Well, regardless, I would not say that in the case of comcast, capitalism broke down. Rather, it was circumvented. And the government, who are ostensibly supposed to protect us from the kind of abuses you're talking about, was a party to it.
I would say this is the opposite of capitalism. Lack of consumer choice, paying off politicians to achieve an unquestioned monopoly, no need to provide a decent service because there's no competition. That's more like a government sponsored monopoly.
Well, ok, you have a point I guess, but adding a third dimension gives one a lot more room to maneuver, and it would seem that it would reduce the chances of collision. Visualize, you're not flying at 70 MPH less than 20 feet behind another hurtling piece of metal on exactly the same vector, just a few feet from similar hurtling pieces of metal at exactly the opposite vector. Where air traffic gets dangerous is around the choke points, usually airports.
You're absolutely right, HR is in a position to literally stack the deck. ("The deck" in this case being the pile of resumes the hiring manager sees or doesn't see.) I've been in IT for a long time, and traditionally the best way in is to contact the hiring manager directly. But this is getting harder and harder to do. Many companies only allow managers to interview from HR provided resumes. Many HR departments automatically reject resumes for applicants who don't have certain degrees, or do have the required degrees but not from the approved list of schools, regardless of experience. (In some cases, requiring a certain degree from applicants who may have been in the business before the degree existed.
So ultimately, the applicants that get to interview are the ones who have learned to "play the game", not necessarily the ones who are best for the job. I've seen people like this come and go. Employees who brag about how many degrees and/or certifications they have, (one had it in his signature file!) but either so abrasive that nobody can work with them, or displaying not a lick 'o' practical sense. It is to despair. With enough of those experiences, outsourcing to overseas increases in appeal.
> Many HR people might mistakenly prefer to hire ex military IT people, simply based upon HR's almost universal ignorance of what the field actually entails.
I think we need to push this at least one level up. HR doesn't usually make the final decision -- the hiring manager does. Although HR can influence that decision by choosing which resumes the hiring manager sees.
The sad thing is that the hiring manager, or the people to whom they answer, often doesn't know what IT entails either. And so we get situations where a contracting company sells the idea that they can provide the service for pennies on the dollar because IT is "just following procedures", and managers seeing big bonu$e$ coming their way, sign up for it.
Hiring ex-military, even if not particularly experienced in IT, might not be a bad idea, if the person is going into an already seasoned IT department. They are used to following procedures. They understand the chain of command. They're usually highly motivated. They stay on task. They're used to working wonky hours. Often they have technical experience, if not specifically in the required field. For an up and coming junior admin, it could be a really good fit.
I think that's a great idea, for a lot of reason. But... I thought you had to live in a hovel on the other side of the world to get a job in IT in the US. I don't see US companies suddenly deciding to reverse that tendency and hire locals as regular employees instead. Would be great if they did, though.
Really? I think I could create an XML playlist from an unstructured collection of files with the Unix "find" command, if the file names were reasonably parsable. It doesn't sound that hard.
I had a 3rd gen ipod for the longest time, but a few weeks ago I switched to a thumb drive. My latest dashboard radio will read directories as album names and filenames as track names, and even displays the cover artwork as a jpg if it exists, from a thumb drive. It also somehow knows the genre, although I'm not sure how. I just got the radio so I don't know yet how playlists work, but I suspect they're just XML files, easy to fabricate.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So, were this the case, could I without penalty send de-auth packets for Mariott's pay wifi networks? Since wifi is unregulated. One could even do it from just off Mariott property, if that would be an issue.
Yes, but if Microsoft says that the operating system only (only? really? I used to work on computers that had 4 kilobytes or RAM... but whatever) needs 863 megabytes of RAM then you can bet there will be a LOT of manufacturers out there that will find a way to get less than a gigabyte of RAM into their machines with millions of not very tech savvy customers buying them and getting upset at how crappy their experience is.
In other words, it is in Microsoft's best interest to set requirements ABOVE what the operating system itself requires.
...and if Microsoft sets system requirements to 1.6 Gbytes, manufacturers will put only 2 GB of ram in the machine. And if Microsoft sets system requirements to 15.5 Gbytes, manufacturers will only put 16 Gbytes in their machines.
Besides, it's Microsoft. We know the experience is going to suck. We only stick with it for compatibility reasons.
I see two problems with upping the system requirements for a new version of the OS.
1) (and probably most important) The "low end" may operate on slim margins, but it does sell licenses and increase penetration. I don't think Microsoft can afford to ignore this market.
2) The OS is not an application! It runs applications. For the OS to be light weight with respect to system resources is a GOOD thing, as it allows more resources to be available for applications. I'd much rather have my apps run faster than see the desktop do flashy stuff or the OS run a bunch of heavy weight services just in case I might need them someday.
> Say what? Why would I "fix" a problem by buying a new OS. If things get massively out of whack, you reinstall the original OS.
That works fine for gamers. My nephew, a rabid gamer reinstalls his OS probably once a week. It's his answer for any issue. But, he doesn't do anything with his PC except game and chat.
But I use a lot of different tools in my work, and reinstalling everything is problematic enough that I avoid it for as long as possible. It's not a matter of reinstalling Crysis, move your saved game folder off the thumb drive, done. If I'm going to go through that process, it has to be carefully planned, and I have to look at the support lifespan of the OS as part of the criteria.
Typically, if the OS gets massively out of whack, I find the problem and fix it. It's that gradual collection of random and hard to find cruft that's more of the issue.
...is that for Microsoft to create an OS that doesn't slow and become wonky over time removes one of the primary reasons to upgrade to a new version of Windows. Already Microsoft is dealing with Old Windows That Won't Go Away (XP, and now Win7). It is in their best interest for the OS to degrade over time. I can't imagine this obvious cash cow going away. And if so, what replaces it? MSFT tried floating OS as subscription before, and it didn't fly. Unlike the x-box, some phones and their competitor's platforms, Microsoft sells OS's and applications, not hardware. So an OS you can buy once and use forever (or for the life of the hardware) just isn't part of their business model.
So.... what, then?
This is a serious question. I'm a user of MSFT products. Until certain apps get ported to Linux, I'm likely to continue to be a user of MSFT products. But the OS to me has never been the app. It's a program loader and resource manager in which I run the apps that I actually use. I have no interest in new versions of the OS, as long as it'll still run my programs. I was one of the people who didn't leave XP until forced. And I won't leave Win7 until forced. I don't look forward to OS upgrades, I want to get work done. It seems to me that this frame of mind directly contradicts Microsoft's business model of endless costly upgrades. How are endless non-costly upgrades going to work for them? (It certainly works for me, but I don't really believe it yet.)
I was wondering about that too. It could be that this is their way to break the "even numbered curse". On the other hand, it could be an admission that two releases in a row are a-gonna suck.
I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works, but a fire at a single radar station practically shutting down o'hare seems to point towards a single point of failure, that probably ought to be looked at.
That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, regardless, I would not say that in the case of comcast, capitalism broke down. Rather, it was circumvented. And the government, who are ostensibly supposed to protect us from the kind of abuses you're talking about, was a party to it.
Watch any Xfinity commercial.
I would say this is the opposite of capitalism. Lack of consumer choice, paying off politicians to achieve an unquestioned monopoly, no need to provide a decent service because there's no competition. That's more like a government sponsored monopoly.
Yeah... And I'm still waiting on my handheld laser gun that I can point and fire at preteen girls that will make them want to have sex with me.
I don't think that's a thing.
Where's my FLYING CA.... oh, ok then.
Still waiting for that jetpack, though.
Well, ok, you have a point I guess, but adding a third dimension gives one a lot more room to maneuver, and it would seem that it would reduce the chances of collision. Visualize, you're not flying at 70 MPH less than 20 feet behind another hurtling piece of metal on exactly the same vector, just a few feet from similar hurtling pieces of metal at exactly the opposite vector. Where air traffic gets dangerous is around the choke points, usually airports.
You're absolutely right, HR is in a position to literally stack the deck. ("The deck" in this case being the pile of resumes the hiring manager sees or doesn't see.) I've been in IT for a long time, and traditionally the best way in is to contact the hiring manager directly. But this is getting harder and harder to do. Many companies only allow managers to interview from HR provided resumes. Many HR departments automatically reject resumes for applicants who don't have certain degrees, or do have the required degrees but not from the approved list of schools, regardless of experience. (In some cases, requiring a certain degree from applicants who may have been in the business before the degree existed.
So ultimately, the applicants that get to interview are the ones who have learned to "play the game", not necessarily the ones who are best for the job. I've seen people like this come and go. Employees who brag about how many degrees and/or certifications they have, (one had it in his signature file!) but either so abrasive that nobody can work with them, or displaying not a lick 'o' practical sense. It is to despair. With enough of those experiences, outsourcing to overseas increases in appeal.
> Many HR people might mistakenly prefer to hire ex military IT people, simply based upon HR's almost universal ignorance of what the field actually entails.
I think we need to push this at least one level up. HR doesn't usually make the final decision -- the hiring manager does. Although HR can influence that decision by choosing which resumes the hiring manager sees.
The sad thing is that the hiring manager, or the people to whom they answer, often doesn't know what IT entails either. And so we get situations where a contracting company sells the idea that they can provide the service for pennies on the dollar because IT is "just following procedures", and managers seeing big bonu$e$ coming their way, sign up for it.
Hiring ex-military, even if not particularly experienced in IT, might not be a bad idea, if the person is going into an already seasoned IT department. They are used to following procedures. They understand the chain of command. They're usually highly motivated. They stay on task. They're used to working wonky hours. Often they have technical experience, if not specifically in the required field. For an up and coming junior admin, it could be a really good fit.
I think that's a great idea, for a lot of reason. But... I thought you had to live in a hovel on the other side of the world to get a job in IT in the US. I don't see US companies suddenly deciding to reverse that tendency and hire locals as regular employees instead. Would be great if they did, though.
How about opt in? (*Not* opt out, because companies can be sneaky about where and how to opt out.)
If someone wants to be experimented on, who are we to say no? But that would be the only way. And if this muddies the data, too bad.
Really? I think I could create an XML playlist from an unstructured collection of files with the Unix "find" command, if the file names were reasonably parsable. It doesn't sound that hard.
I had a 3rd gen ipod for the longest time, but a few weeks ago I switched to a thumb drive. My latest dashboard radio will read directories as album names and filenames as track names, and even displays the cover artwork as a jpg if it exists, from a thumb drive. It also somehow knows the genre, although I'm not sure how. I just got the radio so I don't know yet how playlists work, but I suspect they're just XML files, easy to fabricate.
If you're talking about a novel, see Alistair MacLean's "The Satan Bug", which was derived from, as it happens, polio.
I'm unaware of a real life instance, (life imitates art?) but would like to know more.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So, were this the case, could I without penalty send de-auth packets for Mariott's pay wifi networks? Since wifi is unregulated. One could even do it from just off Mariott property, if that would be an issue.
What if they never wake up?
They'll be dead.
"Siri, direct me to the nearest Apple store."
"Oh, you don't want to go there. Let me direct you to a place where you can buy a nice Samsung Galaxy Note Edge."
Yes, but if Microsoft says that the operating system only (only? really? I used to work on computers that had 4 kilobytes or RAM... but whatever) needs 863 megabytes of RAM then you can bet there will be a LOT of manufacturers out there that will find a way to get less than a gigabyte of RAM into their machines with millions of not very tech savvy customers buying them and getting upset at how crappy their experience is.
In other words, it is in Microsoft's best interest to set requirements ABOVE what the operating system itself requires.
Besides, it's Microsoft. We know the experience is going to suck. We only stick with it for compatibility reasons.
I see two problems with upping the system requirements for a new version of the OS.
1) (and probably most important) The "low end" may operate on slim margins, but it does sell licenses and increase penetration. I don't think Microsoft can afford to ignore this market.
2) The OS is not an application! It runs applications. For the OS to be light weight with respect to system resources is a GOOD thing, as it allows more resources to be available for applications. I'd much rather have my apps run faster than see the desktop do flashy stuff or the OS run a bunch of heavy weight services just in case I might need them someday.
> Say what? Why would I "fix" a problem by buying a new OS. If things get massively out of whack, you reinstall the original OS.
That works fine for gamers. My nephew, a rabid gamer reinstalls his OS probably once a week. It's his answer for any issue. But, he doesn't do anything with his PC except game and chat.
But I use a lot of different tools in my work, and reinstalling everything is problematic enough that I avoid it for as long as possible. It's not a matter of reinstalling Crysis, move your saved game folder off the thumb drive, done. If I'm going to go through that process, it has to be carefully planned, and I have to look at the support lifespan of the OS as part of the criteria.
Typically, if the OS gets massively out of whack, I find the problem and fix it. It's that gradual collection of random and hard to find cruft that's more of the issue.
So.... what, then?
This is a serious question. I'm a user of MSFT products. Until certain apps get ported to Linux, I'm likely to continue to be a user of MSFT products. But the OS to me has never been the app. It's a program loader and resource manager in which I run the apps that I actually use. I have no interest in new versions of the OS, as long as it'll still run my programs. I was one of the people who didn't leave XP until forced. And I won't leave Win7 until forced. I don't look forward to OS upgrades, I want to get work done. It seems to me that this frame of mind directly contradicts Microsoft's business model of endless costly upgrades. How are endless non-costly upgrades going to work for them? (It certainly works for me, but I don't really believe it yet.)
> “It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy,"
Yeah, there probably is. If adequate security is applied to the backdoor method and it takes a court order for it to be used. Ok, yeah.
Ok NO.
Yep, I think that nailed it.
I was wondering about that too. It could be that this is their way to break the "even numbered curse". On the other hand, it could be an admission that two releases in a row are a-gonna suck.
I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works, but a fire at a single radar station practically shutting down o'hare seems to point towards a single point of failure, that probably ought to be looked at.
That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.