People used to find all-mechancal gramophones perfectly acceptable, and for a long time music was heard - and greatly enjoyed - when belted out by rank amateurs that couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.
As opposed to now, where music is heard, and greatly loathed, when belted out by rank professionals that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
"I do have a cause however: obscenity. I'm for it."
This sort of thing just makes religious conservatives seem like they want to make everyone else moral using force, when most evangelical Christians want to spread the Good News to the unfaithful and have them willingly become moral (by the conservative Christian definition).
We all got a taste for just how nasty elected officials can in the 1812 Massachusetts Redistricting Scandal, and I can't believe that similarly minded politicians would let something like this happen.
If I'm not mistaken, the previous Spam King would be Alan Ralsky, who was in effect shutdown in October of 2005 by the FBI. He's also done time for fraud among other crimes.
absolutely! And I want mention the under representation of men among mothers. Why is there this prejudice against men having babies? I would love to give birth, but I can't.
Where's the Fetus going to gestate? In a box?
Then we'll just have to fight for his right to have babies. It is symbolic of the larger struggle against oppression.
Actually, as far as I can tell it's a standard thing that you get out of any sales class (generally worth taking if you can find the time): People like people similar to themselves. Managers are business types, and thus are more likely to trust business types selling Microsoft.NET than they are scruffy-looking developers. Thus when you're trying to convince techies to use a particular software package, you dress like a techy and talk about config files, while if you're selling the same software to managers you talk about ROI, TCO, and reprioritizing the synergistic paradigm.
So to sell anything Linux-related to management, emphasize IBM and Red Hat, ignore the FSF or Debian completely. Definitely mention the benefits of having multiple vendors able to provide the same services.
Like janitors, CIA agents, and many other professions, when a sysadmin does their job well they tend to go unnoticed, because everyone in upper management in particular just assumes the computers will work just fine. When anything in IT hits the fan though, you can be sure that the responsibility will be propelled straight down to the sysadmins (preferably junior level). In short, only the mistakes are noticed, and thus sysAdmins are often poorly treated.
I find that list significant in figuring out what MS is up to: This is not for end users, or system administrators, or even programmers. It's for corporate managers and government "decisionmakers" who hadn't even heard about this whole "source code" thing until one of their organization geeks gave a talk on its benefits. Now they can say "Microsoft software offers the same benefits" because it looks like they do (like any manager is going to read the fine print), allowing the manager to argue that point in the meeting on whether to switch some servers over to FOSS.
The other thing I can pretty much guarantee is that if Microsoft's licenses are rejected, they'll trumpet something along the lines of "OSI and FSF won't play nice with us because we're MS and they're commie bastards".
I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. With cars, if you're driving, you feel like you're in control of the vehicle, and by extension the situation, and thus feel safer. Even if you have a friend driving, you now have someone you (probably) trust in control of the situation.
By contrast, in a plane, you're totally at the mercy of the pilots and air traffic controllers. You don't know them, and you know that if they screw up there's pretty close to nothing you can do about it. So even if the risk is actually less, it appears to be greater, because you are giving up control over whether you live or die.
The formula is simple: (clear plans to produce features) / (features promised to customer or end user).
In successful projects, that comes out to something like 80% or higher, while in unsuccessful projects you see at best 30%. The way this ratio is kept high is that in the initial planning stages you keep a technology guy in the room who can say no to the sales and end users (or sometimes "yes, but it will take you another 4 months and $300,000")
This is also true in the discount cell phone market: Secondary cell carriers like a former employer of mine were completely at the mercy of the monopolistic local Baby Bell, Ameritech^H SBC^H AT&T.
The reason cops do that is because they don't know if the occupants of the car are going to start shooting. Every cop knows that their life could be on the line during a "routine traffic stop". This seems only prudent, and isn't at all comparable to this sort of surveillance (which I definitely disapprove of).
Besides that, like any other online poll, the following disclaimer applies: This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
As someone born and raised in NH, I'm giving 3 cheers to the NH legislature on this one: NH isn't a state that can afford to spend money on such silly ventures as this one (not because everyone's poor, but because the state actually has something close to the Libertarian ideals).
One thought on the technical hiring problem (having been on both sides of these sorts of decisions), the real problem in hiring technical people is recruiters who have no understanding of the technology. I don't know if your using them, but a lot of places do. Their ads are easy to spot, because they aren't looking for "programmers" or "developers" but "Oracle Applications Technical Architect" and "SAP Costing Consultant" (those titles taken from actual job postings).
The ad text generally looks like the result of someone quitting their job and the HR rep going to IT and saying "So what did this guy do anyways?" An engineer (who's currently overworked because someone just left) rambles on about Oracle, C++, something about Win32, and the HR rep who has no clue what they're talking about just writes it down and hopes they got it right. They then pass that along to a recruiter, who runs searches on resumes looking for people with the words "Oracle", "C++" and "Win32" somewhere, and contacts them via email. Then they inflate the persons' resume to match the experience requirements, and send you candidates without evaluating them because they don't know how to do that.
By contrast, the good companies and IT departments, when they have to post ads (usually the result of expansion or retirement) look for "Programmer" or "Developer" and ask for things like "Object-oriented programming experience", "familiarity with Windows API" (or better yet Linux), and "understanding of algorithms". They rarely go through recruiters, and in their reply to you they immediately make it clear they are a technical person in a position to evaluate you.
Slashdot Mirror
Khaaaaaaaaaaan!
Sorry, I had to.
People used to find all-mechancal gramophones perfectly acceptable, and for a long time music was heard - and greatly enjoyed - when belted out by rank amateurs that couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.
As opposed to now, where music is heard, and greatly loathed, when belted out by rank professionals that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
So close to copyright infringment (see sig).
No, no, the "doves" are those pesky anti-war activists hanging around Crawford.
"I do have a cause however: obscenity. I'm for it."
This sort of thing just makes religious conservatives seem like they want to make everyone else moral using force, when most evangelical Christians want to spread the Good News to the unfaithful and have them willingly become moral (by the conservative Christian definition).
"Fork you!"
Really, it's that simple when you have GPL software.
We all got a taste for just how nasty elected officials can in the 1812 Massachusetts Redistricting Scandal, and I can't believe that similarly minded politicians would let something like this happen.
If I'm not mistaken, the previous Spam King would be Alan Ralsky, who was in effect shutdown in October of 2005 by the FBI. He's also done time for fraud among other crimes.
Although I won't go give Roland a pile of cash, I think it's worth mentioning that there's this amusing little video regarding beer bubble physics.
It's all on why bubbles in Guinness move down.
Actually, as far as I can tell it's a standard thing that you get out of any sales class (generally worth taking if you can find the time): People like people similar to themselves. Managers are business types, and thus are more likely to trust business types selling Microsoft .NET than they are scruffy-looking developers. Thus when you're trying to convince techies to use a particular software package, you dress like a techy and talk about config files, while if you're selling the same software to managers you talk about ROI, TCO, and reprioritizing the synergistic paradigm.
So to sell anything Linux-related to management, emphasize IBM and Red Hat, ignore the FSF or Debian completely. Definitely mention the benefits of having multiple vendors able to provide the same services.
At least we wouldn't need to get a slogan beyond "Vote for Pedro".
And how long before CentOS creates a perfect replica thanks to the GPL?
Like janitors, CIA agents, and many other professions, when a sysadmin does their job well they tend to go unnoticed, because everyone in upper management in particular just assumes the computers will work just fine. When anything in IT hits the fan though, you can be sure that the responsibility will be propelled straight down to the sysadmins (preferably junior level). In short, only the mistakes are noticed, and thus sysAdmins are often poorly treated.
I find that list significant in figuring out what MS is up to: This is not for end users, or system administrators, or even programmers. It's for corporate managers and government "decisionmakers" who hadn't even heard about this whole "source code" thing until one of their organization geeks gave a talk on its benefits. Now they can say "Microsoft software offers the same benefits" because it looks like they do (like any manager is going to read the fine print), allowing the manager to argue that point in the meeting on whether to switch some servers over to FOSS.
The other thing I can pretty much guarantee is that if Microsoft's licenses are rejected, they'll trumpet something along the lines of "OSI and FSF won't play nice with us because we're MS and they're commie bastards".
I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. With cars, if you're driving, you feel like you're in control of the vehicle, and by extension the situation, and thus feel safer. Even if you have a friend driving, you now have someone you (probably) trust in control of the situation.
By contrast, in a plane, you're totally at the mercy of the pilots and air traffic controllers. You don't know them, and you know that if they screw up there's pretty close to nothing you can do about it. So even if the risk is actually less, it appears to be greater, because you are giving up control over whether you live or die.
The formula is simple: (clear plans to produce features) / (features promised to customer or end user).
In successful projects, that comes out to something like 80% or higher, while in unsuccessful projects you see at best 30%. The way this ratio is kept high is that in the initial planning stages you keep a technology guy in the room who can say no to the sales and end users (or sometimes "yes, but it will take you another 4 months and $300,000")
This is also true in the discount cell phone market: Secondary cell carriers like a former employer of mine were completely at the mercy of the monopolistic local Baby Bell, Ameritech^H SBC^H AT&T.
The reason cops do that is because they don't know if the occupants of the car are going to start shooting. Every cop knows that their life could be on the line during a "routine traffic stop". This seems only prudent, and isn't at all comparable to this sort of surveillance (which I definitely disapprove of).
Besides that, like any other online poll, the following disclaimer applies:
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
As someone born and raised in NH, I'm giving 3 cheers to the NH legislature on this one: NH isn't a state that can afford to spend money on such silly ventures as this one (not because everyone's poor, but because the state actually has something close to the Libertarian ideals).
The real question is whether we can improve the fuel efficiency of cars, as measured in Furlongs per Hogshead.
One thought on the technical hiring problem (having been on both sides of these sorts of decisions), the real problem in hiring technical people is recruiters who have no understanding of the technology. I don't know if your using them, but a lot of places do. Their ads are easy to spot, because they aren't looking for "programmers" or "developers" but "Oracle Applications Technical Architect" and "SAP Costing Consultant" (those titles taken from actual job postings).
u mes.html
The ad text generally looks like the result of someone quitting their job and the HR rep going to IT and saying "So what did this guy do anyways?" An engineer (who's currently overworked because someone just left) rambles on about Oracle, C++, something about Win32, and the HR rep who has no clue what they're talking about just writes it down and hopes they got it right. They then pass that along to a recruiter, who runs searches on resumes looking for people with the words "Oracle", "C++" and "Win32" somewhere, and contacts them via email. Then they inflate the persons' resume to match the experience requirements, and send you candidates without evaluating them because they don't know how to do that.
By contrast, the good companies and IT departments, when they have to post ads (usually the result of expansion or retirement) look for "Programmer" or "Developer" and ask for things like "Object-oriented programming experience", "familiarity with Windows API" (or better yet Linux), and "understanding of algorithms". They rarely go through recruiters, and in their reply to you they immediately make it clear they are a technical person in a position to evaluate you.
I'm not alone in seeing recruiters as the biggest problem in IT: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/SortingRes
Cast Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.