Agreed. It's all about attitude and confidence, and learning to project them both even if you don't actually *feel* confident the whole time.
I never use my mobile whilst I'm walking. If I get a call when I'm out, I take it but I stand to one side, just so I'm aware what's going on around me. I've also got a fairly naff MP3 player. Who really wants to carry their entire music collection around with them every day in an iPod?!
I've lived in London for ten years, travelled thousands of miles in the US by Greyhound, and spent a great deal of time in New York. I don't *feel* confident in most of those situations, but I've learned that looking pissed off is a useful way of projecting "don't come near me" at any wannabe attackers. If you've got that slight 'unknown' about you, they'll generally look elsewhere. I'd be fairly useless in any attack situation, but they don't *know* that, so I've avoided trouble to-date.
Very true. Currently, you rarely (if ever) get asked to show ID in the UK. However, if they combine these ID cards with your travel pass, then they get the ability to hook into a swiping activity that most of us who commute into London currently do several times every day without thinking. The oyster-card that most of us are already carrying could very easily be replaced with the new ID card. Then, hey-presto, you've gained the ability to track a large proportion of the non-driving population of London. Of-course, it would be easy to by-pass those checks by not using public transport, or by jumping over the barriers (*so* many stations are poorly supervised by staff), so those who seek *not* to be tracked will simply travel by different means or find new tricks. Road blocks or road-side swipe points are the only way to force people to carry and use these cards, and I think they would create too much of a sense of a police state to go down well with the public, whether we're living with the threat of terrorism or not. And, of-course, who's going to stop people swiping their friend's card instead of their own. Unless you confirm bio-metric data at every swipe point, are they really going to be certain that the person carrying the card is the person to whom it was issued?
I agree somewhat. The only capability that biometrics provide is the assurance that the person holding the passport is the person who was granted the passport. I have to admit that's a useful measure, and a wise one to put in place (so I support this move), but it tells you nothing about the passport holder's intentions, motives, or even their background. How much can you really tell about someone's background, even with the most thorough search?
So, with biometrics, we can be certain who each passport holder is, but I think we're a long way from being able to tell what they're going to do when they travel to a particular country. That may in-fact be an unachievable goal.
We're better off developing ways to render most known (and potential) modes of terrorism useless... better security on flights, tighter controls on firearms and other 'dangerous' materials, etc. The materials that someone is carrying are a better indication of their intent, rather than who they are? Perhaps better scanning of luggage in airports, and widespread scanning/inspection of shipments and freight movements? Surely those measures will actually yield results? But then again, how do you tell whether anti-terrorism measures were helpful? You can't measure lack of terrorist incidents, only the ones that occur.
I completely agree.
If you're writing simple run-of-the-mill applications, then younger staff are cheaper and as effective and that's fine. However, if you're doing anything vaguely innovative (and don't most of us want to work for a company that is?!), you need staff with the breadth and depth of experience to achieve an end-result in an area where there isn't a clear road-map.
In my last role, for a small dot-com, we had too many younger staff, and not enough staff with experience to provide technical review and guidance to make sure we achieved a deliverable end result.
Younger staff may be cheaper, but how many of them do you need to employ to achieve something a seasoned coder can achieve? And, more importantly, how many experienced people do you have to employ on-top to keep them pointed in the right direction?
Any employer who actually understands software engineering (and they do exist) will still value older staff. I'm almost 32, and made my most recent job move a year ago. I feel I've got *more* to sell now that I had when I was 25. I'm not knocking younger developers - lots of them are sh*t hot, with a great future. I just think age and experience can be an asset, and, in my experience (perhaps I've been lucky), good employers know that.
I agree; the prevailing attitudes here are rather disturbing. It's an age-old issue: doctors get leant on for medical advice, car mechanics get leant on for help with cars, teachers get leant on for advice on bringing up kids.
In general, people who are seen to be skilled in a particular area get leant on for advice/help in that area. It's a social issue, and people who aren't caring enough to give a little of their time whilst also being socially skilled enough to restrict that time and say 'no' when leant on too much, need to improve their peopleware skills;o)
Yep, there's often no thanks at the end of it. But isn't the pleasure of something like getting Grandma on-line and up-to-speed with the internet enough? You're sharing your knowledge. Even when you're not familiar with the technology, you're sharing your analytical skills and helping someone to work it out. It's only when you're too shy to draw the line and politely saying 'no' occasionally that resentment creeps in.
It's sad that we think relatives and friends should *always* call the customer support number.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. It's all about attitude and confidence, and learning to project them both even if you don't actually *feel* confident the whole time.
I never use my mobile whilst I'm walking. If I get a call when I'm out, I take it but I stand to one side, just so I'm aware what's going on around me. I've also got a fairly naff MP3 player. Who really wants to carry their entire music collection around with them every day in an iPod?!
I've lived in London for ten years, travelled thousands of miles in the US by Greyhound, and spent a great deal of time in New York. I don't *feel* confident in most of those situations, but I've learned that looking pissed off is a useful way of projecting "don't come near me" at any wannabe attackers. If you've got that slight 'unknown' about you, they'll generally look elsewhere. I'd be fairly useless in any attack situation, but they don't *know* that, so I've avoided trouble to-date.
Very true. Currently, you rarely (if ever) get asked to show ID in the UK. However, if they combine these ID cards with your travel pass, then they get the ability to hook into a swiping activity that most of us who commute into London currently do several times every day without thinking. The oyster-card that most of us are already carrying could very easily be replaced with the new ID card. Then, hey-presto, you've gained the ability to track a large proportion of the non-driving population of London. Of-course, it would be easy to by-pass those checks by not using public transport, or by jumping over the barriers (*so* many stations are poorly supervised by staff), so those who seek *not* to be tracked will simply travel by different means or find new tricks. Road blocks or road-side swipe points are the only way to force people to carry and use these cards, and I think they would create too much of a sense of a police state to go down well with the public, whether we're living with the threat of terrorism or not. And, of-course, who's going to stop people swiping their friend's card instead of their own. Unless you confirm bio-metric data at every swipe point, are they really going to be certain that the person carrying the card is the person to whom it was issued?
I agree somewhat. The only capability that biometrics provide is the assurance that the person holding the passport is the person who was granted the passport. I have to admit that's a useful measure, and a wise one to put in place (so I support this move), but it tells you nothing about the passport holder's intentions, motives, or even their background. How much can you really tell about someone's background, even with the most thorough search?
So, with biometrics, we can be certain who each passport holder is, but I think we're a long way from being able to tell what they're going to do when they travel to a particular country. That may in-fact be an unachievable goal.
We're better off developing ways to render most known (and potential) modes of terrorism useless... better security on flights, tighter controls on firearms and other 'dangerous' materials, etc. The materials that someone is carrying are a better indication of their intent, rather than who they are? Perhaps better scanning of luggage in airports, and widespread scanning/inspection of shipments and freight movements? Surely those measures will actually yield results? But then again, how do you tell whether anti-terrorism measures were helpful? You can't measure lack of terrorist incidents, only the ones that occur.
I completely agree.
If you're writing simple run-of-the-mill applications, then younger staff are cheaper and as effective and that's fine. However, if you're doing anything vaguely innovative (and don't most of us want to work for a company that is?!), you need staff with the breadth and depth of experience to achieve an end-result in an area where there isn't a clear road-map.
In my last role, for a small dot-com, we had too many younger staff, and not enough staff with experience to provide technical review and guidance to make sure we achieved a deliverable end result.
Younger staff may be cheaper, but how many of them do you need to employ to achieve something a seasoned coder can achieve? And, more importantly, how many experienced people do you have to employ on-top to keep them pointed in the right direction?
Any employer who actually understands software engineering (and they do exist) will still value older staff. I'm almost 32, and made my most recent job move a year ago. I feel I've got *more* to sell now that I had when I was 25. I'm not knocking younger developers - lots of them are sh*t hot, with a great future. I just think age and experience can be an asset, and, in my experience (perhaps I've been lucky), good employers know that.
I agree; the prevailing attitudes here are rather disturbing. It's an age-old issue: doctors get leant on for medical advice, car mechanics get leant on for help with cars, teachers get leant on for advice on bringing up kids.
In general, people who are seen to be skilled in a particular area get leant on for advice/help in that area. It's a social issue, and people who aren't caring enough to give a little of their time whilst also being socially skilled enough to restrict that time and say 'no' when leant on too much, need to improve their peopleware skills ;o)
Yep, there's often no thanks at the end of it. But isn't the pleasure of something like getting Grandma on-line and up-to-speed with the internet enough? You're sharing your knowledge. Even when you're not familiar with the technology, you're sharing your analytical skills and helping someone to work it out. It's only when you're too shy to draw the line and politely saying 'no' occasionally that resentment creeps in.
It's sad that we think relatives and friends should *always* call the customer support number.