, boss people around, or let everyone else do the hard work. It's true some people have already done ropes courses, but unless they've done them over and over recently, it still brings out more of how they work under different conditions than anything else I can think of.
There is a big difference between persuasion and logic. For example, if you ever have a chance to hear an Amway/Quixtar "dealer" give their sales pitch, it is VERY presuasive, but devoid of logic and long on mis-truths. They're just so wrapped up in it, they don't see that.
Bzzztttt!
Appeal to Fear.
Well known logical fallacy.
You lose. Try again.
Other examples:
"You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
"I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"
"You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell."
"You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it."
Actually, more the movie. I was in high school when the show was on and was too busy doing homework to see much of the show. I didn't want to mention the book because it seems very few people have read it. I was amazed at the fast pace of the book. It just zipped along and certainly drove home its point better than the movie. There were also a number of great points in the book that were ignored in the movie. (I've been to Dallas and in one of the shopping malls that was inside the City of Domes and in the fountain, downtown (in Fort Worth, I think) that was the water works where the water came out of the city. There was absolutely nowhere for Logan and Jessica to dive into -- great bit of editing to make it look like they did!)
I searched a long time to find "Logan's World," the sequel to the book, but I could never find it.
It's more like when you reach 40, your life clock (that crystal on your palm) turns from red to black and you're on Lastday. At the end of the day, you go to Carousel, where you float into the air and explode. If you're lucky, you come back and get to do it again.
Since you're near 40, I'm sure you're thinking of running. Don't bother. There are Sandmen who will stop you, and then you don't get to go on Carousel for a chance to come back.
Who knows.
If I have a system that is, in some way horked, I'm not going to fix it by restoring it from an image that has proven to already have problems.
Personally, I think if he can prove it's not a BIOS or mobo problem, he should wipe and install from scratch.
That is if he insists on dealing with outages over and over without buying a UPS.
No, no, no.
You've got that all wrong.
You hook a mini-generator up to that little wheel your hamsters like to run around in.
But, then again, your way works if your the typical geek that needs to lose weight, but a stationary cycle works a little better. (Actually, I tried an exhibit at the local science museum, and when I'm in shape, I can pedal hard enough to light at least 4 60 watt bulbs, which would power a smaller system (240 watts).
That's why God invented the UPS. The last one I bought was $90, but you can get them for much less, use the networking connections, and install the software that'll automatically shut down the system.
I don't use a huge UPS (actually I have two). I've noticed that if we get a power outage that's more than a flicker (i.e. lasting longer than 2 minutes, while circuits reset), that it'll likely be out for 45 minutes or more. So I don't worry about keeping my systems going for longer than 5 minutes (which is the 2 minutes plus 3 to shut them down -- which will change when I finally have time to set them up to communicate with the UPS).
There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right.
Where did you get the idea someone has to be right? There is room for understanding and different viewpoints in much more than you think.
You've been watching too much cable news.
No, I've just learned it from life experience and watching and working with people over and over.
Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.
So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.
Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.
Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.
That is the point you completely missed.
This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively.
In other words, "This is my opinion, and I think I'm intelligent and well educated and reasonable, so, of course, I don't see any bias when I say that is what ALL reasonable and educated people should think. It's reasonable and educated because it agrees with my point of view."
While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.
There's always at least two sides to any discussion and if you think there is only one valid side, then perhaps you missed something in your education.
I really don't see why anyone is surprised at this. Microsoft has a proven and long track record. Ever since they first started in business, they do what is good for them, whether it hurts the customers overall or not. It's like the schoolyard bully -- kids are smart enough to know that when the bully suddenly starts doing something nice for you, it's to get something from you. There have been a number of cases of Microsoft using their products to obtain information from their customers or trying to control their customers and what is done with their products. Why would anyone expect them to not do that?
I remember when I finally upgraded from my Amiga to a system I could run Windows 95 on. I was thrilled and had no reason to doubt Microsoft or anything about them, but, after watching them over the years, I learned that their business model has never focused on quality of product, security, or anything that helps the customer, just on brute force. They are the schoolyard bully, have proven it many times, and there is no way I will consider buying their products until I see the light dawning on them that it is possible to treat your customers with respect. (The only thing I've bought from them in 5 years is 1 copy of each version of Windows I needed to test my software for my clients -- and that is all it is used for -- testing the final product before it is shipped to clients. And, no, I'm not using pirated copies of their work!)
Yes-- that's it! John Christopher. I think that trilogy is just as good as many sci-fi and fantasy classics for younger audiences, but it just isn't that well known.
And another one is the original "The Neverending Story" by Michael Ende.
Someone's been reading too much about Hogwarts.
On the same line, when I went to see the latest HP movie, I saw a bumbersticker, "Republicans for Voldemort." I'm sure you can turn it into a partisan attack if you feel the need, but I would have found it just as funny if it were "Democrats for Voldemort."
I'd 2nd, 4rd, and 4th "A Wrinkle in Time", as well as the sequals that come after it.
There's also another series I thought was wonderful, but I can't remember the exact titles. I think they were:
- The White Mountains
- The City of Gold and Lead
- The Pool of Fire.
It's about Earth after aliens have taken over and people are "capped" at 13 or so, and immediately start behaving differently. (Capping includes getting a wire-mesh gadget put over their skull.)
If they're young enough, or don't mind something for a younger audience, all 14 of the Oz books by L. Frank Baum are a world of fun. The series was continued by other authors when Baum died.
There's also the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, like John Carter of Mars, Tarzan, Carson of Venus, and the Pellucidar books.
First, I have to say I'm truly awed that you have that much data. You must really love collecting pr0n -- er, have a lot of sound and video files.
I recently had to set up two new servers. One is for business, and one is for personal data. For both, I used RAID 5. They run NFS and Samba, with different directories shared as needed to other systems. RAID 5 is EXTREMELY simple to set up (it's a one line command, once you install mdadm, which, on Debian, installed like a dream), and I'd just suggest Googling for mdadm and tutorial. You'll get several tutorials. There's really no need to pay for hardware RAID cards on Linux (unless you're using an old, slow system). Besides, until you get into the range of something like $300, the RAID cards all do the work through drivers anyway, so you might as well just get a cheap ($10-$20) PCI IDE Controller card to add to your existing IDE channels. Just make sure it works on Linux and is NOT Adaptec (they fsck with the drive order).
On both my systems, all the drives are the same size and model number. I figure you can't always tell if a 160GB drive is 160GB or 140GB, and I didn't want to mess with that. RAID 5 takes 3 drives, but with mdadm, you can add a spare for failover (and the monitoring daemon will e-mail an account on that system in case of failure, so you have a warning to replace the bad drive). My only concern about using the same model for all drives is that there may be a flaw in that model. I found drives that were given a large number of good reviews at NewEgg.
You can also add more spares and more devices with mdadm, or replace faulty devices (not hot swappable, unless you have special hardware, and I don't even know if Linux supports that).
One last note on mdadm: when you first set up a RAID 5 array with it, you'll get an immediate warning of something like a degraded event. This is normal. I think (can't remember details) mdadm and the kernel (mdadm is by the person who wrote the RAID code for the Linux kernel) don't do an exact version of RAID 5 and, instead, use something that lets it rebuild on a new drive faster than it would otherwise.
I notice she doesn't even bring up the point that there is a lot of evidence that the first Thanksgiving in the New World was held in Virginia (I believe at Berkley Plantation). There's evidence both ways, but the VA Thanksgiving has enough backing it that it can't be ignored.
But suggesting to most Americans that it wasn't the Pilgrims must be a little too much for some to consider.
Imposter!
A true Slashdotter would know there is really a 6 hour version of the Wrath of Khan and already have the DVD, both a copy from P2P obtained before the release date, and the official one with the hologram cover and an autographed picture of the Enterprise (but such a person would NOT be wondering how the Enterprise signed a picture).
There has never been a time or a place where this has not been the case.
Yes, that's true, but there have been diferences in degree. With public education, the divide wasn't as bad as it has been, but it is definitely getting worse. But these vanilla tapioca versions of the classics, or reducing them to snippets is just letting a lot of idiots think they know something they don't. Twain said a classic is "something everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read." I enjoy the classics, and a lot of my reading is text from Project Gutenburg on my Palm Pilot. I have a gut dislike for these super-lite versions that let people think they have read a classic without ever having actually read it.
If an artform, or a particular piece of art, has genuine, lasting mass appeal, it is normally exorcized...
I think that is mostly true, although one point of classics is that they have appealed to many people over many generations. There are some notable exceptions to this, though. I think Sherlock Holmes fits as one as do some of the better adventure stories (Three Musketeers, Treasure Island, etc -- although some are consider more "kids' stories").
It reminds me a heck of a lot of the speech Captain Beatty gavein Fahrenheit 451, where he talks about how this line offended a group, so it got trimmed, that line bothered someone else who didn't understand it, so it got nixed, and so on, until it got to the point where nobody had the patience to read the whole work, and eventually, books were eliminated (in the film, newspapers were in comic form without any words). Contrary to what some have said in other threads, Shakespeare is not that hard to understand -- if you're willing to make an effort at first, it gets easy once you get over that "hump".
I don't think we'll lose the classics, but I think we're heading toward a tiered society (if we're not there already) composed of the literate and well educated and the underclass who stay in non-thinking jobs, a lot like Metropolis.
Whenever I read news like this, I want to write Ray Bradbury and say I knew he was right from when I first read F451, and it's a damn shame he wasn't wrong.
It's not useless if you have as much time to kill as anyone who spends time doing this kind of thing obviously does.
when you make a judgement
Ahhhh....
Herein lies the problem. My point, and I checked my original post. What I pointed out was that everyone was making a judgement rather quickly -- without knowing if they knew all the facts. I pointed out that we are talking about someone cynical enough to have made donations before that coincided with a corporate agenda. I pointed out what past history has shown, and that more should be taken into consideration before making a judgement.
I have this notion in my head that ALL available facts should be considered before making a judgement. It's just this silly idea I have. I did not "instinctively shout Trojan". I actually was standing up against those who were immediately shouting, "Saint!" (In whatever form, since you have shown you are quite literal.)
And this seems to have bothered you rather deeply -- that I dare say don't make a judgement that he is so wonderful until you know all the facts. Go back and look at my first post in this thread and you'll see that is what I was doing/saying.
I certainly can separate the person from the act. I just consider history of behavior and circumstances before I make a judgement.
As to IQ, average can be a number, but in IQ, there is a range considered normal, which is often referred to as average. I know this because I spent years working with all kinds of tests like this, including IQs. It's been a while, but I *think* we referred to anywhere from 90-110 as average. If you want to research the facts (and I know the idea of knowing all the facts before making a decision or judgement is somewhat of an anathema to you -- since that was my point in the first place -- the one to which you objected), you'll see normal or average IQ is defined as a range -- or at least it was as late as the 1990s when I worked in treatment and had to administer IQ tests -- as well as interpret and score them. Your words were, most members have an above average IQ, both within the group and within the general population. So while you now say you were talking about a skewed group, that is NOT what you were talking about. You specifically stated it was within the group AND the general population. There was no misunderstanding. You addressed both in one sentence, and specifically pointed out that most in the general population were above average. That was what you said, it was wrong, and that is not disputable.
You want me to call you a jerk then fine
No, I don't want you to. My point is that was what you were doing -- you were the one starting with ad hominem attacks. I suppose it was easier to call me a jerk than to examine your points and mine and realize you were on thin ground.
As to your last list, you've shown a misunderstanding of average, specifically in statistics, yet you say I have no expertise. You say I see it all in black and white, but provide no proof, then call me stupid, and say I'm talking about myself -- well, you go on and on, basically trying to prove my points false and me "stupid" or otherwise nasty -- again, this is ad hominem. It means attacking the person instead of the argument. When you have been unable to support your points, or made incorrect statements which I then held you accountable for, if you find you don't have proof to support you (or after I have shown your proof to be incorrect), you start calling me names, attacking my "insecurities" and saying *I* can't understand my environment.
It's clear this discussion is pointless. You bring up a point, I show you, quite clearly why it is wrong, and you twist words to make it into something else. You take what I say literally, showing an inability to understand figurative language, yet say I live in a black and white world. You make a statement, I prove it wrong, then you say that isn't what you said, when it is precisely what you said. You make statements with no proof, which you actually don't have enough info to prove (like "you have no expertise"), and consider them tru
I have not indicated if I think Bill is good or evil. I do however give him the credit he deserves for his gift.
Ahh.... I see. I use a general phrase to describe comments and actions and you find it necessary to interpret it literally, instead of seeing it as an overall comment on behavior.
What I am doing is pointing out that he may or may not, but that it is a good idea to know all the facts BEFORE making a judgement. I saw many of the same comments about his Foundation's gift of $200 million to fight aids in India. However, all that was said by people BEFORE they realized or knew that at that same time MS was making a big push in India to create a focus on Windows and Office and off of FOSS. Few people noticed articles on the same day that talked about the push MS was making to make inroads in India. Many of those same articles pointed out MS was spending $400 million on advertising and promotion in India. This isn't an urban legend, it isn't made up. If you don't believe me, a few minutes with Google and you can find artilces to back it up. In 30 seconds, I found two articles, one about the donation, one about the promotions. I considered taking more time to find one article about each with dates on the same day, but you are so smart, I'm sure you can find two such articles immediately.
In such a case, do we give him credit for being such a good person who is doing something wonderful, or for being so cynical that he would make sure his gifts are given under conditions with improve his own profit potential? I'm sure a little of both, but when you see that MS is spending TWICE the amount of the gift on advertising, and that this was still at a time when he was CEO, then indications are he is more likely spending his charity money where it will help him, whether it helps others or not. Perhaps if the advertising budget were smaller and the gift were larger, it might be easier to believe his motives were more about helping then creating good will that will help himself.
It is fairly obvious from your posts that your understanding of human behaviour is based on the simplistic "saints and sinners"
Actually, no. However, in the space of a discussion here, it is difficult to get into the depth and complexities that make up a human's psyche. I spent close to ten years working in treatment situations. I've seen more of human behavior than most people can imagine. Most importantly, working in treatment, you see people under stress and trying to actuall understand what they are doing. This means you can't work in such a situation long without quickly learning how to see not only how people act, but to quickly understand what is driving their behavior. As I said, though, in a discussion like this, it is hard to dive into detail of behavior. As for watching others build/lose their fortune, you do a good job of phrasing that whole part in an insulting manner to belittle what I was saying, but you completely skip over (if you even know) that observation leads to understanding. You say it is simplistic, which may be partly true, but that does not lessen the point that someone who behaves cruelly and inconsiderately toward others has shown a pattern, over time, of who they are and how they behave. Sometimes people change, but it is more likely they do not change their attitudes much over a lifetime. If they see other people as tools and as something that can be used, and have behaved that way for decades, they are not likely to change unless they are forced to -- especially if they are more inclined toward activities their society views as negative than simply unproductive. Now, since you are so sure I'm a simpleton, do I need to go into this and what I learned in treatment about why people change, or can you figure it out?
The points here include that those of us who have watched him for years have seen that he was against setting up the charity in the first place (his wife and Father, and I believe, Mother -- not sure if she was involved -- conv